Nurse arrested for murdering babies

[MrMarvelous]

Did she ever end up explaining why she murdered?

 

[VincentHanna]

Labour to continue early release of prisoners

Labour will "in all likelihood" need to continue the release of early prisoners as a result of overcrowding in jails.

www.agcc.co.uk

Fair enough, but Labour likely to continue it.

I imagine they will have to.

When the previous government doesn't invest in Prisons for most of their 14 year tenure, they don't have much choice in the short term.

Performance Tracker 2023: Prisons | Institute for Government

Poor long-term planning means prison populations have exploded, with dire consequences for rehabilitation and prisoner safety.

www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk

 

[SexyGreyFox]

Did she ever end up explaining why she murdered?

No because she hasn't done it.



In her mind

 

[Dis86]

She was at every incident of every baby, she had been seen doing things, she took their medical records home.
The Jurors had hour upon hour on each case being explained to them in detail.
Somebody like me could have been talking about Medical Records and how they work etc as just one witness.
There is no way she didn't do it.
The scribbled notes I'm not even taking into account it was the rest of the evidence that did her.
The one thing that grates me are the Clinicians who reported her didn't follow it up when they were threatened and lives could have been saved.

The one I'm more appalled by are the doctors who had suspicions and didn't act.

 

[SexyGreyFox]

The one I'm more appalled by are the doctors who had suspicions and didn't act.

Which was my last sentence.
My boss is a Trust Lawyer and his counterpart at Letby's hospital threatened the whistleblowers, my boss is disgusted by it because he's also there to defend whistleblowers.
He said if they were positive she was doing it they should have gone to the Police themselves.
I find it amazing Clinicians could be stopped by Management.

 

[tamzzy]

The one I'm more appalled by are the doctors who had suspicions and didn't act.

The one thing that grates me are the Clinicians who reported her didn't follow it up when they were threatened and lives could have been saved.

UHNM is probably an outlier. In general, the NHS as a whole does not look too favourably on whistleblowers

 

[SexyGreyFox]

UHNM is probably an outlier. In general, the NHS as a whole does not look too favourably on whistleblowers

Probably true and we encourage it.
We have a huge policy on it and mentioned in other policies.

 

[tamzzy]

Probably true and we encourage it.

UHNM learnt from the mid staffs scandal
Can't say many other trusts have though

 

[Dis86]

Which was my last sentence.
My boss is a Trust Lawyer and his counterpart at Letby's hospital threatened the whistleblowers, my boss is disgusted by it because he's also there to defend whistleblowers.
He said if they were positive she was doing it they should have gone to the Police themselves.
I find it amazing Clinicians could be stopped by Management.

No, your last sentence was about those that reported her. A number, when interviewed stated they'd come across behaviour of hers that was highly suspicious and hadn't done a thing.

 

[SexyGreyFox]

UHNM learnt from the mid staffs scandal
Can't say many other trusts have though

I never thought about that.
The Trust Lawyer and a couple of Solicitors came from Stafford Hospital when we joined forces.
Loads of other departments were filled up by Stafford staff like Governance & Audit.
That was a bad time and it cost millions to get rid of the Staffs word in all our material.
It upsets me when people say I had to go North Staffs or Stafford Hospital

 

[ANDREW GREEN]

Interesting legal tidbits on Letby's latest trial

 

[CaptainRAVE]

The one I'm more appalled by are the doctors who had suspicions and didn't act.

It’s such an incredibly rare occurrence that they probably dismissed it. Of course there are plenty of people who turn a blind eye too and/or don’t follow the required protocol for whatever reason. Although it wasn’t life or death, there was the biggest breach of conduct possible in my workplace and for the longest time we were gagged and several of us nearly lost our jobs until they couldn’t cover it up anymore. It’s sad, but it happens. Thankfully all those who hushed it up lost their jobs.

 

[ttaskmaster]

You realise that nearly all the reporting was based on what happened at the trial though right? How can reporting the evidence shown at a trial, affect that actual trial?

There was a wealth of internet experts who had the whole thing analysed and a verdict pronounced long before the actual jury had retired to consider, which is how you get the Trial By Social Media/Internet/Popular Opinion. That will almost certainly sway people of a jury, and at the very least can be considered to have compromised the fairness of a trial.

The BBC recently reported that, following the lifting of media blackout during the retrial, a number of other things about the prosecution were questionable, such as relying on their understanding of an expert doctor's specific methodology for identifying air embolisms, yet did not call that very doctor as an expert and now at the retrial he calls in via webcam to explain that according to his methodology none of the babies actually met his criteria for air embolism...

There was something else about the stats too, such as how every time a baby died or was nearly killed Letby was on duty, but only because they pulled just the incidents that a baby died or was nearly when she was on duty. Supposedly the wider picture of who was on at what other times when other things happened created a very different picture.
So it may come to pass that Letby herself is found innocent, and that she was scapegoated for what was ultimately a wider system failing. Certainly people seem readier to accept organisational flaws, rather than the idea that a murderer can continue so unhindered for so long in the one place that should be one of the safest around.

Either way, her life is over, though. Someone will probably shank her in the prison shower, or she'll eventually be found innocent and released only to get stabbed in the park by someone who thinks they know better.

 

[ANDREW GREEN]

There was a wealth of internet experts who had the whole thing analysed and a verdict pronounced long before the actual jury had retired to consider, which is how you get the Trial By Social Media/Internet/Popular Opinion. That will almost certainly sway people of a jury, and at the very least can be considered to have compromised the fairness of a trial.

The BBC recently reported that, following the lifting of media blackout during the retrial, a number of other things about the prosecution were questionable, such as relying on their understanding of an expert doctor's specific methodology for identifying air embolisms, yet did not call that very doctor as an expert and now at the retrial he calls in via webcam to explain that according to his methodology none of the babies actually met his criteria for air embolism...

There was something else about the stats too, such as how every time a baby died or was nearly killed Letby was on duty, but only because they pulled just the incidents that a baby died or was nearly when she was on duty. Supposedly the wider picture of who was on at what other times when other things happened created a very different picture.
So it may come to pass that Letby herself is found innocent, and that she was scapegoated for what was ultimately a wider system failing. Certainly people seem readier to accept organisational flaws, rather than the idea that a murderer can continue so unhindered for so long in the one place that should be one of the safest around.

Either way, her life is over, though. Someone will probably shank her in the prison shower, or she'll eventually be found innocent and released only to get stabbed in the park by someone who thinks they know better.

I think most people in the Jury and those following the case thought Letby was guilty as sin in the first few weeks of the trial. The evidence was overwhelming.

I know Letby's lawyers tried to discredit the medical expert but I'd like a link backing up what you're saying as it sounds well off base and could be a missunderstanding

As for Letby being 'shanked', I doubt it. Rose West was quite popular in her prison groups apparently

 

[arknor]

He said if they were positive she was doing it they should have gone to the Police themselves.

Probably Us Vs them like with the police and how they cover each others backs, that and management probably trying to pass the buck until they fall upwards

 

[SexyGreyFox]

Probably Us Vs them like with the police and how they cover each others backs, that and management probably trying to pass the buck until they fall upwards

You may not believe this but at our hospital Clinicians are always ready to put the knife in at our hospital.
If negligence has occurred and we get reports from other experts they are always ready to criticise their colleagues if they need to.
Tamzzy had a good point though, we went through a horror story with Stafford Hospital so have learned lots of lessons.
I recently had a case of a Clinician doing stuff on patients and the floodgates opened with at least 25 reports from others saying some horrible stuff.

 

[Minstadave]

Probably Us Vs them like with the police and how they cover each others backs, that and management probably trying to pass the buck until they fall upwards

The NHS has a long history of screwing over Consultants that whistleblow. You lose everything, your career, your livelihood, your whole identity. If you fight you'll spend years in court. Having a whistle-blower policy means little.

Those risks along with the fact that most of us generally can't believe someone could do something that awful and everyone non clinical telling you you are wrong/threatening GMC regerral made it very hard to go to the police for those guys.

There is a huge problem with NHS management having next to zero accountability.

 

[ttaskmaster]

I think most people in the Jury and those following the case thought Letby was guilty as sin in the first few weeks of the trial. The evidence was overwhelming.

Thinking it is different to it being proven throughout the course of the trial, though... otherwise there'd be no point to the trial.

I know Letby's lawyers tried to discredit the medical expert but I'd like a link backing up what you're saying as it sounds well off base and could be a missunderstanding

Lucy Letby: Courtroom drama, a failed appeal, and battles over the truth

She was convicted of multiple baby murders, but then fell out of the headlines. Here’s what’s happened since.

www.bbc.co.uk

"There was also a new witness - neonatologist Shoo Lee, from Toronto, the co-author of a 1989 medical research paper about air embolism in neonatal babies... Prosecution experts had based some of their evidence on Dr Lee’s paper, although he hadn’t been called to give evidence.
Now he was appearing [at the appeal] on behalf of the defence.
During the trial, much was made of changes in skin colour observed on some of the babies, which it was suggested were symptomatic of air embolism. The prosecution cited Dr Lee’s paper in support of this, and paediatric consultant Dr Ravi Jayaram told the court a “chill went down (his) spine” in June 2016 when he read the research and believed it fitted with what he’d seen on babies in Chester.
But nobody had checked with Dr Lee. The point he now made, via webcam from 3,500 miles away, was that only one, very specific skin discolouration was diagnostic of air embolism, and none of the babies in the case had displayed this exactly.

For Letby’s defence, it was a basis for appeal. The prosecution disagreed. They argued that all of the instances of skin discoloration in the Letby case were consistent with air embolism, and some of these could be proven using Dr Lee’s own diagnostic method. They said Dr Lee hadn’t been shown any of the eyewitness testimony from the trial, or any of the babies’ records – and so was not qualified to weigh in now"


As that reads, the prosecution used this method that they found, with the presumption that they know what they're doing, but when the very guy who wrote it disagrees with their findings compared to what his method specifies, they say his opinion doesn't count for the defence because they didn't use him for their prosecution.

It doesn't impact the trial overall, but it does affect a considerable part of it and raises some serious questions as to what the prosecution thought they were doing, and how this rather biassed-seeming attitude can be considered correct, reliable or even legal - "We didn't use him to support our argument, so you can't now use him to prove us wrong..."??!!

As for Letby being 'shanked', I doubt it. Rose West was quite popular in her prison groups apparently

Living her dream life of middle-class luxury, with baking courses, yoga, TV and a string of lesbian lovers, and with an en-suite cell that has its own coffee machine and fluffy rug, at a taxayer cost of something like £60,000 a year. Of course she's going to be popular to a degree - She bakes them cookies and cupcakes. But she's been transferred at least twice due to death threats from other inmates and still is quite hated by a good number of other prisoners. Child rapists and child killers don't tend to have the best life behind bars.

West's criminal career hinged on being manipulative and calculating, in order to seduce both prostitution clients and her victims.
Letby doesn't strike me as that type, so she has none of the above to fall back on.