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.

They changed so many things at once it’s impossible to say why there was a drop in deaths. LL being removed, someone else being the killer who realised they now had to stop if they wanted LL to get the blame, the hospital being downgraded so they weren’t then having such sick/prem babies, staffing being increased, consultants drs ward rounds being increased from 3x a week to daily.

It matters if you look at it from the viewpoint that she wasn’t killing babies in 2015 (or subsequently), rather than a viewpoint that there was either a conscious or subconscious witch-hunt at some point post 2016. 🤷‍♀️

Ok. I see.
I thought the view that Letby was the common factor seems to have started after only three deaths.

As I've commented above, only two babies (D and I) of the list Letby was charged with would have been treated there after the unit was downgraded in July 2016.

So there's no statistical anomaly in your six month period.

Also interestingly prior to this 12 month period of 13 deaths, there were 12 deaths in total, but over a period of 5 years.

17 deaths. Are you listening to anything anyone says?

I’m not 100% sure when concerns were first voiced but she was reminded from clinical practice in July 2016. So I assume concerns must have ramped up prior to her removal. I hadn’t realised the dr didn’t work there till 2016. If she left the ward in July there wasn’t much time for them to get to know each other before she was off the ward.

But so what? Whatever the spike in deaths, it’s wrong to convict someone of a murder or attempted murder that didn’t happen.

The only evidence that baby C was murdered comes from the day before LL encountered him so he either wasn’t murdered or someone else did it.

In the insulin cases, the prosecution argued that it must have been LL because she was there and you had to be there, except on the occasion when LL wasn’t there when it couldn’t be anyone else because they weren’t there but it could have been LL because she was there on the other occasions and on those occasions you had to be there.

I’m getting my information from the Thirwell Inquiry, not Mumsnet members.

thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk/wp-content/uploads/thirlwall-evidence/INQ0003492_01-03.pdf

That data is direct from COCH via FOI if you bothered to read it.

13 deaths in the unit, 17 deaths in total as some babies died in other units (eg Baby K).

The information forms part of the Thirwell Inquiry evidence, am I not allowed to reference it?

What point are you trying to make with it?

In my opinion it explains why LL’s colleagues were so concerned by what was obviously an unprecedented and unexpected significant increase in deaths over the period 2015-2016 to the point where they began to wonder if there was someone in their midst actively responsible for the death. It seems however that senior management at the hospital did not appreciate having their attention brought to this situation and were keen to brush it all under the carpet. Why do you think the information I highlighted has no point in this discussion?

He requested anonymity (which he got) and said he had been subject to unrequited affection from her and that LL had also targeted him and his wife on social media.

TBH that sounds like lies to me because it's clear from the messages that there's nothing unrequited about them, and if his wife had been targeted then wouldn't the prosecution have used that?

As far as I'm aware the jury heard nothing at all about that. I don't think he was asked about his relationship with her at all on the stand, but I'm open to correction.

He also said when requesting anonymity that he had suffered extreme anxiety for years and he would struggle to give clear and accurate answers in court if his true identity was revealed!!

He was Dr. A in the trial and he's known as Dr. U in the inquiry.

It does have a place if you are using it to make a point. Just saying ‘it’s interesting’ is a bit irritating.

I wouldn't say management swept things under the carpet, @SweetcornFritter

They didn't deny the increase in deaths.
They investigated internally and called in an external body
They agreed to downgrade the unit well before anyone had any evidence to accuse Letby.

What they were unwilling to do was to discipline or remove Letby while consultants were saying their concerns were only statistics and 'vibes'.

The same month the consultants produced some form of evidence - eyewitness testimony somewhat surprisingly new at that point, the hospital consulted the police.

@Oftenaddled of course they swept it under the carpet, if it wasn't for the consultants they'd never have got the police in or got that evil witch off the unit.

How does Dr. U escape with anonymity if he had dealings with Letby that directly impacted the general response to her actions? He appears to be shielded in this and the implicit hiding of an affair I think makes people think something is being hidden. I wonder if he would offer a male colleague with mental health problems the same succour?

Could 'LL have formed an attachment with Dr. U. As she was feeling low after the bullying by other doctors? Was she in effect 'easy pickings' for a consultant with marriage problems or a wandering eye?

Edit: that was a reply to @SweetcornFritter
What you say is true if by colleagues you mean the consultants. There’s really no scenario in which the consultants were brave or honourable though. They had a professional duty as doctors to raise any suspicions they had with the child death overview panel which included a senior police officer. They didn’t need evidence to do that. They didn’t do it.
Management asked for evidence for their suspicions and they said they had none. Management took a rational view that there was no evidence or likelihood of wrong doing and were supported by the post mortems and the external reviews. Maybe they left themselves open, but it’s understandable.
After the verdicts Brearey and Jayaram certainly wasted no time in attacking management in the media. Consultative are not in a weak position.

Oh dear, very sorry for irritating you.

I would say “management swept things under the carpet” sums this up from today’s Times re the latest evidence given at the Thirwell Inquiry, wouldn’t you?

A consultant at the hospital where Lucy Letby killed seven babies said that staff who had raised concerns about the nurse were “initially ignored then later actively bullied”, an inquiry into the deaths was told on Monday.
Dr ZA, as she was known to the inquiry for legal reasons, recalled “very clearly” a meeting on January 26, 2017, between the consultants and the executive directors’ group.
She told the inquiry: “There was a very adversarial atmosphere from the moment we first entered the room.
“The senior management, all of them, seemed to be speaking with the same tone and it very much seemed like we had been called into the headmaster’s office like naughty schoolchildren.
“Tony Chambers [the chief executive] said he was ‘drawing a line and we were not to cross it’ and it was said in quite a threatening tone.
“I very much took it to mean that if we continued to carry on raising our concerns then my job would be at risk.”

I wouldn't.

You need to remember who knew what when

At this stage, management had closed down the level 2 unit and moved Letby off duty. They had commissioned an external review and followed up on its findings. They had asked the consultants why they suspected Letby and got only shift patterns and vibes as an answer.

So when members of staff are told they risk losing their jobs if they keep on raising concerns you don’t consider that an attempt to brush problems under the carpet? OK then.

I want to know why didn’t they include doctors in their roster numbers
? why only LL & nurses. Big leap from babies dying to murder & we know who is doing it but not how. Even though natural causes had been recorded for at least some of them.