Lucy Letby Case #10

[EllsBellsWells]

I’m still voting unsure- mainly because for me personally i feel it’s important to keep an open mind given how early on it is and how little we’ve heard up to now. Things like the note etc, I want to hear more details about that (what state of mind she was in, what the accusations did to her mental health etc) before taking it as concrete.

What worries me a lot is because there’s evidence a baby was poisoned with insulin (but not seen the evidence it was her yet) it could be someone else on the ward and if she gets sent down then that other person will still be roaming wild within the NHS. As someone else has said there were other deaths, maybe that she wasn’t even present for, and an increase in stillbirths which she can’t have been responsible for. So my worry is that it’s ‘easy’ to think she must have done it based solely on the coincidences we’ve been presented with but actually she didn’t do it and the person who did never gets investigated and found? I guess I’m worried because it does seem that someone was murdering babies, but it might be someone else. But my mind may be satisfied it was her as we go further along and more evidence emerges.

 

[MmmB777]

Genuinely, when people say the evidence for baby A is weak/circumstantial or just she was there and the mottling . are you discounting the expert witness accounts so far? For me, I’m combining the actual witness accounts with all that other information and then obviously my knowledge that we’re going to begin to see the same things (e.g. he’s already said another baby has the evidence of air administration). I appreciate it will still not be enough for some but I personally don’t have enough reason to discredit the first hand accounts and the expert witness findings.

 

[Notworthy]

Just to clarify, I had read the previous thread, I was actually alluding to the case mentioned in the article.

But an inquest heard he died less than four days later after doctors mistakenly put a breathing tube into his gullet, which connects to the stomach. It should have gone into his trachea.

They also ignored five warning signs – from X-rays and other equipment, which they wrongly assumed were faulty. Mrs Robinson said there was only one senior doctor on duty when Noah began to deteriorate on March 22.

Recording a verdict of misadventure, coroner Nicholas Rheinberg told the inquest in Chester in February 2015: ‘There were very considerable signs [the tube was incorrectly positioned] and I find it surprising these signs were not realised.’

He said an assumption that equipment was faulty was ‘extraordinary’.

‘Shouldn’t the first assumption be the tube is in the wrong place, or that’s a strong possibility?’ he asked.

‘It’s like flying an aeroplane and seeing the oil gauge come on and you assume the gauge must be wrong, rather than the oil pressure is low.’

Mrs Robinson, who now has a daughter, was dismayed by the hospital’s level of care.

There was a lot wrong in that unit and this appears to be a case that isn't included in the trial yet culminated in a death so that is atleast one death that she wasn't involved in, how many others?

 

[Deeznutslol]

Who’s not guilty in the poll can I ask?

Me currently

 

[Daisydunn15]

Genuinely, when people say the evidence for baby A is weak/circumstantial or just she was there and the mottling . are you discounting the expert witness accounts so far? For me, I’m combining the actual witness accounts with all that other information and then obviously my knowledge that we’re going to begin to see the same things (e.g. he’s already said another baby has the evidence of air administration). I appreciate it will still not be enough for some but I personally don’t have enough reason to discredit the first hand accounts and the expert witness findings.

I would query how well the witnesses can recall a specific type of mottling from 7yr ago and without any documentation to refer to, and I haven't heard anything about what makes it so different. I don't think the witnesses are above confirmation bias and being swayed by other peoples' comments.
I also felt that the defence did a good job at poking holes in the expert witness, enough to create a reasonable doubt for me although that's subjective and I know not the case for you. It's difficult for any of us to make a real judgement with the snippets we've had.
I'm also not thinking about future evidence. I'm taking the evidence for each charge as it comes. I suppose we'll need to wait for the judges instructions to the jury before we know how they're expected to consider it.
If there have been other deaths and collapses that she hasn't been charged for, then I think, in the interest of a fair trial, each charge should be considered with the evidence available for that particular charge, because it casts doubt on the 'pattern'.

Edited: double posted

 

[MmmB777]

I would query how well the witnesses can recall a specific type of mottling from 7yr ago and without any documentation to refer to, and I haven't heard anything about what makes it so different. I don't think the witnesses are above confirmation bias and being swayed by other peoples' comments.
I also felt that the defence did a good job at poking holes in the expert witness, enough to create a reasonable doubt for me although that's subjective and I know not the case for you. It's difficult for any of us to make a real judgement with the snippets we've had.
I'm also not thinking about future evidence. I'm taking the evidence for each charge as it comes. I suppose we'll need to wait for the judges instructions to the jury before we know how they're expected to consider it.
If there have been other deaths and collapses that she hasn't been charged for, then I think, in the interest of a fair trial, each charge should be considered with the evidence available for that particular charge, because it casts doubt on the 'pattern'.

Edited: double posted

Thank you. They had to give police statements much sooner than 7 years ago and there is note about it with Baby B which is the day after baby A. I feel like there’s such a general picture now that they were talking about it - even Letby herself has evidenced it in police interview. I’m also not sure why it wouldn’t be accurate - as in what would be the motivation for deliberately being inaccurate or inventing the mottling or that many people have been persuaded to think of it this way or by chance remembered it so similarly. I appreciate they absolutely SHOULD have documented it but say this wasn’t a hospital environment for one second- this many witness statements would be very strong. Especially as all have been honest about their fault and one is LL friend and said she was professional. I appreciate your different opinion. Please don’t take my response as an argument whatsoever, just wanted to share my views on the same stuff. It is interesting to hear how everybody else interprets it!

 

[Deeznutslol]

Unsure, however I don't think someone needs to be caught 'red handed'. Too many coincidences for me, plus the fact that some cases have been dropped, and there may be many more as I understand Operation Hummingbird is still ongoing. I can't see how she'll not be found NG on so many charges.

Honestly, the way it’s currently going I genuinely think she will get off on a lot of charges regardless of whether she is guilty or innocent tbh.
I also think that because so much of the evidence is circumstantial and relies on coincidence, if she only gets found guilty for some of them or a few of them, I think she could appeal them and get them overturned.
That’s my current prediction anyway.

 

[StatusWoe]

Genuinely, when people say the evidence for baby A is weak/circumstantial or just she was there and the mottling . are you discounting the expert witness accounts so far? For me, I’m combining the actual witness accounts with all that other information and then obviously my knowledge that we’re going to begin to see the same things (e.g. he’s already said another baby has the evidence of air administration). I appreciate it will still not be enough for some but I personally don’t have enough reason to discredit the first hand accounts and the expert witness findings.

I was one of those people so I'll reply to this.

I'm not discounting the witness accounts or accusing the witnesses of misremembering. I do believe the descriptions of 'unusual' mottling as it's been documented by a number of people, including Lucy Letby herself and one of the parents (the parent must have thought it was strange because they took a photo). It's also possible that Baby A's case will look different once the evidence for the other babies has been shown - I think this is what you mean when you said we'll begin to see the same things. But I'm judging the evidence for baby A based on what's been said so far, and imo that's not enough to link Lucy to the death. I just have more questions:

-There's evidence of air administration in Baby A, but is this the cause of death or a 'side-effect' of some other procedure/condition? Even if it's something rare, that doesn't mean there isn't another explanation for those findings.
-How can we be sure that the death wasn't the result of a mistake made by staff on the ward?
-If it's concluded that the only explanation for the collapse is a deliberate act of harm, how do we know that Lucy is responsible and not another nurse or doctor?

To be fair, a lot of my confusion is due to total ignorance lack of knowledge regarding medical procedures. So it's pretty hard for me to judge what is or isn't normal in a neonatal setting.

 

[White]

Report due to typo: Unsure, however I don't think someone needs to be caught 'red handed'. Too many coincidences for me, plus the fact that some cases have been dropped, and there may be many more as I understand Operation Hummingbird is still ongoing. I can't see how she'll be found NG on so many charges.

Tragic to find that the doctors brought their concerns to management, but were told not to cause a fuss. Of course this isn't a hospital enquiry so it's not going to be said who management wise, etc would be responsible for not starting enquiries into the deaths/coincidences. So many more precious young lives, and trauma to the families, could have been prevented. This needs to be investigated.

 

[paulpercy666]

ultimately we all have differing opinions so it feels slightly redundant to keep rehashing “who thinks she’s innocent/guilty and why” we can only go off the limited evidence we have heard and at the end of the day, it’s sort of irrelevant what we think (i see the irony of being part of this thread lol) so it’s not like anyone needs to convince anyone else of her guilt or innocence

 

[jackolantern]

ultimately we all have differing opinions so it feels slightly redundant to keep rehashing “who thinks she’s innocent/guilty and why” we can only go off the limited evidence we have heard and at the end of the day, it’s sort of irrelevant what we think (i see the irony of being part of this thread lol) so it’s not like anyone needs to convince anyone else of her guilt or innocence

What else would we talk about?

 

[Deeznutslol]

ultimately we all have differing opinions so it feels slightly redundant to keep rehashing “who thinks she’s innocent/guilty and why” we can only go off the limited evidence we have heard and at the end of the day, it’s sort of irrelevant what we think (i see the irony of being part of this thread lol) so it’s not like anyone needs to convince anyone else of her guilt or innocence

Yes I agree tbh, I can understand why people do it but I don’t think it’s particularly productive when people are constantly trying to bring others round to their way of thinking to the point it actually becomes aggressive and derails the thread (and this is happening on both sides, guilty and innocent!). End of the day this is not a black and white case and I think this is shown by the extreme variation in opinion which can be seen throughout any discussion on this case.
I’d say here is a much nicer place to discuss than the fb groups though as it’s fairly moderated.

 

[MmmB777]

I was one of those people so I'll reply to this.

I'm not discounting the witness accounts or accusing the witnesses of misremembering. I do believe the descriptions of 'unusual' mottling as it's been documented by a number of people, including Lucy Letby herself and one of the parents (the parent must have thought it was strange because they took a photo). It's also possible that Baby A's case will look different once the evidence for the other babies has been shown - I think this is what you mean when you said we'll begin to see the same things. But I'm judging the evidence for baby A based on what's been said so far, and imo that's not enough to link Lucy to the death. I just have more questions:

-There's evidence of air administration in Baby A, but is this the cause of death or a 'side-effect' of some other procedure/condition? Even if it's something rare, that doesn't mean there isn't another explanation for those findings.
-How can we be sure that the death wasn't the result of a mistake made by staff on the ward?
-If it's concluded that the only explanation for the collapse is a deliberate act of harm, how do we know that Lucy is responsible and not another nurse or doctor?

To be fair, a lot of my confusion is due to total ignorance lack of knowledge regarding medical procedures. So it's pretty hard for me to judge what is or isn't normal in a neonatal setting.

Thank you! I agree with lots of what you’ve said there.
I think we’ve heard and will hear that the air is extremely likely administered and why. We’ve scratched the surface of why that is - placement and volume and I think more experts will describe that further. Of course they can’t say 100% (very little can be said with 100% certainty) but for me it makes an extremely compelling picture. And again I do take everything else together so we will hear of this being the case over again and I don’t see it as a coincidence, I see it as such a tiny tiny chance these things can happen again in different circumstances for a different baby. So for example-baby A has this highly unusual placement and volume of air and myers says well your study isn’t good enough, no neonates in the first days of life. The answer is it is extremely rare that they die. Then it’s extremely rare that they die from this. So here if we say this case could have been accidental air in the line (doesn’t explain placement) or sepsis (that there is no evidence of). I appreciate that will cause doubt for people but it’s not good enough for me.
We’re then going to see this high volume and highly unusual placement (Only ever seen in these babies in this case) again and we’re presumably going to have to accept another set of circumstances and mistakes and natural causes that could have caused it when we’re going to hear from many experts that say it with almost certainty was administered and that it’s extremely rare. So it just doesn’t add up to me that it could be so many strange and unfortunate circumstances when it’s happening again and again. When it’s already a rare occurrence that it happens at all. It’s all of that added to the fact these babies didn’t have a grave outlook etc. That these mistakes happen soon after intervention with LL each time. It’s just a much broader picture for me. I’m writing in such a rush I’m sure none of that made a lot of sense thank you for your response. I don’t think your questions or reasons for doubt are outrageous whatsoever. Just explaining how I see it. Thanks

 

[Daisydunn15]

ultimately we all have differing opinions so it feels slightly redundant to keep rehashing “who thinks she’s innocent/guilty and why” we can only go off the limited evidence we have heard and at the end of the day, it’s sort of irrelevant what we think (i see the irony of being part of this thread lol) so it’s not like anyone needs to convince anyone else of her guilt or innocence

I quite like people expressing their view at the start of the thread with a new poll. I don't think its rehashing because we've usually had new evidence by the time a new thread starts. It's interesting to me to find how people may change their view thread to thread or to see why their interpretation has brought them to their decision

 

[struggs123]

I'm undecided overall and open minded. In regards to baby A my personal view is that something happened that shouldn't have, but it doesn't seem clear or conclusive to me from what we have heard whether this was purposeful or due to incompetence, and more importantly in this case whether LL was the one to do it. I was wondering before the trial commenced how they would fill 6 months but seems clear now that its likely every charge will require a lot of time to go through as there probably isn't anything conclusive.

 

[OH.FFS]

He’s back reporting from court today : https://www.chesterstandard.co.uk/news/23075662.live-lucy-letby-trial-tuesday-october-25/

 

[Tofino]

He’s back reporting from court today : https://www.chesterstandard.co.uk/news/23075662.live-lucy-letby-trial-tuesday-october-25/

I can’t believe he hasn’t even provided us with an apology or any sort of explanation for abandoning us with no warning!

 

[Weeder]

I can't cope with this for 6 months. I dreamt about putting IVs up last night briefly, it turned in to wandering around an amalgamation of all the places I worked because I couldn't find the patient and then the IV bag had fish in it.

I'm still on the fence with Baby A. For clarity I think the mottling might have happened but I think we have to consider it's description isn't consistent or indicative of anything . Inexperienced doctors who don't record things, along with inexperienced nurses aren't good witnesses.
The air on xray we're yet to examine, I'd like to think they will look at all causes, I'm still not convinced it couldn't be accumulative. I simply do not trust medical witnesses... I will question everything.


If she did it time will tell. Having seen misdiagnosis, scapegoating, conspiracies of silence and confirmation bias in the NHS, plus the worryingly poor standards at this particular unit I need evidence.

So I'm still NG baby A and on the fence for ALL the others.

 

[Tofino]

Mark Dowling just shared this article which I had not seen, it has a lot more info about the doctor yesterday than I have seen anywhere else.

Lucy Letby trial: Consultant tells court skin marks on dying baby ‘didn’t fit with anything he’d seen’

THE unusual skin discolouration of a baby boy “didn’t fit with anything I had ever seen”, a consultant doctor told the murder trial of nurse…

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

 

[tennis ball michael]

I’ve been wondering if there was a split between the doctors and nurses. The nurses were short staffed and I’m speculating that the core team was close and everyone mucking in picking up extra shifts where possible. It sounds like, from the further bits of the RCRCP report that someone shared earlier, that the suspicions from the consultants didn’t go down well with the nursing team, who (in my head) felt like they were ‘keeping it all together’ despite the shortage in staffing levels and it was them against the world (or senior management who weren’t focused on getting them some good quality permanent new recruits).

It’s possible that at the time they closed ranks too?

I really really feel for Nurse A. Imagine having over 30 years experience and mentoring LL and being a friend and trusted colleague. I’d really struggle to trust people again if LL is found guilty