To think Lucy Letby could’ve done more to help herself if she really wasn’t guilty?

[Seymorbutts]

Just watched the new Lucy Letby documentary on Netflix. I think there’s one of C4 too, don’t know if it’s the same one? I’m leaning slightly more towards that she did it, but only about 60% sure she did it. 40% sure she didn’t do it. On this doc there’s a lot of footage of all her arrests and police interviews. What strikes me as odd IF she’s innocent, is how little she protests her innocence, how calm & composed she is. It’s the same during her arrests. I understand she must’ve been in shock when she was arrested so that could explain it. But she was interviewed for hours. Not once did she say “I didn’t do this” (unless directly asked, which she just answered with “no”) “I’m innocent”, “I could never kill a baby”. Nothing like that. Very little crying too. I know she’s supposedly very quiet and reserved and I’m sure was very scared, but I don’t think personality can account for a total lack of defending herself (or maybe she was just following the advice given by her lawyer). But still, if it was me I’d be absolutely raging, and protesting my innocence at every opportunity and giving clear, detailed reasons why I couldn’t have done it when they put it to me that I did. Or maybe she did do it and she’s a psychopath and unable to show remorse, which could explain her lack of any kind of emotion at all 🤷‍♀️ I really don’t know. If she is innocent though, I feel like the way she behaved made her look guilty. Interested to hear if people think she did it or not and why/why not…

@Oftenaddled I mean you can say that but there's no way to know and I'd be willing to bet the other nurses don't have half the red flags she did. If she is a serial killer (she is) then these types of events are highly significant. If you don't think so then you're free to avoid the subject but no point trying to override with "nothing to see here" every single time someone wants to discuss them.

I'm happy to discuss them.

But one of the things I will happily discuss is whether they have any significance if we don't assume she is a serial killer.

Because if things are only significant because we assume she is a serial killer, they really can't be used to bolster the case for her being a serial killer.

Perhaps there is evidence that really suggests she is a serial killer in all the flawed data and vague anecdotes we've heard since the trial, but there has been none on these threads, and the CPS doesn't seem to have found any either.

But one of the things I will happily discuss is whether they have any significance if we don't assume she is a serial killer.

If you're not open to that possibility then obviously you're never going to accept she did it maliciously.

Because if things are only significant because we assume she is a serial killer, they really can't be used to bolster the case for her being a serial killer.

We don't know if she is or not (well I have a pretty good idea) but all these things actually do point towards it being more likely that she is than not. You're asking for impossible things in an attempt to defend her-you think every other nurse would've had the same circumstantial evidence against them. Convenient that we'll never know that for sure isn't it? Every time something gets proven like tube dislodgements you always come back with "oh but we don't know about x variable"-it's simply not plausible that just on her shifts she ended up with some baby or multiple babies acting in completely out of the norm ways and only dislodging their tubes around her. This is ON TOP of everything happening at Chester.

"Beyond reasonable doubt" means what is reasonable to believe happened, not constantly asking for impossible proof and then going "oh well she can't be a serial killer then" if you can't provide it.

I take things case by case. Show me a robust example of Lucy Letby doing something "suspicious". One where we have actual data if we are doing statistics. Or one where she is doing something that only a criminal is likely to do, if not.

What I can't accept is that instances of her doing her job by being around sick children and communicating with their parents makes her more likely to be a serial killer. I think you may have noticed that I don't argue that she was too good and dedicated a nurse to be a serial killer either.

Our starting point is that she was a nurse in a neonatal unit. Anything that is normal for nurses in a neonatal unit should not be taken as evidence that she is a serial killer (or that she isn't). It's just background noise.

As a doctor, the perspective shared by @Oftenaddledrings very true. In recent years there’s been a weird sort of conflation of medical negligence/misadventure and actual criminal homicide within the British justice system - the most egregious example being the horrific prosecution of Dr. Bawa-Garba, which I think sent shivers down the spine of every junior medic - and it’s led to a situation where I could completely imagine a young clinician who was involved in the care of a patient who died becoming totally confused about her degree of potential culpability.

What I can't accept is that instances of her doing her job by being around sick children and communicating with their parents makes her more likely to be a serial killer.

It's not about her "doing her job" though is it. It's the fact babies go inexplicably downhill around her, the minute she comes on shift or is about to handover or the minute she gets back off holiday. It's having "favourites", it's arguing she should be allocated to be in with the sicker babies all the time even though other nurses need that experience too. It's standing there watching collapses or just staring at parents and not seemingly doing anything. It's going in rooms she's not supposed to be in and has no job to do there, going in the room with grieving parents even though they're being taken care of by other staff members. Treating baby deaths as gossip. That's just off the top of my head. I don't know how many times I can explain what the issue with her behaviour is...

Then we've got air embolism evidence (and Lucy being the very first person to do a datix on the possibility of that), insulin with 3 tests when she was on all showing high levels. Overfeeding evidence because baby projectile vomited milk far more than amount given. Proof of an earlier morphine overdose that could've killed a baby. How much more do we really need?

I have no idea how I had never heard of that case. I've just looked it up and what happened to Jack Adcock is almost exactly what happened to my son though the medic who insisted he had gastroenteritis was a surgical registrar and my son thankfully survived against all of the odds.

I didn't blame any of the staff, I just wanted lessons to be learned. There was an investigation and policies were changed as a result.

We've no evidence that more babies went "inexplicably downhill" around her than anyone else. There's never been an analysis of deteriorations or collapses in which she wasn't involved, as far as we know. There's a single instance of a baby deteriorating on handover, obviously around all of the dozen or so staff involved in the handover. Having "favourites" is a cute thing to say to parents. There's a single instance of her wanting to be allocated to the sicker child - and let's note that she was right that she was qualified to care for that child and the nurse who had been put in charge of him was not. The only instance where she was accused of watching a collapse has been undermined by an e-mail from a doctor saying she raised the alarm. There's a single child whose parents found her coming into the room where they were with their dying child intrusive. The idea that she treated baby deaths as gossip is subjective. These are weak, isolated, unproven or irrelevant examples of things likely to happen on a neonatal ward from time to time, especially as judged with hindsight when people have been told there was a killer nurse.

The theory that were air embolisms has been discredited by credible and qualified scientists. Lucy Letby texted a nurse about a risk to embolism to a child who wasn't on the indictment list: a perfectly normal thing to do. Separately, she reported that the child needed a line changed. Again, these two are standard, unsuspicious events that one would expect to see on a neonatal unit. The child who has been described by a consultant (who wasn't there) as having too much milk in his stomach was described by his treating doctor and nurses as having a reasonable amount of milk because the volume noted was for both milk and air. The morphine administration error (speed not dosage) was primarily the responsibility of a senior nurse and one of millions of dosage errors we see each year on the NHS - again, not unexpected happenings on a neonatal unit.

There is one stand-out statistic for Lucy Letby. That is that she was on duty for an unexpected proportion of deaths in 2015-2016 at Chester, at a time when the hospital experienced a spike in deaths. Her working pattern makes this reasonably easy to explain. The reason you have such a tissue of trivial, exaggerated or discredited events to bring in as supporting "evidence" is that this statistical pattern made her prey to suspicion, and every event that could be told to her disadvantage was told that way. When you stand back and examine these incidents, the events are unremarkable or the evidence is contradictory and tissue-thin. That is why the case has all the hallmarks of a miscarriage of justice. You seem angry that it is so often possible to undermine this evidence, but the possibility exists because the evidence is so thin and stretched.

Can you explain what evidence you think there is that any babies died because of air embolism?

You're asking for impossible things in an attempt to defend her-you think every other nurse would've had the same circumstantial evidence against them. Convenient that we'll never know that for sure isn't it?

No, it’s not ‘convenient’ at all, it’s the result of a mishandled and deeply unprofessional police investigation that was designed to find evidence to make Letby look guilty rather than to actually find out what happened.

@TheCountessofFitzdotterel you can't investigate everyone on the unit to that extent. They narrowed it down to her at the beginning of the investigation. Anything else is just a waste of time and resources. There's absolutely no need either when they'd already found their suspect!

Sudden inexplicable collapses, rashes consistent with AE, inability to resuscitate and needing multiple shots of adrenaline, babies hearts starting again a long time after which one doctor had only seen previously in an accidental AE. Air present on x-rays. Neena Modi of the new panel admitting the babies had air embolism.

@Oftenaddled so basically by your logic, all the parents and other colleagues testimony isn't worth anything unless they immediately realised she was a serial killer at the time and pointed her out and she was investigated right there and then? Everything else is worthless because they didn't realise immediately?

It would be very strange if a doctor had only ever seen a baby's heart restart after a case of air embolism. Babies really are different that way. If you give them respiratory support - rescue breaths - their hearts can restart, even without CPR.

In the case of baby C, doctors agreed with parents that they would stop trying to resuscitate and would give pain relief and "token" resuscitation so that the child could be baptised when a clergyman got to the hospital. They did this, and the rescue breaths meant that the heart restarted. An unusual situation, since they didn't then put the child back on life support, but not a surprising outcome - the child continued with occasional respiratory effort, heavily dosed with morphine, until he died.

Neena Modi observed that some of the children may have suffered air embolism during CPR, which would be expected in a proportion of cases and is nothing new or surprising either, unfortunately.

The argument that children not responding to resuscitation means air embolism is a strange one, since the prosecution argued that children B, M and N suffered air embolism and recovered. Multiple shots of adrenaline would sometimes be needed in a resuscitation.

The collapses weren't inexplicable (they are explained by Shoo Lee's panel, and many were also explained by pathologists or attending doctors at the time)

Rashes are common in neonates and "consistent with" air embolism is insignificant - rashes are common symptoms of physiological shock which you will frequently see in children struggling for oxygen for one reason or another.

Bias against an individual whom you had been told murdered babies would reduce the value of your evidence, yes, especially evidence based on remembering events from years before to which you had not then attached significance.

That's why people are always told to make contemporary notes when they are in a situation that may lead to a complaint or an accusation.

So basically, everyone who goes into hospital or has a relative in hospital should be on high alert for potential serial killers? And they must make a note at the time? "Nurse made me feel uncomfortable for x reason-I have suspicions she may be a serial killer"? otherwise their testimony should be discounted? How plausible do you think that is?

If you have a complaint or concern, you should raise it at the time, yes.

I don't think you need to be on the alert for serial killers to do that.

@Oftenaddled well one of the mothers not in the indictment made a complaint against her-but she was also a nurse so it was more obvious to her because she knew how nurses are supposed to act. She also knew the rumours about colleagues saying "I wonder if Lucy's on?" if alarms went off, especially at night. The parents didn't have that info. Their focus is also on their child in that moment and may not know enough or be strong enough to make a complaint.

But nice to know you think victims should act the perfect way at the time and know exactly what to do or else their testimony is worthless. Bet you don't say that about other crimes, only in an effort to defend Letby. Really not a good look.

The mother claimed all this after the convictions. There's no sign of her complaint in the Thirlwall compilation which is supposed to show all complaints for the indictment period. So it's another case where I'd be doubtful. You just can't take tabloid gossip after the trial and decide it suggests guilt

@Oftenaddled so what are you saying then, she's lying? Because I saw her say it herself in an interview. Go on, what are you implying?

I believe she is innocent. I was under the impression that her and her family thought the truth would prevail and they didn't need to make a fuss.

Why are you still claiming that rashes have anything to do with venous air embolism?

Can you tell me which babies “hearts starting again a long time after which one doctor had only seen previously in an accidental AE.” relates to?

Some of the babies had air embolism consistent with resuscitation efforts. Neena Modi has not indicated that she thinks the air was injected intravenously, has she?

I am not too bothered - I looked out for that possible complaint in the Thirlwall documents and it never came up. People mean different things by "putting in a complaint". People mix nurses up over time. All I know is that we don't have any evidence there was a formal complaint. It's not something I have to solve because I'm not arguing that it has any particular significance

@Oftenaddled Are you saying that with your detailed knowledge of much of the case, you don’t know of Lynsey Artell’s complaint? I believe it’s her that @Firefly1987 is referring to and “putting in a complaint” is pretty unambiguous. If you really have no idea who Lynsey Artell is, read on:

One mother said on Friday night that she believed Letby attacked her newborn son a day after she made a complaint about an “inappropriate” comment by the nurse.
Lynsey Artell, who was herself a nurse at the Countess of Chester at the time, told Sky Newsthat Letby was eavesdropping on a conversation about the progress her son was making, when she said: “I don’t like parents getting their hopes up because we never know what could happen at this stage.”
Artell said she was “furious” and complained. The following day, she said, her son suddenly deteriorated and his insulin levels had spiked – just like in the cases of two babies Letby was convicted of poisoning.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/aug/18/lucy-letby-found-guilty-of-murdering-seven-babies-at-chester-hospital

So not “tabloid gossip”.

Yes, I recognise the story, thanks. The fullest report was in the Daily Mail. But when the Countess of Chester was asked to disclose all complaints received by the neonatal unit for 2015-16, this one wasn't there. So my assumption is that there was no formal complaint.

It's also not the case that the child's insulin levels spiked like the children Lucy Letby was accused of poisoning. Panorama obtained all of the insulin testing results for the period and only 3 (baby F, baby L, and the child called baby Y whose case wasn't fully disclosed) had the sort of spikes that led to Letby's conviction. No such result in March 2016. Obviously high insulin levels can be natural

So I would see this as another incident which forms part of the "background noise" of working in a hospital. Sometimes children will fall ill, and that doesn't add to the evidence that Lucy Letby may have harmed them.