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..

@Oftenaddled no but that nurse did question whether to give up nursing altogether as she was so devastated by the mistake. Bit different than Lucy's reaction to just be annoyed she wasn't allowed to dispense drugs for a bit 🙄glad you brought it up actually as it perfectly demonstrates her complete lack of empathy or guilt compared with a normal nurses' devastated reaction over almost killing a patient.

So now I'm cherrypicking because the article I found said the baby was in good condition! I didn't know I was supposed to disbelieve that...Take it up with the person who wrote the article then.

The fact is baby was fine until LL went in there so doesn't really make that much of a difference whether she snuck in or was asked to cover. But I definitely remember her saying she didn't know why she ended up in there (unless that was another baby) I'll try and find it at some point. She was desperate to get in there we know that much in her own words. And she was alone when baby C collapsed leading to his death. 6 minutes after she texts she needs to be given a dying baby in room 1 she goes in there and suddenly baby that was previous stable IS dying. I mean come on, you don't need to be Columbo really do you...

You have no way of knowing whether Letby was equally shaken at any point, do you? You just keep making assumptions to fill in the gaps and then pointing to them as proof of guilt.

She wasn't alone with ths baby. Every nurse giving evidence, including Mel Taylor, agreed that Mel Taylor was in the room.

Lucy Letby was questioned about her presence two years after the event. It's not surprising she couldn't remember why she was in the room by then, but there would be plenty of possibilities.

The child was unwell before she entered the room, of course. Even the hospital acknowledged that they failed to follow up on his vomiting / bile by taking more x-rays.

At the inquiry one set of parents discussed another nurse who was cold and odd. I believe the baby had collapsed during the night or in the morning and then the nurse came up to them while the baby was being resuscitated and said that he'd been fine when she'd been looking after him.
The mother said that at the time she turned to her husband and said 'that nurse harmed him'.

They said Letby gave the mother a hug before the baby was transferred and said she hoped the baby would be ok.

No idea who the nurse was who the mother thought had harmed her baby, but I bet if she had been the one acccused of murder there would have been plenty of memories and anecdotes etc about her as well. Her behaviour would have been compared to Letby who was the 'nice nurse' in that scenario, giving hugs and well wishes.

You could have read the expert panel’s report which summarises - factually - the medical events in the baby’s notes during his 3 day life. A pp has reproduced them in full above so you don’t have to bother to look at the whole report.

To say the baby was fine and stable is preposterous.

Edited for typo.

Now that you point it out that is certainly the case. Even making the doctors who accused her apologise. It was all about her. No. I'm convinced she is in the right place.

So the vibes are of primary importance to you? It doesn’t concern you that a world class panel of experts has examined all the medical evidence and found that there were no murders? I do hope you never serve on a jury, though you would have fit in well in 1692 Salem 🫠

If someone accused me of murder and was found by a disciplinary process to have likely lied and gossiped about me, I don't think expecting an apology is exactly excessive!

You're trotting out the rules that only apply to Lucy Letby again.

In the real world, of course you'd want an apology.

She was found guilty at a trial. Those so called experts weren't at the trial. Why on earth did the defence not call any of these experts. I think she is guilty so did the jury. She is under investigation for suspicious deaths at other hospitals where she works.

They are experts in their field of medicine, not so-called at all. Shoo Lee, who led the panel, had his paper written in 1982 used as part of the prosecution and he was unaware that was happening. He has said that the use of his work was incorrect.

@Viviennemary ”She was found guilty at a trial.”

I admire and envy your blessedly naive assumption that the justice system never ever fails. Sorry to burst your bubble, but miscarriages of justice do happen.

The expert panel (no scare quotes required) cannot be easily dismissed. It includes internationally recognised neonatologists, epidemiologists, and senior paediatric specialists from world-leading institutions like the Karolinska Institute - the home of the Nobel Prize for Medicine - as well as top-tier teaching hospitals in Canada, Japan, and beyond. These are people who write the guidelines others follow, run major medical centres, and have decades of peer-reviewed research behind them.

Whatever conclusions they reach, you can’t dismiss them as anything other than the highest calibre of medical expertise. They aren’t throwing themselves into this from halfway across the world, jettisoning their reputations and extremely lucrative careers to flirt from a distance with an ordinary British nurse.

Because these experts are very highly regarded professionals based in Sweden, Canada, Tokyo, etc it wouldn’t have been possible for the defence to call them during the trial.

One of the issues with expert witnesses in British courts is that only retired or mediocre/poor “experts” who are not in demand professionally, even want to do expert witness work.

Experts working at the front line of research and practice in the world’s best institutions do not want to take time away from that important work to be expert witnesses in courts. The Law Commission wrote a report about this problem in 2011 but the advice was unfortunately not taken on board.

In short, the defence could not just ring up The Karolinska Institute, arguably the best research hospital in the world, home of the Nobel prize for medicine, and ask a senior neonatologist to be an expert witness for a random nurse in Chester who might be a serial killer. People like that are on board now because Dr Lee was so appalled that he brought their attention to it. They are working on it pro bono out of professional and moral integrity. It’s an unprecedented intervention that can’t be waved away.

They are not “so-called” experts at all. In comparison to the prosecution experts they are premiere league vs the local pub’s five a side team.

The defence didn't have access to experts of that calibre. They are brilliant at their day jobs. They took this on when it became obvious something had gone very wrong. They shouldn't have been needed.

The ‘so called expert’ Professor Shoo Lee was the person whose research Dewi Evans and Ravi Jayaram cited in their accusations against LL so they clearly believed his expertise and credentials. Unfortunately they completely misinterpreted his paper and it turns out that the prosecution relied upon this factually incorrect interpretation as medical evidence in court. I have the distinct impression that had he agreed with the prosecution you’d be trumpeting his eminence rather than referring to him as a ‘so called expert’.

Exactly this. Either Dr Lee is a crank, in which case his research - which was the only diagnostic evidence for all of the air embolism cases - is the research of a crank and those convictions don’t stand.

OR

He’s not a crank and therefore his opinion that his research was misused is valid, which also crumbles the air embolism convictions.

Can’t have it both ways!

She behaved vastly differently than the other nurse-FACT.

Letby’s colleague was said to be so distraught about the incident that she almost resigned, but Letby was “unhappy” when informed by the neonatal unit ward deputy ward manager, Yvonne Griffiths, that she could not administer controlled drugs until a review had taken place.

The next day Letby messaged a colleague saying: “Thankfully Eirian felt it had been escalated more than it needed to be. Everything is back to how it was.

Escalated more than it needed to be! Tells you everything you need to know about her.

De la Poer said: “Could have been fatal?” Griffiths replied: “Yes.”
Asked what Letby’s demeanour was when she first met her about the error, Griffiths said: “I just remember the comparison because I know the other lady was very distraught and very upset to the point where she was going to leave nursing.
“Letby, I think, was upset but not to the same extent. She seemed to accept my decision. I think perhaps she thought I was being a bit harsh.”

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/oct/16/lucy-letby-baby-morphine-overdose-years-before-first-inquiry

What do you think you’re proving here? That she had a different personality to the senior nurse who rightly took the brunt of the responsibility?

Again, none of this makes her a serial killer.

It says she was alone right in the article I posted earlier in the thread-

The detective said: “You sent the final text at 11.09pm. Six minutes after you sent that (Child C) collapsed.”
“Right,” said Letby.
The detective went on: “What are you thoughts on that?”
Letby responded: “I don’t have any thoughts on that.”
The detective said: “The text messages suggest you were frustrated at not working in nursery one, do you agree?”
The defendant said: “Yes, I think it would have helped me if I could have been in nursery one.”
Letby agreed she was the only staff member in room one when Child C collapsed and that she was seen at his cot-side when a monitor alarm sounded.

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

But yeah sure, everything that was agreed upon in court that makes LL look bad (ie everything) is wrong! Not at all sounding like a conspiracy theorist.

Thank god-we need more sanity on this thread.

I might just sit back and watch what happens tomorrow after the new documentary airs.

The reasons why the experts weren’t called at trial has been explained in detail. But by all means ignore all the facts, pick any old comment that vaguely agrees with you, no matter how weak, and call that “sanity”.

If you look at the whole police interview, her starting point was that she couldn't remember being in the room alone, police told her that she had been, and she accepted that they knew what they were talking about. (A mistake, as it turned out, since we now know they messed up swipe card data, though I don't know if that affected this case)

Nurses' evidence has Mel Taylor there and contradictory evidence on the other three nurses. You get lots of muddles like this when you ask people to remember who was where when to the minute two or more years ago, of course.

Judith Moritz will dither and emote - she's more a true crime presenter than an investigative journalist. But she has or had some good access to sources. It will be interesting to see what she comes up with.

There's no putting the genie back in the bottle, though. There's widespread and growing awareness the conviction is unsafe.

The way you keep going on and on about witch trials makes me think you're not actually having a serious discussion in good faith.

The experts weren't called because they wouldn't be able to agree there was no harm in every single case. So none of them would be able to help her. It was safer to have a plumber who they can't ask medical questions to in a last ditch attempt to sway the jury that sewage coming up the sinks was why suspicious deaths followed her around everywhere. Even though infection wasn't why any of the babies died.

Depends if she can disprove the claims that LL wasn't there for some of the suspicious collapses. It'll certainly be more balanced than the last few sensationist documentaries.

Even though infection wasn't why any of the babies died.

Infection was found in most of the babies, just not by Dewi Evans, who believed they died from having air in the stomach, despite there being no medical evidence to support this theory and no documented cases of this ever happening before.

The initial coroners found signs of infection. Dr Shoo's panel found infection. Dr Shoo found that some of the babies died because the infection was not noticed quickly enough and antibiotics were not given in time.