Lucy Letby

[kkloo]

New thread as the last one has filled up.

I just dont know. And that's the truth. So you're basically saying the consultants are liars ?

Hang on, so @rubbishatballet and Daygloboo, you’re both arguing that because babies in NICU are by definition likely to have pathologies it should be for someone accused of harm to prove they didn’t do it rather than for the accuser to prove that they did? And the basis for reversing the burden of proof is that a potential serial killer could plan to use the fact that the babies are already compromised, and/or problems with the unit to hide their crimes?

Where have I argued any of that?

I think it’s a number of factors.
Seven consultant paediatricians but only one neonatologist.
The standard of care was well below what was expected.
At least one doctor misplaced a breathing tube into the oesophagus that led to a baby’s death.
There was a spike in deaths and once they had the idea that it might be foul play, they played detective, drew up a defective shift chart that didn’t even include some of the collapses she was accused of.
Then there was group think.
Once an idea takes hold it’s difficult to shift that. The doctors would have to admit that they themselves may have been responsible for the low level care and hygiene standards on the ward. That’s a hard thing to accept and it is easier to say She did it. She’s a killer, rather than Very serious mistakes were made and we have to share some of the responsibility.

No, I think they were probably deluded and thought the unit had functioned fine before despite issues so that couldn't possibly be the reason and I think they were missing signs the babies were deteriorating and so they genuinely were surprised when babies kept collapsing and dying.

However I do think now that some of them probably can't completely ignore it in their minds anymore but don't have the balls to say it out loud, we do know that Dr Gibbs said in the Netflix documentary that he has a tiny, tiny doubt because no one saw her do it.

I think if his doubt was that tiny then he would have kept it to himself, not said it to millions on Netflix.

Some tortuous logic goes on when asking these kinds of questions in medical and legal fields.

From personal experience:

The "can only ever occur in child abuse" metaphyseal fracture has also been observed in collagen disorders such as but not limited to Osteogenesis Imperfecta - there are a few relatively rare such conditions which cause bone fragility, and it can fluctuate depending on age, hormones etc. These conditions are still not very well understood.

When my sons case was ongoing, I discovered this. There were a few familial traits on both sides that sounded familiar. I got my solicitor to brooch the subject with all parties, and to possibly ask for permission for a skin biopsy for my son.

I was subsequently told that asking for said biopsy bolstered their suspicions that I had FII, and pushing for it could indicate further abuse on my part, as "on the balance of probabilities" the fractures were caused by abuse. In addition it was pointed out that children with medical conditions / disabilities are over-represented in child abuse cases.

Needless to say, I backed down, if I hadn't it would have added weight to their case I was arrogant and had a problem with authority. Which I didn't until "authority" bulldozed through my life and that of my sons.

My son is in his 30s and has had various joint and ligament issues throughout his life, but being a typical bloke, hasn't had them properly evaluated. I have selective hypermobility, with sacroiliac joint dysfunction and TMJ. Like my grandmother I can still put my hands flat on the floor from a standing position with straight legs.

Things like maternal Vitamin D syndrome and any possible impact of the effects of being my Dad beinh exposed to radiation were all dismissed as irrelevant, because metaphyseal fractures can only be caused by abuse in a baby, except actually..... that's not true.

And everything got circled back to my having a psychological problem with zero previous pathology.

"It's just not a good idea to make not being able to 100% rule something out a legal standard."
Maybe standards are too low

How many patients are harmed each year by killer nurses, vs how many by nurse shortages? If we institute an atmosphere where nurses get fired on consultants' "gut feeling" and unevidenced say-so, and where mutual suspicion is encouraged, who will want to work as a nurse? What nurse will want to care for the sickest patients, especially if she was already on shift for some collapses? How much would that worsen the already-bad nursing shortages, and how many patients would be harmed as a result? How the Thirlwall Inquiry can make sensible recommendations without considering any of that is hard to understand.

@MyrtleLion

At least one doctor misplaced a breathing tube into the oesophagus that led to a baby’s death.

Isn't that the same doctor who said she was shocked that Lucy Letby had said 'he's not leaving here alive is he?' in relation to the third triplet. The same doctor said she really wanted him transferred out of there because they were out of their depth and she was literally counting down the minutes until the transfer team arrived, so clearly had similar concerns as Letby but she was shocked when Letby said similar?

I'm not surprised that Letby thought that considering no one seemed to have a clue what to do and the place was in chaos, that same doctor was said to have went out for a cigarette during resuscitation, and I believe she's the one who the mother said was coughing and spluttering into her hands without washing them.

I'm thinking less in terms of legal frameworks at this moment. I'm thinking more in terms of MMO. I'm just thinking that as that setting would be a very good cover for someone who wanted to do harm, it might be extra important to think of the big picture and throw all possibilities into the mix.

That's still a bit of a stretch isnt it. You're basically saying a bunch of consultants all put their ethics to one side, hunkered down and devised a plan to totally get themselves off the hook and throw an innocent person to the wolves. What. All of them ? Nobody questioned it. Nobody said hang on a minute. They're not stupid, these people, they must have had reasons. I dont believe they were just weaving in facts to a chosen narrative.

Not sure what MMO is. I don't think your scenario is relevant to Lucy Letby's. It's not a small thing to have a cause of death at autopsy. If pathologists are doubtful or flummoxed, they can say so. And bear in mind, these are the only people who have examined the bodies, whoever joins the case afterwards.

I've seen the chaos as cover argument before, too. Obviously we can imagine scenarios where that would work. But why then are we asked to believe that Lucy Letby murdered and harmed children right in front of the doctors treating them, as as are told for baby A, baby E, baby H, baby M, baby P. Why not wait to do it at a time when she was less likely to be spotted?

So, what you are imagining could possibly work - as a sequence of events rather than a conviction case - but what you are imagining isn't what happened in Lucy Letby's case

I'm thinking more in terms of MMO

Motive, Means and Opportunity is a useful framework for triaging suspects when we already know there was a crime. It's not a good framework for inferring that there was a crime, just because there was a theoretical MMO for someone to commit one.

Well, at least one of them, Ravi Jayaram, told an untruth to the court. He said Letby hadn't called him when Baby K deteriorated but in emails later disclosed to Thirlwall he said she had.

I don't know whether that was a deliberate lie from him or a fuck up, but it was one of those things.

And if someone made a mistake then how can they prove it was a mistake and not deliberate?

That's not what she described.

One of the consultants did indeed say hang on a minute (John Gibbs). One hadn't worked there for most of the convictions and hadn't been present for any of the (Susan Holt). Three of them made it clear at Thirlwall that they had no personal suspicions of deliberate harm but listened to their clinical lead (Murthy Saladi, Dr V and Dr ZA). One of them has proven (I think it is fair to state) an unreliable witness to past events (Dr Jayaram). Both Dr Jayaram and Dr Brearey were clear at the time that they had only statistics (which Dr Brearey wasn't great at) and gut feeling to go on.

This group of people became increasingly convinced that Lucy Letby was inflicting deliberate harm, after the event, with their leadership arguing strongly in favour of that view. The alternative - that their unit had not been safe - would certainly have been hard to accept. Groupthink and cognitive bias are the explanations most people have offered for this, not a deliberate conspiracy.

She's not saying that at all, she's saying they got the idea in their heads and it all escalated from there, there was no deliberate plan to hunker down and devise a plan to throw an innocent person to the wolves, it's not a stretch, this is how this kind of thing often happens.

Consultants wouldn't be exempt either.

Obviously yes, such a system would penalise the less powerful because that's how these things always work. Consultants would be better placed than HCAs or cleaners to avoid the sharp end of how can you 100% prove you couldn't have done it, but some of them would inevitably fall foul. So we'd stop having consultant doctors in entire specialisms.

Well, I would have thought the two things are linked rather more closely ...finding a crime exists, snd working out how it was done, are, I would have thought, somewhat intertwined. Perhaps police work and the law are currently a bit too....I dont know what the word is....reductive ? Perhaps it's time for multiple, more sophisticated angles to be employed.

I think we can all agree that multiple, more sophisticated ways of inquiring were needed here. That's why it's such a shame the police didn't employ a team of experts to do a multidisciplinary review from the outset. And there is certainly a campaign to have external teams like this available for hospitals experiencing spikes in deaths, too. It would be great to see that happen.

Children and babies are most likely to be murdered by their care givers so perhaps every home with an under 18 should have cctv in it and we should be given body cams along side the bounty bag when we give birth (is that still a thing?).

There is reasonable doubt and I think there will need to be yet another inquiry into how we ended up down this path and the damage it has done to people’s view of the police, the courts, the nhs, expert witnesses etc etc. It feels like if you were accused of something terrible you could flip a coin to get an outcome as much as a fair trial by your peers. Especially if you have done anything in your life that could be interpreted as being a bit weird.

I still find it a stretch to suggest a load of consultants all came up with this idea with no critical awareness or self - awareness st all. They had a lot of experience between them. I think it's perfectly plausible that they got a sense things werent right. It's hard to believe they all indulged in groupthink and cognitive bias andcwerent able to step back at all andcweigh things up with a balanced approach.

Have you ever met a consultant?

I had a receptionist on the phone with me in tears once because the consultant was screaming at her because she broke his PC monitor. It didn't work, she had been in the building, ergo it was her fault.

When I attended and switched it on for him, I wasn't thanked; instead, it became my fault. I should have magically known it was switched off and should have attended to switch it on before he arrived.

That is the type of ego you're dealing with with many (not all) consultants.

Glad to hear that. I hope it happens.

Exactly, there's a possibility, there's also a possibility that someone else did something, how can they prove they didn't?

People cannot be locked up just because there's a possibility that they may have done something. I wouldn't be ok with that for anything, and certainly not a whole life order, that's no better than a death sentence,

I know there are arrogant consultants. But they arent all like that. I think it is changing. The days when they were all.men and expected to be treated like gods is disappearing.