Lucy Letby

[kkloo]

New thread as the last one has filled up.

This video again?

You posted this in the last thread too, this video of this family saying they never found out why their babys lung collapsed even though they had previously said that she had pneumonia.

https://www.cheshire-live.co.uk/news/miracle-chester-baby-comes-back-8137115

Thought you had left the echo chamber for loftier forums... like Tattle 🙄

Point is things like over feeding or air down an NG tube would take time and there would be substantial risk of someone walking in. As for punching a baby in the liver through an incubator without making it cry or causing immediate repercussions...... well, we've had that discussion multiple times and all you've done is simpered about how you don't even want to think about how she did it, but Dewi said so so it must be true. And that, sweetcheeks, is the problem with the whole case "Dewi Evans and his Macabre and Mysterious Murders.... "

Why not change the thread title to the Lucy Letby is innocent supporter thread

The consultants did not think Letby was murdering babies - they simply wanted her to be removed from the ward due to a high coincidence of collapses and deaths during her presence

Though posters on here are keen to spin it another way

They highlighted their concerns to the powers that be and were continuously rebuffed

I did see a few months ago that someone was charged with corporate manslaughter and I strongly suspect it’s the individual who could have acted sooner and saved many lives if they had listened to the consultants and removed her from the ward.

Why not familiarise yourself with the medical evidence?

Agree with this-I find it terrifying how happy some people are to just accept it's "probably natural causes" even if it's not the truth. It's almost impossible for Shoo Lee and his panel to rule out deliberate harm anyway. The best he can offer is alternative theories-which might not be true. And happen to contradict other experts' opinions. And people involved in the trial have said were already ruled out.

The thing is, if Shoo Lee had ended up admitting it looked like deliberate harm, we'd need to rely on circumstantial evidence to find the killer anyway. I wonder if handover sheets and weird behaviour would suddenly be important then...I do wonder how these people would ever accept the police finding the killer when they think circumstantial evidence is meaningless!

Even if she was caught on CCTV or witnessed it'd be circumstantial because how could you prove it wasn't a coincidence the child collapsed shortly after she did something? Just like that mothers experience in the vid I posted-which people don't even find compelling. A witness-but nah it means nothing! I wonder just WHAT they want.

There were arrests and they were bailed last July, but there have been no charges.

@kkloo She had to pretend to be upset so baby E's mum didn't get suspicious (also why she poisoned baby F with insulin) because the mum practically caught her attacking baby E. And because she has no idea about normal human emotion, she ended up being way OTT and almost like she was as upset as the parents.

Yeah I posted that vid before, which is why I'm curious people are acting like no one saw anything untoward happen-when they clearly did.

You mean Dr Jayaram, who claimed that Lucy Letby did nothing to help baby K and must have dislodged her breathing tube ... and then left her alone with the baby again that same night, raised no objections to her being on the ward, often alone, for another four months, and didn't mention the incident with baby K to anyone for over a year after it happened?

I don't think he or anyone else will face corporate manslaughter charges. The CPS will be aware that the defence could use the weaknesses in Lucy Letby's case to help their client. I'm sure that would be good for her case, but it's hardly a farce they would want to go through.

If Shoo Lee's investigations had revealed deliberate harm, you'd need to know how quick or slow acting that harm was to work out who might be in the frame for it. But he didn't.

Remember - the prosecution case wasn't, maybe it was natural causes but we think deliberate harm is more likely. It was, we've ruled out natural causes altogether. That's the basis on which Lucy Letby was convicted. That's the claim which no other neonatalogist or pathologist has been found to support since the trial.

The coroners at the time of the deaths thought it was natural causes. Prior to the finger pointing at Letby no one thought the babies were murdered and after the trial multiple experts have said the data shows non murderous reasons for everything that happened. A lot of hoops have to be jumped through for each of the babies to have been murdered and it seems reasonable to doubt that the babies were murdered in the fashion that has been presented or that they were even murdered at all.

Really piss poor, after the fact, circumstantial evidence about fucking Facebook searches, post it notes and looking a bit blank does not add up to a serial killer. It’s embarrassing how poor the evidence is. It’s all a bit ‘I saw Goody Letby conversing with the devil under the full moon’ and I think it says something genuinely unpleasant about human nature.

It was the mother of baby P who said she seemed as upset as the parents when the child died, I thought. I don't remember mother of baby E saying it?

OR, she actually was upset.

The police didn't seem to find that compelling either, maybe Letby wasn't there, do we know for sure that she was? or maybe it was because the parents had previously said the baby had been found to have pneumonia.

I don't either.

Corporate manslaughter requires there to have been a gross breach of the organisations duty of care that contributed to the death/s. If the police refer the case, the CPS have to assess whether there's a realistic prospect of conviction. And any defendant might argue that the failure to act on reports about Letby didn't contribute to the deaths, because there's insufficient evidence she actually killed them.

She said it at Thirlwall.

Thanks for that.

I know she cried when remembering baby E's resuscitation at the trial, and said how difficult it has been. I won't go into the circumstances here but it's obvious why that resuscitation would have been particularly distressing if you read up on it.

Lucy Letby wasn't charged with that case

I know. Just goes to show how hard it is to bring to trial. Don't see why we can't still bring it up, you think the entire trial verdicts were wrong anyway so it's not like what she was charged with makes any difference to you.

The mother didn't see her doing anything - she was just at her child's cotside when she came downstairs. ICU babies aren't supposed to be left alone.

No one would see her do anything bar the liver injury and whatever she did to baby E. A nurse with a syringe or her removing tubes or even turning off monitors wouldn't look unusual. How would a parent with no medical training possibly know what she did even IF she did something? Although the blaring alarms moments later might be a clue, for those of us not blind to the possibility of deliberate harm.

Thanks, yes I just read a bit about it and can see why it would have been particularly distressing.

What do you mean 'it just goes to show how hard it is to bring it to trial'?
That implies that you think that this is enough, for parents to say we think Letby may have harmed our baby because I walked in and she was standing over the cot and had a blank stare and then the alarms went off, even though the baby was found to have pneumonia and we don't even know if it was in fact Lucy Letby who was there.

This doesn't show 'how hard it is to bring it to trial', it just shows that you will accept an extremely low bar of evidence.

It's just not an example of her being seen doing anything with the baby. It's an account of a baby born at 27 weeks gestation, with pneumonia, collapsing, while her nurse was in the room, and there has never been any indication the event was suspicious.

Swap Lucy Letby out. If it's another nurse, are you suspicious? If the only "proof" is Lucy Letby was there, you can attribute everything that ever happened while she was on shift to her. But that will only show how low a bar you have for suspecting her. It doesn't strengthen your case at all.

Just goes to show how hard it is to bring to trial. Don't see why we can't still bring it up, you think the entire trial verdicts were wrong anyway so it's not like what she was charged with makes any difference to you

I’ve seen some puerile arguments on here but I think this thread has hit an all time low.

I've watched the video. It didn't seem they saw anything suspicious just Letby looking at the baby? They say they only felt suspicious in retrospect from what I understand when Letby had been arrested for murder. Which is completely understandable. Goodness knows what would go through your mind on seeing that on the news and knowing your baby was looked after by Letby. I think this really hammers home why it is so important that this case should stand up beyond reproach because putting Letby aside if the conclusion that she murdered or tried to murder all these babies is wrong then all these patents have not only been put through the trauma of their baby dying or coming close to it but how much more traumatic to believe your baby has been murdered. The families deserve the justice system to do its very best to get to the truth.

I think regardless of which nurse it happened to be that it's very strange to run off the minute you see the mum as if you've just been caught doing something, yes. She wasn't the nurse, she was never seen again, didn't come back for the alarms (wonder why when LL always LOVED the drama of a resus) too risky that time. Mum caught her.

OK so what DO you need to see her doing for you to believe it then?

How many times are you going to ask this question?

You love going round and round and round in circles typing the same thing over and over.

@Firefly1987 How exactly do you think Letby collapsed a lung? Without instantly setting off alarms?

And don't answer with your usual "I can't even bare to think..." THINK. Go off and do some research and then come back and let us know how plausible you think it is that Letby did this.

She walked away from the cot, by the parents' account. No running in that video.

She would have been quite junior in 2013 and it should have been the more experienced nurses managing the resuscitation. Someone would have had to look after the other children on the unit while they did that.

There's nothing suspicious about the events described. It's a pity the parents didn't mention the pneumonia they discussed in an earlier media appearance, since that can precipitate a collapsed lung.