Merged Concerns over baby killer ignored? / Nurse Lucy Letby killed babies in her care

[Vixen]

The CPS has presented its case today at a scheduled hearing as to whether Lucy Letby should stand retrial on any of the verdicts the jury failed to reach a unanimous decisions. The prosecutors, via Nick Johnson KC, have asked for and have been allowed a retrial in the case of a baby girl.

Prosecutor Nick Johnson KC told Manchester crown court on Monday that the prosecution would retry Letby on one of those allegations – the attempted murder of a baby girl in February 2016 – but not on the remaining counts.

Mr Justice Goss KC said the first available date for a new trial was 10 June 2024 due to the “huge backlog of cases” in the courts.

Not sure ATM which baby this was but the full lists of verdicts is here:

Below is the full list of counts that Letby faced in court - and the verdicts.

1. Murder of Baby A - GUILTY

2. Attempted murder of Baby B - GUILTY

3. Murder of Baby C - GUILTY

4. Murder of Baby D - GUILTY

5. Murder of Baby E - GUILTY

6. Attempted murder of Baby F - GUILTY

7. Attempted murder of Baby G - GUILTY

8. Attempted murder of Baby G - GUILTY

9. Alleged attempted murder of Baby G - NOT GUILTY

10. Alleged attempted murder of Baby H - NOT GUILTY

11. Alleged attempted murder of Baby H - NO VERDICT

12. Murder of Baby I - GUILTY

13. Alleged attempted murder of Baby J - NO VERDICT

14. Alleged attempted murder of Baby K - NO VERDICT

15. Attempted murder of Baby L - GUILTY

16. Attempted murder of Baby M - GUILTY

17. Attempted murder of Baby N - GUILTY

18. Alleged attempted murder of Baby N - NO VERDICT

19. Alleged attempted murder of Baby N - NO VERDICT

20. Murder of Baby O - GUILTY

21. Murder of Baby P - GUILTY

22. Alleged attempted murder of Baby Q - NO VERDICT

https://www.manchestereveningnews.c...ter-news/lucy-letby-every-verdict-22-27547555

It'll be useful to understand which it is to have an idea of the quality of evidence.

One would have thought that if the other undecided verdicts are to be left on file, why this one wasn't, given she has several full-life-tariff sentences, which isn't going to decrease or increase her spell in prison.

Perhaps the Crown prosecutors feel that one or two jurors were behaving unreasonably in refusing to agree a unanimous verdict and that this time, it will be clearer.

11. Alleged attempted murder of Baby H - NO VERDICT
13. Alleged attempted murder of Baby J - NO VERDICT

14. Alleged attempted murder of Baby K - NO VERDICT

(Child N was a boy.)

OK - so it is CHILD K being brought back, according to various news outlets.

According to someone on X, Child K:

In this specific case (Child K) Letby was witnessed standing over the child, alone in the room, whilst it was in distress and in need of help. The child died 3 days later.

This would be the case where Dr. Jayaram saw her and had his suspicions confirmed. Letby's colleague testified that it wasn't Letby who switched off the alarm, but the doctors. So perhaps this witness thought she was helping out a colleague in distress but the prosecutors clearly believe otherwise and that they can yet prove it.

 

[Planigale]

The CPS has presented its case today at a scheduled hearing as to whether Lucy Letby should stand retrial on any of the verdicts the jury failed to reach a unanimous decisions. The prosecutors, via Nick Johnson KC, have asked for and have been allowed a retrial in the case of a baby girl.



Not sure ATM which baby this was but the full lists of verdicts is here:

https://www.manchestereveningnews.c...ter-news/lucy-letby-every-verdict-22-27547555

It'll be useful to understand which it is to have an idea of the quality of evidence.

One would have thought that if the other undecided verdicts are to be left on file, why this one wasn't, given she has several full-life-tariff sentences, which isn't going to decrease or increase her spell in prison.

Perhaps the Crown prosecutors feel that one or two jurors were behaving unreasonably in refusing to agree a unanimous verdict and that this time, it will be clearer.

11. Alleged attempted murder of Baby H - NO VERDICT
13. Alleged attempted murder of Baby J - NO VERDICT

14. Alleged attempted murder of Baby K - NO VERDICT

(Child N was a boy.)

OK - so it is CHILD K being brought back, according to various news outlets.

According to someone on X, Child K:

This would be the case where Dr. Jayaram saw her and had his suspicions confirmed. Letby's colleague testified that it wasn't Letby who switched off the alarm, but the doctors. So perhaps this witness thought she was helping out a colleague in distress but the prosecutors clearly believe otherwise and that they can yet prove it.

England no longer requires unanimous verdicts, so the split must have been greater than 10:2, which would be an acceptable majority verdict.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hung_jury

Undoubtedly a key factor will have been the parents' opinion.

 

[Darat]

It's Baby K.

 

[Vixen]

England no longer requires unanimous verdicts, so the split must have been greater than 10:2, which would be an acceptable majority verdict.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hung_jury

Undoubtedly a key factor will have been the parents' opinion.

Whoops! Of course, when the judge saw the jury struggling to come to a verdict he did indeed direct them to come to a majority one. This had to be 10-2 and when one of the jurors was released from service 'for good sound reasons', the majority required was 9-1. I think there was a point when Justice Goss feared they might never reach a verdict. I think this was a wise jury. They asked a knowledgeable question about insulin levels and C-Peptides (how long it would get back to normal levels) but I don't think they asked any other questions, or I missed it. ISTM the fact they could find a mixture of guilty and not guilty plus undecided for several over a period of over 100 days indicates they did take their duty very seriously, despite having to miss out on Christmas and Summer holidays.

Baby K is probably felt important by CPS because this was the case that made Drs. Jayaram and Brearey demand Letby taken off the ward. Baby K had been born very prematurely at 25 weeks. Jayaram alleges that he saw Letby standing over the baby just watching her desaturate. This can be seen on a machine, showing the levels going down and she was doing nothing to help her.

Mr Johnson said Letby was “caught red-handed” when Dr Jayaram walked into the nursery and saw the defendant alone stood next to the child’s incubator.
Child K’s blood oxygen levels were dropping, the alarms were not sounding and Letby was “doing nothing” as Dr Jayaram stepped in to save the infant’s life, the prosecutor said.
Letby denied any wrongdoing as she later told police she was “possibly waiting to see if she (Child K) self-corrected”, the court heard.
Mr Johnson said: “Imagine watching a baby of 25 weeks gestation desaturating in front of you. You can see it on the monitor – between 30 and 60 seconds.
“Imagine watching a tiny, little baby desaturate. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30.
“It’s uncomfortable isn’t it. Even talking about it is uncomfortable. That’s why it is attempted murder, ladies and gentlemen.”

https://www.hexham-courant.co.uk/ne...ted-hospital-staff-baby-collapses-court-told/

Jayaram claims Letby told him that the baby had knocked the tube out herself, which is not uncommon, but he was sceptical because the baby was too weak in his view to have done that. He claims that Letby then made a point of pointing out how the tube had become dislodged twice more as if to say, 'see, she did dislodge her own tube'.

As this case was the 'smoking gun', as it were, for Brearey and Jayaram, and the Hospital Trust Management and Nursing Chiefs refused to take their concerns seriously, the tragedy is that had Letby been removed at this point whilst being investigated, the death of the twins and two of the triplets would have been prevented, plus the third triplet saved from being brain-damaged for life.

Perhaps the CPS felt a definite verdict of guilty or not guilty will be useful for the Public Inquiry in establishing just how much blame the executive management should be allocated.

It may not be important at all as far as the inquiry goes and there is anther reason for referral back.

 

[Vixen]

Heads up:

Chester Police are now investigating whether there are any grounds for corporate manslaughter. It is not looking at any individual as of yet.

Organisations and companies can be found guilty of corporate manslaughter as a result of serious management failures resulting in a gross breach of a duty of care under The Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007.

Det Supt Simon Blackwell, of Cheshire Police, said the inquiry would focus on the indictment period of the charges for Letby from June 2015 to June 2016.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-merseyside-67006930

It's quite concerning Ian Harvey demanded the complaints by doctors be taken off email (so there is no audit trail?) and the NHS Trust guy forcing the consultants to apologise to the murderer. To think, she very nearly came back on duty.

 

[Carrot Flower King]

^IIRC you could ask IT to try to remove an e-mail, but neither member of this household is sure how far you'd have to go to remove all traces of an e-mail trail.

Yes, ordering that is an attempt to cover tracks.

In our old trusts one could delete an e-mail locally, but it would be still held in trust servers, precisely for checking purposes.

 

[theprestige]

^IIRC you could ask IT to try to remove an e-mail, but neither member of this household is sure how far you'd have to go to remove all traces of an e-mail trail.

Yes, ordering that is an attempt to cover tracks.

In our old trusts one could delete an e-mail locally, but it would be still held in trust servers, precisely for checking purposes.

Vixen is talking about not using email to lodge complaints. It doesn't do anything about emails already sent, but it does prevent any new complaints being recorded there.

Ian Harvey insisted the hospital consultants stopped putting their concerns in emails

 

[Carrot Flower King]

Vixen is talking about not using email to lodge complaints. It doesn't do anything about emails already sent, but it does prevent any new complaints being recorded there.

Silly me!

But, yes, not having anything in writing is SOP for NHS managers and has been for a very long time. Which is why both Carrot Flower Queen and I know many things which we can never back up, as no written records were kept, including minutes of meetings, and so plausible deniability is maintained - this makes it very difficult if one, as I did, makes a complaint against a manager...

 

[catsmate]

^IIRC you could ask IT to try to remove an e-mail, but neither member of this household is sure how far you'd have to go to remove all traces of an e-mail trail.

Yes, ordering that is an attempt to cover tracks.

In our old trusts one could delete an e-mail locally, but it would be still held in trust servers, precisely for checking purposes.

Oh yes, the IT illiterate are utterly clueless of how much of a trail there is on data storage systems....
I've been involved in several such case. Most entertaining.

If I'd been approached in such a case I'd:
a. have recorded said conversation
b. demanded the individual submit such request in writing, counter signed by their boss
c. maintained a validated offline copy
d. probably duplicated the server backup tape as well.

 

[catsmate]

Silly me!

But, yes, not having anything in writing is SOP for NHS managers and has been for a very long time. Which is why both Carrot Flower Queen and I know many things which we can never back up, as no written records were kept, including minutes of meetings, and so plausible deniability is maintained - this makes it very difficult if one, as I did, makes a complaint against a manager...

Record everything.

 

[novaphile]

Silly me!

But, yes, not having anything in writing is SOP for NHS managers and has been for a very long time. Which is why both Carrot Flower Queen and I know many things which we can never back up, as no written records were kept, including minutes of meetings, and so plausible deniability is maintained - this makes it very difficult if one, as I did, makes a complaint against a manager...

Yep. I'm not sure when I learned that, but it was pretty early in my public service career, well before the invention of email.

By the time emails was a regular thing, I had a manager, who used to have her secretary print out her emails, and then hand-deliver the printed copy, which had been annotated in pencil, with instructions to the recipient.

I used to scan these things, add them to an email, and then send that email back to the manager, "This is just to confirm that you are directing me to ...", to create an audit trail.

 

[Matthew Best]

Lucy Letby maintains her innocence.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-67691395

"I accept the fact of the convictions. However, I do not accept that I am guilty of any of the allegations."

She maintains her "innocence in respect of all of the convictions", adding: "These convictions are now the subject of an appeal."

 

[Darat]

I don't know why, and it is entirely a "gut feeling", but I don't have 100% conviction in the trial result.

 

[Matthew Best]

I feel the same. But I don't have a strong opinion about what did happen.

 

[smartcooky]

Lucy Letby maintains her innocence.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-67691395

"I accept the fact of the convictions. However, I do not accept that I am guilty of any of the allegations."

She maintains her "innocence in respect of all of the convictions", adding: "These convictions are now the subject of an appeal."

Of course, the jails are full of "innocent" people

As for me, I have zero doubt that she did what she was accused of. She was even caught in the act at least once.

 

[trustbutverify]

I don't know why, and it is entirely a "gut feeling", but I don't have 100% conviction in the trial result.

I feel the same. But I don't have a strong opinion about what did happen.

I have zeropointzero% doubt that she did exactly what she was convicted for, and probably more. The managers who helped extend her brutal killing spree to protect their reputations and financial interests should be sued into permanent, abject poverty. And that's just for starters.

 

[smartcooky]

Lucy Letby public inquiry names hospital bosses as core participants

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-merseyside-67828719

No sure what this means?

"Tony Chambers, former chief executive of the Countess of Chester Hospital, has been named as a "core participant".

He is joined by former medical director Ian Harvey, former director of nursing Alison Kelly and former HR director Sue Hodkinson.

The Thirlwall Inquiry is due to begin hearing evidence next year."​

What does being a "core participant" mean? Does this mean they will be under investigation, as in, for possibly being complicit in allowing Letby to murder these babies, or are they to be part the investigation, as in, they will be among turkeys voting for or against Christmas?
‎
‎

 

[sphenisc]

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-merseyside-67828719

No sure what this means?

"Tony Chambers, former chief executive of the Countess of Chester Hospital, has been named as a "core participant".

He is joined by former medical director Ian Harvey, former director of nursing Alison Kelly and former HR director Sue Hodkinson.

The Thirlwall Inquiry is due to begin hearing evidence next year."​

What does being a "core participant" mean? Does this mean they will be under investigation, as in, for possibly being complicit in allowing Letby to murder these babies, or are they to be part the investigation, as in, they will be among turkeys voting for or against Christmas?
‎
‎

They're each being legally represented by Anna Naylor of Weightmans LLP. My guess is "core participant" is hearing speak for "the accused".

Anna is a regulatory defence lawyer specialising in advising organisations on health and safety, food safety, trading standards and environmental law. She assists clients who are being investigated by the Health and Safety Executive, Local Authorities, Environment Agency and Police following serious incidents.

She represents companies in enforcement notice appeals, fee for intervention disputes, environmental permitting issues and prosecutions of companies and individuals for a range of regulatory offences. Anna also provides advice and support for directors and senior managers on regulatory compliance.

 

[trustbutverify]

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-merseyside-67828719

No sure what this means?

"Tony Chambers, former chief executive of the Countess of Chester Hospital, has been named as a "core participant".

He is joined by former medical director Ian Harvey, former director of nursing Alison Kelly and former HR director Sue Hodkinson.‎​

Interesting pattern.​

 

[smartcooky]

They're each being legally represented by Anna Naylor of Weightmans LLP. My guess is "core participant" is hearing speak for "the accused".

Thank you for that. Here, we tend to call such people "persons of interest" or "people who are helping the police with their inquiries"

Interesting pattern.

Indeed. I wonder how many of those who tried to stop Letby's murderous killing spree became "former" first!?