Lucy Letby - new thread

[anonymousamy]

No idea why the last one was taken down, but for anyone who wants to continue the discussion on Letby, I’m starting a new thread here.

I’m 100% sure she’s guilty, but I’m still massively struggling to comprehend why on earth she did it.

Oh yeh that would make sense as it would be 7 one year and 8 the next plus one or two natural deaths in line with the average which would fit with what I remember. That makes sense now-thank you! I should've realised the way they do the stats would cover a different 12 month period to what they mean when they link LL to 13 deaths in 12 months. Ugh I'm an idiot lol.

I have a better idea as the UK has problems with its public finances: it can scrap the entire expensive public jury system and replace it with Exorex.

Is that the science that causes an unhygienic environment to create a huge spike of synthetic insulin in babies’ bloodstreams? Or the one that injects them with air bubbles?

Neither of the ‘sources’ Dahlia provided say they are him. One says “Science on Trial and its contributor(s) are not affiliated, associated, authorized, or in any way connected with Dr Richard Gill and/or his affiliates.”

And the Science on Trial page starts off wrong so what is the point in reading further. It says “It was only after the Consultants, running the neonatal unit, were the subject of a critical report from the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health (RCPCH) that the Consultants filed a report with the police alleging the infant deaths were due to the actions of nurse Lucy Letby.” But we know this isn’t true, because Dr Brearey raised concerns about LL in July 2015 with senior management at the Countess of Chester Hospital and repeatedly asked for police to be brought in.

She was investigated by The Royal College of Paediatricians and Child Health who found she had done nothing wrong.

And another lie. LL was not investigated by the RCPCH, wiki reports that “The trust set a narrow scope for the review that excluded investigating Letby's actions or the deaths, but instead focused on the general service.”

What were the tribunal charges against her? If it was competence, especially early on, she could have passed. I don't think she was incompetent.
What the stats don't show is death from natural causes. The causes of death in this case weren't natural. Stats for unexplained deaths would make more sense.

I don’t know much about the parents, but I don’t place much significance on what LL to anyone as she’s a manipulative liar.

What she has said seem fairly ubiquitous and the kind of things you hear people say. She could just be repeating what she believes are the appropriate to blend in.

We also know has a pattern of lying to get sympathy - such as she was arrested and led out in a nightie, which made her sound vulnerable, but as per the cross examination (and video) she was in a track suit.

Poor Lucy and her overbearing parents. I expect she was manipulating and pursuing this contact with parents just as she was with others.

Let's take Child I for example of how spurious this evidence is. Dr Gibbs made the decision to take Child I off ventilation as they were "fighting the ventilator". He then goes home, 90 minutes later Child I passed away after extensive attempts to resuscitate.

Now any sane person here, would seriously consider that the removal from ventilation for this very sick and premature infant was the inciting event for their collapse and potentially the wrong medical decision. Yet Lucy is convicted of murder on the hard hitting evidence of being near the child and trying to settle them whilst working as a nurse on a neonatal ward.

You’re obviously right(!), or you are just trying to get another thread pulled?

The prison she is in has a nickname of monster mansion along with the male prison next door. There are no vulnerable prisoner wings in women's prisons, only the segregation block where prisoners are locked up 23 hours a day. Joanna Dennehy is in the prison, it is the top security prison for women.

Exactly. It’s extremely frightening to witness people’s dismissal of the very big questions about the total lack of evidence in this case in their desperation to identify with the parents and make it all about them.

God help us all if this is the direction the legal system is heading in.

It will be relatively straightforward Dahliaredhead, the verdicts will be quashed and there will be a retrial, evan's "expert witness" theory in this case has already been proven to be nonsensical, there are myriad reasons for a retrial, all involving unsubstantive "evidence"

"“Last November a report by the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health (RCPCH) found that staffing at the hospital’s neonatal unit, which reported a “higher than usual” number of baby deaths, was inadequate. Two babies died in the unit in 2013 and three died in 2014. In comparison, there were eight deaths in 2015 and five in 2016.” Source the Guardian article I linked previously. The initial investigation was also about a higher than average incidence of still births, which LL can’t have had anything to do with.

Also, this quite well known and respected statistician has got these figures from somewhere, which show deaths in the neonatal unit did not go down after she stopped working in the ward (in fact, the figures seem
to show they increased):
www.chimpinvestor.com/post/the-travesty-of-the-lucy-letby-verdicts

Can anyone with a better grasp of statistics than me she’s any light on this?

There is all this information too: rexvlucyletby2023.com/

about alternative explanations for the high incidence of deaths and flaws in the evidence. I have read it through once and it doesn’t seem like a silly conspiracy theory so far. I could be wrong though, and I hope I am, I just don’t feel easy about the verdict yet. Has anyone had a read any of this stuff?"

Richard Gill has written about the case on his personal website. It's an interesting read.

https://gill1109.com/?amp=1

As for the report, the section about Letby was redacted I believe for privacy reasons. But yes this investigation did what a good investigation is supposed to do and looked at the whole picture. Considered every death on that ward, not just the ones cherry picked by the consultants that they wanted looked at. The investigation found issues with hygiene, with issues not being investigated quickly enough, with the way the consultants hand handled the investigation themselves. It did not find any evidence of crime being carried out.

Why can’t people get this is a Level 2 care, these babies should not be dying at all.

Dennehy is the only one of the four women given a whole life order who isn’t a child killer. Perhaps why she is less notorious

Deeply unsafe conviction imho.

This blog is worth a read.
https://lawhealthandtech.substack.com/p/scepticism-in-action

Clearly a very well-known and reputable academic journal.

"Qualifications in Law, Health Science, Informatics and Computing and a depressingly high amount of life experience for only one lifetime."

He only needed to add "University of Life".

This case horrifies every bone in my body. I am
Parent to a NICU baby. We were staying at the hospital for 20 hours a day. She was still overfed by a consultant who wanted to 'speed her up' instead of having to cannulate again. She took a real downturn as a result and went from being stable on minimal oxygen to having to be ventilated again for a number of days. A NiCU nurse fought with the consultants to change the care plan and luckily my baby improved. I lost count of the number of times during our 6 week stay, we had issues with air almost being accidentally injected, feeding tubes dislodged and other problems. These were mistakes not by evil staff but perhaps overworked and overstretched staff. I can't comprehend how anybody could commit such heinous actions deliberately but have seen first hand where it has happened accidentally. It's triggered an emotional response and I have found myself crying thinking about how it could well have been my child.

I'm also disgusted with myself as I have often searched families I've worked with before. I like to know their background and progress. It's hard not to become emotionally invested in your cases. I must stop as I now know it is unhealthy and strange.

LL committed these crimes. Understanding how and why is the hard part. I think a lot of the reason she got away with it for so long is because they didn't want to lose another member of staff in an already underfunded and under-resourced area. There are so many failings within hospitals up and down the country that allow unsafe and illegal practice to continue. LL deserved to be punished physically until she explains the why!

I’m very sorry that you had a bad experience, but you said it yourself - you lost count of the mistakes that were accidentally made. If so many mistakes are made by so many people, how can you possibly know that LL committed any crime? You might think she did or have a gut feeling, but where is the actual evidence?

We can’t parade someone before a baying mob, lock them up and throw away the key on the basis of a gut feeling. There has to be at least some proof.

Hats off to the jurors.
I couldn't have done it.
My science isn't good enough.
I keep going yes, she did it then reading stuff I don't really understand and changing my mind again.
I'd have been the one abstaining.

You might think she did or have a gut feeling, but where is the actual evidence?

The evidence was presented to the court in the course of a trial that lasted months. If there is relevant evidence that wasn't presented then the remedy is a quashing of the verdict.

The court didn't spend months ruminating about a gut feeling.

Another point is that if the mountain of evidence was a stitch up I fail to see how a random blogger's opinion, based on the same evidence, is worth anything. There was no stitch-up. The reason why she was acquitted on some charges was because the proof on those charges wasn't good enough for the jury. On others, it was, and that is that: she mounted no sort of defence because she didn't have one.

What is the most damning evidence for you Tom?

I haven't read it - can you pinpoint what the blog says that makes you think it's an unsafe conviction?

There isn't any.

So many sock puppets in the middle of the night.

This blog is worth a read
Nope, it reminds me of 28 slide clickbait.
I, too, would appreciate a summary though.