Lucy Letby - programme on ITV now

[Viviennemary]

I think this must be a new programme and not a repeat. Experts are being wheeled out to try and say Letby is innocent. I'm not convinced at all. None of them were even at the trial or worked with Letby. It's all theories and opinions..

Dr Evans initially picked 65 cases he thought were suspicious deaths or collapses, some of which were identical to one of the 25 cases he eventually determined to be murder, but he decided they were not suspicious despite the striking similarities.

He did not provide any reasoning for his decisions as to which were suspicious and which were not. He later reclassified some of the cases he deemed to be murder as natural deaths after it was proved Lucy was not on shift. Again, he did not provide any clear reason for this.

The only difference between the deaths he picked out as suspicious and the ones he decided were natural causes was Lucy's presence. He knew Lucy's shift patterns before he finalized his list.

I am another person who thought she was guilty and now have serious doubts. With regards to the poor little Baby who suffered a gastrointestinal bleed.
Baby had underlying conditions which predispose to GI ulceration, a significant bleed happened and was picked up too late for a transfusion, no evidence of trauma was seen at the time, no one witnessed deliberate harm and no post mortem was done. I can’t see how a conclusion of murder can be reached from that.

I am a vet and I am well aware that the clinical assessments made, decisions taken, treatments prescribed (or not) is in the hands of the case clinician (vet/doctor/consultant) but it is nurses who are with the patient most of the time, so are likely to be the one standing by the cot when a deterioration happens. The collapse could be baked in by decisions made or not made earlier in the day, or by progression of natural causes, but it is the nurse who is there when the machines start to beep.

I'm watching the documentary now. I've read a lot of news stories and watched the press conference led by Shoo Lee, but this is the first time I have watched the documentary being discussed.

Lucy's barrister has just said that Dewi Evans has changed his mind on the cause of the death of three of the babies Lucy was convicted of killing. He still maintains they were murdered, but has changed his mind on the way they were killed and has written a new report after Lucy was convicted.

If that is true, those three convictions need to be overturned immediately, and she needs to be retried for them based on Dewi's new report. Even the prosecution now says she did not kill the babies in the way she was convicted of.

I knew the prosecution's medical evidence was disputed and that things did not add up, but I had no idea that even the prosecution themselves don't believe all of their evidence now.

It's obvious that most allegations will be made about times when the parents weren't on the ward. If the mother had been on the ward, she could see whether or not Letby did anything. Assuming she didn't, no allegation.

You're doing exactly what the prosecution did. Baby was ill (not always in a particularly unexpected or alarming way). Can we hypothesise that Lucy Letby had a chance to do it?

Even with such a blank slate, they placed her at the scene of the crime when she wasn't on shift (baby C) or on the ward (baby N) or when multiple medics were watching and saw nothing (babies A and M), or were working directly on the child at the time when she was alleged to have somehow, invisibly, injured them (babies O and P). Then she is supposed to have cleared up the evidence before anyone responded to emergency alerts.

One thing people may not realize is that the prosecution didn't, in most cases, do anything as precise as say when an event happened and match it to Lucy Letby's presence. They said, something must have happened between x and y - did Letby have an opportunity to be at cotside? And as long as she was on shift, the answer to that was yes.

What you are doing here isn't far off the prosecution technique and I suspect it will help people to see how flimsy the case against Lucy Letby is.

It is important to remember that nurses are all human and just as flawed as everyone else in the world. They work long shifts, often at night and will all have said something that has come out wrong or seemed insensitive - almost everyone working in healthcare, even the loveliest and most empathic people, will have had a complaint at some time in their career. I fear for any health professional who has their whole life, internet and social media history raked over for evidence, as you are always going to find a flawed person who has made mistakes

“I mean IF it comes out there were all these unexplained incidents when LL was not on shift then of course I would probably change my mind.”

First of all, there absolutely were other incidents. That is a fact. You don’t believe it yet for some reason, but even Liz Hull admitted it in her podcast.

That said, I’m sincerely glad that you’re open to changing your mind on this. There are people (thankfully the numbers seem to be dropping) who are so entrenched in a guilty narrative at all costs that I honestly find it unhealthy and a bit spooky. For what it’s worth, I have zero reason to shill for a baby killer nurse. I’m not doing it because she is blonde or middle class or whatever. I’m simply very very concerned about the absolute state of our NHS and Justice/policing system which this case has exposed. That should terrify all of us.

The fact that very high level experts are expressing that there were no murders is such an extraordinary event that it really makes no rational sense for a layperson to continue to be 100% sure she’s guilty and not even slightly interested in a thorough review of the case/evidence.

The case has been so thoroughly dismantled at this point that I am 100% confident that the convictions will be overturned and that this is going down as possibly the worst MoJ in British history. There’ll be a point in the not too distant future where LL will be giving an emotional speech on courthouse steps, like Sally Clark, or the Birmingham 6. It’s coming. Mark me on that.

“I'm hoping the new Panorama doc will clear some of these things up.”

I will also be watching this, but I wouldn’t stake my life on their fact checking. They have form for getting facts wrong in previous Panoramas on this case, for e.g the number of deaths since Letby left the unit is contradicted by the facts at Thirlwall. There are quite a few such errors in the other two Moritz/Coffey Panoramas on Letby.

“There was 10 months of evidence, how can it be flawed? This is not one of those times anyone has to worry about a MoJ.”

The idea that length of trial = better evidential standard is a common misconception. In reality MoJ are often characterised by long trials. Throwing lots of nothing at the wall and overwhelming the jury with oceans of minutiae about Grand National texts and pyjama lies is a red flag for a MoJ, not the mark of a great body of evidence.

“You don't seem to have any comments to make about the mother who made a complaint at the time?”

It’s not clear who/what you’re talking about here. Are you talking about the mother of baby E? You didn’t ask me about her. She didn’t complain at the time though. What exactly is your question and re who? Happy to talk about whatever but I’m a bit confused about what you mean/are asking.

Btw your tone here reads as though you’ve caught me out on some dishonesty which is frankly weird. I am not some secret Letby infiltration agent. I’m not dodging anything. Again, my only interest is in the rigour and fairness of the justice system that could bang any of us up for life. Ask me your question and I’ll answer it. No problem.

“And look how her baby mysteriously crashed when she took a short break. That happened a lot didn't it? Bit odd that”

It’s an NICU, not a daycare. Vulnerable premature babies, sadly, do collapse. Again, the idea that Letby was “always there” has been proven to be untrue. Not sure why you’re still darkly pointing to it.

I've just been watching this interview with a former neonatal nurse at CoCH. So interesting to hear from someone who has worked extensively with babies in this setting. She's so switched on and highly unimpressed with the arrogance of the consultants, Dewi Evans etc. It really brought home to me what a major factor male hubris has been in the whole debacle; supposed experts who simply weren't as competent as they thought they were, spent very little time on the wards and completely lacked the ability to see their own shortcomings. It's made me quite angry actually.

Michele Worden was more than a neonatal nurse. She was a highly experienced advanced neonatal practitioner.

She didn't choose to leave the Countess of Chester - she was pushed out with redundancy because the financial managers at the time (@2007 I think) were trying to cut costs - and replaced experienced senior nurses with health care assistants and nursery nurses.

She is a mine of information on the staffing conditions and the personalities at the Countess of Chester, as well as the management decisions that led to what seems to be a previously effective well run unit into a short staffed, overburdened unit filled with less experienced medical and nursing staff at a time when they were taking on more and more very unwell neonates.

She went to the press to warn that this would lead to possible deaths.

Another excellent video with her here:

This explains she actually contacted the police early on in the evidence gathering part of the case to give information about staffing issues, but they were not interested.

Private eye have been on this case from the beginning ( also the Post Office scandal ) The reporter is a doctor. There are simple statistical errors in the criminal case evidence. There's also strong evidence that the unit were taking cases which they weren't equipped for. Some of the doctors criticising Lucy Letby were not qualified in the specialism that the babies needed. Some of the evidence against her was based on personal notes which could be interpreted in many ways. Looked to me like she felt guilty about the deaths, which is common in the caring professions, even when it's irrational. She didn't have a fair trial and possibly was not fit mentally to stand trial. When a person or baby dies, many feel guilty even when that's irrational. I had a client in London who every time a bomb went off she took herself to the Police station because she was Irish.Luckily the local police understood she was deranged and kept her in the cells overnight and arranged psychiatric help.

Thanks so much for sharing this. I recommend this interview to anyone interested in this case.

My own limited experience with the NHS, as a relative (including paediatric) and patient (including maternity), is its working culture appears rooted in the classism, sexism and hierarchy of the 1950s, when it was, of course, founded.

IME, the (largely male and privileged) consultants exude a godlike air they should never be questioned, even though they’re rarely with the patients. Whereas, the (largely female and less privileged) nursing staff work via regular observation and getting to know patients, allowing them to notice quickly when problems start to occur. Yet they seem reluctant and discouraged to ever question, or even suggest things to, consultants and registrars.

When I’ve politely questioned consultants as a ‘mere relative’, it’s gone down like a lead balloon. Even though I’ve been proved correct on more than one occasion. On one occasion, three different teams of consultants arrogantly argued with each other over diagnosis. And told me not to listen to the others. I found that highly unprofessional and suggested they all meet and work it out between them. Then speak to me as the parent of the patient.

I agree with Michele that things are gradually likely to change, as younger NHS professionals are more aware of sexism and there are more women consultants, though perhaps less so of classism and the confidence (which sometimes extends to arrogance) that often comes with privilege.

I also agree this appears to have been at play in this case, with a young, relatively inexperienced and working class female nurse judged by male consultants and a retired expert witness, with the latter likely having less up-to-date training and expertise in neonatal care than she did. The lack of enough more experienced, older (and therefore more confident) nursing staff may also not have helped.

IMHO the best workplaces invite and embrace respectful and professional challenge from the top to the bottom. It prevents mistakes, improves efficiency and avoids discrimination. Though some less confident staff will still struggle to speak up for fear of getting it wrong. Or be blamed or punished for the impact of mistakes made higher up the hierarchy.

@Womblingmerrily Thank you. Again, a very interesting and insightful watch.

No I'm saying what are the chances a baby would naturally collapse the minute a staff member or family briefly left them? They would only leave if baby was stable or they could get another staff member to cover. Yet so many times it happened the minute someone left? You don't think that's the least bit strange?

And no there were no allegations when family/other nurses were there because LL didn't get a chance to harm them! She's not going to do it right in front of them is she...the only time she got a chance to was when she had care of the baby herself or she slipped in during the time no one else was there-which would've been mere minutes. And this happened again and again. It's vanishingly unlikely that a natural collapse would happen just at the point someone else leaves.

Also there were babies left out of the trial that they didn't think they had enough evidence to get LL on but she was still there when it happened. Or had just finished her shift That's probably what you mean. So basically there was far more that they didn't even take to court that she was most likely involved in.

She was on shift when baby C died because I'm pretty sure that was the baby where she was desperate to get in the room and what all her texting was about. There was some sort of other incident when she wasn't on shift but the day he died she was there in the room, when the other nurse went for a break!

But what about the 40+ unexplained collapses that happened when Lucy was off shift?

I don't know if she is innocent or not. There was a spike in deaths after she started work there, though it should be noted there was also a spike in neonatal deaths in three other hospitals at the same time.

I do know the medical evidence used to convict her is hotly disputed by a number of highly regarded experts, and the circumstantial evidence is contrived. The jury was handed cherry-picked snippets, the notes, for example, and the multiple unexplained collapses, which were ignored because Lucy was not on shift.

The evidence is unsafe; she needs a new trial, or at the very least, the evidence to be looked at (again) by a panel of experts.

In fact child C is one of the most damning cases for her so I'm not sure why her cheerleaders keep bringing that baby up...

Are you sure you have the right baby?

Baby C is the baby she did not meet until after the X-ray which allegedly proved she had injected air into his belly. I believe baby C is also one of the babies that Evan's has changed his mind on.

To me baby C is one of the most unsafe convictions.

Oh I followed the case almost from her first arrest convinced of her innocence for years so I've already changed my mind once! I try and be as open-minded as possible.

There were two official complaints as far as I know but as has been pointed out-it's never been proven that the one with the cold cot was actually LL so I won't count that. I came across another comment she made to a nurse about "he's not leaving here alive is he?"-again it's comments like that which I'm sure will just be brushed off, that are very strange. Every time I go to refresh my memory on what happened I'm reminded of yet another morbid/inappropriate comment she made! Predicting deaths is known to be textbook "angel of death" behaviour. Again not damning in itself but adding more and more to the bigger picture.

The one I was talking about though was not part of the trial, the mother who made a complaint was Lynsey Artell-she was furious about what was said. To counteract the "no one complained about LL at the time and all the parents liked her" narrative.

https://www.tiktok.com/@skynews/video/7268754925948128544?lang=en

Yes people ran with that narrative. She was definitely there when he died-

Murder of Child C
14 June 2015
Child C was born seven weeks premature weighing 800g (1lb 12oz) but was in good condition. Letby is seen standing over his monitor as his alarm sounded, despite not being his designated nurse. He dies as a result of air being injected into his stomach.

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

I mean it's a massive case, so many babies and evidence to go through that it seems he thought an earlier collapse was down to LL but it wasn't. Not a totally unexpected thing to happen when there were so many collapses. It's kind of irrelevant though when she definitely was there when he died-immediately cot side! Which she wasn't supposed to be.

The consultant was only in the room to witness her standing over him because Lucy called him regarding baby C, that was later proven in an email that was ommited from evidence in court, and she was in Ibiza when the X-Ray showed air in his stomach, so if that is what he died from, I'm not sure how you've managed to convince yourself Lucy definately killed him.

@Frequency that was baby K. Baby C was the one where she was texting about needing to be in that room to get over a previous death. She was mad the baby was being looked after by another nurse. 6 mins after she finished texting to her friend about wanting to be in there baby C collapsed-the other nurse was on a break and Lucy was found in there. It's utterly damning.

https://www.chesterstandard.co.uk/news/23470171.lucy-letby-upset-frustrated-minutes-baby-collapsed/

There's no way a baby born 7 weeks premature but weighing only 800g is going to be in a good condition because the low birth weight is an indication of several factors going on during the pregnancy.

Why are you propagating the idea that child C was in good condition? He weighed 800g at birth - very small for dates for a baby born at 30 weeks. From the facts in the independent panel’s report he showed several classic signs of bowel obstruction, but surgical opinion had not been sought despite this clear indication. He was also in respiratory distress, and the surfactant administered had entered the lungs unevenly, so will not have been as effective as it could have been.

Let’s not also forget that LL was convicted of murdering him by injecting air via his NG tube, which is a ridiculous suggestion and Evans has since changed his mind about that.

You are correct, I am the one who muddled the babies up; however, after Googling baby C, it seems he was gravely ill from birth, had a very low birth weight, and pneumonia, which was not treated properly. It is possible Lucy somehow contributed to or deliberately caused his death, but it is highly unlikely (impossible according to a lot of medical experts) for her to have killed him in the way she was convicted of, which makes her conviction unsafe.

You cannot for, for example, convict someone of stabbing someone to death and then ignore new evidence that shows they died by gunshot.

I think it was in one of the YouTube interviews with Michele linked further up that I heard pushing air into an NG tube was how they used to check they were positioned properly, and the most that would happen if you pushed too much air in is that the baby would burp or the air would come back up. That makes sense to me. A baby dying of what is effectively a bad case of colic does not make sense.

To me, the possibilities are;

Lucy was killing babies, but not in the way she was convicted of, and not all of the babies she was convicted of.

Someone else was deliberately harming babies (don't forget there were 60-something unexplained deaths and collapses, and Lucy was only on shift for around 25 of them)

The babies died due to poor care, poor hygiene, and a lack of medical supervision from the consultants. It is highly probable that at least one of them died as a direct result of a botched procedure one of the consultants carried out. The consultants did not have enough experience to care for babies who were so ill, and the nursing staff also lacked experience. This is the most likely explanation to me.

All of the unexplained deaths need to be re-examined by a fresh panel of unbiased experts, imo.

If Lucy is proven to be innocent, it would not surprise me if it were found that the consultants used her as a scapegoat to cover up their own mistakes and negligence.

@Firefly1987 you’ve actually typed He dies as a result of air being injected into his stomach when Evans himself has admitted publicly that no babies died of this. He’s re written his report although the police have refused to share it with Letby’s defence team.
Even at the time of the trial and in interviews afterwards he admitted that the air in the stomach theory does not exist in the body of medical evidence. I.e. it has never been described before he came up with it.
Doctors who read this evidence in the trial reporting were so concerned they tried to contact the court but were told to stay silent or be held in contempt. That’s how ludicrous this theory was.
He’s changed to another cause now so can you not see that if he’s ditched his first theory and come up with another that neither can be sound? But you are determined to stick with it, she must be guilty. Because she was there.

So are you saying that if a baby’s alarm goes off on a neonatal unit then any nurse in the vicinity should ignore the alarm if they’re not the designated nurse?

Because generally, that’s not how it actually works…

You don't know the (agreed) facts but you still seen comfortable assuming you have proof of guilt.

How many times did a child collapse immediately parents or other nurses left? You tell me. Because it's a myth.

There were plenty of "collapses" while other people were in the room. Most of them really stretch credibility if you are going to claim she killed / harmed by air embolism then cleared up the evidence before anyone responded to an alarm.

Off the top of my head, nobody claims she was alone with children, A, B, F, H, I, J, L, M or P for any incidents at all.

People have explained about baby C upthread. She was accused of causing air in the stomach, seen in an x-ray, which is what the prosecution claimed killed him, until it transpired she hasn't been in or met him yet when that happened. So then suddenly that harm had natural causes.