If you were previously on the fence about Lucy Letby’s guilt, have the Thirlwall findings swayed you either way?

Four tubes were dislodged while she was at Liverpool. Babies dislodge tubes themselves, or nurses, doctors or family members can do so when tending to them. It's not usual to assume a crime has been committed when a tube has been dislodged, and the CPS has refused to press charges relating to Liverpool because of lack of evidence.

Just to be clear, and apologies for repeating myself: I was asking a poster who said people found Lucy Letby odd or unnerving at Liverpool where that information came from. Thirlwall was told that there were no concerns about her at the time. Counting up dislodgements while she was on shift came years later so it wasn't that, thanks

No everyone agrees the consultants should've gone to the police earlier (including themselves) they're just far less to blame than the managers who were the only people who could remove her.

You claim others have a closed mind yet you are the one that is not open to different views and are quite happy to call others names.

Your different view means defending the worst child serial killer in modern British history. Do you see why some people might have a problem with that?

Except there have been reports on unusual circumstances at Liverpool Women’s hospital. There is evidence here to say that these occurrences were odd.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2g20rpr78o

How do defenders of LL explain her behaviour around the deaths of babies and the fact she would lie and exaggerate facts? That also tends to point toward enjoying the attention around the deaths. Regardless of who it was from!

I agree with pp that her behaviour and demeanour is ‘off’

The grievance - which I don't necessarily think was well handled - came fifteen months after the first death, and involved accusations of bullying. The response to it didn't in any way prevent the consultants from raising concerns to the coroner or police in the many months before.

In a way I hope she is guilty, because can you even begin to imagine the dystopian horror of being in her situation while innocent?

One thing I’ll add (NHS myself) is that cot cams is a really silly idea that will seriously fuck nurses off. Luckily the NHS will never be able to afford them anyway. It’s appalling to treat nurses as potential baby murderers because of ONE case. There were no ‘GP cams’ after Harold Shipman!

They did and were threatened and made to apologise to Letby.

Thanks, but the placement she failed, and passed on repeat, was at Chester. The point I have been making is that we have no evidence whatsoever that anyone at her only other workplace, Liverpool, found her odd or alarming.

The doctor the prosecution described as her "boyfriend" only arrived at the hospital after the first five of seven deaths and was only present for two of the fifteen incidents for which she was convicted over all. If you read the prosecution cross-examination, they basically threw everything plus the kitchen sink at her. They're allowed to do that - they don't need evidence to ask questions or make accusations at that point. And tabloids often pick it up as fact.

She was presumably told not to shout her innocence in court. Have you read coverage of people who do so, like Constance Martens for example? It's really very unfavourable.

You're reading Judith Moritz's subjective description of Lucy Letby in court there. I've read a lot of her cross examination. I don't see what Moritz is seeing. But I don't think it's a sensible basis to judge people on anyway - how they come across, heavily medicated, in a nightmarish situation like that.

Incompetence

If you read the transcripts, there's not actually that much agreement even between the prosecution experts. Often they are arguing different things. But they have a strong push toward agreement because they misinterpreted Shoo Lee's work the same way - not clear whether they all read it or they all relied on Evans's reading of it

But if you don't even know who the other experts on insulin are, how on earth do you know enough about their work to dismiss their contributions? Their identity isn't a secret and they have several relevant publications. You are making it very obvious you're coming to this question from a place of prejudice.

To the people asking about LL behaviour in previous workplaces. A quick google brings up articles and news items which detail how she had failed placements and details questions around her suitability for the job as she was deemed to lack warmth.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvj64wk38d72o

I found this article really interesting (sorry if been posted before). It details lies LL told and her involvement with deceased babies when she was told to work with another child.

To answer the question of the OP. Yes it has changed my mind and pushed me towards finding her guilty. The details above alongside the inappropriate communications with the Dr who is now deceased.

I couldn’t quite figure out a motive. But then read that it was put forward that she enjoyed the attention and causing this dr to run to the scene etc. Does LL have a gaping black hole inside her, an emptiness which she feeds through the attention and sympathy of being on scene during these deaths? What caused that I don’t know but some people’s brains are just damaged or missing something.

Alot of people made mistakes including the consultants that didn't do the job that they were paid to do yet this seems to have been overlooked.
Whether letby is guilty or not the enquiry has massive holes in it, in that it lets certain groups off without so much as a slap on the wrist even when they were caught lying.

If you mean by the poll, then maybe you should wait until the time limit is up. As it currently shows differently to what you claim, and may change again.

You claim others have a closed mind yet you are the one that is not open to different views and are quite happy to call others names.
And you haven't argued for letby's guilt for a long time. you have just repeated that you think that she is guilty.

You have no idea how you'd behave actually. Until you're in such a situation you have no idea. Also, you do and behave as your legal team tells you.

And BTW, that piece of alleged journalism reads like a penny dreadful.

Incompetence? A rush to shoehorn in as much "bad" as could be found? Who knows. But it certainly doesn't inspire confidence in their competence or methodology given the gravity of the case, does it?

Was her defence during court proceedings as poor as I recall reading?
Not the point of the thread I know, but I can’t see how a lay jury could understand the medical technicalities. There might be an argument for a knowledgeable jury for cases like these?

Oh, she’s guilty as sin. Aside from the evidence presented at the trial, I always thought her behaviour in the dock absolutely confirmed it. If I was being tried for a crime I didn’t commit (particularly one as heinous as this) I’d be shouting my innocence from the rooftops. Not acting cold, detached, cocky and trying to outsmart the lawyer.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66104004

@MistressoftheDarkSideHow did they simultaneously cherry pick only Letby shifts yet one where she wasn't even on shift got through?

They ignored post mortem findings and theorised based on the premise that the babies had been harmed by Lucy Letby who was "always there" (even when she wasn't - see the infamous x-ray volte face) . Whether that counts as lying I'm not sure, but I'm pretty sure Ravi Jayaram committed perjury.

There really isn't. It was agreed in court two of the babies were poisoned with insulin. The only people saying it wasn't a poisoning are on her new (expert shopped) defence panel. And the main ones just quit, unsure who the ones left are who supposedly have some natural explanation for it. But they just lost the main ones who were apparently going to make sure she was exonerated...

Even without that there's enough evidence against her-multiple experts all agreeing this was air embolism, overfeeding, impact type injuries. Why would they ALL lie?

But a failing hospital can cause baby deaths.

Overworked/poorly performing nurses missing signs of deterioration.

Lack of doctors and infrequent medical reviews meaning babies not given correct treatment.

Poor clinical practice leading to unanticipated complications e.g. thrombosis from unmaintained umbilical lines.

Poor communication between staff meaning babies not receiving the care they needed.

Pressures from non clinical managers to take babies sicker than they were able to manage.

Inadequate conditions causing infection. Broken equipment causing measurement errors.

These were sick babies who were not expected to die if given all the care we expect from a level 2 neonatal unit. But these babies were in a unit that wasn't equipped to provide safe neonatal care, so their prognosis would actually have been very different.

There is no material available to people who followed the trial at the time that isn't available still. There is no reason to dismiss the opinions of people who read or heard it later.

Still waiting for a plausible explanation of how the "liver injury" was accomplished.

And how air down an NG tube could be used as a murder method - oh wait, the expert who postulated that changed his mind, didn't he?

Or how insulin got put into feed bags that were tamper proof.

When you look at each individual case, there are still more questions than answers.

There’s definitely reasonable doubt in my opinion. No real solid evidence so not sure how anyone can be 100% convinced of guilt.

Why are you surprised when this was the basis for the entire enquiry?

I'm talking about the reaction on here to the enquiry. I see a lot of people haven't learned from the mistakes the managers made-hopefully they don't work in safe guarding or if they do they would actually take concerns brought to them seriously.

Can you prove this, or are you just making the same assumptions as always?

It's right here on this thread from plenty of posters.

Pot, Kettle.

Yeah I should really change my mind and delude myself she's innocent. If there was the remotest chance of that I wouldn't be arguing so strongly for her guilt.