Lucy Letby in the news

[Viviennemary]

I've just been watching the BBC news and apparently some experts have been questioning the validity of Lucy Letbys conviction. I must say when I read the details of the trial she did sound 100% guilty. But it would be a tragedy if she is innocent Personally I don't think she is but who knows. Somebody on the news said the only person who knows is Lucy Letby.

Were nurses really going home from the day shift and then texting at night time to check? And why would they do that? Why would it need to be taken off the system anyway and not just stay on the system until the time it was supposed to be given?

Presumably because of low staff numbers and nurses being worried about being put in a position where they can't administer medications as there's no second nurse available to sign off on the drugs when everyone else is busy.

The fact these kinds of systemic/safety/regulatory failings were their 'normal' goes some way to explaining (1) why LL would think it fine to waltz off a shift before completing patients' drug charts and would have the attitude that confidential patient information on the handover notes is 'just paper' and 'doesn't belong to anyone' and (2) why it took so long for anyone to realise she was fudging the documentation and acting suspiciously.

I also don't understand why a nurse who is removed from clinical duties because she is suspected of killing two patients would be placed in the patient safety department of the same hospital - I get that it was away from vulnerable patients, but it still sounds utterly bizarre and the optics of that decision are terrible.

The nurse actually said it was taken off the system so it wouldn't be at risk of being administered twice, which made no sense to me.

Surely if it was taken off the system then it might be forgotten later on and then not administered at all?

Why on earth would it be at risk of being administered twice if it wasn't taken off the system in the earlier shift?

It wasn't given at the time that it was taken off during the day so why would there be a risk of it being administered twice later on? Bizarre!

.Yes absolutely, people are making a big deal out of LL documenting stuff but it wasn't just her, it was normal there.

Completely agree, everything about it is bizarre!

And that is a scary thought, that the facts presented to me can be seen one way, but my gut tells me differently. And is my gut or, on balance, the gut of the Jury enough to sentence someone to life in prison, subjected to obvious abuse in whatever form from other inmates at some point? I don’t know

There was a documentary series on Channel 4 recently about a horrific series of rapes and murders in the US in the 1970s-80s. Several air hostesses all working for Branniff Airlines were targeted and brutally killed. One eye-witness was also attacked but escaped.

They caught a man for a separate rape then charged him with the first of the murders as well. The eye-witness identified him despite contradicting her original evidence including his hair and eye colour. He was sentenced to death despite there being absolutely no evidence of his guilt other than the eyewitness testimony, and spent decades on death row.

He had several re-trials because of significant doubts and by 2011 DNA evidence - which had been suppressed - was available. They already knew from fingerprints that he’d never been in the victim’s apartment: there were prints from someone unknown all over the place. The DNA from the crime-scene then finally confirmed it couldn’t be the gaoled man - it wasn’t his DNA.

After testimony from the original eye-witness, the prosecution waved all these scientific facts away as so much minor detail and the jury re-convicted him thanks to their 'gut' feeling that he did it. He’s still in prison and will most probably die there.

That's an extreme case of obtuse refusal to accept facts staring someone in the face, but I would suggest that nebulous 'gut feelings' of a jury are not sufficient to convict. There have been plenty of examples of people who were judged to have 'fitted the crime' but were perfectly innocent.

That’s really interesting, I’m really sorry to hear of your experience, thanks for sharing.

Various nurses have attested to the fact that taking handover notes home is common. It shouldn’t happen but it happens across the NHS. One nurse said her department don’t have a shredder, they take them home with the intention of shredding them but they pile up until she gets round to it.

The PostIt note was what made me think she probably did it, but some of the other things that were being dragged out, like looking at parents on Facebook, or poring over the notes and taking them home, or freezing over the baby whose alarm was going off - seem like normal non-killer behaviours.

Having had a friend whose baby went through NICU for months, there were different problems that cropped up in his little body every single day, and oxygen saturation levels went up and down seemingly at random. He’d have one relatively good day and then crash the next. I’m glad they’re looking into the statistics more now.

How many other babies died when LL wasn't on duty or caring for them at the time of death? What were the chances of survival of the babies who died, without LL involvement? I watched a documentary about the case & thought she was guilty. I did think that as soon as suspicious was raised that she should have been suspended or investigated, then some of the babies might have survived.

Have you watched the C5 documentary?

According to FOI data there was a total of 17 neonate deaths in 2015 & 2016.

This case has made me wonder if there should be a particular type of legal team specifically for medical-related trials. This could also be relevant for other subjects, say I've seen fraud cases mentioned.

Because a brilliant KC on her defence doesn't mean they are qualified in medicine too, just that they are top notch in law. There is no way they could know specifics when it comes to medical arguments without being dually qualified. And without adequate experts, no one to bring certain arguments to their attention so they can make them!

Say for eg how it's ideal for a coroner to be dually qualified in medicine and law.

Not entirely true. His patients might have believed that but well before he was arrested for murder he was sacked for falsifying prescriptions to feed his drug habit.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/jan/31/shipman.health6

I've leaned towards this pov too. Although obviously you don't want to say it because she's been found guilty and it's a terribly sensitive subject.

I do know that large corporations cover things up.

A lot of people have taken her writings as a confession, but she also wrote other things saying she hadn't done anything wrong.

A hell of a lot of circumstantial evidence.

This whole “it’s because she’s blonde and pretty people don’t believe it bla bla” is moot because she’s very average looking, she’s not a natural beauty. And the remarks about her having blonde hair, like 95% of people with blonde hair, it’s highlighted and anyone can get blonde highlights if they want!

It’s nothing to do with how she looks, it’s the fact there are so many questions.

Because there was a motive for him - he’d changed one of his victims wills for everything to go to him. That’s what kick started everything for him. The deceased daughter took it to the police and that was case open.

"I had personal experience - you don’t. CoC was not substandard.
But you have all made up your minds and the forthcoming documentary will only encourage you all to light up your calabash pipes and spout your theories.

There was plenty of evidence against her."

Well you had her down as guilty because she didn't want to stop and chat at the end of her shift to some random nurse she might never have seen before. Probably just running late for something 🙄

I think this is the big question the trial raises.

I’ve said before - the problem with the jury system is that even with equal numbers of expert witnesses on each side, a jury cannot scientifically evaluate the medical claims made by either side to determine which has more merit. They can only go on superficial plausibility, personality and feelz and quite often seniority - a professor appears to get more points than a mere doctor - and that is no way to settle a scientific argument.

Some of the scientific evidence presented to the trial was so medically implausible (air embolism etc) that it should not have got as far as a court.

Phil Hammond suggested therefore some kind of pretrial review by scientists (which would be very expensive and difficult to effect).

Equally you’re right that KCs do not have the medical training behind them to think on the hop about complex medical evidence presented in the witness box.

I do know a KC with medical training but he’s not in criminal law.

This case has made me wonder if there should be a particular type of legal team specifically for medical-related trials. This could also be relevant for other subjects, say I've seen fraud cases mentioned.

This would seem very sensible. No idea how it would work in practice though!

I watched the C5 documentary: it was thought-provoking, although quite short at 45 minutes, so some aspects of the case were covered in a fairly light-touch way.

I have noticed that the original BBC Panorama documentary is now no longer available on iplayer.

Er because when they left the baby was stable and they went home presumably? Unless you think they stuck around just to frame LL, as well as every other staff member this happened to shortly after changeover/when they were on a break. If there was anything wrong with the baby on handover LL would've called for a doctor then.

So I give you evidence and you now concede there might've been a serial killer it just wasn't Letby? Unbelievable. And posters wonder why they are being told they have a bias...

For one of the babies Letby had finished her shift a few hours before the baby collapsed.

Yeah one of the insulin cases no doubt where she didn't need to be there, they still managed to tie it to her though.

If they can tie her to deaths she wasn't there for them I'm sure they could also tie other people to deaths they weren't there for either. That's how it works when you've already decided who the guilty person is. You make the "evidence" fit one way or another.

And this is how elastic “present” for all deaths and incidents really is. Not in the building counts.

That's not what happened, they looked for every other explanation for collapses and deaths. They then independently viewed the stats and came to the same conclusion that it had to be deliberate and only LL could be responsible. The whole point is no one else could've been tied to the deaths, LL is the only common denominator you just refuse to believe it.

That's not true. They looked at deaths and collapses and said "can we link them to Lucy?". They did not look at anyone else. They had already decided it was her. They just needed to prove it and came up with all sorts of things that can't be proven or disproven because they are purely the opinions of 'experts' who weren't there nor had they examined the babies.

Baby died, not sure why, let's call it an air embolism. Baby collapsed, not sure why, but it looks like the other one, probably an air embolism too etc.

They were saying many of those babies were 'stable' even though there was signs they were deteriorating.

And even if they were stable how long would those methods of murder/harm take to have an impact on a stable baby?

No, I don't think there was any serial killer on the ward, But I'm asking that if so many happened not long after handover and YOU believe that there was a serial killer then how can you be so sure that the harm occurred after handover and not before?

No, it wasn't one of the insulin cases.

I think they would need to be investigated in a similar way to medical manslaughter at a start, something that is concerned with actual fact finding.

Experts and Process
In all cases of medical manslaughter, the evidence of medical expert/s will be required. There will most usually be a pathologist report and expert evidence will be required concerning whether the actions or omissions of the medical professional caused the victim's death.

If causation can be proved, medical evidence will be needed to provide an opinion on how far below the standard of the reasonable medical professional the conduct fell. Sometimes the advice of several experts is required on different aspects of the case.

While considerable weight will be attached to the expert evidence, which will inform and assist the making of the decision in any case, the decision as to prosecution and whether the evidential test is met is ultimately one for the independent prosecutor.

Experts are required to have suitable and relevant expertise in their area of practice and will make a declaration as to their independence and expertise when they provide their reports.

The prosecutor will provide terms of reference for the expert outlining the elements of the offence of GNM and will address any aspects of the individual case that require particular expert advice.

In a case where the prosecutor considers that the evidence indicates that the threshold for a prosecution of GNM may be reached, senior counsel will be instructed to advise.

In cases where a charging decision of GNM is under consideration, the prosecutor and counsel will meet with the expert/s to discuss the report/s and the evidential test for GNM. Notes will be taken of any such meeting and any information which meets the disclosure test will be provided to the defence if a prosecution is commenced.

All review decisions in cases of gross negligence manslaughter are made by specialist prosecutors or senior specialist prosecutors in Special Crime Division and require the approval of the Head of the relevant Unit and final authorisation by the Deputy Head of Division.

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/gross-negligence-manslaughter

Because they excluded the deaths she couldn’t be tied to. The whole thing is completely circular and the jury was shown a misleading chart which implied those where Letby was present as the only suspicious ones during that period.