The Guardian today on the safety of the Lucy Letby convictions

[Kittybythelighthouse]

This article was apparently months in the making but it was delayed by the reporting restrictions https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/jul/09/lucy-letby-evidence-experts-question

“A Guardian investigation has interviewed dozens of these experts and seen further evidence from emails and documents. Those raising concerns include several leading consultant neonatologists, some with current or recent leadership roles, and several senior neonatal nurses. Others are public health professionals, GPs, biochemists, a leading government microbiologist, and lawyers. Several of those still working in the NHS have asked to remain anonymous, fearing the impact if they are named.

These experts said they were acutely aware of the suffering of the families involved and did not want to reopen their trauma, but were so troubled they felt compelled to become involved”

At the heart of this is whether all previous autopsy cases were wrong. They were carried out by highly qualified practitioners in their fields who had studied for years to get where they were. As a member of the general public why would I question their judgement when no other autopsies have ever been carried out?

Not only that, but the post mortems were overturned years later by a retired paediatrician, not even a neonatologist, with no pathology experience, without even seeing the bodies, using only the medical notes from the time, including those of the original pathologists who had examined the actual bodies and found no evidence of foul play. It’s astounding arrogance.

Not just senior nurses. The COCH made all their Advanced Neonatal Nursing Practitioners redundant.

A former head ANNP at COCH has spoken about this. She told The Telegraph:

“The hospital said they would no longer need ANNPs because they would not be caring for really sick babies. At the time I told management that was ludicrous but it fell on deaf ears. I told them that you cannot run a neonatal intensive care unit with no senior nursing staff. This is an accident waiting to happen, but they were not interested.”

By 2011, eight registered nurses had left the unit, and eight unregulated nursery nurses (no medical training) were employed to plug the gap. The following year, the hospital employed two nurses straight out of university, one of whom was Letby.

The very fact that Letby, still in her 20’s, was one of the most senior and well trained nurses at COCH at the time of the deaths speaks volumes. At the time of the deaths she had just graduated 3 years before. There are records of people her calling her for advice on simple matters of nursing when she was off shift. This is all very poor.

In addition, the total number of deaths was finally revealed yesterday. There were 9 other deaths during the period that Letby was not there for. All of them had post mortems declaring natural causes (as did the 7 she was accused of murdering). 4 of these other 9 died of infection, which is exactly what most of the other post mortems returned (the ones Letby was later alleged to have murdered):

I was looking at this thinking:

So you're telling me, in a ward with concerns about a dearth of expertise and patchy supervision by senior consultants among other problems that:

Nearly 50% out of 9 babies died of infection

But 0% out of 7 babies died from infection/related complications

This is exactly what we are supposed to uncritically accept, yes. There was a spike in numbers caused by (a very well behaved) infection and a simultaneous spike in deaths caused by a serial killer nurse.

The really awful thing is this:
IF Lucy Letby is innocent (and I can only say I have serious doubts about her guilt, having followed the cases of the Birmingham 6 and the Guildford 4, which turned on "scientific evidence"), then justice cannot be done, because how do you unruin her life.
As to the parents, who may have been dragged through this torture for crimes that may never have been committed against their beloved children (I write as the mother of a premature baby who died in NICU aged 20 days), what can anyone say to them?
It's appalling and heartbreaking to contemplate this, but it must all be examined without fear or favour, regardless of any "appalling vista".

@possumblossom

I don't think you can union lives but you can legitimately see that justice is done as far as possible.

the problem currently is that there are statements from the current inquiry and from the families stating that any kind of discussion is in itself increasing the distress of the families. However some might say this seems like the judiciary warning off people to not entertain thoughts of any miscarriage which is a bit kafkaesque.

We have MPs writing to consider miscarriage of justice and KCe willing to take on the case. I don't believe high profile figures would risk their reputation in fighting for a review of they felt they hadn't seen enough to convince themselves of a realistic case.I

I think the current enquiry will ever away from any topics that could be used to show any potential problematic features of the prosecution I am afraid. It seems to a premise of the committee that guilt must be assumed and any travel against that assumption will be quickly stopped.

I actually don't quite know what lessons can be found from this enquiry apart from scrutinizing peers in case they are a psychopathic killer in the NHS which is unrealistic. There are probably a lot of other areas of neonatal care in this country that need attention with poverty of care and it could be the Thirwall inquest is a distraction.

This is incredibly disturbing. Trying to shut down legitimate questions is indeed kafkaesque.

I also don't believe that the families wouldn't want to know the truth if it's different to the current convictions against Letby. Surely they want the truth? Weaponising their distress to shut down realistic queries from highly qualified people is just disgusting, appalling behaviour from supposed professional people.

And maybe if the powers that be wanted to reduce distress of the families they could have ensured a somewhat better run ICU without sewage coming up in the sinks, a more robust management and risk assessment process in the NHS in the first place (where they removed Letby from working there when senior doctors raised concerns), then a more robust trial and defence for Letby.

The people raising questions aren't the ones who've let the families down.

Tbh I would expect some of the parents to remain convinced their babies were killed regardless of any new evidence to the contrary. It's not unheard of psychologically speaking. It will not surprise me.

It can very hard to shift opinions that have been founded in and reinforced in trauma. Sadly this is part of the 'unruination' the PP spoke about.

It’s perhaps noteworthy that the statement made was not from ALL the families. Tamlin Bolton represents 6 of the (I think there are 10 in total) families of the babies Letby was convicted of killing or harming. People assume that the parents are a united voice, but that’s just an assumption. That doesn’t mean they don’t all feel the same way, but it shouldn’t be assumed that they do. I know I would certainly be concerned about all this if I were them.

The terms of reference in the inquiry are clear: Letby was found guilty and they are working with that. However, I think it will be nigh on impossible for the inquiry to not throw further doubt on the convictions even with these strict terms of reference as they will be drilling into what is a minefield of flimsy positions.

It’s worth noting that Kathleen Folbigg was freed after an inquiry which similarly worked under strict terms of reference in which she was accepted to be guilty.

It gives credibility to a public Inquiry if the inquiry starts from a position in which the verdict is presumed to be correct, and only through rigorous examination of statistical, medical, and other relevant evidence, they uncover findings that may (or may not) point in another direction.

It took two separate legal inquiries over 5 years to find Kathleen Folbigg’s children had died of natural causes. The process was so incisive and so aggressive to the defence that the public and legal parties involved were clear that no stone had been left unturned, before correcting what was an horrendous miscarriage of justice.

Folbigg had spent 20 years in prison based on flawed statistical evidence, misinterpreted diary entries which were read as inculpatory, and poor medical evidence (sounds familiar!).

We already have, after one day, a serious question mark over the accusing doctors (Brearey and Jarayam). First, the very obvious question (which understandably is also being asked by some of the families) as to why neither doctor simply called the police if they were so sure Letby was killing babies, rather than emailing HR and entering into a years long round of mediation and meetings. This hasn’t been answered. It has just been highlighted and underlined by the illustration of their communications and actions in that time. It’s also clear from the inquiry that Jarayam did not note, or even mention to anybody, catching Letby “red handed” in the act of killing Baby K, which is what he asserted at the retrial. He didn’t mention this to a soul for years. Even privately. However the judge said his testimony about this was what the verdict should come down to in that case.

In addition we learned that Dr Green was appointed to investigate Letby’s grievance against the doctors and he said that he was “disgusted” by their behaviour and that he felt it was “likely that they lied”.

It is not possible in practical terms to inquire into the failings at this hospital without kicking up very ugly stones which cast doubt on the convictions regardless of the terms of reference. The terms of reference can’t control the outcomes. That’s not to say that I think the inquiry will lead to an exoneration, or if it did that it would do so quickly. I’m personally not hell bent on an innocent verdict anyway. I just want to be assured that the convictions are safe.

Perhaps there will be some uncovered element of evidence that has thus far not been made public that does this, although it’s hard to imagine why such a thing has been kept secret for so long.

The truth will out either way though, eventually.

IF Lucy is ever found not guilty it will be far too late for her to ever lead a relatively normal life. She would probably need to leave the Country, change her name and be in a recovery programme for a considerable amount of time.
She would need a payout award that meant she never had to work again. We are a long way from there and Kier Starmer has not been minded to widen the scope of the pointless current enquiry. He is always promoting his legal know how so he is well aware he is ignoring the biggest questions surrounding her conviction.
With the remit of how to ‘catch’ more rogue staff quicker it seems logical the biggest outcome will be to frighten yet more nurses away from the Profession 🙈

What I have got from the initial enquiry was 'tenavious doctors" good, hospital management and senior nursing managent 'bad', (callous, incompetent, the epitomy of covering arse).

However.....from a more realistic perspective we had a hospital management faced by what looked (,and maybe is) a group of high status male doctors grouping against a single nurse for reasons known only to staff. I think nursing managers may have just been protecting their own against what were unevidenced allegations of a serious nature. It seemed Lucy's managers felt she was bullied (hence the grievance) and willing to support her. They will now be castigated for this justifiable initial positions (the incompetent staff that allowex Lucy to continue her killing).

The doctors labelled her 'nursr death'. Why indulge in this really top bantz and not immediately contact the police if they had concrete evidence of serial killing?

This shows the junior doctors maybe indulging in dark humour which the families will find atrocious or engaging in a bit of work place bullying......

We need the local nursing perspective on this and we are only getting that of the 'crusading doctors' who spotted a problem that all of Lucy's line managent couldn't. It would be interesting to see if the doctors approached Lucy's managers first before approaching senior management.

Anyway we can expect from this enquiry maybe mandatory training after infection control entitled ',spotting a psychopathic child murderer in your team?

Maybe a threshold deviation in mortality rates where the 'psychpath' warning bell rings. Maybe if mortality rates are 30% above average then it's 999?

There doesn't actually seem to be much point in terms of lessons learned from an enquiry when you looking at thankfully a near as dammit never eventually.

If you catch anyone trying to harm a patient you call security to restrict that person who then inform the police for a presumed arrest. That is professional duty and NHS staff know this.

You don't find someone trying to kill a bay and rely on HR and prolonged investigation. There seems to be an element of biullying here possibly between doctors and nurses that hasn't been fully examined.

One thing we may never find out is which consultant Lucy was having an affair with. The prosecution asserted a possible motivation for the murders was to being attention from a consultant who maybe was losing interest in her after or during an affair. This consultant was granted anonymity but will that be retained.

Did th consultant actually have to attend neonatal emergencies with Lucy as suggested? Did the consultant suspect anything? If the consultant has suspicion did he keep them quiet as she may have revealed their affair? Was the consultant involved in any of the accusations and will this be brought to light?

Who know but there was obviously perhaps a toxic workplace present possibly complicated with staff romantic involvement.

It's very interesting to see the way her road to innocence and subsequent freedom is going. I reckon by the end of this year, payout in hand. There was no way she was going to be left to linger in jail.

There was no way she was going to be left to linger in jail.

Are you suggesting a knight in shining armour is going to swoop in?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/sep/11/lucy-letby-doctor-criticises-judges-opening-remarks-at-inquiry?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

I didn't think the judges remarks were well chosen either. At the very opening the chair seemed to want to quash or shame any questioning about the conviction itself and seemed to suggest that if you weren't at the trial you had no right to comment. If justice is open surely you can comment on trial transcripts and the process itself? Is there a god given right that only those present at criminal trials are in a position to question the legal system. I think this betrays a strange attitude to liberty.

Also for an educated judge to dismiss opinion from professional medics and statisticians as 'noise' surely demeans her status a little. Any consideration of medical issues, statistics etc. is simply mindless chatter? A little bit arrogant?

Only took him 10 minutes to decide one of the babies had been harmed apparently 🙉
https://www.reddit.com/r/LucyLetbyTrials/comments/1fdsmud/the_medical_genius_strikes_again/

So you choose expert witnesses that give you the result you want?

I know. This was shocking arrogance. Imagine thinking this cements your position, rather than making you look foolish and hubristic.

There are so many issues with how expert witnesses and expert evidence are handled by the adversarial system in the UK - when it comes to complex scientific and medical evidence in particular. There is no real incentive to establish truth. It comes down to who manages to look better on the day to a jury who probably don’t have any relevant background. It’s a circus.

Incredibly arrogant.

From his linkedIn:

I provide expert medical advice regarding clinical issues where child abuse is suspected or where there are allegations of clinical negligence. I have prepared numerous reports for the Court over the past 25 years and have given evidence in court in Wales, England, Ireland and Northern Ireland.

Do you know if he's always provided evidence for the prosecution in the child abuse cases? or has he ever supported the defence?

Nobody has attacked a witness because of debates on MN. That is a ridiculous accusation.

People are allowed to be troubled.

Interestingly there was an article in the Times today about the inquiry where they said there were markedly more breathing tubes dislodged on her shifts.

It is a deeply concerning case.