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

[katydid23]

The video we’re talking about. It’s a lecture he gave via The Sun. Went up a couple of days ago. I can’t link it here, but it can be found easily on YouTube.

And he claims he witnessed the deaths of 6 to 8 newborns from air embolisms? HOW could that even happen. It is an extremely rare occurrence and he just happened to be there 8x?

ETA: I just found it---he did say that he has probably seen more cases than any other doctors have---8 x he has seen air embolisms. That is a lot.

But I still don't agree with his major argument---that the trial conviction was somehow based upon HIS paper on rashes.

The prosecution admitted that they don't know exactly which method Letby used to inject air into her victims. It could have been into veins, or arteries, or into the stomach cavity?

Lee admits that venuous air embolisms have different types of discolouration than arterial air embolisms. The trial witnesses describe various colours and patterns in different cases. So it is likely that LL used various methods of injecting air into the bodies thus the rashes would be of various colours and patterns.

So Dr Lee's big pushback that his "Lee Signs' should be the only type seen in the trial testimony is not valid, imo.

Dr Lee also accused Johnson of saying "these babies died of venous air embolism because of splotchy red patches"——but that is not what Johnson said. He said because of various symptoms and conditions, including various rashes and discolourations and also because of the sudden unexpected collapses which were almost impossible to revive, once they were unresponsive.

The jury did not convict because of red splotchy rashes on some of the babies or because Nurse Letby was on duty for each incident or because the babies were so unresponsive they needed 5x the usual dosage of adrenaline Or because Nurse Letby was inconsistent and dishonest on the witness stand Or because the prosecution found falsified medical notes in her handwriting.

It was all of the above and more.

 

[WaneLyrical]

Iirc at least one description given was "florid" which is exactly that. Could have sworn i remember "branching" as well.

That was Lambie describing Baby B. Baby B’s rash could still be seen the following day, the mum photographed it.

Whether the word branching was used or not, I don’t remember, no description comes close to what’s Lee is describing.

 

[WaneLyrical]

And he claims he witnessed the deaths of 6 to 8 newborns from air embolisms? HOW could that even happen. It is an extremely rare occurrence and he just happened to be there 8x?

Yes, he has witnessed that many. He’s not a paediatric doctor covering the children’s ward, the maternity ward, accident & emergency, and who also pops into the NNU on occasion. His entire career has been devoted to advancing neonatal care.

How has he seen that many? I don’t know, I suppose we can’t rule out a Lucy Letby following him around. He gives some examples, IVs running dry, equipment breaking and letting air in.

Didn’t Baby G have an air embolus at the other hospital? It was discussed during the trial.

Edit: I don’t know if they all died.

 

[May72031]

They probably have to. Dr. Jayaram has to explain why he lied and what was his ultimate goal.

It was not established that he lied. It was not even established that he was mistaken. Letbyists have convinced themselves that he did. This is just another example of how Letbyists need to harass the doctors (i.e. the whistle-blowers), rather than the managers, and of course Letby.

Dr. Breary has to answer too many questions. We need to understand what happened with him: was it secondary gain, untreated paranoia or did someone manipulate him?

WTF? What is this latest conspiracy theory?

Other doctors (Gibbs, Saladi) need to explain what moral compass they used to accuse the nurse whose work they, essentially, didn't observe.

So, if you suspect someone is a baby murderer, they need to explain their moral compass? What is this utter nonsense? I think the people defending baby killers need to check their moral compasses.

With Evans it is too clear. Except for: who informed him about the case?

The Letbyists weird obsession with Evans knows no bounds.

These guys used a lot of taxpayers' money, too.

That is not the fault of the people you're attacking, is it?

Lastly: you know what? UK justice system is considered fair. Someone has to show that it is fair not only for very rich people coming from the whole world specifically because of its fairness but for an average, definitely not affluent, young English nurse as well.

Letby had a very good defence team working for her. Nobody has yet shown that Letby did not get a fair trial, certainly not the online conspiracy theorists.

 

[Charlot123]

This categorical statement of yours that staff is not carrying cellphones in NICU because phones are full of germs

Staff does not carry their cell phones around near critically ill newborns. Nurses were not allowed to have theirs in the nurseries. The phones are full of germs and are also distracting.

Is at variance with what they really carried around on the ICU:

Dr. Jayaram - watch - more germs

Lucy - cellphone

Do watches have cameras?

YES and she was reprimanded for doing so and warned against it.


Did I say no one 'thought' of taking photos? And who said 'no one saw' the discolouration? A dozen eyewitnesses testified under oath.

You know the popular phrase, "pictures, or it didn't happen"?

Suits this case full of subjectivity, lies and frivolous interpretations of facts.

Who wouldn't want a trial if there were so many murders and attempted murders?

This is what we are against. In 2017, in the minds of doctor Breary, doctor Jayaram and Chester police, Lucy Letby is already condemned as a murderer.

This is after an external body, the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, issued a report saying that excessive mortality on the unit has nothing to do with nurse Letby.

Medieval witch hunt, that's all.

 

[Sweeper2000]

Baby A.

"There was very unusual patchiness on his skin which I had not seen before. There were patches of blue/purple colour, patches of red and of white that didn’t fit.

“This was bright red patches… that means you have blood going round your body.”

Dr harkness testimony. Dr ravi also said the same.

https://www.itv.com/news/granada/2022-10-20/dead-baby-had-extraordinary-discoloured-patches-on-skin-lucy-letby-trial-told?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Both docs on baby a.

Both doctor and consultant noted an

That was Lambie describing Baby B. Baby B’s rash could still be seen the following day, the mum photographed it.

Whether the word branching was used or not, I don’t remember, no description comes close to what’s Lee is describing.

Dr lee describes the lee sign as being bright pink veins on blue skin. That blueness is otherwise described as cyanosed. That was the description given for baby b who survived jm very non medical opinion but a baby who survived it might not appear the same way as one that did not. Im also of the opinion that some aspects of a skin presentation might be missed if it is unusual or dramatic or sudden. I also think the variations in colour in descriptions given might be because actually there is a range of colours present. Example the baby in dr clarkes file, that baby had very pale finger tips almost white that further along the fingers turned to red then to brown or browny blue and very blue mottling on the arms with brown and red edges otherwise being "mottled" with variations in colour.

Just a reminder that the effects of air embolism are not necessarily uniform. That was covered at trial as well as it is a rare event.

 

[katydid23]

The video we’re talking about. It’s a lecture he gave via The Sun. Went up a couple of days ago. I can’t link it here, but it can be found easily on YouTube.

One thing I thought very interesting. Dr Lee said that in ALL 117 cases of air embolisms in babies---" in every case, the baby had a total collapse' at the start.

I find that very revealing. We saw 27 unexpected collapses during this span of the investigation. And all of the victims had an unusually resistant response to the first responders attempts to resuscitate the babies. It was described as extremely unusual.

And no matter which color or location of skin discolouration, all the babies had this same difficulty responding to the emergency treatments by the medical team.

 

[katydid23]

This categorical statement of yours that staff is not carrying cellphones in NICU because phones are full of germs

My categorical statement was that they were 'not allowed to' carry them into the unit.

Is at variance with what they really carried around on the ICU:

Dr. Jayaram - watch - more germs

Lucy - cellphone

The hospital's policy on mobile phones in the Neonatal Unit (NNU) was that staff could have phones in lockers but were not allowed to use them on the unit, as it was considered unprofessional and unsafe. This was stated in evidence during the Thirlwall Inquiry (e.g., from neonatal unit manager testimony around October 2024 transcripts).

As for watches---way different than phones. watches are on the wrist and are not being touched over and over by fingers and hands, which then touch the patients.

You know the popular phrase, "pictures, or it didn't happen"?

But this is a silly phrase because it is untrue. Trees will fall in a forest even if no one hears it or snaps a photo.

Suits this case full of subjectivity, lies and frivolous interpretations of facts.



This is what we are against. In 2017, in the minds of doctor Breary, doctor Jayaram and Chester police, Lucy Letby is already condemned as a murderer.

WHY do you suppose they felt that way? Do you think that if you worked in a small unit in a clinic, and there was an unexpected rash of babies collapsing and dying, and the first three, that died in 12 days time, just happened to be under Lucy's care , that maybe it would start to look suspicious?

And when people politely and supportively suggested she go work with the healthier babies so she could heal and recover, she responds with anger and insists upon staying with the poorly babies instead. And the collapses continue.

Except for when she goes on 12 day holidays. There were no unexpected collapses during her two long holidays. But each time she took a vacation, a baby died the day she left for vacation, then the next one would die on the first day back from her trip.

That exact pattern happened both times she took a vacation--baby dies day she leaves---then no collapses---baby dies immediately upon her return.


Halfway through this timespan, ALL of the collapses were happening during the night shifts. Lucy worked the night shifts.
The unit was not busy with guests or family and there were fewer staff.

So they moved Letby to the day shift. Guess what? Yep, the collapses now happened during day shifts and not at night.

Can you understand why people who worked in the tiny unit might become suspicious?

There were a few instances that a baby was doing great, about to be released for home, his designated nurse feeds and changes the baby, takes his vitals, everything looks good and stable. The nurse asks Letby to watch the baby while she takes her dinner break. When the nurse returns, she sees the crash cart running to her little patient, who has inexplicably collapsed while she was on break.

This is after an external body, the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, issued a report saying that excessive mortality on the unit has nothing to do with nurse Letby.

Medieval witch hunt, that's all.

Medieval Witch, that's all. IMO

 

[rvlvr]

Here we go with the nastiness again. When you can't outright lie and say that a doctor lacerated a liver, you have to suggest it could have happened in some alternative timeline or something. Bizarre reasoning.

And medical negligence has the potential to occur in every hospital in the world. Was there any evidence medical negligence was to blame for the collapses/deaths at COCH. No, there wasn't.

So you are back to yet more conjecture and unproven theories.

Theories are the bedrock of this case, though! There’s not a single piece of direct evidence pointing to Letby’s guilt. No eyewitnesses (only Dr Jayaram’s now discredited testimony concerning Letby’s supposed inaction at baby K’s cot came close), no DNA or fingerprints connecting her to any sort of malfeasance. Nothing. Zilch. Nada.

No, all we have are theories! And you’ve chosen to believe the theories advanced by the prosecution, led by Dr Evans. That’s fine. But there now exists a wealth of alternative and, imo, more persuasive theories, put forward by men and women more learned than the good doctor. Had any of these people appeared for the defence at trial, Letby almost certainly would’ve walked.

 

[joltz]

Theories are the bedrock of this case, though! There’s not a single piece of direct evidence pointing to Letby’s guilt. No eyewitnesses (only Dr Jayaram’s now discredited testimony concerning Letby’s supposed inaction at baby K’s cot came close), no DNA or fingerprints connecting her to any sort of malfeasance. Nothing. Zilch. Nada.

No, all we have are theories! And you’ve chosen to believe the theories advanced by the prosecution, led by Dr Evans. That’s fine. But there now exists a wealth of alternative and, imo, more persuasive theories, put forward by men and women more learned than the good doctor. Had any of these people appeared for the defence at trial, Letby almost certainly would’ve walked.

Theres a wealth of misinformation put forward by Dr Lee and a bunch of his colleagues and friends, whom responded to his begging letter specifically stating that they were Letbys last hope. Their approach would be destroyed under any courtroom setting but let's be real, it would never get that far.

Interesting how apparently they are more persuasive? Well if you prefer to deal with only medical notes and ignore every single facet of evidence presented at trial, then pretend that there was nothing linking the babies whatsoever, then do not take into consideration Letby, then yea, I guess they might be more persuasive. Also pretend air embolism isn't a possibility, make sure not to include it.

Oh you will also need to take these peoples opinions as fact, because there is no medical evidence to support them, then you need to pretend the insulin evidence doesn't prove what it proves, ignore the actual medical evidence about it, and the multiple other cases. Just pretend the rash wasn't anything in particular, so ignore the medical testimony about it. Act like sudden acute collapse and lack of response to normal resus methods, is a normal symptom of a bunch of different medical conditions, which apparently caused the deaths.

You still won't have a cohesive narrative or anything that even approaches something that makes any sense, but yes, it might be more persuasive to people who jump to conclusions based on headlines. Probably best off ignoring the thirlwall enquiry also. Keep telling ones self that Letby was unfortunate to be there all the time because she worked more hours than anyone at the hospital, was more qualified than anyone, and it could happen to any nurse.

JMO

Oh and none of these people would ever have appeared at Letbys original trial. They would have been laughed out of pre trial discussions.

 

[Charlot123]

My categorical statement was that they were 'not allowed to' carry them into the unit.

The hospital's policy on mobile phones in the Neonatal Unit (NNU) was that staff could have phones in lockers but were not allowed to use them on the unit, as it was considered unprofessional and unsafe. This was stated in evidence during the Thirlwall Inquiry (e.g., from neonatal unit manager testimony around October 2024 transcripts).

As for watches---way different than phones. watches are on the wrist and are not being touched over and over by fingers and hands, which then touch the patients.

But this is a silly phrase because it is untrue. Trees will fall in a forest even if no one hears it or snaps a photo.

WHY do you suppose they felt that way? Do you think that if you worked in a small unit in a clinic, and there was an unexpected rash of babies collapsing and dying, and the first three, that died in 12 days time, just happened to be under Lucy's care , that maybe it would start to look suspicious?

And when people politely and supportively suggested she go work with the healthier babies so she could heal and recover, she responds with anger and insists upon staying with the poorly babies instead. And the collapses continue.

Except for when she goes on 12 day holidays. There were no unexpected collapses during her two long holidays. But each time she took a vacation, a baby died the day she left for vacation, then the next one would die on the first day back from her trip.

That exact pattern happened both times she took a vacation--baby dies day she leaves---then no collapses---baby dies immediately upon her return.


Halfway through this timespan, ALL of the collapses were happening during the night shifts. Lucy worked the night shifts.
The unit was not busy with guests or family and there were fewer staff.

So they moved Letby to the day shift. Guess what? Yep, the collapses now happened during day shifts and not at night.

Can you understand why people who worked in the tiny unit might become suspicious?

There were a few instances that a baby was doing great, about to be released for home, his designated nurse feeds and changes the baby, takes his vitals, everything looks good and stable. The nurse asks Letby to watch the baby while she takes her dinner break. When the nurse returns, she sees the crash cart running to her little patient, who has inexplicably collapsed while she was on break.

Medieval Witch, that's all. IMO

Do you believe in witches?

Because I don't.

I don't believe in ghosts either. Nor in energy vampires or seers.

But here is an interesting psychological trivia. If a person grew up in a culture or even household that believes in ghosts or witches and then starts seeing them or feeling their presence, usually he is not psychotic, they say. His brain is simply culturally primed to accept such an interpretation of sensory stimuli as "possible".

And this is why people can not agree. If someone was born and raised in an agnostic environment and someone else, in a system that accepts existence of evil spirits, witches, "energy vampires", it is impossible to construct a meaningful dialog between them. This is why, indeed, one needs statisticians and scientists to step in. Because if there is no need to add Lucy to explain the rise of deaths on the unit, if statistically they do not make an anomaly by themselves, and furthermore, no one ever caught her doing any direct harm, then why is she serving a life term? For Breary's observation bias?

His brain connected frequent presence of a night nurse on the unit with a bad cycle of NICU critical events and his opinion was set. Moreover, I wonder if he started expecting things not to happen when Lucy was away. If there is an element of self-hypnosis here. And then we add another personality, a dramatic cinemaphile, and the picture gets more dimension. It becomes a shared illusory fear.

When all is said and done, it will be interesting to examine the situation from the purely psychological standpoint. That the trial experts and the media started using the situation for financial gain is obvious. But initially, was it Breary's own suspiciousness and susceptibility to odd beliefs, or was there someone else close to him and quietly paranoid who persuaded Breary and he rushed to check the shift rotas? I don't know. That unit was full of conspicuous personalities and poorly run.

 

[katydid23]

Do you believe in witches?

Because I don't.

The term 'witch' has many definitions. One definition:

• • Idiomatic/Negative: Sometimes used informally as a derogatory term for an unpleasant or "mean" woman.

That^^^ is the definition I was using when I referred to Nurse Letby as a witch. A mean, unpleasant woman, imo.

I don't believe in ghosts either. Nor in energy vampires or seers.

But here is an interesting psychological trivia. If a person grew up in a culture or even household that believes in ghosts or witches and then starts seeing them or feeling their presence, usually he is not psychotic, they say. His brain is simply culturally primed to accept such an interpretation of sensory stimuli as "possible".

And this is why people can not agree. If someone was born and raised in an agnostic environment and someone else, in a system that accepts existence of evil spirits, witches, "energy vampires", it is impossible to construct a meaningful dialog between them. This is why, indeed, one needs statisticians and scientists to step in. Because if there is no need to add Lucy to explain the rise of deaths on the unit, if statistically they do not make an anomaly by themselves, and furthermore, no one ever caught her doing any direct harm, then why is she serving a life term? For Breary's observation bias?

His brain connected frequent presence of a night nurse on the unit with a bad cycle of NICU critical events and his opinion was set. Moreover, I wonder if he started expecting things not to happen when Lucy was away. If there is an element of self-hypnosis here. And then we add another personality, a dramatic cinemaphile, and the picture gets more dimension. It becomes a shared illusory fear.

When all is said and done, it will be interesting to examine the situation from the purely psychological standpoint. That the trial experts and the media started using the situation for financial gain is obvious. But initially, was it Breary's own suspiciousness and susceptibility to odd beliefs, or was there someone else close to him and quietly paranoid who persuaded Breary and he rushed to check the shift rotas? I don't know. That unit was full of conspicuous personalities and poorly run.

Yes, 'trivia' that is a good definition of the above info. Calling the lead doctor a victim of self hypnosis for noticing the obvious about a serial killer is indeed trivial, imo.

 

[katydid23]

Theories are the bedrock of this case, though! There’s not a single piece of direct evidence pointing to Letby’s guilt. No eyewitnesses (only Dr Jayaram’s now discredited testimony concerning Letby’s supposed inaction at baby K’s cot came close), no DNA or fingerprints connecting her to any sort of malfeasance. Nothing. Zilch. Nada.

Tell us how DNA or fingerprints would even be possible or relevant in these cases. Nurse Letby was obviously the caretaker for each victim. What would it prove if her DNA or fingerprints were found?

Have you wondered how it was possible for someone to get away with so many malicious incidents? IMO, it was because of what you described---it is nearly impossible to find any direct evidence in these particular circumstances.

She was allowed to be alone constantly with the most vulnerable fragile beings. No witnesses available. And her methods of assault were silent and took only minutes to accomplish. She had endless opportunities to be alone with her vulnerable victims.

Inject air into a line, silently, invisibly, quickly, leaving no evidence of any kind, other than the ghastly results.

The only evidence is the horrid results and the symptoms the victims showed when the first responders tried to revive them.

No, all we have are theories! And you’ve chosen to believe the theories advanced by the prosecution, led by Dr Evans. That’s fine. But there now exists a wealth of alternative and, imo, more persuasive theories, put forward by men and women more learned than the good doctor. Had any of these people appeared for the defence at trial, Letby almost certainly would’ve walked.

No, that is where your argument fails. These 'alternative' explanations were already discussed in court in front of the judge and jury. However they were legally rebutted. The claims of infection were shown to be false because the babies were tested and there were no signs of infection. The same with all of the other explanations set forth by this team led by Prof Lee.

The alternative explanations fall flat because they were already offered to the court and already rebutted by the prosecution. And the jurors heard them and considered them but decided that the preponderance of the EVIDENCE led to a guilty verdict.

 

[katydid23]

Do you believe in witches?

Because I don't.

I don't believe in ghosts either. Nor in energy vampires or seers.

But here is an interesting psychological trivia. If a person grew up in a culture or even household that believes in ghosts or witches and then starts seeing them or feeling their presence, usually he is not psychotic, they say. His brain is simply culturally primed to accept such an interpretation of sensory stimuli as "possible".

And this is why people can not agree. If someone was born and raised in an agnostic environment and someone else, in a system that accepts existence of evil spirits, witches, "energy vampires", it is impossible to construct a meaningful dialog between them. This is why, indeed, one needs statisticians and scientists to step in. Because if there is no need to add Lucy to explain the rise of deaths on the unit, if statistically they do not make an anomaly by themselves, and furthermore, no one ever caught her doing any direct harm, then why is she serving a life term? For Breary's observation bias?

His brain connected frequent presence of a night nurse on the unit with a bad cycle of NICU critical events and his opinion was set. Moreover, I wonder if he started expecting things not to happen when Lucy was away. If there is an element of self-hypnosis here. And then we add another personality, a dramatic cinemaphile, and the picture gets more dimension. It becomes a shared illusory fear.

When all is said and done, it will be interesting to examine the situation from the purely psychological standpoint. That the trial experts and the media started using the situation for financial gain is obvious. But initially, was it Breary's own suspiciousness and susceptibility to odd beliefs, or was there someone else close to him and quietly paranoid who persuaded Breary and he rushed to check the shift rotas? I don't know. That unit was full of conspicuous personalities and poorly run.

By the way, tell me what you think about the rest of my post, explaining why the doctors were suspicious?

Do you think that if you worked in a small unit in a clinic, and there was an unexpected rash of babies collapsing and dying, and the first three, that died in 12 days time, just happened to be under Lucy's care , that maybe it would start to look suspicious?

And when people politely and supportively suggested she go work with the healthier babies so she could heal and recover, she responds with anger and insists upon staying with the poorly babies instead. And the collapses continue.

Except for when she goes on 12 day holidays. There were no unexpected collapses during her two long holidays. But each time she took a vacation, a baby died the day she left for vacation, then the next one would die on the first day back from her trip.

That exact pattern happened both times she took a vacation--baby dies day she leaves---then no collapses---baby dies immediately upon her return.

Is any of that ^^^ suspicious in any way? If you were the head of the clinic, would it be suspicious if the collapses happened the last day of LL's work, then no collapses for 2 weeks, but the very day she returns, another collapse/death happens?


And all of the collapses happening on night shifts, then they move LL to day shift, and immediately the collapses shift to day time incidents?

Nothing suspicious about that?

 

[Charlot123]

The term 'witch' has many definitions. One definition:

• • Idiomatic/Negative: Sometimes used informally as a derogatory term for an unpleasant or "mean" woman.

That^^^ is the definition I was using when I referred to Nurse Letby as a witch. A mean, unpleasant woman, imo.

Did you ever meet Lucy Letby? I assume, yes.

I did not. I have no idea what kind of a person she is. I prefer not to imagine, as truth is always different. She became the symbol of an average Jane who, it is highly possible, might be unjustly accused and definitely deserves a better trial, but that's all. I'd rather not project my thoughts on a person i don't know.

Yes, 'trivia' that is a good definition of the above info. Calling the lead doctor a victim of self hypnosis for noticing the obvious about a serial killer is indeed trivial, imo.

So Breary is a lead doctor of an inflated-level NICU who, as it seems, instead of finding a suitable therapist to deal with own stressors, created a huge, expensive country-wide trial mess, based on own fears, suspiciousness and limited general knowledge.

And he has hubris, too. When a really educated professor expressed interest in the case, he and his acolytes treated Dr. Lee as a person who understands nothing.

You know, I'd honestly avoid such a doctor as Breary. We all like true crime, but we understand that there is a line to draw, and not every pizza deliverer is necessarily a killer. Breary sees killers walking around him. There is a name for it.

Worst, all of them, Breary, Jayaram and mostly, Evans tend to play Drs. Freuds. IRL, all three are bad psychiatrists because they assume without asking. Lucy Letby took a shift after a child died and Breary immediately got suspicious. Did he ask her why?

I, too, have no clue why but as a woman, you know what would be my first guess? She is a young woman who just bought a house and is living alone. I imagine that her house is somewhere in the backyards. I won't be surprised if she is afraid of staying there alone and hence, takes many night shifts. This will be my first thought. (It is not a convenient shift for social life or dating, but in her shoes, I'd do the same.) But it is highly likely that I am wrong. It is just my guess.

So, how this regular fluctuation in statistics turned into a witch hunt is interesting. I suppose that the true answer lies in in a good neonatal intensive care review plus good statistical analysis.

 

[joltz]

Do you believe in witches?

Because I don't.

I don't believe in ghosts either. Nor in energy vampires or seers.

But here is an interesting psychological trivia. If a person grew up in a culture or even household that believes in ghosts or witches and then starts seeing them or feeling their presence, usually he is not psychotic, they say. His brain is simply culturally primed to accept such an interpretation of sensory stimuli as "possible".

And this is why people can not agree. If someone was born and raised in an agnostic environment and someone else, in a system that accepts existence of evil spirits, witches, "energy vampires", it is impossible to construct a meaningful dialog between them. This is why, indeed, one needs statisticians and scientists to step in. Because if there is no need to add Lucy to explain the rise of deaths on the unit, if statistically they do not make an anomaly by themselves, and furthermore, no one ever caught her doing any direct harm, then why is she serving a life term? For Breary's observation bias?

His brain connected frequent presence of a night nurse on the unit with a bad cycle of NICU critical events and his opinion was set. Moreover, I wonder if he started expecting things not to happen when Lucy was away. If there is an element of self-hypnosis here. And then we add another personality, a dramatic cinemaphile, and the picture gets more dimension. It becomes a shared illusory fear.

When all is said and done, it will be interesting to examine the situation from the purely psychological standpoint. That the trial experts and the media started using the situation for financial gain is obvious. But initially, was it Breary's own suspiciousness and susceptibility to odd beliefs, or was there someone else close to him and quietly paranoid who persuaded Breary and he rushed to check the shift rotas? I don't know. That unit was full of conspicuous personalities and poorly run.

This reads like satire, like every post you make. Really can't take any of it seriously whatsoever. It doesn't make any sense.

JMO

JMO

 

[katydid23]

Did you ever meet Lucy Letby? I assume, yes.

NOpe, never met her in person. I did watch her on the witness stand for several days.
And I read dozens of her DMs and texts to family and friends. She was often two-faced and dishonest towards her co-workers and friends.
And I heard several eyewitnesses who discussed their experiences with her. l
She was mean quite often. Look up the mother of Baby E and read about her experiences with Nurse Lucy.

I did not. I have no idea what kind of a person she is. I prefer not to imagine, as truth is always different. She became the symbol of an average Jane who, it is highly possible, might be unjustly accused and definitely deserves a better trial, but that's all. I'd rather not project my thoughts on a person i don't know.

But she was not an average Jane. Watching the trial was an in depth study of her behaviours and reactions and her daily life.

I am not 'imagining' who Lucy Letby was. I saw her speaking under oath, about her most private thoughts and feelings.

I read pages from her private journals.

I saw messages she sent to her coworkers and to her parents.

It was not up to my imagination. My perceptions were based upon her OWN WORDS.

So Breary is a lead doctor of an inflated-level NICU who, as it seems, instead of finding a suitable therapist to deal with own stressors, created a huge, expensive country-wide trial mess, based on own fears, suspiciousness and limited general knowledge.

And he has hubris, too. When a really educated professor expressed interest in the case, he and his acolytes treated Dr. Lee as a person who understands nothing.

You know, I'd honestly avoid such a doctor as Breary. We all like true crime, but we understand that there is a line to draw, and not every pizza deliverer is necessarily a killer. Breary sees killers walking around him. There is a name for it.

Worst, all of them, Breary, Jayaram and mostly, Evans tend to play Drs. Freuds. IRL, all three are bad psychiatrists because they assume without asking. Lucy Letby took a shift after a child died and Breary immediately got suspicious. Did he ask her why?

I, too, have no clue why but as a woman, you know what would be my first guess? She is a young woman who just bought a house and is living alone. I imagine that her house is somewhere in the backyards. I won't be surprised if she is afraid of staying there alone and hence, takes many night shifts. This will be my first thought. (It is not a convenient shift for social life or dating, but in her shoes, I'd do the same.) But it is highly likely that I am wrong. It is just my guess.

So, how this regular fluctuation in statistics turned into a witch hunt is interesting. I suppose that the true answer lies in in a good neonatal intensive care review plus good statistical analysis.

Again, you avoid discussing the facts and go right to painting the lead doctor in a horrible light.

What about the facts that I wrote, explaining why he was suspicious?

If you were a store manager, and money was missing from the till on many nights, would you decide to look at the schedule to see who was on duty during those nights the money was missing?

If the money was always taken during the night shift instead of the day shift, and you moved ONE of your workers to the day shift, and then money was taken during the day instead of the night, would that make you suspicious?

Or would you call in a statistics expert?

 

[Charlot123]

NOpe, never met her in person. I did watch her on the witness stand for several days.
And I read dozens of her DMs and texts to family and friends. She was often two-faced and dishonest towards her co-workers and friends.
And I heard several eyewitnesses who discussed their experiences with her. l
She was mean quite often. Look up the mother of Baby E and read about her experiences with Nurse Lucy.

But she was not an average Jane. Watching the trial was an in depth study of her behaviours and reactions and her daily life.

I am not 'imagining' who Lucy Letby was. I saw her speaking under oath, about her most private thoughts and feelings.

I read pages from her private journals.

I saw messages she sent to her coworkers and to her parents.

It was not up to my imagination. My perceptions were based upon her OWN WORDS.

You know, there may be a certain bias introduced by the framework of the court. Everything that comes from Lucy Letby has been vetted in the concept of the trial.

When in 2016 (•a woman of my country was running for an important position*), I had zero problems with her, but for some reason, here she was considered “unlikable”. Later, I realized why. She was naturally camera-shy and looked awkward on TV and podium. So, boring, not a natural actress, sounded dull… what she said made sense but she did not take the time to train herself on an unfavorite medias. Introverts never look well on media.

(There is a reason why psychiatrists are strongly advised not to make a diagnosis without seeing someone in person.)

Just a good example how we should not rely on a media or excerpts or letters, even.

You were watching Lucy when the press already named her “a killer nurse”. There is a chance that if you read the same but in a different context (a nurse saved a drowning child), you’d come to a different conclusion.

Again, you avoid discussing the facts and go right to painting the lead doctor in a horrible light.

What about the facts that I wrote, explaining why he was suspicious?

You asked me about him, I said what I thought.

If you were a store manager, and money was missing from the till on many nights, would you decide to look at the schedule to see who was on duty during those nights the money was missing?

If the money was always taken during the night shift instead of the day shift, and you moved ONE of your workers to the day shift, and then money was taken during the day instead of the night, would that make you suspicious?

Or would you call in a statistics expert?

Well, this is a very simple situation. The money is missing from the till is a direct connection with “someone is stealing it”.

Probably 90%. There are other choices, such as “the cashier or myself is bad at math, doesn’t count the money, gives too much charge back” , or “I was pitch drunk yesterday and forgot that I took it myself”. But all other explanations could probably amount to 10%. 90% chance, as you said, the explanation is, “someone was stealing”.

But what if instead of controlling for the most obvious factor, stealing by the employee, one says, “OK, there is 0,001% chance that mice ate the money, let us start with inviting pest control”?

Because this is how it would look in NICU.

The explanation “the babies collapsed because we have a killer on the unit” doesn’t stand up to criticism. How often do “killers on the unit” happen? 0.0001% if that? Why start with them if other causes take precedence?

The Royal College of Pediatric and Child Health Review mentioned “ inadequate staffing and senior cover”. Start with it! Hire more nurses, come to the unit more often, Dr, Breary, hire one more senior doctor; then look at statistics.

Infection. Fix that darn water system, take swabs from everywhere, including ventilators tubing (Stenotrophomonas maltophilia), clean the unit, move it to a newer building, after all. When fecal material flooded the water system, Dr. Breary had full right to call Tony Chambers, Ian Harvey or whoever and say, “fix it all today or we all leave”.

Talk to the GYN department. In 2015, the practice of using 2-3 embryos for IVF is becoming obsolete. Demand adjustment, use of better genetic screening and better IVF practices.

(Send Dr. Jayaram to take ventilators classes. We all know that bad vent settings might be deleterious.)

There are too many things that need to be changed first to improve statistics before anyone starts chasing killers in NICU.

But the truth it, doctor Breary is not an insightful leader. He says, “we were doing everything as usual”. Well, maybe the answer is, then do it better!

This being said - I am not stating that she is “absolutely innocent”. Data presented doesn’t point at her being guilt. I am saying “the trial is a travesty and the conviction is unsafe.” Also, “there were many other reasons for increased mortality, way, way above the possibility of a killer on the unit”.

 

[iamshadow21]

You know, there may be a certain bias introduced by the framework of the court. Everything that comes from Lucy Letby has been vetted in the concept of the trial.

I have a great example of how it may backfire. When in 2016 (•a woman of my country was running for an important position*), I had already read much about her. I had zero problems with her, but for some reason, here she was considered “unlikable”. Later, I realized why. She was naturally camera-shy to such a degree that she looked awkward on TV and podium. So, boring, not a natural actress, sounded dull… what she said made sense but she did not take the time to train herself on an unfavorite medias. Her opponent had a show.

There is a reason why psychiatrists are strongly advised not to make a diagnosis without seeing someone in person.

Just a good example how we should not rely on a media or excerpts or letters, even.

You were examining it when the press already named her “a killer nurse”. There is a chance that if you read the same but in a different context (a nurse saved a drowning child), you’d come to a different conclusion.



You asked me about him, I said what I thought.



Well, this is a very simple situation. The money is missing from the till is a direct connection with “someone is stealing it”.

Probably 90%. There are other choices, such as “the cashier or myself is bad at math, doesn’t count the money, gives too much charge back” or “the way the till is placed, anyone could steal it”, or even “I was pitch drunk yesterday and forgot that I took it myself”. But all other explanations could probably amount to 10%. 90% chance, as you said, the explanation is, “someone was stealing”.

But what if controlling for the most obvious factor, stealing by the employee, one instead says, “OK, there is 0,001% chance that the mice ate the money, let us start with inviting pest control”?

Because this is how it would look in NICU.

The explanation “the babies collapsed because we have a killer on the unit” doesn’t stand up to criticism. How often do “killers on the unit” happen? 0.0001% if that? Why start with them if other causes take precedence?

The Royal College of Pediatric and Child Health Review mentioned “ inadequate staffing and senior cover”. Start with these parameters! Hire more nurses, come to the unit more often, Dr, Breary, hire one more senior doctor; then look at statistics.

Infection. Fix that darn water system, take swabs from everywhere, including ventilators tubing (Stenotrophomonas maltophilia), clean the unit, move it to a newer building, after all. When fecal material flooded the water system, Dr. Breary had full right to call Tony Chambers, Ian Harvey or whoever and say, “fix it all today or we all leave”.

Talk to the GYN department. In 2015, the practice of using 2-3 embryos for IVF is becoming obsolete. Demand adjustment, use of better genetic screening and better IVF practices.

(Send Dr. Jayaram to take ventilators classes. We all know that bad vent settings might be deleterious.)

There are too many things that need to be changed first to improve statistics before anyone starts chasing killers in NICU.

But the truth it, doctor Breary is not an insightful leader. He says, “we were doing everything as usual”. Well, maybe the answer is, then do it better!

This being said - I am not stating that she is “absolutely innocent”. I am saying “the trial is unsafe” and “there were many other reasons for increased mortality way above any possibility of a killer on the unit”.

The fact is, this case was meticulously investigated for YEARS before she was even charged, let alone came to trial.

You say that it's statistically unlikely to be a serial killer, but unlikely doesn't mean impossible, because there ARE medical serial killers and they tend to be very good at what they do and very difficult to catch.

You don't think that they explored every plausible avenue over those YEARS of investigation that was more likely? They absolutely did, and they came up with the cases they did because they were the most likely to succeed at trial. They had enough evidence to pass the hurdles of arrest, being bound over for trial, and finally, the majority resulted in conviction by a jury of Letby's peers. This wasn't the work of one person or even several who were careless, short-sighted, fantasists, or malicious. It was a huge team of people with all different specialities coming together to build the most complex and long running trial in history, and they were SUCCESSFUL.

MOO

 

[rvlvr]

Calling the lead doctor a victim of self hypnosis for noticing the obvious about a serial killer is indeed trivial, imo.

He didn’t notice the obvious though, did he. The consultants selected 60 cases (on what basis, we don’t know) for Dr Evans to review, during which Evans initially found 28 suspicious incidents. 28 from 60 is, in anyone’s book, a pretty low hit rate. Worse though, of the initial 28 suspicious incidents, ten couldn’t be attributed to Letby, because she wasn’t there. The hit rate remained poor - despite the fact that evidence of Letby going around murdering babies was apparently so noticeable!

Over time, of course, some suspicious incidents came to be seen as not suspicious (how, why, and when, we don’t know), while other suspicious incidents were supposedly found until yes, a chart could be produced which - to borrow the phrase used in an earlier post by @joltz - gave us a ‘cohesive narrative’ (“it must have been Lucy because Lucy was always there”), but the reality is this was completely contrived.

And of course, if everything was so noticeable then it begs the question, why did no one, you know, notice her harming any babies? She apparently used multiple methods of murder, from injecting air to spiking fluids with insulin to - in at least one case - physically assaulting a baby! Over a prolonged period of time! And no one noticed any of it.

That unit was full of conspicuous personalities and poorly run.

Yes. This is the only ‘cohesive narrative’ that emerges here. Vulnerable babies died because they received negligent care in a unit that wasn’t fit for purpose. The death of baby O perfectly exemplifies this. This child was under the care of a doctor, Dr B, who had previous for having killed a baby. Killed it accidentally, of course, but killed it nonetheless. The child’s parents described staff 'panicking' and 'pandemonium' on the ward as baby O collapsed, while one doctor was allegedly seen to be “'Googling' how to perform a particular procedure on a computer.” (They also described Dr B going for a cigarette, then failing to wash her hands afterwards!) We can theorise if we like that Letby injected the baby with air and punched it in the abdomen, but there’s no direct evidence any of this happened, and had a competing theory been put before the jury it’s inconceivable imo that they wouldn’t have experienced reasonable doubt.