New Lucy Letby details

[Mrsdoyler]

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

Reason: Lack of empathy

That says what I said.

I know there was a long build up of time of the consultants reporting Lucy. And they were told that there wasn't enough evidence to show that she'd done anything. I know that went on for a long time.

I'm referring specifically to this point in the timescale, in that article.

"That evening, Dr Brearey says he called duty executive Karen Rees and demanded Letby be taken off duty. She refused.
Dr Brearey says he challenged her about whether she was making this decision against the wishes of seven consultant paediatricians - and asked if she would take responsibility for anything that might happen to other babies the next day. He says Ms Rees replied "yes"."

He demanded that lucy be taken off duty and he was told no, as they had to follow investigative procdures

No, I've sent a huge variety of reading and knowledge about the.case on here.

Theories being pitched that people couldn't possibly believe if they'd read around the case even minimally.

Talking about why the nurses who supported her, didn't act as witnesses

Here are excepts from an article in the Telegraph.

Nurses say in it that they had wanted to support Lucy Letbys defense case in court, but that they were told by the hospital not to get involved. :

‐----

"An NHS hospital told a nurse who wanted to support Lucy Letby she should not give evidence in her case, it has been claimed.
A nurse who trained with Letby at the Countess of Chester Hospital told The Telegraph that she was asked to be a character witness by the defence but her NHS trust advised her against getting involved.

A second nurse, and a registrar who still work for the hospital, also said they had been instructed by NHS bosses not to talk about the case, despite previously voicing their support for Letby."

I think it's a bit dismissive and redundant to say to anyone that disagrees with you, that they haven't read about the case.

I'm telling you that I have read a lot about the case.

You shared a bbc article and told me that read it, without asking if I had read it. I read it already, a long time ago

That BBC article was one of the top news articles about the case at the time. I'm sure most people have read it

@Mrsdoyler

So if you have read most things pertaining to this case then you must have an understanding of the bigger picture

What is it exactly that is placing doubt in your mind about the verdict that was reached?

Its the prosecution that has the case to prove- so, again, what is it that you find to be proof that these babies were murdered and by LL?

I would 100% care.
Do you not care if families may have been told that their baby was murdered if they weren't in fact murdered?

None of the twins or triplets would have been there after the downgrade due to their age either.

The cut off was 32 weeks, but 34 for twins and probably higher again for triplets.

Who here has read the court transcript? It seems unlikely any of us has given that David Davis was quoted £100000 for it.

One thing is:

The nurse who said that she asked to be a character witness for Lucy Letbys defense case, but the hospital advised her not to get involved.

Sew the excerpt from the Telegraph article that I posted above.

Why would the hospital advise the nurse not to be a defense witness ? Surely that's interfering in the case

The court transcripts and police interview transcripts are available on youtube

There are documents from the trial available online

The empathy thing is a complete red herring.

It's not like there's a standard where they will allow people to be health professionals only if they're an emphatic person and they don't if they're not.

It's part of the training because they are expected to act a certain way even if it's not who they are.
Of course it seems once they pass that can go out the window as many of us have stories of health professionals being cold and lacking empathy.

I've complained about people before and specifically said that they need some empathy training. It's not going to change them as a person but instead hopefully teach them how they should be acting in certain situations.

Apart from families wanting the truth, The thing is if we are clear that Lucy Letby didn’t kill Baby C then not only does that undermine the forensic evidence in the other air by nasogastric tube cases, it also puts an entirely innocent interpretation on much of the circumstantial evidence used to convict her - wanting to look after the sickest babies, looking up the family on Facebook. She hadn’t killed Baby C and she did these things. They therefore mean nothing in relation to other babies.

Yes exactly. It matters hugely if she’s been convicted of a murder she didn’t commit, even if she did commit all the others.

And why go through the charade of this lengthy and hugely expensive trial which took each baby case by case, if the expectation is that the jury just go “well, we think she did at least one, so might as well find her guilty on this other one too?”

If we want confidence in our justice system we must be as sure as we can be of every single verdict. I struggle to see how anyone could claim we’re as sure as we can be that anyone murdered baby c, never mind LL specifically.

Dr Jayram claimed he saw Lucy letby harming baby K. He then did nothing

I don't think so.

If he'd said that, that would be the direct evidence that so many CT posters fixate on there not being in this case (circumstantial is not good enough for them, even though there is in fact no hierarchy of evidence in which circumstantial is considered of less weight).

If he couldn't be proven to be lying about such a claim, that would have been truly pivotal.

He didn't claim he saw Letby harming Baby K.

So what did he claim he saw? He claimed he saw something significant didn’t he? So what was it and why did he not report it at the time?

Well he basically claimed that he walked in to check because he was concerned after hearing that Lucy Letby was looking after baby K

He says at this point in Feb 2016, "we had had a number of unusual incidents with babies, and a number of colleagues had noted an association with Lucy Letby.
"I was sitting...and I will be very honest I was very uncomfortable. I just had a feeling, knowing what happened before, and my internal dialogue was 'stop being stupid, get on with your work', and I just wanted to go in and reassure everything was ok.

And that basically said then he walked in and she was desaturating and that LL was doing nothing to help and that no alarms were going off etc.

So he very much painted the picture that he was concerned she was harming babies and then he went in to check because of his gut instinct and that his suspicions were proved correct.

But then it doesn't add up because surely if you genuinely were concerned about that, then walked in to a scene which confirmed your fears you wouldn't then leave the nurse to do it twice more to the same baby.

After the second desat he swiped out to head to the office part of the hospital so he would be preparing for the day ahead. He said everything seemed stable. Not sure how he would think that everything was stable if he thought LL was the one harming babies and he left her there with them again.

He was called back within minutes for a third desat....and then after that baby K was transferred.

LL was still left there to look after other babies though.

Yeah this is what raises questions for me. Either it was something or nothing. If it was something he should have reported at the time. If it was nothing why bring it up?

I don’t think he is a liar! But I think that his memories may have been affected by the fact that he later came to believe LL was a serial killer. It’s hard to imagine he truly thought at the time that she was just leaving a baby to collapse and he just left her to get on with it.

She did kill baby C-she was there when he collapsed a final time, maybe Dr Evans got it wrong about an earlier event but she was responsible for the final collapse. And there is proof of overfeeding and insulin and deliberate harm (liver and throat injury) even if you take air embolism out of it.

@OrangeGreens Yes I feel the same, I think he believes his version now but it's very hard to believe that he genuinely thought that way at the time.

being there at the final collapse doesn’t mean she killed her. I didn’t see any evidence presented that she did anything to cause the final collapse.

She was charged and convicted on the basis of an x-ray from the day before she came on duty.
Evidence that she was in the room at the time of the collapse is actually quite weak. The witness who put her there had changed her story between police statement and trial.

Natural Causes are much more likely
“Being absolutely open and honest, I never, ever considered that this death could have been from deliberate harm.“
“From my perspective when I saw the postmortem result and the immaturity of the baby’s lungs I presumed that this was a death entirely consistent with prematurity.”

Dr McCormack – Consultant Obstetrician and Gynaecologist, Thirlwall Enquiry

It’s only one case but it shows how flawed the investigation and trial were.

To assert that Letby was there so she must have killed the baby really is belief without critical thinking.

Ah, so David Davis is not capable of using the internet, as well as being “mendacious, conceited, vain, duplicitous, wholly unfit for office” (as described when being caught out lying to parliament).

Figures for someone who's been foolish enough to publicly hitch their wagon to this creature.

Even if she wasn't around for Baby C's death, that doesn't mean she didn't make attempts to sabotage the child's life before that.. which would have prompted the same ghoulish fascination with the family?

I think people make a mistake thinking of her going around wanting to kill kill kill. I don't think that's it, she loved playing God, fragile lives hanging in the balance, the drama of it. Which of her little tweaks would tip them over the edge and would they be able to recover from it or not. I can believe sometimes she helped the babies stabilise from her acts of sabotage. Have you never watched a cat play with a mouse? The fun is in the game, it doesn't just want to kill the mouse outright. Sometimes the game means the mouse gets away altogether and thats a risk the cat is willing to make. I can believe there were more babies than we know whose lives she messed with but likely in subtle ways, I think she built up the game slowly, she didn't just begin one day and go from 0-100. It would have been tiny little acts first and it all fed into this addiction to the feeling of power over life and death. If you look into any stories of childhood abuse, it always starts off small and then grows as the abuser becomes more and make addicted to the thrills they get from hurting and weilding power.