Lucy Letby Case #17

[MmmB777]

I don’t think she’s innocent, but I don’t think she’ll be found guilty on all charges.

Same here but I’m holding out hope she will go down for the vast majority. Otherwise the message is: pick victims so unthinkably vulnerable and be ‘clever’ about it and you can do whatever you like.
It is just unfathomable what shipman got away with. They were just humble ordinary people and nobody cared collectively enough about little old ladies croaking. The poor doctor in the surgery opposite that tried to get him stopped because she could see just from volume of deaths in a few months that something very serious was going on.
And BA before him too! Killing kids that were not gravely ill whatsoever and couldn’t be stopped before she’d harmed more because of lack of hard evidence when it was so clear something was very wrong.
Letby however has picked even more perfect victims and a nearly perfect crime. People assume these babies have a death sentence and they do not. I honestly believe she’s guilty of all this and much more. I hope she rots 🫢

If also imagine it would be very difficult for them to give evidence with her watching them and them able to see, given they have a professional and apparently social relationship. Like any of us giving evidence against a friend, it would be easier if you can’t see them

The amount she has manipulated them all with her poor Lucy act, I bet they don’t want to ever see her face again.

 

[crumpets2]

Nurses signing off things they haven’t even given was deemed as normal practice? I have no words. This could be enough to create doubt that LL even administered medication she’s signed for as she could easily just say she signed for it but doesn’t remember administering. Appears to be a terribly run unit but a team that trusts each other..

 

[LilyRose1234]

No. It would go to the court of appeal. It’s 3 high court judges. No witnesses. They would be looking for errors in the trial judges sentence. If they have erred in any law points.

Do you think if it was a fair trial argument, I mean she’d effectively need a new trial? If the Court of Appeal allow the appeal do they have the remit to refer it back to the High Court for a second trial? I don’t know a lot about the appeals process

 

[Pulltheotherone]

Or I should of said if there were material legal issues in the trial could all form grounds of appeal

 

[Treesy19]

sorry to fire questions at you.. if she is found guilty and she appeals, would it be the same all over again? In terms of length of trial/witnesses being dragged out etc?

No. She could appeal all she wants but she wouldn’t be granted another trial unless there was new evidence and the go ahead was given because of that new evidence.

Anyway, that won’t happen!

 

[docmum]

I feel I need to reply but I do not want to cause upset … far from it . All I wanted to say is that I do get how doctors / consultants sometimes however cannot accept or see if they have made mistakes. And mistakes DO happen.

of course they do! I completely agree with you. Some more than others too. I’m not sure what your reference is with this around the current discussion, but I’ve remained as objective as I can throughout these threads and I’m sorry you felt you couldn’t post
anyway. We’re human and whilst you have humans giving medications to patients etc you will always have errors. Things like giving the wrong dose of insulin or giving the wrong blood are termed ‘never events’ - in theory they should never happen but despite so many safety nets they still do. The nhs has a lot of protocols in place where departments assess unusual cases (say one unexpected neonate like baby f/low insulin would be picked out and presented departmentally) to learn from unusual events or mistakes, and to improve by knowing more about what could/should have happened. With doctors ongoing training, their assessments are fed back on what we call a ‘tit sandwich’
- what was done well
- what wasn’t so good/needs to be improved
- what’s expected of the next time
Often more than one person could have overlooked something, and so many incidents of harm have genuinely come from ridiculously understaffed hospitals. Add to that her attacking her first victims at 4am.. I challenge any of you to tell me your name at that time, never mind 8 hours in to a minimally staffed night shift. The nhs is broken.. top down. But no one goes out to make mistakes or cause harm and I really hope you can understand that.
The exact reason why I don’t doubt her guilt is that the case has got to this point. For them to even pick up the phone to the police is mind blowing, as lots of mistakes happen/things could be done better all over the nhs and by doctors, I don’t doubt that. I do doubt the number of cases and the pattern around her and that’s why I have defended her colleagues where I’ve felt justified.

 

[Haveyouanywool]

Nurses signing off things they haven’t even given was deemed as normal practice? I have no words. This could be enough to create doubt that LL even administered medication she’s signed for as she could easily just say she signed for it but doesn’t remember administering. Appears to be a terribly run unit but a team that trusts each other..

It’s the electronic notes they were talking about, still very bad practice.
The paper charts, drug sheets, fluid charts etc where you are actually required to physically sign, or initial, are a different matter.

 

[Pulltheotherone]

of course they do! I completely agree with you. Some more than others too. I’m not sure what your reference is with this around the current discussion, but I’ve remained as objective as I can throughout these threads and I’m sorry you felt you couldn’t post
anyway. We’re human and whilst you have humans giving medications to patients etc you will always have errors. Things like giving the wrong dose of insulin or giving the wrong blood are termed ‘never events’ - in theory they should never happen but despite so many safety nets they still do. The nhs has a lot of protocols in place where departments assess unusual cases (say one unexpected neonate like baby f/low insulin would be picked out and presented departmentally) to learn from unusual events or mistakes, and to improve by knowing more about what could/should have happened. With doctors ongoing training, their assessments are fed back on what we call a ‘tit sandwich’
- what was done well
- what wasn’t so good/needs to be improved
- what’s expected of the next time
Often more than one person could have overlooked something, and so many incidents of harm have genuinely come from ridiculously understaffed hospitals. Add to that her attacking her first victims at 4am.. I challenge any of you to tell me your name at that time, never mind 8 hours in to a minimally staffed night shift. The nhs is broken.. top down. But no one goes out to make mistakes or cause harm and I really hope you can understand that.
The exact reason why I don’t doubt her guilt is that the case has got to this point. For them to even pick up the phone to the police is mind blowing, as lots of mistakes happen/things could be done better all over the nhs and by doctors, I don’t doubt that. I do doubt the number of cases and the pattern around her and that’s why I have defended her colleagues where I’ve felt justified.

Docmum I have said in earlier threads my appreciation for breaking down the medical side of things as I am not remotely medical. More legal so thank you again.
You are absolutely right that the NHS is broken from the top down. I met a friend today who’s husband is a band 6 nurse and he has to sign off every day with what has happened on his shift ( he’s responsible for 12 patients ina large city hospital ) To cover himself he always signs off as “ chronically understaffed “
After his “ pay upgrade “ paying for his parking / insurance and taking into consideration he’s about £50 better off each month. I despair.
slight de rail I know. Love though and thanks

 

[crumpets2]

It’s the electronic notes they were talking about, still very bad practice.
The paper charts, drug sheets, fluid charts etc where you are actually required to physically sign, or initial, are a different matter.

Ah ok. Still bad practice as you say. Same applies though, some fluid that’s double signed could be either nurse, one could put it up the other could be documenting to say it’s been done. Hard for them to determine who’s done what.

 

[IdeletedbutI'mbackagain]

Not being able to look at her, to me it seems they too don’t believe her and don’t want to look at her.
They have been let down , and I am sure they replay all these situations in their heads.
Can’t imagine what they must be feeling, especially been asked in court if they had administered the insulin.

I'd be too disgusted to look at her in this kind of situation. The betrayal they must feel.

 

[docmum]

of course they do! I completely agree with you. Some more than others too. I’m not sure what your reference is with this around the current discussion, but I’ve remained as objective as I can throughout these threads and I’m sorry you felt you couldn’t post
anyway. We’re human and whilst you have humans giving medications to patients etc you will always have errors. Things like giving the wrong dose of insulin or giving the wrong blood are termed ‘never events’ - in theory they should never happen but despite so many safety nets they still do. The nhs has a lot of protocols in place where departments assess unusual cases (say one unexpected neonate like baby f/low insulin would be picked out and presented departmentally) to learn from unusual events or mistakes, and to improve by knowing more about what could/should have happened. With doctors ongoing training, their assessments are fed back on what we call a ‘tit sandwich’
- what was done well
- what wasn’t so good/needs to be improved
- what’s expected of the next time
Often more than one person could have overlooked something, and so many incidents of harm have genuinely come from ridiculously understaffed hospitals. Add to that her attacking her first victims at 4am.. I challenge any of you to tell me your name at that time, never mind 8 hours in to a minimally staffed night shift. The nhs is broken.. top down. But no one goes out to make mistakes or cause harm and I really hope you can understand that.
The exact reason why I don’t doubt her guilt is that the case has got to this point. For them to even pick up the phone to the police is mind blowing, as lots of mistakes happen/things could be done better all over the nhs and by doctors, I don’t doubt that. I do doubt the number of cases and the pattern around her and that’s why I have defended her colleagues where I’ve felt justified.

**low sugars

 

[Haveyouanywool]

Ah ok. Still bad practice as you say. Same applies though, some fluid that’s double signed could be either nurse, one could put it up the other could be documenting to say it’s been done. Hard for them to determine who’s done what.

The double signing is to verify that 2 nurses have checked the drug or fluid prescriptions (dose, route etc) and that it’s for the correct patient (check name band). It’s not necessarily for all aspects of administration.
The nurse who has administered, started the IV etc, should write this, under her login, in the electronic notes, and paper charts (as appropriate).
Obviously that falls down badly if you’re not using your own login.

 

[housebythesea]

I can’t believe there are some people who believe Letby is innocent at this point.

If anyone reading this believes she’s innocent - what do you sincerely believe is going on here?

The insulin seals the cases for me. As a business owner, I’m used to making decisions - and if it were up to me, I’d already have her locked away for life with no chance of parole.

Luckily for her, that decision does not rest with me.

Yes, luckily the decision does not rest with you, which is probably just as well seeing as you haven't heard any of the defence's case
I think there are huge problems with this case, the main one being that so far no evidence has been presented which ties anything to her. A more complete picture may emerge, and I'm sure it will, but the threshold is "beyond reasonable doubt" and in my opinion that has not been established yet.

 

[stardust1]

Yes, luckily the decision does not rest with you, which is probably just as well seeing as you haven't heard any of the defence's case
I think there are huge problems with this case, the main one being that so far no evidence has been presented which ties anything to her. A more complete picture may emerge, and I'm sure it will, but the threshold is "beyond reasonable doubt" and in my opinion that has not been established yet.

The evidence is actually exactly as you should expect as per other similar cases. So who poisoned with insulin because it is not a case of did it happen, it is a case of who did it.

 

[MmmB777]

The evidence is actually exactly as you should expect as per other similar cases. So who poisoned with insulin because it is not a case of did it happen, it is a case of who did it.

THIS! Punching the sky in my matalan pyjamas. The evidence is there and exactly what you’d expect for this kind of crime. She did it, she’s evil, she killed them on purpose.

 

[Treesy19]

It’s exactly as expected given it’s a hospital scene.

 

[tay65]

THIS! Punching the sky in my matalan pyjamas. The evidence is there and exactly what you’d expect for this kind of crime. She did it, she’s evil, she killed them on purpose.

Exactly what she wrote in her note found in her house. He should rest his case!!

 

[dual2099]

Sorry but I disagree, I work in the NHS and most people deeply care and see you as a person. They are very aware that people have families who love them - children and parents etc. Sure, there’s a few surgeons in every department that are probably borderline psychopaths and see every patient as a way to shroud themselves in glory, but even they care in their own way. I don’t think NHS mindset has anything to do with what this evil witch did.

That is not what I said. If you read my post again you will see.


What I was saying certain people could become desensitised to it. I was merely posing a question in response to the original poster in regards them saying perhaps she didn’t see them as babies. It’s an interesting point.

I only mentioned the surgeons because maybe you have to be of a particular mindset to do it.

Of course I’ve come across some compsssionate people in the NHS I’ve also come across some very cold people who deliver news in a very insensitive way, one being a surgeon. Some are excellent at compassion doe are not. And for some it’s a job. Sadly things are set up so you become a number rather than a person, I’m saying this not to blame anybody that’s the at it is.


I have treatment for the last six months, my child needed surgery after birth. I trusted the nurses completely. Of course they were compassionate.


I do not for one second think every nurse is like Letby. Again you’ve missed the point of my post. That is not what I meant.

It as an interesting point that the poster made.

I merely pondering.

If letby is a psychopath then we cannot begin to understand her triggers or motives. She was merely getting a kick out of the peer she held.

I was not suggesting everybody in the NHS is a psychopath.

But of course I could guess somebody would jump on it and and se it that way!

 

[Deeznutslol]

Yes, luckily the decision does not rest with you, which is probably just as well seeing as you haven't heard any of the defence's case
I think there are huge problems with this case, the main one being that so far no evidence has been presented which ties anything to her. A more complete picture may emerge, and I'm sure it will, but the threshold is "beyond reasonable doubt" and in my opinion that has not been established yet.

Literally, it actually shocks me that there are people willing to lock someone up without even hearing their defense. Everyone has the right to a fair trial, regardless of whether you think they’re guilty or innocent!

 

[tay65]

Literally, it actually shocks me that there are people willing to lock someone up without even hearing their defense. Everyone has the right to a fair trial, regardless of whether you think they’re guilty or innocent!

Does BM always play fair when you hear some of the insinuations he makes to the expert witnesses, the comments made to the parents about their timings being wrong etc and the upset caused to the families having to listen to it. Can this highly educated man really believe her to be NG of all these accusations.