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

[May72031]

They had Hitchens, Crapton up front asking the questions. The point is, that they were able to present a bunch of half cocked theories without scrutiny. Some of the claims were outlandish. Accusing Breary of killing a baby, and everything that went with that.

It was crass, beyond belief.

Ronald McDonald still hasn't apologised for being responsible for inviting the crank who made that accusation.

 

[Marantz4250b]

Ronald McDonald still hasn't apologised for being responsible for inviting the crank who made that accusation.

It literally stuns me that he hasn't been subject to action by his regulator - maybe he has?

The way he has conducted himself in the form of holding stupid "pressers" and trotting out all and sundry to make statements as to her innocence and, in doing so, bringing the whole UK justice system into disrepute is disgraceful, imo.

 

[katydid23]

I think anyone interested in that case should start with Mother I’s thirlwall statement. She describes a steady deterioration of her baby in the days leading up to that ‘attempted murder’, contrary to the prosecution describing her baby as well and stable. She was an experienced mother whose intuition was screaming, yet she was let down and not listened to. Again and again.

She also describes a sorry state at another hospital where she predicted her baby would deteriorate when repositioned, was ignored, and then when it did happen she had to instruct the doctor to ventilate her child. This was during a time we were told that the baby was perfectly fine away from Letby’s “orbit”.

Child I’s care was clearly suboptimal. The hospital immediately panicked about a potential claim given the number of transfers the baby had endured, as per their datix. How lucky for the hospital that they’ve ended up absolved, thanks to a pesky serial killer also being present.

I have no thoughts on Letby coming out of the shadows like the Joker to spookily tell Hudson that the baby looked unwell. It’s ridiculous, and the fact the trial focused so much on how dim the room was, instead of the actual facts of the case, is just another example of why this case has so many parallels to a witch trial.

Has it ever occurred to you, that Nurse Letby might possibly be guilty as charged?

Is it even a slight possibility in your mind? Or are you 100% absolutely shut down to that as a reality?

 

[Marantz4250b]

Has it ever occurred to you, that Nurse Letby might possibly be guilty as charged?

Is it even a slight possibility in your mind? Or are you 100% absolutely shut down to that as a reality?

Good questions!

I have to say that it always strikes me that the vast majority of people who are convinced that she's innocent are simply not willing at all to consider any alternative. Their approach, as it usually is with other silly conspiracies, is one of starting out to prove their belief, rather than to follow the facts before them.

The main route of failure in this particular case is that of continually nit-picking discrete points and claiming that because a particular point can be taken in more than one light, then it cannot be used as evidence against her. As we've said many, many, many times, this was never a prosecution that succeeded on one specific point - or even two or three. It was a case that relied on the entire weight of the combined evidence taken and assessed as a whole. It was the completeness of the evidence which was the point here.

I find it somewhat worrying that people fail to see that, tbh.

 

[Anxala]

Ronald McDonald still hasn't apologised for being responsible for inviting the crank who made that accusation.

Unfortunately we're living in times where what's likely to get the most sensational tabloid attention becomes what even the MSM news focus is. Where responsibility in media reporting terms has become a foreign language. Where clicks and revenue have become the first and foremost order of the day, with integrity and truth coming in, if at all, now as just opinion pieces.

No apologies necessary when none are being asked for.

 

[Jules2021]

A lot of people just can't get their head around circumstantial evidence it seems. Which begs the question why they bother arguing about a case that is only going to frustrate them because the person in question didn't get caught doing it on CCTV or have multiple witnesses to their crimes. It doesn't matter how many times Lucy ended up in a room with a collapsing baby the minute a parent or staff member left, or how many times a baby deteriorated the minute she got on shift. Or even the insulin results. It's all irrelevant to them because no one actually saw her. I can't understand that thought process tbh.

JMO

 

[Sweeper2000]

Her whole 'career' was based on risk. The thrill of it was getting away with murdering and harming infants who were the most heavily monitored patients in the hospital. And harming clusters of babies, especially multiples, one after the other or virtually simultaneously.

When you take that into account, leaving her trophies in her own home hardly rates on the scale of risk.

I think I can see an increase on the scale of traceability though? Yeh though you make good points.

 

[iamshadow21]

I think I can see an increase on the scale of traceability though? Yeh though you make good points.

By that point, she wasn't on the ward any more and the only way she could get her thrills was by revisiting old acts of sadism. The sheets were her touchstone for that, and also gave her the information to Facebook stalk the families any time she needed a pick-me-up on their birthdays, death days or holidays like Mother's Day or Christmas, when their families might memorialise their losses or post pictures of the kids she damaged but didn't kill.

It was hubris that she kept them, yes, but keeping them made her feel alive in the way she craved like a drug.

Without sadism, who was she? A hollow beige shell with cartoons on her diary and post it notes filled with seething, abortive rage and loathing, both at herself and her situation.

Sadism made her a god.

Very much my opinion only.

 

[WaneLyrical]

Has it ever occurred to you, that Nurse Letby might possibly be guilty as charged?

Is it even a slight possibility in your mind? Or are you 100% absolutely shut down to that as a reality?

Yes my mind is currently shut down to prospect of anyone being guilty, because currently I’m not persuaded any crimes occurred on the unit.

 

[WaneLyrical]

The postmortem of baby C showed air in the stomach and intestines. His stomach was aspirated just before he collapsed. That is why Marnerides thought he had an injection of air.

Clearly I’m not taking about post mortem. I’m talking about the 12th June xray which Marnerides, Evans and Bohin all testified as being indicative of deliberate harm, and the event which caused the deterioration.

Until they realised Letby wasn’t there, and suddenly that xray was no longer indicative of anything. Of course, if Letby HAD been in the hospital that day, the xray would have been used against her.

 

[Marantz4250b]

A lot of people just can't get their head around circumstantial evidence it seems. Which begs the question why they bother arguing about a case that is only going to frustrate them because the person in question didn't get caught doing it on CCTV or have multiple witnesses to their crimes. It doesn't matter how many times Lucy ended up in a room with a collapsing baby the minute a parent or staff member left, or how many times a baby deteriorated the minute she got on shift. Or even the insulin results. It's all irrelevant to them because no one actually saw her. I can't understand that thought process tbh.

JMO

I can't understand this either, tbh. It's very rare for a murderer to be seen committing their crime, let alone to be captured on camera. Are we to now have a policy of not convicting anyone who hasn't been seen committing murder?

That is just beyond bizarre, tbh.

 

[joltz]

How do you know what “makes sense”? Are you a pathologist?

I already know what Marnerides said during the original trial. He was also someone who was certain the Baby C xray showed deliberate harm (until they figured out Letby wasn’t there, at which point the xray was no longer suspicious and perfectly normal). So I do not consider him to be a reliable witness.

Letby being “innocent of crimes” does indeed make sense if there weren’t any crimes.

If you could think clearly, you would be able to see that, the ridiculous claims required to exonerate Letby on every charge, are just not feasible.

Based on the evidence, it doesn't stand up to scrutiny on an individual level. Charge by charge, offense by offense. Behaviour, attitude, texts, medical evidence, witness testimony etc etc etc etc.

The reasoning powers needed to make all of it work together are beyond belief.

There is absolutely no way possible that Letby is not guilty of these crimes.

Everyone involved and all of the evidence stands.

The people that long for Letby to be innocent are unable to even, take single elements and truly discredit them. As a whole the case, remains extremely strong. I cannot see how even a single charge can realistically be undermined through the appeals process.

Some of the convictions in particular, are cast iron and McDonald has barely touched on them because they are absolutely going nowhere, ever

JMO

 

[joltz]

I think anyone interested in that case should start with Mother I’s thirlwall statement. She describes a steady deterioration of her baby in the days leading up to that ‘attempted murder’, contrary to the prosecution describing her baby as well and stable. She was an experienced mother whose intuition was screaming, yet she was let down and not listened to. Again and again.

She also describes a sorry state at another hospital where she predicted her baby would deteriorate when repositioned, was ignored, and then when it did happen she had to instruct the doctor to ventilate her child. This was during a time we were told that the baby was perfectly fine away from Letby’s “orbit”.

Child I’s care was clearly suboptimal. The hospital immediately panicked about a potential claim given the number of transfers the baby had endured, as per their datix. How lucky for the hospital that they’ve ended up absolved, thanks to a pesky serial killer also being present.

I have no thoughts on Letby coming out of the shadows like the Joker to spookily tell Hudson that the baby looked unwell. It’s ridiculous, and the fact the trial focused so much on how dim the room was, instead of the actual facts of the case, is just another example of why this case has so many parallels to a witch trial.

You are the only person attempting to concord Letby into some sort of fantasy murderer. The prosecution didn't do this.

The evidence of Letby in the dimly lit room comes from witness testimony of the nurse. Another example amongst many, where Letbys version of events is at complete odds with her colleagues/parents.

Letby can be boring, uninteresting, completely forgetabable and still be a serial murderer of babies.

JMO

 

[joltz]

I can't understand this either, tbh. It's very rare for a murderer to be seen committing their crime, let alone to be captured on camera. Are we to now have a policy of not convicting anyone who hasn't been seen committing murder?

That is just beyond bizarre, tbh.

Apparently it's just not possible for Letby to commit these acts with other people present

Yet, the jury were made perfectly aware of the exact locations of Letbys colleagues and what they were doing, while also hearing witness testimony from them all regarding events

And they still decided to convict her.

 

[WaneLyrical]

You are the only person attempting to concord Letby into some sort of fantasy murderer. The prosecution didn't do this.

The evidence of Letby in the dimly lit room comes from witness testimony of the nurse. Another example amongst many, where Letbys version of events is at complete odds with her colleagues/parents.

Letby can be boring, uninteresting, completely forgetabable and still be a serial murderer of babies.

JMO

So what are your thoughts on Mother I’s testimony then?

 

[WaneLyrical]

If you could think clearly, you would be able to see that, the ridiculous claims required to exonerate Letby on every charge, are just not feasible.

Based on the evidence, it doesn't stand up to scrutiny on an individual level. Charge by charge, offense by offense. Behaviour, attitude, texts, medical evidence, witness testimony etc etc etc etc.

The reasoning powers needed to make all of it work together are beyond belief.

There is absolutely no way possible that Letby is not guilty of these crimes.

Everyone involved and all of the evidence stands.

The people that long for Letby to be innocent are unable to even, take single elements and truly discredit them. As a whole the case, remains extremely strong. I cannot see how even a single charge can realistically be undermined through the appeals process.

Some of the convictions in particular, are cast iron and McDonald has barely touched on them because they are absolutely going nowhere, ever

JMO

I’m not trying to exonerate Lucy Letby! I don’t think any of these babies were deliberately harmed, Letby is irrelevant to me.

Is it so hard to understand?

 

[katydid23]

Yes my mind is currently shut down to prospect of anyone being guilty, because currently I’m not persuaded any crimes occurred on the unit.

Do you understand some of the reasons that many of the staff believed that babies were being harmed by someone?

I think that might help you consider the possibility that crimes were committed.

It is very unusual for a baby that has been having strong vitals, eating well, responding well, to just suddenly, WITH NO WARNING, become unresponsive----AND SO UNRESPONSIVE, that even a shot of adrenaline does nothing. Usually a shot will arouse the child long enough for them to assess the situation.

There was a group of very unusual incidents, WHICH HAD NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE----incidents where babies that were considered thriving, trending towards being released, were quite suddenly, out of the blue, found unresponsive and then they did not respond and react the usual normal way a baby would respond.

They'd need FIVE shots of adrenaline as opposed to one. The doctors and nurses had never seen that before. There were other unusual symptoms as well.

There were 27 instances like this---where babies were suddenly and unexpectedly found in a severe state of unresponsiveness. It was never seen before and now it was happening repeatedly.

There has to be a reason for these sudden collapses, which were highly unusual in many ways.

It makes no sense to try and explain away each one, with a different diagnosis, and ignore the commonalities of the very unusual responses of the victims. IMO

 

[WaneLyrical]

Do you understand some of the reasons that many of the staff believed that babies were being harmed by someone?

I think that might help you consider the possibility that crimes were committed.

It is very unusual for a baby that has been having strong vitals, eating well, responding well, to just suddenly, WITH NO WARNING, become unresponsive----AND SO UNRESPONSIVE, that even a shot of adrenaline does nothing. Usually a shot will arouse the child long enough for them to assess the situation.

There was a group of very unusual incidents, WHICH HAD NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE----incidents where babies that were considered thriving, trending towards being released, were quite suddenly, out of the blue, found unresponsive and then they did not respond and react the usual normal way a baby would respond.

They'd need FIVE shots of adrenaline as opposed to one. The doctors and nurses had never seen that before. There were other unusual symptoms as well.

There were 27 instances like this---where babies were suddenly and unexpectedly found in a severe state of unresponsiveness. It was never seen before and now it was happening repeatedly.

There has to be a reason for these sudden collapses, which were highly unusual in many ways.

It makes no sense to try and explain away each one, with a different diagnosis, and ignore the commonalities of the very unusual responses of the victims. IMO

Thanks Katy. I’ve read all the same evidence you have, possibly more. I don’t think any crimes were committed.

This thing about it all being so sudden and unexpected, I know this is what we were told at the original trial, but it just hadn’t held up to any scrutiny whatsoever. Many, many pieces of very important information have come out since then. I’m not trying to “explain away each event”. Medical experts who know far more than you or me have done that for us.

I am however suggesting that the consultants noticed a ‘pattern’, with pattern-based reasoning replacing any evidence, and it led to a presumption of guilt without proof. Particularly when experts started being added to the mix. You’ve done it yourself by placing the number 27 in large and bold text, because if big enough numbers are shouted, then the numbers speak for themselves and evidence stops mattering.

I suggested reading Mother I’s thirlwall statement with an open mind, because it is one of the best examples that demonstrates this. I also mentioned again the Baby C xray, but again, no meaningful response to that.

This is not me saying “the case against Letby is weak” (it clearly is), I’m saying “the case is weak” and Letby just happens to be the person caught up in it.

I don’t think Letby was a particularly good nurse, although she’s certainly been described as conscientious and by the book, she was still inexperienced. We’ve since learned that the unit had, for a great number of years, been replacing registered nurses with nursery nurses, and hadn’t been replacing their advanced nurse practitioners. A constant loss of experience and institutional memory.

We also now know that the unit had a sustained increase in acuity and the length of time babies required intensive care, from the start of 2015 onwards. And of course, we know the consultants were supposed to be rounding twice a day and instead were doing it twice a week. No consultant even went to see Baby C for the 3 days he was alive, despite him being so desperately ill, and half the size he should have been even for his early gestational age.

We’ve all seen the email from the doctor to the management saying this isn’t sustainable any more, the staff cannot cope, and children will pay for this with their lives.

I could go on, and on, and on, but there’s really no point. The only people interested in reading it are the ones who send DMs saying they’d rather not comment publicly on the forum. Because the righteousness and pressure within this forum to suppress doubt means people are left feeling like they are cruel or immoral, or “think of the parents” just for questioning whether the evidence holds up to scrutiny. Never in my life have I been attacked for presumed character flaws because I’ve tried to discuss a case in good faith. For some reason, in the Lucy Letby case, those who agree with the conviction have decided to moralise doubt itself.

I don’t know why, I can only assume it’s fear that a serial killer could be exonerated, which would obviously be an horrific outcome.

 

[Baileyboo]

The reason I personally believe she's guilty is number of unexplained medical events which really aren't related to sewage or staffing. Incidents like air being seen in baby A's blood vessels on both X rays and post mortem. The sudden crash in blood glucose for baby F and the insulin/ C peptide results showing poisoning not once but three times in a year. Baby O having an impact liver injury which can't be explained by normal means. Letby writing out her thoughts which included " I killed them on purpose".

Shoo Lee's summary report only skimmed the surface of what happened to each baby. Its not been tested in court. At the moment it can't over ride the evidence that was presented to the jury.

I do understand that people may have doubts and be concerned about the conviction but it is the truth that is needed. There seems to an attempt to mislead the public about certain aspects of the trial. I think that's wrong as the families of the babies have to live with what's happened.

 

[WaneLyrical]

The reason I personally believe she's guilty is number of unexplained medical events which really aren't related to sewage or staffing. Incidents like air being seen in baby A's blood vessels on both X rays and post mortem. The sudden crash in blood glucose for baby F and the insulin/ C peptide results showing poisoning not once but three times in a year. Baby O having an impact liver injury which can't be explained by normal means. Letby writing out her thoughts which included " I killed them on purpose".

Shoo Lee's summary report only skimmed the surface of what happened to each baby. Its not been tested in court. At the moment it can't over ride the evidence that was presented to the jury.

I do understand that people may have doubts and be concerned about the conviction but it is the truth that is needed. There seems to an attempt to mislead the public about certain aspects of the trial. I think that's wrong as the families of the babies have to live with what's happened.

There are attempts to mislead, and it comes from both ‘sides’ of the fence. It’s unhelpful and it detracts from the seriousness of the matter. I think sadly it’s a reflection of today’s social media use. I’ve made the mistake of looking at some of the utter drivel on Twitter, and it genuinely looks like paid actors from both sides.

One thing I just wanted to point out, about Lee’s summaries, what is available to the public is the media cheat sheet. The actual report submitted to the CCRC was 800 pages. One of the neonatologists who’s since come forward to question the case, was originally approached by Shoo Lee to be on his panel, which he declined because he said the volume of evidence (“thousands of pages”) he was being given was too much of a time commitment.

Therefore, while I very much look forward to Lee’s panel’s report being tested in court, I do doubt it’s a slapdash as the media summaries would make it appear.