Lucy Letby Case #12

[Aberscot]

What I have heard so far I think she’s guilty but I am glad there are others on the forum don’t think so, this means i can read there thoughts too and what’s been said already we haven’t heard her defence yet. On this occasion I would like to be totally wrong and she’s innocence but so far to me I am not convinced, someone harmed that poor babies.

 

[mRsKbRoOkS]

View attachment 1696399View attachment 1696400
I can’t imagine the judge being happy with this?

this is all quite embarrassing to be honest I’m getting the vibe of two grown men bickering with each other . What I’m wondering though is was a lot of mr myers defence case riding on dr evans given an alternative possible explanation to the collapses, and because he now hasn’t done this Mr myers is abit stuck. He can absolutely discredit him but I do wonder how much difference it will make overall .

 

[Windowtothewall]

Just found link posted 9 mins ago from mark the Chester standard reporter https://www.chesterstandard.co.uk/n...olice-found-babys-lingering-death-quite-hard/

This link has a lot more detail. picked up on this

When interviewed about child C, the defendant said she remembered him because he was a small baby.

Letby recalled he deteriorated not long after his first feed by one of the nurses but said she had no involvement in that.

Her only involvement with child C was when she was asked to help with the resuscitation attempt, she told police.

She added she had a “vague recollection” of taking child C’s hand and foot prints for a memory box while the infant was sat with his parents but “couldn’t be certain”.

She accepted she made Facebook searches for his parents about 10 hours after their son died but could not remember doing the searches or why.

This is what really doesn't help her. How can she remember that he deteriorated after his first feed by another nurse (something she wasn't involved in), but can't remember sorting a memory box for the parents or doing FB searches (something she was involved in)? Something she messaged quite a few people about at the time. Her memory is very selective on only things that give her an alibi, not on anything she's actually done. If she said she didn't remember any of it, would be more believable than only remembering what other people did.

This is why I don't think she ever escalated concerns about these deaths or made complaints, like all her colleagues and doctors seemed to have - if she did, she'd remember more about her role in them.

 

[Tofino]

From what I can gather. He’s suggested deliberate injection of air in his previous reports but never mentioned the diaphragm splintering until today - so he is being accused of giving evidence to support the allegation

I do find this confusing. Why would he just come up with that today and risk his credibility? Surely he would have to give a reason how he’s come to that conclusion but that’s not been covered in the reporting.

An independent pathologist might be next to testify and they seem more certain on deliberate harm (from opening statement).

The prosecution added an independent pathlogist said the skin colour changes in Child C were likely caused by prolonged unsuccessful resuscitation.

Child C had pneumonia, but the pathologist concluded Child C died as a result of having an excessive quantity of air injected into his stomach via the nasogastric tube (NGT).

I think child C was always going to be difficult to prove cause of death from looking at the opening statements and the mixed views from experts. But there is still lots of suspicious things about child C.

 

[Wellthisisinteresting]

 

[candyland_]

New information that I haven’t seen in reports regarding Baby A and B from The Mail podcast. Episode 3. (This woman attends court daily)

Details have came out that Lucy Letby told police that Baby A and B were much wanted babies and the parents had waited a long time for them. Police asked her who told her that and she said it was in the handover. She went on to say that she would treat all parents the same but bare in mind what it takes them to get to this point (having a baby).

There is more bulk to her texts too. She said that it was eating her up to be up in room 3. She said all she’s sees is Baby A in room 1 and that it probably sounds odd but it’s how she deals with things and it’s how she has dealt with things before. She thinks people should respect her for that - her need to be in room 1.

The Trial of Lucy Letby, Episode 3: Baby A

www.mailplus.co.uk

Episodes 3 and 4 seem to have been taken down.

 

[Deeznutslol]

I’ve never been under any illusions that women's health has ever been a massive priority in healthcare, but some of the birth experiences that are being shared on here are absolutely shocking and appalling tbh. Makes me scared to have kids!

 

[Stiltoncheese]

Thanks for new thread. Still voted unsure as I still feel we are only 4 weeks into a very long trial, but I feel the prosecution is slowly starting to do what they said they would, which is build up a pattern of events which are leaving me with a lot of questions.

 

[iLoveNectarines]

I've voted unsure so far but this is the first time I'm heading towards guilty

 

[JessicaFletcher36]

I think its important to remember that probably 99% of what we are reading in the press is paraphrasing of what both counsel and witnesses are saying. There will be huge, huge gaps. I think a lot of people are focussing on what they are seeing reported without a true, full picture of what it refers to/the context/what it means. If we were to obtain the court transcripts after the end of the trial then we would see this.

I work in law, majority in the family law field but have some criminal experience. The public would be utterly shocked at cases that the police and CPS persue and bring to charge and trial where there is evidence of innocence and it is either ignored, not obtained, or obtained literally during the trial. The one thing this country is very good at, is prosecuting and imprisoning innocent people. I have been at a trial where the police and CPS were aware of evidence that proved innocence from the day the suspect was arrested and interviewed. They failed to obtain this evidence from social care until lunchtime on the first day of the two day trial when the police officer waltzed into the court room with it after lunch. Despite this the prosecution declined to withdraw their case & the Judge wished to hear from the defendant despite acknowledging that the case should be dismissed at that point. The defendant gave their evidence on the stand the next morning and the Judge made sure the police and CPS were aware of their failings throughout the case from start to finish and found the suspect not guilty. The suspect lost their career due to the arrest & charge and had the police & CPS done their job at the start they would never have been charged.

Of course many guilty people also walk away without charge or in the case of family law are permitted to continue abusing ex partners and children too.

For me, I am on the fence with regards to LL’s guilt. From a legal point of view and with what has been reported, I see no smoking gun from the CPS in legal terms. There appears to be tons of reasonable doubt in a legal sense. I highly doubt she will receive a fair trial as juries tend to vote with their hearts and not with a methodical, logical, legal mind set or approach to the actual evidence. They will see someone accused of hurting and murdering babies and think, like many on here, that the police & CPS can’t possibly have got it wrong and bought it to trial without “knowing/having evidence” that she is guilty.

I would be really interested to see if there were any collapses/deaths when LL was not on duty. I hope this information does come out during the course of the trial. I am also very interested to hear what the defence experts have to say.

I would like to clarify something that was said on a previous thread about expert witnesses and independent witnesses as the clarification given by another poster wasn’t quite correct.

So far none of this expert witnesses are Court appointed. As far as I am aware this doesn’t happen in criminal cases in the UK at all. In a family law case for example, whether that is private family law (contact and residence of children) or public family law (care proceedings) independent medical witnesses are jointly instructed by all parties in a case and the Court/Judge has to approve/choose the expert if the parties can’t agree who should be instructed. These experts have only one duty and that is to the Court to help the Judge decide what to do in the case. They are not “for” one side or the other.

In criminal cases the medical experts are instructed and paid for solely by the party who instructs them, so either prosecution or defence. They are not independent and do not have the exact same legal or professional duties to the Court that experts do in family law cases.

I think its very interesting that there are a lot of “I don’t know, can’t be sure, can’t recall” answers coming from witnesses. This automatically weakens the prosecution case and casts doubt.

At the start of this trial I realised that I used to know someone who had some knowledge of the goings on at CoC. In 2019 I briefly dated a very senior and experienced neonatal advanced practitioner who worked at a hospital nearby to CoC. At the time she told me there were awful things going on there and that one of the nurses had been wrongly accused of terrible things and she felt the truth would come out eventually. She said that all neonatal nurses at hospitals in the area knew the truth about CoC but would not elaborate further other than to say it was known to be an awful place to work. She never mentioned LL by name. She was very professional and strict about patient confidentiality etc. She had knowledge of the details of some of the collapses/deaths and felt that LL was the scapegoat. I never knew who she was talking about or any detail at all until this trial started.

Thank you for this legal perspective, definitely resets my mind about keeping an open mind. Easy to jump to conclusions in these highly emotive cases.

With respect to your other point about your friend. Im sorry to disagree but unless this person actually worked there and was involved I cant see how they could make such a bold statement such as ‘a nurse has been wrongly accused of terrible things’ just like all of us, she was not to know if the accusations were wrong or not.

 

[Sloppys]

I don't comment here often as I am finding it hard to keep up with this on a daily basis. Ive just listened to a few episodes of that podcast and it is very good I think. Lots of information that I haven't seen elsewhere.
At the start I was thinking she might not be guilty as such but have these tragedies happened through sheer incompetence on her part but the more that comes out the more I think she is guilty. There are just too many incidences where she has been in the rooms when she shouldn't have been in there (I appreciate that the nurses help each other out etc but I think that argument wears a bit thin when it has happened every time there is collapse). I would hope that there is no one sick enough out there to do this but at the moment I am swaying towards guilty. Obviously there is a long way to go yet.

 

[PenelopeTitsDrop]

I say this as someone who does audits on systems and processes in the NHS and other industries - just because you've always done it, does not make it correct and you are risking criminal charges, penalties and worse. We run audits at any point, with more frequency now, and I am always shocked at clinical and admin staff who don't seem to understand that just because you can access something, doesn't mean you should - GDPR and data privacy training is mandated for a reason. Most systems are being updated to flag immediately when someone accesses records they shouldn't - we do this with the Metropolitan police already. The minute someone not on the 'permissions' list accesses a case file, there will be a flag sent to their line manager and they'll be called in for questioning.

Everyone knows people can steal when they want to, it's utterly daft to talk about people doing it as a common thing. It's even dafter to think that someone who's been moved to clerical duties because she's under suspicion for access notes breaching policy and risking a disciplinary. This entire conversation kicked off because someone thought LL on clerical duties was going to be reviewing case notes of a death she was involved in a year ago, so that a year later she could remember what her colleague did, but not what she did.

ICO warns NHS staff that unlawfully accessing patient records is an offence

The ICO has reminded NHS staff about the potentially serious consequences of prying into patients’ medical records without a valid reason.

www.digitalhealth.net

Hang on, you were asking whether people had access to the notes. Yes they do. You didn't ask "do they abuse this and access them when they shouldn't?". That's a different question and the answer is generally no. Not sure why you are getting quite so cross.

Edit:

Unless someone is accessing records without good reason, then the mere fact that admin teams etc are authorised to have access to the records is absolutely nothing that an auditor could get het up about. How do I know? I moved into hospital admin, and later nursing, having left my job as...an NHS auditor.

You can cite all the rules and regs you want on this to any of us, but I can assure you that auditors are totally happy with the vast majority of staff access availability, as there is a clinical and functional need for that access to be there.

As someone who has worked on both sides of this argument, I am telling you that you need to calm down because you not understanding the various admin roles in a hospital and why they could need access, doesn't mean you are correct to think rules are being broken left right and centre.

Some people will abuse their access, particularly with written records which are harder to secure, and the powers that be will come down hard long, before the audit team has even thought of walking through the door.

So cool your jets and stop speaking to people so aggressively.

 

[candyland_]

I can’t help but think she plants seeds in her texts to make her colleagues fawn over her or to believe the situation was different to what it was. Today was a classic case of bread crumbing for an ”Are you ok hun?” text and making the nurse believe the baby died from poor care.

 

[abelleza]

Jesus Christ, anyone else feel like they’re banging their head up against a brick wall sometimes???

Well, it has nothing do with the Health Sec because is is every individual's duty to adhere to the data privacy rules of not accessing patient records without a valid reason. And it is a HUGE stretch to assume LL was doing this, just to prove a point that she was reviewing medical notes to remember what happened to a patient a year ago.

Why are you giving people lectures? Chill out please!

 

[candyland_]

It’s sad that so many of us were fobbed off in labour. When I went in I was scoffed at and told I wouldn’t be in labour and it would only be a UTI.. I was 10cm dilated.

I wasn’t examined after birth either and walked out with an undiagnosed 3rd degree tear but that’s another story.

 

[Tofino]

Sorry if already been shared but I just saw this on reddit (posted by someone who had lifted it from Facebook) and it seems well put together. When you look at it all together in one place the sheer scale of the whole case is just crazy!

Edit: Particularly the 'daily' section if you go through the tabs along the bottom.

r vs letby.xlsx

onedrive.live.com

Am I out of a job?

 

[Stiltoncheese]

Also every Dr have now all stated they have never seen a baby just collapse and die like that without all the other warning signs. I suppose defence could try and bring in an expert who can show cases where this has happened but I just can't see any of the Dr's putting their reputation on the line to lie or make things up for court. Every witness has said how odd, unexpected and sudden it was and nothing they have ever experienced.

 

[abelleza]

Erm, because admin staff do not have access to patient's medical notes?? Come on, you can't think they do. It's a restricted unit with access only allowed by electronic key card and you think admin staff can access the computers in there where the notes are saved....? What next, the cleaners can access them too? Security?

And if she did have a reflective journal - she didn't remember that she herself was the only one present at the collapse, but remembered what her colleague did before the collapse? Why would she think the time before collapse was more important than the collapse itself and what happened after and her role in it? Unless of course, she knows that's what caused the death? Funny that defence say it could be CPR, as something that happened AFTER the collapse but she herself knew the only thing important was who was doing the feed BEFORE collapse..

Don't you think the detectives would have pointed out the notes in her reflective journal to her, instead of faffing with text messages if she detailed things so thoroughly? That the prosecution would have shared it as evidence, or the defence would have for child A and C.. I can imagine a lot of scenarios, doesn't make them true if neither prosecution nor defence have mentioned it.

What do you think clerical means? She’d have been doing admin and so still would’ve needed access to a computer, you literally can’t do shit in a hospital without access to a computer, unless you’re a cleaner or working in the kitchen. SHE STILL WOULD’VE HAD ACCESS TO A COMPUTER. I’ve never known a nurse being suspended but I have known nurses who for medical reasons can’t do ward work (usually if they’ve had an operation or smth), they usually do a ward clerk job, so they sit at a desk on the ward at the nurses station.

And obviously clerical staff have different access to ward-based staff, but there’s every chance they didn’t revoke her computer access when she went on clerical duty, so she still would have full access to patient notes.

(I personally don’t think she’d be stupid enough to read through the babies who had died’s notes bc every thing you do on the computer systems leaves a trail that people can see, if you’re looking at something you have no business looking at, you’d be in trouble. I just don’t understand the point you’re trying to make. It doesn’t work like that).

Edit: to add, I don’t think you understand what clerical staff in a hospital do. A ward clerk (clue is in the name) for example needs access to all patients that are on their ward as they are the ones that send out follow-up letters. Do you actually work in a hospital or are you just googling it?

 

[OldBlondie]

*Edited to add, I personally was nearly killed by a surgeon’s negligence, and I’m not being dramatic or exaggerating it was real near death, resus emergency surgery literally bleeding to death the whole lot. The surgeon that ended up coming in and saving me is my absolute hero and my whole family are indebted forever, as are the paramedics and whole gynae ward team. So I have experience of loving the nhs, but being fully aware there are many failings. I just want to point out I’m not biased against medics or negligence, and personally love the nhs, although find it is not in good shape at the min (due to a million things it’s pointless getting into). I just can’t imagine what happened to me happening numerous times with the same one individual involved, and it being anything other than deliberate. After what happened to me a lot of stuff was looked at and I would like to think it wouldn’t happen again after that. Sorry for long waffle but I’m completely balanced in seeing both sides, I just don’t find one credible enough

 

[Parsnipface]

I've not ever swung from not guilty but feeling less hopeful I'll be proved wrong daily. Which is miserable.

I'm on the fence about if her age is relevant with her behaviour, 18 year olds work in nursing homes and will give competent palitive care and be empathic to greiving families and give them great comfort, other 18 year olds are still playing with sparklers in the park, so age is a difficult thing to judge anyone on as we mature so differently as people. She was very young at the time these deaths occurred. I can't work out if I care about the fact she's very young at this time, because it shouldn't be relevant but it is I suppose.

She seems mature on paper but she's immature in behaviour. Being asked to leave a situation by senior staff more than once is a massive we can't ignore.

*if* she's guilty, i think a lack of maturity and life experience is what caught her out, if she was more experienced and had been there longer, spaced out murders as opposed to a spree, she'd probably not have been caught for many years, if ever.
*if* she's innocent, behaving childishly such as interfering and getting involved in other people's duties, that could also be immaturity, wanting to be present with no self awareness youre being a fucking nuisance.

Sorry for waffle. Might change my name to waffle face.