Lucy Letby ( To understand)

[PassingStranger]

What made her kill these babies. Been in the news again today.

It's hard to understand?
Presume as she is in prison and not a hospital, she is not mentally ill?

Will anyone try to find out, I guess if people don't admit they are guilty it's hard too.

Instead of people saying give me 5 mins in a cell with her, surely it's better to stop this happening or maybe it's not possible?
Why does she want to be one of the most hated women in the universe and not give a shit about the babies families and even her own parents?

So much better to be known for doing something nice and have people like you?
AIBU to wonder why she took this road in life?

Because we haven’t seen all the evidence. The jury has.

Good post.

Although that’s what LL claims, that the consultants (and management?) had colluded to blame her for their mistakes.

The police may take the word of the doctors/CPS in good faith, but the judge doesn’t.

The judge himself said he’d had to read much more material than the lawyers had presented him with. He also referred to the large number of expert witnesses that had been called in.

I don't think that people understand how unlikely it is that this number of infants would die within that timeframe, even in the context of grossly substandard care. The claims that they were "very premature" and "very seriously ill" are false and are a demonstration of posters ignorance on this subject. For example, a baby that is a little tricky to wean from CPAP is a completely routine situation in a NICU. Babies in this kind of condition cannot be expected to die, over and over again. Not even if they were receiving substandard care unless they were all dying eg of the same infectious agent which they very clearly were not.

Substandard care, as in the example cited up thread, still involves a sequence of events that can explain the deterioration / death. Eg a misplaced ET tube. Not just spontaneous unexplained deterioration, always in the presence of one member of staff.

For this to happen once or even a few times could be very unfortunate. But it happened over and over forming a consistent pattern of unexplained deaths far and away exceeding the worse mortality rates in the country, let alone tbe unit. These deaths always occured in presence of LL and frequently on milestone occasions.

If they were receiving grossly substandard care, how was it that many of the babies had improved, were doing well, and were approaching discharge at the point at which they unexpectedly collapsed, for no apparent reason, and always in the presence of LL. Why is that deaths resulting from substandard care, only happened when LL was present and care returned to a normal standard as soon as she was not working on the unit?

Regardless this case was not just made on statistics "what are the chances of that number of babies dying under her care". The prosecution assembled multiple independent expert witnesses with appropriate medical training, all of whom independently reached very similar conclusions for several infants - their conclusion was that these infants had been intentionally harmed. The conclusions of a postmortem are not unchangeable and the pathologists conclusions are always informed by the context they are given. It's not that surprising that examined individually, the pathologist would not have considered "murder" as a possible context for the deaths.

Lucy's presence at the time of the deteriorations, which were concluded by multiple experts independently to be the result of intentional injury, was then corroborated by documentary and witness evidence. Her attempts to conceal her presence by falsifying notes is a further piece of evidence. Her inability to recall events in her defence is a further piece of evidence.

Note that Lucy was not charged with all of the deaths that took place on the unit. The experts did not think "ah there was a murderer on the loose so all of these babies were definitely injured" nor was she charged for every event at which a baby deteriorated solely under her care, a "what are the odds" blanket approach.

LL has apparently joined a NN unit with a collection of the most evil, corrupt doctors in existence, followed by being investigated by the most incompetent cops, followed by being represented by the most incompetent defence team in the UK, possibly world..... (so incompetent that three Mumsnetters could do much better than them).

And for reasons best know to herself, she's retained the completely incompetent defence team. Even for a retrial.

Meanwhile she's just an innocent, sweetie who alters medical records to place herself elsewhere at collapses, doesn't recall her presence at collapses that other people (like consultants and parents) recall her being at, takes nearly 300 patient records home and keeps them against all legal and ethical rules, (in spite of having a shredder), notes babies' deaths in her personal diary and makes SM searches of their families on their anniversaries even years later, gushes at parents of just deceased babies, suggests parents put their baby in a ventilated crib for deceased babies before the baby has even stopped breathing, predicts baby deaths in a callous manner (who then die, even though they weren't expected to), writes raving notes about guilt, killing babies etc. etc.

@Tinylittleunicorn yes, the consultants/police made the point that:

”when an infant collapses it's usually explainable, and nearly always, expected”

"They mentioned that a member of staff had been moved and that it coincided with no more collapses and no more deaths," he says.

A year earlier, just before Letby was due to start her shift on 27 June 2016, she was called and told not to come into work. She was then moved into an administrative role.’

She also falsified records and notes, which has been testified to by several nurses.

@Tinylittleunicorn They weren’t always in the presence of LL that’s the point. There are a further 8-10 babies who died on that unit that have not been connected to LL.

Not just spontaneous unexplained deterioration, always in the presence of one member of staff.

That’s the prosecution case. But the clinical data and the pathology reports found the deteriorations were not unexplained. They only became so in court.

Given that the unit never had the staffing or resources to be running a level 2 it’s hardly surprising. Poor senior cover, poor communication, insufficient nursing staff means junior doctors are not getting enough supervision or support. That LL at her age was one of the more experienced nurses on the unit speaks volumes. One of the female consultants commented that conditions would be at the cost of the mental health of the staff or the death of babies. And she was right.

Shrewsbury hospital notoriously had 200 avoidable baby babies, 9 avoidable maternal deaths and lifechanging injuries to others over 20 years. No-one is blaming a serial killer there.

the deteriorations were not unexplained. They only became so in court

That must be why the consultants considered them unexplained & unexpected, and were having meetings about them, and alerting management, right?

I don't think that people understand how unlikely it is that this number of infants would die within that timeframe, even in the context of grossly substandard care.

this is a claim based on statistical inference, and requires statistical analysis to substantiate. So less examine..

triedbystats.com

They weren’t considered unexplained at the time. The pathology reports were clear: natural causes.

If the doctors believed a death was suspicious at the time they could have gone to the CDOP immediately.

^I don't think that people understand how unlikely it is that this number of infants would die within that timeframe, even in the context of grossly substandard care.^

It’s unlikely in a well run unit. But you cannot say what is or is not likely in the context of substandard care as there is nothing direct to compare it to.

In addition to the suboptimal care, sewage leaks were potentially bringing pathogens (ie bacteria - e coli, streptococcus, salmonella and viruses etc) into the unit on a regular basis. The plumber said he was called in “weekly”. Raw sewage was reported coming out of the sinks at the unit in one occasion.There were 2 floods in 2015 and 2016. Why the hell didn’t the doctors call in an epidemiologist to see if there was a link?

An external objective review recommended by the RCPCH that never happened, should havevgot to the bottom of the whole thing.

That simply isn't true. An internal investigation occured in 2015 following 4 deaths precisely because consultants recognised at the time that they were clinically unusual (no clear precipitants and an abnormal lack of response to resuscitation).

Exactly.

There’s some bizarre logic on this thread that LL must be innocent because the doctors reported their concerns about the expected deteriorations / deaths to management not CDOP.

I didn’t say they weren’t concerned or puzzled about them but they didn’t report them as unexpected deaths. And the pathology reports found: natural causes.

For genuine unexpected deaths they needed to go to the CDOP.

Going back to the reason for the thread, I suspect this case will always remain an enigma.

The only other case like it to my mind is the murder of James Bulger, which was a similar enigma.

If the cause of death could not be found at post mortem or the cause was found to be unnatural the coroner would start an investigation.

Which babies do you mean?

For example the very first baby (Child A) cause of death was recorded as "unascertained" by the pathologist.

The claim that an additional 8-10 babies died at the countess of Chester neonatal unit in LL's absence is also not true. It's not surprising that you doubt her conviction if you believe this!

2 babies died in the unit in 2013 and 3 died in 2014. 8 babies died on the unit in 2015 and 5 in 2016. These deaths were included in the RCPCH report and here is a source: www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/may/18/police-investigating-baby-deaths-at-countess-of-chester-hospital

Lucy Letby was present for every single one of the deaths that occurred during the abnormally high mortality period that occured in 2015 and 2016. She was placed on administrative leave in July 2016 immediately following which unusual and unexplainable incidents and deaths stopped and the death rate returned to what it had been previously.

Those are the facts. There were not an additional 8-10 deaths on the neonatal unit during the period of high mortality for which LL was not present.

Consultants met in June 2015 following the first four incidents which all occured in that month (3 deaths), which they contemporaneously highlighted were unexplained and atypical.

One of the female consultants commented that conditions would be at the cost of the mental health of the staff

On that point, LL was encouraged to work shifts, like other staff did, in the lower needs parts of the unit and refused. That was "boring".

A strange decision for someone whose mental health was suffering due to the work on the ICU.

Between that, and the extra shifts she took, she didn't have to be there for a large proportion of the time she was there.

Thank you. Posters are saying that serial killers are too rare for it to be plausible for LL is one. Yet they expected the pathologist to identify a serial killer at post mortem with far less information than is now available.

These deaths were clearly recognised and recorded at the time that they occured as unusual / unexplained. It is factually incorrect to suggest that this was a retrospective conclusion.

were potentially bringing pathogens (ie bacteria - e coli, streptococcus, salmonella and viruses etc) into the unit on a regular basis.

Everyone would have seen that, but not one medical professional tested the collapsing and deceased babies for any of those?

'I agree, it'd be a grandiose and unlikely defence to claim that there were people who did this yes, but that they weren't LL'

And this is exactly what LL said, in her own words, on the stand. That she agreed that somebody put insulin in the TP bags, it wasn't her, but she agreed somebody else must have. Grandiose indeed.

All the hand wringing about the state of the ward at the time as a possible alternative explanation to the deaths is missing a bit of thinking a thought through to the end. Yes, the NNU was badly managed and unsafe - and that's exactly why LL was able to murder those children without being caught initially. She was operating in an environment and staff group that was vulnerable and she knew it. Those holes in the system, those failings, gave her access, opportunity and lax supervision which saw a situation where the headless chicken staff were missing and struggling to see what was happening right in front of them and weren't observing her properly. Stress, mismanagement, panic, lack of procedures does that to a humans observation skills and ability to assess a situation correctly. I was so busy dealing with violence from my exH that I completely missed and can not remember key events regarding my DC's safety.

Then you get people who aren't emotionally attached to the situation assessing in a much more objective, forensic way - several police teams (each child had their own team investigating each case remember) the CPS, all the players in the prosecution legal team, KC's, expert witnesses, several judges, and two lots of jurors all approached this with zero skin in the game and all landed at the same point. LL is responsible.

This analysis is invalid because it is comparing all infant deaths. But infant deaths can occur in a multitude of different locations. For example: the neonatal unit, the delivery suite, and outside the hospital.

If you were to compare only infant deaths occuring on the neonatal unit, which are the only deaths that are relevant in the case of a suspected serial killer operating on the neonatal unit, your analysis would be very very different indeed. But again, this case did not rely only on statistical evidence. These deaths were bizarre and we're attributed to intentional harm by multiple independent experts.

I cannot state it clearly enough : Lucy Letby was present for every single one of the deaths that occured on the neonatal unit in 2015 and 2016 until she left clinical work. It is misleading to dilute the significance of these by including stillbirths in an analysis of the likelihood of this being the case by chance.

What evidence do you have to substantiate these claims please? Particularly this one:

If you were to compare only infant deaths occuring on the neonatal unit, your analysis would be very very different indeed

Additionally, I’d be interested to see some statistics on the distribution of where specifically neonatal deaths in a hospital tend to occur.