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]

you spin me right round, baby right round

How many times ?

 

[katydid23]

Indeed.

If I strangle someone to death in a dark park, chances are no one will notice. Do it in daylight, and I still might not be seen, but it’s more likely that I will be. Do it by an entrance on a main road, and I’d do well to get away with it once, never mind repeatedly. To put it bluntly, hospital units aren’t like dark parks.

Actually, small clinic units can be very much like dark parks. During the night shifts especially because there are no guests allowed, and just staff members. If you look at the floor plan of the Neo-natal wing, you can see it is very easy to be in an isolated nursery, and be all alone with the babies, in the dark. There are only 2 nurses on duty in 4 nurseries, and one nurse will often have to go to other areas for prescriptions, errands and breaks.

It’s just not true, either, for people to say that we shouldn’t expect to see any direct evidence in at least some of these cases - the insulin ones, surely, being the most obvious. There were no eyewitnesses, and no evidence of tampering on any of the bags, by anyone, never mind Letby. There was no evidence of insulin going missing either, never mind that Letby ever took any.

It was said during the trial that the insulin was kept in a small refrigerator, which all the staff had access to. The insulin was open and available---it was not 'checked' each time it was used. There was no method of seeing who used what or if any was missing.

Guilters might say, well, the amount needed to poison these babies was tiny and the bags were later discarded. And that’s true! That’s a good explanation as to why no evidence exists. But that’s the point - the idea that Letby tampered with the bags is just that, an idea, and one that’s entirely unsupported by evidence.

The most important takeaway from the insulin cases is the recognition that SOMEONE was harming babies. That was key to this case. Was it LL that took the insulin? It might have been. But it was proven that she was the only nurse that was present on the floor while the other unexplained collapses happened that same week. I guess another nurse might have poisoned one of the twins with insulin, while LL assaulted the other twin the previous day? Or maybe it was LL who assaulted them both?

BOTH of the insulin incidents involved twins, and in both cases, both twins were assaulted and collapsed on back to back nights.


What are the odds that in one hospital, there would be two sets of preemie twins, and both sets of twins would be victimised on back to back nights----one twin poisoned by insulin and the other by a forced air embolism? These twins were born several months apart, but experienced similar horrific attacks.

Was that all a coincidence? A natural occurrence?

 

[JosieJo]

Dr Dimitrova ignores the actual evidence

Baby F's blood sugar levels crash down to 0.8, when Letby hangs the bag. The blood sugar actually improves when the bag is removed.

The laceration to baby O's liver occured post mortem as there was no blood associated with that injury.

She also says the prosecution said letby had injected all the stock bags ..and she wants to know what happened to all the other contaminated bags
..when their case was she "could" of injected "one" of the stock bags of TPN ..of which there were only 4 or 5 in the fridge ..and all it would need is to place the bag on top.

Plus they also stated another theory where the insulin sticks to the giving sets or canula etc

It is infuriating when the public are rising up based on what these ill informed so called experts are saying

 

[marynnu]

Actually, small clinic units can be very much like dark parks. During the night shifts especially because there are no guests allowed, and fewer staff members. If you look at the floor plan of the Neo-natal wing, you can see it is very easy to be in an isolated nursery, and be all alone with the babies, in the dark. There are only 2 nurses on duty in 4 nurseries, and one nurse will often have to go to other areas for prescriptions, errands and breaks.


It was said during the trial that the insulin was kept in a small refrigerator, which all the staff had access to. The insulin was open and available---it was not 'checked' each time it was used. There was no method of seeing who used what or if any was missing.

The most important takeaway from the insulin cases is the recognition that SOMEONE was harming babies. That was key to this case. Was it LL that took the insulin? It might have been. But it was proven that she was the only nurse that was present on the floor while the other unexplained collapses happened that same week. I guess another nurse might have poisoned one of the twins with insulin, while LL assaulted the other twin the previous day? Or maybe it was LL who assaulted them both?

BOTH of the insulin incidents involved twins, and in both cases, both twins were assaulted and collapsed on back to back nights.


What are the odds that in one hospital, there would be two sets of preemie twins, and both sets of twins would be victimised on back to back nights----one twin poisoned by insulin and the other by a forced air embolism? These twins were born several months apart, but experienced similar horrific attacks.

Was that all a coincidence? A natural occurrence?

I'd justsay that the nurse staffing is the same day & night.

 

[rvlvr]

There is other good evidence that Letby knew that insulin was in the feed bag, despite it never being their practice to administer insulin (when prescribed) via the feed bag. She asked police if his feed bags had been kept, before they told her what evidence they were working with.

This isn’t right, is it, at least not according to this Chester Standard article (3:00pm entry):

Letby was interviewed by police in July 2018 about that night shift.

She remembered Child F, but had no recollection of the incident and "had not been involved in his care".

She was asked about the TPN bags chart. She said the TPN was kept in a locked fridge and the insulin was kept in that same fridge.

She confirmed her signature on the TPN form.

She had no recollection of having had involvement with administering the TPN bag contents to Child F, but confirmed giving Child F glucose injections and taken observations.

She also confirmed signing for a lipid syringe at 12.10am, the shift before. The prosecution say she should have had someone to co-sign for it.

"She accepted that the signature tended to suggest she had administered it."

"Interestingly, at the end of this part of the interview she asked whether the police had access to the TPN bag that she had connected," Mr Johnson added.

At the risk of stating the obvious, “at the end of this part of the interview” suggests, surely, that Letby asked about the bags at the end of this discussion about the bags, not before, as you claimed. So I’m not sure this is the gotcha you think it is. As is often the case with circumstantial evidence, I find!

 

[May72031]

Essentially, she is doing time for working more than others (((. And, of course, Dr. Evans’s son appreciates his new car, and horse riding costs a lot.

Oh my. I struggle to believe this comment is serious.

This is where the Letbyists are - they think Letby was convicted on the basis she worked more than some other nurses.

Then there is a another completely ad hom attack on Dr. Evans and his family.

It is worrying to see the snide and abusive comments directed at Dewi Evans and the other doctors (i.e. the whistle-blowers) that we see on social media, transfer to here.

 

[iamshadow21]

See..
First the doctors, in a way, self-certified themselves as “not doing anything differently” and yet the babies dying. Meaning, they were a perfect unit but the babies still died, right?

And then Dr. Shoo Lee and the group of experts come and say, that in Canada, such a unit would be closed.

It never helps to certify oneself.

This has nothing to do with what I posted.

 

[May72031]

And then Dr. Shoo Lee and the group of experts come and say, that in Canada, such a unit would be closed.

Given that Shoo Lee claims he has witnessed a staggering EIGHT air embolisms in his career, I wonder if he believes the units he worked on should have been closed???

 

[Marantz4250b]

Given that Shoo Lee claims he has witnessed a staggering EIGHT air embolisms in his career, I wonder if he believes the units he worked on should have been closed???

His claims seem utterly unbelievable, imo.

Has he provided evidence for any of this, I wonder?

 

[Tortoise]

This isn’t right, is it, at least not according to this Chester Standard article (3:00pm entry):



At the risk of stating the obvious, “at the end of this part of the interview” suggests, surely, that Letby asked about the bags at the end of this discussion about the bags, not before, as you claimed. So I’m not sure this is the gotcha you think it is. As is often the case with circumstantial evidence, I find!

It hadn't been suggested to her it was in the TPN bag.

Court transcript of the relevant part of Letby's cross-examination re. baby F, including excerpts from her 2019 police interview in green text:


Nick Johnson KC: If you go to page 16 [baby F police interview], please, so midway down the page you ask a question: LL: “Can I ask a question about this in terms of the bags and everything? I’m assuming they were – they haven’t been kept or checked, you know, post-event.” You knew very well, didn’t you, that the bags hadn’t been kept?

LL: No, I didn’t know whether the bags had been kept.

NJ KC: Did you think it was likely they would have been kept?

LL: Knowing that I kept the bag of fluids for [baby A] and other babies, I felt that if the doctors had raised a concern at that time then, yes, potentially, the bags would have been checked, yes.

NJ KC: Well let’s see what you were saying in this interview back in 2019. It’s towards the bottom of the page - Police: “Is it likely the bags would be kept?” Five lines up from the bottom. And what was your answer then?

LL: “No.”

NJ KC: To be fair to you, at the bottom you are then asked – Police: “You have asked the question, so are there cases when they might be?” And you say LL: “If there’s a baby there’s been a concern about, we would keep the bag, usually ask someone to check that bag or check the pump.” But you knew, didn’t you, that no concern had been expressed at the time –

LL: No, I did not.

NJ KC: -- about the bag. Didn’t you?

LL: I didn’t know anything at this point, at this interview, no.

NJ KC: Do you remember me asking you a few minutes ago about whether you were thinking there was another way out for you, whether there was some other issue with the bag or an issue with something else?

LL: Yes.

NJ KC: And you said no.

LL: Yes.

NJ KC: Just look at the bottom of the page please. If you look at the 3100 number, question – Police: “Okay, is there a reason why you’ve asked that question? What’s going through your mind?” asks the police officer. And what did you answer?

LL: “When something's happened in that time – you are asking me if I have given him insulin and I’m wondering if there’s an issue with something else.”

NJ KC: What was on your mind at that time? What was that something else?

LL: That the insulin had come from somewhere else other than the unit.

NJ KC: How would the presence or absence of the insulin in the bag have assisted with the question of whether or not the insulin came from the unit or from somewhere else?

LL: It wasn’t. But at this time I don’t think it was suggested it was in the bag. We didn’t know where – we didn’t know where the insulin had come from.

NJ KC: No. You did, though, didn’t you –

LL: No, I did not.

NJ KC: -- because you put it there?

LL: No.

Link to transcript

 

[Charlot123]

This has nothing to do with what I posted.

Well, let me rephrase. First, “they” is a broad term. It could be the doctors, the police or Dr. Evans.

1) The doctors IMHO have not fully ruled out other factors present on the unit as responsible for increased neonatal mortality save for Lucy Letby. They could not do so. Mentioning other contributing factors meant acknowledging own flaws + admitting that some changes in the unit had a negative effect. (Among the changes: taking in more sick babies, change of catchment area, firing older and more experienced nurses/nurse practitioners the year before, intrahospital infection).
2) These doctors never approached the police with their suspicions about the “killer on the unit”, either in 2015 or 2016. They were OK with “the killer” working elsewhere in the hospital as long as she did not return to NICU. Strange, right?
3) They went to the police only when Lucy was supposed to return back to the unit, to prevent this from happening.

Plus, NICU doctors didn’t do much investigative work when Lucy was working in the archive, did they?


The police:

1) the police immediately hired the “expert” known for his work for the prosecution trials. Given no time lapse between the complaint and the hiring of Dr. Evans, I surmise that in 2017, at the very beginning of the operation Hummingbird, the police, having not yet investigated anything, was already preparing the case for the trial.

It comes to all investigative work being done by Dr. Evans, then?

I would like to know if any Doctor nowadays believes that Doctor Evans did a thorough investigative job.

Honestly, I think it is useless to go back to the same people. Hoping for a new investigation of this case.

 

[iamshadow21]

Well, let me rephrase. First, “they” is a broad term. It could be the doctors, the police or Dr. Evans.

1) The doctors IMHO have not fully ruled out other factors present on the unit as responsible for increased neonatal mortality save for Lucy Letby. They could not do so. Mentioning other contributing factors meant acknowledging own flaws + admitting that some changes in the unit had a negative effect. (Among the changes: taking in more sick babies, change of catchment area, firing older and more experienced nurses/nurse practitioners the year before, intrahospital infection).
2) These doctors never approached the police with their suspicions about the “killer on the unit”, either in 2015 or 2016. They were OK with “the killer” working elsewhere in the hospital as long as she did not return to NICU. Strange, right?
3) They went to the police only when Lucy was supposed to return back to the unit, to prevent this from happening.

Plus, NICU doctors didn’t do much investigative work when Lucy was working in the archive, did they?


The police:

1) the police immediately hired the “expert” known for his work for the prosecution trials. Given no time lapse between the complaint and the hiring of Dr. Evans, I surmise that in 2017, at the very beginning of the operation Hummingbird, the police, having not yet investigated anything, was already preparing the case for the trial.

It comes to all investigative work being done by Dr. Evans, then?

I would like to know if any Doctor nowadays believes that Doctor Evans did a thorough investigative job.

Honestly, I think it is useless to go back to the same people. Hoping for a new investigation of this case.

You're 'surmising' a lot there that bears little to no resemblance to how a massive case of multiple murder with its own years-long task force is actually investigated, just based on what has been stated at trial and in interviews with LE who were part of the investigation of Letby and CoCH.

MOO

 

[WaneLyrical]

Within the first few Minutes Dr D shows she hasn't read the prosecution evidence as she is totally wrong

What’s she wrong about?

 

[rvlvr]

It hadn't been suggested to her it was in the TPN bag.

Court transcript of the relevant part of Letby's cross-examination re. baby F, including excerpts from her 2019 police interview in green text:


Nick Johnson KC: If you go to page 16 [baby F police interview], please, so midway down the page you ask a question: LL: “Can I ask a question about this in terms of the bags and everything? I’m assuming they were – they haven’t been kept or checked, you know, post-event.” You knew very well, didn’t you, that the bags hadn’t been kept?

LL: No, I didn’t know whether the bags had been kept.

NJ KC: Did you think it was likely they would have been kept?

LL: Knowing that I kept the bag of fluids for [baby A] and other babies, I felt that if the doctors had raised a concern at that time then, yes, potentially, the bags would have been checked, yes.

NJ KC: Well let’s see what you were saying in this interview back in 2019. It’s towards the bottom of the page - Police: “Is it likely the bags would be kept?” Five lines up from the bottom. And what was your answer then?

LL: “No.”

NJ KC: To be fair to you, at the bottom you are then asked – Police: “You have asked the question, so are there cases when they might be?” And you say LL: “If there’s a baby there’s been a concern about, we would keep the bag, usually ask someone to check that bag or check the pump.” But you knew, didn’t you, that no concern had been expressed at the time –

LL: No, I did not.

NJ KC: -- about the bag. Didn’t you?

LL: I didn’t know anything at this point, at this interview, no.

NJ KC: Do you remember me asking you a few minutes ago about whether you were thinking there was another way out for you, whether there was some other issue with the bag or an issue with something else?

LL: Yes.

NJ KC: And you said no.

LL: Yes.

NJ KC: Just look at the bottom of the page please. If you look at the 3100 number, question – Police: “Okay, is there a reason why you’ve asked that question? What’s going through your mind?” asks the police officer. And what did you answer?

LL: “When something's happened in that time – you are asking me if I have given him insulin and I’m wondering if there’s an issue with something else.”

NJ KC: What was on your mind at that time? What was that something else?

LL: That the insulin had come from somewhere else other than the unit.

NJ KC: How would the presence or absence of the insulin in the bag have assisted with the question of whether or not the insulin came from the unit or from somewhere else?

LL: It wasn’t. But at this time I don’t think it was suggested it was in the bag. We didn’t know where – we didn’t know where the insulin had come from.

NJ KC: No. You did, though, didn’t you –

LL: No, I did not.

NJ KC: -- because you put it there?

LL: No.

Link to transcript

Yes, and in your view what is suspicious about any of this?

 

[WaneLyrical]

There is evidence that exists. But the Letby supporters ignore that evidence. She falsified medical records and logs, lied about important facts, like which nursery she was in preceding certain collapses by the victims, and lied about other important facts, like in the case of Baby E's massive blood loss.

NO, the medical evidence does not support natural causes of death. Baby E lost 1/4 of his total blood supply in a sudden bleed out. That was not a natural cause of death. IMO

No there isn’t Katy. When everyone else made mistakes in the notes, or omitted notes completely, that was accepted as a mistake on a busy unit. When whenever Letby did it, it was made out to be a deliberate falsification.

You continue to ignore one of the key points in the Baby E case, time and time again. The mother described this fluid as dark and dried, specifically not fresh, not bleeding. This was nursery 1, there was another nurse in there. You really think a serial killer would attack a baby’s throat (?) and then leave the evidence long enough to dry in to the baby’s skin, in plain sight of the other staff and anyone else who may wander into the ward? How long would it take, for bleeding to dry in? So when was Letby’s attack? 8pm? Left for all to see until 9pm? And then left again for another hour.

Do you at least accept that if the mother’s account is accurate, then she did not witness Letby “mid-attack” and instead witnessed events quite some time after “attack”?

Also very lucky for Letby to have known in advance that the consultants unusually would waive the need for a post mortem, despite this baby losing almost half of his blood volume. But he didn’t go into shock, no, apparently babies can survive perfectly fine with no blood, no, this was “air embolism”.

It’s ridiculous. Absolutely ridiculous. Would they ever in a million years have thought this baby was subjected to a physical attack, were it not for Letby being there? Of course not.

 

[WaneLyrical]

Dr Dimitrova ignores the actual evidence

Baby F's blood sugar levels crash down to 0.8, when Letby hangs the bag. The blood sugar actually improves when the bag is removed.

The laceration to baby O's liver occured post mortem as there was no blood associated with that injury.

Shoo Lee has explained the baby’s results. He’s significantly more qualified than you or me to comment.

And the video you’re commenting on literally describes blood being withdrawn from the liver by Brearey.

 

[Ruthbullock]

Given that Shoo Lee claims he has witnessed a staggering EIGHT air embolisms in his career, I wonder if he believes the units he worked on should have been closed???

This is a valid point, but as the leading expert on it in Canada ( a huge country, especially compared to our little island)- we have no context for how he witnessed them, no time period for them occurring and no knowledge of if they were in separate locations. So your statement isn’t really relevant. I had to be resuscitated due to a rare medical condition- in the UK we only have 2 specialists- 1 was video called and they advised the team throughout my resuscitation. I am now under their care even though they don’t work at my local hospitals and they are based hours away.

Your statement however did make me ponder on the following;
The COCH had the larger Liverpool Teaching Hospital, but I can only recollect one reference of including them during care and seeking other opinions/transfers and that baby survived. If somethings is classed as rare in the UK it’s not unusual to have to contact a hospital even further afield than Liverpool for advice and support, often Great Ormond Street. I’m not going to assume they didn’t reach out of there local bubble to contact other experts when they were having these rare and unexplained collapses- but it’s not something we have heard about, which is quite surprising. 4 strange unexplained insulin results- you would think a second more experienced opinion would have been contacted for advice, the same when they grouped the unexplained rashes together, or further down the line suspected injections of air.

 

[WaneLyrical]

Actually, small clinic units can be very much like dark parks. During the night shifts especially because there are no guests allowed, and just staff members. If you look at the floor plan of the Neo-natal wing, you can see it is very easy to be in an isolated nursery, and be all alone with the babies, in the dark. There are only 2 nurses on duty in 4 nurseries, and one nurse will often have to go to other areas for prescriptions, errands and breaks.


It was said during the trial that the insulin was kept in a small refrigerator, which all the staff had access to. The insulin was open and available---it was not 'checked' each time it was used. There was no method of seeing who used what or if any was missing.

The most important takeaway from the insulin cases is the recognition that SOMEONE was harming babies. That was key to this case. Was it LL that took the insulin? It might have been. But it was proven that she was the only nurse that was present on the floor while the other unexplained collapses happened that same week. I guess another nurse might have poisoned one of the twins with insulin, while LL assaulted the other twin the previous day? Or maybe it was LL who assaulted them both?

BOTH of the insulin incidents involved twins, and in both cases, both twins were assaulted and collapsed on back to back nights.


What are the odds that in one hospital, there would be two sets of preemie twins, and both sets of twins would be victimised on back to back nights----one twin poisoned by insulin and the other by a forced air embolism? These twins were born several months apart, but experienced similar horrific attacks.

Was that all a coincidence? A natural occurrence?

Yes it’s a coincidence. Just like so many coincidences that have been twisted to paint this bizarre narrative.

How are the cases of E&F and L&M in any way similar, apart from the fact they are twins?

E: the damage to the intestines already likely occurred pre-birth as a result of the TTTS and reversed diastolic flow.
F: hypoglycaemia as a result of infection.

L: common hypoglycaemia that didn’t resolve because he wasn’t given enough sugar.
M: baby showed clear deterioration over the four hours preceding the apnoea.

Yet we are to believe: Letby physically attacked Baby E in the throat with something which somehow miraculously caused a catastrophic GI haemorrhage. Poisoned Baby F as a distraction the next day for some reason.

Then, 8 months later, she decided she would poison baby L over a number of days, to coincide with her moving into her new home possibly, and give a quick air embolism to Baby M as a distraction. She also managed to organise her housewarming party that day and bet on the Grand National.

Ridiculous.

 

[WaneLyrical]

Given that Shoo Lee claims he has witnessed a staggering EIGHT air embolisms in his career, I wonder if he believes the units he worked on should have been closed???

If you’d bothered to listen to him, maybe you’d understand.

 

[WaneLyrical]

Yes, and in your view what is suspicious about any of this?

It’s the same with Letby’s entire testimony. If you consider her to be innocent, everything she says is perfectly reasonable and exactly what you’d expect her to say. But if you consider her guilty it’s all lies and indicative of guilt. I call it the Letby paradox.

Countless examples of it in her text messages. For example, when she was coming back from holiday, she was told by the doctor that the unit was full and she’d be incredibly busy. She said something along the lines of rather being on holiday and “back with a bang”. To another colleague on the day, wrote “back to earth with a bump”. So, it would appear she mixed up the idioms, as her meaning was clear.

But we can rest assured the front pages of our newspapers the following day: evil killer nurse’s chilling message: BACK WITH A BANG before she murdered two babies.