GUILTY 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

[Parker Knoll]

This is interesting.

NHS Trust loses appeal over Lucy Letby colleague visits probe

Judges uphold the ruling that an NHS Trust breached its contract with a former colleague of Letby.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[JosieJo]

This is interesting.

NHS Trust loses appeal over Lucy Letby colleague visits probe

Judges uphold the ruling that an NHS Trust breached its contract with a former colleague of Letby.

www.bbc.co.uk

Dr Choc ! The outcome of the investigation would be interesting...I wonder why he was so opposed to a director other than the medical director leading it?

 

[Marantz4250b]

She is one twisted chick, that's for sure. Her portrayal of being 'normal' is actually very scary. ...jmo

Thing is, she was normal. Very normal

She had a normal job
She had normal friends
She had a normal social life
She lived in a normal house in a normal street
She had normal pets

And she also murdered babies.

Her regular normality wasn't a portrayal, it was real.

 

[joltz]

I’m just saying she had handover notes spanning her entire time as a nurse, over 250 of them, and 3 are from dates she was found guilty of crimes, from the entire period she was out of control and allegedly attacking patients left, right and centre.

It’s evidence she hoarded handover sheets. I’m not sure how it supports that she’s a serial killer of babies. If that’s evidence, why wasn’t the royal college report allowed to be evidence, or the grievance procedure allowed to be eviden

I don’t think it’s weird, but then I don’t think any crimes were committed, so it’s easier for me to see them as irrelevant.

I think it shows some nurses would rather keep a record of their shift notes, and the hospital should accommodate that.

So, you think it shows something for which Letby has never offered this explanation for.

Letby was directly accused of murdering babies and keeping the handovers for trophies/research purposes. If she brought them home for record keeping, then she would have said, yes?

Yet she has never once offered the explanation that they were kept to keep a record of her shifts.

And yet, here you are, stating it shows she wanted to keep a record of her shifts.

From Letbys own mouth, she brought them home without thinking about them, they came home with her because they were in her pockets. They meant nothing, she didn't even think about them, they were just scraps of paper, she collects paper.

So you think Letby was lying when she said this, yes?

 

[Bekind89]

Thing is, she was normal. Very normal

She had a normal job
She had normal friends
She had a normal social life
She lived in a normal house in a normal street
She had normal pets

And she also murdered babies.

Her regular normality wasn't a portrayal, it was real.

The banality of evil.

 

[May72031]

Imagine someone actually believing "no crimes were committed". Are they ignorant or some sort of conspiracy theorist?

 

[Parker Knoll]

Dr Choc ! The outcome of the investigation would be interesting...I wonder why he was so opposed to a director other than the medical director leading it?

I always felt he was lucky getting another job never mind making a claim against the freaking hospital.

 

[Charlot123]

Imagine someone actually believing "no crimes were committed". Are they ignorant or some sort of conspiracy theorist?

Respectfully, this is not how the court system works. “Belief” is from a totally different, irrational, area of human mind. Criminalistics is rational.

It is about whether the evidence collected in the process of investigation and presented at court (in this case, to the jury) meets the burden of proof.

The jury, based on the proof presented to them, came to the conclusion that Lucy was guilty.

I, based on what was presented to the public (including: very poor sanitary state of the NICU, very sick preemies, Pseudomonas Aeruginosa infestation) do not feel that the data presented to us, the public, meet the burden of proof.

Postfactum; one cannot avoid the controversy surrounding the two main experts, Dr. Ewans and Dr. Bohin. They both retired. Dr. Ewan’s, in conjunction with Letby’s case. Dr. Bohin, it seems, was made to retire because many families in Guernsey did not want her to treat their children. These facts can not be shoved aside; this is objective professional level of the two main experts, not something subjective like Lucy’s pajamas.

So: it is possible that the jury was shown evidence that we never saw. On the other hand, it is equally possible that some evidence the jury either did not know of or did not fully comprehend it. Dr. Evans knew about Pseudomonas Aeruginosa, in the NICU, but did the jurors understand the importance of this fact? So could certain evidence be not shown or explained to the jury in its fullness?

The “rod causing blue-green pus” growing in COCH NICU is straightforward fact. Everything about Lucy’s guilt is circumstantial. For me to believe that Lucy was the killer, I need to see either the photo of her doing it, or a very trustful witness who stated that they saw it. What witness did we hear from Instead? The only witness, Dr. Jayaram, apparently lied about seeing Lucy being connected to a baby’s demise. He committed perjury.

 

[Quiet Time]

Thing is, she was normal. Very normal

She had a normal job
She had normal friends
She had a normal social life
She lived in a normal house in a normal street
She had normal pets

And she also murdered babies.

Her regular normality wasn't a portrayal, it was real.

Imo...she 'wanted ' to be normal, by having all those things. But, she herself wasn't normal.

 

[katydid23]

I don’t think it’s weird, but then I don’t think any crimes were committed, so it’s easier for me to see them as irrelevant.

I think it shows some nurses would rather keep a record of their shift notes, and the hospital should accommodate that.

Nurse handover notes in a hospital are structured, detailed summaries designed to transfer critical information during shift changes or patient moves. They include very private information on each patient, including identification, medical history, current clinical condition, medication and treatment plans, any tests pending and safety risks.

The sheets also include Discharge Planning----Estimated discharge date, family issues, or social work involvement. That is very private information.

Why would a hospital accommodate Nurse Lucy's desire to keep all of that very private information for hundreds of babies and their families? A very small fraction of those handover sheets had any record of her shift notes.

It was illegal and dishonest for her to sneak those documents home and hoard them. imo She took a big risk doing so. It shows she was obsessed, imo.

 

[joltz]

Respectfully, this is not how the court system works. “Belief” is from a totally different, irrational, area of human mind. Criminalistics is rational.

It is about whether the evidence collected in the process of investigation and presented at court (in this case, to the jury) meets the burden of proof.

The jury, based on the proof presented to them, came to the conclusion that Lucy was guilty.

I, based on what was presented to the public (including: very poor sanitary state of the NICU, very sick preemies, Pseudomonas Aeruginosa infestation) do not feel that the data presented to us, the public, meet the burden of proof.

Postfactum; one cannot avoid the controversy surrounding the two main experts, Dr. Ewans and Dr. Bohin. They both retired. Dr. Ewan’s, in conjunction with Letby’s case. Dr. Bohin, it seems, was made to retire because many families in Guernsey did not want her to treat their children. These facts can not be shoved aside; this is objective professional level of the two main experts, not something subjective like Lucy’s pajamas.

So: it is possible that the jury was shown evidence that we never saw. On the other hand, it is equally possible that some evidence the jury either did not know of or did not fully comprehend it. Dr. Evans knew about Pseudomonas Aeruginosa, in the NICU, but did the jurors understand the importance of this fact? So could certain evidence be not shown or explained to the jury in its fullness?

The “rod causing blue-green pus” growing in COCH NICU is straightforward fact. Everything about Lucy’s guilt is circumstantial. For me to believe that Lucy was the killer, I need to see either the photo of her doing it, or a very trustful witness who stated that they saw it. What witness did we hear from Instead? The only witness, Dr. Jayaram, apparently lied about seeing Lucy being connected to a baby’s demise. He committed perjury.

Ok. So for you to believe Letby is the killer, you need to see 2 pieces of evidence that are almost never seen in a murder case.

 

[WaneLyrical]

I can see your arguing from that perspective. I if not looking at it from the angle of she's convicted also try and look at it from a neutral perspective as in open to any options which imo is fair.

The hospital would have a record of her work shifts and notes not exactly sure of the process and longevity but they will have them. If she wanted that she could request it as standard procedure and even then absolutely no need to break the rules in a weird way. Also shift notes wouldn't be on the handovers, would be on the clinical notes.

How did you reach the conclusion that the NHS does not accommodate people wishing to

I think everyone is expected to throw them away at the end of each shift.

So, you think it shows something for which Letby has never offered this explanation for.

Letby was directly accused of murdering babies and keeping the handovers for trophies/research purposes. If she brought them home for record keeping, then she would have said, yes?

Yet she has never once offered the explanation that they were kept to keep a record of her shifts.

And yet, here you are, stating it shows she wanted to keep a record of her shifts.

From Letbys own mouth, she brought them home without thinking about them, they came home with her because they were in her pockets. They meant nothing, she didn't even think about them, they were just scraps of paper, she collects paper.

So you think Letby was lying when she said this, yes?

I never said she was or wasn’t lying, she can justify it to herself however she wants, but fact is we can all see she wasn’t in the habit of destroying them. This is information we’ve known for a very long time, nothing has changed. Didn’t she have a cupboard full of her uni notes too?

 

[Mauig’ma]

Respectfully, this is not how the court system works. “Belief” is from a totally different, irrational, area of human mind. Criminalistics is rational.

It is about whether the evidence collected in the process of investigation and presented at court (in this case, to the jury) meets the burden of proof.

The jury, based on the proof presented to them, came to the conclusion that Lucy was guilty.

I, based on what was presented to the public (including: very poor sanitary state of the NICU, very sick preemies, Pseudomonas Aeruginosa infestation) do not feel that the data presented to us, the public, meet the burden of proof.

Postfactum; one cannot avoid the controversy surrounding the two main experts, Dr. Ewans and Dr. Bohin. They both retired. Dr. Ewan’s, in conjunction with Letby’s case. Dr. Bohin, it seems, was made to retire because many families in Guernsey did not want her to treat their children. These facts can not be shoved aside; this is objective professional level of the two main experts, not something subjective like Lucy’s pajamas.

So: it is possible that the jury was shown evidence that we never saw. On the other hand, it is equally possible that some evidence the jury either did not know of or did not fully comprehend it. Dr. Evans knew about Pseudomonas Aeruginosa, in the NICU, but did the jurors understand the importance of this fact? So could certain evidence be not shown or explained to the jury in its fullness?

The “rod causing blue-green pus” growing in COCH NICU is straightforward fact. Everything about Lucy’s guilt is circumstantial. For me to believe that Lucy was the killer, I need to see either the photo of her doing it, or a very trustful witness who stated that they saw it. What witness did we hear from Instead? The only witness, Dr. Jayaram, apparently lied about seeing Lucy being connected to a baby’s demise. He committed perjury.

I second this statement

 

[joltz]

I think everyone is expected to throw them away at the end of each shift.

I never said she was or wasn’t lying, she can justify it to herself however she wants, but fact is we can all see she wasn’t in the habit of destroying them. This is information we’ve known for a very long time, nothing has changed. Didn’t she have a cupboard full of her uni notes too?

It's not about justifying it to herself.

She was arrested, charged with murder and found with the private medical, identifiable, paperwork of the victims underneath her bed, for whom she had been searching for online. She was directly accused of hoarding them as trophies.

She needed to do a little more than justify it to herself.

The facts, are, Letby lied about the handovers and changed her story on several occasions to suit the questions being asked at the time.


The handovers do not make Letby look good whatsoever.