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

[Marantz4250b]

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.

 

[Sweeper2000]

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.

 

[joltz]

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

 

[Charlot123]

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.

 

[Charlot123]

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).

 

[Baileyboo]

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.

 

[thinker47]

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.)

 

[marynnu]

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?

 

[Jules2021]

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

 

[Marantz4250b]

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.

 

[Marantz4250b]

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!

 

[Charlot123]

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.

 

[May72031]

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.

 

[May72031]

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.

 

[sunspun]

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.

Well, I would think they have nothing like this to worry about, as long as babies (or patients) in their care don't start dropping like flies unexpectedly (as sadly happened with LL).

It would be like accusing someone of thievery, when nothing is missing.

 

[marynnu]

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.

I assume you are American. Nobody gets sued for breathing here.

 

[Charlot123]

Well, I would think they have nothing like this to worry about, as long as babies (or patients) in their care don't start dropping like flies unexpectedly (as sadly happened with LL).

It would be like accusing someone of thievery, when nothing is missing.

Well, imagine that’s a unit where high mortality might be expected. Cardiac surgery. Or adult NICU.

And then one year turns hard. Sometimes it is possible to explain in hindsight, why. Sometimes it remains a mystery. This is exactly the time to accuse a not-so-liked surgeon of being a secret killer.

Also: there might be higher mortality when unique procedures might be done or started. No one expects perfect results.

OB is a high-risk area. I know an OB who performed six C-sections in one day. Most of them were planned, but two, not, and one kid ended up in NICU, we heard.

To blame unexplained on a killer is dangerous because it closes all other answers. That the person is not even on the unit on the day of high insulin level in a baby is irrelevant, she probably did it the day before!

And IRL, it should open the door to a very interesting study, that of hypoglycemia of prematurity. Luckily, the area is developing, and nothing is black-and-white.

 

[marynnu]

Well, imagine that’s a unit where high mortality might be expected. Cardiac surgery. Or adult NICU.

And then one year turns hard. Sometimes it is possible to explain in hindsight, why. Sometimes it remains a mystery. This is exactly the time to accuse a not-so-liked surgeon of being a secret killer.

Also: there might be higher mortality when unique procedures might be done or started. No one expects perfect results.

OB is a high-risk area. I know an OB who performed six C-sections in one day. Most of them were planned, but two, not, and one kid ended up in NICU, we heard.

To blame unexplained on a killer is dangerous because it closes all other answers. That the person is not even on the unit on the day of high insulin level in a baby is irrelevant, she probably did it the day before!

And IRL, it should open the door to a very interesting study, that of hypoglycemia of prematurity. Luckily, the area is developing, and nothing is black-and-white.

Adult (& paediatric) ICU are nothing like neonatal units. Saying that, I seriously doubt they get mystery deaths.

 

[Charlot123]

Lawsuits make you angry?

The murders of babies is what makes me angry.

Someone needs to give their head a good wobble.

Are we so sure that she was a murderer? I doubt the safety of the conviction.

Logic: baby A was not seen by any senior consultant on NICU, was without IV fluids for several hours and it might have been totally coincidental that when Lucy Letby came for her night shift and the fluids were started, the demise followed. No senior consultant saw baby A face-to-face to state “we did everything”. And yet these are the senior consultants that are accusing Lucy Letby.

An even worse case is baby C, where, as it was found out, Dr. Gibbs did not see the baby for 72 hours since the baby was born. He didn’t see the color of the aspirate. He did not palpate the belly. He saw and did nada for 72 hours. He just ordered ranitidine over the phone. The baby never opened his bowels, was in huge distress, crying. Not even look at the tormented baby for three days, Dr. Gibbs? And then joke about the “gang of seven”? And the baby, per Dr. Evans, died from Lucy injecting air into his stomach when all records indicate that the baby never opened his bowels. (And Lucy was not in the hospital when X-ray saw air in the bowels).

I think we have seen enough of the shift sheet. We need to see another sheet - indicating the true time that the senior consultants spent face-to-face with the babies that Lucy was later accused of killing? Face-to-face. Daily. Dr. Jayaram sitting at the computer when a registrar is intubating a baby doesn’t count. It is neither treatment nor supervision.

The people working at the unit were the nurses (the more experienced were removed a year before, why doesn’t anyone speak about it?). There were also registrars and the junior doctors. Not a single word of criticism against them, they were all working hard.

But if the senior consultant doesn’t show on the unit for three days to see his own patient, how can he be sure that there is a murderer operating there? There can be a murderer, a psycho, an infection, anything…he is not there to see what’s going on!