Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Chat

Join the discussion and chat with other Mumsnetters about everyday life, relationships and parenting.

Lucy Letby - have you changed your mind thread 4

990 replies

MistressoftheDarkSide · 28/08/2025 21:20

With thanks to the original poster @kittybythelighthouse and @Tidalwave for continuing the discussion.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
53
Kittybythelighthouse · 31/08/2025 23:54

Oftenaddled · 31/08/2025 23:46

Thanks. I would really like to know more about this, particularly whether the bag was wrapped in cellophane and how the seals could be evaded, but you are right that it's in the trial reporting.

There was no demonstration in court. If there had been there would be court reporting of the actual event, especially as demonstrations in court are very unusual in British trials. This is simply a misreporting from a journalist who wasn’t there every day and misunderstood what was being said. There are many such examples in this case.

Typicalwave · 31/08/2025 23:55

Kittybythelighthouse · 31/08/2025 23:50

but a doctor has previously demonstrated to the trial how the tamper-proof bag could have been broken.”

This is not the same thing as a demonstration in court. There was no demonstration in court. There is no trial reporting that supports your claim that that there was, and there 100% would be reporting of such an event.

It didn’t happen.

Not to mention that it stands to reason that the bags would have tamper evident devices for obvious reasons.

Typicalwave · 31/08/2025 23:59

Oftenaddled · 31/08/2025 23:46

Thanks. I would really like to know more about this, particularly whether the bag was wrapped in cellophane and how the seals could be evaded, but you are right that it's in the trial reporting.

‘Could have been broken’ and then not evident to the staff preparing h to d bag to hang?

Im not buying it.

I yhink sky news is referencing the pharmacist YIU linked to, who was showing thd court a bag ready for pharmacy filling.

Oftenaddled · 01/09/2025 00:00

Kittybythelighthouse · 31/08/2025 23:54

There was no demonstration in court. If there had been there would be court reporting of the actual event, especially as demonstrations in court are very unusual in British trials. This is simply a misreporting from a journalist who wasn’t there every day and misunderstood what was being said. There are many such examples in this case.

My reading of the press summaries on the site I linked, and the normally very reliable redditor discussing the transcript, is that there was a demonstration in court, by the hospital pharmacist.

Quite what was shown is unfortunately not clear, and I accept that other readings are possible, but I really wouldn't rule it out. Whether the tampering would have been invisible, whether the cellophane wrap was featured - none of this is clear, unfortunately.

There's a lot of vague and sloppy reporting around this case, but I think the interpretation that there was no demonstration at all really isn't the obvious one.

Oftenaddled · 01/09/2025 00:09

Typicalwave · 31/08/2025 23:59

‘Could have been broken’ and then not evident to the staff preparing h to d bag to hang?

Im not buying it.

I yhink sky news is referencing the pharmacist YIU linked to, who was showing thd court a bag ready for pharmacy filling.

I agree Sky News is probably referring back to Ian Allen's demonstration. That's described all too briefly at https://www.chesterstandard.co.uk/news/23156083.recap-lucy-letby-trial-tuesday-november-29/ (which is usually the source of the Tattle / Lucy Letby Innocence summaries). I don't say that this was a comprehensive or adequate demonstration, just that there does seem to have been a demonstration of some sort.

When the reporter says
"Mr Driver is asking Mr Allen about how a quantity of liquid could be added to one of the ports, which is shown to be possible", there's no reference to tampering, cellophane etc.

But there's so much we disagree on quite vehemently here that I think it's also worth acknowledging grey areas where it's just hard to be sure exactly what happened, unfortunately. It's a shame transcripts aren't posted transparently. I was really shocked to learn that even convicts don't get free access to their own court transcripts, and they are frequently destroyed less than ten years after a trial.

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Tuesday, November 29

The trial of Lucy Letby, who denies murdering seven babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital neonatal unit and attempting to murder 10 more,…

https://www.chesterstandard.co.uk/news/23156083.recap-lucy-letby-trial-tuesday-november-29/

Kittybythelighthouse · 01/09/2025 00:19

Oftenaddled · 01/09/2025 00:00

My reading of the press summaries on the site I linked, and the normally very reliable redditor discussing the transcript, is that there was a demonstration in court, by the hospital pharmacist.

Quite what was shown is unfortunately not clear, and I accept that other readings are possible, but I really wouldn't rule it out. Whether the tampering would have been invisible, whether the cellophane wrap was featured - none of this is clear, unfortunately.

There's a lot of vague and sloppy reporting around this case, but I think the interpretation that there was no demonstration at all really isn't the obvious one.

Which reliable Redditor are you referring to here? The OP (who is a reliable Redditor) doesn’t mention a demonstration. The discussion is as follows:

  • I have a question. Do we have any pictures from Ian Allen's demonstration of openng the (polypropylene?) gap on the TPN bag? Do we know what make of cap it was?”
  • I'm sorry, could you be a bit more specific about what you're referring to?
  • Ian Allen was from the CIVAS unit (pharmacy) and showed the court the TPN bag and how the tamperproof cap could be opened on 29th November 2022. I'm assuming it was not inside the cellophane outer when this was done.
  • Unfortunately the transcript isn't clear on that point (though there is some extra confusion as Allen describes the demonstration video being played in court actually having got some things backwards). And there are no pictures, those are not allowed.

If there had been a demonstration showing how a TPN bag can be successfully tampered with it would be widely reported. The fact that no one has produced a transcript outlining this and that none of the “I was there every day!” reporters have outlined such a demonstration either, is enough to show that there wasn’t one. Vague discussion about TPN bags and how the ports work does not prove in any way shape or form that it was demonstrated in court how a TPN bag could be tampered with without upsetting the tamper evident safety mechanisms, including the cellophane outer layer and seals.

He describes ”how a quantity of liquid could be added to one of the ports, which is shown to be possible”

This is uncontroversial. Of course liquid can be added. The point is whether or not it can be added without tampering being evident. This has never been claimed nor demonstrated. If it had been we would absolutely have reporting of that.

Typicalwave · 01/09/2025 00:24

Oftenaddled · 01/09/2025 00:09

I agree Sky News is probably referring back to Ian Allen's demonstration. That's described all too briefly at https://www.chesterstandard.co.uk/news/23156083.recap-lucy-letby-trial-tuesday-november-29/ (which is usually the source of the Tattle / Lucy Letby Innocence summaries). I don't say that this was a comprehensive or adequate demonstration, just that there does seem to have been a demonstration of some sort.

When the reporter says
"Mr Driver is asking Mr Allen about how a quantity of liquid could be added to one of the ports, which is shown to be possible", there's no reference to tampering, cellophane etc.

But there's so much we disagree on quite vehemently here that I think it's also worth acknowledging grey areas where it's just hard to be sure exactly what happened, unfortunately. It's a shame transcripts aren't posted transparently. I was really shocked to learn that even convicts don't get free access to their own court transcripts, and they are frequently destroyed less than ten years after a trial.

it doesn't stand to reason that PN bags aren’t tamper evident - you can't dven buy a bottle of cough syrup without it having a tamperproof evident seal.

And I know the ones shipped to patents who needed enteral nutrition, were, as I used to work for a nursing agency who specialised in enteral feeding.

Kittybythelighthouse · 01/09/2025 00:25

Typicalwave · 31/08/2025 23:55

Not to mention that it stands to reason that the bags would have tamper evident devices for obvious reasons.

The astonishing bombshell that tamper proof safeguards are utterly useless would have to lead to new tamper proof bags being produced across the NHS. This hasn’t happened. Such a thing wasn’t even discussed at Thirlwall. Why not?

Because there was no such exposé of TPN tamper proof failings at the trial.

Oftenaddled · 01/09/2025 00:29

Kittybythelighthouse · 01/09/2025 00:19

Which reliable Redditor are you referring to here? The OP (who is a reliable Redditor) doesn’t mention a demonstration. The discussion is as follows:

  • I have a question. Do we have any pictures from Ian Allen's demonstration of openng the (polypropylene?) gap on the TPN bag? Do we know what make of cap it was?”
  • I'm sorry, could you be a bit more specific about what you're referring to?
  • Ian Allen was from the CIVAS unit (pharmacy) and showed the court the TPN bag and how the tamperproof cap could be opened on 29th November 2022. I'm assuming it was not inside the cellophane outer when this was done.
  • Unfortunately the transcript isn't clear on that point (though there is some extra confusion as Allen describes the demonstration video being played in court actually having got some things backwards). And there are no pictures, those are not allowed.

If there had been a demonstration showing how a TPN bag can be successfully tampered with it would be widely reported. The fact that no one has produced a transcript outlining this and that none of the “I was there every day!” reporters have outlined such a demonstration either, is enough to show that there wasn’t one. Vague discussion about TPN bags and how the ports work does not prove in any way shape or form that it was demonstrated in court how a TPN bag could be tampered with without upsetting the tamper evident safety mechanisms, including the cellophane outer layer and seals.

He describes ”how a quantity of liquid could be added to one of the ports, which is shown to be possible”

This is uncontroversial. Of course liquid can be added. The point is whether or not it can be added without tampering being evident. This has never been claimed nor demonstrated. If it had been we would absolutely have reporting of that.

Edited

I'm as far down the wormhole as I'm willing to go on a Sunday night! There was a demonstration... of something. Later on the trial, a reporter referred back to it as demonstrating that tampering was possible. Do I take that on trust? Nope.

Do I conclude that something was demonstrated, and that the press has claimed we were shown how tampering could happen. Yes, and I think it is fair for posters to cite this, even though I suspect the journalist is over-egging things.

You'd certainly think, reading that, that no cellophane wrap was involved; and you'd wonder why nobody has interrogated the safety of non-tamper proof tamper-proof seals! So none of this changes my opinion of anything, but I can see why people would cite it. I've given you all the information I have and accept that it's a grey area, so I absolutely respect your prerogative to read it as you wish - what I wanted to do was to make sure we were all working from what (little) information is out there. Will be very interested if anyone finds any more.

(ETA yes the OP is the reliable redditor I mentioned)

Firefly1987 · 01/09/2025 00:29

Oftenaddled · 31/08/2025 23:46

Thanks. I would really like to know more about this, particularly whether the bag was wrapped in cellophane and how the seals could be evaded, but you are right that it's in the trial reporting.

I would like to know more about it too. It was really hard to even find the little I did find about it. Perhaps they thought it was a bit technical to report on? Especially since we can't see the bag in question or what the doctor did. IDK.

Oftenaddled · 01/09/2025 00:34

Firefly1987 · 01/09/2025 00:29

I would like to know more about it too. It was really hard to even find the little I did find about it. Perhaps they thought it was a bit technical to report on? Especially since we can't see the bag in question or what the doctor did. IDK.

If we all had full information - transcripts and documents shown in court - I wonder how much we would disagree at all? Not trying to provoke an argument: off to bed. We can't tell without seeing it. But it's a shame we have to rely so much on press reports on some points.

Kittybythelighthouse · 01/09/2025 00:43

Oftenaddled · 01/09/2025 00:29

I'm as far down the wormhole as I'm willing to go on a Sunday night! There was a demonstration... of something. Later on the trial, a reporter referred back to it as demonstrating that tampering was possible. Do I take that on trust? Nope.

Do I conclude that something was demonstrated, and that the press has claimed we were shown how tampering could happen. Yes, and I think it is fair for posters to cite this, even though I suspect the journalist is over-egging things.

You'd certainly think, reading that, that no cellophane wrap was involved; and you'd wonder why nobody has interrogated the safety of non-tamper proof tamper-proof seals! So none of this changes my opinion of anything, but I can see why people would cite it. I've given you all the information I have and accept that it's a grey area, so I absolutely respect your prerogative to read it as you wish - what I wanted to do was to make sure we were all working from what (little) information is out there. Will be very interested if anyone finds any more.

(ETA yes the OP is the reliable redditor I mentioned)

Edited

“There was a demonstration... of something. Later on the trial, a reporter referred back to it as demonstrating that tampering was possible. Do I take that on trust? Nope.”

There was a pre-trial demonstration by the pharmacist of how TPN bags are prepared at the pharmacy. There was no mention of tamper proof by-passing, which would obviously create an urgent need to recall and redesign TPN bags all across the UK. Did that happen? No.

“a reporter referred back to it as demonstrating that tampering was possible.”

There have been many examples of misreporting and confused reporting in this trial. Here’s one great example of press confusion in this case www.reddit.com/r/LucyLetbyTrials/s/ruevQ2jyhA

There was no in-trial demonstration of how poisoning TPN bags without detection could be possible. If there had been be would absolutely know about it. This would have repercussions far beyond this case.

“I suspect the journalist is over-egging things.”

I think in this case they were simply confused by the sheer volume of content and the muddled presentation of same. Lots of examples of that in this case. Not all negative reporting was biased.

“You'd certainly think, reading that, that no cellophane wrap was involved; and you'd wonder why nobody has interrogated the safety of non-tamper proof tamper-proof seals! ”

There is certainly no evidence that cellophane was involved nor any demonstration of by-passing of tamper-evident seals. As I’ve said already, we would know about it if there had been. I’m far less willing than you are to take any of that on trust.

“I respect your prerogative to read it as you wish”

Reading more into it than I have is reading more into it than what has actually been given. There is no basis to read any more into this than I have.

No demonstration was given in court and no demonstration was ever given of how tamper evident measures could be by-passed.

Kittybythelighthouse · 01/09/2025 00:51

Firefly1987 · 01/09/2025 00:29

I would like to know more about it too. It was really hard to even find the little I did find about it. Perhaps they thought it was a bit technical to report on? Especially since we can't see the bag in question or what the doctor did. IDK.

Court reporters don’t need to physically demonstrate anything via photos to tell us that such a thing was demonstrated, do they? No.

They didn’t hold back on putting lots of technical and medical information into the public sphere and rightly so. Court reporting doesn’t work that way. It’s not their job to decide how stupid we are. We have open justice here, or at least we are supposed to have it.

Why was there no recall of TPN bags after this astonishing revelation? Why no mention of this at Thirlwall, where the whole point of the inquiry was to prevent such a tragedy happening in the future? It didn’t happen. That’s why.

Firefly1987 · 01/09/2025 00:53

@Kittybythelighthouse OK if you say so! But don't shoot the messenger, jeez.

Kittybythelighthouse · 01/09/2025 01:41

Firefly1987 · 01/09/2025 00:53

@Kittybythelighthouse OK if you say so! But don't shoot the messenger, jeez.

It’s not your fault that this has been misleadingly presented in the public sphere. I don’t hold you accountable for that at all. It is, nonetheless, concerning that the courts are able to manipulate the media, and therefore the public, like this. It’s yet another thing that worries me about this case which stinks more and more by the day.

In a country where we are supposed to have “open justice” it is an absolute joke that transcripts are expensive enough to require remortgaging one’s house. Even defendants cannot get afford transcripts of their own trial. I find this very unsettling. I question the wisdom of anyone who doesn’t. It’s 2025. We do not need someone to transcribe daily proceedings via Bayeux Tapestry. It’s a nonsense. The only possible reason for this in the year 2025 is to inhibit public access to court proceedings.

GingerPower · 01/09/2025 02:06

I haven't revisited the case but I remember reading quite a lot of stuff that seemed quite damning. Calling up workmates and excitedly informing them that a particular baby had died. Asking to be put back on the same ward after witnessing things most people would find distressing. Didn't she fail some part of her training that almost nobody fails due to a lack of empathy too? There seemed to be far too many red flags to me.

Kittybythelighthouse · 01/09/2025 02:52

GingerPower · 01/09/2025 02:06

I haven't revisited the case but I remember reading quite a lot of stuff that seemed quite damning. Calling up workmates and excitedly informing them that a particular baby had died. Asking to be put back on the same ward after witnessing things most people would find distressing. Didn't she fail some part of her training that almost nobody fails due to a lack of empathy too? There seemed to be far too many red flags to me.

I think some of what you’ve said is mixing up actual evidence with rumour and hindsight bias. A few points:

Excitedly informing colleagues a baby had died” - the prosecution did highlight texts where she told colleagues about deaths, but the “excitedly” part is total interpretation. The actual messages are quite flat (“Baby x has just died”). Nurses on that unit often shared news with colleagues. There’s no proof she was “gleeful”.

“Asking to go back on the same ward after distressing events” - in critical care, many nurses actively seek out high-acuity work. This is normal. Ambition to handle the most serious cases isn’t abnormal, it’s how people get experience and promotions. Framing it as suspicious is hindsight. The nurse who had the text exchange with Letby that was read out in court and framed in the media as “odd” was not called to speak at the trial ( she was likely not allowed to as is the case with the other nurses who wanted to speak in support of Letby). She was called to speak at Thirlwall.

That nurse is called Jennifer Jones-Key. At Thirlwall she was clear that she did not find LL odd at all in this exchange. In her Rule 9 questionnaire (dated 24 April 2024), Jennifer Jones‑Key explained that she had no concerns about the messages in question. She described Letby’s remarks expressing a desire to return to Nursery 1 after being assigned to Nursery 3 as totally understandable, and clarified that when she used the word “odd” in her response, as someone who didn’t work in intensive care this was odd not that Letby herself was odd.

“Failing training for lack of empathy” most colleagues described LL as conscientious, kind, and popular with parents. One examiner remarked that Letby “lacked a little bit of empathy” in her written feedback. Letby later passed this module though. Many nurses have failed modules that they later passed. I’ve definitely met several fully qualified nurses and doctors that I wouldn’t pass for empathy!

”Too many red flags” is just confirmation bias. Once someone is accused, every normal behaviour can be re-cast as sinister. At the time, managers and colleagues didn’t view these things as red flags. There were no complaints like this about Letby until after she was charged with multiple murders.

The medical evidence that murders occurred in the first place has been completely dismantled. The lead expert witness has been thoroughly discredited. Without actual evidence of murders, things like texting colleagues, wanting high-acuity shifts, or an old examiner once saying she was “a bit cold” are just ordinary events being re-interpreted through hindsight. I’m willing to bet that none of us have such a spotless professional history that no one would have a bad word to say in hindsight if we were accused of murders, particularly if we work in a field where proximity to death is a normal occurrence.

MistressoftheDarkSide · 01/09/2025 09:05

So much to digest here, my brain's on fire. Many thoughts, but I'm getting ready for bereavement counselling and rehoming my last kitten so unfortunately I don't have time right now to contribute meaningfully.

As Arnie says - I'll be back... 😘

Keep up the good work, because I do think it's good work. It highlights so much that is demonstrably wrong with this case and the system, IMHO.

OP posts:
Typicalwave · 01/09/2025 09:43

Re the tamper proof (though it’s technically tamper evident, not proof) cap

All he did was demonstrate that it could be opened. That’s it.

Bags are checked over for evidence of damage or spoiling - Becsuse ehats yhd point of filing these things in an aseptic environment, and hanging these things in aseptic procedures if there’s no way to tell if the bag has been damaged or ither things havd bedn added after production?

Either that or we all need to just pack up and go home - the NHS are giving PN bags to compromised people that can easily be tampered with or compromised in some way. They may as well not bitter refuses rating either, nor having an expiry on them bevause that's yhd point of filing)ig these bags don’t have systems on them to indicate the bag had been compromised)

EyeLevelStick · 01/09/2025 10:14

I think there’s a fundamental misunderstanding about the tamper-evident seals in place as part of the bag design before they are used, and those used after the pharmacy has compounded them to prevent subsequent tampering and/or making any tampering evident.

Typicalwave · 01/09/2025 10:27

EyeLevelStick · 01/09/2025 10:14

I think there’s a fundamental misunderstanding about the tamper-evident seals in place as part of the bag design before they are used, and those used after the pharmacy has compounded them to prevent subsequent tampering and/or making any tampering evident.

That makes sense.

I think the probability is that the demonstration given in court was showing that bags can be filled and yhd tamper evident devices can be removed - that’s it.

There doesnt appear to have been an attempt to continue the demonstration to its logical conclusion - bags will be checked at the stage of use, tampering can be seen?

TheCountessofFitzdotterel · 01/09/2025 10:34

I have often thought that wanting to look after the sickest babies would be perfectly reasonable if you are one of the more experienced people on the ward, as Letby was at times, despite her young age, due to the unit having been de skilled a few years earlier to save money. But saying ‘I didn’t trust the other nurses’ would make you look like an arrogant arsehole in court so you wouldn’t be able to explain yourself.

Typicalwave · 01/09/2025 10:45

Oftenaddled · 01/09/2025 00:09

I agree Sky News is probably referring back to Ian Allen's demonstration. That's described all too briefly at https://www.chesterstandard.co.uk/news/23156083.recap-lucy-letby-trial-tuesday-november-29/ (which is usually the source of the Tattle / Lucy Letby Innocence summaries). I don't say that this was a comprehensive or adequate demonstration, just that there does seem to have been a demonstration of some sort.

When the reporter says
"Mr Driver is asking Mr Allen about how a quantity of liquid could be added to one of the ports, which is shown to be possible", there's no reference to tampering, cellophane etc.

But there's so much we disagree on quite vehemently here that I think it's also worth acknowledging grey areas where it's just hard to be sure exactly what happened, unfortunately. It's a shame transcripts aren't posted transparently. I was really shocked to learn that even convicts don't get free access to their own court transcripts, and they are frequently destroyed less than ten years after a trial.

It is an utter travesty that it’s financially prohibitive for thise engaging in court process cannot have transcripts - it goes again the very basic principle of transparency and access to justice.

There are many ways that people are hamstrung in accessing justice fairly abx equally - Judicial Review for example is out of the reach of most as is accessing the Supreme Court and the EHCR.

It is shocking, I agree.

Imperativvv · 01/09/2025 10:46

Yes, another equality of arms problem.

kkloo · 01/09/2025 10:52

You can see here in the prosecutions questioning of LL that he mentioned the demonstration and how he removed the tamper proof cap and showed how insulin could be injected into it.

It doesn't sound like the demonstration included or mentioned cellophane because she first mentioned it as a seal and he asked her about the seal and she said it comes in a cellophane bag and then he's asking LL how robust the cellophane would be.

https://lucyletbyinnocence.com/transcripts/prosecution-letby-babies-f-l.pdf

https://lucyletbyinnocence.com/transcripts/prosecution-letby-babies-f-l.pdf

Swipe left for the next trending thread