Lucy Letby case expert witness was under fitness to practise investigation

[ITMA2000]

Wow! Pot, kettle, black? Need a new investigation?
Lucy Letby case expert witness was under fitness to practise investigation during trial | Lucy Letby | The Guardian

I don't think she was saying she actually murdered them in that note. I think, with everyone pointing the finger at her, she was questioning herself and whether she had made mistakes, through incompetence, which led to their deaths.

Oh yes what a coincidence! Everyone's the problem here but Lucy Letby.

She's not likely to mention a weirdo nurse was hanging around her babies cot moments before. Obviously at the time it just seemed like a coincidence. There's absolutely NO explanation for Lucy taking off when she saw the mum though unless she was doing something suspicious.

The parents say a few possibilities in the video. You'll have to decide if they're plausible or not.

There's absolutely NO explanation for Lucy taking off when she saw the mum though unless she was doing something suspicious.

There is: she was simply walking away. Nurses move around. Her seeing the mum had nothing to do with her deciding to walk away. What evidence is there that it did?

“Something” with a tube, or “something” with the surfactant, is what they suggest. Does anyone medically qualified think either of these are a possibility? I don’t think Richard and Judy count.

You're fine with a nurse hovering over your ill family member and then just walking off when they see you? Not even a smile or a hello? Amazing what people will excuse when it's their favourite nurse.

Depends what they're doing. In my experience nurses don't usually say hello to visiting family members when they are occupied, no.

I am not sure what she was meant to do if there seemed to be anything wrong with the baby at that point? Get a more senior colleague? Or if there didn't seem to be anything wrong? Get on with her other duties? It's all far too nebulous to demonstrate anything.

@Oftenaddled she wasn't occupied, she walked off. Unless you mean occupied in the act of attacking a baby.

I am not sure what she was meant to do if there seemed to be anything wrong with the baby at that point? Get a more senior colleague? Or if there didn't seem to be anything wrong? Get on with her other duties? It's all far too nebulous to demonstrate anything.

She never came back, wonder why? Especially when she loved the drama of a collapse and certainly would've heard the alarms. Nothing could usually keep her away. But this time she knew she had to get out of there before the alarms started going off and then keep a low profile. Sigh, none so blind and all that.

They are.
You complain that we ignore mountains of evidence, such as Letby standing there.
And look at you, you ignore the mountains of evidence of substandard care. Nothing to see here apparently. No Relevance whatsoever.

Did they mention the baby had pneumonia in the video?

Presumably she looked after some of the other children while nurses more experienced in resuscitation worked with the child - she was relatively junior in 2013 and did not have the qualification in specialism she completed later.

Obviously she couldn't have just hidden or refused to come - they had a shift leader on site.

You can weave fantasies around anything but there is nothing to see here. Nurses can't cause pneumothoraces. They can't sabotage resuscitations they aren't present at. This is another case of her being accused because she was on the ward, doing her job, possibly looking blank in the semi darkness of the wards at 3am. It's a good example of how easily people construct stories.

I'm not ignoring it I just realise that two things can be true at the same time and substandard care doesn't negate a serial killer existing. You seem to focus on poor care as if it can be the ONLY possible explanation which conveniently means you can ignore anything to do with Letby's guilt.

You have ignored it this whole time.

As recently discussed on the thread substandard care needed to be investigated and ruled out first of all, and this hasn't been done, and yet you attack anyone who dares to bring it up.

Letby has been convicted on the narrative that it could only possibly have been her because most substandard care has been denied or lied about and where they did concede it they played it down as irrelevant and instead guessed at something that LL may have done instead, and we're supposed to take that as evidence that she's guilty?

Obviously she couldn't have just hidden or refused to come - they had a shift leader on site.

She probably had nothing to do with that baby's care and shouldn't have been anywhere near her. The mother certainly didn't know who she was at the time.

You can weave fantasies around anything but there is nothing to see here.

It's not a fantasy it happened. Alarms went off seconds after she was seen standing over the baby. FACT.

This is another case of her being accused because she was on the ward, doing her job, possibly looking blank in the semi darkness of the wards at 3am. It's a good example of how easily people construct stories.

No this is another case of people excusing a nurse of literally anything and everything just because she worked there so it's always "nothing to see here" by default. No matter what she was seen doing.

You're inventing reasons she was there to excuse her. The important point is she took off right before alarms sounded and the baby crashed, not her blank expression. No one cares about how gormless she looks in general. Or that she was on the ward. She was standing directly over the victim FFS not just "on the ward". You can't get any closer to the alleged victim than that! Do you just like playing devil's advocate or do you genuinely believe what you're arguing?

Nurses looked after each other's babies all the time at night - otherwise they'd have no breaks or opportunities to get medications, double up to give medications. If there was no other nurse in the room, obviously Lucy Letby should have been there rather than leave the babies alone. If there were other nurses, obviously she wasn't alone with the baby.

Either way, it's standard stuff. I haven't invented any reason for her to be there. I mentioned that she worked there, which is all the reason needed. Cotside is also hardly unusual, of course.

You need something more than, she was there when a patient deteriorated to accuse someone of murder. There were plenty of cases at the trial where nurses and medics other than Lucy Letby described babies having deteriorations (not on the charge sheet) right in front of them - for baby G, baby I, baby J, baby K, off the top of my head.

Were they all attempting murder, or are babies in an intensive care unit likely to be surrounded by carers who will therefore be present when they deteriorate?

As recently discussed on the thread substandard care needed to be investigated and ruled out first of all, and this hasn't been done, and yet you attack anyone who dares to bring it up.

It has been done you just don't believe the police in how they investigated it. And poor care doesn't cause babies to collapse out of nowhere around one nurse. I'm engaging with the actual evidence not waving it away with it being a poor unit. Do we want police to say "ah well it was a terrible unit, there probably wasn't a serial killer"? That's how these people get away with it for so long. And literally what Thirlwall is about trying to prevent in the future.

It's because she was standing over the babies or had just been near the babies at the time of collapse. If it was poor care it wouldn't centre around one nurse only.

No it hasn't been done. All you could offer was that they deferred to Dewi Evans, which is exactly what it seems, they only ruled it out because Dewi said so.

They didn't collapse out of nowhere, the medical notes show clear warning signs of deterioration.

You're not engaging with the evidence, you completely play down the substandard care and up until now I don't think you acknowledged it at all.

Do we want police to say "ah well it was a terrible unit, there probably wasn't a serial killer"? That's how these people get away with it for so long.

I've said what I wanted them to do. Investigate it properly and thoroughly. Like they were supposed to. They haven't done that. The hospital has gotten away with the substandard care because the collapses and deaths were put on LL.

No it hasn't been done. All you could offer was that they deferred to Dewi Evans, which is exactly what it seems, they only ruled it out because Dewi said so.

How many medical experts saying this was deliberate harm would satisfy you?

They didn't collapse out of nowhere, the medical notes show clear warning signs of deterioration.

They did not, most of them were very much stable before she got near them. Even she said they lost babies unexpectedly. Unless you count her attacking some babies multiple times to make it look like they were deteriorating naturally.

You're not engaging with the evidence, you completely play down the substandard care and up until now I don't think you acknowledged it at all.

Because it's a separate issue to a murderer on the unit and doesn't explain what happened to the babies.

I've said what I wanted them to do. Investigate it properly and thoroughly. Like they were supposed to. They haven't done that. The hospital has gotten away with the substandard care because the collapses and deaths were put on LL.

They investigated and came to the conclusion LL was responsible. You don't like that because you'd rather believe it was poor care even if that's not the truth.

@Firefly1987

How many medical experts saying this was deliberate harm would satisfy you?

I'm not sure, as there are many saying it wasn't, so it would be hard to put a figure on it.

Of course the police didn't get an expert panel like the NCA advised, because Dewi Evans said it wasn't necessary, so as previously stated, blame the police for the quality of the experts they put forward and the balls they've made of this case

They did not, most of them were very much stable before she got near them.

They weren't stable, they might have been read as stable incorrectly but again as previously stated this hospital had a history of ignoring the obvious.

Because it's a separate issue to a murderer on the unit and doesn't explain what happened to the babies.

It DOES explain what happened to the babies.

And even though you say it doesn't, why don't you seem to care that no one is being held accountable for the substandard care? Does the substandard care not matter because you believe the babies collapsed and died for another reason?

They investigated and came to the conclusion LL was responsible. You don't like that because you'd rather believe it was poor care even if that's not the truth.

That was not how a police force are supposed to investigate. They came to the conclusion it could have only been deliberate harm because of Dewi Evans.

Other way around, you want to believe that it was a serial killer even though it's quite clearly not the truth.

@Firefly1987

It's not a fantasy it happened. Alarms went off seconds after she was seen standing over the baby. FACT.

How have you established that this is a fact exactly?

Saw this news today:-

https://www.thejusticegap.com/ccrc-head-of-investigations-to-step-down-from-letby-review/

Wow. Wonder how much longer that's going to delay things.

How many medical experts saying this was deliberate harm would satisfy you?

Show me three neonatologists who are currently or recently practising, but were not involved in the original prosecution, who believes the evidence shows that these deaths and collapses were caused deliberately.

Let’s start there. You can just start with one if you like.

That’s exactly what I thought.

I also listened to her friend Dawn’s video about their friendship, interesting.