New Lucy Letby details

[Mrsdoyler]

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

Reason: Lack of empathy

@kkloo

you asked why they didn’t call the author of the paper during the trial

simply because they didn’t feel it was going to be useful? either way having that question answered does not prove anything about innocence or guilt?

His paper was not deemed that relevant in the end compared to the experience of numerous medics who witnessed the air embolism in situ

And that goes back to my post on Myers which you quoted

He is not stupid, dumb or foolish and so that is probably why he didn’t call the author

He may well have been appealing on these specific grounds as per LL instructions (probably) even if initially he told her it was pointless (shows he was right if anything)

I never said that having my questions answered proved anything about innocence or guilt. They are just questions that I have because I'm trying to understand the defences strategy (or lack of).

It is possible that that will come out in any future appeal if she claims she had an inadequate defense.

He could be none of those things but still have chosen the wrong strategy.

@Quitelikeit
It wouldn't have mattered what was in that appeal submission, it wouldn't have been granted. Likewise with the baby K appeal submission, I believe the result of that is released on Thursday and we know it will be denied.

Her only hope was going to be the CRCC.

Hypothetically, if Lucy Letby hadn't been the "common denominator", and the same spike in deaths had been observed with the same clinical features and it had been investigated, I wonder what the outcome would have been?

An inadequate defence?

https://www.exchangechambers.co.uk/people/benjamin-myers-kc/

check out this and that might help you decide in the event you can’t get a direct answer to your question

Yes, an inadequate defence.

The man having a successful history does not mean that he provided an adequate representation of the defence case for this particular case.

If that’s your thinking then fine but if your argument is never realised then this thread might hopefully explain why

I certainly won't be getting any answers from this thread 😂

@kkloo
I find the defence’s failure to discredit the notes with evidence from her counsellor or to call good character witnesses also quite odd. It’s harder to see a rationale for it.

Does anyone know if Kathryn de Berger has ever confirmed that she advised LL to write the notes? I've only ever seen it put as "sources close to the case say.."

Hi all,
Thanks to those who reported the personal attacks on this thread (and apology accepted to the reporter who reported herself!)

This thread, for the record, is for the discussion of the Lucy Letby case and its aftermath, not for sniping at and insulting those with a continuing interest.

https://archive.ph/5m9Mp

The latest Telegraph article about Breareys "Drawer of Doom".

I find it mind boggling that in any other potential child protection scenario, especially concerning babies who obviously cannot participate in providing an explanation, doctors can raise their suspicions about health or injuries, and immediately a suspected parent or caregiver can be separated from that child to (rightly) be on the safe side pending investigation.

If suspicion is enough to do that in such cases and if Lucy Letby is indeed guilty beyond reasonable doubt, then Brearey in particular should be disciplined.

If he was so convinced by his gut feeling and his alleged "evidence" he has breached his legal obligation to the babies on his watch. It cannot be enough to say that no-one would take his suspicions seriously - right from the start people have questioned both his and Jayaram's lack of action due to their lack of what I believe is "mandatory reporting".

Why would he not share the contents of his drawer of doom to help inform the triggering of an investigation? Might we wonder if the contents of that drawer were presented to the investigation eventually? I think his conduct over this new "revelation" needs intense scrutiny.

Action could (if Lucy Letby is guilty) have prevented some of the deaths/ collapses. If such events had continued though, we would be looking at a very different outcome to this case.

The idea that management were balking against the ramifications of making a potential false accusation or "in thrall" to master manipulator Lucy Letby just does not hold water. Officially and legally the safety of children trumps all other concerns is any suspected case of child abuse / death, as we can see on threads here which describe visits to A&E with sick or injured children that trigger the juggernaut system that is Child Protection.

In those threads it is acceptable to be falsely accused because children should be protected at all costs.

From my own experience though, there can be a tendency to see "evidence" used which is also open to different interpretations but the standard of "balance of probabilities" applies in family courts rather than reasonable doubt, so again, for the sake of child protection, suspected abusers can permanently lose their children without reaching a threshold of evidence, including circumstantial that would satisfy the CPS.

One really must ask what went so wrong in this case in every direction.

No it's still unconfirmed afaik even after she was questioned at the Inquiry. But at no point has it been suggested Letby was receiving counseling from anyone else.

In addition she wasn't providing counseling in the sense of professional psychotherapy. Just informal MH support including being part of a WhatsApp group with her and the Head of Nursing. I don't think the notes are a gotcha, but the fact an OH colleague may have suggested she note her feelings down would not make them more or less probative of the defendants state of mind or relevant to the jury.

@kkloo given what I have said about the relevance of Dr Lee's evidence and what others have said about Ben Myers expertise isn't it reasonably obvious he wasn't called at trial because the evidence wasn't helpful. At appeal it's a hail Mary pass

Thanks @Grahamhousehushand , that's what I thought too. And I also agree that the notes have limited evidential weight in the grand scheme of things, and compared to other evidence. However I do also find it frustrating that "she was advised by her therapist to write them" is now just being confidently asserted as fact by a lot of LL's supporters.

He was a defence witness. Yes he sat through the whole trial. He was away 2 or 3 days and he read the transcripts for those days.

he said that himself. But also as a defence witness he is supposed to sit through the whole trial.

The implication is that written records confirming this are in the possession of the defence. The Guardian also states her GP had advised her to write things down. More important than whether she was told to write is that they are consistent with innocence.

We can’t know exactly what influenced the jury but it looks to me that they influenced Judith Moritz, who obtained permission from the judge to publish them.

The best explanation is that they threw all their resources into getting the case thrown out so didn’t really do enough work on the actual case. I have seen a suggestion that calling an expert on air embolism might have undermined their argument that there wasn’t enough research on it.
I don’t know.
Certainly their handling of statistical evidence, character evidence and the so called confession notes doesn’t give one much confidence that they must have had a sound underlying strategy regarding the medical evidence.

You’ve never read the forty years of FBI research into the psych profiles of serial killers have you?

@MistressoftheDarkSide

The idea that management were balking against the ramifications of making a potential false accusation or "in thrall" to master manipulator Lucy Letby just does not hold water. Officially and legally the safety of children trumps all other concerns

This just isn’t reality. Of course the safety of children should trump everything else but it is not uncommon for there to be cover ups of accidental and intentional harm to patients in hospitals to prevent discovery of incompetence and avoid repercussions.

I don't disagree and know that this occurs. It is particularly heinous in the context of this case though. If LL is guilty then many people who could have acted but did not are complicit in the deaths if vulnerable babies. If she is innocent, they have potentially covered up huge failings and sub-optimal care resulting in the deaths of vulnerable babies. IANAL but in the latter case could we be looking at corporate manslaughter?

Those doubting the safety of LLs convictions are scoffed at for engaging in "conspiracy theories" that include arse covering and avoiding investigation into other possibilities. Why would noble doctors scapegoat a poor innocent nurse is repeated with eye rolls and scoffs, yet it does happen.

Humans are humans, and systems are imperfect, but I don't think it's unreasonable to point out the apparent double standards being applied here. If parents and other caregivers must accept accusations and scrutiny, so should HCPs. Parents are routinely separated from their children in cases requiring serious investigation. Suspending an employee may be inconvenient and cause some natural distress to said employee but it's hardly comparable when apparently the belief was that babies lives were at stake a considerable time before she was actually suspended.

I think the inquiry is going to look at the reporting of concerns in scenarios like this one. It will also look at the timeline of the concerns and the steps each person took.

Despite what some are saying Dr Breary wanted her off the ward after baby C. That was the right call be it murder or incompetence.

Karen Rees and Eirian Powell - their personal relationship with LL prevented them from acting in the best interests of patients.

@kkloo it is simply unfortunate that nothing on this thread has helped convince you that Myers was a decent KC with a plan from the outset on how to approach his case.

She has no issue with Myers - the judge had no issue with Myers, she will never be able to appeal on grounds of him being poor because he simply was not.

If the judge felt that Myers was doing a disservice to LL he had the authority to stop the trial at any time.

All these things should assist anyone doubting the case from a poor defence angle

Nothing on this thread has convinced me as you seem to be overstating the calibre of the arguments on this thread 🤔

LL appears to have had no issue with him that we know of, but she also said she's suffering from PTSD etc and perhaps she's not in the right frame of mind and trusted his opinion even though it was the wrong approach.

She very possibly will be able to appeal on the grounds of an inadequate representation of the defense case, If McDonald puts together a robust case with experts disputing evidence and it seems that Myers didn't even attempt that and instead just went down the 'no case to answer' route then she would have a very good chance of her appeal being heard.

You're not psychic and don't know what the outcome of this will be any more than I do so it will all just have to play out before anyone knows for sure.