Lucy Letby (2)

[Oftenaddled]

Not only the second thread of course, but maybe with them filling so fast it is time to start numbering them?

And before the unusual sentencing with separate whole life orders for every offence, you had unusual arrangements at the beginning of the trial: anonymity orders, normally only for national security, granted to a raft of adult witnesses who were interested parties. Why? What justified treating this case differently, even before there was a conviction?

Is it possible for her to take it to the European Court of Human Rights ?

The more that is coming out the more it appears her human rights have been violated, it seems to be clear she did not have a fair trial.

I do believe (on the whole due to medical evidence) that she is innocent and an urgent review needs to happen. However, there are a couple of points which give me cause to think, such as the text saying the father of the one of the babies was on the floor crying when he has stated he was not. Then the comment of ‘he’s not leaving here alive’.
@Oftenaddled do you have any thoughts or info on the above?

Imo, all the main players (Dewi/Cheshire police and CPS/the consultants/Judge Goss) all genuinely, hand on heart, believe she is guilty and made it their number one mission in life to convict her by any means necessary. In fairness to them, most of us would stop at (almost) nothing to ensure someone who has harmed children is punished severely; this is why the justice system must follow the rules. It is human nature to protect the vulnerable and to want vengeance against people who harm them.

By doing this, they've not only denied Letby a fair trial and deprived her of her rights, but if there is even a remote possibility she is guilty, they have demolished any chance she will ever be safely convicted. The precedents they've set in allowing a trial by media, allowing Dewi to act the way he has, ignoring CPS advice, and using the wrong CPS have paved the way for further MOJ and runs the risk of giving people who are guilty and have been convicted on expert and circumstantial evidence a chance to avoid justice. The whole thing is a national embarrassment.

I can totally understand the FB searches.

When one of mine was born, I was on an internet parents' group (not MN) and someone else had a baby within two weeks. Their baby fell ill shortly after birth and we had, like Mn, updates along the lines until they died around 6 weeks later.
We didn't use real names, but they had shared the baby's first and middle and it was quite an unusual combination. I came off the internet group shortly after, but at about a year after baby had died, I thought of them, and I searched the name, and a memorial came up, which gave me her parents' names. I went onto Friends United (didn't have FB) to see if I could find her.
I really wanted to know how her mum, who I felt a connection to after seeing what she went through, was doing. I was hoping to find that she was doing well, maybe pregnant again.

That was now over 20 years ago, and I still think about her quite often. I'd love to know how they're all doing; I really want her to have had a "good life" after I knew her.

I don't have her name, and the memorial (and the internet group) has gone from the internet, so I can't FB search her, but every now and then I do put the babies name into google in the hope something will come up.

I can totally understand if I, from words on a page, feel this connection with someone I never met and I knew for less than two months, because of going through an emotional rollercoaster with, then LL would feel the same for babies she'd nursed and comforted the parents.

Out of curiosity, does anyone know at what point the parents of the indictment babies were approached by the police in relation to the investigation?

Most of them were approached the day the police investigation was opened - I am not sure if baby N was under scrutiny yet at that stage.

Thank you.

I wonder how much information was given to them at that point.

I don't read too much into either, thanks, @Starlightstargazer

The first - he could have crouched, buckled at the knees, bent double etc crying, the way you do when you are hit by a wave of grief. He could have leaned on a wall, sat by a door etc. Or she may have dramatised the situation which would be silly and immature, but not murderous.

The second - the first triplet had died the day before, and nobody there understood why. The second baby was in crisis and for most of the time, nobody understood why - there were delays waiting for an x-ray to be read and the consultant was panicked herself, waiting for an ambulance to transport the baby to a more advanced unit.

The comment, if it was made, was made away from the baby and his parents, and honestly? I presume it was expressing a genuine fear of a sadly predictable outcome. You might want to damp it down and stop people from spreading panic and anxiety, but I don't think it was sinister - it was said while the baby was in crisis and seemed in danger of dying. That's why they were waiting for emergency transport.

That's so interesting.

In regard to the comment of 'he's not leaving here alive is he?', the doctor who said she was shocked by Letby saying that had herself said that she desperately wanted the baby to be transferred because they were out of their depth there and she hoped he could be helped elsewhere, she also said that she was counting down the minutes until the transfer team arrived....so it seems she was thinking similar herself, why would she be so shocked that Letby said it out loud?

I can see why Letby would have been concerned about that given what had just happened with the other 2 triplets and with the doctors themselves panicking and wanting the baby to go to another hospital.

“On the floor” is a medical colloquialism usually used in the context of test results being very low, so I can see it might have been used figuratively to mean “extremely low”.

Or, she was exaggerating wildly which is distasteful but hardly a crime.

Although “the floor” is used in the USA and Canada to mean “the ward”, I don’t expect that’s it, unless she had been watching too much Grey’s Anatomy.

With regard to “he’s not getting out of here alive”, it’s a bit of a dramatic expression, but saying “he’s not going to make it, is he?” to colleagues would hardly have been a surprising utterance under the circumstances. Nursing staff are often upset and worried about their patients, especially early in their careers.

I think so as long as the domestic routes are exhausted first, so if the CCRC refuse to refer it then I think the options may be a new submission with more new evidence etc, a judicial review or going to the European court of human rights

Thanks for coming back to me. I’ve really valued your insights and knowledge of the case.

Yes, what was different about the baby K case compared to the rest for which there was no verdict? Was it just that in this case they had Jayaram testimony?

I'm so curious about who leaked the Jayaram recording!

😂 Aye.

This is a very good point. There is also a huge deal of possibilities between being an evil murderer and an angelic nurse. She could be not entirely innocent of murder and still have made mistakes, acted strangely, been inappropriate etc. If the ward was chaotic as it sounds she might well have done things wrong. It certainly sounds like multiple staff made quite serious mistakes.

Well, you can’t ’not be entirely innocent of murder’ - that means you’re guilty!

I don’t think she was.

It seems to be pretty common though - the recent case of the boy who was injured by crocodile up to 40 staff accessed his records illegally. I'm sure far far more people working in professional fields look up patients etc on social media.

It was a typo!

Apologies, what for?

I reckon they had already got an inkling that Dr Evans was a liability so they chose the case that didn't involve his "expertise".

I have never really understood this stalking online business either. You choose what is on there. There is no expectation of privacy if the account is not locked down, so anyone can legitimately access it. It’s the modern equivalent of criticising someone for reading a long newspaper article you instigated yourself.

That said, looking is somewhat tasteless I suppose. But nothing worse than that.

Im not looking for a fight. What is it that has you so convinced she murdered them?
At the time of the trial I was convinced she was guilty but after reading all the recent revelations I'm leaning towards a huge MOJ.
You seem so absolutely certain and I just wonder why.

But what if those notes showed birth trauma or issues on scans or that the mum had / didnt have certain drugs during labour.
Why were me and another poster to have been quizzed on our pregnancies and labours when our babies were ill? My baby was in ICU in Alder Hey. I think Alder Hey probably know what they're doing and would only have asked for details they needed