You have no idea if he handed in his registration because the complaint was "serious".
There is no evidence whatsoever that he harmed any patients.
That Guardian article is so vague it comes across as something Maltin PR got them to publish.
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
- Thread starter sleuth777
- Start date
There is no evidence whatsoever that he harmed any patients.
That Guardian article is so vague it comes across as something Maltin PR got them to publish.
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2016
- Messages
- 2,329
- Reaction score
- 10,626
So what is your theory then about why he didn’t allow the GMC investigation to go ahead and clear his name. People don’t usually spend years becoming a doctor to lose that title at the end of their career due to a false accusation. I’ve shared what is now his public record on the GMC website
Despite what has been said in the media, it's very rare for babies in a level 2 unit to suddenly die. Most babies with a very poor chance of survival will be at a level 3 apart from baby K, all of the other babies should have survived.
My theory would be more developed if the Guardian's article wasn't so vague. Also, if he was harming patients a resignation would not end any investigation.
One theory is that the complaint was BS and that is why the Guardian is being so vague. Get the innuendo out, but explain nothing. I wouldn't expect anything else from Felicity Lawrence, the "journalist" who parroted the nonsense claim that therapists told Letby to write down what she did.
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2022
- Messages
- 3,263
- Reaction score
- 10,146
Is it just me or does felicity consistently portray a pro letby stance? Its a bit like that dr bohin complaint thing. No complaint was upheld and she was held in the highest regard by her employers and the overseeing organisation within it she was in every sense very good at her job but we know how that ended, sadly.
babies 27-32 weeks do not have a poor chance of survival.
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2011
- Messages
- 71,066
- Reaction score
- 710,201
Let me refresh your memory:
[mother of Baby E: "I walked over to the incubator to see he had blood coming out of his mouth.”
Speaking slowly in a quiet voice, she told jurors: “I could hear my son crying and it was like nothing I had heard before and … I walked over to the incubator to see he had blood coming out of his mouth.”
Becoming emotional, the woman said she was “panicking because I felt like there was something wrong”.
She added: “It was a sound that shouldn’t have come from a tiny baby. I can’t explain what that sound was. It was horrendous. More like a scream than a cry. I could hear it in the little corridor.”
The woman described how she had gone to the neonatal unit to feed them at about 9pm on 3 August 2015 when she heard Baby E’s “horrendous” screams from the corridor.
Letby was the only nurse in the room at that time and was standing by a work station near Baby E’s incubator, the jury was told.
She asked Letby what was wrong with her son and Letby replied that the bleeding had been caused by a feeding tube rubbing his throat, the court heard. The mother said she accepted the explanation but was still concerned.
Mother tells Lucy Letby murder trial she heard baby’s ‘horrendous’ screams
Nurse was allegedly in process of killing newborn by injecting him with air before his mother walked in, jury told
When mom walked in, the only nurse there was Lucy, and blood was coming from his mouth.
The baby was actively bleeding...
The attack had just happened as Mum arrived.
NO
YES, he did go into shock. He totally collapsed twice.
I don't know where you were getting your information.
Here is from this link:
The mother is now telling the jury about the events of an evening in early August 2015. She said she went up to the post-natal ward to express breast milk 'between 7pm and 8.30pm'. She then took the expressed breast milk 'straight down' to the neonatal unit where her twins were
She said she arrived on the unit to find nurse Lucy Letby in there with her two sons. 'I could hear my son crying. I walked over to the incubator to see he had blood coming out of his mouth', she said
The mother says Child E's crying 'was a sound that shouldn’t have come from a tiny baby'. 'I can’t explain what that sound was, it was horrendous'
The mother asked Ms Letby what was wrong. The nurse is said to have told her that Child E's feeding tube had rubbed and caused the bleeding, she told the mum to go back to the postnatal ward and told her a registrar was on the way and she would be called if there was a problem
She told the court that she went back to the postnatal ward and called her husband. 'I knew there was something very wrong', she said
The mother has told the court how she went back down to the neonatal later that evening to find medics desperately trying to resuscitate Child E - who sadly did not recover
Indeed. I don't trust her judgement at all.
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2011
- Messages
- 71,066
- Reaction score
- 710,201
No, not right. The nurses have plenty of opportunities to be all alone, in the dark, with vulnerable newborns.
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2022
- Messages
- 3,263
- Reaction score
- 10,146
It is as i remember. One observation and a potential that i didnt make when the trial was active. She does say screaming, she also mentions the unusual nature if the screaming. She does not mention volume as far as i can recall? Anything along those lines? For staff they probably hear babies crying all day long and if they are not in the room then its impact might not reach the ear like it did with the mom.Let me refresh your memory:
[mother of Baby E: "I walked over to the incubator to see he had blood coming out of his mouth.”
Speaking slowly in a quiet voice, she told jurors: “I could hear my son crying and it was like nothing I had heard before and … I walked over to the incubator to see he had blood coming out of his mouth.”
Becoming emotional, the woman said she was “panicking because I felt like there was something wrong”.
She added: “It was a sound that shouldn’t have come from a tiny baby. I can’t explain what that sound was. It was horrendous. More like a scream than a cry. I could hear it in the little corridor.”
The woman described how she had gone to the neonatal unit to feed them at about 9pm on 3 August 2015 when she heard Baby E’s “horrendous” screams from the corridor.
Letby was the only nurse in the room at that time and was standing by a work station near Baby E’s incubator, the jury was told.
She asked Letby what was wrong with her son and Letby replied that the bleeding had been caused by a feeding tube rubbing his throat, the court heard. The mother said she accepted the explanation but was still concerned.
Mother tells Lucy Letby murder trial she heard baby’s ‘horrendous’ screams
Nurse was allegedly in process of killing newborn by injecting him with air before his mother walked in, jury toldwww.theguardian.com
When mom walked in, the only nurse there was Lucy, and blood was coming from his mouth.
The baby was actively bleeding...
The attack had just happened as Mum arrived.
NO
YES, he did go into shock. He totally collapsed twice.
I don't know where you were getting your information.
Here is from this link:
The mother is now telling the jury about the events of an evening in early August 2015. She said she went up to the post-natal ward to express breast milk 'between 7pm and 8.30pm'. She then took the expressed breast milk 'straight down' to the neonatal unit where her twins were
She said she arrived on the unit to find nurse Lucy Letby in there with her two sons. 'I could hear my son crying. I walked over to the incubator to see he had blood coming out of his mouth', she said
The mother says Child E's crying 'was a sound that shouldn’t have come from a tiny baby'. 'I can’t explain what that sound was, it was horrendous'
The mother asked Ms Letby what was wrong. The nurse is said to have told her that Child E's feeding tube had rubbed and caused the bleeding, she told the mum to go back to the postnatal ward and told her a registrar was on the way and she would be called if there was a problem
She told the court that she went back to the postnatal ward and called her husband. 'I knew there was something very wrong', she said
The mother has told the court how she went back down to the neonatal later that evening to find medics desperately trying to resuscitate Child E - who sadly did not recover
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2011
- Messages
- 71,066
- Reaction score
- 710,201
The mother called her husband by 9:15 to report exactly what she saw. She was crying and described the baby as screaming and bleeding from his mouth.
There was a lot of corroborating evidence for the mother's testimony.
She had expressed her milk sat the clinic at 8:30---and there was a SCHEDULED FEED @ 9 PM.
So she had corroboration that she was supposed to be in the nursery at 9 pm with her milk.
Lucy later DENIED that the mother was there at 9 pm.
At the trial the mom testified and her husband testified about her phone call to him. And they had phone records to prove that.
And Mom had evidence that there was a feeding scheduled for 9 pm for Baby E.
Also, Lucy wrote FEED OMITTED on her medical log.
But for a feed to be omitted, it takes a doctor to order that feed to be cancelled. Lucy did not put any doctor reference in her notes.
During her testimony she was asked who the doctor was. She said she couldn't remember--they asked because a doctor has to come observe the child in order to cancel their SCHEDULED FEED.
There were two doctors that would be in a position to make that cancellation----NEITHER of them did so. One doctor showed his medical notes for that day. He never made any references to any feeding issues and never observed Baby E before 9 pm---so he did not tell LL to write OMIT
The other doctor was on call and did not communicate with LL that night.
SO THAT WAS A FALSIFIED MEDICAL NOTE ON LETBY'S LOG. There was no cancelled 9 pm feed.
WHY would LL write OMIT for that 9 pm feeding?
I think she had to because she needed to deny that the Mom was in the nursery at 9 pm.
The problem for Lucy was that there was corroboration that mom did go to the nursery at 9 with breast milk, and sworn testimony from her husband that she called him, crying about Baby E screaming in pain and bleeding from the mouth.
In court, Lucy told the jury that both parents were 'mistaken' ---Lucy said the mom never went to the nursery, never saw her baby bleeding, never brought milk for her scheduled feed, so never called the father, etc.
The jury saw phone records corroborating the call, heard testimony from both grieving parents, heard testimony from the doctors saying they never cancelled the 9 pm scheduled feeding, and saw their medical notes for that evening, which were in conflict with Lucy's notes and testimony.
ALSO, the mom testified that Lucy told her, while they were in the nursery at 9 pm, Lucy said " I have already called the doctor for help"
THAT ^^^ was also a LIE.
And Lucy told the jury she never said that. But both parents rejected that claim by Lucy. And the big problem for Lucy was that there was no evidence that she ever contacted a doctor for help with E's bleeding before 9 pm.
And that is why she needed to deny that the mom was ever in the nursery at 9. Because it proved that the baby was actively bleeding hours before Lucy ever reported it to the doctors.
Baby E died about 4 hours later of a massive blood loss.
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2011
- Messages
- 71,066
- Reaction score
- 710,201
how could simcock possibly know about any internal bleeding at that time? The blood would be cleaned off his chin and all simcock would see is a crying baby. Nothing unusual there.
So? If Lucy cleaned off the blood and was attending to a baby that was crying loudly, it would be meaningless to the other nurse.
NO, most things do not point to 10 pm.
The feed time was SCHEDULED for a 9 pm feed.
The mom had two boys to feed. She expressed her milk at 8:30 pm.
She called her husband at 9:15 and her phone records were admitted into evidence corroborating that call.
BOTH parents testified under oath to that 9pm timeline.
Lucy falsified her medical log by writing OMIT 9 pm feed.
It was proven in court that there was no cancellation of that 9 Pm FEED.
Lucy had no defense against the accusation she falsified that medical note. She needed a doctor to cancel the feed and it was proven that no doctor did so.
That later call to the father was about the COLLAPSE of their baby, which happened while he was having massive blood loss. He lost 1/4 0f his total blood supply in a few hours. There was no natural medical cause for that massive bleed.
Nothing unexpected? Did everyone expect he'd lose 1/4 of his blood supply that evening, after having good medical reports earlier that day with good vitals and no concerns?
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2011
- Messages
- 71,066
- Reaction score
- 710,201
The father of Child E and Child F is now giving evidence.
12:14pm
He confirms the birth date for Child E and Child F.
Mr Johnson asks about the progress on their twins.
The father says he was "very happy" with the twins' progress before the phone call on August 3, they were doing "good".
He confirms he had gone home on the evening of August 3, and then received a phone call from his wife that night.
He tells the court the phone call he received from his wife at 9.11pm, who was "upset and very worried" about the bleeding from the baby's mouth.
He said he was sure the medical staff knew what they were doing, and she was panicking over nothing.
The second phone call was split between the midwife and his wife. He was told: "Don't panic, but get over here now."
Mr Myers asks if the bleeding was referred to at the 10.52pm phone call, rather than 9.11pm. The father replies it was not; that was referred to in the 9.11pm phone call.
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2011
- Messages
- 71,066
- Reaction score
- 710,201
Child E was 1.327kg at birth (2lb 14oz), with APGAR scores of 7/10 at 1 minute and 9/10 at five minutes (APGAR scores recording how well a baby is presenting in the minutes after birth).
Clinical notes refer to the admission of the twins to the neonatal unit.
Dr Emily Thomas made clinical notes at 2.10pm on August, noting: 'examination of [Child E] as having skin to skin on [ward round earlier that day]. Good tone and movements, handling appropriately throughout the day.'
12:56pm
Child E was placed on a small dose of insulin, given via infusion.
12:58pm
A nursing note at 5.24pm said Child E was 'self ventilating in air', blood gas reading was 'satisfactory', and feeds were increased.
1:00pm
At 7.30pm, Dr Emily Thomas made clinical notes, with a CRP reading less than 1, Child E was on 23% oxygen, and antibiotics were 'likely to stop at 36 hours as improving'.
LIVE: Lucy Letby trial, Monday, November 14
So an hour and a half later, this baby is having massive internal bleeding?
Also, Letby wrote OMIT FEED in her medical log an hour after the above medical notes? But all of the above med notes said he was feeding well, no issues.
Clinical notes refer to the admission of the twins to the neonatal unit.
Dr Emily Thomas made clinical notes at 2.10pm on August, noting: 'examination of [Child E] as having skin to skin on [ward round earlier that day]. Good tone and movements, handling appropriately throughout the day.'
12:56pm
Child E was placed on a small dose of insulin, given via infusion.
12:58pm
A nursing note at 5.24pm said Child E was 'self ventilating in air', blood gas reading was 'satisfactory', and feeds were increased.
1:00pm
At 7.30pm, Dr Emily Thomas made clinical notes, with a CRP reading less than 1, Child E was on 23% oxygen, and antibiotics were 'likely to stop at 36 hours as improving'.
LIVE: Lucy Letby trial, Monday, November 14
So an hour and a half later, this baby is having massive internal bleeding?
Also, Letby wrote OMIT FEED in her medical log an hour after the above medical notes? But all of the above med notes said he was feeding well, no issues.
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2011
- Messages
- 71,066
- Reaction score
- 710,201
I have explained why with examples in some posts upstream.
Lucy, in fact, wrote untrue information in some of her logs.
One example were when she wrote OMIT FEED ---it was proven in court that was not true. It was not cancelled by a doctor. It was not cancelled by anyone.
I showed above that the previous medical notes from other staff showed Baby E was in good condition and was eating well. He had just had his amount increased because he was doing so well.
And just an hour later, Lucy takes over his care, and she OMITS his feed, without a doctor's order?
That OMIT written in those notes was falsified by Letby. That was proven in court.
Again, that is misinformation on your part. I copied/pasted her trial testimony upthread. You are mistaken. She specifically said he was bleeding when she arrived. And the blood was a dark red, but it was not dry, it was dripping and moving.
There was no nurse present at the time the mom arrived to see the bleeding. I'm sure she was expected back soon, which might be why Lucy was so adamant and forceful in demanding that Mom leave immediately.
Well, that's not what happened so.... A serial killer DID attack a baby's throat but she was caught off guard when mom arrived.
And there is little chance of anyone wandering into a patient's nursery in critical care unit. It was 9PM, past guest time.
Again, it was NOT DRIED according to Mom.
nope
Lucy was rarely worried about anything like that. She seemed to thrive on the trill of danger. Many of the victims had autopsies, btw.
You have a good point there. By this time, some were getting suspicious. Rightfully so.
Bay E had very good medical observation notes all day. His vitals were good, he was eating well, he had skin to skin cuddles much of the day with his parents. There was talk of the twins being released soon.
At 7:30 pm the observation notes from the previous shift said he had his feed increased, and his vitals were good and he was improving.
An hour later Letby is writing OMIT FEED on his folder and he is seen screaming in pain and bleeding from the mouth.
Four hours later he dies of massive internal bleeding. Obviously there would be concerns. Especially when Lucy could not explain who cancelled the 9 pm feed.
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2011
- Messages
- 71,066
- Reaction score
- 710,201
It's pretty interesting that so many incidents of AE were happening in this unit considering they had done a lot to prevent it in recent years.
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2011
- Messages
- 71,066
- Reaction score
- 710,201
She did hear the baby crying. So what? The blood was cleaned off by then. Why would a nurse in that unit be shocked by a crying baby? He was being attended to by Lucy so why would the other nurse concern herself with that?
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2011
- Messages
- 71,066
- Reaction score
- 710,201
While I am down this baby E Rabbit hole, here is something else that always bothered me about LL's notes from that day:
Letby's note for 8pm at August 3 is written, written at 4.51am retrospectively, to say: "Mummy was present at start of shift attending to cares."
2:16pm
A further Letby note reads: 'Prior to 9pm feed, 16ml 'mucky' slightly bile stained aspirate' recorded for Child E.
The neonatal fluid chart for the 9pm column records, under milk feeds, 'omitted', and the word 'discarded' is in a non-specific line. For aspirates, the note '16ml mucky' is made.
To the right of that, at the 10pm column, is '15ml fresh blood' on aspirates.
The two columns for that chart are signed by Lucy Letby's initials.
OKAY, this^^^ seems sketchy.
An hour before LL comes on her shift at 8 pm, the designated nurse for baby E makes her final notes of the shift. Baby E had good vital signs, he had skin to skin cuddles with his parents much of the day, his breathing was improving to only needing 25% oxygen, AND THEY INCREASED HIS MILK ALLOWANCE because he was feeding so well.
An hour later, in Letby's 8 pm notes, she writes that his feeding is to be omitted sand his milk was discarded by her.
Letby's note for 8pm at August 3 is written, written at 4.51am retrospectively, to say: "Mummy was present at start of shift attending to cares."
A further Letby note reads: '
Prior to 9pm feed, 16ml 'mucky' slightly bile stained aspirate' recorded for Child E.
The neonatal fluid chart for the 9pm column records, under milk feeds, 'omitted', and the word 'discarded' is in a non-specific line.
For aspirates, the note '16ml mucky' is made.
To the right of that, at the 10pm column, is '15ml fresh blood' on aspirates.
The two columns for that chart are signed by Lucy Letby's initials.
OKAY--so at 7 pm the designated nurse for baby E wrote that the milk was being increased in future feeds because he was doing so well.
At 9 pm, Lucy writes that he is not allowed to eat at all at his 9 pm feed and she 'discarded' his milk.
NOTHING in her notes about a doctor cancelling his 9 pm feed. And in the trial it was shown that no doctors did make that order to cancel.
SO LUCY MADE THAT UP. These are legally binding medical logs---illegal to write false info.
On top of that, she says she discarded the breast milk? WHAAT MILK? Didn't Lucy claim that the mom didn't show ups until 10? How would she discard the milk at 9?
BESIDES, E was a twin. Both babies were scheduled to feed at 9. Why would she discard perfectly fresh milk when the twin needed it too?
But obviously the biggest issue is why would she start her shift by writing that the 9 pm feed was to be OMITTED when it was never omitted by a doctor at all?
Letby's note for 8pm at August 3 is written, written at 4.51am retrospectively, to say: "Mummy was present at start of shift attending to cares."
2:16pm
A further Letby note reads: 'Prior to 9pm feed, 16ml 'mucky' slightly bile stained aspirate' recorded for Child E.
The neonatal fluid chart for the 9pm column records, under milk feeds, 'omitted', and the word 'discarded' is in a non-specific line. For aspirates, the note '16ml mucky' is made.
To the right of that, at the 10pm column, is '15ml fresh blood' on aspirates.
The two columns for that chart are signed by Lucy Letby's initials.
OKAY, this^^^ seems sketchy.
An hour before LL comes on her shift at 8 pm, the designated nurse for baby E makes her final notes of the shift. Baby E had good vital signs, he had skin to skin cuddles with his parents much of the day, his breathing was improving to only needing 25% oxygen, AND THEY INCREASED HIS MILK ALLOWANCE because he was feeding so well.
An hour later, in Letby's 8 pm notes, she writes that his feeding is to be omitted sand his milk was discarded by her.
Letby's note for 8pm at August 3 is written, written at 4.51am retrospectively, to say: "Mummy was present at start of shift attending to cares."
A further Letby note reads: '
Prior to 9pm feed, 16ml 'mucky' slightly bile stained aspirate' recorded for Child E.
The neonatal fluid chart for the 9pm column records, under milk feeds, 'omitted', and the word 'discarded' is in a non-specific line.
For aspirates, the note '16ml mucky' is made.
To the right of that, at the 10pm column, is '15ml fresh blood' on aspirates.
The two columns for that chart are signed by Lucy Letby's initials.
OKAY--so at 7 pm the designated nurse for baby E wrote that the milk was being increased in future feeds because he was doing so well.
At 9 pm, Lucy writes that he is not allowed to eat at all at his 9 pm feed and she 'discarded' his milk.
NOTHING in her notes about a doctor cancelling his 9 pm feed. And in the trial it was shown that no doctors did make that order to cancel.
SO LUCY MADE THAT UP. These are legally binding medical logs---illegal to write false info.
On top of that, she says she discarded the breast milk? WHAAT MILK? Didn't Lucy claim that the mom didn't show ups until 10? How would she discard the milk at 9?
BESIDES, E was a twin. Both babies were scheduled to feed at 9. Why would she discard perfectly fresh milk when the twin needed it too?
But obviously the biggest issue is why would she start her shift by writing that the 9 pm feed was to be OMITTED when it was never omitted by a doctor at all?
Indeed. But the issue here is obvious - the prosecution would find it almost impossible to unearth another Dr Evans, whilst the defence would now be armed with a tsunami of its own experts. Conditions would be incredibly favourable to Letby.
(This is very likely why the CPS decided not to charge her with further deaths - no one was going to do for them what the good doctor did, but even if another Dewi existed, he’d be drowned out by a wave of far more learned professionals. His theories vs theirs? At bare minimum a jury would have had good grounds for reasonable doubt.)
What would be incredibly interesting, would be to hand over the notes from the original 60 cases Dr Evans reviewed, to a panel of independent experts. What collapses, if any, would they find suspicious? How many, if any, would overlap with Dewi’s? Might they discover suspicious incidents that Dewi missed? Would they be able to find innocent explanations for some, or even all, of Dewi’s suspicious incidents?
And then, and only then, should any suspicious incidents be compared to the hospital’s rota. This new shift chart would almost certainly look vastly different (it looked vastly different the first time Dewi reported his findings, after all!) and we’d see quite clearly what a farce this all is.
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2011
- Messages
- 71,066
- Reaction score
- 710,201
I think this conveniently ignores the facts —Babies D, G, H, I, J, L, M, N, O and P would have still met the new gestational threshold. 11 of the 17 babies, 4 of the 7 deaths.
So these babies would have been in the new revised COCH---would they have died? I doubt it.
The drop in mortality had little to do with gestational changes—and everything to do with removing a dangerous nurse, imo
Nothing in either of the above reports would disprove the prosecution's strong case.
The trial was fair and just. Nurse Letby had as much time as she wanted to speak up for herself and explain her actions. She had one of the best attorneys in the UK representing her.
The judge was impartial and very professional. The jurors were dedicated and attentive. They acquitted her of the charges they did not believe were proved beyond a reasonable doubt. They deserve respect, IMO.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
Guardians Monthly Goal
Online statistics
- Members online
- 199
- Guests online
- 1,425
- Total visitors
- 1,624