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

  • #1,521
There is medical evidence proving the babies were deliberately harmed. Such as the insulin/ C peptide blood tests, baby O liver injuries seen on post mortem, baby G vomiting double the amount of milk she was fed. The medical evidence stood up in court and needs to properly challenged in court to release her.
The issue isn't about personalities and who comes off better on TV. It's about having robust evidence. Shoo Lee's panel haven't gone to court with their evidence while Dr Evans has therefore their evidence can't be compared yet.
Indeed!

I will repeat what I said a while back on this; If this ever gets near the CoA my betting that these "experts" will start deserting MM's panel like rats from a sinking ship. Any who remain will be absolutely eviscerated by the prosecution barrister.
 
  • #1,522
To me there is plenty of evidence suggesting guilt, not much neutral evidence and little quite little actuslly suggesting innocence. This is mostly guessing on my part but once and if Dr Lee's panel falls flat (I think it will) then yes its a safe conviction.

You could look at the lack of defence seemingly still present discounting Dr Lee, there has been no strong or viable counter narrative and more or less no evidence supporting any counter narrative made. That aspects still lacking.
 
  • #1,523
I think we'll be going round and round on this forever, unless someone else is found who *did* commit the crimes or LL herself confesses. LL, it appears, is never going to do that and if the babies died of natural causes and the number of deaths was all just a horrible coincidence, then there simply is no-one else to be found. In most events, it's almost impossible to prove a negative without a substitute positive. It seems that the only choice worth discussing now is whether it is 'better' to have an innocent person behind bars, thus destroying their life and that of their family, or to have a guilty party released on no secure evidence, to do the same thing again and put many unknown persons at risk. Because the only person who actually knows the facts is LL and her 'facts' are apparently not to be trusted. And round and round we go. The *only* thing we have here or *can* have here is opinion, we're all entitled to our own and there's no point in our getting into strife about it :-).
Can't get behind this. The trial proved conclusively that the babies were harmed. There is 1 candidate, it's Letby. There's not been a single shred of evidence post trial which brings into question even a single verdict, imho. Letbys defence can simply claim what they want when they operate through carefully coordinated media stunts. None of it is fact, none of it stands up to scrutiny.
JMO
 
  • #1,524
Did you actually follow the trial on here?

Why on here? On a different media. But i would say that i started, stopped for an obvious reason, and then continued… following in parallel with the Thirlwall inquiry, parts of which got published, so some depositions were immediately followed by materials from the inquiry. That was more educative. ;)
 
  • #1,525
Here is what makes me angry with mostly Breary and Jayaram, but with all the senior consultants, too.

These seven doctors think that by putting Lucy behind bars they have closed the problem, but this is not how I view it.

Instead, they have opened the door to a huge string of lawsuits against their colleagues, the doctors. Potentially ending with imprisonment of the doctors. They have shown how easy it is to make such a strong accusation on flimsy evidence and a money-eager trial witness. The press took a note. They have created a horrible precedent.

Medicine is a profession of high risk. Too many people end up unhappy with the results, too many relatives are grieving. It is probably worse in neonatology where parents fight to even have a baby. So the risk of doctors being accused, especially in the situation when old healthcare systems may fail to meet the growing needs, is high IMHO.

To throw “a nurse killer” into the mix is stirring up the pot. I am happy that they didn’t proceed with the movie that histrionic Jayaram dreamed of because it would have generated another mega-wave. People would be looking for cults, for “witches” in the hospital. You just have to start the process.

This is all that Breary, Jayaram, Evans, Gibbs @ Co have done for the profession. This is going to be their legacy when they retire. Nothing else but this.

(Plus, they drove a wedge between the doctors and the nurses, of course, but this is nothing new).
 
  • #1,526
Here is what makes me angry with mostly Breary and Jayaram, but with all the senior consultants, too.

These seven doctors think that by putting Lucy behind bars they have closed the problem, but this is not how I view it.

Instead, they have opened the door to a huge string of lawsuits against their colleagues, the doctors. Potentially ending with imprisonment of the doctors. They have shown how easy it is to make such a strong accusation on flimsy evidence and a money-eager trial witness. The press took a note. They have created a horrible precedent.

Medicine is a profession of high risk. Too many people end up unhappy with the results, too many relatives are grieving. It is probably worse in neonatology where parents fight to even have a baby. So the risk of doctors being accused, especially in the situation when old healthcare systems may fail to meet the growing needs, is high IMHO.

To throw “a nurse killer” into the mix is stirring up the pot. I am happy that they didn’t proceed with the movie that histrionic Jayaram dreamed of because it would have generated another mega-wave. People would be looking for cults, for “witches” in the hospital. You just have to start the process.

This is all that Breary, Jayaram, Evans, Gibbs @ Co have done for the profession. This is going to be their legacy when they retire. Nothing else but this.

(Plus, they drove a wedge between the doctors and the nurses, of course, but this is nothing new).

I do strongly believe the consultants were absolutely terrified that LL was attacking babies and would continue if she was returned to the NNU. They didn't even have the full evidence ( insulin babies) at this point. To blame her for their medical mistakes wouldn't have worked as the medical notes would be scrutinised. No one was blaming them at that point and the senior managers wanted to drop it.
 
  • #1,527
Can't get behind this. The trial proved conclusively that the babies were harmed. There is 1 candidate, it's Letby. There's not been a single shred of evidence post trial which brings into question even a single verdict, imho. Letbys defence can simply claim what they want when they operate through carefully coordinated media stunts. None of it is fact, none of it stands up to scrutiny.
JMO
Yes, I agree in the main - and I shouldn't have suggested natural causes as being possible COD overall - but one candidate? That's still circumstantial. If that were not the case, there could be no doubt and this whole debate wouldn't exist. (And FWIW, Devil's Advocate, I believe she's guilty - but I'm heavily influenced by the circumstantial stuff.)
 
  • #1,528
Instead, they have opened the door to a huge string of lawsuits against their colleagues, the doctors. Potentially ending with imprisonment of the doctors.
I don't understand this at all. Lawsuits for what? Prosecution for what?
 
  • #1,529
I think we'll be going round and round on this forever, unless someone else is found who *did* commit the crimes or LL herself confesses. LL, it appears, is never going to do that and if the babies died of natural causes and the number of deaths was all just a horrible coincidence, then there simply is no-one else to be found. In most events, it's almost impossible to prove a negative without a substitute positive. It seems that the only choice worth discussing now is whether it is 'better' to have an innocent person behind bars, thus destroying their life and that of their family, or to have a guilty party released on no secure evidence, to do the same thing again and put many unknown persons at risk. Because the only person who actually knows the facts is LL and her 'facts' are apparently not to be trusted. And round and round we go. The *only* thing we have here or *can* have here is opinion, we're all entitled to our own and there's no point in our getting into strife about it :-).
Well I'm assuming more charges are highly likely to be imminent so hopefully that stops all the speculation. I mean there will still be people claiming she's innocent but that's more about them not being able to admit they got things so very wrong. If they find stuff at Liverpool (in addition to the tube dislodgements we already know about) they can't blame it on the consultants anymore. There will just be a few really invested people left claiming there's still no proof, or it's a police stitch-up etc I'm sure they'll get even more creative in their denials-but everyone else will concede she's guilty.

JMO
 
  • #1,530
Yes, I agree in the main - and I shouldn't have suggested natural causes as being possible COD overall - but one candidate? That's still circumstantial. If that were not the case, there could be no doubt and this whole debate wouldn't exist. (And FWIW, Devil's Advocate, I believe she's guilty - but I'm heavily influenced by the circumstantial stuff.)
The thing is, if you suggest "natural causes" you then need to specify exactly which natural cause resulted in the death. The term natural causes is a catch-all encompassing everything naturally occuring. There has to be a specific cause.
 
  • #1,531
Well I'm assuming more charges are highly likely to be imminent so hopefully that stops all the speculation. I mean there will still be people claiming she's innocent but that's more about them not being able to admit they got things so very wrong. If they find stuff at Liverpool (in addition to the tube dislodgements we already know about) they can't blame it on the consultants anymore. There will just be a few really invested people left claiming there's still no proof, or it's a police stitch-up etc I'm sure they'll get even more creative in their denials-but everyone else will concede she's guilty.

JMO
Precisely what I said a few posts ago. This whole thing is descending into irrational conspiracy theory nonsense. It's going to get worse too!
 
  • #1,532
I don't understand this at all. Lawsuits for what? Prosecution for what?

Besides doctor’s biggest fear - losing the patient - they are at a risk of lawsuits, be it serious or frivolous. They can be sued for any mistake. Medical systems are overloaded. It shows in odd forms, the head of an insurance company being shot, or plastic surgeons becoming the victims. But a tad more stress, and the doctors, too, may be accused of malfeasance.

Given this, Lucy Letby’s case is very dangerous because it shows how easy it is to persuade the community that a nurse is a murderer, without any motive or proof. It is enough if the doctor is “irrationally suspicious” or “influenced by gossips” or however this case started.

The same can happen to a doctor. Any physician unlucky enough to run into someone hysterical, paranoid, vindictive or jealous? The precedent exists, and the script is written.

Look at Lucy Letby’s case in a nutshell.
There are doctors' unproven, intense fears. On this base, a huge sand castle is erected. You add a trial witness Dr. Evans running on demagoguery and sheer assumptions, without a single solid data. There is the judge geared up to convict. The jurors whose human fear is to mistakenly let out a murderer. These jurors have to rely on “the specialists involved”. (I don’t blame the jurors. It was impossible to get through mounds of circumstantial evidence and one doctor’s lie). And, mainly, there is the media that has labeled Letby the "killer nurse" pre-trial. One doesn't need the crystal ball now: Lucy Letby ends up in jail "where she belongs", as one doctor happily concludes.

Today the sand castle has crumbled. There is no single solid fact serving as the proof that Lucy Letby was the murderer. But she is still in jail.

Now doctors… they are overwhelmed, burned out, tired or merely have a bad string of luck (winter season or intra-hospital infection). If at this very moment a doctor is unlucky to spat with a vindictive colleague or a nurse, an unhinged patient or a relative, then suspicions of “harming the patients” might easily mount. And now we do have a “rinse, repeat” protocol. With each medical system getting overloaded, things may start happening.
 
  • #1,533
I do apologise, I cannot be expected to be perfect all the time.
Don't worry. There is no such expectation. I can assure you.
 
  • #1,534
Here is what makes me angry with mostly Breary and Jayaram, but with all the senior consultants, too.

These seven doctors think that by putting Lucy behind bars they have closed the problem, but this is not how I view it.

Instead, they have opened the door to a huge string of lawsuits against their colleagues, the doctors.
Lawsuits make you angry?

The murders of babies is what makes me angry.

Someone needs to give their head a good wobble.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
101
Guests online
2,459
Total visitors
2,560

Forum statistics

Threads
632,710
Messages
18,630,789
Members
243,265
Latest member
kerri1985
Back
Top