Lucy Letby #5

[abelleza]

The NHS hospital isn’t on trail only LL. So what happens if LL is found guilty but this trial brings to light failings of the hospital? Will anything happen to them at a later date?

I’m not sure if a hospital counts as a corporation but if so they could be taken to criminal court for corporate manslaughter, which is where a companies culture/lack of safety regulations leads directly or indirectly to somebodies death.

But for sure a lot of these families would have strong cases in the civil courts to sue the tit out of the hospital. The hospital can even be ordered to directly apologise to the families for the role they played in the death of their babies. All staff involved would be covered under the hospital so could not be sued individually, unless it can be proved that they weren’t doing their contracted job/were acting outside their contracted job responsibilities.

 

[Laura8868]

The maths hurts my head with this one but the statistical 'fact' that she was simply there for every baby in isolation just isn't enough for me.

The chances are close to zero

 

[stardust1]

I’m not sure if a hospital counts as a corporation but if so they could be taken to criminal court for corporate manslaughter, which is where a companies culture/lack of safety regulations leads directly or indirectly to somebodies death.

But for sure a lot of these families would have strong cases in the civil courts to sue the tit out of the hospital. The hospital can even be ordered to directly apologise to the families for the role they played in the death of their babies. All staff involved would be covered under the hospital so could not be sued individually, unless it can be proved that they weren’t doing their contracted job/were acting outside their contracted job responsibilities.

What a horrendous nightmare for all families involved. I hope the families get everything they deserve in terms of justice and answers but ultimately it’s never going to bring their babies backI wonder if some families will chose to just let it go for their own sanity.

 

[Laura8868]

@stardust1 oh absolutely, people are made scapegoats all the time and the NHS and social care in particular have been known for it. Look at Baby P, was it Sharon Shoesmith? But yes, I think with Lucy Letby even this would be taking scapegoating too far when you look at amount of agencies involved, amount of time to gather evidence etc, costs etc.

Fully agree.

 

[Crusty_punk]

The NHS hospital isn’t on trail only LL. So what happens if LL is found guilty but this trial brings to light failings of the hospital? Will anything happen to them at a later date?

I work in personal injury and theres already talks of an enquiry and clinical negligence case against the trust. The NHS and hospitals gets sued every day so parents will also go down that route irregardless of if LL is found guilty. I imagine this won't be out of the news and various courts for a long time yet.

 

[stardust1]

I work in personal injury and theres already talks of an enquiry and clinical negligence case against the trust. The NHS and hospitals gets sued every day so parents will also go down that route irregardless of if LL is found guilty. I imagine this won't be out of the news and various courts for a long time yet.

Would they just be awarded some sort of compo if the trust was found guilty? So nothing would happen to the staff personally?

 

[Skellig]

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.

The fact that she brought home medical records for one ( or more ) of the babies killed.. thats a trophy. Something to remind her of her success in killing. The excitement in getting away with it.

Serial killers also take souvenirs to sort of fuel their fantasy.. she wouldn't have been able to. Instead she seems to have gotten a massive kick out of their social media. Seeing ( presumably) RIP posts.. pictures.. messages from the parents family and friends .. she got a massive kick out of that. She seems to have craved it.

It isn't surprising at all to me, from a medical perspective that she was constantly on their social media. Psychopaths and narcissists LIVE off this and for me it's what me realise she was more than likely guilty. Imagine if Ted Bundy had access to Facebook?? Exactly.

She would have felt so much power seeing those posts. Playing god and getting a kick out of people thinking she was loving nurse. Psychopaths and narcissists love to have people thinking they are angels.

Some people who kill crave that feeling they felt when they killed- like a drug addict craving a high. Seeing those posts on social media fed her need for that feeling again. It obviously didn't satisfy her enough and that's why she killed and attempted to kill so many more babies.

 

[anotheronebitesthedust.1]

Because it’s the NHS? The NHS is a sinking ship. It’s a mixture of lack of staff, funds being misappropriated, too much money being spent on managerial staff who sit around twiddling their thumbs and patting each other on the back all day, whilst front line staff struggle to offer basic level care with broken equipment and everyone doing the work of three people. Of course the vast majority of NHS staff are good people trying their best, but it NHS culture will never change because the front line staff aren’t prioritised.
When I first qualified as a nurse and started my first job, I was full of ideas and hope which I took to management. Anything that made it past my managers (which was not much) was quickly poopood by upper management. I even remember writing a datix about a patient incident and being told to delete it because it ‘wasn’t appropriate’…more like it was too much hard work to deal with.

I know this is side tracking a little bit and like someone else said, two things can be true at the same time; LL could’ve killed those babies AND the hospital management allowed it to happen, over and over and over again. But the NHS will never change, things will never improve unless there is a full redo of the entire structure of the organisation.

No I do agree with being a nhs nurse for 12 years that a lot of decisions are out of our control and we have to make do with what we have as the decisions come form higher up that have no nursing experience but if you do look at the latest CQC report for maternity services for them , there are things that are within the control that a sister or ward manager can implement on their unit
It talks about staff that didn’t have adequate training - get the reps in , they are also willing to come in and work alongside nurses with devices or equipment they are unsure in
Handovers missing relevant infomation in - that’s a performance review done to each nurse itself to implement . Again patient records missing information - each nurses responsibility . Managers not focusing on competency of staff . Service not monitoring waiting times for patients

whether lucy did it or not , managers need to be held accountable for how they let the department run as badly as it did on things they can manage themselves without Approval from higher up

I work in personal injury and theres already talks of an enquiry and clinical negligence case against the trust. The NHS and hospitals gets sued every day so parents will also go down that route irregardless of if LL is found guilty. I imagine this won't be out of the news and various courts for a long time yet.

Look at the Shrewsbury maternity scandal - that’s still ongoing

 

[mRsKbRoOkS]

I actually think this also plays into the reason why it went on undetected for a while. I honestly don’t think anyone in that hospital, even if they thought “that’s a bit weird”, thought that anyone, never mind LL, would be causing these deaths intentionally.

I do really struggle with this though, the idea the hospital couldn’t possibly fathom it being intentional. I keep going over and over it….
According to the prosecution

Ravi Jayaram, a paediatric consultant, had been “uncomfortable” that Letby was alone with the 12-week premature baby (baby K) because he had “started to notice a coincidence between unexplained deaths, serious collapses and the presence of Lucy Letby”,

Then three months after the death of Baby K, in April 2016, Letby had been moved to day shifts “because the consultants were concerned about the correlation between her presence and unexpected deaths and life-threatening episodes on the night shifts”

Okay we have two scenarios here. 1. They expected intentional foul play so moved her to days to test their theory keep eye on her etc etc (so so wrong) Or 2. As many suggest, they thought it was accidental and incompetence on her part. However, if they thought the latter, would they then put her in charge of a student nurse during the day shift, as also stated by the prosecution.

They can’t have it both ways. Oh it must be incompetence but that same incompetent nurse can supervise our students?

I have mulled this over though, and think the way it played out and was allowed to continue was perhaps one or two consultants had their suspicions. They raised concerns but were knocked back from someone higher up. Eventually someone agreed to move her to days, as a way of pacifying those who had highlighted concerns, so essentially trying to make out they are doing something, and to stop any allegations leaving the trust. Those higher up didn’t take either possibilities seriously , incompetence or purposeful, so while they wanted to appear they were doing something they equally allowed letby to carry on as normal, including supervising student nurses. Someone somewhere imo has intentionally tried to sweep this under the carpet. Like there were two separate sides pulling against each other. One camp who thought Letby was behind all this and the other camp who wanted to avoid any scandal or just genuinely didn’t believe it to be true. I hope that person ,whoever they are, is held accountable after all this (if of course Letby is guilty). Because whether or not they believed the scenario, question marks were obviously raised before letby was moved to days. You don’t take those risks with such vulnerable lives, it’s always better to be safe than sorry. If letby is the cold blooded killer the prosecution is making her out to be, the day babies, had any seniors gone through the correct channels instead of keeping it in house, would more than likely still be here. So many failings it is hard to comprehend.

 

[Skellig]

Also, sorry forgot to mention her parents in that. Psychopaths do not have any empathy. IF she is guilty, she more than likely will have gotten a massive kick out of her parents believing her. As in if she fooled them, she could fool anyone.

If she is a Psychopath, she is extremely charismatic and would have been like this since childhood. She will be her parents little angel - more than likely.

Would love to see her psych analysis.

 

[Crusty_punk]

Would they just be awarded some sort of compo if the trust was found guilty? So nothing would happen to the staff personally?

In theory yes, damages are awarded on two separate calculations. General damages (which includes pain and suffering) and special damages (which covers the more financial side e. g medical care and loss of earnings)
However throughout the enquiry there is always the chance more criminal activity comes to light and someone else may also be found "responsible". I suppose an example of this is Hillsborough, which was the police rather than NHS but criminal case followed as certain officers were accused of being grossly negligent and subsequently went to court on manslaughter charges.

 

[just_nicole]

So far we've heard snippets of police interviews. Part of adverse inference is that if she is seen to have refused to answer, her barrister cant defend it in court.

Think back to her rights
"If you fail to mention something which you will later rely on in court"

There are work arounds for that, but would depend on the evidence and the judge allowing it.

Unless her barrister can prove she was somehow incapable of answering that question at the time of questioning.

Ultimately the judge will decide what will be allowed to be considered by the jury.

In a similar vein if she has gone on, in further questioning to offer an answer that prosecution hasn't mentioned (because it's not their job to mention it)

Her barrister can then defend the point using the information she offered at the time of questioning.

The prosecution have done a brilliant opening, emotive words, backstory of the babies to purposely drive up emotion.

Defence has kept it relatively short, as they possibly feel their strongest points will come with the long context evidence.

Again it's opening statements prosecution are there to make it look as bad as they possibly can, Defence is there to offer reasonable doubt.

Both sides already know their strongest and weakest points and will present their case accordingly (you'd hope)

Sorry post reads as rambling in parts, baby brain is hitting haaaard today and haven't had a chance to see if anyone has already mentioned this

 

[Milktray]

I honestly don’t see how anybody can think she’s innocent.

I don't think she's innocent, but I hope to be proved completely wrong.

 

[Lucyxxxx]

Her defences language does niggle at me.

In theory yes, damages are awarded on two separate calculations. General damages (which includes pain and suffering) and special damages (which covers the more financial side e. g medical care and loss of earnings)
However throughout the enquiry there is always the chance more criminal activity comes to light and someone else may also be found "responsible". I suppose an example of this is Hillsborough, which was the police rather than NHS but criminal case followed as certain officers were accused of being grossly negligent and subsequently went to court on manslaughter charges.

And coincidentaly defended by Ben Myers I believe.

 

[Crusty_punk]

No I do agree with being a nhs nurse for 12 years that a lot of decisions are out of our control and we have to make do with what we have as the decisions come form higher up that have no nursing experience but if you do look at the latest CQC report for maternity services for them , there are things that are within the control that a sister or ward manager can implement on their unit
It talks about staff that didn’t have adequate training - get the reps in , they are also willing to come in and work alongside nurses with devices or equipment they are unsure in
Handovers missing relevant infomation in - that’s a performance review done to each nurse itself to implement . Again patient records missing information - each nurses responsibility . Managers not focusing on competency of staff . Service not monitoring waiting times for patients

whether lucy did it or not , managers need to be held accountable for how they let the department run as badly as it did on things they can manage themselves without Approval from higher up


Look at the Shrewsbury maternity scandal - that’s still ongoing

Yep, Ockenden review included around 1000 cases, very sad.

 

[mchammerr]

The fact that she brought home medical records for one ( or more ) of the babies killed.. thats a trophy. Something to remind her of her success in killing. The excitement in getting away with it.

Serial killers also take souvenirs to sort of fuel their fantasy.. she wouldn't have been able to. Instead she seems to have gotten a massive kick out of their social media. Seeing ( presumably) RIP posts.. pictures.. messages from the parents family and friends .. she got a massive kick out of that. She seems to have craved it.

It isn't surprising at all to me, from a medical perspective that she was constantly on their social media. Psychopaths and narcissists LIVE off this and for me it's what me realise she was more than likely guilty. Imagine if Ted Bundy had access to Facebook?? Exactly.

She would have felt so much power seeing those posts. Playing god and getting a kick out of people thinking she was loving nurse. Psychopaths and narcissists love to have people thinking they are angels.

Some people who kill crave that feeling they felt when they killed- like a drug addict craving a high. Seeing those posts on social media fed her need for that feeling again. It obviously didn't satisfy her enough and that's why she killed and attempted to kill so many more babies.

This along with the Facebook searches, the fact she was there for all the incidents and no one else was, the doctor stating she was stood watching and not calling for help with one baby. That’s enough for me to feel she’s guilty, to me all that cannot be coincidental.

 

[stickytoffeepud]

There are a few things that flummox me.
* why did the hospital not move her to admin only duties as soon as they had the first inkling something might be amis. Surely, lives should be too precious for there to be any scope for ‘let’s see if anything else dodgy happens’
* why did that consultant not make a written record of his observations when he walked in on Lucy and the silent alarm. Everyone who works in a field where observing events is a part of the job is taught that it’s best to write things down ASAP whilst things are still fresh.

 

[Hannah_204]

I think the evidence so far is pointing to guilty but I think the reason I’m flip flopping because I can’t understand it. It’s like we don’t want to believe someone could do that.

Did Beverly Allitt ever talk about what she’d done? I can’t find much about it

 

[Skellig]

This along with the Facebook searches, the fact she was there for all the incidents and no one else was, the doctor stating she was stood watching and not calling for help with one baby. That’s enough for me to feel she’s guilty, to me all that cannot be coincidental.

Yes and what she did to kill them. I'm also confident she's guilty. My dad had to participate in a court case of fellow cardio surgeon accused of killing someone. There was literally duck all evidence and it was a 3 month case !!!! He was found not guilty but it was crazy how long it took. This is years ago.

 

[abelleza]

I do really struggle with this though, the idea the hospital couldn’t possibly fathom it being intentional. I keep going over and over it….
According to the prosecution

Ravi Jayaram, a paediatric consultant, had been “uncomfortable” that Letby was alone with the 12-week premature baby (baby K) because he had “started to notice a coincidence between unexplained deaths, serious collapses and the presence of Lucy Letby”,

Then three months after the death of Baby K, in April 2016, Letby had been moved to day shifts “because the consultants were concerned about the correlation between her presence and unexpected deaths and life-threatening episodes on the night shifts”

Okay we have two scenarios here. 1. They expected intentional foul play so moved her to days to test their theory keep eye on her etc etc (so so wrong) Or 2. As many suggest, they thought it was accidental and incompetence on her part. However, if they thought the latter, would they then put her in charge of a student nurse during the day shift, as also stated by the prosecution.

They can’t have it both ways. Oh it must be incompetence but that same incompetent nurse can supervise our students?

I have mulled this over though, and think the way it played out and was allowed to continue was perhaps one or two consultants had their suspicions. They raised concerns but were knocked back from someone higher up. Eventually someone agreed to move her to days, as a way of pacifying those who had highlighted concerns, so essentially trying to make out they are doing something, and to stop any allegations leaving the trust. Those higher up didn’t take either possibilities seriously , incompetence or purposeful, so while they wanted to appear they were doing something they equally allowed letby to carry on as normal, including supervising student nurses. Someone somewhere imo has intentionally tried to sweep this under the carpet. Like there were two separate sides pulling against each other. One camp who thought Letby was behind all this and the other camp who wanted to avoid any scandal or just genuinely didn’t believe it to be true. I hope that person ,whoever they are, is held accountable after all this (if of course Letby is guilty). Because whether or not they believed the scenario, question marks were obviously raised before letby was moved to days. You don’t take those risks with such vulnerable lives, it’s always better to be safe than sorry. If letby is the cold blooded killer the prosecution is making her out to be, the day babies, had any seniors gone through the correct channels instead of keeping it in house, would more than likely still be here. So many failings it is hard to comprehend.

I think you’ve hit the nail on the head. I’ve seen concerns be raised about nurses and other members of staff by their colleagues and upper management just sweep it under the rug. It’s too much paperwork and in a already understaffed ward/hospital, they don’t want to risk losing the staff to an investigation/having to sack them for incompetence or worse. I can easily see this happening.
In my hospital, there is a consultant surgeon who is dangerously incompetent. I don’t think he is responsible for any deaths, but certainly botched operations (I’ve even looked after a patient that he botched). Everyone is aware of this, even the fellow consultants in the same area (who are all highly competent surgeons) but very little can be done other than keeping a close eye on him.