Active discussions

Help protect children from gaming harms.

Take our survey

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Lucy Letby (2)

204 replies

Oftenaddled · 30/07/2026 10:01

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

OP posts:
Thread gallery
5
PinkTonic · Yesterday 18:09

I was reading on X earlier the transcript of when Ben Myers was asking about how the Lucy did it chart was compiled. Jeez, why on earth do they persist in talking utter bollocks using such flowery language, when it even causes them to confuse and misinterpret each other! It could have taken half the time if they asked direct questions and got direct answers.

And that comment from the judge. Why not tell the idiot to answer the question if you know he’s going round in circles. I know BM did sometimes, but Evans was allowed to answer back.

Firefly1987 · Yesterday 18:46

Dolphin37 · Yesterday 17:17

they know about serial killers and female killers. They have no trouble believing she did it

I don't think anyone doesn't "know about serial killers and female killers" (that they exist), but we also know how rare they are (on the order of 1 in a million nurses), relative to alternate explanations (misdiagnoses and medical errors). So I need correspondingly strong proof that it's indeed the rare thing. If a kid tell me he saw a tiger on the street, I'll be very skeptical -- not because I don't know about tigers, but because fabulist kids / actors in costume / AI videos are so much more common than roaming tigers. And that's when the cost of error is just getting fooled by a kid, rather than a wrongful life sentence + letting health system errors go unfixed + wasting millions on useless inquiry + worsening the nursing shortage by scaring people from nursing.

So the baseline picture leads to the need for rock-solid proof, and instead we get things like "when you know, you know" or "baby collapsed, died" from the main medical expert. Or diagnosis by exclusion, when we know that doctors missing some pathology is quite common: e.g. one mother in the case was not given antibiotics for hours, presumably because doctors "excluded" infection. It's the big mismatch between the level of proof needed, and the type of proof offered, that's the core problem with this case.

Show quote history

What sort of stats did you come up with for Erin Patterson? After all no one actually saw her do anything wrong, the test results might not have been accurate and all her guests could've just got sick by coincidence. I mean that's much more likely than a mass killer poisoning her dinner guests right? It's practically unheard of.

Firefly1987 · Yesterday 18:50

EyeLevelStick · Yesterday 06:09

You have dodged Frequency’s question.

Who in that courtroom was competent to “test” and/or dismiss the idea that a mother with antiphospholipid syndrome might pass antibodies to her unborn child? We know the child didn’t have the disease, but we don’t know whether or not antibodies were passed on.

And don’t come back with anything about plumbers. The lack of defence experts is part of the problem here, likely caused by the structuring of the trial.

Show quote history

Expert Testimony Details

  • Case Review: Professor Kinsey was asked to analyze the medical and blood records for specific infants, including Child A, Child B, and Child E. 1, 2]
  • Findings on Child E: She testified that a catastrophic bleed suffered by Child E before death was "not spontaneous" and was unassociated with any pre-existing natural condition or clotting disorder. 1]
  • Blood Counts and Conditions: She informed the court that underlying maternal conditions or blood disorders did not affect the twins (Child A and Child B), and their blood counts remained normal during their time on the unit. 1]
  • Skin Discoloration: Professor Kinsey noted that unusual descriptions of skin patterns—such as irregular pink areas over a blue-grey background observed during Child A's collapse—supported concerns of unnatural clinical events like air embolism
Lucy Letby

Lucy Letby: Baby's catastrophic bleed not spontaneous, trial told

A blood expert tells nurse Lucy Letby's murder trial a baby's internal bleed was "not spontaneous".

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-63798909

Original poster
Oftenaddled · Yesterday 21:23

Firefly1987 · Yesterday 18:50

Expert Testimony Details

  • Case Review: Professor Kinsey was asked to analyze the medical and blood records for specific infants, including Child A, Child B, and Child E. 1, 2]
  • Findings on Child E: She testified that a catastrophic bleed suffered by Child E before death was "not spontaneous" and was unassociated with any pre-existing natural condition or clotting disorder. 1]
  • Blood Counts and Conditions: She informed the court that underlying maternal conditions or blood disorders did not affect the twins (Child A and Child B), and their blood counts remained normal during their time on the unit. 1]
  • Skin Discoloration: Professor Kinsey noted that unusual descriptions of skin patterns—such as irregular pink areas over a blue-grey background observed during Child A's collapse—supported concerns of unnatural clinical events like air embolism
Show quote history

When you read the sources your summary has linked there, you see that these headlines are misleading.

For the first two (citation 1)

'Ben Myers KC, defending, said her comments on Child E established only that the bleed was not a result of "a blood abnormality" and did not rule out the possibility that he could have had a gastro-intestinal haemorrhage. He added her observations did "not assist with what the cause of death actually was".
The professor agreed that all three suggestions were correct".

She was confirming that there was no spontaneous rupture of the blood vessels (as with nosebleeds) not that the bleeding couldn't have a natural cause like a gastro-intestinal haemorrhage.

Her testimony also confirmed that neither child had an abnormal blood count. Several of the minor experts cleared up points like this - details that it made sense to check and that nobody has disputed.

As I've posted above, Professor McKinsey told the court that she was not an expert on APS. She also explained that she was relying on the literature for her information on what Lee's sign looked like. She was struck by how well Dr Jayaram's descriptions of baby A's rash fitted descriptions in that literature. She admitted to Ben Myers that she had not realised this description was not in the clinical notes but only in Dr Jayaram's much later police interview. (This of course came long after he had discovered the same literature himself).

OP posts:
New posts on this thread. Refresh page