Lucy letby

[bloomingbonkerz]

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

it wasn’t the journalist saying about baby A - it was the experts and it was explored at trial - ye they definitely presented it how you said - about anti bodies

Oh that headline is completely false. Interesting. She made 2300 Facebook searches in the period examined, of everyone, not of the victims' parents.

What Panorama said is not what the experts they claim to be critiquing said.

I watched it this morning. Her defence team did seem weak. Yes there are discrepancies and I can't be 100% sure because I wasn't in the courtroom. However...
she said she brought home the handover notes accidentally in her pockets. So why did she then file them alphabetically in a box marked 'keep'?
Why then lie about having a shredder?
Why did she google the parents of the deceased babies?
Why did she not remember anything about baby 'Zoe' who collapsed 3 times in one night and she was upset about it to send numerous texts to a friend?
Why was the mortality rate so high during the period she was there compared to previous years, when they were still similarly overstaffed?
Who else could have delivered the insulin that everyone agreed killed two of the babies?
I think she needs a retrial with a different defence team, but I am in no way convinced of her innocence.

I think we do know from the expert panel that this was an in-labour emergency Caesarian section for triplets, each born minutes apart, so the idea that there was no trauma is questionable.

And as you say, the creation of the (undisputed, I think?) subcapsular haematoma and its rupture will have been two separate events.

What do you think she kept alphabetically? In alphabetical order of what?

And the insulin overdose is disputed.

The definition of birth trauma can be highly subjective. My child was born at 35 weeks, induced due to pre-eclampsia severe enough for the duty doctor to tell me that we both had a 50 / 50 chance of survival. During delivery, which took 4 hours, I was instructed to stop pushing because the cord was round his neck. Having had an epidural that was only partially effective, that felt pretty traumatic.

When, 6 weeks later, I was accused of deliberately causing multiple metaphyseal fractures, only visible on x-ray and only 2 out of a suspected 21 showing any kind if "symptom", for which I took appropriate advice, his birth was completely discounted as in anyway traumatic in favour of deliberate harm.

Plus, although these fractures are notoriously difficult to put an age on by x-ray, they could confidently assert that none of them occurred during our ten day hospital stay. Three experts later, one of whom only looked at x-rays, fracture numbers varied from 21, to 15 to 12, and a compressed veterbrae showing no symptoms had been thrown in, allegedly due to slamming baby on a hard surface (leaving no bruises) or violent bending (force of a car crash) with no other indicators.

So forgive me if I'm cynical about how experts and doctors report events in kegal proceedings.

Which is what the police did - decided on a theory and ignored and discounted any inconvenient facts which called the theory into question. You have to right to do that on a random forum, but investigating authorities should have more rigour and be held to a higher standard. Pro guilty arguers often cite the parents pain as a reason not to look at this further. But what about the pain of the parents who went to the police because events happening to their children showed other problems which were nothing to do with LL and were discounted? Its unconscionable and means that poor practice was not held to account.

They did say it!

two journalists weren’t before or against

Baby Zoe died, and Lucy Letby sent the text messages and did the Facebook searches in 2015. I don't know which arrest this was, but she was asked about her at least three, maybe give, years later.

She had never been responsible for baby Zoe's care. On that night, she was looking after two other babies, both needing one-to-one care (and obviously not getting it). She was called over to help with the resuscitation and co-signed medication at one point.

I would imagine she was deeply focused on the children she had been caring for and wasn't expecting to be asked about baby Zoe, and that with so much time passed, so much trauma, and all the brain numbing medication , she needed the child's notes to remind her about the case.

At the trial, she said that she had no memory of the child independent of the notes. Other nurses who gave evidence about that night were in a similar position.

Yes, I think she’s definitely guilty.

Regardless of how many times she searched for the parents of her victims, it's still bloody weird. She also searched on the anniversaries of the murders:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/aug/18/what-were-lucy-letbys-possible-motives-for-murdering-babies

Panorama:

JM (off): Take Baby A. Letby’s international panel says he died from a blood clot after inheriting a rare condition from his mother, but there’s little evidence to support that claim.

International Panel:

Mother had anti-phospholipid syndrome, which is a condition in which the immune system mistakenly creates antibodies that attack tissues in the body. These antibodies can trigger blood clots to form in arteries and veins. During pregnancy, antibodies can pass through the placenta to the neonate and lead to thromboembolism, particularly if there is concurrent infection.

https://lucyletbyinnocence.com/shoo-lee/International%20Expert%20Panel%20-%20Summary%20Report.pdf

BBC got it wrong

She had been off the ward for a year coming up to the anniversary of the triplets' death and contacted her counsellor that week to say she was struggling. I wouldn't say it's surprising that she did a Facebook search on that (one) family that week.

I don't believe there are any other claims about her looking children up on anniversaries.

Looking children's parents up 2300 times would be odd (but not proof of murder). Looking them up what - on average two or three times each - is a lot less odd, and is something health professionals on these threads have told us they've been known to do

It wasn’t bbc - it was the jury and the experts

I thought that you were recommending Panorama on this point. I'm sorry if I misunderstood you.

The expert who presented in court did say that the summary of her opinion was that the mother's blood disorder did not play a role, but also warned the court that she herself was not an expert in blood disorders. So even more than usual, we can't know how the jury weighed her evidence here.

She obviously didn't have the obstetric notes, since nobody did at that point. They may help to clarify things.

But in any case, the expert panel was arguing that the antibodies may have increased the risk of thrombosis, not that they were needed to cause it. Their argument was that it was caused primarily by the poor practice of leaving a line open.

I really can't see any justification for not allowing the experts to examine the obstetrics notes when they have shown so many times that they are relevant to these children's lives and deaths. I hope the CCRC will obtain them for them.

Yea it was on panorama - but the witnesses were giving the conclusions and disputing the panel and saying it was presented to jury - not the panorama journalists

Yes, I understand what you are saying, but Panorama has misrepresented what the panel was actually saying about Baby A and Baby O.

Important to note about this murder is that baby D’s mum saw Letby “hovering around” her daughter hours before her daughter died.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-63497920.amp

It seems the death of baby D was particularly memorable for Letby, so it’s unlikely she would have forgotten it.

Lucy Letby was responsible for the care of two of the three infants in that small room, so while it's unfortunate if mother D didn't like her being there, it was obviously her job to be there.

This is another case of people making something out of nothing in retrospect after murder charges were announced.

You might think differently if you were charged with murder.
It's not a game.

It doesn't matter if patient information is handwritten or printed. It is still confidential. Yes, we have to formally reflect on individual cases as nurses & midwives - but this isn't done by bringing home confidential
paperwork, that could be accidentally left on the bus! It is a personal professional practice and should always be completely anonymised. And yes, whilst the handover notes / sheets don't belong in the patients hospital records, they sure as hell don't belong under a nurses bed. I too have been in the NHS over 30 years, 36 to be precise... so well before the digital era. 10 years ago? We were very much governed by data protection, which means handover sheets in whatever form shouldn't have been leaving the ward. Just because you do it too @Catpuss66 doesn't mean it's acceptable.

I’m going on what the experts said not the journalists

I know. I've explained what the experts said you.

Panel: probably thrombosis caused by line left open. Antibodies from his mother's condition would have made this more of a risk

Kinsey (at trial): my summary opinion is that his mother's condition didn't contribute. I am not an expert in blood disorders.

These positions are compatible anyway.

Absolutely. What you said is obvious (but needed pointed out). Some people here are wilfully minimising Letby taking and keeping the hundreds of documents because that suits their argument. It’s those same people who haven’t addressed what’s also been pointed out about Letby keeping the notes - that she lied about the shredder.