UK - Nurse Lucy Letby, murder of babies, 7 Guilty of murder verdicts; 8 Guilty of attempted murder; 2 Not Guilty of attempted; 5 hung re attempted #35

[llewellyn]

I don't really doubt her guilt but some of the prosecution claims are not credibly supported and the defence was overly passive in challenging them. The Guardian is a very credible news media and that article, when dispassionately read, does raise some valid points. Even if the verdict itself is sound. Tbh, as a European I'm not the biggest fan of the adversial process, it leads to distortions and openly appeals to emotions.

 

[ColourPurple]

Hmmmm I'll wait on that I think. However you could certainly gauge he would have told her if that review looked bad on her and she was going to be investigated. Yeh I do believe he was useful to her as well, like having a spy really. I'm just dubious that once she was suspected he would have continued with the relationship. I think he's got her back so long as she didn't do anything.

I think he “made his excuses and left” once the police were involved but he was definitely still meeting up with her before then, after she’d been removed from the ward . I don’t think anybody thinks that he ever believed that she was guilty at that point though .

 

[Sweeper2000]

I think he “made his excuses and left” once the police were involved but he was definitely still meeting up with her before then, after she’d been removed from the ward . I don’t think anybody thinks that he ever believed that she was guilty at that point though .

Yeh I do think that of him. He seemed genuine imo. I don't believe if he did think her responsible at all he would have continued with talking to her.

 

[Honeybirdette]

Lucy Letby: killer or coincidence? Why some experts question the evidence | Lucy Letby | The Guardian

Exclusive: Doubts raised over safety of convictions of nurse found guilty of murdering babies

amp.theguardian.com

The guardian have done an article questioning the evidence.

 

[Honeybirdette]

I am so tired. God knows how the parents feel. This is just going to encourage the letby doubters and more will jump on the bandwagon.
Why did the defence not call these experts?
Can anyone with more knowledge help me understand.

 

[Sweeper2000]

I am so tired. God knows how the parents feel. This is just going to encourage the letby doubters and more will jump on the bandwagon.
Why did the defence not call these experts?
Can anyone with more knowledge help me understand.

There was some things I didn't take to in the first trial. One was the lack of defence experts but I think we agreed it was due to a lack of expertise against the prosecutions, in essence if any experts did testify for the defence they might just end up agreeing with the prosecution. I think that still stands. 2 was Dr Evans saying about the nasogastric bolus, never made sense to me that air in the stomach wouldn't just get exhaled in one way or another. That's what they're saying but we can wait, I trusted the experts in 6hr end. I think this will get cleared up tbh and the datix stands as paramount imo.

 

[DianaWW]

I am so tired. God knows how the parents feel. This is just going to encourage the letby doubters and more will jump on the bandwagon.
Why did the defence not call these experts?
Can anyone with more knowledge help me understand.

Most of the experts coming out now haven’t even reviewed all of the evidence, so why they feel qualified to come out and publicly slate the people who did is quite shocking. One of the reasons the appeal was refused was because the new defence expert wasn’t even given all of the evidence to review. Some of people openly admit they didn’t even closely follow the first trial. The ones that did certainly didn’t relied on reporting rather than actually attending.
Quote from the article:

‘Several people who voiced their concerns also recognised that they did not sit through the proceedings and did not have access to the extensive case notes used by the expert witnesses – though, during the long trial, detailed accounts of the medical histories of each baby emerged.’

Says it all IMO. She’s not getting out, ever. So as frustrating as this nonsense is, that’s the most important thing.

 

[Sweeper2000]

Another article about the same, innocent or guilty ? From the telegraph this time. I'm not against asking the question at all neither is the court. I think it's safe though. The levels of coincidence necessary for her to be innocent are astronomical.

Lucy Letby: Serial killer or a miscarriage of justice?

Experts question evidence after former nurse found guilty of ‘cynical campaign of child murder’

www.telegraph.co.uk

ETA yeh this article emphasises the ll present timetable which I do not believe was actually a big part of the evidence. Makes it out like it was key which I don't think. Wondr if they know the trial ad well.

 

[Marantz4250b]

It's absolutely infuriating. Most of these people have appeared out of the woodwork well after the verdicts. The evidence as a whole is overwhelming. It's the smaller details that do it for me, such as Letbys texting around the deaths, her obsession with getting back to room 1, her colleagues testimony naming her as being cotside alone when the alarms sounded etc.

Most of the people arguing about "poor Lucy" only seem to be aware of the insulin, staff chart etc. I think you really needed to watch the trial unfold live to. There was so much detail.

The piece is quite convincingly written but, as has been pointed out - it misses huge amounts. It misses the whole point, in fact, as she was convicted on the totality of the evidence and not one or two things here and there.

One question it implies was why Mike Hall (who was the defence's expert witness) was not called. Well, yes, indeed why was he not called? There must have been a very good reason for it as Mr Myers does not come across as a stupid man!

 

[Sweeper2000]

The piece is quite convincingly written but, as has been pointed out - it misses huge amounts. It misses the whole point, in fact, as she was convicted on the totality of the evidence and not one or two things here and there.

One question it implies was why Mike Hall (who was the defence's expert witness) was not called. Well, yes, indeed why was he not called? There must have been a very good reason for it as Mr Myers does not come across as a stupid man!

I knew Mr myers expert was present some way into the trial. He was at the first trial the whole time apparently. I thought he didn't testify as no contest to the med records. However remember Mr myers saying the prosecution had overstated the health of the babies? I doubt those are Mr myers words, he's been advised by Mr Hall to say that as that's what Mr Hall is saying now isn't it? Weird, if there was contest Mr Hall should have spoken in court. It would have changed what was imo a lopsided argument.

Eta. I remember the weight of the prosecutions experts levels being significant, Dr Evans 30 years neonatal, Dr bohin higher rank more than 30 years I think? Then we had the higher Dr can't remember his name maybe mandrela or something. Was a really formidable array of experts saying the same thing. Some of the experts those articles mention I think maybe comparable in level. Interesting at least.

 

[katydid23]

I listened to the latest podcast yesterday and I was stunned to be perfectly honest with Myers.
Why on earth was Shoo Lee put forward as a witness when he hadn’t seen the medical records of any of the babies in this case ?
I do not understand how any Counsel especially of his calibre would even think that was acceptable.
I’m staggered, had he completely lost the plot at this stage ?

I agree---and how did Myers even get Dr Lee to agree to testify about how patients died when he never looked at their actual medical records?

 

[katydid23]

Nah was myers talking Dr Lee through the med files but not actually letting him see them, then Dr Lee gave his account to myers who then tried to get him admitted as a expert. Think mr myers jumped at Dr Lee saying the account given doesn't prove AE. Dr Lee probably didn't even know about the rather extensive line of med experts presented by the prosecution which if I am correct would have made Dr Lee think much more seriously about it.

I think you are right. But it seems strange still, that Dr Lee wouldn't demand to see the actual medical files if he was going to testify as to their cause of death. I'm surprised.

 

[Sweeper2000]

Would be interesting to see how it progresses, if the powers that be rejected Mr myers new evidence what does that mean? Does it mean Dr Lee will never testify? Yeh though basic error really, quite a serious basic error.

 

[Parker Knoll]

It’s utterly nonsensical on every level.

 

[Sweeper2000]

Can someone clarify that I'm thinking right about this? The attached picture is a quote from the chester standard. Doesn't this equate to lùcy letby showing she knows details about the events that only the killer would know? Isn't that the qualifier in evidence? If she knows details that no one else knows then she must have been the cause?

 

[Honeybirdette]

I think you are right. But it seems strange still, that Dr Lee wouldn't demand to see the actual medical files if he was going to testify as to their cause of death. I'm surprised.

I don’t think he was testifying as to the cause of death, only saying the rash didn’t prove air embolism. He was saying only a particular type of rash shows it could be air embolism…The prosecution argued that’s exactly the sort of rash dr ravi had described just in different words.
Sounds like it was a total *advertiser censored* show. I read someone’s account who had went to the appeal that day and listened to dr shoo lees evidence. She said he came across very very nervous and uncomfortable.

 

[Jazmania]

I've read all the Guardian, Telegraph and New Yorker articles now questioning her guilt and they make me feel heart sick. The New Yorker one I think should be sued for atrocious journalism. It's full of inaccuracies, clearly stitches up all of the prosecution witnesses in quotes, supports ludicrous conspiracy theories, and totally misrepresents the prosecution evidence on which she was convicted.

The Guardian and Telegraph ones are better, but still don't provide fair balance in discussing the detailed evidence on which she was convicted. They do raise important questions though. The reason I am convinced of Letby's guilt is because I followed in detail all of the evidence throughout the trial. But what if that evidence wasn't properly contested by the defence? How differently would everyone have felt if the defence had brought out a statistician to explain that her presence on the ward when these collapses occurred is not actually that unlikely? Or the people who conducted the autopsies could have explained why they originally came to their conclusions of natural death? Or an expert on hormones to challenge the insulin results on which all of the convictions hang?

If there are experts out there that disagree with central tenets of the medical evidence, then why weren't they sought by the defence to testify at trial? We know that Michael Hall, a neonatologist, was willing and ready to testify. It appears the thrust of his argument would have been that these babies were more sick than the prosecution made out, and in some cases you couldn't rule out other medical issues like bowel obstruction. I know that Myers brought up these issues in cross examination, but I think part of the reason the verdict was guilty is that we had expert after expert from the prosecution, and only a plumber for the defence. It was astounding. It led to a natural conclusion - that the defence couldn't find any experts to back up their ideas. Guilty or not, if there are experts out there to challenge some aspects of the evidence, then they should be heard at trial. Why on Earth weren't they?

 

[Jazmania]

For example, why wasn't a table presented showing Letby's presence for all the deaths, not just those she was charged with? Surely that is in the interest of justice that that is shared. Was Letby present for all those deaths or just 7 of them? I know it was reported she was, but it has not been confirmed.

 

[JosieJo]

For example, why wasn't a table presented showing Letby's presence for all the deaths, not just those she was charged with? Surely that is in the interest of justice that that is shared. Was Letby present for all those deaths or just 7 of them? I know it was reported she was, but it has not been confirmed.

I really do think it's more simplistic than that.
There was a big increase in deaths on a unit that didn't normally have very many.
Plus most of the deaths were unexpected and didn't follow a normal pattern of deteriaton.
For the statistics to be challenged there would need to be other staff who were present for many of the deaths....but there was no one anywhere near present in number

 

[Jazmania]

I really do think it's more simplistic than that.
There was a big increase in deaths on a unit that didn't normally have very many.
Plus most of the deaths were unexpected and didn't follow a normal pattern of deteriaton.
For the statistics to be challenged there would need to be other staff who were present for many of the deaths....but there was no one anywhere near present in number

An increase in death by itself can occur due to random chance though. Or it could be down to many unknown factors converging. Without a full table showing who was present for all deaths and serious collapses then it is not possible to read much into her presence for those 7 deaths. That's the point. There may have been up to 17 deaths in the period I believe. What about the other 10 deaths? That's still a big increase. If she wasn't present for those other deaths that lends credence to the defences claim that the hospital was failing. If she was present, then that makes her look even more guilty. It's really important to know imo.