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.

She was caught in the act by a parent. She was also seen by a doctor just stood over the cot with the alarms going off doing nothing to help baby. Though there's no forensic evidence the evidence against her is overwhelming.

.www.theguardian.com/uk-news/ng-interactive/2023/aug/18/lucy-letby-timeline-attacks-babies-when-alarm-raised

"She actually carried out a miscarriage scan on me."

What? How?

"I come from a family of Doctors and Nurses and every single one said she is Guilty."

Do they all know her? That's odd @AlcoholicDad82

"I feel I don't know enough about the case to form a full opinion but I've previously said that if she is definitely guilty, then I hope she rots but if she's innocent, I'm heart broken for her."

Fuck me, talk about keeping your options open. Why not just say nothing instead of being overly dramatic?

Counting respiration rates maybe?

I don't know what it is about this woman that has got so many people crying it's a miscarriage of justice. She did it, she wrote she did it and she was there for every suspicious death and collapse. Babies don't collapse out of nowhere in the way they did on that ward and within minutes of her turning up, or parents and other staff members leaving the room. Sewage and whatever other excuses people have for deaths and collapses do not explain these things. And what about the throat and liver injuries?!

No, it was alleged that she was attempting to murder a baby when a parent walked in.
That's very different to actually being caught in the act harming a baby.

@Nc209 how do you catch a nurse in the act? How would you prove she was harming a baby if that mother's account isn't good enough for you?

She wasn't "caught in the act". If it's the baby I think you are talking about, LL wasn't even with the baby when the mother entered the room. She was over by the desk. She was not witnessed harming the baby.

And as for her standing doing nothing - it's not unusual for a sick patient's sats to drop momentarily and then recover. It's quite normal to observe for a moment and assess, rather than start pummelling on a 7-week premature baby's chest.

That's the problem with this case. So much of the "evidence" is just ignorant interpretations by people who have no idea about medicine, nursing and hospitals.

@HollyKnight didn't LL alter medical notes to make it look like the timing was different? Why would she do that? The mothers account of when it happened was proven from phone records because she rang her husband. Why would LL alter notes if she didn't do anything wrong? 🤔

You catch them in the act if you actually catch them doing something.
The mother didn't suspect LL at the time.

Why would a neonatal nurse be doing your pregnancy scan? She wouldn’t be qualified as she wasn’t a midwife or gynae nurse.

@Nc209 yes because most peoples first reaction isn't "she must be a serial killer trying to harm/kill my child" but the baby was distressed and bleeding from the mouth.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/oct/11/lucy-letby-mother-walked-in-nurse-trying-kill-baby-court-told#:~:text=The%20trial%20at%20Manchester%20crown,attacking%20%5BBaby%20E%5D%E2%80%9D.

A doctor present said he “had never seen a baby bleed like this” and that the child lost more than a quarter of his total blood volume, the court heard.

Then she facebook stalked them.

How do you know she purposely recorded the wrong times rather than was mistaken about the times? Use your brain. There was a crisis in which a baby died. LL then had to deal with the distraught parents and carry out aftercare on the deceased baby's body. Would you remember perfectly or even notice what time every single thing happened during that period? And would you be stupid enough to intentionally lie in the notes when it could easily be confirmed or denied by other people's notes? In another example, the diffence was 15-minutes. That isn't a massive difference. It's easy to guess the time something occurred when you're writing up notes many hours later.

Yes so the point I'm making is that she didn't see her doing anything. No one did. No one saw her harm a baby.

A doctor present said he “had never seen a baby bleed like this” and that the child lost more than a quarter of his total blood volume, the court heard.

I believe that he was referring to the baby bleeding during CPR.

She searched for the parents yes, but they only made up a tiny % of her facebook searches. She searched for everyone on facebook.

& when was the last time you worked on a neonatal ward? Go & research the Dutch nurse who got accused of similar offence based on stats she was released & found not guilty.

No she wasn’t. The prosecution said she was present for all but she wasn’t.

When I was working in midwifery, for a 4-5 months, every single woman I cared for needed something like an emergency cesarean, forceps, I even had a shoulder dystocia and a very poorly baby as a result.
I was the common demoninator and it really impacted me. In fact this was the trigger for a period of time where I was suicidal and ultimately quit my career. I used to write in my journals similar things to what Letby did.
Reading people saying she must be guilty based on her own writing chills me to the bone because they would have found me guilty (of what I don't know) the same way.
I do believe there is way more to this than meets the eye. This is a very shaky conviction.

Sorry i couldn't quite the above from toobeornottobee towards the start of this thread. But thank you for sharing. I think people underestimate the immense pressures that all health care staff are under. I believe Lucy also wrote things like 'i didn't do it', 'why do they think I killed them' etc (not direct quotes but the ones in court were perhaps taken in isolation)? Above all through, I can see how a jury may be convinced of her guilt, but I can also see how a lot of HCP may think that they could have been accused of similar and have little evidence to prove their innocence.

@Firefly1987 And I'll tell you this - doctors lie and forget things too. I've had plenty give me a direction in passing or over the phone and then deny it later. I ALWAYS recorded it in my nursing notes immediately for that reason. But that's not going to help me if everyone has decided I'm guilty of murder. They'll just see that my notes don't match the doctor's and therefore it is me who has "lied" as far as everyone is concerned. Which is why I now tell the doctor to write that down first before I do it. I'm sure they think I'm a right jobsworth, but it's better to be safe than sorry when "recollections may very".

Why?

Yes, it's unblocked

You do realise the unit was downgraded at the same time, so they weren’t looking at very prem babies, think it did go up about a year later but cannot be sure that is accurate.

All the evidence is indirect. It isn't at all like DNA evidence, which is so reliable that if your DNA was somewhere, we can be extremely confident that you were.

Some of the evidence presented has been shown to be incomplete, e.g. the door entry records. Some was definitely misleading, such as the data showing when she was there vs when babies died. The expert witness for the defence, a doctor, was never called to the court.

When you see the whole package of irregularities with the evidence that was presented to the court, it's entirely possible that this was an unsafe conviction. It's happened many times before. We like to think that if a jury finds someone guilty they must be, but judgements have been overturned many times because mistakes were made or evidence was missing.

One of the people who has been questioning it said that what the police and the prosecutors did is decide she must be guilty and work backwards to find evidence that proves it. That's entirely the wrong way to do it, because it does lead to a high risk of unsafe conviction. There's a name for it that I can't remember.

A whole life order was the only real option considering what she was found guilty of.

A whole life order doesn't mean that the judge was extra sure she was guilty, just that he was sentencing for the crimes she was found guilty of.

I look at it and think that I'm not sure it's a safe conviction and if it isn't then justice has not been done for those babies and their families if some of them died due to failures in the hospital.

@FictionalCharacter confirmation bias.