New Lucy Letby details

[Mrsdoyler]

Did you see today in the news that LucyLetby originally failed her nursing training.

Reason: Lack of empathy

@PiggleToes

Professor Hindmarsh says the exogenous insulin, if the fast-acting type, would have reduced from the '4,657' reading to 'almost none' after a couple of hours after the TPN bag was removed.
The rise of the blood glucose level in Child F to 4.1 by 9pm was "entirely consistent" with that.

Well it does in many cases. Circumstantial evidence can be very compelling. Thing about all the circumstantial evidence against Harold Shipman: last person to see the victim, victim had morphine in them, had forged victim’s will, stood to inherit, had an unusually high number of deaths. All circumstantial and doesn’t directly prove murder. But very very damning.

Often circumstantial evidence is stronger and
more reliable than direct evidence. Eye witness evidence is notoriously unreliable for instance and juries are warned about convicting on the sole basis of this.

@GinAndJuice99

According to your world view it seems the authorities should have left Letby alone in order to continue her ways?

May I ask - what sector you work in?

It should be. I work in healthcare & some of my colleagues are awful. Rude, no empathy & just behave as if they're better than the patients. I've flagged it on multiple occasions & been told people can't be dismissed for being rude. You would if you were a waitress but apparently in the NHS it's a 'personality clash' sorry your midwife wasn't kind to you, that's bare minimum.

Sorry editing to say this was in response to: @Cosycover · Yesterday 21:04

My midwife had zero empathy. In fact she was a complete and total bitch. Is this actually a reason you can fail to be allowed a career in the medical field?

In my time (about 15 years) working in Nursing education, there have been many students who have been required to withdraw/failed at earlier stages of their degree. I can think of only 3 (and their names!) who were failed on resit of their final 4th year (Scotland) placements. Two of those students appealed, and one was successful in finally getting to qualify. They were dangerous, and should never have been allowed to register. I live in fear of that individual's name cropping up.

A being “entirely consistent” with B is completely different to “A shows B”. Not even remotely the same thing at all

!!!

The falsifying records and handover notes thing is highly disputed, if not debunked. The Facebook searches seems odd but apparently she searched for countless other families too, so maybe it's not suspicious at all.

The presence at suspicious events - well, it depends how suspicious they are. Nobody thought they were at the time. I honestly don't feel that question has been resolved yet.

It hasn’t been debunked. She said she didn’t falsify it but plenty of colleagues and parents told of events that she then didn’t record in the notes to benefit herself.
And it didn’t take that long for people to see the events as suspicious. The consultants did and they suspected her because she was there every single time. Nobody else was there for even a third of the events.

I haven’t seen it all. But I’m not suggesting there’s been a miscarriage of justice based on cherrypicking a few pieces of evidence and claiming they were used in certain ways during the investigation or trial when there’s no evidence that was the case. Or when the facts suggest that they weren’t used in the way that is being claimed.

Happen to predict unexpected collapses and deaths - which then happen.

(Collapses and deaths that happen frequently on man-made milestones)

Happen to creep out multiple parents by hanging around when they're dealing with their loss, talking excitedly and inappropriately, suggesting they move not yet deceased babies into ventilated cribs for deceased infants etc. etc.

Happen to stalk families of deceased babies on SM - and it seems like it was on occasions when they would be posting about their loses like anniversaries and significant family holiday periods.

Happen to seek attention from colleagues for each collapse and death.

@PiggleToes

how ridiculous- the evidence is clear and reliable - just because they could have, in hindsight done further tests (to appease you and a few others) does not exclude the fact that these babies had been given something they should not have been even Letby admitted that

So how do you explain it?

@Feelsodrained amd that is why these medical experts who have been supporting the appeal have had their views dismissed because they are simply looking at things from one angle and not the whole picture

Much like posters on here! They cannot see past the fact she wasn’t caught on camera!! Then and only then might the believe it

how ridiculous- the evidence is clear and reliable

What do you mean? The claim was that the tests showed she had been given exogenous insulin. They didn’t . They were not tests for exogenous insulin- they couldn’t show that.
The results of the tests were consistent with possible injection of exogenous insulin , but to say that something is consistent with something just means that it’s one possible explanation. Thats all it is/ was.

Incidentally I think if I was being reported by paediatric consultants for incompetence/questionable practice (I don't think those consultants initially thought it was deliberate harm, it was naturally everyone's last assumption).I would probably gtfo of the highest needs part of the unit, do more shifts (or possibly all shifts if allowed) in the lower needs and try to stop having my name & presence associated with unexpected collapses and deaths. I'd try to keep my head down, stay away from the sharpest end of things and hope that things improved - or that it was shown that they still happened without my presence....

Rather than pushing for every shift to be on the highest needs areas and asking not to do even my "default" shifts in the lower needs areas.

(I would also probably destroy the hundreds of pieces of medical notes I have at home that shouldn't be there - with my shredder that I was perfectly capable of shedding other documents with - rather than keeping them in bags marked "Keep" that I'd even retained through at least one house move.

@PiggleToes

try to look at the overall picture

you are looking at one angle

are you interested in proposing what might have happened to those babies or just want to point out the test wasn’t testing for synthetic insulin?

@HazelPlayer

I don’t think she thought she was going to get caught and even though she had the opportunity to get rid of other stuff prior to her next arrest if they were trophies then I don’t think serial killers like to destroy them as they are rather proud of them

It's very hard to know.

Was it down to incompetency and hospital failings.

Of course her being a serial killer of tiny babies is the most difficult one to believe, because it's so shocking. But it is possible

Posted this article earlier but I do highly recommend it as it discusses some points I haven’t seen discussed elsewhere. link

It seems the defence had at least one expert whose evidence would have supported them, so why not call?:

Dr Mike Hall, a retired consultant neonatologist and visiting professor in neonatal medicine, advised Letby’s legal defence team but was not called to give evidence at the trial. He said: “I feel a particular sense of injustice about Baby C because all four main prosecution witnesses [who gave evidence about the child] either directly or indirectly led the jury to believe that part of the cause of the demise was evidence from an X-ray taken on 12 June 2015. Letby had never been involved with that baby prior to that X-ray.”

Then there’s this - will be interested to see if any of the senior neonatologists mentioned feature at any new trial:

The allegation that Letby murdered babies by injecting air down their nasogastric tubes has, as the Guardian reported in July, been one of the lightning rods for the criticism from medical experts,* who described the theory as *nonsensical or “rubbish”, “ridiculous”, “implausible” and “fantastical”.

McDonald said: “Dr Dewi Evans appears to be shifting his opinion regarding one of the most fundamental aspects of the case, the medical evidence. I have now spoken, and have reports, from some of the most senior neonatologists in the country, and none of them has yet agreed with Dr Evans.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/oct/10/lucy-letby-police-cps-handling-case-raises-new-concerns-about-convictions

try to look at the overall picture

I have, and the overall picture looks like a whole lot of nothing.

are you interested in proposing what might have happened to those babies

Babies died because of inadequate care in a failing hospital. 😢

Letby was standing over baby Cs cot as they had their final moments so she was present

Was there clear concrete evidence that these poor poor babies were murdered, it's so awful just thinking about it.

See, I just find all the little details like this so telling of her guilt. Nursing is a stressful job involving long hours. Who just “pops in” on their days off?

Did the other nurses find this strange? I’ve never been in any job where people have felt compelled to come in on their days off. So odd.

@OrangeGreens

maybe the scan was took at Arrow Park on the 12th but the below still happened - maybe it will explain why the defence decided not to call him as a witness -

A baby boy, murdered on 14 June 2015 after Letby injected air into his stomach through a nose tube, making him unable to breathe.
He suffered a cardiac arrest.
The boy had been born prematurely at 30 weeks, weighing only 800 grams, but despite going into intensive care was in good condition.
Four days later, on the nightshift of 14 June, Letby was supposed to be looking after another, more poorly baby, in another room.
But, after Baby C's designated nurse briefly left the room, he suddenly and unexpectedly collapsed, and when his nurse returned, she found Letby was the only person in the room.
He recovered very quickly, but just 15 minutes later he collapsed again - where Letby was seen at his cot side once more.
He stopped breathing again, but despite a crash call, this time he did not recover.
Mr Johnson said an independent pathologist - when reviewing the case - concluded baby C died because his breathing became compromised and he suffered a cardiac arrest.

Was there clear concrete evidence that these poor poor babies were murdered

nothing even close.