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

[Charlot123]

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.

As the saying goes, "History does not know the subjunctive mood"

The drop in mortality had little to do with gestational changes—and everything to do with removing a dangerous nurse, imo

Because the difference in time between removing a dangerous nurse and downgrading the unit was about a day or a couple, the answer is, we don't know and it is useless to even discuss "what would have...".

Nothing in either of the above reports would disprove the prosecution's strong case.

I was taught that in multiple choice tests, questions starting with "always", "never", "everything" or "nothing" are usually wrong.

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.

My opinion is not swayed because the case looked circumstantial from the very beginning. All that has changed is that now we got professionals and experts with high citation index doubting it.

 

[katydid23]

Because the difference in time between removing a dangerous nurse and downgrading the unit was about a day or a couple, the answer is, we don't know and it is useless to even discuss "what would have...".

It's kind of funny that you say above:
"it is useless to even discuss "what would have...".

But I was specifically responding to your discussion of 'what would have happened" :see below --this was what I was responding to

You have to either tell everything that happened or not mention it to fit “Letby was removed and the deaths went down” issue.

The NICU was downgraded way, way more significantly. They raised the gestational age of the babies to 32 weeks. They stopped taking in young, sick preemies, with poor chance of survival. This will lower the mortality rate, everyone understands it.

You said specifically that the new revised COCH NICU would automatically have a much lower mortality rate with the new gestational age limits.

And I am saying that 11 of the 17 babies in the charged attempted murders, and 4 of 7 in the murdered crimes would have been allowed into the NEW NICU.

So you cannot make that assumption that "This will lower the mortality rate, everyone understands it. "

In fact, we don't know that. Those babies that were victimised were not in the most poorly, most premature category at all. And they still collapsed or died at a very unusually high rate.

 

[Charlot123]

And they employed more staff

I googled. "Each additional patient added to a nurse's workload increases the odds of 30-day mortality by 16%."

This is in general, not for NICU. But seems self-evident that more staff = better care.

 

[iamshadow21]

I googled. "Each additional patient added to a nurse's workload increases the odds of 30-day mortality by 16%."

This is in general, not for NICU. But seems self-evident that more staff = better care.

Unless those staff are actively harming babies. Whenever Letby was removed, either shifted to a different shift, moved to administration, or went on holiday - the mortality rate changed accordingly. That's a correlation that has no innocent explanation.

MOO

 

[Marantz4250b]

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.

The Guardian is held up as some sort of journalistic deity with the integrity and ethics of Jebus himself (usually by the left), and they basically say this themselves in their begging letter popups on their articles, when they are nothing of the kind.

They are rampantly biased (which they are entitled to be) and their journalism is not particularly good, quite frankly. Their efforts as regards LL have been awful. At best sh*te journalism and bordering on the dishonest.

As you say, lots of what they've said has been proved to be false.

Same goes for that ridiculous article from the NewYorker.

I'm happy to repeat what I've said previously, the hands-down best reporting of LL's trials was by the Mail, and that is plainly obvious to anyone who looks at everything with an unbiased mind.

It's trendy to have a love-in with the Gruniad and treat the Mail as something akin to Hitler's personal newspaper, unfortunately. People are too concerned with taking sides and virtue signalling, rather than actually reading what is written.

Very similar to Lucy Letby "truthers", actually.

 

[Ruthbullock]

The Guardian is held up as some sort of journalistic deity with the integrity and ethics of Jebus himself (usually by the left), and they basically say this themselves in their begging letter popups on their articles, when they are nothing of the kind.

They are rampantly biased (which they are entitled to be) and their journalism is not particularly good, quite frankly. Their efforts as regards LL have been awful. At best sh*te journalism and bordering on the dishonest.

As you say, lots of what they've said has been proved to be false.

Same goes for that ridiculous article from the NewYorker.

I'm happy to repeat what I've said previously, the hands-down best reporting of LL's trials was by the Mail, and that is plainly obvious to anyone who looks at everything with an unbiased mind.

It's trendy to have a love-in with the Gruniad and treat the Mail as something akin to Hitler's personal newspaper, unfortunately. People are too concerned with taking sides and virtue signalling, rather than actually reading what is written.

Very similar to Lucy Letby "truthers", actually.

Just for your loyalty to the mail and it being your reporting of choice, they also printed an article:

While the GMC conducted its probe during the trial, a medical tribunal ordered restrictions on Professor Hindmarsh's work.

It said: ‘There is information to suggest he may pose a real risk to members of the public, if he were permitted to return to unrestricted clinical practice, given the number and nature of the concerns, involving paediatric [child] patients.’

Doctor who helped convict Lucy Letby probed over patient harm claims

A doctor who gave expert evidence in the trial of Lucy Letby was being probed at the time by the medical regulator over claims he harmed patients.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[Marantz4250b]

This thread is just getting silly now, tbh.

So, I'd ask this simple question of her supporters, given that, in legal sense of things, this is the only one that matters;

• What new and compelling* evidence (*meaning evidence which may cause a jury to return a different verdict) is there? And here I mean, evidence which has been submitted to the CCRC.

 

[Charlot123]

Unless those staff are actively harming babies. Whenever Letby was removed, either shifted to a different shift, moved to administration, or went on holiday - the mortality rate changed accordingly. That's a correlation that has no innocent explanation.

MOO

Whatever.

This case is not going to be decided in this thread, and what you are describing is not a statistical “correlation” per se. Just a subjective observation.

 

[iamshadow21]

Whatever.

This case is not going to be decided in this thread, and what you are describing is not a statistical “correlation” per se. Just a subjective observation.

Such observations aren't inherently lesser. They make up the fundamentals of scientific observation, and of detective work. In the Letby case, they're backed up with facts and witness testimony that took the better part of a year to be related in court.

It's true, we don't decide the case here. The case was decided THERE.

MOO

 

[May72031]

Just for your loyalty to the mail and it being your reporting of choice, they also printed an article:

While the GMC conducted its probe during the trial, a medical tribunal ordered restrictions on Professor Hindmarsh's work.

It said: ‘There is information to suggest he may pose a real risk to members of the public, if he were permitted to return to unrestricted clinical practice, given the number and nature of the concerns, involving paediatric [child] patients.’

Again. Too vague.

I've seen explanations for this "probe" elsewhere, but don't have official confirmation. But if it is the case these explanations are correct, then the above claims are complete BS.

 

[Ruthbullock]

This thread is just getting silly now, tbh.

So, I'd ask this simple question of her supporters, given that, in legal sense of things, this is the only one that matters;

• What new and compelling* evidence (*meaning evidence which may cause a jury to return a different verdict) is there? And here I mean, evidence which has been submitted to the CCRC.

A rather large folder was submitted, amongst that was the Shoo Lee and colleagues report (with a much deeper analysis than was shared with the public).

You are asking an impossible question- no one knows the full extent of what has been submitted to the CCRC- but that also includes yourself.

We can only discuss what may have been submitted and second guess this folder with our own perceptions taken from press conferences newspaper articles and the inquiry.

 

[Baileyboo]

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.

Do we know how many of the original 60 suspicious incidents involved Letby being on duty? Because we know she was on shift for other deaths/ collapses which there wasn't enough evidence to prove they were suspicious. Adding those to the chart wouldn't help Letby.

 

[Marantz4250b]

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.

This is the problem, the whole thing has transcended rational analysis of the facts, particularly (exclusively?) on the "nice Lucy is innocent" side of the argument.

The arguments being put up for her innocence are just getting stupid. The majority of them seem to consist of ones already tested at trial - see Dr Lee's speech at the press conference where he put forward a medical theory for one death that had already been explicitly destroyed at trial with even the defence accepting that it did not happen. So, we can say with 100% certainty that this "expert" was either not familiar with this (because he hadn't followed the case, or was deliberately introducing it in order to muddy the waters. Whichever is the correct explanation, imo, he isn't quite the "expert" that they claim he is.

The people who claim her innocent are not examining the facts and seem, to me, to be blindly grasping at any straw to backup their belief. They have no intention of actually examining the facts presented at court. It is becoming a religion, as every other conspiracy theory is.

I think I can say on behalf of every single one on this thread who thinks she's guilty, that would would happily change their stance if actual evidence were presented that she was unjustly convicted, or that hr trial was not fair and even handed. I know I would.

It's curious that we've seen a lot of new posters to this thread, almost all of whom are proclaiming her innocence. Here's a Sunday morning conspiracy theory of my own (I might start a podcast - Coffee, Bacon Butties and Conspiracies For a Lazy Sunday Morning, I'll call it), I would ask those new posters - are you being paid or receiving incentives from LL's PR firm or anyone associated with her? This is a very well known website and the discussion being shifted towards her innocence would be a very good PR coup for her, surely?

 

[Ruthbullock]

A rather large folder was submitted, amongst that was the Shoo Lee and colleagues report (with a much deeper analysis than was shared with the public).

You are asking an impossible question- no one knows the full extent of what has been submitted to the CCRC- but that also includes yourself.

We can only discuss what may have been submitted and second guess this folder with our own perceptions taken from press conferences newspaper articles and the inquiry.

According to the latest CCRC update there have been several submissions on several different aspects, including several expert reports are listed below

The International Neonatal Expert Panel Report (Dr. Shoo Lee) - A 698-page report compiled by a 14-member international panel of neonatologists and paediatricians that argues the case for alternative explanations, such as natural causes or poor care on the neonatal unit,


Joint Expert Report on Insulin/C-Peptide Testing - 86-page report focusing on the "insulin poisoning" cases (Babies F and L), which were crucial to the conviction by seven experts in immunoassays, insulin, paediatric endocrinology, and hyperinsulinism, this report argues that the blood tests used to allege insulin poisoning were misinterpreted.


Needle Theory (Baby O)- from Dr. Neil Aiton and Dr. Richard Taylor, argued that liver injuries in Baby O were caused by improper resuscitation attempts (including a needle puncturing the liver)


General Clinical Failings- a separate report with the authors unknown

The flaws in medical evidence on all sides of the Lucy Letby case

Barrister Mark McDonald claims to have the backing of a panel of world class experts who say there is no evidence any babies were deliberately harmed

www.bbc.co.uk

Lucy Letby's barrister hands fresh evidence reports to CCRC - Maltin PR

Members of the press yesterday attended the CCRC where Mark McDonald handed in his final reports that "totally undermine" the case against Lucy Letby.

www.maltinpr.com

‘Strong reasonable doubt’ over Lucy Letby insulin convictions, experts say

Exclusive: ‘No scientific justification’ to say former nurse definitely poisoned babies with insulin, according to study authors

www.theguardian.com

 

[Marantz4250b]

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.

We have no idea why they decided not to charge her with anything else.

There are only two legs to a CPS charging decision; 1) The there is a real prospect of a conviction and, 2) The a prosecution is in the public interest.

The CPS do not give reasons (as far as I'm aware) as to how they reach their decisions.

It may be, for instance, that she didn't actually do anything else.

 

[iamshadow21]

We have no idea why they decided not to charge her with anything else.

There are only two legs to a CPS charging decision; 1) The there is a real prospect of a conviction and, 2) The a prosecution is in the public interest.

The CPS do not give reasons (as far as I'm aware) as to how they reach their decisions.

It may be, for instance, that she didn't actually do anything else.

I think it was probably decided that it wasn't in the public interest, specifically, that she's already on a whole life tariff and another trial that could be as long as the first would cost millions of pounds.

I think they feel the convictions are secure, and that another trial would be redundant.

But that is just my opinion.

 

[Marantz4250b]

I think it was probably decided that it wasn't in the public interest, specifically, that she's already on a whole life tariff and another trial that could be as long as the first would cost millions of pounds.

I think they feel the convictions are secure, and that another trial would be redundant.

But that is just my opinion.

Yes, that could be a reason. I also think it may be that the evidence simply isn't available. The implication seems to be that the investigation was concerned with deaths and collapses due to dislodged breathing tubes, in the main.

I can imagine that that would be an exceptionally difficult thing to prove, especially given the passage of time.

It was said that one of the main factors driving the investigation was that breathing tubes were being dislodged on her shifts at a much higher frequency than on shifts that she wasn't on. But, as we know, prosecutions don't use statistics, in the main, just like they weren't used in her first two trials.

 

[marynnu]

What gets missed about Baby E is that not only would you contact a doctor immediately on seeing blood has come from the mouth, as a junior nurse you would also alert the shift lead. I don't think there is any evidence that she did. I would have been horrified to see such a thing, any nurse would.

 

[Sweeper2000]

This is the problem, the whole thing has transcended rational analysis of the facts, particularly (exclusively?) on the "nice Lucy is innocent" side of the argument.

The arguments being put up for her innocence are just getting stupid. The majority of them seem to consist of ones already tested at trial - see Dr Lee's speech at the press conference where he put forward a medical theory for one death that had already been explicitly destroyed at trial with even the defence accepting that it did not happen. So, we can say with 100% certainty that this "expert" was either not familiar with this (because he hadn't followed the case, or was deliberately introducing it in order to muddy the waters. Whichever is the correct explanation, imo, he isn't quite the "expert" that they claim he is.

The people who claim her innocent are not examining the facts and seem, to me, to be blindly grasping at any straw to backup their belief. They have no intention of actually examining the facts presented at court. It is becoming a religion, as every other conspiracy theory is.

I think I can say on behalf of every single one on this thread who thinks she's guilty, that would would happily change their stance if actual evidence were presented that she was unjustly convicted, or that hr trial was not fair and even handed. I know I would.

It's curious that we've seen a lot of new posters to this thread, almost all of whom are proclaiming her innocence. Here's a Sunday morning conspiracy theory of my own (I might start a podcast - Coffee, Bacon Butties and Conspiracies For a Lazy Sunday Morning, I'll call it), I would ask those new posters - are you being paid or receiving incentives from LL's PR firm or anyone associated with her? This is a very well known website and the discussion being shifted towards her innocence would be a very good PR coup for her, surely?

I think this is spot on. Ill be very honest though i think it woukd take a very thorough a d intensive examination of the evidence to see that in truth she is guilty. Any who claim innocence could always claim no direct evidence etc and ofc "there is debate about the medical.advice given at court". There are plenty who simply wouldnt be that thorough with all of it and a quick skim would miss the really deep stuff.

Ill give an example and how actually on a long term analysis we saw tge same patterns come up. Jmo and the way i looked at it, you could take any discrepancy in isolation and it wouldnt mean anyghing but after putting them together you do see incriminating events. Example when it came to her notes there was so much there that was suspect at the very least like these recent examples from tortoise, katydid and marynnu and for me putting that tigether with her answers within the police interviews and her seemingly holding back on information giving and to do it in a way that shows she knows more than shes saying is incriminating. Those cracks in the image are revealing imo.

There is allot to be said about it all. I heard someone say "that shes either the unluckiest person alive or shes guilty" i think thats true. Ben Myers also said something along the lines of "the case rests on whether you believe her or you believe the prosecutions case" which is again true, what i saw was enough reason to believe she was lying and so didnt believe her as the prosecutions narrative seemed more cohesive and compatible. Jmo

 

[Ruthbullock]

What gets missed about Baby E is that not only would you contact a doctor immediately on seeing blood has come from the mouth, as a junior nurse you would also alert the shift lead. I don't think there is any evidence that she did. I would have been horrified to see such a thing, any nurse would.

So one of the Dr on shift has confirmed his handover shift start was at 9.00 and then he always went to the paediatric unit first until 10.00 before heading to the neonatal unit. He was called about attending to baby E and was on that ward by 9.30 and with baby e until 10.10 when he submitted his report.

“Mr Myers asks about the initial stages from the first clinical note, at 10.10pm.

Dr Harkness confirms he has been asked to review Child E, following the bile-stained aspirate '30 mins ago'.

Mr Myers said all of what had happened in the 10.10pm note, had happened by 10.10pm.

Dr Harkness says this was a 40-minute period of several year ago. He said this was potentially a period of 9.30-10.10pm.

He said it would 'match up' with the note.

Dr Harkness says, from his recollection, he does not believe he left the unit as the bleed was 'something unusual' in Child E so he does not believe he went very far.

For the 11pm note, he says Letby called him into room 1, where 'Further GI blood loss and desaturation to 70%' is noted. “


Initially Dr Harkness stated he did not get called until 10 to attend the ward, however this didn’t match the time he submitted his report, having spent 40 minutes with child e and the report being done afterwards and submitted at 10.11. He testified in court his shift started around 8.30 and 9.00 and then it takes about 30 minutes to read the handover sheets for each unit, before they are then ready to start the actual shift. His hand over was at the paediatric ward, you would guess when bleeped he had to walk to the other unit and probably quickly re read the handover notes for that baby- does being at the cot side by 9.30 ( the baby was not in need of resuscitation or any emergency treatment at that point) point to a significant deliberate delay in contacting the doctor to come and see the patient, remembering the earliest he would have been available is 9.00 and at that time Letby had also only been on shift for a short period of time following her shift handover.

With regards reporting to the shift leader which was Caroline Oakley- we have very little information about that night, her witness statement is very unspecific and she seems to remember very little about any of the babies.

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Thursday, November 17

The trial of Lucy Letby, who denies murdering seven babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital neonatal unit and attempting to murder 10 more,…

www.chesterstandard.co.uk