Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

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
MistressoftheDarkSide · 29/08/2025 11:40

Typicalwave · 29/08/2025 11:34

I read somewhere that they started to do that because juries grappled with understanding what ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ means.

And thereby hangs a very worrying can of worms with ramifications rippling out across every aspect of our lives.

And yes, Luddite that I am, I'm looking at the explosion of technology being allowed to feed the capitalist machine with barely a thought for the implications.

AI, I'm looking at you.

OP posts:
Typicalwave · 29/08/2025 12:00

MistressoftheDarkSide · 29/08/2025 11:40

And thereby hangs a very worrying can of worms with ramifications rippling out across every aspect of our lives.

And yes, Luddite that I am, I'm looking at the explosion of technology being allowed to feed the capitalist machine with barely a thought for the implications.

AI, I'm looking at you.

We need critical thinking as part of the curriculum - if it is I don’t see it and I don’t remember experiencing it in school either.

And we need classes on how our society functions: the basics of our constitution, our judicial system, how everything fits together, (or doesnt) etc - I wasn't taught any of, either (has that changed?)

Basic debating skills.

rubbishatballet · 29/08/2025 12:05

Typicalwave · 29/08/2025 11:34

I read somewhere that they started to do that because juries grappled with understanding what ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ means.

In fairness it is also famously the question that judges most dread getting from the jury as there has never been a single agreed interpretation of what it actually means.

Typicalwave · 29/08/2025 12:16

rubbishatballet · 29/08/2025 12:05

In fairness it is also famously the question that judges most dread getting from the jury as there has never been a single agreed interpretation of what it actually means.

Really?

That’s wild. I find that difficult to believe.

Londonmummy66 · 29/08/2025 13:16

But I'm flattered anyone thinks I could possibly be anywhere near as intelligent as a medical expert tbh!

@Firefly1987 - sorry to disabuse you but I don't think Dear Dewi was intelligent in any way - any intelligent rational human being would not have jumped to conclusions over a 10 minute cup of coffee, misunderstood Dr Lee's academic paper or invented the ridiculous insulin poisoning scenario. Having been an expert witness myself in the past I can tell you that his behaviour is highly offensive to the rest of us and a disgrace to the medical profession.

CheeseNPickle3 · 29/08/2025 13:18

I asked if Firefly (or anybody) would be prepared to have their babies cared for at CoCH in that time period, knowing what we do now if Lucy Letby was guaranteed not to be there at all to see whether the information that's come out about the shortcomings of the department impacted their views on what might have happened.

Firefly chose CoCH over any hospital with LL in it. Understandable if you're 100% convinced of her guilt. But she also apparently has no concerns at all about the CoCH. That I find less understandable.

I think it's a very different question to ask whether you'd be happy for Lucy Letby to look after your baby (in any setting - a safe hospital?). I think I would be happy for her to be a nurse for my baby at the time. She'd passed her exams and nobody was raising concerns about her skills. Like a lot of people I wouldn't ask her to babysit, but then I wouldn't ask anyone I didn't know really well to babysit.

Kittybythelighthouse · 29/08/2025 13:34

Typicalwave · 29/08/2025 11:34

I read somewhere that they started to do that because juries grappled with understanding what ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ means.

Yep, that’s what I said. In 2008 the judiciary decided, after centuries of case law, universal western adoption of the phrase, and well practiced modes of successfully explaining the principle to jurors, that the carefully chosen linguistic precision of ‘reasonable doubt’ was suddenly “too complicated” for (what they must deem to be) simple minded jurors who are nonetheless expected to make serious calls on complex evidence like science and medicine.

As I say, yet more slow erosion of the once great and world admired British justice system.

Oftenaddled · 29/08/2025 13:44

I think it's telling that the speaker with top billing at this year's Bond Salon expert witness conference, arranged by the body that partners with UK universities to provide expert witness training is ...

Mark McDonald, on the Letby case

Annual Expert Witness Conference

Our annual Bond Solon Expert Witness Conference was first held in 1995 and today is the leading industry event for the UK’s Expert Witness community.

https://www.bondsolon.com/expert-witness/annual-expert-witness-conference/

Londonmummy66 · 29/08/2025 14:03

And if all Shoo lee and others evidence was already there, and just not called upon at the time, it doesn't count.

I think this point was a bit overlooked by the discussion on whether or not to leave a baby with LL. @SquishedMallow raises an important point with the review panel. They need new evidence to open an appeal and I believe Dr Lee therefore undertook a new study and wrote a new peer reviewed paper to address the differences between arterial (which does produce a rash) and venous (which does not) air embolism. I believe the hope is that the new paper will count as new evidence to allow the air embolism cases to be reviewed.

Compare and contrast the moral rectitude of a Dr who believed it important his work is not twisted to wrongfully convict and a Dr who saw "winning" a case as so important he twisted evidence to fit his tortuous theories.

Kittybythelighthouse · 29/08/2025 14:49

Oftenaddled · 29/08/2025 10:29

I'm sure there were plenty of good staff there, and I'm sure the problems with resuscitation and intubation skills could be improved. But I'd have serious reservations about reopening the unit at that level under the leadership of doctors who claim it was perfectly good as it was and that the deaths they had could not have been due to natural causes or problems with medical care. I'd also want to know if basic issues with safeguarding - reporting anything "suspicious" to the coroner and honest record-keeping - reporting procedures to the pathologist even if you made errors - had been addressed.

So no, with all sympathy for the many dedicated members of the unit, I couldn't rejoice in this. Anyway, I hope I didn't mislead - the application has been in for nearly a year now according to Thirlwall so I wouldn't be sure it's going anywhere, especially with Chester's warning about unsafe conditions after the most recent CQC visit this year.

Across the period in question there were 17 deaths. LL was charged and convicted of 7 of those. What caused the rest of them?

It’s interesting to note that during the year of the death spike the consultants were only on the unit for 2 ward rounds per week vs the Royal College recommended 2 ward rounds per day. An RCPCH report found that the acuity of neonatal care in the unit demanded greater consultant presence. The RCPCH also noted that staffing was dominated by junior and training doctors, supplemented heavily by locum cover. Leadership in the unit was characterised as remote.

Also that year (a non exhaustive list):

There was raw sewage backing up into toilets and the handwashing basin in the nursery.

A bug called pseudomonas, which is lethal to neonates and has caused several spates of deaths in other NICUs, was identified in 2 taps in the COCH NICU. The taps were not replaced for “capacity” (cost) reasons.

One parent saw staff googling how to do a lung drain on her baby, following an online tutorial in a panic.

Other parents described a dirty, cold, unhygienic unit in need of serious updating.

An RCPCH review identified a 21% staffing shortfall in the COCH neonatal unit during the period when the baby deaths occurred. This level of under‑staffing deviated from national safe‑staffing guidance.

In a board meeting in January 2016, executives were warned the service was “almost at breaking point” and at risk of burnout. That staff were overworked and sometimes “in tears” with stress.

Also interesting to note that Dr Brearey was the Unit Lead (a management position btw) at COCH NICU during this time. He was the named clinician responsible for governance and safety within the unit.

Unit Lead is a role which includes:

  • Setting and enforcing clinical protocols and standards of care within the unit.
  • Deciding how adverse events, complaints, or near-misses are investigated and followed up.
  • Ensuring compliance with national guidelines (NICE, GMC, Royal College standards).
  • Deciding on equipment procurement priorities and business cases to hospital management.
  • Providing the clinical evidence and argument for why the unit should be upgraded (e.g. enough staff, outcomes data, ability to meet standards).
  • Making decisions about rota planning, ensuring safe cover by consultants, registrars, junior doctors, and advanced nurse practitioners.
  • Being accountable for the performance of the whole unit.

In short, the Unit Lead is responsible for making strategic, governance, staffing, and protocol-level decisions that shape the safe running of the unit. They also have authority in disputes, and their voice carries weight in whether concerns get escalated or quietly managed internally. I’ll let you ponder on how well all of the above was managed.

Meanwhile Dr Ravi Jayaram was very busy that year making a tv show and appearing on morning talk shows.

They both chose to email upper management for over a year instead of escalating the deaths they now say were “unexpected” and “unexplained” to the coroner, the Pan Cheshire Child Death Panel, or the police, despite (we are asked to believe) being sure that LL was murdering babies in the NICU and despite it being their clinical responsibility to report suspected harm, regardless of what a manager’s email said. But they didn’t.

In fact Brearey actually refused to share what he called “a drawer of doom” full of evidence with management.

I have serious concerns about the decisions these men (and other doctors) made during this time. My concerns only worsen (they don’t lessen!) if LL actually was simultaneously murdering babies while this poorly run hospital, foolishly upgraded to a LNU beyond its capacities, was simultaneously causing other deaths, coincidentally.

I don’t know how anyone honestly doesn’t share these doubts, regardless of their opinions on the guilt/innocence of Lucy Letby.

Insanityisnotastrategy · 29/08/2025 15:10

@Kittybythelighthouse
It's appalling when you lay it out like that. Absolute negligence.

Insanityisnotastrategy · 29/08/2025 15:16

@Londonmummy66
Interesting to hear your perspective on Dewi Evans as someone who has worked as an expert witness (I think that was you?) I'm very much a lay-person but he comes across as a complete crank to me and it's worrying that he was getting so much work! Who on earth openly says they decided it was murder within ten minutes, boasts about not 'losing' cases, tells the world he's doing it to keep his children in cars and horses, and changes his theories mid-trial?!
I suspect he won't be getting work in future.

PinkTonic · 29/08/2025 15:54

Kittybythelighthouse · 29/08/2025 14:49

Across the period in question there were 17 deaths. LL was charged and convicted of 7 of those. What caused the rest of them?

It’s interesting to note that during the year of the death spike the consultants were only on the unit for 2 ward rounds per week vs the Royal College recommended 2 ward rounds per day. An RCPCH report found that the acuity of neonatal care in the unit demanded greater consultant presence. The RCPCH also noted that staffing was dominated by junior and training doctors, supplemented heavily by locum cover. Leadership in the unit was characterised as remote.

Also that year (a non exhaustive list):

There was raw sewage backing up into toilets and the handwashing basin in the nursery.

A bug called pseudomonas, which is lethal to neonates and has caused several spates of deaths in other NICUs, was identified in 2 taps in the COCH NICU. The taps were not replaced for “capacity” (cost) reasons.

One parent saw staff googling how to do a lung drain on her baby, following an online tutorial in a panic.

Other parents described a dirty, cold, unhygienic unit in need of serious updating.

An RCPCH review identified a 21% staffing shortfall in the COCH neonatal unit during the period when the baby deaths occurred. This level of under‑staffing deviated from national safe‑staffing guidance.

In a board meeting in January 2016, executives were warned the service was “almost at breaking point” and at risk of burnout. That staff were overworked and sometimes “in tears” with stress.

Also interesting to note that Dr Brearey was the Unit Lead (a management position btw) at COCH NICU during this time. He was the named clinician responsible for governance and safety within the unit.

Unit Lead is a role which includes:

  • Setting and enforcing clinical protocols and standards of care within the unit.
  • Deciding how adverse events, complaints, or near-misses are investigated and followed up.
  • Ensuring compliance with national guidelines (NICE, GMC, Royal College standards).
  • Deciding on equipment procurement priorities and business cases to hospital management.
  • Providing the clinical evidence and argument for why the unit should be upgraded (e.g. enough staff, outcomes data, ability to meet standards).
  • Making decisions about rota planning, ensuring safe cover by consultants, registrars, junior doctors, and advanced nurse practitioners.
  • Being accountable for the performance of the whole unit.

In short, the Unit Lead is responsible for making strategic, governance, staffing, and protocol-level decisions that shape the safe running of the unit. They also have authority in disputes, and their voice carries weight in whether concerns get escalated or quietly managed internally. I’ll let you ponder on how well all of the above was managed.

Meanwhile Dr Ravi Jayaram was very busy that year making a tv show and appearing on morning talk shows.

They both chose to email upper management for over a year instead of escalating the deaths they now say were “unexpected” and “unexplained” to the coroner, the Pan Cheshire Child Death Panel, or the police, despite (we are asked to believe) being sure that LL was murdering babies in the NICU and despite it being their clinical responsibility to report suspected harm, regardless of what a manager’s email said. But they didn’t.

In fact Brearey actually refused to share what he called “a drawer of doom” full of evidence with management.

I have serious concerns about the decisions these men (and other doctors) made during this time. My concerns only worsen (they don’t lessen!) if LL actually was simultaneously murdering babies while this poorly run hospital, foolishly upgraded to a LNU beyond its capacities, was simultaneously causing other deaths, coincidentally.

I don’t know how anyone honestly doesn’t share these doubts, regardless of their opinions on the guilt/innocence of Lucy Letby.

I found it interesting to read again the first testimony of Charles Yoxall for the Thirwall enquiry. I was reminded that the entire region was going through a significant reorganisation in 2015/16, of the detailed designations of the various hospitals and the criteria required to meet those designations which were not met in Chester, and the capacity issues across the region. Those consultants must have been aware that they were seeing babies who shouldn’t have been there and why. It’s interesting that during this period of significant upheaval they didn’t consider upping their game or leaning in, they just blamed a nurse.

Imperativvv · 29/08/2025 15:58

Insanityisnotastrategy · 29/08/2025 15:16

@Londonmummy66
Interesting to hear your perspective on Dewi Evans as someone who has worked as an expert witness (I think that was you?) I'm very much a lay-person but he comes across as a complete crank to me and it's worrying that he was getting so much work! Who on earth openly says they decided it was murder within ten minutes, boasts about not 'losing' cases, tells the world he's doing it to keep his children in cars and horses, and changes his theories mid-trial?!
I suspect he won't be getting work in future.

He's now retired, thankfully.

Kittybythelighthouse · 29/08/2025 16:24

Insanityisnotastrategy · 29/08/2025 15:10

@Kittybythelighthouse
It's appalling when you lay it out like that. Absolute negligence.

That’s far from an exhaustive list!

Kittybythelighthouse · 29/08/2025 16:30

PinkTonic · 29/08/2025 15:54

I found it interesting to read again the first testimony of Charles Yoxall for the Thirwall enquiry. I was reminded that the entire region was going through a significant reorganisation in 2015/16, of the detailed designations of the various hospitals and the criteria required to meet those designations which were not met in Chester, and the capacity issues across the region. Those consultants must have been aware that they were seeing babies who shouldn’t have been there and why. It’s interesting that during this period of significant upheaval they didn’t consider upping their game or leaning in, they just blamed a nurse.

Exactly. Dr Brearey has serious culpability in the death spike even if LL is guilty. He himself was a manager who had the power to make (and not make) plenty of decisions that would have made all the difference here.

FastIser · 29/08/2025 16:34

Kittybythelighthouse · 29/08/2025 14:49

Across the period in question there were 17 deaths. LL was charged and convicted of 7 of those. What caused the rest of them?

It’s interesting to note that during the year of the death spike the consultants were only on the unit for 2 ward rounds per week vs the Royal College recommended 2 ward rounds per day. An RCPCH report found that the acuity of neonatal care in the unit demanded greater consultant presence. The RCPCH also noted that staffing was dominated by junior and training doctors, supplemented heavily by locum cover. Leadership in the unit was characterised as remote.

Also that year (a non exhaustive list):

There was raw sewage backing up into toilets and the handwashing basin in the nursery.

A bug called pseudomonas, which is lethal to neonates and has caused several spates of deaths in other NICUs, was identified in 2 taps in the COCH NICU. The taps were not replaced for “capacity” (cost) reasons.

One parent saw staff googling how to do a lung drain on her baby, following an online tutorial in a panic.

Other parents described a dirty, cold, unhygienic unit in need of serious updating.

An RCPCH review identified a 21% staffing shortfall in the COCH neonatal unit during the period when the baby deaths occurred. This level of under‑staffing deviated from national safe‑staffing guidance.

In a board meeting in January 2016, executives were warned the service was “almost at breaking point” and at risk of burnout. That staff were overworked and sometimes “in tears” with stress.

Also interesting to note that Dr Brearey was the Unit Lead (a management position btw) at COCH NICU during this time. He was the named clinician responsible for governance and safety within the unit.

Unit Lead is a role which includes:

  • Setting and enforcing clinical protocols and standards of care within the unit.
  • Deciding how adverse events, complaints, or near-misses are investigated and followed up.
  • Ensuring compliance with national guidelines (NICE, GMC, Royal College standards).
  • Deciding on equipment procurement priorities and business cases to hospital management.
  • Providing the clinical evidence and argument for why the unit should be upgraded (e.g. enough staff, outcomes data, ability to meet standards).
  • Making decisions about rota planning, ensuring safe cover by consultants, registrars, junior doctors, and advanced nurse practitioners.
  • Being accountable for the performance of the whole unit.

In short, the Unit Lead is responsible for making strategic, governance, staffing, and protocol-level decisions that shape the safe running of the unit. They also have authority in disputes, and their voice carries weight in whether concerns get escalated or quietly managed internally. I’ll let you ponder on how well all of the above was managed.

Meanwhile Dr Ravi Jayaram was very busy that year making a tv show and appearing on morning talk shows.

They both chose to email upper management for over a year instead of escalating the deaths they now say were “unexpected” and “unexplained” to the coroner, the Pan Cheshire Child Death Panel, or the police, despite (we are asked to believe) being sure that LL was murdering babies in the NICU and despite it being their clinical responsibility to report suspected harm, regardless of what a manager’s email said. But they didn’t.

In fact Brearey actually refused to share what he called “a drawer of doom” full of evidence with management.

I have serious concerns about the decisions these men (and other doctors) made during this time. My concerns only worsen (they don’t lessen!) if LL actually was simultaneously murdering babies while this poorly run hospital, foolishly upgraded to a LNU beyond its capacities, was simultaneously causing other deaths, coincidentally.

I don’t know how anyone honestly doesn’t share these doubts, regardless of their opinions on the guilt/innocence of Lucy Letby.

Wow. It’s shocking.

kkloo · 29/08/2025 17:22

Londonmummy66 · 29/08/2025 14:03

And if all Shoo lee and others evidence was already there, and just not called upon at the time, it doesn't count.

I think this point was a bit overlooked by the discussion on whether or not to leave a baby with LL. @SquishedMallow raises an important point with the review panel. They need new evidence to open an appeal and I believe Dr Lee therefore undertook a new study and wrote a new peer reviewed paper to address the differences between arterial (which does produce a rash) and venous (which does not) air embolism. I believe the hope is that the new paper will count as new evidence to allow the air embolism cases to be reviewed.

Compare and contrast the moral rectitude of a Dr who believed it important his work is not twisted to wrongfully convict and a Dr who saw "winning" a case as so important he twisted evidence to fit his tortuous theories.

There have been cases where the CRCC refused appeals saying all this should have been called at the trial, and then that helped them form a case for inadequate defence for another submission.

Londonmummy66 · 29/08/2025 17:25

kkloo · 29/08/2025 17:22

There have been cases where the CRCC refused appeals saying all this should have been called at the trial, and then that helped them form a case for inadequate defence for another submission.

Agree - but new medical research can also be used to meet the new evidence test. One of the reasons a number of cases were revisited when DNA first came in.

Oftenaddled · 29/08/2025 17:39

Londonmummy66 · 29/08/2025 17:25

Agree - but new medical research can also be used to meet the new evidence test. One of the reasons a number of cases were revisited when DNA first came in.

Yes, and the panel of experts have been asking urgently to see the obstretics notes, which apparently were never considered previously.

Jim Thornton, a very recently retired NHS consultant obstetrician, had just embarked on a series of posts to explain what factors may have been relevant to each child when the defence contacted him to collaborate, so he's now not publishing. But even his brief introductions show how much this matters.

I'm presuming this material would have to count as new evidence. I hope the defence panel won't be denied access permanently.

Lucy Letby – obstetric intro & summary

As far as I know, no obstetrician appeared as an expert witness at the trial. This may not surprise most people; the allegations were of murder and attempted murder in a neonatal unit. But it&#8217…

https://ripe-tomato.org/2025/06/04/lucy-letby-obstetric-intro-summary/

Kittybythelighthouse · 29/08/2025 17:46

HoppingPavlova · 29/08/2025 11:10

@Kittybythelighthouse Who is going round leaving their baby in the care of random people they have never so much as spoken to?

I find that response so bizarre in this context. I was the one that asked the question, and I did leave one of my babies in the care of people I didn’t know. For several months. They were in NICU, I had no choice. We had other kids at home, including toddler who also needed mummy/daddy, and it was not possible for us to stay on a chair bedside the NICU cot 24/7. So we did leave them a n the care of random people we had never do much as spoken to if staff were perm night shift (some were, others rotated shifts). Many people DO need to do this. So, it was not an odd question as ‘who on earth would do this’. Would have thought that blindingly obvious in the context spoken of here🤷‍♀️.

My comment was not in response to your comment, which I haven’t even seen. Nor was it about hospitals. My comment was re the question of trusting LL with one’s baby in any context, which is a question that gets wheeled out constantly even if it isn’t the question you asked today. Your question had nothing to do with my comment about this more general and very common question.

For what it’s worth, assuming she was trained up to standard (given she hasn’t even been inside a hospital since 2018) and if for some reason we’re in an alternative universe where she would A: ever want to be a neonatal nurse again and B: would be hired as one (given the fact that mud sticks regardless of reality) then yes. I can’t think of a logical reason why I wouldn’t trust her vs some other nurse of the same training level etc.

It’s like this question expects to uncover that critics of the case secretly do think she’s a baby killer, at least a little bit of a baby killer or something, but won’t admit it. Perhaps that’s not your feeling, but it is usually the subtext. I’m not sure what the point is of asking it otherwise. That’s not what I think though. I’d trust her with a baby sooner than I’d trust Dewi Evans. I wouldn’t trust him with a goldfish tbh.

kkloo · 29/08/2025 17:47

Londonmummy66 · 29/08/2025 17:25

Agree - but new medical research can also be used to meet the new evidence test. One of the reasons a number of cases were revisited when DNA first came in.

Oh yeah I know, I was more responding to @SquishedMallow point that you quoted.
I had read that Dr Shoo Lee had updated the paper alright. I wonder if they will accept that seeing as he was willing to say that anyway at the court of appeal and they already ruled it out saying it should have been brought up at trial and they also tried to minimise how much of an impact the original paper even had.

Kittybythelighthouse · 29/08/2025 18:00

kkloo · 29/08/2025 17:47

Oh yeah I know, I was more responding to @SquishedMallow point that you quoted.
I had read that Dr Shoo Lee had updated the paper alright. I wonder if they will accept that seeing as he was willing to say that anyway at the court of appeal and they already ruled it out saying it should have been brought up at trial and they also tried to minimise how much of an impact the original paper even had.

I’d give them the benefit of the doubt (as much as it’s worth) that in wanting certainty and prioritising procedure (plus generally not having any medical or scientific grounding whatsoever themselves, nor apparently the humility to be aware of that) the courts are very often woeful at handling complex medical/scientific evidence.

Basically I think that - while the rejection of Lee’s evidence was egregious - it may have been less about minimisation and more about total ignorance and hubris. Still v embarrassing though.

Typicalwave · 29/08/2025 20:20

Lucia De Berk has died.

Firefly1987 · 29/08/2025 20:51

Typicalwave · 29/08/2025 20:20

Lucia De Berk has died.

I was just reading about her yesterday. Was just thinking how she coped in the outside world with those allegations still hanging over her. Maybe I AM psychic.