Lucy Letby - new thread (part 2)

[anonymousamy]

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.

I suspect most people content justice has been served would be open minded should new evidence be raised, but as is the same points (the majority of which were actually raised in the trial) and the same theories with no backing or reasoning such as she was a scapegoat, yet they assume people are keen for LL to be guilty and won't believe any alternatives. They have more closed minds ironically as don't listen to facts.

If the inquiry which the consultants are also very keen to have sheds loads of new evidence and disputes even 1 of the 14 convictions she has and that evidence finds her not guilty then I will accept it.

But there's 14 convictions of guilt.

2 were not guilty and 4 were no verdict.

That's a LOT of false evidence. 14 cases of incorrect and false evidence of setting someone up.

But until then I don't believe in this case it's one of the biggest miscarriages of justice seen as some will claim.

And even if she's found not guilty on evidence for 13 of the 14. She'll still face a whole life order. She has 14 of them to serve!

You think they didn't call expert witnesses just because they couldn't be bothered, or didn't think about it, or forgot?

You do realise, don't you, that they did instruct experts? We know that because they had some involvement in pre-trial hearings.

The problem is that experts have this pesky obligation to report on what they actually find, not what would be useful to one side or the other. It's perfectly obvious that the reason they didn't call experts is that the reports they produced were not helpful to LL's case, and they couldn't find any who differed.

People seem to feel that if you look far and enough and wide enough you can find anyone to say anything, and up to a point that is true. However, we've seen the result of that in, for instance, the sad cases around withdrawing treatment from terminally ill children when the parents' lawyers could only find one doctor and he turned out to be someone who had never examined the child or seen the notes. You can't just order up an expert to make up a defence for you, and if you try it will be HIGHLY counter-productive because an expert who falls apart under cross-examination is worse than no expert at all.

SC is a bit of a straw man anyway, I’d have thought. Worth bearing in mind at the start that statistical anomalies and clustering happen but once the prosecution started on the medical evidence it became not relevant. Unlike in the SC there is nothing at all natural about these deaths.

The defence did try arguing both infection from the plumbing and clinical negligence by misplaced lines etc but got nowhere. Largely because the manner of death is not medically explained by either of those things. It was clutching at straws when they tried it too.

Not sure what else they are supposed to have done.

You believe that the doctors only showed poor clinical practice at night times, until LL moved to a day shift when suddenly they only showed poor clinical practice during the day? And that they had a holiday from it when she went away on holiday? And didn't show it before she arrived or after she was stopped from working on the ward?

"who factually sought multiple medical experts to try to dispute the death cause findings"

Why would they dispute the findings.

I hope your teacher pointed out that The Good Wife was a scripted programme and not reality?

My primary thesis is that the police investigation was biased and set out to convict Letby rather than investigate the deaths, and the defense was completely inadequate.

And yet, @Cailleachian, you haven't once managed to answer the points made in response to your allegations about the defence. What exactly is it that you say they should have done that they didn't do? And if it's by reference to calling witnesses, which witnesses should they have called, and what would they have said?

Because they were trying to make a case that the babies were not murdered?

"the death cause findings"

Why would they do that, the findings were natural causes and one inconclusive .
The situation is simple, the jury believed Dr Marnerides at arms length contradictions of all 6 coroner's office findings, which takes a stretch of the imagination, to believe any coroner's office could be so incompetent.
However we are where we are, at this juncture, future developments may show things in a different light.

Summary of Pathology

Child A

Original pathology: The case was referred to the coroner and the cause of Child A's death was 'unascertained' at the time.

Reviewing pathology (Dr Andreas Marnerides): Dr Marnerides said it appeared Child A, a twin boy, died as a result of an injection of air into his bloodstream.

He reviewed tissue samples from Child A. The medic says from his review, he found 'globules' in the veins in the lungs and brain tissue that were most likely air, he said this air 'most likely went there while this baby was alive'

Child C

Original pathology: The cause of death was ‘widespread hypoxic/ischaemic damage to the heart/myocardium’ due to lung disease, with maternal vascular under perfusion as a contributory factor.

Reviewing pathology (Dr Andreas Marnerides):
The prosecution added an independent pathologist said the skin colour changes in Child C were likely caused by prolonged unsuccessful resuscitation.

Child C had pneumonia, but the pathologist concluded Child C died as a result of having an excessive quantity of air injected into his stomach via the nasogastric tube (NGT).

Child D

Original pathology: The coroner gave the cause of death as "pneumonia with acute lung injury."

Reviewing pathology (Dr Andreas Marnerides): The “likely explanation” for the death of Child D, a girl, was an air embolism into her circulation.

Child E

The parents did not wish to have a post-mortem, the consultant did not deem one necessary, and the coroner's office agreed.

Child I

Original pathology: The cause of death was given by the coroner as Hypoxic ischaemic damage of brain and chronic lung due to prematurity and 1b. Extreme prematurity. All loops of bowel showed significantly dilated lumen due to increased air content – in layman’s terms they were expanded like a partially inflated balloon. There was no sign of NEC (bowel necrosis) or any other bowel problem.

Reviewing pathology (Dr Andreas Marnerides):
Child I, received an excessive injection of air into her stomach, he said.

Child O

Original pathology:
A post-mortem examination found free un-clotted blood in the peritoneal (abdominal)space from a liver injury. There was damage in multiple locations on and in the liver. The blood was found in the peritoneal cavity. He certified death on the basis of natural causes and intra-abdominal bleeding.

He observed that the cause of this bleeding could have been asphyxia, trauma or vigorous resuscitation.

Reviewing pathology (Dr Andreas Marnerides):
Dr Andreas Marnerides, the reviewing pathologist, thought that the liver injuries were most likely the result of impact type trauma and not the result of CPR.

He thought that the excess air via the NGT was likely to have led to stimulation of the vagal nerve which has an effect on heart rate and would have compromised Child O's breathing.

He could not say whether it was either of these factors in isolation or in combination which caused Child O's death.

He certified the cause of death to be “Inflicted traumatic injury to the liver and profound gastric and intestinal distension following acute excessive injection or infusion of air via a naso-gastric tube” and air embolus.

Child P

Original pathology: A post-mortem examination had the coroner concluding Child P died from Sudden Unexpected Postnatal Collapse but he was unable to identify the underlying cause. He certified the cause of death as “prematurity”.

Reviewing pathology (Dr Andreas Marnerides):
Dr Marnerides said: “In my view, the cause of death was inflicted traumatic injury to the liver, profound gastric and intestinal distension following acute excessive injection/infusion of air via a naso-gastric tube and air embolism due to administration into a venous line.”

the death cause findings"Why would they do that, the findings were natural causes and one inconclusive

I know what a miscarriage of justice right. All those findings of natural causes and they went through a 10 month trial on that and convicted. What a massive conspiracy!

listen to yourself for goodness sake.

Still waiting for those who think she's innocent to explain her lies, falsifying documents, overfeeding, inappropriate behaviour etc The hospital and it's poor practices is now completely exposed on a much greater level than it ever would have been. As is the NHS. There was nothing to gain from scapegoating LL.

As I said previously I do not know if she is guilty or not, I do know medical professionals had their reputations traduced in the court, without any opportunity to defend themselves.

Are you so certain she is guilty, you will put your house on it?

In all those cases the pathology reports will have explained in detail the reasons for the reviewing pathologists' findings, which the jury accepted. The defence could not produce a pathologist who disagreed with those findings.

You seem a little confused about the function of the coroner. They don't carry out post mortems, and they can only work on the basis of the reports given to them.

Yes. And I think it’s very clear you do not know. As what you’re posting shows clearly you have not taken the time to read all the facts of the case or understand the trial. The medical experts did not have their reputations traduced. No one spoke badly of them or lied about them which is what that means

where are you getting your info? Is it that stupid site science in trial? If so, back away from it and actually take time to read or listen to the facts

I do know medical professionals had their reputations traduced in the court, without any opportunity to defend themselves.

Is there a source for this please?

I think this is important.

New evidence would need to be found to establish a miscarriage of justice.

If that happened then of course things will need to be looked at in a new light.

Never say never but it is highly improbable after a lengthy police investigation spanning a number of years and involving a massive team that new evidence will come to light, in fact the only new evidence is likely to come to light will most possibly further implicate Letby. After all they are now looking into all babies that she had involvement with over a larger time frame.

Letby has been found guilty after a thorough investigation and trial based on the evidence. Having listened to the facts presented to the jury I have no doubt that the correct verdict was returned.

There is no conspiracy, as others have said there is zero benefit to anyone to do this. The CoC harboured a serial baby killer for long enough for her to continue to murder and harm babies beyond the point in time that Consultants first had doubts about her. That's not a good look! It would be way better the consultants were proven wrong from a PR point of view.

If anything the conspiracy was on the part of the management team to keep this hidden for as long as possible. I wonder if in due course civil actions will be brought by families against the NHS.

This won't be the end of this by any measure, but it is highly unlikely that anyone, not even the keenest LL fans, will get this verdict over turned.

There are 3 usernames this thread who are almost certainly created by one person who has a vested interest in that website.

while you are being obtuse, the coroner's office is responsible for PM's, so yes you are confused, incidentally the previous coroner refused to revisit all six PM's requested by the trust, full confidence in his pathologists abilities. Cheshire coroner Nicholas Rheinberg was asked by the trust to review the baby deaths in February 2017 but he declined, telling the trust the coronial service was not a quality assurance service for the NHS.

The simple conclusion is the coroner's office did not believe any babies were murdered, so we will see what transpires in future developments, if any.

You putting your house on the certainty of her guilt?

If the babies had died of natural causes or the consultants were attempting to cover their own incompetence, you might want to ask yourself why the coroner was ever involved in the first place. The deaths could just have been certified by one of them so the funerals could take place. The fact that four consultants instigated and drove the case for investigation at all makes a complete nonsense of the incompetence argument. And yes, I’d bet my house.

I’ll bet her corrupt and incompetent defence team conspired to make Letby a really shit witness under cross-examination too, forcing her to expose herself as a liar and a completely non-credible witness. The bastards.

There are two types of PM's a Coroner's and Doctor's, The Coroner's office is responsible for both, that is why the Coroner's office is always involved.

There are deaths that a Coroner is by law, responsible for carrying out, irrespective of the wishes or objections of relatives, or anyone else.

dewi evans lied twice under cross, is he a murderer too?

This may have been covered, but who paid Lucy's defence costs? Would it have been the RCN?

I ducking hope not!

From previous discussion, I believe she sold her house and received legal aid.

I guess she is entitled to RCN representation at her NMC hearing, though.