UK - Nurse Lucy Letby, murder of babies, 7 Guilty of murder verdicts; 8 Guilty of attempted murder; 2 Not Guilty of attempted; 5 hung re attempted #38

[katydid23]

And here is the real question; there are a legion of folks who are ascribing these deaths and collapses to "bad care", "incompetence", "hygiene related matters" and other things. The problem they have is that these are just words. They never say specifically how the deaths and collapses occurred - by what particular infection or physical mistake or negligence they succumbed?

You cannot put forward a rational case for an alternative theory if you don't say what that theory is. And they never do.

The closest we have come to any medical explanation is the ridiculous statement Dr Lee gave relating to a condition supposedly contracted from the mother. This is a direct re-hash of something specifically addressed and comprehensively dismissed at trial. The defence accepted that it was not the case and that it did not happen so why is he bringing it up again? Because he has been gaslighted into saying it and has no idea that it had already been dealt with and dismissed, is why!

Yes, and while Nurse Lucy was on the witness stand, she was asked several times under cross examination if there were any specific examples of babies collapsing because of poor medical care ,understaffing issues or bad plumbing, etc. Each time she failed to come up with any examples and admitted she did not know of any.

 

[Sweeper2000]

New programme on the matter as it stands today. Lucy Letby: Murder or Mistake
Airs on Monday and I'm speculating new stuff to hear from witnesses. The advert features interviews with I think parents who may have testified at trial but not sure. In the advert the parents said they asked letby if their child was dead to which she "laughed". But I don't remember hearing that at trial?

Eta

Ah got It. Indeed these parents were not part of the trial. Basically their story is that after their child was taken very ill letby came into the room carrying a memento box, at which the mom became distressed and started crying and asked letby if their child was dead. Letby started laughing and said no the box was just something they give all parents whose baby became very ill.

As said before this a example of a cold, detached and inappropriate response from letby.

"I remember saying something like, ‘Oh my God, is he dead?’ and she just laughed. She was laughing when she thought that we thought the worst had happened"

Killer nurse Lucy Letby laughed in our face after handing us 'memory box'

WATCHING their newborn son being rushed to a special unit to help him breathe, his horrified mum and dad could only hope and pray he’d pull through as doctors worked desperately to save him. …

iframe.thesun.co.uk

That's an article on the programme mentioned above and indeed these parents accounts are new.

 

[Marantz4250b]

I'm not expecting anything new here. It will be the same-'ole same-'ole regurgitated with a mildly different spin.

 

[joe jones]

Of all the people the gang of 4 pointed their fingers at, how unfortunate it happened to because nurse with huge stashes of patient identifiable data under her bed. How unlucky she was also caught tampering with data, making Datix reports after events and not swiping in and also be the nurse that made so many parents uncomfortable etc (imagine how different it would be if it were Melanie for example who the doctors first had suspicions about). I could go on.

Dr Shoo and colleagues by making such a public display means they wont be credible witnesses to appeal judges should there be a need.

Do you have a theory on why so many babies who were stable passed away at that hospital?

I think the numbers of babies that died was not a huge statistical uptick, I also think they were often short staffed so care was not at optimal points at all time, and small sick babies can die very quickly and it be difficult to understand medically why,
I have everything crossed for her that she eventually gets a fair trial, as I do think she needs to be exonerated at trial so all the evidence is revealed and it can be shown she is innocent

 

[joe jones]

New programme on the matter as it stands today. Lucy Letby: Murder or Mistake
Airs on Monday and I'm speculating new stuff to hear from witnesses. The advert features interviews with I think parents who may have testified at trial but not sure. In the advert the parents said they asked letby if their child was dead to which she "laughed". But I don't remember hearing that at trial?

I think unless we have full trial transcripts then it is difficult to know what is fact or fiction,

 

[joe jones]

And here is the real question; there are a legion of folks who are ascribing these deaths and collapses to "bad care", "incompetence", "hygiene related matters" and other things. The problem they have is that these are just words. They never say specifically how the deaths and collapses occurred - by what particular infection or physical mistake or negligence they succumbed?

You cannot put forward a rational case for an alternative theory if you don't say what that theory is. And they never do.

The closest we have come to any medical explanation is the ridiculous statement Dr Lee gave relating to a condition supposedly contracted from the mother. This is a direct re-hash of something specifically addressed and comprehensively dismissed at trial. The defence accepted that it was not the case and that it did not happen so why is he bringing it up again? Because he has been gaslighted into saying it and has no idea that it had already been dealt with and dismissed, is why!

I personally don't think that there are answers medically for the deaths, small, sick babies die for a myriad of reasons and it is very difficult to ascertain one specific issue, all the babies had differing problems, so there is never going to be one explanation

 

[joe jones]

It doesn't require an expert jury to understand the medical evidence. I understand it just fine and I'm not remotely medically trained. What we heard via media reports will be only a summary of how it was explained to the jury. They will have had it set out in detailed but understandable layman's terms in order to comprehend it. Barristers are trained to do just that and they had months and months to do it.

The telling thing is that they didn't convict her on every count as some they couldn't reach a decision. If they genuinely didn't understand it then I'd have expected them to fail to reach verdicts on far more or to acquit her.

The defence had every opportunity to call their own experts to refute the prosecution evidence or to call into question how it was presented. They didn't. I think we all know why they didn't.

There was no "lack of evidence". We heard nine months or so of evidence and the jury spent weeks deliberating it. It was one of the longest, most evidence hungry trials in British legal history.

I think she had a very poor defence, they could have attacked the DPP experts conclusions far more vigorously

 

[joe jones]

New DM article "Did Letby attack 100 other babies"


It's DM plus only, but can be read here

PressReader.com - Digital Newspaper & Magazine Subscriptions

Digital newsstand featuring 7000+ of the world’s most popular newspapers & magazines. Enjoy unlimited reading on up to 5 devices with 7-day free trial.

www.pressreader.com

Some interesting bits of information here.

The daily fail has never been known to be truthful, vile newspaper, not even fit to light my fire

 

[Sweeper2000]

I'm not expecting anything new here. It will be the same-'ole same-'ole regurgitated with a mildly different spin.

Yeh expecting mostly the same. However the parents accounts featured in the advert are actually new. Makes sense to me the advert would feature what little new stuff there is.

Interesting though as I don't know if what they said could have been a part of the trial? Would have been at least amongst the strongest examples of irregular and perhaps illustrative behaviour or personality on her part. Especially knowing all we do now with her being failed for her coldness towards parents.

 

[joe jones]

If the medical experts knew there were flaws in the evidence then they should have been called by the defence. The issue was the defence couldn't find any experts to reliably stand up in court and show there was no deliberate harm.

I doubt there were no experts, I wonder if money was an issue, they didn't have unlimited resources,

 

[Marantz4250b]

I think the numbers of babies that died was not a huge statistical uptick, I also think they were often short staffed so care was not at optimal points at all time, and small sick babies can die very quickly and it be difficult to understand medically why,
I have everything crossed for her that she eventually gets a fair trial, as I do think she needs to be exonerated at trial so all the evidence is revealed and it can be shown she is innocent

This is one of the common fallacies which are repeated about this case; it was not an uptick, increase, blip, spike, etc, that caused the deaths to be investigated initially. It was the fact that these things were happening completely out of the blue and doctors (and other staff) were noticing that Lucy Letby was always close by and usually directly involved. It was being noticed as it happened and not after the fact, weeks or months down the line when the stats were crunched.

Also, although these babies were indeed very small, they were not all "sick" as such. They were premature but were not sickly other than that and were not expected to suddenly collapse or die.

The unit was not optimally staffed but that's a common story in the NHS - and probably common in every healthcare setting other than expensive private hospitals. In any event, you still need to associate the actual events with a causative link as to how, precisely, that understaffing lead to the deaths. No one has done that so it's nothing more than coincidence and coincidence is not causation.

Once again to repeat; most of the folks on here have been looking at this from the very start and have followed every single day of the trial. A few even attended it. Unless you have a very detailed knowledge of the whole trial then I would really suggest that you start reading this discussion from the start rather than reading the cherry-picked media reports. The Daily Mail podcasts are very good as well and are definitely worth a listen to.

 

[joe jones]

I didn't this argument makes no sense. We have followed the case from day 1 and understand what happened. The evidence was explained so laypersons such as the jury could understand.

What lack of evidence?

The prosecution was backed by a multitude of experts in their fields. 2 years later and the defence still can't find experts of equal standing and still cannot offer credible alternatives. The expert panel, Dr Hall, and others can't even agree with each other on the alternative suggestions. They can't even put together cohesive alternatives and Dr Hall has basically said that he would have agreed with the prosecution on multiple counts and not been able to rebuff others.

This has nothing to do with a jury understanding the evidence.

Not sure what sources you have been reading to decide you firmly believe she is innocent but I would suggest you've been taken in by the steady streak of misinformation perpetuated across the media.

Shes not innocent, its not a MOJ, not by a log shot.

I would confidently state that the chances of Letby being exonerated stand at ZERO. literally no chance whatsoever.

JMO

I followed the case from the first news reports before LL name ever came up as I know hospital well, I followed along as LL was arrested, bailed, rearrested, charged and through the hearings and trial, plus the public enquiry,
We shall have to agree to disagree but I will continue to follow and hope that one day she gets a retria

 

[Marantz4250b]

I doubt there were no experts, I wonder if money was an issue, they didn't have unlimited resources,

There were experts. The defence had a guy lined up but they didn't call him. There is only one reason you don't call your own expert.

They had every opportunity to call whoever they wanted. Yes, a defence expert will charge a fee but it won't be anything outrageous. Money will not have been an issue.

 

[joe jones]

This is one of the common fallacies which are repeated about this case; it was not an uptick, increase, blip, spike, etc, that caused the deaths to be investigated initially. It was the fact that these things were happening completely out of the blue and doctors (and other staff) were noticing that Lucy Letby was always close by and usually directly involved. It was being noticed as it happened and not after the fact, weeks or months down the line when the stats were crunched.

Also, although these babies were indeed very small, they were not all "sick" as such. They were premature but were not sickly other than that and were not expected to suddenly collapse or die.

The unit was not optimally staffed but that's a common story in the NHS - and probably common in every healthcare setting other than expensive private hospitals. In any event, you still need to associate the actual events with a causative link as to how, precisely, that understaffing lead to the deaths. No one has done that so it's nothing more than coincidence and coincidence is not causation.

Once again to repeat; most of the folks on here have been looking at this from the very start and have followed every single day of the trial. A few even attended it. Unless you have a very detailed knowledge of the whole trial then I would really suggest that you start reading this discussion from the start rather than reading the cherry-picked media reports. The Daily Mail podcasts are very good as well and are definitely worth a listen to.

I don't accept it is a common fallacy, I have followed case from very first media reports when the only mention was issues with babies dying and a nurse possibly being investigated to LL name being released, so I am not a Joanne come lately, I just didn't post on websleuths about LL,
I am poking my head above parapet as some of the hysteria has died down and I am watching the post conviction attempts to get a retrial

 

[joe jones]

There were experts. The defence had a guy lined up but they didn't call him. There is only one reason you don't call your own expert.

They had every opportunity to call whoever they wanted. Yes, a defence expert will charge a fee but it won't be anything outrageous. Money will not have been an issue.

As I have previously posted her defence team wasn't very good IMO, DPP were much better at presenting their case,

 

[marynnu]

I personally don't think that there are answers medically for the deaths, small, sick babies die for a myriad of reasons and it is very difficult to ascertain one specific issue, all the babies had differing problems, so there is never going to be one explanation

Utter rubbish. Aside from Baby K we are not talking about babies on a knife edge here. Try looking at the normal mortality rate at Chester. And you know the cause of death approaching 100% of the time.

 

[Marantz4250b]

I followed the case from the first news reports before LL name ever came up as I know hospital well, I followed along as LL was arrested, bailed, rearrested, charged and through the hearings and trial, plus the public enquiry,
We shall have to agree to disagree but I will continue to follow and hope that one day she gets a retria

The chances of her getting a retrial are virtually zero, imo. Her only route is via the CCRC and they will only refer to the CoA if there is "compelling new evidence".

No one has produced a single shred of "new" evidence, let alone anything comeplling.

She was afforded one of the longest criminal trials in history; she had every opportunity to present whatever defence she saw fit - along with a couple of years on bail and a further couple on remand to dream one up. Neither she nor her counsel managed to come up with anything. Nothing was withheld from her, every opportunity to demonstrate her innocence or to refute the prosecution's evidence was given to her - they even cleared the courtroom while she walked to the witness box in order to calm her "anxiety".

She had the most comprehensive, fair and balanced trial anyone could ever ask for. She was convicted. End of.

 

[Sweeper2000]

Lol the thought of reading this thread from the start. That's quite an immense task and this thread is exceptionally information heavy. However I agree I still see the mainstayers contributing correctly with correct referencing. Props to them.

 

[joe jones]

Utter rubbish. Aside from Baby K we are not talking about babies on a knife edge here. Try looking at the normal mortality rate at Chester. And you know the cause of death approaching 100% of the time.

I have looked at all the stats, premature babies die because they are premature many times, and by dint of only being premature, and I would think needing to be monitored 24 hours a day, in an incubator, hooked up to every device modern ,medicine has to keep pre term babies alive is the evidence of being on a knife edge, they were babies who should have still been in the womb,

 

[joe jones]

The chances of her getting a retrial are virtually zero, imo. Her only route is via the CCRC and they will only refer to the CoA if there is "compelling new evidence".

No one has produced a single shred of "new" evidence, let alone anything comeplling.

She was afforded one of the longest criminal trials in history; she had every opportunity to present whatever defence she saw fit - along with a couple of years on bail and a further couple on remand to dream one up. Neither she nor her counsel managed to come up with anything. Nothing was withheld from her, every opportunity to demonstrate her innocence or to refute the prosecution's evidence was given to her - they even cleared the courtroom while she walked to the witness box in order to calm her "anxiety".

She had the most comprehensive, fair and balanced trial anyone could ever ask for. She was convicted. End of.

I don't agree, but we shall see how it plays out, I have more faith in an appellate issue being more successful than anything the CCRC will do