Lucy letby

[bloomingbonkerz]

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

Because some of us are capable of critical thinking.

Its not the job of the innocent to prove why things happened - that is for the prosecuting authorities to do. Innocent people will often struggle to explain what happened - beware the guilty who have fully prepared explanations at their fingertips.

It wasn't her job to get to the bottom of what happened, she also didn't have the investigative powers to do so, and the ones who did just ignored all the obvious answers and just decided it was a serial killer instead.

I've seen quite a few nurses who said they have been taught to reflect on things like that.

If the doctors were at fault, this would almost certainly have come to light in the coroner's inquests for babies D, O and P, so they didn't have the option of letting it all blow over. But I'd do them the credit of believing they were worried about safety on the ward too, after the sudden deaths of babies O and P. They certainly seem to have wanted the RCPCH review. But when it came back critical of their practice and blaming their failings in care for some incidents, they could not accept it and eventually said to hospital management that they needed involve the police.

The police investigation meant the inquests still haven't happened and the RCPCH report was never fully actioned.

I would also like to add as I don't completely understand the medical case either, but I don't have the skills or knowledge to be able to refute any of that evidence

My reasonable doubt comes from the fact that I struggle to see how they there is a killer at all. A review conducted in 2016 finds that there is insufficient medical cover, a lot of agency nursing and poor risk oversight and root cause analysis.

And also-

What was the management rationale for downgrading the unit when LL was put on suspension? Why was this not done sooner? How much of a factor was the contamination from sewage bubbling up in the sinks? How could the inquests find no suspicious factors and then be overruled by the police expert. How does Dr Evans explain that the person on whose paper he based his theory of some of the deaths has stated he misunderstood the research?

Reflective practice is pushed hard in certain professions. It becomes a reflex.

Also, for Lucy to be organised enough to kill several children in different ways, often with other staff in the room and at least once when she was off duty and then not have covered her tracks by destroying the handover sheets/ having a plausible story seems rather bizarre and unbelievable to me

This is good on exactly that point https://x.com/NeoDoc11/status/2020825991464005829?s=20

No all it proves is that you can find an expert to argue absolutely any medical evidence. It's the same in any case. That's why circumstantial evidence is so important (like baby A collapsing not long after Lucy started her shift, or healthy triplets dying within two days of her return from holiday and about 50 other pieces of evidence that point to her)-and speaking of her holiday-how amazing that the unit ran smoothly without super nurse there the entire time to oversee everything and point out everyone else's mistakes yet the minute she's back-chaos!

Why is the assumption that she is deliberately causing harm and not incompetence?

She was convicted of 14 incidents in about 365 days. So there were about 350 days, many of which she would have worked, without "suspicious" deaths and collapses. The Thirlwall files and police leaks indicate that there was plenty of chaos on that ward whether she was there or not, unfortunately!

We've discussed this on other threads but as far as I recall she was only on holiday for a week or so.
There was 2-3 months in between some of the collapses and deaths so there was plenty of longer periods of time where there was apparently nothing suspicious (or at least nothing that they could blame on LL) so a small holiday without anything happening means nothing.

What about all the babies that died when Lucy wasn’t on shift ??

I think we covered this last time and you conceded a baby collapsed practically either side of her holiday. The fact she escalated before she was finally caught is no surprise.

With the amount of collapses and deaths on that ward - let's say 40 for the year, to include the other deaths and collapses removed from investigations - there will have been one of them both sides of most nurses' (and doctors' and midwives' and porters' and plumbers') holidays at some point that year.

Child N did twice, but no verdict was reached on those charges. I'd have to refresh my memory on the details but as far as I recall there was extremely obvious details of substandard care for those collpases, hence why even the jury weren't convinced.

The child started to deteriorate hours before Lucy Letby came on shift, so as you say, these two charges failed.

Thank you.
I believe for one of those charges she was accused of causing the throat injury even though it was very possibly caused by the doctor who had several failed intubation attempts, and another doctor testified to say that the swelling in the throat could have been caused by several other things.

I don’t know. But I lean more towards guilty than not. Maybe she will confess one day.

I think it is safe to say that there is no smoking gun level of evidence. The fact that she was away and no babies died but two died either side of a holiday is not real-life proof that she was a murderer.

The conviction would have stood on a lot of different levels of circumstantial evidence which I think is normal in serial killer cases.

Can I ask what tips the balance towards guilty?

So you think the jury decision is important only when they don't convict her of certain charges then.

You're the one who always says the jury got it right and complain that others don't respect them, but then you don't respect the no verdict for those charges.