Lucy Letby denied leave to appeal

[Viviennemary]

Just heard on the news Lucy Letby the convicted serial killer has been denied leave to appeal. Good decision I think. She should stay behind bars for the rest of her life.

It is factually correct that Dr Sandie Brohin (female) expert witness for the prosecution -Consultant Neonatologist & Paediatrician -concurred with Dr Dewi Evan's findings and evidence in this trial.

She agreed with his theories and his interpretations, but there was no hard, direct evidence to support them.

That she put her name to this nonsense is quite extraordinary. You only have to read other medics’ comments on this case, to see how extraordinary it is.

This is a really interesting piece. It does a great job of laying out just how much meticulous research, fact checking, and time went into writing that New Yorker article. There were two fact checkers allocated to work on this one article alongside Aviv. There was a thoughtful, careful editor. Aviv paid $100 a day for each day of court transcripts (shocking that these aren’t ordinarily made available at the very least to the defendant) and she waited 6 months for the judge’s approval so that she could get those transcripts. She waded through thousands of documents.

It is anything but thoughtless or poorly researched. It is proper level-headed, careful, sober, journalism. Something that this case was sorely lacking throughout.

Do you have a link re the 3rd insulin case please?

If you type into Google "Lucy Letby may have killed three more babies". It brings up a Daily mail article with Dewi Evans. Dr Evans explains he is looking into more cases where Letby may have harmed babies, including a baby with a high insulin level. The article is dated 17th September 2023.

What needs to happen is an independent enquiry to look at every incident in the unit, not merely the list on LL handed to Hummingbird by Brearley and Jayaram.

It needs to include all incidents involving doctors and nurses other than LL. There are 3 documented cases of negligence by doctors - one death; one case of cerebral palsy caused by incorrect procedure; and once case of doctors leaving a needle in the chest of a baby, failing to give her a drug to relax her lungs, and inserting a chest drain into the wrong space. The locum whom nurses reported concerns, mentioned by the Paediatrics report, those incidents need evaluation too.

What I found interesting, is that baby E and M, are not in the article at all. They are the twin brothers of the insulin babies. Baby E's mum saw Letby leaning over his cot while the baby had blood on his face, he later died. Baby M suddenly collapsed and came very close to dying. The triplets liver injuries are also not mentioned. Baby N's throat injury is also left out. Why do all that research and leave key details out.

Because ultimately it’s a journalistic piece with a word limit and it was a very long trial. Journalism can never be a substitute for, or perform the function of, a thorough independent enquiry.

Also Baby E's mother did not see LL "leaning over his cot" in the process of killing him. LL was not by any of the babies when E's mother entered the room. She was at the workstation.

It wasn't a balanced article, it was about looking at it from a different angle.

I'd love to see an in depth look at all of the actual facts in this case all put together.

So something which contained the medical information, witness testimony etc, ALONG with all of the stuff from the New Yorker and all of that information in the substack links posted etc.

I guess that's what the actual trial should have been like...........but apparently not.

Very interesting article - thank you

The article looks at specific pieces of evidence about which there are valid scientific and or medical questions. The journalist didn’t cover that because no one is refuting that Letby was the allocated nurse for those babies. The mother’s statement is not in opposition to anything in the article.

Also worth reiterating here that the mother didn’t say Letby was “leaning over” the baby. She was at a workstation in the room, as she should be regardless of guilt or innocence.

Any practising UK medic would be very unwise to comment publicly on this case.

@Mirabai
Don't put words in my mouth please. I said Dr Dewi's evidence -as in -that which he gave under oath.
As all court witnesses do under oath.

His evidence consisted of his theories. Which are only theories and not even supported by the scientist who actually wrote the paper he based one of his major theories on.

MY HYPOTHESIS - OPINION ONLY

Vulnerable one here is Ravi Jayaram.

Conflict started when Ravi Jayaram didn't want LL on the ward.

This seems like a staffing call/competence issue (I really fucking hate managing people myself and actively plan my working life to avoid this as its hard).

Consultants obviously are incredibly highly talented in their fields, but can lack people/management skills.

Also, the ones I've met in my personal life have been super-bright but very socially naïve and lacking judgement in many ways.

People fall out over lots of things, which may appear petty to outsiders.

Maybe there's a nurses vs doctors situation on the ward? Clearly it isn't a happy working vibe there, or in the NHS.

LL is an only child whose parents have helped her buy a house at 25, maybe she's seen as privileged?

Maybe Ravi Jayaram doesn't agree with her professional skills or judgement? Maybe she is the "scapegoat", as she's young and Ravi Jayaram thinks a more experienced nurse would be better in her role?

LL was moved off ward. No-one even thought about murder, maybe just the ward was underperforming.

This - again - is a staffing issue. Sad and not ideal, but many people have had blips in their careers.

LL isn't happy, she's focussed, imagine she wants the experience of being on the ward for her CV.

Again, at this stage, no-one is talking about murder. It's a staff conflict.

This is when the problems start to spiral.

LL gets her dad in, Ravi Jayaram is overridden.

I DO think LL is benefitting from white privilege here.

Can you imagine the effect of a non-white nurse getting their dad in to override a white senior male? They wouldn't even try.

Now, Ravi Jayaram has media contacts. This is the problem.

The media is well-known for shit-stirring and manipulating people into saying and doing things they don't agree to, to ruin their lives.

Maybe Ravi Jayaram wants to speak out and have a voice on doctors not being respected, or racism in the NHS.

This is actually a significant issue, which is discussed extensively on social media. The excess level of random complaints, or disrespect or questioning of authority of immigrants or non-white people, is provable and horrendous.

But the media don't think this is "juicy" enough. It's too dry and boring and won't get clicks or reads or sell papers.

Media don't want to quietly improve society, they want conflict. They love people taking "sides".

Media don't care about constant microaggressions, or non-white people having their authority undermined (even after they've worked incredibly hard and got to a certain level of seniority - look at how Diane Abbott is being treated.

Even apolitical people are aghast at the overt bullying she receives).

The media wants controversy and a personal conflict.

Either they'll have a misogynist trope with a killer young blonde nurse, or they'll have a racist trope of a non-white male harassing a white female.

Sexist or Racist mob, the media wins either way! Witch-burning OR Lynch mob.

If the Lucy Letby verdict is overturned they can turn on Ravi Jayaram!

They can now have headlines putting out a dog-whistle and hinting all non-white NHS staff are incompetent, and all people making complaints about racism are woke and "crying wolf"

They maybe just push the boundaries a bit...."oh, you say LL was incompetent, that's manslaughter isn't it...if it was manslaughter...maybe she meant to do it...."

So they're winding Ravi Jayaram up a bit, and letting him know they've got police contacts who will make the investigation go smoothly if they're included in a documentary for positive press ....He now is involved and doesn't have a chance to back down.

The links between the police and the media were meant to be explored in Leveson 2, but this was sabotaged by the press.

The press were notorious for actually setting up crimes to solve them to get headlines (think Mazher Mahmood).

People were set up and locked up and convicted and had their lives ruined for tabloid sales. The vast majority of the journalists involved are still employed in senior roles in the media.

Once this juggernaut is started, then the documentaries are being produced, the experts are wanting their pound of flesh, too many people are involved....the doctors can't back down as they will lose their careers and be humiliated if they pull back....

Even if Ravi Jayaram has sent an e-mail to a journalist, then this could lose his career if he doesn't follow through, and they're going to make money out the story....

Sorry for the long long posts, I keep losing them so no time to edit.

I was just thinking along the lines of what a pp said about things just slowly escalating.

Obviously I'm just writing my speculation and opinion, and again I think people should have a look at the case and find out more.

Do you have a link to an article about the scientist not supporting the theories?

There was a major problem on the ward with unexpected collapses and deaths happening regularly. The doctors on the ward were trying to protect the vulnerable babies in their care. It was vital they got to bottom of what was putting the babies at risk. By removing Lucy this gave them chance to see if the unexpected collapses would stop and to further investigate what was going on.

(This is just speculation about how things may have escalated. Personal opinion only like everything else!)

The impression I get was that there was no thought of murder or anything like that...or that the collapses were seen as unexplained - just the doctors not wanting LL working there.

This quite possibly was just some personal trivial reason.

No-one seemed that concerned about any of these "suspicious' incidences until years later (or even thought they were suspicious).

All the evidence seems to be unreliable memories or retrospective...if you really saw someone trying to harm an ill baby, presumably you'd run over and yell or physically intervene!

Or if it was clinically/medically suspicious, something would be noticed and logged straight after the incident. It didn't. None of the highly trained other staff who were there spotted anything unusual.

Most people know that if a few senior people decide they don't want you in a work location, you're probably best cutting your losses or your life will be made hell.

Doesn't matter if their judgement was right or morally correct or not.

If your face doesn't fit, you're much better moving on (especially if you're transferred to a paid role, as LL was).

Presumably if she wanted more NICU experience she'd have had to eventually look for another hospital role.

It may have taken time from her training plans, but going back into a ward and team where the head doctor definitely wants you moved is NOT something I'd recommend a close friend do.

Same as any other job - most people know if a few people don't want you then trying to continue makes you a marked person.

If the senior guys felt LL had made a complaint, that complaint had (unexpectedly) been upheld, and then they had to publicly apologise and she was back on the ward, that then was what really escalated the situation?

Normally I'd expect the senior admin to close ranks and side with the doctors. Or at least have a discreet solution.

I'd say it's fairly unusual to have senior guys asked to apologise and attend mediation. It's also fairly unusual for 25 year olds to be confident enough to complain.

The doctors probably thought they'd got their own way and that was that. They didn't think LL was a murderer...they may have thought she was incompetent or just didn't like her.

She was transferred not to save patients, because they didn't want her on the team.

But then the complaint happened and was found in her favour, all their colleagues would know ...

This is when I think things started getting really bad emotionally...Ravi Jayaram feeling not listened too.

Essentially, either...

Ravi Jayaram could accept the humiliation that he and the other doctors had bullied LL (which was the judgement of the managers and presumably the whole staff knew about it).

OR he'd have to prove that LL was a terrible person to vindicate himself.

And then you have the press or whoever saying he'd be labelled a hero if this was investigated as a murder...

Perfect storm of emotions here.

It’s in the verboten New Yorker article. There are archive links up thread and someone screenshotted it on twitter. You should read it if interested in the case. It’s meticulously researched, fact checked, solid journalism.

Definitely agreed with you here. But sadly knowing the British justice system and how the NHS are protected at all costs it won’t happen. Or not for a while yet.

I thought at the time though that it was very convenient to target LL but what struck me more was the fact she was off work due to an investigation into her conduct which to me smacks of bullying at some level and all the more convenient to start a witch hunt against her.

But as I also said I’ve got no idea if she is indeed guilty or innocent.

What do we think about this? Inqiry should be heard in public judge rules.

https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/may/29/lucy-letby-inquiry-should-be-heard-in-public-judge-rules

Babies who are in a level 2 unit rarely collapse to the point of needing resuscitation or die there. If they are very poorly they are transfered to a level 3 unit for expert care. What was happening in that unit was very unusual and unexplained. The seven babies who died were expected to get better and go home.