Nurse Lucy Letby - guilty of murdering 7 babies - whole life sentence

[Penna]

Ok just BBC stats then?

I used to manage a neonatal unit. Numbers on their own don't tell you much, as you have to look at the type of babies that were routinely admitted to that unit.

A woman with a higher-risk pregnancy might well end up giving birth in a particular hospital, precisely because the neonatal unit is more adequately-equipped for sicker, more premature babies.

I remember a very ill-informed regional boss berating hospital managers who had high rates of outpatient appointment non-attendance. He held up two hospitals as shining examples of what we should all achieve - they were both specialist cancer units. He hadn't made the simple connection between the nature of the specialty and the likelihood of people not bothering to turn up for their appointments. Numbers don't tell the full story.

 

[beacon]

Ok. Attempted murder. Same concept.

It is, but it's being argued that the test used to confirm insulin poisoning may not have been correctly applied and it's also argued that she may not have physically had the opportunity.

 

[11101]

It is, but it's being argued that the test used to confirm insulin poisoning may not have been correctly applied and it's also argued that she may not have physically had the opportunity.

Don't you think with such a high profile and lengthy case the defence would have noticed that and been able to successfully discredit it? It's not a particularly complex point. In this thread @Wolverine commented on it as a GP, a subject expert could easily pick it apart in court if there were any doubt.

 

[DanH]

I would read the second link I shared if you want to dig deeper on that. The insulin tests are definitely what led to her conviction, there definitely isn't evidence she administered those, just that someone did and she is the likely candidate. But the reports I shared cast doubt on the insulin evidence itself.

In fact she is accused of having at least 5 methods of murder.

Air embolism administered via blood
Air embolism administered via gut
Overfeeding with milk
physical attack
Insulin

From my - albeit basic understanding of criminology - isn't it unusual for a killer to constantly change their MO?

M.O. is a wider concept than that. Taking steps to evade detection in that setting would necessitate a change of method.

 

[Drainy]

We don't know all of the evidence because a lot of the trial wasn't public. It's been reported that she took logs of shifts where she killed the babies home with her to hide what she did, as well as other items as trophies and that when a baby escaped her she would be visibly angry.. she also had her mental ramblings.

I doubt it is an entirely statistical case.

 

[carpy]

Perhaps, I have seen this graph which I would like to understand better, eg why such variance in reporting?

I've only looked at the first graph but the yellow bar is showing neonatal death rates in Cheshire West/Chester. Countess of Chester wasn't the only neonatal unit in that area.

 

[Rams]

I used to manage a neonatal unit. Numbers on their own don't tell you much, as you have to look at the type of babies that were routinely admitted to that unit.

A woman with a higher-risk pregnancy might well end up giving birth in a particular hospital, precisely because the neonatal unit is more adequately-equipped for sicker, more premature babies.

I remember a very ill-informed regional boss berating hospital managers who had high rates of outpatient appointment non-attendance. He held up two hospitals as shining examples of what we should all achieve - they were both specialist cancer units. He hadn't made the simple connection between the nature of the specialty and the likelihood of people not bothering to turn up for their appointments. Numbers don't tell the full story.

What type of vetting takes place of the staff at Neonatal units (or any other for that matter)? Surely the most important thing is to learn from such horrific events and try to minimize the possibility of it ever happening again?
I’m also interested in the psychological state of her (I can’t get myself to write her name). By all accounts she seemed the last person to expect to do such evil wicked acts. Why? To harm the babies or the parents for example? Will we ever know?

 

[beacon]

Don't you think with such a high profile and lengthy case the defence would have noticed that and been able to successfully discredit it? It's not a particularly complex point. In this thread @Wolverine commented on it as a GP, a subject expert could easily pick it apart in court if there were any doubt.

You mean in this post:

Laughably amateur explanation of insulin vs c-peptide physiologically one example.

I didn't question that, perhaps I should have - it would be good to know what @Wolverine meant.

As far as I can tell, Richard Gill doesn't attempt to explain the relationship, but he does reference Science on Trial which appears to make reasonable statements.

I'm not a GP, I'm a vet, but my understanding is that C-peptide and insulin are released in equal amounts by the pancreas during the production/release of insulin. C-peptide is therefore a surrogate for insulin - it has no effect on blood glucose but persists longer than insulin, which is labile and rapidly metabolised. The rationale, therefore, is that high C-peptide levels with low insulin levels are found physiologically, but the reverse situation is typically associated with exogenous insulin supplementation. As I understand it, that was presented in court as an absolute, and the fact that there are published reports of cases where low C-peptide and high insulin concentrations have occurred physiologically was not reported.

 

[Penna]

What type of vetting takes place of the staff at Neonatal units (or any other for that matter)? Surely the most important thing is to learn from such horrific events and try to minimize the possibility of it ever happening again?

Everyone who works in a hospital is subject to a Disclosure and Barring Service screening, and for most hospital employees that would be at the enhanced level. That means that all past convictions for anything will be reported.

Letby didn't have any past convictions. Most people don't, of course.

 

[Rams]

Everyone who works in a hospital is subject to a Disclosure and Barring Service screening, and for most hospital employees that would be at the enhanced level. That means that all past convictions for anything will be reported.

Letby didn't have any past convictions. Most people don't, of course.

Is there no kind of psychological vetting in place? Is this person mentally fit or appropriate to do the job irrespective of any past convictions?

 

[Murder on Zidane's Floor]

A tiny, and I mean tiny part wants to believe she was framed, because the actual reality is so tremendously horrific and evil.

 

[theyneverlearn]

I had a premature child, who spent weeks in the neonatal unit and daily we put all our trust in those workers to help and protect our child during their most vulnerable time, and to think someone could take advantage of that makes me sick.

I hope she spends the rest of her life in excruciating pain.

 

[Phil Jones Face]

Is there no kind of psychological vetting in place? Is this person mentally fit or appropriate to do the job irrespective of any past convictions?

With the sheer turnover of staff, it would be impossible. I'm not sure how "psychological vetting" would pick up red flags either. It's likely these sinister thoughts of hers only presented themselves further down the line.

 

[arnie_ni]

A tiny, and I mean tiny part wants to believe she was framed, because the actual reality is so tremendously horrific and evil.

Well then someone else has done it and framed her which would be even more horrific and evil

 

[hobbers]

Her defense would of covered every angle possible as would the prosecution. There is also A LOT of information/evidence which has not and won't be disclosed to the public.

Don't you think with such a high profile and lengthy case the defence would have noticed that and been able to successfully discredit it? It's not a particularly complex point. In this thread @Wolverine commented on it as a GP, a subject expert could easily pick it apart in court if there were any doubt.

Well that's part of the point of the articles. Her defence team were incompetent, underfunded and/or believed she was guilty. Setting aside the question of her guilt I dont doubt she was very poorly represented.

 

[11101]

Well that's part of the point of the articles. Her defence team were incompetent, underfunded and/or believed she was guilty. Setting aside the question of her guilt I dont doubt she was very poorly represented.

That's was my point. If a generalist GP can pick it apart from a cursory glance then an actual expert in that very specific area would have no trouble taking it to pieces. According to that site they didnt even notice it? That's not a poor legal team that's more like it isn't actually the gotcha that site thinks it is.

 

[hobbers]

That's was my point. If a generalist GP can pick it apart from a cursory glance then an actual expert in that very specific area would have no trouble taking it to pieces. According to that site they didnt even notice it? That's not a poor legal team that's more like it isn't actually the gotcha that site thinks it is.

Expert witnesses cost money that she probably doesnt have.

 

[11101]

Expert witnesses cost money that she probably doesnt have.

According to this expert witnesses are all paid for by legal aid.

 

[DanH]

Expert witnesses cost money that she probably doesnt have.

Does she not qualify for Criminal Legal Aid? That will allow for payment of expert witnesses, and I don't doubt the courts would grant authority for higher fees in a case such as this.

Where does her defence team being incompetent come from? Prior belief in guilt doesn't come into it. Many legal teams might believe the person they are representing is guilty, that doesn't prevent them carrying out their professional responsibilities.

For reference this is her barrister https://www.exchangechambers.co.uk/people/benjamin-myers-kc/

 

[Cloud7]

This thread has taken a weird turn

 

[Penna]

Is there no kind of psychological vetting in place? Is this person mentally fit or appropriate to do the job irrespective of any past convictions?

No, nothing like that. When I entered registered nurse training, you couldn't do nursing if you had had treatment for mental illness, but that's no longer the case as far as I know. It means very little, as many people with mental illness never bother getting it diagnosed because they don't even realise they're ill.

Edited to add that of course, Letby did a degree in Paediatric Nursing. Nurse qualifications come via universities these days, the nursing student gets the degree (which is a mixed academic and practical course, with more academic than practical content), and then they apply for registration with the professional body. I trained in a hospital-based school of nursing, where we were mostly working on the wards as part of the staff complement, rather than as supernumerary observers.

A couple of students from my cohort dropped out, as they proved to be unsuitable once they actually started laying hands on patients. It kind of allowed you to see early on what someone was like. However, nursing today is very different to how it was when I qualified!

 

[11101]

Does she not qualify for Criminal Legal Aid? That will allow for payment of expert witnesses, and I don't doubt the courts would grant authority for higher fees in a case such as this.

Where does her defence team being incompetent come from? Prior belief in guilt doesn't come into it. Many legal teams might believe the person they are representing is guilty, that doesn't prevent them carrying out their professional responsibilities.

For reference this is her barrister https://www.exchangechambers.co.uk/people/benjamin-myers-kc/

I know enough from my law degree days to know being in the legal 500 means you really know what you're doing. So 100% not an incompetent legal team.

To be honest with such a high profile case there are not going to be any corners cut on either side.

 

[Murder on Zidane's Floor]

Well then someone else has done it and framed her which would be even more horrific and evil

Or the babies died of complications and hospital admins were covered.

But this didn't happen, so it's all horrible.

 

[FortBoyard]

I know enough from my law degree days to know being in the legal 500 means you really know what you're doing. So 100% not an incompetent legal team.

To be honest with such a high profile case there are not going to be any corners cut on either side.

Actually his closing arguments are pretty solid and I would implore people to read them if they are interested in the case. Particularly around the insulin administration, it was just that they accepted into evidence the fact that the insulin evidence was proven to be caused only by deliberate intervention. Apparently, you cannot introduce new expert testimony after discovery in UK law? Not sure if that is accurate?

So in future - if it does transpire that the insulin evidence is weak - it would likely give good grounds for appeal.

https://www.chesterstandard.co.uk/n...letby-trial-june-26---defence-closing-speech/

 

[FortBoyard]

I used to manage a neonatal unit. Numbers on their own don't tell you much, as you have to look at the type of babies that were routinely admitted to that unit.

A woman with a higher-risk pregnancy might well end up giving birth in a particular hospital, precisely because the neonatal unit is more adequately-equipped for sicker, more premature babies.

I remember a very ill-informed regional boss berating hospital managers who had high rates of outpatient appointment non-attendance. He held up two hospitals as shining examples of what we should all achieve - they were both specialist cancer units. He hadn't made the simple connection between the nature of the specialty and the likelihood of people not bothering to turn up for their appointments. Numbers don't tell the full story.

Interesting to hear your experience, what is your view on the case? Sorry if you explained it before.

Must admit, probably slightly contrary to my postings in this thread I am erring towards guilty.

With your experience of this type of environment do you think its possible this is a series of unfortunate events or does it look to you like a clear case of foul play?

 

[F-Red]

I've only looked at the first graph but the yellow bar is showing neonatal death rates in Cheshire West/Chester. Countess of Chester wasn't the only neonatal unit in that area.

It is the only neonatal unit in the Cheshire West/Chester council area, the only other nearby hospitals is Arrow Park (Wirral) and Leighton in Crewe (Cheshire East). I live between Countess of Chester and Leighton and we had our boy, thankfully at Leighton, five weeks ago.