Lucy Letby: have you changed your mind - thread 3

[Typicalwave]

New thread for those following or wishing to comment - originally started by @kittybythelighthouse.

Why are you assuming Lucy Letby was alone with the baby? There were five nurses on duty and seven babies on the unit. They don't know which room two of the babies were in (!) and the shift leader very sensibly pointed out she couldn't state at this distance who was doing what when that night.

What should Lucy Letby have done? Called a doctor, which is what she did, repeatedly, that evening.

We've been through the problems with this evidence. I'm happy to state that even if it was being presented by men of such intellect and integrity as Dewi Evans and Ravi Jayaram, I'd have no problem whatsoever disbelieving it.

I'm not inventing things I just assumed that's what you meant. Wasn't aware of this new panels "theory". FYI that page doesn't exist 😆

Thanks, here's the link:

https://lucyletbyinnocence.com/shoo-lee/International%20Expert%20Panel%20New%20Summary%20Report%20of%20additional%2010%20cases.pdf

I’ve not dismissed mums testimony - it’s a simple noting that of the four accounts, theee if them match up on a timeline and mitgers is out by an hour - a simple mistake to make given she’s relying on call logs retrieved 2 years later for her create her timeline. Contemporaneous notes of three professionals matching up (do you know what ‘contemporaneous’ means?) are for more likely to be the correct timeline.

And no, if it weee a make nurse I’d be having the exact same doubts having gone through the evidence presented to thd court.

I care about the truth. And justice being done fairly and correctly.

You claimed that Letby turned off alarms for Baby E.

Why are you assuming Lucy Letby was alone with the baby?

Because the mother only saw her in the room with her baby when she went down. Lucy was the only one she had an exchange with about what was going on at that point. Are you going to claim she misremembered several people being in the room at the time now as well?

What should Lucy Letby have done? Called a doctor, which is what she did, repeatedly, that evening.

I want to know why it happened on her watch AGAIN.

I just don't recall the mother or anyone else saying Lucy Letby was alone at this point?

This would have happened on Lucy Letby's watch because she was caring for the two most vulnerable children on the unit that night, even though each should have had one-to-one care. As one of only two junior nurses qualified to care for children needing one-to-one care, and as a young woman willing to work nights and extra shifts, she was always more likely to be around when the most vulnerable children went into crisis, and when the hospital failed to manage these crises.

If you do not know the various circumstances surrounding the various factors country wide, hospital wide at that time that explains the increased chances of neonate deaths and Letby bring more likely to be on duty, then (to paraphrase thd great Dewi Evans) you do not know as much as you think you do about the case.

There is no doubt. She is never seeing the light of day. So yes I'd donate £25k to charity in the infinitely unlikely event she was released. Because I'm so convinced it'll never happen. But would you risk having her out and back among children? That's the REAL risk, who cares about the money, I'd be far more aghast and horrified about her being out and potentially around the vulnerable than losing 25k.

Lucy was the only nurse in that nursery when mum first came down to deliver the milk according to mums statement on Thirlwall.

Erm, no - it’s very unlikely she’d be given any kind of DBS.

Oh well let her out then!

Okay, happy to accept that from that source, thanks.

But I can't see anything suspicious in it. If they'd met required standards there would have been two nurses in there, but she could hardly help being alone with the children when she was given both of them to care for on her own!

Do you have anything of value to add - bevause all I have seen from you appeals to emotion, wild accusations of ‘pretty white blonde girl’ syndrome, straw man arguments, and wildly inaccurate claims that don't align with statements and evidence.

I was answering a PP's question.

What are the wildly inaccurate claims that don't align with statements and evidence? Sounds more like your lot if anything. In fact is there ANYTHING you accept from the trial or expert witnesses?!

You guys just have some bee in your bonnet about the justice system so you're desperate for her to be innocent.

Okie dokie.

Reapectful and reasoned discourse appears to be out of reach, here.

You don't like that anyone thinks she's guilty so always resort to saying stuff like this.

Does anyone think in-named consultant was right for her original CoD for baby E?

I’m not completely convinced that she isn’t.

I'd say it's probably because you don't in fact like reasonable or respectful discussion.

Sometimes you seem to manage it for a couple of responses and then you go right back to the same lazy arguments about it just being because she's a blonde woman, and saying 'you have an excuse for everything' in response to questions that you ask...and coming up with your own theories for why people aren't convinced by the evidence, instead of simply accepting that many are not in fact convinced by the evidence.

I'd say it's not impossible. She thought it was necrotising enterocolitis, which is common in very premature babies and can overwhelm them quickly. The child had some symptoms leading her to suspect this.

The evidence against is that it didn't show up on a x-ray taken some time before death, and it would normally have done so, though not always. Second, Jane Hawdon commented that gastrointestinal bleeding is rare with NEC, though it's not uncommon in itself in premature babies.

So the expert panel's theory as to most likely cause of death takes into account the gastrointestinal bleed and hemorrhage as cause of death, and also considers the obstetric history to reach this cause. These do seem good reasons to prefer their theory to NEC, but the lack of a postmortem in this case obviously means we can't rule NEC out.

The problem is you seem to have an impossibly high bar for the evidence you'd require. That's totally your prerogative though, but it won't make a jot of difference. The evidence convinced the jury and that's all that matters at the end of the day.

Maybe you think Harold Shipman was completely innocent and there wasn't enough evidence as well, who knows. It does seem some people can't seem to get their head around healthcare serial killers and need everything neatly wrapping up for them else it didn't happen. This case was never going to be like that.

Well if you're happy to be accused of a crime and be convicted and jailed for life on the balance of probabilities and hypothetical scenarios......

You'd be happy to "take one for the system team"?

I truly hope you never bear the brunt of a false accusation that you can't disprove.

X-ray isn’t hugely reliable according to the literature - 47-87% reliability according to the literature.

It’s interesting that there were several babies with abdominal and other symptoms that could also be associated with NEC oor sepsis in a unit that frequently had issues with sewage flooding (and in the maternity unit too), sinks nif working, at least one superbug growing in the taps, and nurseries with cuts too close together.

Baby E had several Brady and apnoea events, a raised blood glucose that had required insulin, vomiting bile, abdominal skin discolouration that moved around (moving perfusion due to hypoxia/circulatory collapse - as I understand it) NEC can also cause portal vein gas embolism.

And yet Dewi Evans saw all of these things and concluded a nurse injected air into his vein - it took him a couple of hours to die with ongoing symptoms of worsening illness throughout that time.

It's not impossibly high, it's the same standard I'd have for any case, particularly if the person could face life behind bars.

The evidence convincing the jury was all that mattered at the end of the day for the trial, but now they're onto the next stage.

If you're so convinced that it's not going to make a difference then why on earth do you care and spend so much time telling people that they're wrong and going over the 'evidence' that convicted her.

There you go again coming up with your theories 'seems like some people can't get their head around healthcare serial killers'......don't be so ridiculous.