Letby Case (part 2)

[OneFrenchEgg]

www.mumsnet.com/talk/_chat/4652340-lucy-letby-court-case?reply=121815754

follow up, remember rules around discussion of active cases

New head of paediatrics in 2015.

I do see your point, it’s just rather weak.

@Prevmidwife - I’m asking here but also saying that info generally doesn’t appear to be available apart from mostly photos of her out and about, her house etc.

No problem, I thought you couldn't see where I was coming from as you had disregarded it. But thank you for acknowledging it exists.

Yes, that could be a factor, nobody is denying it. Im willing to look at all possible causes. If they put him on trial I'll also maintain an open mind.

Bizarre how 2 accounts from prosecution and defence and can be so vastly difference. I thought this was supposed to be evidence. Its all just speculation.

I really wish they would clarify the insulin levels. Do you think the judge will do it at the end?

Just because Myers says something it doesn’t mean it is true.

Just because he is rubbishing a piece of research written 30 years ago it doesn’t mean it is rubbish.

As was said in court there is limited information on how embolisms present in neonates because you can’t test it ethically.

Just because Myers is saying this person lied and that person lied it doesn’t mean it’s true in the slightest.

Plenty of Nurses have come on to the thread and explained how rare these sudden collapses are.

Myers is saying all nurses have access to the fridges whereas Letby said there was a key for that fridge and only she and another nurse had access on that particular shift. So what if he is saying the attack wasn’t targeted - if the alleged killer enjoys drama and spontaneous drama at that I would imagine waiting for that bag to take effect could have been quite exciting.

We are not privy to the whole transcripts - I’m sure the jury will have a better grasp on things.

I feel the prosecution stuck to hard facts whereas Myers is spouting his opinion a lot

Even Letby said these babies were well cared for.

Just because Myers says something it doesn’t mean it is true

Equally just because you don't like what the defence KC is saying doesn't make it un-true
.

Just because he is rubbishing a piece of research written 30 years ago it doesn’t mean it is rubbish.

Have you read the paper? I read it months ago when it was linked on Thread 1
maybe you should read it for yourself?

I wasn't at all impressed by it and believe it's important to question it

@HelensToenail

who said I don’t like what Myers has said?

how do you know I haven’t looked at that paper already?

opinions, opinions……….

Have you read the paper then?

What was your analysis?

It's hard to make a call as we don't know what details haven't been reported.
From my time on the neonatal unit, the facts I have heard would point me in the direction of a guilty verdict. But there are possibly other factors that would steer the jury the other way.

I hope that the jury is able to reach a verdict quickly, for the sake of the families.

Issue with questioning the expert witnesses and saying they are not embolism experts is that, I may be wrong but I do not believe they exist. Air embolism is so rare, and like we have said its not ethical to test, so there probably isn't anyone available to be called upon by the defence, and no more recent papers discussing the topic. At university we are just taught not to do a) b) and c) because it causes air embolism which is basically catastrophic.

I had no idea the legal system could twist evidence to fit their version of the truth. Neither version seems plausible.

Yes if negligence why would there be a sudden increase in baby deaths in 2015- but then why would a fairly newly qualified apparently popular successful excellent nurse start murdering babies when she had worked there since 2011. To impress Doctor A? But he didn't work there until later I don't believe?

The fact a new head of dept. started in 2015 seems major to me. Major change overs like this can massively influence culture and working practices in a unit.

But then if there has been nothing like this in any trust since then, it makes it more plausible that this was suspicious. I don't know I haven't looked at the stats. But in my own unit- it was fairly pleasant to work at in the period in question. Things have gone downhill considerably since then, the unit is incredibly short staffed, and I don't feel it is the safe place it once was. Hence why I'm no longer a part of it. I suspect many many other units the same. Things have got worse not better, so you would expect a repeat of this pattern at other units across the UK since then if this was being blamed on staffing/negligence/culture.

The whole trial is based on speculation - that’s the point. I think the summaries are highlighting how little evidence there is.

Surely if the whole trial is based on speculation and very little evidence unless there’s a smoking gun or whatever the analogy is, how can you then return a guilty verdict?

I’m not saying Letby is guilty or not, I honestly have no idea.

Agree prevmidwife. This ought to be happening all over the place, both at the time and now. More so now. And no one is joining the dots between staffing/negligence and cause of death. Not in the way that you see in reports into things like East Kent. Are we saying it was an air embolism but cause by sloppy or rushed procedures or it wasn’t an air embolism it was something else w.g. missed obs meaning things were missed and these babies weren’t as stable or improving as much as expected? If so is there evidence of that in the medical notes?

I know nurses have killed before and doctors come to that but I’ve heard of nurses and doctors being accused of murder/harm being convicted and then the conviction is overturned as they’re not guilty?

Agreed with what @Prevmidwife says and if you work in this sea even more concerning re major change overs and done is in this case influencing culture and working practices in a unit.

I'd feel awful and doubtful if she is found guilty- ie what if she isn't?! But also really worried if found innocent. What if she is guilty and has got away with it.

Horrendous. What can they do with cases like this.

I personally feel nhs staff need bodycams or cctv in every unit similar to the police. Protects the staff and patients.

If the jury don't come to a decision isn't the entire case thrown out? Or is there a retrial?

Hung jury = CPS make a decision whether to retry the case.

How does that process work? Are they immediately given a new date for whenever there is space and can new evidence be introduced in the meantime? How long do the CPS have to decide to whether to retry? Does double jeopardy only apply to "not guilty" outcomes rather than hung juries?

Lots of questions, anyone know the answers?

Another question: will the jury need to vote unanimiously or is a majority verdict allowed?

Prosecution applies for a retrial. The judge considers whether it’s in the public interest for a retrial to go ahead. I don’t know how they schedule it. But they hear the same case again with a new jury. New evidence can be used.
A trial of this nature is not likely not to be retried.

Unanimous is preferable, but if that fails I think judge can allow a minimum of 10.