Lucy Letby appeal

[GonnaGetGoingReturns]

Sorry if not allowed to discuss here but just seem that this vile creature plans to appeal against her original sentence as per yesterday’s news. Her defence team is leading this potential appeal.

WTAF?!

They haven’t reached a verdict on is it 6 or 7 poor other little babies who died and she’s suspected, I thought?

So sad for the poor parents and babies still.

This is getting embarrassing now.

Its in front of you in black and white that the prosecution AND defence accepted that babies were poisoned.

Also neonatology is a subspecialism on paediatric care. The other 7 doctors were still consultant level qualified paediatricians. See the PP who explained how specialisms work. Do you understand what it means?

Also @978q why are you telling us to conceive children this evening? Very odd and very telling that you don’t understand basic meanings of words

Baby O was due to be discharged, except on Letbys first shift back after her holiday he collapses and died, his brother who was also due to go home soon then collapsed after she fed him and died about 3 hours after his brother

A consultant agreed for their sister to be moved to another hospital after the parents begged her as she felt Letby was a mortal danger to the surviving triplet

I don't know how anyone could think it was all some unfortunate coincidence

Because she has somehow amassed a creepy little fan club. Or these people are related to her. Every serial killer has their sycophants I guess.

This is getting embarrassing now.

Well it kind of is as both the insulin poisonings were attempted murder. So technically true to say no babies were murdered that way.

Same weirdos writing love letters to people on death row

To be fair to 978q the two babies poisoned with insulin both survived… by some miracle as they were both given massive doses of insulin.

but your analysis is right. The two babies - F and L - were poisoned and the defence accepted that. And like the other medically inexplicable deaths and attacks this had nothing to do with staffing levels or any of the other issues set out in the report.

Except that is for that one key recommendation to the management - “to properly investigate each baby death and near miss.” Which is what the police eventually did…

Yes I’m sure someone married Ted Bundy when he was in prison

My apologies - they did indeed survive but they WERE poisoned with the intent to kill them.

🤣🤣

It's actually one of blossoms real talents on threads. We both agree nearly 100% of the time and she's able to back up my own arguments with facts when I can't 😂

Not boy did the defence accept the poisoning with insulin LL herself said she agreed the insulin was delivered manually by someone when it wasn't prescribed to be and in large quantities.

She just said it wasn't her that done it!

Not really replied to this thread much. But given all the evidence does Letby really expect us to believe others administered the insulin?

Well yes!

She expects us to believe she's the most unlucky person to be present at an increased number of deaths on a unit. Every unexplained death in fact.

That it's normal to take home notes from the hospital.

That she didn't shred the papers in the shredder she owned because she doesn't own a shredder.

That she was arrested wearing a nightie despite evidence that she wasn't.

That she'd had knee surgery before arrest (although this doesn't seemed to have proved either way).

That it's normal to Facebook search babies families - but not just any babies families. Babies she then claims to have no recollection of really.

That she laughed to a comment in a text and replied to it but actually didn't know what was meant by the comment.

That phone calls made at 9.32 that are on record and can't be doctored (think that was the recorded time) can't have happened at 9.32 because she said that a collapse happened at 10pm and manually entered that time.

There seems to be a lot of facts that she thinks we should not believe because she's says they are untrue. Pretty damn bold when she's been a proven liar over loads of other facts that can be proven a lie!

Thank you so much. That’s the nicest thing anyone’s said to me on MN @itsgettingweird.

Some of those are explainable

She worked a lot of extra hours all the time

Apparently it is normal to take handover notes home and some nurses have apparently been advised to do it in case they are ever accused of anything (after another nurse was accused).

She had papers at her parents house as well as her house - maybe she didn't have a shredder at her parents house. Her answers seemed flat and monotone and she's on antidepressants and been locked up for 3 years before the trial so maybe weary. But admittedly she could have elaborated a bit.

The nightie looked to be under her tracksuit

She did thousands of facebook searches and only about 30 were of parents. She lived alone and probably did a lot of web stuff.

The text comment sounds normal. You laugh if someone makes a joke even if you don't know what it means because you don't want to embarrass yourself asking and tbh I had never heard of go commando before.

The phone calls however are something else. If it's recorded that the Mother called her husband at 9.32 and saw LL and the baby at around 9pm and LL says it was 10pm then there is a discrepancy. The Doctor was there at 10pm ish.

Having said that, I don't think I would remember exactly what time something happened 6 years earlier either, so she only had her notes to go by and her notes said 10pm.

No it's not normal to take notes home. They are confidential and should be placed I a special "bin" for proper disposal.

Not having a shredder at her parents isn't an esp,nation for the notes she had at home. Nor does it explain why she took notes from her house to her parents about patients. All information on those notes would have been written up. They are just handwritten scribbles to write up when time. (I do the same in my job and I even have to shred my diary at the end of year that only contains initials!)

Nightie underneath isn't being matched out of your house in just a nightie.

She wasn't on antidepressants during her police interview where she had exactly the same tone of voice. She said she has ptsd from her arrest due to some factors that turned out to be untrue anyway.

She knew what go commando meant. Because she responded to say she didn't fancy him (paraphrased) so knew exactly what her friend was hinting at.

If any of it could be explained then the defence would of and could have explained it.

Instead she asked the prosecution not to play her arrest footage because it showed she was lying.

She also didn't forget the time of collapse. The prosecution told her about the timeline and phone all being recorded and she said the Laurent's were lying despite the evidence.

There were lots of times I felt the facts fitted the narrative but believed there was reasonable doubt. Clearly so did the jury because they returned 2 not guilty and 6 no verdicts.

But so much if what she said was obvious lies and she had no alternative narrative except "it wasn't me" or "it must have been someone else".

To even think it must have been someone else and the death was suspicious but wasn't her doing it she had to believe the deaths and collapses were not natural.

It's certainly not normal to take notes home and definitely not normal to keep them if you did it by accident . I'd have gotten into trouble if I'd done that when training to be a nurse and I'd get in trouble now in a totally different job but where I have access to confidential information .

Having said that, I don't think I would remember exactly what time something happened 6 years earlier either, so she only had her notes to go by and her notes said 10pm.

I am currently having to write a witness statement for an employment tribunal, the event was just under a year ago and I am really struggling to remember the exact timeline of events. I had to have an investigation meeting so thankfully have some notes from the time, but even then it is general rather than an exact timeline. LL was being asked about events 8 years earlier it is no surprise that at times her memory was a little shaky..

Agree.

However when presented with the facts she just stated they must be lying.

Even when the call was recorded.

She didn't need to remember this fact. It was there in black and white to evidence what the parents were saying.

Is it normal to insult people, who wish to see the law run its course, or should all salient areas of dispute be denied being discussed.

I don't think she did say that. I think she said something like "that is their truth". What the defence lawyer said was this

"Mr Myers refers to the allegation Letby attacked Child E at 9pm.
He says Child E's mother's account was she walked in and Letby was not near the incubator at the time. He says the prosecution's statement was a "highly charged" statement.
He says "that is the evidence", that Letby was "not causing harm".
He says he is sympathetic with Child E's mother. He says the prosecution have "done their best" to turn this "into a binary choice" - that 'either Lucy Letby is lying or [Child E's mother] is lying'. He says the prosecution have done that deliberately.
He says the question is what degree of accuracy has each said.
BM: "Perhaps can we take the heat out of that?"

He also says that child E died because the Doctors left it far too late to do a blood transfusion and it was sub optimal care.

"He says doctors failed to deal with a bleed for Child E which was identified or suspected at 10.10pm on August 3. Mr Myers says it was "obvious" a transfusion would be required. He says a further note by Dr David Harkness at 11pm recorded a further gastrointestinal blood loss. He says "even here, no action for a transfusion". He says it was "delayed a further 45 minutes".
A female doctor said it was a "serious situation" at 10pm and a "very serious situation" by 11pm, and she agreed she wished she had got there sooner, as it was a medical emergency.
He says this is "obviously sub-optimal care"."

And that is a point - if someone is bleeding profusely and you don't give a blood transfusion they will die of blood loss.

His explanation of the phone call and timing is this

"Mr Myers refers to the phone call at 9.11pm, and the defence say they don't doubt Child E's mother was distressed at that time. The defence suggest the details from the later phone call were moved to the earlier call, something which is not accepted by either parent.
Mr Myers says Child E's mother spoke to the midwife, Susan Brooks, which was agreed evidence. The midwife notes: 'Care since 2000hrs...[Child E's mother] asked me to let her know of any contact overnight from NNU as one of the twins- had deteriorated slightly...'
Mr Myers says this is the best, and maybe only, independent guide, for the event, and if the situation was more serious, it would have been noted as such."

He is basically saying the Mother was anxious and distressed and had two phone calls that evening and may have mistaken what she said during each phone call. That isn't saying someone is lying.

The Mother also knew one of the twins was deteriorating after speaking to the midwife.

The insults are pretty much coming one way from one poster.

She had papers at her parents house as well as her house - maybe she didn't have a shredder at her parents house

Whilst it's obviously significant that she lied about having a shredder at her own house, I've always felt that it was a bit of a non-answer anyway. Surely if you have papers at home that you are not supposed to have and no way of destroying them confidentially, you just take them back into work and put them wherever confidential waste is suppose to go? So if there was no shredder at her parents' house, she could have followed that procedure.

You'd just rip them up and put them in the bin , even though you shouldnt . It's even more odd if she had papers at her parents house