Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Chat

Join the discussion and chat with other Mumsnetters about everyday life, relationships and parenting.

Lucy Letby - new thread (part 2)

1000 replies

anonymousamy · 26/08/2023 22:32

A thread for anyone who was on the last one and wanted to continue the discussion.

What I cannot wrap my head around is Letby’s seemingly completely normal upbringing. Usually serial killers have displayed some kind of markers by the time they start killing, but AFAIK she literally had none. 100% believe she is guilty BTW - just cannot begin to understand it.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
19
Mummysaf · 28/08/2023 08:23

Janieforever · 27/08/2023 18:00

a huge, huge amount of murders are convicted on overwhelming circumstantial evidence. Would you like them all to be released? Or just the baby serial killer Letby?

im stunned at what folks are posting. Husband murders his wife. No one sees him doing it. But suspicion is he’s been beating her for years. So many injuries she had, but she never told. Then she’s killed. Strangled to death. No one saw. She never reported dv. So for some posters he can’t be convincted? Because it’s just circumstantial?

people really think this?

That’s not really a fitting comparison though is it.
I just think things like the graph / table showing Lucy Letby being on duty that could of in fact been presented for any nurse just don’t make sense to me.
Only two of the babies - the triplets injected with insulin are the ones who are proven murdered.The ones apparently injected with air are just a presumption.They think that’s what happened .
I by no means am professing innocence but there are some things that do not sit right with me .

Lucy Letby - new thread (part 2)
Boshi · 28/08/2023 08:29

@CakeForAll21 where are you getting your numbers of increased deaths post 2016? And why attempt to build a picture of Cheshire police as bumbling PC Plods? What’s your motive here?

Also, attempting to describe police officers as being unable to speak to each other without spilling confidential information because their children might attend after school clubs together? 🤷‍♀️

Heres some data showing the trend in deaths (I think it’s under 1 of which most will be in the first few months of life)

Further data needed to qualify these numbers in terms of age by weeks etc but this isn’t showing the picture you intend

Lucy Letby - new thread (part 2)
LizzieSiddal · 28/08/2023 08:43

I’m leaving the thread now. There’s so much inaccurate information and hearsay being posted. As the saying goes “you can’t argue with stupid”.

itsgettingweird · 28/08/2023 08:46

I just think things like the graph / table showing Lucy Letby being on duty that could of in fact been presented for any nurse just don’t make sense to me.

It did show all nursing staff.

It showed every single member of staff on duty at each death and unexpected collapse.

It was how they discovered LL was the one present at everyone.

If another nurse was that present person the graph would have showed that.

itsgettingweird · 28/08/2023 08:48

LizzieSiddal · 28/08/2023 08:43

I’m leaving the thread now. There’s so much inaccurate information and hearsay being posted. As the saying goes “you can’t argue with stupid”.

Which bits do you think are inaccurate?

I agree with the wild speculations of her parents. Hence why I don't post these things.

But the evidence given in court and reported and typed on this thread is accurate.

Some people may not like it and if on the jury would have decided differently.

But that doesn't make it false.

LizzieSiddal · 28/08/2023 08:54

I wholeheartedly agree with you @itsgettingweird.

Statements such as “I just think things like the graph / table showing Lucy Letby being on duty that could have in fact been presented for any nurse just don’t make sense to me.”
If the poster doesn’t even understand something as basic as the “who was on duty” evidence, there’s no point in having a conversation.

MisschiefMaker · 28/08/2023 08:57

itsgettingweird · 28/08/2023 06:44

For those wondering about the air in the stomach.

Every single person who feeds a child via ng or gasostromy tube knows these risks from the training. That's parents, school staff, HCPs - EVERYONE.

It's called dumping. It's when you syringe milk into a person too quickly. It can cause the stomach to push up onto the diaphragm (a bit like the feeling when you eat too much!)

It's the same with air. Lots of people tube fed have them tube attached and opened to allow air to escape before feeding. Especially those who have limited free movement to live trapped wind around independently.

That's why feeds are often given via gravity. (Put in tube and allowed to enter at a gravity speed and the syringe is held up and down to manage the speed). It's also why most tube fed people have a pump which controls the speed the feed is put into the stomach.

Sometimes with small babies and less than a ml of food a syringe will be used.

Buts the absolutely no way IMO an experienced ICU nurse or even nurses were accidentally dumping over and over again causing the diaphragm splinting.

That's why I believe it was all deliberate. That's one of the procedures (for want of a better word) that you don't need to be an ICU nurse to carry out.

See, this explains exactly why I am still sceptical of the evidence.

Neonatal units learn the rules about how to care from babies through textbooks. They don't actually understand babies very well at all, and they don't get that all babies are different. I can absolutely believe that dumping occurred. For example, when a new baby is born these doctors are convinced they need to feed every 2 hours and, in a hospital setting, they can force them to.

I saw it myself with my own child who was incorrectly put on a drip within 6 hrs of being born because she'd only fed once in that time (which I now know is to totally normal. It's unbelievable that doctors don't know that, but they don't). I also saw it with my friends preemie who was force fed / tortured for months on advice of well intentioned doctors who were obsessed with him putting on weight. The poor kid would throw up after every feed and quickly developed a food aversion as a baby. It wasn't until she saw a lactation consultant (even tho she was bottle feeding) that she learned that babies are intuitive eaters and often each much less than doctors say. At that point she started following her baby's cues and her baby did end up putting on weight.

We have to put a lot of trust in the neonatal understanding of what is "normal" for babies. To me, that is very risky.

Oulu · 28/08/2023 08:58

978q · 27/08/2023 23:23

"Cause of death is going to be part of proving that. A post-mortem report isn't going to act as a substitute for this: the court must reach its own decision. So the report itself is irrelevant"

The PM's are widely reported as concluding the baby deaths as being natural causes, sort of negates murder being committed, if true.

We shall know when the PM's are published under FOI.

Not necessarily.

I remember once dealing with a case where a post mortem report certified that someone had died in their sleep. Subsequently it turned out they'd been shot in the head.

OK, that's an extreme case, but it does demonstrate that, unsurprisingly, pathologists aren't infallible, particularly with hard-to-detect causes of death like air embolisms.

MisschiefMaker · 28/08/2023 09:03

I remember once dealing with a case where a post mortem report certified that someone had died in their sleep. Subsequently it turned out they'd been shot in the head.

Omg 😳

978q · 28/08/2023 09:04

The prosecution say murder, which the post-mortem results baldly contradict, by citing natural causes, as cause of death, they are mutually exclusive. Some dismissing the PM's as just coming to different conclusions, should give themselves a shake, the PM's were carried out by pathologists, who were there. Not one called, or a statement from any admitted into evidence. Also the Coroner of the day, who refused to revisit his pathologists findings of death by natural causes, was neither called nor any affidavit produced into evidence.

Interestingly Dr Evans told the court he didn't claim to be an expert witness, merely " Dr Evans said he had called himself a medical independent witness, not as an expert, and he had come to assist the court on challenging medicla issues"
Dr Evans dissemination of evidence has been heavily criticised by Judges in other cases, in which he appeared, Ben Myers had good reason for opposing his inclusion as a witness, notwithstanding Evans totally misrepresenting how he was a witness in the first place.

There is more than enough reasons to have these verdicts revisited, in the interests of Justice for all.

However I am aware that there are those, who need someone to be guilty, indeed someone may be guilty, or multiple people may be culpable of lower than acceptable professional care.

Whatever it is, I am hopeful that the babies, the parents and all else will see true justice done in their names, however that justice falls.

JanieEyre · 28/08/2023 09:10

978q · 28/08/2023 00:03

"I think you get the point but you don't want to admit it"

You don't have a point, let me put it in simple terms, exculpatory evidence may have been withheld by the court, if it was, serious repercussions will follow, not least for the Crown, time will tell, of course it is possible there may be no appeal.

It's interesting that you seem to have a confused understanding of the trial process, otherwise you wouldn't claim that evidence was withheld "by the court". The court would only ever get involved in decisions about what evidence is presented if there was a dispute about it. I'm sure we would have heard all about it if Letby's defence had been stopped from producing something they believed to be relevant.

This evidence really can't have been withheld by the crown, either, because the defence knew perfectly well that it existed and had the right to demand to see it and that it be put in evidence if it helped their case. As is pointed out above, evidence available at the post mortems was available to the court, so all concerned knew that PMs had happened in at least some cases and that reports would have resulted from them. Unless you are going to claim that experienced defence lawyers were totally unaware of basic PM procedure?

So, if the reports weren't given to the jury, it must have been on the basis that no-one, defence included, thought they added anything. The jury knew perfectly well that the original PMs had not resulted in findings of homicide, they knew what the evidence was the pathologists saw. It must be the case that those pathologists accepted that their original findings were wrong, otherwise they would have been called as witnesses by the defence.

Seashellies · 28/08/2023 09:13

Dr Evans dissemination of evidence has been heavily criticised by Judges in other cases, in which he appeared

He has had one in his 30 years of working in this area criticised. This was because an initial report was submitted to be used in an appeal without his knowledge so it wasn't finalised. This was discussed at LLs trial and the judge didn't deem it relevant to this case.

978q · 28/08/2023 09:15

Perhaps you don't understand the abuse of disclosure, of which the Crown has been guilty of on many occasions, have a lovely day.

TomPinch · 28/08/2023 09:23

978q · 28/08/2023 09:15

Perhaps you don't understand the abuse of disclosure, of which the Crown has been guilty of on many occasions, have a lovely day.

There's no indication that they failed to disclose anything in this case though.

978q · 28/08/2023 09:26

Seashellies · 28/08/2023 09:13

Dr Evans dissemination of evidence has been heavily criticised by Judges in other cases, in which he appeared

He has had one in his 30 years of working in this area criticised. This was because an initial report was submitted to be used in an appeal without his knowledge so it wasn't finalised. This was discussed at LLs trial and the judge didn't deem it relevant to this case.

For you to look at... www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5a8ff87360d03e7f57ec0ab6

Efacsen · 28/08/2023 09:31

978q · 28/08/2023 09:15

Perhaps you don't understand the abuse of disclosure, of which the Crown has been guilty of on many occasions, have a lovely day.

It seems clear from your posts that you have never seen a 'PM Report' or know what they contain

Not even convinced that the jury didn't receive the reports anyway - they had such huge document bundles that they were provided with iPads for the first time in a UK court

Basically you don't seem to accept that diagnoses can be reveiwed and changed - it's something which happens all the time in healthcare

TomPinch · 28/08/2023 09:33

978q · 28/08/2023 09:04

The prosecution say murder, which the post-mortem results baldly contradict, by citing natural causes, as cause of death, they are mutually exclusive. Some dismissing the PM's as just coming to different conclusions, should give themselves a shake, the PM's were carried out by pathologists, who were there. Not one called, or a statement from any admitted into evidence. Also the Coroner of the day, who refused to revisit his pathologists findings of death by natural causes, was neither called nor any affidavit produced into evidence.

Interestingly Dr Evans told the court he didn't claim to be an expert witness, merely " Dr Evans said he had called himself a medical independent witness, not as an expert, and he had come to assist the court on challenging medicla issues"
Dr Evans dissemination of evidence has been heavily criticised by Judges in other cases, in which he appeared, Ben Myers had good reason for opposing his inclusion as a witness, notwithstanding Evans totally misrepresenting how he was a witness in the first place.

There is more than enough reasons to have these verdicts revisited, in the interests of Justice for all.

However I am aware that there are those, who need someone to be guilty, indeed someone may be guilty, or multiple people may be culpable of lower than acceptable professional care.

Whatever it is, I am hopeful that the babies, the parents and all else will see true justice done in their names, however that justice falls.

Every point you make has been answered already.

Seashellies · 28/08/2023 09:36

It won't open as it's being stopped by my spam filter, but BM did question his validity as an expert and it was discussed and the judge made a decision during the trial. I'm not sure why you think this would then be reason for the whole trial to be overturned seen as though it was already highlighted?

This is the thing, so much of what is brought up as a reason for the result to be overturned or viewed as wrong was discussed and considered during the trial or is not the case at all. I don't think people who think justice has been served are sheep who just follow what they're told, but for those who have followed the trial these same gotchas aren't actually anything of the sort as they've been covered. BM is also renowned for his attention to detail and for his trial preparation, if there was anything relevant that Internet sleuths could find him and his team would no doubt have also found it.

Quitelikeit · 28/08/2023 09:38

I’m astounded that people are still arguing about the verdict. I followed the trial from the start and I can assure you I refused to believe anyone could do such a thing.

However the evidence was overwhelming - I believe that she experienced some sort of drama surrounding a particular event at the hospital and that she found it thrilling somehow and attempted to try and create situations in order to get the same thrill.

Dr Bohin found air bubbles in some of the x rays

Also yes there is speculation re her early life and I for one believe we do not know enough about her family dynamics. There will have been something there though.

Pure evil hiding in plain sight

TomPinch · 28/08/2023 09:39

What point are you trying to make? If it's that Dr Evans was biased: fine. The defence would have had his brief of evidence disclosed to them way before the trial. If his evidence was questionable the defence could have produced an expert of their own. The fact that they didn't makes me conclude that they couldn't find an expert who disagreed with his conclusions.

JanieEyre · 28/08/2023 09:50

Fyi if you can read welsh there are articles posted in 2017/18 before they suspected anything untoward saying the hospital was 1 of 25 given a red rating l. How did this case get picked up and what happened to the other 24 hospitals??

There's no mystery about that. This case got picked up because the hospital management eventually acted on the consultants' concerns and contacted the police, and the police's initial investigations suggested crime was involved. The consultants' concerns were in turn caused by the sudden upturn in neonatal deaths and all the other suspicious circumstances we know about. We don't know what was happening in other hospitals, and it is totally irrelevant to what was happening in this one.

Donotfeedthebirds · 28/08/2023 09:58

Quitelikeit · 28/08/2023 09:38

I’m astounded that people are still arguing about the verdict. I followed the trial from the start and I can assure you I refused to believe anyone could do such a thing.

However the evidence was overwhelming - I believe that she experienced some sort of drama surrounding a particular event at the hospital and that she found it thrilling somehow and attempted to try and create situations in order to get the same thrill.

Dr Bohin found air bubbles in some of the x rays

Also yes there is speculation re her early life and I for one believe we do not know enough about her family dynamics. There will have been something there though.

Pure evil hiding in plain sight

Couldn't agree more. The fact she has people questioning her guilt shows what a cunning psycho she was and still is. This is how she got away with it for so long and still has people fooled. This is how murderers operate and how she operated killing babies for YEARS.

Unbelievable. I feel incredibly sorry for the jury who put their lives on hold for this vile disgusting woman and now have to live with every tiny detail of what she did.

Reasonable doubt people. There was NO doubt.

JanieEyre · 28/08/2023 09:59

978q · 28/08/2023 09:15

Perhaps you don't understand the abuse of disclosure, of which the Crown has been guilty of on many occasions, have a lovely day.

Are you seriously claiming that the Crown knew there was information in the pathologists' post mortem reports that would have helped the defence that the prosecution withheld from them?

Because to make that claim you have to be asserting that every lawyer on Letby's side, and the expert witnesses they consulted but did not call, are all outstandingly stupid and did not realise that reports from those PMs would exist and/or that they hadn't been disclosed. Or that they realised it and just shrugged their shoulders and decided to do nothing about it. You also have to accept that the prosecution were outstandingly stupid in not working out that the defence would call them out on it. Those would be astonishing assertions to make in relation to two of the most reputable KCs in the country, to say nothing of their juniors and the experienced solicitors involved.

Or is it just possible that the lawyers saw the reports, saw that they proved nothing and did not help either side, and decided not to waste the court's time with them?

JanieEyre · 28/08/2023 10:07

I'm like @Quitelikeit, when Letby was arrested and when the trial opened I was very suspicious that she was essentially being blamed for NHS failures and other incompetence within the hospital. However, as time went on her guilt really became all too clear. It is also clear that the jury was very conscientious, as witness the amount of time they were out and the fact that they did not convict where they felt there was reasonable doubt, and I would put a lot of faith in the views of people who were actually in court, who read the evidence and saw and heard all the witnesses being examined.

I know of course that juries aren't infallible, but I have to say that the points made by those doubting the verdict on this thread and elsewhere are so weak that if anything they seem to strengthen the validity of the convictions.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.