Lucy Letby Case #16

[Daisydunn15]

How about the witness accounts for all of them? Not just the rash but unusualness and speed of decline and interesting reactions to resus and otherwise babies doing well. I don’t feel enough to discredit them and not sure myers will have witnesses that disprove their accounts so will just be that they are all getting it muddled/wrong/not being truthful/influenced every time.

There is just so much for me than just expert against expert also. So if the defence experts say it could have been sepsis etc or could have been insulin mistake - you would weigh up with prosecution or just accept the defence? Sorry I am only quizzing you out of interest and probably missing something in your reply! Do the statistical chances of her being there mean anything in your opinion? Or can it be explained by chance/bad luck and I know it sucks to say that and makes people feel like I’m belittling them which isn’t my intention whatsoever but if she is only there by chance at many rare and natural deaths then surely she has to be considered very unlucky (obviously what many of her colleagues thought too).

I know people talk about the other deaths and I’ve explained why they are not crucial to me (very UO!) but say 3-4 are the deaths the unit would usually expect in a year, 1 is the murder charge that was dropped, and if the others can be explained by negligence or natural causes she’s not guilty of these deaths in this case by default? Or what If she is on shift for 60-70% of the other deaths also some look explainable or some could later be found to be foul play or too hard to prove as such.
Such a bleeping complicated case!!! I know why it is better to be on the fence I just cannot climb back up there on to it! Please do not feel compelled to answer me and please don’t feel I’m trying to convince or anything like that. I find it incredibly interesting that’s all and I am maybe trying to see a way it didn’t play out how I think it did.

The witness accounts largely point towards unexpected deaths and also a shoddy unit. I don't disbelieve that they were unexpected deaths at all, but I'm awaiting the medical experts from both sides.

I think the reporting of the rash has been inconsistent and I don't think confirmation bias can be ruled out. I also don't agree that the description in the article is the same description we've been given. They say it's an unusual rash so difficult to describe but honestly how difficult can it be?

If the defence offer an explanation I won't blindly accept that either, it'll come down to what makes most sense, credibility of the Dr's and how they've reached their decisions.

Her being there for the deaths is absolutely significant, however I'd like more information. Not every death on the unit is included in this case so already there's less coincidence for me, as being present for every single death on the ward looks more guilty than being there for some of the deaths. Also, how often was she at work? If she was picking up extra shifts every week, then statistically she would be more likely to be around for the deaths.

I think there are a lot of suspicious elements of this, I'm not trying to be dismissive of those, obviously they're there or this trial wouldn't be happening. At the moment, in my opinion, the most compelling evidence has been the medical experts', but as I've said I'm waiting to see if the defence have anything to offer further things to consider.

Not sure if I missed ant questions but I'm multi tasking

 

[Faith61]

It deffo has felt at times as if it’s the doctors and nurses that are on trial rather than LL

Thankfully in all my years...(too many to mention!!) I've never had the misfortune to be in their position, as in this scenario
However, I've been in court a couple of times when worked as a custody nurse to back up police evidence etc and that was scary enough as it was, as the notes i had written at the time were scrutinised, luckily I came out unscathed!
Some of my present colleagues think I'm a bit dramatic I'm sure when they read what I've document on a daily basis..but they've never had to stand in the box and give evidence , it's a scary place to be

 

[OldBlondie]

Judith’s tweets from today for anyone that doesn’t have Twitter

 

[Haveyouanywool]

That's an interesting stance because by proxy, they were a team, therefore potentially decisions that were made by the team could have led to the disastrous outcomes? It's not that they are on trial per se, but they are part of a much bigger picture so they can't just all be assumed to completely innocent/without any part to play?

A step too far. They are not on trial. They are not on trial by association. In no way.
There may be negligence, definitely some suboptimal care, but that is not what is being tried here.

 

[PeninsulaAndOriental]

That's an interesting stance because by proxy, they were a team, therefore potentially decisions that were made by the team could have led to the disastrous outcomes? It's not that they are on trial per se, but they are part of a much bigger picture so they can't just all be assumed to completely innocent/without any part to play?

Should Dr Shipman and all of his colleagues have been tried? They missed many things - 250 suspicious deaths to be precise.

 

[MmmB777]

See there's questions around that too - again I feel like the prosecution have given out this scenario that seems very sensationalist but actually may not be the case. Example being when the nurse made a statement of how she was sitting with LL at the station when one of the babies started to deteriorate (apologies, I cannot remember what baby), but the prosecution have now said that nurses statement can't be relied on? Why not?
There was also another baby where it is in the other staffs statement that they 'shouted for LL to come and help'

I think I'd need to go through the list/Wiki again and pinpoint that further because it's definitely something worth clarifying.

I think for the vast majority of the 22 though she can be implicated as being there and giving care fairly recently or at the time of the incidents. She has confirmed some of them and had to admit others she had previously denied. She is a level 6 nurse on shift for all of the incidents, the only member of staff that is, I think if there’s missed opportunity then she is responsible a lot of the time. The text reactions of her colleagues also corroborate that she herself found the deaths unexplained, sudden, not expected and both her words and their replies also seem to suggest that she herself individually is having a very bad run. IMO, that along with the independent reviews, don’t help the theory of negligence by many and the unit as a whole. I appreciate that others do think it’s possible and I by no means think the hospital was optimal at all times. I think Letby if last there on all of these occasions, should have spotted more of the supposed natural causes coming or would be responsible for some deaths if they’re negligence like over feeding by accident or putting large doses of insulin in a bag.

 

[candyland_]

Did other babies not have a postmortem?

 

[OldBlondie]

That's an interesting stance because by proxy, they were a team, therefore potentially decisions that were made by the team could have led to the disastrous outcomes? It's not that they are on trial per se, but they are part of a much bigger picture so they can't just all be assumed to completely innocent/without any part to play?

That may be your view, but that is absolutely NOT what I meant. I was agreeing with the OP that for some witnesses it has felt as if they are the ones on trial. This is based on the way they have been absolutely scrutinised, unfairly in my opinion. They most certainly are not the ones on trial, there have already been two reviews into what happened at the hospital, and we haven’t heard any findings of them being the cause of the deaths of these babies

 

[avabella]

A step too far. They are not on trial. They are not on trial by association. In no way.
There may be negligence, definitely some suboptimal care but that is not what is being tried here.

A step too far? Did you read what I wrote? In no way did I say they were on trial. However, they are PART of a trial and should be treated accordingly. Just because it's not them ON trial means they have to be treated with kid gloves.

 

[OldBlondie]

Thankfully in all my years...(too many to mention!!) I've never had the misfortune to be in their position, as in this scenario
However, I've been in court a couple of times when worked as a custody nurse to back up police evidence etc and that was scary enough as it was, as the notes i had written at the time were scrutinised, luckily I came out unscathed!
Some of my present colleagues think I'm a bit dramatic I'm sure when they read what I've document on a daily basis..but they've never had to stand in the box and give evidence , it's a scary place to be

Yes that’s exactly the point isn’t it, it must be awful for some of those giving evidence made to feel as if they are the ones on trial. There are lots of examples of not the best practice in some of the cases. But from what we’ve heard the skill of some of these staff, was what saved some of the babies, and a lot of them seem to have been badly affected after some of the deaths

 

[MmmB777]

The witness accounts largely point towards unexpected deaths and also a shoddy unit. I don't disbelieve that they were unexpected deaths at all, but I'm awaiting the medical experts from both sides.

I think the reporting of the rash has been inconsistent and I don't think confirmation bias can be ruled out. I also don't agree that the description in the article is the same description we've been given. They say it's an unusual rash so difficult to describe but honestly how difficult can it be?

If the defence offer an explanation I won't blindly accept that either, it'll come down to what makes most sense, credibility of the Dr's and how they've reached their decisions.

Her being there for the deaths is absolutely significant, however I'd like more information. Not every death on the unit is included in this case so already there's less coincidence for me, as being present for every single death on the ward looks more guilty than being there for some of the deaths. Also, how often was she at work? If she was picking up extra shifts every week, then statistically she would be more likely to be around for the deaths.

I think there are a lot of suspicious elements of this, I'm not trying to be dismissive of those, obviously they're there or this trial wouldn't be happening. At the moment, in my opinion, the most compelling evidence has been the medical experts', but as I've said I'm waiting to see if the defence have anything to offer further things to consider.

Not sure if I missed ant questions but I'm multi tasking

Thank you! I think we’ve had interesting discussion today. I don’t really know whether to respond or not because I don’t want it to look like I’m going on at you on an individual level! Obviously you’ll know I have disagreements with some of what you’ve said there but I do understand how you can also see or need to see those things.

 

[riddleme89]

The Facebook Brigade really are shocking. I just logged on to Face book this morning, and some of the excuses they’re making for her.

The insulin machine did it itself, because it ran out and injected air, is now the narrative of one of the people on Facebook.

Why are people defending her to such abnormal and perverted extremes??? I have never seen anything like this before.

pAndO

One lady Gemma I think her name is drives me mad she will not at all listen to anything apart from if it’s how innocent letby is
I’ve left the Facebook groups so insane the way they think .

 

[Haveyouanywool]

A step too far? Did you read what I wrote? In no way did I say they were on trial. However, they are PART of a trial and should be treated accordingly. Just because it's not them ON trial means they have to be treated with kid gloves.

I indeed read what you wrote. They are witnesses in a trial and nowhere have I written, or indeed thought, that they should be treated with kid gloves.

 

[avabella]

I indeed read what you wrote. They are witnesses in a trial and nowhere have I written, or indeed thought, that they should be treated with kid gloves.

Ok in that case I'm still not sure what was a step too far. I didn't say they were on trial either.

 

[riddleme89]

Is anyone genuinely shocked that people on facebook believe she is 100% NG and are refusing to hear anything which could prove otherwise?
These are the same people who believe that vaccines are mind control chips and bill gates wants to make everyone infertile .

One lady the other day posted about child E and after hearing it she 100 percent thinks letby is a scapegoat and that child E notes wasn’t done because they are so short staffed

I said to her “ today in court they showed a text from letby saying it’s too quite today “ so she had plenty time to do the notes

she shut up and then went on to say how I seen that and I was lying so I showed her the court transcript and she then shut up but went on to say she’s innocent

they won’t believe she is guilty it’s wierd not like they are related to her or anything

 

[candyland_]

I was watching Cause of Death on Channel 5 catch up app one night earlier in the week and it said ALL unexplained deaths went to the coroner. They said they were notified of all deaths so I’m wondering how they didn’t pick up a pattern of excess deaths either. So far each baby has been an expected death so the coroner should have pushed for a PM too.

 

[White]

I noticed there is now a page on Wikipedia, and LL will be 33 in January, it has her date of birth. (As we thought in previous threads she was born late '89 or early '90 based on a 21st birthday press announcement from family).

Lucy Letby - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Was thinking the other day, she is potentially another serial killer from Herefordshire, like Fred West. No offence to anyone from Herefordshire, but if found guilty at least several victims like him. No comparing the two cases, both situations are barbaric in different ways, but what are the chances of two being from the same county.

 

[helcob1977]

Ok the latest narrative on Facebook is a lot of them died in room one.

So, now the room has done it???????

God forgive me, but this is entertainment with their stupidity

To be fair I always thought that room looked like a nasty fella

 

[Faith61]

My head is in the shed today!!!
Please....i forget who are the ones with nicu experience on here so apologies, but please help me out
I know nothing about neonatal care, literally nothing.
I've just been reading the only sensible thread I've seen on one of the FB group and an experienced nicu nurse has been posting for the past couple of days around baby E.
She was convinced yesterday that baby E was developing NEC, given his blood gas readings and high blood sugar of over 18 ...I know this is high blood sugar in an adult never mind a premature baby, but didn't get the significance of it until she's explained it.
I don't know why, but I didn't realise NEC could cause the symptoms of the " crash" as with baby E. I knew it was dangerous/life threatening.. but..didn't know it could cause bleeding like this?
I've looked at statements on wiki from medical experts and they don't mention NEC

Is she talking tit? Have the medics missed the signs of NEC, could this have caused the major bleed in baby E?
I need educating, my head has gone completely!!

 

[OldBlondie]

Link for this mornings round up on bbc https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-engla...65B8-11ED-A6BA-D056FC756850&at_medium=custom7