Lucy Letby #5

[IamSpartacus]

I’ve seen first hand through my job where a very senior and well respected consultant surgeon removed the wrong from ovary from a patient and left her infertile. He refused to accept blame and then tried to blame the student nurses who were also in the theatre (but didn’t touch the patient). It all got swept under the carpet and he got transferred to a different hospital.

Has anyone seen the series ‘Bodies’, written by Jed Mercurio? About an Obs/Gyn ward. The writer was a doctor before quitting to become a writer, so I believe it’s quite an accurate portrayal. The incompetency and arrogance of the consultants and managers is breathtaking, and so much a-covering.
It’s very good television but quite disturbing, so I can well believe this story.

 

[Sleepthiefismyfavourite]

Has anyone seen the series ‘Bodies’, written by Jed Mercurio? About an Obs/Gyn ward. The writer was a doctor before quitting to become a writer, so I believe it’s quite an accurate portrayal. The incompetency and arrogance of the consultants and managers is breathtaking, and so much a-covering.
It’s very good television but quite disturbing, so I can well believe this story.

Bodies is amazing!!!

 

[PatienceImpatient]

I think the answer to that lies in who else she searched on fb. If it was many patients then she could very well not remember. However if it was a select few, you'd expect some sort of recollection of looking.

Also, some families she searched for 7 times. That’s not just one quick look, that’s 7 very purposeful searches. It’s like she wanted to bask in their misery. Or maybe she looked them up to see if they were posting any suspicious around the death of their babies? Either way it is grotesque.

 

[Allmyownopinion]

Section 34 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act (CJPOA) 1994. Section 34 allows an inference to be drawn if a suspect is silent when questioned under caution prior to charge and subsequently relies upon a relevant fact at Court, which he or she could reasonably have been expected to mention when questioned

Burn there is so much bickering on these posts it’s getting hard to keep up with the facts, they’re getting lost in the back & forth between some posters! When someone states something I’m not sure about I look it up before commenting I don’t get the constant pulling people up instead so I appreciate this response so much! Oh & we need an eye roll emoji on the like button so much!!!!!

 

[MmmB777]

Omg..yes definitely the guy with a glittering 40+ year career is the baddy. Plot twist eh! Didn’t see it coming but yep- he’s absolutely chilling with all his bloody experience and knowledge. Gross. Definitely a sicko. And remember that one time a judge said he shouldn’t have done something a certain way- lying devious b I reckon. Anyone know if he designed Chester neonatal unit and whether he checked the machines? He can’t even use the buggers so probs not! What’s his handwriting like? Does he moonlight as a therapist and what’s his fertility like??

 

[Lucyxxxx]

Also, some families she searched for 7 times. That’s not just one quick look, that’s 7 very purposeful searches. It’s like she wanted to bask in their misery. Or maybe she looked them up to see if they were posting any suspicious around the death of their babies? Either way it is grotesque.

Yeah I hear you but for me it just shows she is abit strange, maybe even over attached and unprofessional but for me personally that's about it. I'm sure in the months ahead alot of witnesses will say she seemed abit off/odd.

Omg..yes definitely the guy with a glittering 40+ year career is the baddy. Plot twist eh! Didn’t see it coming but yep- he’s absolutely chilling with all his bloody experience and knowledge. Gross. Definitely a sicko. And remember that one time a judge said he shouldn’t have done something a certain way- lying devious b I reckon. Anyone know if he designed Chester neonatal unit and whether he checked the machines? He can’t even use the buggers so probs not! What’s his handwriting like? Does he moonlight as a therapist and what’s his fertility like??

Had to re read this to check you was being sarcastic.

 

[mchammerr]

Has anyone seen the series ‘Bodies’, written by Jed Mercurio? About an Obs/Gyn ward. The writer was a doctor before quitting to become a writer, so I believe it’s quite an accurate portrayal. The incompetency and arrogance of the consultants and managers is breathtaking, and so much a-covering.
It’s very good television but quite disturbing, so I can well believe this story.

Yes and it terrified me to be honest.

 

[Weeder]

Omg..yes definitely the guy with a glittering 40+ year career is the baddy. Plot twist eh! Didn’t see it coming but yep- he’s absolutely chilling with all his bloody experience and knowledge. Gross. Definitely a sicko. And remember that one time a judge said he shouldn’t have done something a certain way- lying devious b I reckon. Anyone know if he designed Chester neonatal unit and whether he checked the machines? He can’t even use the buggers so probs not! What’s his handwriting like? Does he moonlight as a therapist and what’s his fertility like??

Bore off
You know full well we're analysing everything, and that would include all witnesses. Those 40 yrs didn't teach him any humility, clearly, and it's a huge problem in the NHS.
No one is saying he's a 'baddy', just that he's 'one of those' (anyone who's worked in the NHS will understand) arrogant types. Stop trying to shut down discussion. It's coming across you're proper haughty and arrogant yourself.

I don't know why you're so het up about people casting doubts on witnesses statements and actions. It's the whole point of going to court surely?

 

[mchammerr]

This thread moves fast enough it really does not need constant bickering. Maybe just scroll on if you feel the need to argue? Not aimed at anyone - just saying

 

[showerbelle]

Bore off
You know full well we're analysing everything, and that would include all witnesses. Those 40 yrs didn't teach him any humility, clearly, and it's a huge problem in the NHS.
No one is saying he's a 'baddy', just that he's 'one of those' (anyone who's worked in the NHS will understand) arrogant types. Stop trying to shut down discussion. It's coming across you're proper haughty and arrogant yourself.

I don't know why you're so het up about people casting doubts on witnesses statements and actions. It's the whole point of going to court surely?

How on earth have you ascertained that he's arrogant?! We didn't see the testimony we were just relayed key points. He's the expert witness in probably one of the most prolific and emotive trials in decades (potentially even ever?) who as well as being an experienced doctor is well versed in appearing in court. He was being questioned on his knowledge and how relevant it is, which is a huge thing for the jury so of course he defended that. The bit about intubation I don't really see is an issue, if he hasn't been on a ward for many years of course he shouldn't say with certainty yep I'm safe to do that, it doesn't undermine the fact he knows the theory and understands the repercussions of x, y or z.

I can see why the relvance is being questioned, I did it myself earlier in the thread, but some posters seem to be getting oddly personal and deducing all sorts about him as a person rather than his work. The latter is surely the thing up for discussion. Having someone who has basically been working in the field since it's conception who is an expert in evaluating injuries to children and babies along with a current, practicing consultant is a great mix imo.

 

[Weeder]

This thread moves fast enough it really does not need constant bickering. Maybe just scroll on if you feel the need to argue? Not aimed at anyone - just saying

You're right.. And I'm meant to be a grown up

I'm imagining those poor families this weekend. They must be so destroyed. I can't imagine being surrounded by a case like this, which would have been landed on them, whike grieving for their babies. Going from grief to this? Dragging on for years and a possible not guilty and never knowing in sight. It's unimaginable.

How on earth have you ascertained that he's arrogant?! We didn't see the testimony we were just relayed key points. He's the expert witness in probably one of the most prolific and emotive trials in decades (potentially even ever?) who as well as being an experienced doctor is well versed in appearing in court. He was being questioned on his knowledge and how relevant it is, which is a huge thing for the jury so of course he defended that. The bit about intubation I don't really see is an issue, if he hasn't been on a ward for many years of course he shouldn't say with certainty yep I'm safe to do that, it doesn't undermine the fact he knows the theory and understands the repercussions of x, y or z.

I can see why the relvance is being questioned, I did it myself earlier in the thread, but some posters seem to be getting oddly personal and deducing all sorts about him as a person rather than his work. The latter is surely the thing up for discussion. Having someone who has basically been working in the field since it's conception who is an expert in evaluating injuries to children and babies along with a current, practicing consultant is a great mix imo.

Like I said, it's the thing about still being able to intubate a new born.
It came over very arrogantly.

I don't doubt his veracity and experience, or anything else he's said. Just that in a handful of threads, comments, discussuons and thoughts I found his communication of that part arrogant. It's a small judgement amongst a million I'll make in the next 6 months.

 

[TreeBranch]

Re: Dr. Evans and his vast previous clinical experience- could it be that the prosecution are expecting LL to claim that she did some things against recommended procedures because it was “how she was trained” or “the old school way of doing things”?

I’m not a nurse but do work in health care. I started my degree 15 years ago and have studied, worked, and now work in an examining team for the profession (alongside my ‘day job’ in clinic). Things have changed quite a bit since I started out in this field.

When examining students and assessing their clinical competency, we often have students who will do things that are…. Not necessarily wrong as such, but are not the way we do things now (e.g. they might perform certain procedures stood/seated a specific way when we would normally do them slightly differently now). We always ask the student why they do it this way, and nine out of ten times it will be because their clinical supervisor/educator does it that way because that’s how they were trained 10, 15, 20+ years ago. We can verify this and say “yup that’s how we used to do it but now we do X instead of Y”, but there is a clear reason they do it that way.

In some cases, they are just making it up and don’t know what they’re doing.

I wonder if this person has been brought in because he will be able to verify “yes that is a way we used to do things 15 years ago” or “no that has never been standard or recommended practice”.

I definitely think they need somebody currently or very recently practicing as well, but I think somebody with the breadth of knowledge as Dr. Evans is an asset to the team too.

Edit to add: if practicing of course you should be keeping up with current recommended procedures etc. but in my experience not everybody does.

 

[Tofino]

Having someone who has basically been working in the field since it's conception who is an expert in evaluating injuries to children and babies along with a current, practicing consultant is a great mix imo.

I think it’s going to be a really strong mix if the other expert witness has more recent practicing experience. I’m expecting both their testimonies to support each other because the prosecution are not going to use two medical experts that disagree. So I think the combination of them both will be very strong and avoid any doubt about whether Dr Dewi’s recent experience is lacking.

 

[junkme]

I had twin babies in a NICU department, this case feels so close to home. The trust you put in rhe medical staff to care for your babies is immense. I really don't know what to think. All I know is these poor families need real answers and justice, it won't bring their precious babies back but it may give them some level of peace.

 

[Tofino]

Also have to remember it’s over 6 years since Lucy stopped working with babies. And recent developments to neonatal care in the last 6-7 years won’t be relevant to her cases anyway.

Thank you for such a measured and detailed Wiki, especially given the subject matter . I was going to back to the start but can only see threads 4 and 5 - am I missing the previous threads or is the info from them now all in the Wiki? Thanks

The early 3 should be there they are just not linked for some reason. You may need to go to the off topic section to scroll down.

 

[Milktray]

Absolute nonsense. It is her legal right to remain silent - the judge (and solicitor/barrister) would likely advise the jury of this. A no comment interview protects an accused (be it guilty or not guilty), it is not an inference of guilt by any means. It allows anyone accused of a crime and questioned by the police to become appraised of the case against them. The police usually know at the point of questioning whether the accused will be charged or not - regardless of a no comment interview or not.

Of course they have a legal right to remain silent but the jury can most definitely draw adverse inference from this.
The police literally say it when they place someone under arrest.

You do not have to say anything. But, it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.

So if she says 'no comment' and then later tells the jury (i.e) 'it wasn't me because I was at a party', the jury may wonder why such a fact was never provided to the police in the first place and therefore conclude that she must be lying.

 

[calmyourritas]

Thank you for such a measured and detailed Wiki, especially given the subject matter . I was going to back to the start but can only see threads 4 and 5 - am I missing the previous threads or is the info from them now all in the Wiki? Thanks

I used the new fancy search bar and they are all there

Here is the first

Lucy Letby Case

Starting a thread for the trial of Lucy Letby. Trial due to start on the 4th October. Very Little news coverage so far probably to not prejudice the trial. RIP to those babies. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-merseyside-62344835.amp

tattle.life

 

[LennyBriscoe]

I used the new fancy search bar and they are all there

Here is the first

Lucy Letby Case

Starting a thread for the trial of Lucy Letby. Trial due to start on the 4th October. Very Little news coverage so far probably to not prejudice the trial. RIP to those babies. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-merseyside-62344835.amp

tattle.life

Thanks Reet

 

[Laura8868]

Honestly if I would be accused of something I haven't done it I wouldn't be able to stay silent. I will try to defend myself/give explanation.
All what she saying is " I don't remember" or no comment, it's just appears strange for me (I'm aware she maybe follow her barrister instructions but still.. how she don't feel the urge to defend herself if she is innocent?)

 

[MmmB777]

Of course they have a legal right to remain silent but the jury can most definitely draw adverse inference from this.
The police literally say it when they place someone under arrest.

You do not have to say anything. But, it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.

So if she says 'no comment' and then later tells the jury (i.e) 'it wasn't me because I was at a party', the jury may wonder why such a fact was never provided to the police in the first place and therefore conclude that she must be lying.

I personally would conclude the same if she said I don’t know why I searched grieving parents Facebook 7 times and if she now all of a sudden has a reason/excuse. So I guess we will be left with the I don’t know on that. I think that’s very disrespectful to the parents regardless of whether she’s guilty or not personally. She will know even if it’s a yeah I’m
Weird like that and look up everybody all the time because I have no life.
Also everyone that’s admitted to a little Facebook snoop - I assume this is a one off out of curiosity. You might think she’s had a look thinking “hope they’ve got support. Is there another child that the parents may get some comfort and strength from amidst their grief” etc. I can’t see any reason for 7 searches on these people. What more did she need to know to satisfy general curiosity? I can also see why if she’d had a really long and involved caring experience with these families whilst their baby was very sick that she may still have a desire to look them up or send cards (keep a photo of it ) I don’t understand that to be the case, I think the babies were under her care for a relatively short time before unexpectedly and unusually going very downhill/dying in very similar ways.