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

[submarine7]

It's comments like this that suggests a retrial is in order.


The most notable revelation comes not from the police, but from one of the Chester hospital consultants, Dr John Gibbs.

“I live with two guilts,” he says. “Guilt that we let the babies down, and tiny, tiny, tiny guilt: did we get the wrong person? You know, just in case: a miscarriage of justice. I don’t think there was a miscarriage of justice, but you worry that no one actually saw her do it.”

Lucy Letby documentary reveals first admission of ‘tiny’ doubt from doctors who accused her

Netflix film revisits evidence that led to Letby’s conviction and hears from expert who says his research was misused

www.theguardian.com

 

[JimmyDurham]

We all poorly know statistics to start with.

Many on this thread, I'd agree.

Me? I can't lay claim to having medical knowledge but I do understand statistics (due to my work).

Ultimately, in the event you do not begin with a random sample, then you have selection bias, which looks very much like what has happened in the Letby case.

You begin with selection bias, then whatever else happens from there and whatever you present is worthless, and would get laughed out of any court of repute.

 

[Charlot123]

The problem is that you keep repeating this like you know, like you know everything, and the opinions of people far more qualified than you do not matter.

There are some well qualified people who do not agree with the prosecution's case. 'Needs a retrial.

What you and I think, as non qualified medical people, is immaterial.

One thing might be material: if what @marynnu states (that it is not required for the consultants to see all preemies in NICU unit) is true, I’d add it as a potential risk factor for excessive mortality.

Another question that immediately comes to mind: Dr. Gibbs, per his own admission, was not on the unit for 72 hours. Yet precisely he and other senior doctors accused Letby of killing the babies. The split between senior doctors (who were not present in the unit daily) and the junior doctors (who were left to run the unit and hence, knew the conditions and the situation more intimately) is one of the things I noticed immediately. Not the nurses, not the junior doctors…the senior doctors initiated the case and testified in court. Yet they are allowed not to be on their unit?

 

[JimmyDurham]

One thing might be material: if what @marynnu states (that it is not required for the consultants to see all preemies in NICU unit) is true, I’d add it as a potential risk factor for excessive mortality.

Another question that immediately comes to mind: Dr. Gibbs, per his own admission, was not on the unit for 72 hours. Yet precisely he and other senior doctors accused Letby of killing the babies. The split between senior doctors (who were not present in the unit daily) and the junior doctors (who were left to run the unit and hence, knew the conditions and the situation more intimately) is one of the things I noticed immediately. Not the nurses, not the junior doctors…the senior doctors initiated the case and testified in court. Yet they are allowed not to be on their unit?

Good post.

 

[joltz]

It's comments like this that suggests a retrial is in order.


The most notable revelation comes not from the police, but from one of the Chester hospital consultants, Dr John Gibbs.

“I live with two guilts,” he says. “Guilt that we let the babies down, and tiny, tiny, tiny guilt: did we get the wrong person? You know, just in case: a miscarriage of justice. I don’t think there was a miscarriage of justice, but you worry that no one actually saw her do it.”

Lucy Letby documentary reveals first admission of ‘tiny’ doubt from doctors who accused her

Netflix film revisits evidence that led to Letby’s conviction and hears from expert who says his research was misused

www.theguardian.com

I think that's just a natural and honest reaction in a case like this because the crime wasn't witnessed, like basically every other healthcare killer case ever.

You might be slightly surprised by an honest reaction because Letbys defense doesn't deal in them.

 

[joltz]

From Reddit:

Lee conveniently rewrites the 1989 paper to ensure he didn’t find any examples of air injected into a vein ending up in the arterial system and a fleeting rash appearing - which Lee says is pathognomonic (diagnostic) of his self named ‘Lee’s Sign’ of air embolism.

Is he wilfully ignoring what the 2003 Smith and Els study of venous air embolism states (which incidentally he cites in his new 2024 study);

Johan Smith and Ilse Els highlighted a specific and often overlooked clinical sign of venous air embolism (VAE) in neonates: a localized, transient skin phenomenon frequently referred to as "skin marbleization" or livedo reticularis.

Transient Nature: One of the most distinctive features noted was that the skin discoloration could be fleeting. It often appeared suddenly at the time of the "event" (the air entering the system) and could disappear just as quickly, making it easy for medical staff to miss.

This is what the CoA judgement has to say of baby B;

‘Baby B was Baby A’s female twin. The applicant was on the night shift 9/10 June. Her
two designated babies that shift were in Nursery 3 (Nursery 1 was the intensive care
unit, Nursery 2 was the high dependency unit and Nurseries 3 and 4 were special care
babies' rooms). Baby B was in Nursery 1. Nonetheless the applicant became involved
in Baby B’s care and took blood gas readings for her at 00.16. At 00.30 Nurse W was
in the nursery drawing up medication when the monitoring alarmed. She said that Baby
B looked very pale and ill and had blotchy skin. She recorded that Baby B was
cyanosed in appearance and that her colour changed rapidly to purple blotchiness with
white patches. In her 20 years’ experience as a nurse she had not seen such skin
discolouration before. Dr Rachael Lambie was the registrar. Her unchallenged
evidence was that the most memorable thing about Baby B was her colour. She was
“dusky, so a grey-white colour and then there were patches of discolouration of the skin
that were sort of reddy/purple. It would flash up, it lasted around 10 seconds, disappear
and then reappear and it was flitting around her body.” She said that the skin
colouration was very unusual and not something which she had seen before or since. It
was “a very strange and profound colour change.” Dr Y (a consultant paediatrician at
the hospital since 2005) saw discolouration which was purple and affected the right abdomen. She too was puzzled by its cause.’

Lee is trying to bamboozle people, but as the jury concluded, this issue isn’t complicated at all really.

 

[JimmyDurham]

From Reddit:

Who is the author?

 

[submarine7]

From Reddit:

Lee conveniently rewrites the 1989 paper to ensure he didn’t find any examples of air injected into a vein ending up in the arterial system and a fleeting rash appearing - which Lee says is pathognomonic (diagnostic) of his self named ‘Lee’s Sign’ of air embolism.

Is he wilfully ignoring what the 2003 Smith and Els study of venous air embolism states (which incidentally he cites in his new 2024 study);

Johan Smith and Ilse Els highlighted a specific and often overlooked clinical sign of venous air embolism (VAE) in neonates: a localized, transient skin phenomenon frequently referred to as "skin marbleization" or livedo reticularis.

Transient Nature: One of the most distinctive features noted was that the skin discoloration could be fleeting. It often appeared suddenly at the time of the "event" (the air entering the system) and could disappear just as quickly, making it easy for medical staff to miss.

This is what the CoA judgement has to say of baby B;

‘Baby B was Baby A’s female twin. The applicant was on the night shift 9/10 June. Her
two designated babies that shift were in Nursery 3 (Nursery 1 was the intensive care
unit, Nursery 2 was the high dependency unit and Nurseries 3 and 4 were special care
babies' rooms). Baby B was in Nursery 1. Nonetheless the applicant became involved
in Baby B’s care and took blood gas readings for her at 00.16. At 00.30 Nurse W was
in the nursery drawing up medication when the monitoring alarmed. She said that Baby
B looked very pale and ill and had blotchy skin. She recorded that Baby B was
cyanosed in appearance and that her colour changed rapidly to purple blotchiness with
white patches. In her 20 years’ experience as a nurse she had not seen such skin
discolouration before. Dr Rachael Lambie was the registrar. Her unchallenged
evidence was that the most memorable thing about Baby B was her colour. She was
“dusky, so a grey-white colour and then there were patches of discolouration of the skin
that were sort of reddy/purple. It would flash up, it lasted around 10 seconds, disappear
and then reappear and it was flitting around her body.” She said that the skin
colouration was very unusual and not something which she had seen before or since. It
was “a very strange and profound colour change.” Dr Y (a consultant paediatrician at
the hospital since 2005) saw discolouration which was purple and affected the right abdomen. She too was puzzled by its cause.’

Lee is trying to bamboozle people, but as the jury concluded, this issue isn’t complicated at all really.

Why on Earth would a doctor set out to bamboozle anybody about his medical research? It makes no sense. He didn't insert himself in the case. However, he has every right to address his findings and that includes what he's learned since writing his original article. Why did they choose his research? They were limited because this was not well researched or understood topic and that's why it was used.

 

[Parker Knoll]

God this thread has been over run with toxicity.
Really nasty posting.

 

[WaneLyrical]

Honestly the only nasty stuff I read on here is the constant attacks on anyone who is sceptical of the COCH circumstances and investigation.

 

[JimmyDurham]

God this thread has been over run with toxicity.
Really nasty posting.

This isn't evidence.

 

[Sweeper2000]

I think anyone holding a nearly indefensible positiin should expect a battering. Its a paddling and not a flaying. Being called a letbyist isnt really nasty and is at times maybe an exagerration best reserved for the truly clueless.

Eta i dont think you wane are a letbyist. You have a good understanding of the evidence however i dont get why you think she is innocent. Allot of what you say seems to revolve around what has been presented as not being enough for you to think shes guilty which imo is an ok position.

Enough with this stats nonsense though.

 

[marynnu]

The ICUs I saw had daily morning staff rounds and if an emergency, the senior doctor would definitely come in. What’s the doctor’s role? He works on the unit!

Yes, but that is for ICU babies. Consultants don't see other babies unless they have problems.

 

[Parker Knoll]

This isn't evidence.

“I’d explain it to you, but I don’t think it would help.”

 

[joltz]

Still waiting for a single shred of actual new evidence...

 

[WaneLyrical]

I think anyone holding a nearly indefensible positiin should expect a battering. Its a paddling and not a flaying. Being called a letbyist isnt really nasty and is at times maybe an exagerration best reserved for the truly clueless.

Eta i dont think you wane are a letbyist. You have a good understanding of the evidence however i dont get why you think she is innocent. Allot of what you say seems to revolve around what has been presented as not being enough for you to think shes guilty which imo is an ok position.

Enough with this stats nonsense though.

Sweeper I followed this trial with you. I stayed on the fence the entire time, looking at everything reported through a lens of her being guilty and her being not. I said I would respect the jury’s decision (particularly as I was so sure information was being kept under lock, and it would all come out after the trial). I literally switched to accepting, AND BELIEVING, that she was guilty when the verdicts came in. It didn’t feel right, but it must be, and at the end of it all, I was just left sobbing over the impact statements, and I hated Letby.

My other side of the fence never went away though. I probably lasted until a week or so after sentencing before enough doubt had crept in to have me questioning it all again. None of Letby’s skeletons were coming out the closet. I looked forward to thirlwall. But, every piece of information that’s come out has increased the likelihood that this was all a dreadful case of confirmation bias. It’s got to the point when one of the world leaders in the field is speaking out for free, giving public lectures on the subject matter. It’s incredible.

If what was known now was all known by everyone at the start, nobody would be accusing Letby in the first place.

The people who seem to get the angriest, are the ones who were manipulated by the original trial. For a long time you weren’t sure. I remember it. Try to remember how you felt back then, and you will know how I feel.

I am not persuaded any crimes took place on this unit. It’s not that I “think Letby is innocent”, it’s that I don’t think anyone is guilty.

 

[May72031]

Something could be: senior doctor not seeing a baby for three days, choosing wrong size tube for ventilation, IV access tissuing and a newborn baby not getting IV fluids, infection...

Lots of different reasons. As it happens in ICUs worldwide.

Except for Chester, where they start looking for a serial killer.

Nope. Wrong again. There is no evidence that any of the theories and distractions you put forward caused any collapses or deaths.

They also didn't start with looking for a serial killer - that is a nonsense soundbite put forward by Letbyists. It was a year from the first collapses/deaths that the police were called.

The Letbyists really have gone into top gear in recent days. Things are obviously going very badly for them. No amount of guff from Maltin PR can change the facts.

 

[WaneLyrical]

Nope. Wrong again. There is no evidence that any of the theories and distractions you put forward caused any collapses or deaths.

They also didn't start with looking for a serial killer - that is a nonsense soundbite put forward by Letbyists. It was a year from the first collapses/deaths that the police were called.

The Letbyists really have gone into top gear in recent days. Things are obviously going very badly for them. No amount of guff from Maltin PR can change the facts.

If you think this is going anywhere other than court, you’re living in cuckoo land.

The real question is whether the CPS will re-try her at all.

 

[May72031]

Honestly the only nasty stuff I read on here is the constant attacks on anyone who is sceptical of the COCH circumstances and investigation.

I think somebody reiterating the lie that a doctor lacerated a baby's liver is pretty nasty.