Lucy letby

[Nettleteaser101]

How much longer are the poor parents of those babys going to be put through hell over and over again.
Wasnt she found guilty twice?.
I really feel for the familys.
They have had to put up with the hospitals cover ups and now new evidence and the Expert isnt sure now.
Why wasnt this all sorted before now.
Whos paying for the experts and solicitors on Lucy Letbys side.
If she didnt murder those babys who or what did?

It’s difficult to conceive what could have been harmful to the defence in Prof Michael Hall’s testimony. He was himself baffled as to the reason and speculated that it may have been because, if asked, he could not say with certainty how/why the babies died. Which contrasts with spurious certainty of the prosecution experts.

Prof Hall wrote to the BMJ with his concerns about the trial and use of scientific evidence which concluded:

There is a need to explore how we – the medical and legal professions - can do better in combining our areas of expertise in the identification and evaluation of medical evidence. In the meantime, we need to recognise and respect the boundaries of our different areas of expertise.

Dr Waney Squier made this comment:

“prosecution experts are emboldened and cases are now routinely decided on the basis of opinions such as ‘it is generally considered’… These are articles of faith, they have no scientific foundation. Science is not a democracy, scientific fact is determined by experiment and observation, not by the number of people who happen to believe in one or another particular hypothesis.”

Yes. BBC's Moritz and Coffey suggested that his presentation was more erudite and scientific, less warm and chatty than Evans's, when they met him. That shouldn't have mattered but maybe it was a factor.

This makes no sense whatsoever.

Have you read all of the transcripts from the Thirwall enquiry? Clearly not.

I must admit that I have read all the transcripts.

The hearings and questions aren't set up to test Letby's guilt - rightly so. They do suggest a degree of groupthink at least, but more at the level of factions than major conspiracy or cover up.

They make it clear that many weren't satisfied there were grounds for suspicion.

I don't think scapegoating is too much of a stretch or in any way nonsensical, but you could also argue simply for genuine concerns deepening as positions became polarized and entrenched.

I don't think the hell will stop for the parents whether there is an enquiry or not.
Personally if I was in their position I would want as much investigation as possible & would want no stone left unturned.
The endless media attention & even worse the SM speculation (including on here) is unhelpful and unnecessary

I think it illustrates her motivation. She wanted to be in the midst of tragedy. A baby who is celebrating 100 days of life suddenly collapsing is somehow more tragic. I believe she relished being involved with the sick, dead or dying babies. I think she enjoyed the attention it got her from colleagues.

The inappropriate comments to baby I's parents regarding their child's first bath.

The fact she had to be told to leave baby C's parents alone. Then she turned up with the cold cot and offered to put him in it before he'd even died.

I struggle to understand how anyone listening to all the evidence thinks she's innocent.

I also read all the transcripts. What came across to me, was that whenever a neonatologist or neonatal pathologist was contacted, they thought something was wrong.

However almost all of the managers were experienced in the care of adults, not children, let alone neonates. They struggled to understand quite how different neonatology is.

They also didn't seem to understand what the police do. There was a groupthink that they needed to present the police with a fully complete evidence file, resulting in a lot of piecemeal reviews done by people in their spare time, instead of handing it over to the police to do properly from the beginning.

That doesn't sound right to me.

The thing the neonatologists and pathologists thought was wrong was clinical care if anything, though - there was only one who seemed to side with the Chester consultants and he was friendly with them and emailing privately.

Three pathologists, the RCPCH, and the external neonatologist contacted on advice of the RCPCH found deaths from natural causes, understaffing, failures in care, and some skills gaps. That's something wrong, and these weren't findings that would disappear because of a murderer.

I don't know how you get that from the transcripts at all.

I don't think so. If 14 babies die over two years on a ward, it doesn't need murder for one of them to be near an anniversary. Could be a week, a month, ten days, fifty days, a hundred days. That doesn't need planning or murder.

Talking a baby's parents about how he enjoyed it when she gave him his first bath doesn't seem sinister to me. Obviously nobody gets it 100% right when there's a bereavement, but talking about a fond memory is the kind of thing you're encouraged to do.

Nobody is sure which nurse it was that upset Baby C's parents, who were in a dreadful situation of course. It's a regular pattern - you see people saying a nurse / a blond nurse / one of the nurses and gradually anything inappropriate gets attached to Letby.

The neonatologists and neonate pathologists contacted found natural causes and suboptimal care between them. They weren’t alerted, nor was the coroner, by the consultants, to concerns of intention harm, but there is no evidence that the outcome would have been materially different if they had.

There was no hard evidence in the pathology of air embolism, and even if there were, no evidence that it was intentional, with far more plausible explanations. Indeed Dr McPartland expressly found no evidence of air embolism in Baby A.

The groupthink was the bunch of doctors who decided LL was a serial killer on the basis of shift data alone, who admitted they had no more evidence than that, who refused, despite pathology reports, RCPCH reports, Hawdon and McP reviews, to look at the running of the unit and what was going wrong.

This case has always stunk to high heaven, and I'm not convinced she's guilty AT ALL. I've seen time and time again when establishments and "higher ups" pass the buck and blame.

Anyway, that's irrelevant.

If the conviction is questionable and new information is coming out, you can't just say "Ah well, she was found guilty, so there's no going back now". Thankfully, we're more civilised than that.

Citing the families feelings as the reason to not pursue further investigation is ludicrous. If Letby is innocent and their children weren't murdered, they have to know this. If Letby is guilty, it should be proven beyond all reasonable doubt, with all evidence on display.

This post is in bad taste OP.

When you say “Some of the things she did would cause harm to babies and is not normal practice”, would you be willing to elaborate on what these things she did were?

It’s really insane to think that you as a member of the public know more than neonatal and legal experts. Or that Lucy Letby should just let it all go if there are possible ground for appeal.

Imagine the dystopian hell you’d be living through right now if that was your daughter (still young) who was wrongly convicted and facing prison until her last breath.

If there is enough evidence that she is guilty beyond all doubt then she would deserve no less of a sentence. But if there is evidence that might prove - or highly suggest - her innocence, then it has to be looked at very seriously.

I’m astonished at how many just have their pitchfork out, as if we need to burn the witch regardless of guilt or innocence. Not much has changed in human nature.

I don’t get the scapegoat thing. The hospital contacted the police. They could’ve done nothing and kept it under wraps, the investigation and trial hasn’t exactly painted them in a good light, and now there’s an inquiry.

I agree @Clarabell77

The case against Letby surely cannot stand in the light of this extraordinary international expert panel. The case just falls away.

I don't understand why the prosecution were allowed to use such a long retired paediatrician as an expert witness and not required to use a neonatal expert whose knowledge was current and actually expert.

She may well never get out of prison, or may languish there for years, as the system doesn't really seem to care now whether she's actually innocent or not.

As far as they're concerned- she had her chance in court.

What a car crash. I bet it's going to be harder to recruit anyone into neonatal nursing. Maybe neonatal nurses could have a sign on their uniforms saying
"Don't forget: Paid like you're not responsible, but blamed like you are".

What things have you read to suggest she is a narcissist? I know she wrote that thing about being evil which seems an odd thing to write if you are innocent but I've not read anything about her being a narcissist. ???

One opinion of a quick google.
https://stylettomag.co.uk/2023/the-angelic-face-of-a-killer-was-lucy-letby-a-covert-narcissist/

Yes that's disturbing . She's either a deeply disturbed human being, capable of projecting a calm, kind exterior or she is actually innocent. The jury is out by all accounts.

Look at the expertise and qualifications of the experts raising concerns…they are the best of the best. And have you seen the state of our hospitals? They nearly killed both of my babies due to negligence, poor staffing and consultants who think they are god. I’d put money on her being innocent and our crap NHS killing those babies.

But how would you account for her taking loads of bits of paper home with rotas on, or looking up people on the Internet, or writing down that she's evil. The only thing I can think of to explain all that if she is innocent is that she was somehow incompetent and then panicked amd started scrutinising rhe families and checking who was on different shifts as a way if doing her own sleuthing. And maybe she wrote that she was evil because she felt she'd cocked up . That's literally the only explanation I can rhink of that would fit. Otherwise she surely must be guilty.

If I was accused of murdering babies I would definitely be googling the families to try to remember everything about them. Maybe not now that I've seen the reactions to Lucy Letby's internet searches. But I think it was just normal for her to look up everybody she met on Facebook. She did hundreds of searches a month. A bit of a social media addict but of course there are millions of them - it doesn't make you a murderer.

It is quite possible she took the handover notes home to have records, but they are just nurses' rough notes, not records that are meant to be kept on file. And again, lots of them had nothing to do with the cases. So I think it is just shoving random papers in your bag / pocket syndrome, which is certainly something I do.

As you show, there are possible explanations that have nothing to do with murder. I was surprised how common false confessions are, reading up on this case, but these are so contradictory that I don't think you could even count them as confessions

I can't believe people are still trying to use the "I am evil" note as evidence of her guilt. The same piece of paper also has the words "I haven't done anything wrong" on it. She wrote those words when she had already been removed from her job. She knew what she was suspected of. She was under extreme stress and was advised to write down her feelings as a way of coping with this.

She seemed to have some obsessive personality traits and mild hoarding tendencies. She looked up many people online - not just the families of the babies who were the subjects of the trial. And she had over 200 handover sheets at home. She shouldn't have had them (you are supposed to put them in confidential waste at the end of a shift) but I don't see the connection between them and murder/attempted murder.

Yes all very complicated. If she is innocent it's a horrific situation for her. But of course if she is guilty then you certainly dont want a person like that back in society. Very very difficult.