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

One thing I always see on LL threads is that people say quite a few other babies died in 2015 and 2016 and that the police only focused on the ones killed by Letby, therefore the spreadsheet that shows LL was present when all the babies were murdered / attemptingly murdered is misleading.

But this report shows that in 2015, only 3 other babies died, two of them from severe congenital abnormalities and one from prematurity with sepsis.

And that in 2016, only 3 other babies died, all from congenital abnormalities.

It does highlight to me that there are a lot of armchair detectives on MN and Reddit and that everything, including the vociferous defence of LL on these threads, needs to be taken with a pinch of salt.

------

1. In 2015, eight babies out of 468 admissions died on the neonatal unit. In addition, two other babies born at the Countess were transferred to other hospitals, where they died. Three of the eight babies who died at the Countess were babies in respect of whom no charges were brought against Letby. Two of them died from severe congenital abnormalities. The third died from prematurity with sepsis. Letby was charged with and convicted of murdering the other five babies: Baby A, Baby C, Baby D, Baby E and Baby I.

1. There were 496 admissions to the neonatal unit in 2016. In the first six months, five babies died. Three babies who died in January, February and March all died from congenital abnormalities. No charges were brought against Letby in respect of these deaths. Letby was charged with and convicted of murdering the other two babies – Baby O and Baby P, two of three triplets – in late June 2016. Following their deaths, and as a result of serious concerns persistently expressed by consultant paediatricians, Letby was moved off the unit into a non-clinical role in the Risk and Patient Safety Department in July 2016. At about the same time, the neonatal unit was downgraded to Level 1, with a higher limit of gestation for admission of 32 weeks. The babies named on the indictment (the list of charges in the Crown Court) who had died in 2015 and 2016 ranged in gestation from 23 weeks and 6 days to 37 weeks and 1 day.

I had no idea before, but she’s now so obviously guilty there’s no wiggle room. Money well spent.

NHS and totally agree.
And when she wrote "I did it, I killed them"
that didn't mean she actually murdered them. She may have felt to blame as she felt she wasn't good enough, especially if the finger was being pointed at her. she was probably traumatised. The NHS would throw you under a bus if they could to save themselves.
Years later, I still feel guilty and that I was to blame for the death of a patient. I felt I made mistakes. I have never murdered anyone.
I haven't read it either though so freely admit if I did I may feel differently.

She sounds like a somewhat inadequate nurse for sure. Was this due to carelessness, inexperience or malice?

Have you seen the report about Leeds and prem babies ?

YANBU because she is guilty and was found guilty by 2 different jury’s in 2 separate trials and also her right to appeal denied. I hope the horrible piece of filth suffers daily forever until she’s carried out in a box!

This is not something I read about.

My two pennies worth

she failed her final nursing assessment on empathy and behaviour -
she was passed on resists
she have a baby 10 times the prescribed dose of morphine in a previous job …
she was taken off given medication - a key nursing job - for a period of time
in the post under the nurse manager relevant to the neonatal unit, she successfully argued to have that overturned …
a nurse with a serious drug error should not be able to ‘argue her way out’ of a competency concern

colleagues - nurses and doctors reported her behaviour as problematic-
on one occasion where she was allocated a sick baby she was fussing around a dying one that she was not allocated, and had to be told to leave -
the baby she was allocated and neglecting developed sepsis due to her lack of attention

the inquiry flags up the culture among the hospital managers to respond to serious safeguarding concerns as highly neglectful -

it confirms that LL’s actions where allowed to continue due to a poor response to
whistleblowers
unusual adverse clinical events
safeguarding

Same.

The recommendations are interesting too. The cot cameras seem worth considering. I think recommendation 9 is going to get thorny though. 9b says when concerns about deliberate harm are raised in good faith they must be acted on. Wouldn't like to be in charge of deciding what constitutes good faith and what doesn't.

If they were not murdered by insulin poisoning, then the case against her falls.

Was that tested in court? On oath?

If “people” had those misgivings, especially if there were deaths, they are criminally negligent not to have raised the issue at the time.

So I strongly doubt any of these people would be willing to testify on oath.

But possibly to give a non-attributable interview to a newspaper.

It was my understanding that haven’t exactly jumped ship - they still think she’s innocent.

They haven't said they believe she is innocent, but they have said they believe it's very unlikely that two babies were murdered with insulin poisoning.

I don’t know if she’s guilty or not, & the inquiry did not investigate her guilt or the conduct of the trial.

I’m fairly sure the trial verdict is not safe, though.

The inquiry seems (I haven’t read all the details so just onna skim reading) to show an awful lot of reasons why the neonatal unit was horribly unsafe & should not have been handling newborns that sick and that fragile.

I’m less confident than I was (which was not very) that anyone needed to deliberately harm these babies in order for them to die.

I don't see much point having the enquiry report when the case is still with the CCRC.

The Thirwell inquiry was based on the premise of (paraphrased) 'Given that the babies were murdered by Lucy Letby, what could have been done to stop her sooner?'. Those who think she is innocent, or at least think the conviction is unsafe, assert that it isn't a given that the babies were murdered at all. So the Thirwell inquiry doesn't give any sway in that respect.

If Lucy Letby was guilty and the prosecuting team were confident of her guilt, they wouldn't have had to manipulate the evidence, would they?

I believe she’s been scapegoated for the deaths, caused by a poor neonatal unit.

I find it strange that there been several investigations into maternity units, such as Nottingham, etc. Some of those babies’ deaths must be down to neglect by clearly identifiable HCPs, involved in the care of the mother and baby, but I cannot recall one individual being named in the press, never mind being charged with neglect, manslaughter or murder? Why haven’t the CEOs of those hospitals been charged, when imo, the buck stops at the top?

Don’t forget that she had worked in other hospitals where staff had serious misgivings about the ‘care’ she provided……..

Yes. They haven’t jumped ship because they think she’s guilty after all, they just don’t think Mark Macdonald’s approach is the best way to free her.
They still strongly believe the evidence does not point to murder.
It’s hardly surprising that with so many people having concerns about the conviction and such a complex case, her supporters won’t all agree about everything.

I don’t know whether she’s guilty or not. If pressed I’d lean more towards guilty.
However I believe the conviction is unsafe.

With regards to your question OP, I actually have no opinion on whether she’s guilty or innocent. I don’t see how we will ever know at this point. I do think it’s a very shoddy conviction, however, and I’m uncomfortable with it.

It was my understanding that haven’t exactly jumped ship - they still think she’s innocent. They just don’t agree with the fact that the defence is running with two opposing theories re the insulin. Essentially, there are two sets of experts who both think she’s innocent but for different reasons. Set 1 has withdrawn in protest of the fact that having two opposing theories risks undermining Letby’s appeal.

is that right? Would be happy to be corrected. I’m basing this off what was reported on BBC news

It makes no difference to me. I have no opinion on her guilt or innocence.

I do think the initial trial was unsafe based on information that has since emerged and I do hope the CCRC sends the case back to the courts.

Still on the fence, and not entirely sure she's guilty.

Agree with a lot that this poster says....

@Dollymylove · Today 15:43

I dont believe Lucy is guilty. I have been reading articles on it.
Nobody ever saw Lucy harm any babies.
The hospital was run down, dirty, bad plumbing and reports have stated that the hospitals facilities were inadequate for treating tiny, very prem babies.

Staff rotas all over the place, long shifts, lack of staff and Lucy apparently wasnt even on shift when some babies collapsed.

Yes, this is our world renowned NHS 😡😡

I think that the trial was shaky. I also think that the NHS needs significant reform. But that doesn’t mean I’m confident of her innocence.

I’ve never had an inkling that she was guilty or otherwise so I suppose I’m a fence sitter.

I still am a fence sitter following the enquiry. I just don’t know if she did it. But I’m certain that the chaotic NHS can’t continue as it is.