Lucy Letby

[kkloo]

New thread as the last one has filled up.

I’m a HCP & occasionally bring confidential information home with me (as I work in various sites).

These are taken into work as soon as feasible, then shredded in confidential waste.

It is not common practice to store them anywhere at home, at all. And is breaching confidentiality, as well as being against professional regulations.

These threads remindsme of the “Charlie’s Army” situation (regarding Charlie Guard).

Just conspiracy-theory bonkerdom.

Seriously absolutely embarrassed for you too. As for mental gymnastics, some of the "expert" testimony delivered by Dewi Evans et al knocks me into a cocked hat. Are you a crusader from the Lucy Letby sub reddit perchance? I smell a distinct whiff of dogmatism. This case has thrown up serious issues with the justice system, how unsuited it is to cases invoving complicated medical evidence and how adversarial court proceedings can further victimise the victims when it is allowed to run unchecked and unscrutinised.

Your thoughts on the alleged irrelevance of obsetric notes and their being witheld from trial would be of interest given the damning BBC programme recently aired, and the broad scope of failures in both maternity and NICU departments at the COCH during Letbys time there.

Obviously Lucy Letby should have disposed of the papers properly.

It's just not a remotely strong claim for murder, when medical experts (and the original pathologists) are saying the children died natural deaths

You mention Charlie Gard. If eminent doctors like Neena Modi and Philip Bennett had come out publicly in that situation, saying his treatment was all wrong, that would have been very different from people assembling online to back the parents in a forlorn hope. The cases are opposites. At this stage, the established medical opinion is firmly in Lucy Letby's favour.

Here's a profile for Philip Bennett, the obstetrician who challenged prosecution experts on radio 4 the other night: https://profiles.imperial.ac.uk/p.bennett

This is very much not a situation where people concerned about the verdict are refusing to listen to the experts

Are you really saying you cannot distinguish between this case and Charlie Gard? (NB spelling) - they’re in no way comparable.

Yes. It is always worth recommending this description of how Dr Jayaram's testimony changed and changed, on just this one baby. A really well-written piece, fully sourced: https://www.reddit.com/r/LucyLetbyTrials/s/1FiBvnqLpY

And the evidence of the chief medical witness who hadn’t even read the baby’s birth and medical notes was not self serving and evasive?

You haven’t answered why the prosecution didn’t even bother to review the babies medical history and prevented the defence from doing so.

In the case of baby O, it would have been surprising if a traumatic and difficult Caesarian birth two day prior to his death didn’t contribute to his collapse and liver damage (and a very similar things has happened to other babies).

The accusation that she injected him with air in two locations as well as physically damaging his liver almost immediately after birth in a busy neo natal unit appears to be backed by just as much evidence.

Your confidence that the doctors and managers definitely didn’t lie to cover their own huge failings is interesting.

I've been following this only when private eye have had sections about it. From what I have read about the case in that magazine, I don't think I could have made a judgement one way or the other as a member of the jury.

Imagine the feelings she would be having if she really is innocent.

But her writings said some very odd things. She was either very incompetent and chastising herself in the writing for being inadequate professionally, or she is a murderer and was confessing it. I cant see that there is any other way of interpreting such weird personal outpourings onto paper. Wasnt there " I am evil". Who writes that that isnt either quite mentally disordered, or is actually a criminal. And looking up the families..and taking rotas home..stacks of them. That's not normal behaviour.

I think everyone is in agreement that this is what you should do - most people are just pointing out that not shredding things quickly, is not a sign of being a murderer.

From a confidentiality perspective, if you have accidentally taken something home, you should shred at home - as it is the travel that is the biggest risk as far as data protection. However, I don’t think your error here makes you more likely to be a murderer though ;)

You must mean doctors not managers because one of the very first things anyone who spent 5 mins reading about this case would know is she was protected by her managers. It was the doctors being thrown under the bus if anything. They were literally forced to apologise to her and told she was coming back onto the unit. I guess that's why they finally went to the police.

But you dont accidentally take home bundles and bundles of stuff.

I mean some of the nurses I’ve spoken to have. It’s not uncommon and gets shredded at home.

It was handover sheets - so one per day not bundles and bundles all at once. She just never got rid of them.

Her writings said some very odd things but they don't come down on either the side of innocence or the side of guilt. She was in a very odd and stressful situation. She'd been removed from her job and had learned from her union that the consultants were accusing her of killing babies. There was gossip about it in the staff canteen and in clinics. She took a grievance which found that the consultants had no basis for the accusation and she should be allowed to return. She wasn't allowed to return. She saw her GP and had counselling. She was on antidepressants and had thoughts of suicide.

The police opened an investigation. The press reported it (though not her name). The police spoke to the consultants and to more and more of her colleagues but didn't take her up on her request to be interviewed. A year into their investigation, they arrested her instead and found the notes.

That's what the two years when she wrote the notes were like. And of course notes are a way to calm down and deal with intrusive thoughts. But it's not surprising if she was breaking down in those circumstances, is it - guilty or innocent? I don't think the notes tell us anything except that she was in terrible distress.

But what were their reasons for doing that ?

Exactly. And never got round to shredding. Then the more you have the longer it takes so you put it off..

I think this is symptomatic of the problems of the evidence presented though. Having a lot of handover sheets might be evidence of someone who hoards paperwork that should have been shredded. It doesn't indicate that someone harmed babies. I think it's a hard sell to say that they're trophies if only a tiny percentage related to the babies in the indictment, they're not "possessions" of the babies and they weren't stored in any particular special way.

Either it wasn’t intentional, or they were at the end of a long day and the shredder was in a different bit of the hospital, or in one case the shredder broke and wasn’t replaced for ages..

There's a bit of a crossover, though - two of the consultants were managers: Dr Brearey and Dr Jayaram. You are right that other managers thought the doctors were wrong, and there are indicators that some of them still think so. So the managers were split.

I thought she was a hoarder until I spoke to nurses, and it turns out to be quite common.

Equally, I run a business and always have docs that need shredding. They tend to get piled up as shredding takes aaages. I’m not a hoarder I’m just lazy.

Re ‘trophies’ - some people watch too many serial killer movies.

I don't think all this speculation is useful for the families. I have no idea if she is innocent or guilty, I have shifted my position a few times. But I keep coming back to the Court Case. If you really were innocent, why wouldn't you testify? Do everything in your power to prove your innocence.

She did testify.

She did testify?

@Oftenaddled were they? They certainly didn't have the power to get her off the unit-otherwise they would have. I think when two "managers" (also doctors) are in agreement with all the other doctors that one nurse is deliberately harming babies that kind of trumps the other managers "feels" that she's a super safe conscientious nurse! I think they were clinical leads not actual managers.

It's a bit rich and hypocritical to bring "feels" into the situation when the whole case was built around two gossipy consultants "feels" and a paucity of direct evidence.