Lucy Letby - Specifically those who think she is guilty…

[BEAchDays2]

I’ve just been reading massive amounts of posts of Facebook following the new doc out about LL. (Blame a long train journey!) and it got me thinking, those who still think she is guilty what are your reasons?

It does feel like the tide has turned generally. I haven’t watched the new doc yet, likewise has anyone seen it, and is it worth it?

I’d prefer you stop with the emotive language - these infants were poorly - they wouldn’t be in intensive care if they were fighting fit and yes, you are prepared for the worst as the majority of children in the nicu don’t have an easy and straightforward journey

I never said they didn't need help. Liverpool was actually for higher acuity babies than COCH though. Well one of the mothers certainly didn't like having her hope taken away by Letby so she made a complaint against her.

How it would be administered (20-40 mls of air - it’s not a small amount)

What are the reasons for thinking Letby wouldn't be able to do this? It seems like a very small amount. And the baby in the video would've been much bigger than these babies so I don't know why he's comparing them? They're not a direct comparison at all. You can't claim one minute these were tiny tiny premature sick babies and then the next compare them to a fighting fit six week old...

Standard Echocardiogram: A regular transthoracic echocardiogram (TTE) is designed to evaluate heart muscle, valves, and blood flow. While a regular echo can accidentally spot large amounts of free air or a massive air embolism if present in the chambers, it is not specifically tailored or sensitive enough to look for tiny or trace amounts of free air.

Collapse was incredibly quick. Honestly all I'm seeing so far is more confirmation these were absolutely air embolisms.

Honestly all I'm seeing so far is more confirmation these were absolutely air embolisms.

And you're getting that from the video of two doctors who are explaining why it can't be air embolism?

What did this incredibly quick collapse consist of? The point they are making in the video is that you should anticipate cardiac arrest, not apneoa, bradycardia etc.

I haven't got time to rewatch but I think the dr said the ventricle where the air would end up, is 15ml. 20-40mls of air would fill the whole ventricle so I'm thinking it would be seen on the echocardiagram

20ml of air would be 4 calpol syringes, 40ml is 8 - not a small amount at all. Pushing that through a tiny cannula would take a minute or two

They also said you couldn't resuscitate at all after air embolism, not that its difficult

What qualifies you to state that 20 mL is a small amount? Unbelievable hubris.

I've just watched the video myself. Given how many times these doctors reiterated there were no signs of air embolism, and explained why in great detail, I'm baffled as to how it could be interpreted as corroborating that theory. Can only assume FF is the missing expert about to unleash their groundbreaking research on the world that undermines decades of documented cases and research into AE in neonates......🙄

Well given she’s already claimed to know more than the statistics professors despite also not caring about statistics, it’s no surprise she also knows more than the medics.

There will always be a reason and in the absence of anything natural then it's unnatural isn't it, that's just logic

That's a bit like saying "all Unidentified Flying Objects must be alien spaceships because in the absence of anything Earth-related it's alien-related". While there will always be a reason, it's possible for specific humans to miss that reason when looking for possible reasons. Doctors miss diagnoses all the time.

Why do you think they were murdered?

That's called willful ignorance

A lot of people in hospital are poorly. They are not expected to die. So that is no argument. Babies were dying under her watch and doctors became suspicious. I can't see any signs that she will be freed or even get a retrial or even an appeal.

What signs would you expect to both see and be capable of recognising at this point?

But I'm not stating it I'm asking what are the reasons people are acting like LL wouldn't have been able to do it? And it wouldn't be 20ml if he's comparing a very premature neonate to what killed a healthy 6 week old? Besides, no one really knows what it'd take because it's so rare (unless you happened to be on Lucy Letby's unit) it's not like people have tested different levels of air. I'm sure the statistician of the thread will soon tell you that one baby is not a big enough sample.

I haven't watched it all yet, I'm working my way through it and addressing the points as I come to them (thought it might be easier that way) they even mentioned at the start that air embolism is one of the causes of cardiac arrest.

Why is one of them claiming Dewi Evans can't get his story straight re who came up with the air embolism theory? The consultants and Dewi Evans BOTH came to the same theory independently, because they were correct and it was an air embolism.

I suppose I can see how someone so utterly blind to her guilt like these doctors could think it's all a grand conspiracy that they can't "get their stories straight" on who came up with the theory first. The reality is, both of them independently coming to that conclusion is exactly what you'd expect to see if it was the truth.

What's your evidence that she was able to do it though? Nobody saw her or anybody else with a syringe (or filling a syringe multiple times), the doctors on the video had to look up how much it would take (no evidence of her looking for that) so, as you say, it's a bit of a guess how much although 20-40ml is their ballpark figure. They're pretty clear that you'd be able to see that volume of air on an echocardiogram (which at least 2 of the babies had at the time) and it would take a fair amount of time to put that amount of air down the tubes - how much time we don't know because, also as you say, it's not been tested and also that it would cause a very quick collapse, after which resuscitiation would not be possible.

To accuse someone of murder by this particular method, you'd think the prosecution would have to be a bit clearer on exactly how it would work and have some positive evidence that it actually occurred. Just being there (when "there" is the place you work) shouldn't be enough.

Dr Evans is insistent that air embolism is the cause of harm because of the rashes/no ability to resuscitate successfully/baby died. He claims to have ruled out all other possible causes and identified particular time periods when harm was caused, which is where his conclusions conflict with what the other experts and the original pathologists thought. Dr Evans saw the situations as babies who were otherwise fine suddenly collapsing for no apparent reason. He thought that the doctors at the hospital were good at resuscitation, leading him to conclude that some deliberate harm must have been done. This is the argument that was put to the jury so it's not surprising that LL was found guilty.

The other experts, reviewing the same notes and evidence, concluded that there were signs that the babies were not doing well and that care was substandard. Evidence that wasn't part of the trial, like the RCPCH review, the consultants not doing as many ward rounds as they should have, the staff/skill shortage, the baby who died after not being resuscitated properly the year before etc. would indicate to me that the expert panel are more likely to correct in their assessment of the situation.

At this point there are many people who have come forward to say there are serious questions to be asked about the medical evidence and none AFAIK that are backing up Dr Evans' position. There were other prosecution experts but he was the main one and also the investigator for the police. Dr Bohin reviewed his conclusions but didn't do an independent investigation and the others took very little part in the trial. This means that a heck of a lot of the prosecution evidence rests on the work of one person.

Turning this around for a second. If you were LL and you hadn't done anything wrong, how would you defend yourself against the evidence put against you?

It’s strange, isn’t it, that both the consultants and Dr Evans read the same paper and independently came to the same erroneous conclusion about skin discolouration indicating air embolism.

@DistantEarlyWarning not really. But if they both happen to have "misinterpreted it" then maybe Shoo Lee wasn't as clear as he should've been? Just think all this could've been avoided (if she was innocent) by Shoo Lee not making his paper almost impossible to interpret correctly by experienced doctors...

Seriously? It’s not that difficult to understand.

@DistantEarlyWarning I don't think it is either, that's why it makes zero sense that all the consultants and Dewi Evans didn't "get it"

I’m not following. What are you suggesting?

@DistantEarlyWarning I'm suggesting they understood the paper perfectly well. Like you said, it's not hard.

I think she’s guilty.
There are far too many coincidences when she was on duty.
Why would she take the babies concerned notes home I wonder.

She wouldn't need to look up how much air it would take-if it didn't work first time she'd just do it again. As she did multiple times. One of those doctors on the video has something against the NHS because he was let go so it's obvious why he jumped on the Letby bandwagon. Not sure about the other retired doctor but I was not impressed by him.

To accuse someone of murder by this particular method, you'd think the prosecution would have to be a bit clearer on exactly how it would work and have some positive evidence that it actually occurred. Just being there (when "there" is the place you work) shouldn't be enough.

It might've been her place of work but she was not designated to look after some of these babies so it is quite important that they managed to place her cot side just before every collapse (which also rules out scapegoating as how would they know from the off that she was there every time if another colleague was designated nurse?) if it was just her place of work she wouldn't be in rooms she wasn't supposed to be in right before a collapse.

The other experts, reviewing the same notes and evidence, concluded that there were signs that the babies were not doing well and that care was substandard.

I feel like the poor health of these babies has been wildly exaggerated since the trial ended.

Turning this around for a second. If you were LL and you hadn't done anything wrong, how would you defend yourself against the evidence put against you?

I can't really answer that because if I was a nurse I would've quit after probably the second unexpected death on my watch. But if I was to put myself in that hypothetical scenario, I would've begged experts to take the stand on my behalf for a start not gone "actually don't think I'll call anyone bar the plumber" I would've done a lot differently that meant I actually had some sort of defence not some half-hearted attempt to look innocent!

Quitting after the second unexpected death would surely make you look guilty though? Who would do that if they weren't involved? Not somebody who'd wanted to be a nurse for years and spent all that time qualifying. Not somebody who'd just bought a house and had a mortgage to pay - just quit with no means of support when you're single and in your 20s? Looks shifty.

Given that she allegedly had lots of methods of harm at her disposal, why would she keep trying a method that wasn't working?

Not calling medical experts was a huge mistake in retrospect. We're only guessing why that was or who made that decision though. You've said you'd beg experts to help, but the argument for the defence is that it wasn't deliberate harm and you don't believe that, so what are you going to argue other than you didn't do it? Evidence was apparently that you were there "cot side" for all the collapses and deaths, not just working there and the prosecution are telling everyone how sneaky you are and how you love drama. You've said yourself that you believe the babies were fine and strong so how are you going to show them you didn't do it?

@CheeseNPickle3 Quitting after the second unexpected death would surely make you look guilty though? Who would do that if they weren't involved? Not somebody who'd wanted to be a nurse for years and spent all that time qualifying.

No one even suspected her after just the second death though? I would worry I did something wrong and that I wasn't cut out to be a nurse. I think people would understand that. Not view it as suspicious...I don't think I'd care about my career anymore at that point tbh it would only be bringing me trauma.

Given that she allegedly had lots of methods of harm at her disposal, why would she keep trying a method that wasn't working?

Well not lots of methods that wouldn't be undetectable.

I mean, I wouldn't be guilty so I just wouldn't be in her shoes in the first place would I? It is indeed very hard to show you're not guilty when you are! You don't seem to realise the reason she's in an impossible situation re proving she's not guilty is because she is.