Lucy letby

[bloomingbonkerz]

Do you think she did it ? Watched the documentary and I’m not sure she should have been convicted

Ive got my own views on the two right of centre politicians campaigning for Little Miss Perfect Letby.
They accuse the left of obsession with race but no one's more obsessed with race than GB News types. 😀

The hospital knew a investigation would be starting . Don’t be so naive thinking that amount of deaths wouldn’t be noticed by the trust itself . I worked quite a few years in clinical neglect and nurses are thrown in the fire to save consultants all the time

Because nobody on this thread is discussing the case factually?
they are discussing what they have seen on a Netflix documentary and on mumsnet rather than the entire court case?
I say that because if you had read or witnessed the whole court case there wouldn’t be comments about her being scapegoated which make zero sense if you had accessed the whole trial or been a part of the police investigation over ten years.

I don’t know who else could have administered synthetic insulin other than Lucy.

It was an absolute failure of care by the hospital. There should have been CCTV in the neonatal room as well as the drugs room and hallways.

But she had a tremendous responsibility for vulnerable neonates and she should have had more oversight. The hospital absolutely failed in their duty of care to patients.

I can’t believe the mother of baby Zoe had to insist on receiving a c-section after 60 hours of labour. She should have received antibiotics in a timely manner. I think the midwives and doctors failed Zoe’s mother and the baby was a lot sicker than hospital records indicated. I don’t believe Zoe received adequate care from doctors.

But there was also a massive failure by her lawyer to even mount a defence.

Her behaviour after the deaths was very bizarre. She stole hospital records and it was almost like she was keeping them as trophies. Her diaries were like that of a little girl and the post it notes that she kept should have been destroyed. It’s weird she kept those records.

She lied so easily and said she didn’t own a shredder (to destroy the hospital records) - yet the evidence showed there was a shredder in her home.

Her behaviour after the deaths showed a very disordered mind.

But the documentary was also biased.

I think she’s responsible- but I also blame the NHS.

The thing which makes me feel she is guilty is that in some of her police interviews and also during cross examination at her trial, she gave very detailed answers to many questions from years ago, however she used “I don’t remember” for lots of answers when discussing the details around the babies she was accused of harming.
You can see examples of this in the Netflix documentary but I also heard lots of examples when listening to/reading the trial transcripts.

I didn’t pay too much detailed attention at the time but also watched the Netflix documentary. I agree that the strands of evidence- the high death rates, the shift patterns, the death patterns following her night or day pattern, that the deaths stopped after she was off the unit/held in custody, the notes, her diaries, the insulin deaths, the mottling, all persuaded me that yes, her conviction was beyond a reasonable doubt. It was circumstantial but then it’s often the case in historical murder crimes (or rape, similarly). There was just so much. And even if you take away the skin mottling air embolism as per Dr shoo, it leaves so so much more.

It wasn’t the best case by the police, it was difficult, the interviews were not great, but I don’t think it’s an unsafe conviction, and neither does the CoA, thankfully. Yes, there could also have been failings at the unit too, care falling short but that does not mean she didn’t kill those babies as well. To the expert opinion not being challenged by the defence, there is interesting development on the role for experts over the last couple of decades and they are there to assist the court. They are even supposed to meet beforehand and identify where expert analysis agrees and where it differs, being clear to the court if there are different explanations. The fact it wasn’t challenged says to me that the defence struggled to find an expert who was prepared to challenge Prof Dewi analysis.

None of us were there and followed the full evidence in this case other than the jury. I trust them.

What I do find distasteful is the circus around her conviction, this self-convened other ‘group of experts’, this barrister who has adopted her as a cause, even thick as mince David Davies. They all seem extremely self serving to me, getting their 15 mins of fame- as contrariness and polar views do today. And I don’t think that helps the families of those poor babies at all. They are lost in all of this.

Please don’t be so rude

I’m on the fence, but definitely think the conviction is unsafe.
I work in a large emergency department along side all different medical professionals, it’s been the topic of conversation this week due to the documentary, there is a few of us on the fence but the majority think she is innocent, no one thinks she is guilty, I’ve also found that it is the higher ups i.e consultants etc that are convinced of her innocence.

In a strange way I kind of hope that she is guilty, purely because of the absolute hell she will have been put through IF she is innocent.

Maybe if she took the blood gas results and resus records it was because she had a feeling she would be blamed or that she wanted to get her head around why they died. I doubt she was the only person who had access to insulin and if the feeding bag needed signing and checked wouldn't it be by 2 nurses.

I think that if she is guilty, this is the most likely explanation. And it’s very compelling.

but if you take away the statistical evidence I’m not sure the evidence is strong enough against her.

it’s really worrying because while it doesn’t seem to be enough to convict, I also don’t think it shows
we can be certain she is innocent.

Anyone else could have administered insulin if it happened the way the prosecution said. They said someone spiked the bags in advance. Why should it be her more than anybody else?

There was actually a third insulin cases, where the test was done before Lucy Letby came in shift, a few hours after the baby was born. The prosecution didn't charge anybody with that case. There was no bag to spike.

The defence has included the fact that they weren't given full information on this child in their request to send the case back to the Court of Appeal.

So if the insulin results really mean poison, which is doubted by some medical experts, there would have to have been another poisoner on the ward.

I really don't think the international experts need 15 minutes of fame. They are very high up in their fields, and Lucy Letby wouldn't make them famous in their own countries. If they are in any doubt about her innocence at all, they will know that their reputations will be smeared if anything.

But even if you thought they were wrong, why assume they have such a selfish motive? Sometimes people care about justice, see somewhere they can help and want to do the right thing.

I think it's a better world when people like them are willing to step in and try to help. They aren't the only ones of course. There are lots of people involved in innocence projects and lots of lawyers who take on cases for nothing. I don't think we should try to stop this.

What utter nonsense.

Why was I rude ?

I've spent 131 days in 4 separate NICUs with DD1. I've seen how unpredictable NICU patients are. From insulin doing really weird things to tubes moving before your eyes as if there's a poltergeist on the ward. I honestly do not believe she did it. I find this opinion prevalent in parents of babies with long NICU stays.

What we also agree with is the NHS having an inverse propotional tendency to scapegoat a single person over a series of issues depending on the quality of their services.

Also, her defence team should be struck off.

Liar…..anyway they weren’t confidential case notes they were her own notes that are not required to be filed in the patients main notes. We discussed this at length lots of nurses & midwives went home in uniform these would have been in our pockets. Out of 271 found only 17 related to babies in this case, lots were found in a carrier bag under her bed & in a black bag in the garage only 5 found in a black box I presume for statement writing & zero related to any of the babies. Apart from that what significance are they? Remember these events happened 11yrs ago times & data protection have changed.

In the previous years before they got rid of senior nurses by making them redundant, & taking higher risk patients that both medics & nursing staff would have struggled with. Think Lucy had only been qualified for couple of years she was only 23 & classed as senior, terrible position they put not only her but the rest of nursing staff in.

Is that what you got from the programme? I haven’t seen it yet but her wanting compassion from colleagues doesn’t fit with what I’ve read about her. From the beginning to the end of her nursing career she was never thought of as being outstanding in her job in any way.

Regarding the (anonymous) married doctor who went away with, I thought she had an affair with him - I don’t think it was a crush. I’m not sure if she’s guilty or not, but reading between the lines, she was very inexperienced in romantic relationships and I’ve always thought that her strong feelings for him (heavily implied when she was talking about him on the stand) could have indirectly been a motive as in get his attention. I think some people speculated this at the time.

I remember Janice Turner in the Times theorising boredom as a motive for the killings.

lol course she is not going to say we’re crap & cherry picked all the babies that died why she was in duty( not including medics in that list of who was on duty why are they exempt?) They sacked statisticians who were employed by the police who pointed out their list was statistically wrong. Using her therapy counselling notes & releasing it to the papers saying it was a confession. Do you really think they are going to admit to any of that?

Do you not think if there was anything significant in her psychological profile it would have been brought up at trial? Either to bolster the prosecution or the defence?

When a case is as "cut and dried" as this is presented by some as being, maintaining innocence is a dangerous thing to do. It leads to harsher sentences and prison conditions. If she was as arrogant and calculating as some claim (while being simultaneously thick enough to hand them "incriminating" evidence on a plate) she would have been doing anything to make her life easier in any way possible.

Is it possible she was just caught up in a complete nightmare where she couldn't "win" regardless of what she said or how she presented?

All the speculation about how one thinks one would act in such circumstances is vastly different when you're living it. The circumstances are unprecedented.

If the alleged affair had any substance to it, you can guarantee it would have been dissected to the nth degree to further discredit her.

But the bottom line is that the medical evidence, which everything hinges on is ridiculously tenuous, and based on theory, not established fact.

Also, Evans is an acolyte and supporter of Meadows and Southall and loves to dabble in the psychology of FII in the family court arena. If the evidence pointed to "attention seeking" as a motive, I'm sure he'd have been proposing it very vocally.

You are making shit up now who fantasised about being a murderer? Source please

I would like you to tell me how most of these notes were kept in plastic bags how they were kept in date order other than as they came out of the pocket they went in the bag. Most of mine were not breaching confidentiality no address or DOB or hospital number not somthing that is required to be filed in the notes. Who is going to break into your house to steal non identifiable scrap of paper? Other than the police?

Think I can.

We don’t have to explore the fact that she might be guilty as she’s been found guilty.

And of course there have never been any high profile miscarriages of justice before...... 🙄