Lucy Letby’s scribbled notes

[Figmentofmyimagination]

At times when I’m feeling acutely distressed, it’s not at all unusual for me to scribble all sorts of dreadful thoughts down on paper eg die die die, hate hate hate, I hate you, I hate you, what’s the point of you, my fault, stupid me, etc etc etc, usually scribbling them all out so nobody can see what I’ve written. I’m pretty sure this is quite a common response to acute mental distress. I agree with this article that it feels very surprising that Letby’s scribblings were used as evidence of a ‘confession’.

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/sep/03/i-am-evil-i-did-this-lucy-letbys-so-called-confessions-were-written-on-advice-of-counsellors

You think people commit serial murder (of babies no less) for “attention” and “drama”?! Dear Lord. She had multiple psychological evaluations and wasn’t found to have any mental health issues that could justify such an idea.

The original pathology reports found natural causes. Which tallied with the review of the clinical data for each baby by a senior neonatologist from Gt Ormonde St who found suboptimal care in 13 cases and stated that some of the babies may have survived with different medical treatment.

The consultants and Dewi Evans came up with the air embolism theories. Marnerides, pathologist, came on board and endorsed these theories, without exhumation and re-examination of the bodies.

He may come to regret his decision.

The original pathology reports found natural causes. Which tallied with the review of the clinical data for each baby by a senior neonatologist from Gt Ormonde St who found suboptimal care in 13 cases and stated that some of the babies may have survived with different medical treatment

Could you say a bit more about that? What would the different medical treatment have been?

The original pathology reports for all babies bar 1 found natural causes. They all had a cause of death. 1 death was ”unexplained”.

Very misogynistic little novel you’re writing yourself there. A bit like the Amanda Knox case perhaps ?

So not clinically mentally ill, not psychotic. Fully aware of what she was doing, Her motives were not attributed to mental illness….
Does not mean she didn’t do it for motives not revealed to a Psych. People lie all the time during evaluations.

It just means she isn’t “mentally ill.”

Source?

It was actually “unascertained” which is still natural causes.

It’s almost as if you haven’t done any research case on this at all.

No, I just think if you’re going to make claims you should be able to back them up.

If I make claims, I can always include a link.

Why can’t you?

The Cheshire coroner Nicholas Rheinberg was asked by the trust to review baby deaths in February 2017 but declined, telling the trust that the coronial service was not a quality assurance service for the NHS. He retired that year.

This doesn’t sound like the ‘gold standard’ of pathology reports to me.

It has been very widely reported in the media . I will try and find an original source.

I’ve just looked up the details and it was 6 of the 7 babies that had post mortems at the regional specialist centre at Alder Hey Hopsital. 5 of those found a cause of death. In one they couldn’t find a cause of death, but they did not say it was unnatural. No foul play was suspected. As I say I’ll try to come back with an original source.

Thanks, I think I’ve found the article. It says ‘one of three pathologists certified one or more’ as natural deaths.

So @3tumsnot1 claim that ‘3 DiFFERENT, 3 INDEPENDENT pathologists’ conducted each report was wrong and misleading.

The public don’t have the full report, we have only the conclusions. Access via FOI is on hold until after the Thirlwell inquiry.

At a wild guess - not leaving premature babies without without fluid & glucose for hours; not jabbing around with countless failed intubation attempts; not leaving a haemorrhaging baby who’s lost up to 25% of its blood volume without a blood transfusion until 30 mins before death by which time it’s too late; not failing to diagnose severe lung disease and kidney failure etc..

I just think if you’re going to discuss a case you should at least research it.

Randomly linking tabloid articles you haven’t read or understood doesn’t help anyone.

Why aren’t you pulling up @3tumsnot1 on her misleading claims?

You corroborated her post which was wrong.

How does that help anyone?

Because I am correcting yours.

I did not corroborate @3tumsnot1 - I simply posted the facts.

The original pathology reports were carried out by expert neonatal pathologists who found natural causes in all of them. One baby didn’t have a post mortem because the doctors were reasonably sure what it died of and didn’t think it would add anything.

That information is in the public domain if you had bothered to look.

My point is I questioned 3tums on the three pathologists on each report claim, which instantly seemed wrong to me. You claim to have done a lot of research yet instead of posting the fact that only one pathologist did each report, you instead pull me up on not doing research, yet said nothing to @3tumsnot1 .

You’re only interested in the facts insofar as they support your claims.

It was a response to both they were in the same post.

I’m interested in the facts, yes.

Your post wasn’t at all clear that you were questioning specifically the “3” pathologists claim.
You responded with a link and bolded statement that “The pathologist was convinced he would find a biological explanation but he eventually determined the deaths were caused by inflicted harm.”

So posters replied to clarify that in the original postmortems done on 6 babies , natural causes of death were found and no suspicion of inflicted harm identified.

At a wild guess - not leaving premature babies without without fluid & glucose for hours; not jabbing around with countless failed intubation attempts; not leaving a haemorrhaging baby who’s lost up to 25% of its blood volume without a blood transfusion until 30 mins before death by which time it’s too late; not failing to diagnose severe lung disease and kidney failure etc

Is there any evidence any of that happened though?

In the trial data. Baby A; Baby E; Baby K.

The lack of ability to get central lines was general - 3 attempts was common. The RCPCH report noted this and recommended training.

Didn’t answer the question though did you? When was the last time you worked in maternity or neonatal unit.

Do we have access to the trial data? If so where can I find it?

You didn’t answer mine though? Do you have selective amnesia?