A neonatologist here. A 24 or 25 week infant just born and requiring intubation in the DR is not stable. So many questions...about the medical care, not the nursing care. Infection is always a consideration in any preterm birth. Fever is rarely a sign of infection in a preterm infant, can't believe anyone even mentions this. It is very possible for such a baby to have been intubated, or never intubated properly, and be able for a short period to sustain herself briefly, breathing on her own, then have her tire out and decompensate. The tube being dislodged or never in is one reason a large leak may occur. Incredible and bizarre is the inability of these docs to understand the leak. They should be fired based on their testimony alone and self-admittance of incompetency. Last, decompensations and low blood pressures like this can occur for other non-stated reasons...pulmonary hemorrhage after surfactant requiring an increase in vent support or bleeding in the brain ,intraventricular hemorrhage or IVH. Neither is specifically mentioned by there is reference to blood in the ETT and mouth, this raises the possibility of pulmonary hemorrhage which the docs did not recognize.
Hi Martin. Thank you for your professional input - it's nice to see that someone with the chops can look at the same information and ask many of the same questions. I have to say that one of the biggest realisations I have had looking at the babies I have investigated thus far is that this small group of paediatricians moonlighting as neonatologists at Chester lived in a strange bubble universe where all their premature neonates were stable, happy, doing well... even as proper neonatologists from the Level 3 NICUs in the surrounding areas who were receiving the most critical neonates from Chester were finding them to be poorly, infected, severely unwell and unavoidably dying. This happened in so many cases - including cases that didn't end up at Letby's feet (like the baby boy I reported on who got sepsis in Chester, was sent out to (I think) Liverpool and they found the infection and treated him with ABs, then he was sent back to Chester only to end up severely ill with sepsis again a week later. There is a severe and striking lack of competence at Chester, but worse than that, there is this reality distortion field around these doctors whereby they believe they are the best paediatric doctors to ever walk gods earth and that all their even most poorly neonates are going to survive to be rocket scientists while anyone not affected by the distortion field sees the truth and knowns that the lack of competence is surely what has killed these children.
The more I think about it the worse it seems. Do we know if any of the paediatricians had specialist training for neonates? This goes beyond the Lucy Letby case. How do we know that competent medics will treat us in hospital?
We don't. We can only hope. About 25-30% of all medical issues are iatrogenic.
I had surgery about ten years ago. It did not end as intended. I discovered the MD performing the procedure had lied on the ops report, giving a completely different reason for the operation.
Yes ! So many questions. Like: why did not more doctors, specialists, speak up for her ? Why did nurse's organizations not come to her defense ?
Also, I keep reading "but the jury knew so much more !" Apparently they had hundreds of pages of additional information ? What was in those reports ? Did Lucy's defense have acces to this material ?
Dr Jarayram’s testimony clearly shows CYA (an American term for covering your a ss (aka as arse in UK english).
Clearly Dr. JARAYRAM and Dr. Smith had no idea how to care for sickly premie babies and this kept torturing the poor baby with several intubation attempts, some with wrong size intubation tube: "Dr Smith took three attempts to successfully intubate Baby K, twice with what he acknowledged may have been the wrong (too large) breathing tube..."
Can there be a relation between the repeated incubation attempts and the baby dislodging the breathing tube shortly afterwards ? Yes, the intubation attempts would have put lot of stress on the system of this prematurely-born baby.
Apparently an inexperienced doctor had great difficullty intubating the baby and on the third attempt used a size 2.0 ETT rather than a size 2.5. Perhaps his inexperience lead to a failure to tether the tube adequately and in any case a smaller ETT would likely slip out of position rather than a larger snug fitting ETT. Later, in yet another re-intubation a 2.5 was inserted. Do we know for sure Dr Jayarem was actually present for the initial intubation immediately after delivery? I read that he had been called at home to notify him of an impending admission of a woman in preterm labour as per protocol. But at what point did he arrive at the hospital? If he was there for the delivery why did he not intubate the baby himself? It doesn't make sense to me that he was even present at this point. I know junior doctors have to get experience but surely Dr Jayarem didn't stand by and watch an inexperienced doctor failing in this critical procedure? I'm wondering just how much they are now covering each others backs.
I may be wrong but I get the impression that Lucy's friends and nursing colleagues still support her - privately - but are too intimidated to show this publicly. We have heard this week from a nursing colleague who wanted to provide support to Lucy in the trial process and she was actually warned by the Trust not to get involved. Again, its NHS hospital culture. I have also read similar posts from nurses "in the know" who wanted to remain anonymous - perfectly understandable. If I'm honest its the fact that I am retired that gives me the courage to speak my mind. Its wonderful to see though that there's a growing number of senior health professionals starting to speak out.
Did you see the Channel 5 program. Two defense-experts spoke out, but anonymously, as they fear retribution. The documentary also includes doctor Laney Squier, who testified on behalf of a woman accused of killing her child - Shaken Baby Syndrome. The woman was exonerated but Dr. Squier lost a her license, was stricken from the register, etc. (She was later reinstated.)
Who is willing to sacrifice everything he/she studied/worked so hard for, for a mere stranger ?
Yes, I saw the program. Pleased to see that some have changed their minds since it aired and they now believe Lucy to be innocent. Unfortunately, as with Dr Squier, the impact of grossly unfair treatment has lasting consequences even after being exonerated.
"A registrar has told a court that an extremely premature baby's condition deteriorated when her breathing tube became displaced.
Lucy Letby, 34, is accused of deliberately displacing a breathing tube attached to the infant, known as Baby K, within two hours of her birth at the Countess of Chester Hospital. Letby denies a single count of attempted murder.
Dr James Smith, a locum mid-level registrar, was on duty when Baby K was born at 25 weeks in February 2016, weighing just 1lb 8oz (692g), Manchester Crown Court was told. He aid he had resuscitated the baby before she was then intubated.
The jury heard Baby K's condition deteriorated and the breathing tube had to be re-inserted a further two times . Dr Smith said it had become displaced - something he said under cross examination "could happen", the jury heard.
Dr Ravi Jayaram - a consultant pediatrician who has worked at the Countess of Chester since 2004 - said the registrar made three attempts to insert the tube but he did not intervene because there was good chest movement and ventilation.
The prosecution said Letby was "caught virtually red-handed" by Dr Jayaram when he entered nursery one on February 17 and saw her standing over Baby K’s cot "doing nothing" as the baby’s blood oxygen levels dipped.
Baby K was eventually transported to Wirral’s Arrowe Park Hospital later the same morning. She died there three days later although the prosecution does not allege that Letby caused her death."
The above was copied from a UK newspaper. Iy shows Jayaram was present when the intubations happened. He told police and court he went later that eve to check on baby K. "because he realized Lucy was alone wth her". If you ask me, he went to check on the baby as that morning he witnessed the issues with inserting the breathing tube.
Of course later on, in a second trial, Lucy was found guilty of trying to kill baby K.
Yes, you are correct in giving an account of what Jayaram said. I'm more interested in what we know, what can be corroborated. He has said so much that just does not add up.
Nurse Lucy Letby says she is totally innocent. She was not believed, But everything Doctor Jayaram says MUST be true? ... because he's a doctor?
I'm a retired engineer. One of the classic sources of error arises when a person carrying out a task is being watched by a supervisor who is more senior. If neither knows how to competently carry out the task, the person carrying out the task may think to themselves ... 'I don't really know how to do this, but I don't want to admit that I don't, and thank goodness the supervisor who is watching me does know how to do it. They would surely intervene if I get it wrong'. And meanwhile the supervisor is thinking, 'I don't really know how to do this, but I don't want to admit that I don't, and thank goodness the technician who is carrying out the work does know how to do it.'
"he did not build the ventilator and therefore did not know what the builders meant by that reading". If I get caught for speeding can I try - I did not build the car so not sure what the speedometer reading means? If infection or surfactant can show a similar appearance on X-ray the prudent decision would be a start with what would be worse; be prepared as in the Scouts moto. "I do wonder why the supposedly illustrious ‘tv’ paediatric doctor stood aside and watched as a locum/trainee first performed multiple cycles of resuscitation and then failed on the first two attempts to intubate Baby K" - painful to read; totally unprofessional.
I think a jury cannot decide on complex matters of medicine myself. as lay person I do not think I could. there is a HUGE learning curve, years of training and analysis that laypeople unless they have these backgrounds cannot in my view fully appreciate. The consequences for a Lucy of that is really serious.
I also agree the media have done a great deal to paint a monster Lucy. That is what sells papers. the 'so called confession note was touted by many of them. This note with its I'm innocent, was wrongly and seriously taken out of context to totally alter its meaning. A jury member out of their depth with the science could easily have been swayed by the use of that note to a guilty verdict.
Very good detailed analysis of Baby K, I hope people are listening!
Just what I have been thinking. The jury are being asked to make probability judgements on matters where they may have no medical knowledge or proper grasp of statistics, which is notorious for fallacious reasoning.
I know what you mean but the fault here does not lie with statistics. Its the people who don't have a clue what they are doing. They don't consider the actual question they seek an answer to, don't consider the actual data they need to collect. There's a well known saying in statistics "shit in, shit out". You must ensure at each step of the way the collection of appropriate data so that you can correctly interpret the results. Then again, perhaps they knew exactly the kind of picture chart they wanted to show the jury and set about getting it. That's not stupid, that's corrupt.
Yes. A murder is a blessing for a newspaper. A serial killer is even better because that means many articles. A serial baby killer ? Jackpot ! It does not get better than that. And indeed we have seen how the media - print, television, radio, so-called social media all had a field day for the past few years. Journalism - critical thinking, investigating - is apparently not done anymore in the UK. Hang the wench and take the money !
I think perhaps the jury would have managed to arrive at an innocent verdict IF they had experts helping them to understand all that was presented. Instead they had biased and CLUELESS so-called medical experts to dupe them. How on earth could a man who had NEVER been a neonatologist and who hadn't worked as a paediatrician for over 15 years be considered an expert??? He made a living by touting himself into a role of "expert" in court proceedings - as he did here. He had no idea how to conduct himself, coming up with his own personally held theories of what happened instead of sticking to the facts and relating them to relevant research findings. He was obviously not impartial but was going along with the strategy developed by police and "gang of four" doctors. Together they were weaving a thread* to lay at Lucy Letby's feet: the notion that she had injected air into babies ... sometimes used insulin. Pure invention. I really don't know how all this was allowed to happen.
* the golden thread* is the term used in podcast discussions between Dr Michael McConville and Peter Elston "We need to talk about Lucy Letby" easily found on internet & good listening.
This whole saga hasn’t ‘felt’ right from the start.
I can only commend you for your honest diligence and hard work in reporting the facts as documented, and for voicing obvious concerns about the evidence for Ms Leroy’s guilt.
I assume you are aware of Prof. Norman Fenton who is currently Professor Emeritus in Risk Management at Queen Mary’s College, University of London.
I mention Prof. Fenton because he was involved in a similar case to Ms Letby’s some years ago where a male NHS nurse was accused of serious crimes, but the Court was shown using Bayesian statistical analysis (Fenton’s speciality) that the events ascribed to the nurse could have just as easily happened by chance.
It’s a straw in a torrent but might have merit in an Appeal.
Stable...you mst be joking or at least Dr J and his boy Robin were joking.
The ONLY way that the 94% number was due to the tube being displaced by Lucy...really....Did Dr J and his boy ever read the instruction manual and even consider if the right ET tube was in. It makes good reading to read those instructions and it is a pity that they were never read to the jury but like so many things in this trial a lot has been hidden and a lot is going to come out.
Yes all these poor babies died but not one was murdered, however that does not mean nobody was responsible and that will come out too in due course. How convenient to point the finger at 'the witch' when it will get a lot of powerful men out of the shit.
In fact if you look at this whole fiasco you have a man in fancy dress siting in judgement. You have another abhorrent man in slightly less fancy dress bullying a young woman day after day.
You have hysterical mendacious witnesses to come in for the kill and a baying mob in the street.
I have just described the Salem Witch Trials powerful men overcoming ironically and truly in this case, a defenceless woman....seems remarkably similar to what we have seen in Manchester in 2024.
Long before these sorry episodes reached public consciousness, it was well known in that region that CoCH had clinical management problems. Your reports highlight this terrible situation.
A bleak picture of the practice of medicine and law in England indeed.
A warning to anyone aspiring to positions in the NHS. And avoid having anything to do with the police and the law if at all possible.
With the fact that it was Dr. J. who was clearly involved (and, as the senior specialist, ultimately responsible) for Baby K, it suddenly strikes me that the string of circumstances you've elucidated here lend a serious level of circumstantial evidence to the idea that this whole persecution of Lucy stems directly from Dr. J (another commenter mention 'covering your arse' - I totally agree). If it was up to me I would have him seriously interrogated and evaluated in great detail and, if necessary, not just struck off but potentially put on trial for, well, I'll think of something. Malicious prosecution, libel, perversion of the course of justice, perjury - and we haven't even gotten on to medical malpractice or manslaughter and such like.
I've always thought there was 'something about him' - it immediately triggered my primal, instinctive 'warning' thing. And that primal instinct has always been really prominent in me since I was an abused child...
How brave of you to mention past trauma. It helps others ... and perhaps you too. I've had other difficulties in my life and feel wiser, stronger because of them. I hope you can relate.
You are certainly doing good work here. I am in complete accord with your views.
I couldn't agree more. Imagine what it must have been like for Lucy Letby in the dock when Jayaram was allowed to provide so-called "eye-witness testimony". Sorry, I meant "virtual" eye-witness testimony. Or should I say "no eye-witness testimony" because he saw nothing untoward, wrote nothing at the time, did nothing at the time.
I think he was born in UK, accent suggests this too. Yes, parents from India where everyone loved the hero stories about the good doctor Jayaram - him catching the serial killer of babies. Many in the UK loved the fairy story too Yes, good looking and TV would suit him and his craving for attention ... but can we please keep him away from neonates and nurses ... and anyone who is sick and needs care? I prefer consultants to be dedicated, experienced, hard working team players and committed to the care and safety of their patients. Call me old-fashioned but that's how I like them to be.
Having looked at this case in great detail I find Dr Jayaram to be very shady and untrustworthy.
One of the key accusing consultant's testimony (Dr Ravi Jayaram) was described by the Judge Goss, as "tainted and unreliable" in his summary of the case.
Jayarams claims are full of contradictions.
Key points:
Baby K treated by Dr J who described her as “very very settled" and "stable - poorly, but stable".
Baby K transported to Arrowe Park. A doctor on the transport team described Baby K as
"extremely unwell".
Arrowe Park neonatologist found Baby K had a severe lung disease.
Arrowe Park neonatologist described Baby K as extremely ill with low and uncontrolled blood pressure, uncontrolled blood sugars and kidney failure.
None of these conditions had been identified or treated at CoCH.
Baby K was cared for at Arrowe Park for two days until care was withdrawn. The cause of death was noted as severe respiratory distress and extreme prematurity.
The mortality review at Arrowe Park concluded that:
Baby K's extremely poor condition on arrival meant death was unavoidable. Yet Jayaram describes Baby K as being very very settled and stable..
Babies born before 25 weeks have somewhere between 31.9-68.4% chance of survival - meaning roughly that between 4-7 neonates like Baby K will die and that Baby K is statistically more likely to die than live.
The mortality review also found that she had received sub-optimal care at
Сосн.
There was a case the year before where a baby died because they'd put the tube down his oesophagus, instead of his trachea, by mistake and then failed to pick up on it, blaming the machines instead. Also Baby K which COCH staff tried and failed to intubate, multiple times. But when the transfer team turned up, their doctor did it easily, first time, and couldn't see what the problem had been.
The sub-optimal care included multiple repeat procedures, delays in achieving central lines and administration of fluids and antibiotics, and the three contended extubations - one of which the Arrowe Park neonatologist witnessed first-hand as part of transport team caring for Baby K Jamie Egan corroborates this unholy mess with the comment: "This will go back to court only with the proper defendants in the dock".
The Prosecution also states that no other babies on the unit were receiving insulin at the time.
But we know that:
1. Baby F who is considered one of the insulin babies had a twin who had hours prior been alive and receiving insulin. Twins are often labeled Baby A Lastname and Baby B Lastname, which could have caused a mixup if one didn't look closely at A and B.
2. Baby F had previously been prescribed insulin.
3. The lab test to check blood sugar levels is not sufficient enough to be used to rule in or out exogenous insulin in a criminal case. It's stated from the lab that performed it.
4. Baby F's blood sugar levels improved not just with the change of fluid, but with a change that included a higher % of sugar in the bag, instead of being bolused with the same bag of lower % sugar.
For the air bubbles in the blood vessels:
1. One of the air bubbles was noted by the spine, which could have been caused from trauma during compressions, as that baby received.
2. The idea of air embolism based on the skin mottling was refuted by a co-author of the paper used by the prosecution that referred to the look of skin after an air embolism. He said that it does not match their research.
3. Baby A who the prosecution said died of an air embolism did not have any matching symptoms of air embolism on autopsy and had gone close to 7 hours without fluids at less than 24 hours of life, meaning the baby was dehydrated, and the team had difficulty placing a line and one the line was running was when the collapse happened and originally the idea was that the line was too close to the heart, which is a common complication of the type of line placed
- more common and likely than an air embolism.
Six of the seven babies found to have been murdered had postmortems at Alder Hey hospital, a centre of excellence. These pathologists had had the advantage of physically examining the babies and reported no unnatural findings.
There is a child mortality oversight meeting in Cheshire which is multidisciplinary and has a member of the police in attendance. It is designed especially for clinicians to raise cases where there are questions/suspicions around deaths and the causes. Despite claiming to be so alarmed by the deaths the consultants never took any of the babies cases to this meeting.
Postmortem for Child A was unknown natural cause of death, prosecution say it's air embolism.
Child C was natural death related to being IUGR. Prosecution says air in the NG tube.
Child D was congenital pneumonia.
Prosecution said air embolism.
Child E did not have a postmortem but was considered natural death.
Prosecution said it was air embolism.
Child I had a natural cause of death but I can't remember the specific cause.Prosecution said air embolism into veins and NG tube.
Several pieces of evidence presented at the trial have since been found to be questionable, for example:-
* The statistical chart of who was on duty: doubts raised by Royal Statistical Society
* the reasoning for suspecting air embolism: doubts raised by the author of the research paper
* the evidence for insulin poisoning: doubts raised by Prof Alan Wayne
If the insulin and C-Peptide ratio is so conclusive, then why wasn't anyone charged with poisoning the third baby identified by the prosecution's expert as having that same "suspicious" test result? Could it be that the prosecution actually only considers that result to be proof of a crime if they can pin it on Lucy Letby?
One of the babies had an insulin result so abnormally high that the baby would almost certainly be dead had the result been accurate. Instead, that baby had relatively mild symptoms of hypoglycemia and made a full recovery (this is also the baby that Letby basically could not have poisoned anyway, since the "poisoning" persisted even after the baby's feed bag was changed while Letby was off shift and not around to poison it).
One interesting fact is that the initial insulin prescription by a doctor for Child E was 2.5 times higher than was actually administered, according to the notes. It is likely the insulin "attack" was a medical mistake.
The other baby also had a test result that essentially had to be an error, because although the c-peptide level in that baby was lower than what you would expect based on its insulin level, it also wasn't nearly as low as you'd expect to see in a baby that had been poisoning with exogenous insulin.
So the only real explanation of a result like that is that one of the test results for that baby was inaccurate. And that also tracks with the fact that this baby survived the incident and had only very mild symptoms of hypoglycemia.
The clinical findings are only consistent regarding hypoglycaemia.
Child F's insulin level, per the lab result, was so high it could have killed an adult, let alone a baby, but Child F survived without harm. So the clinical picture doesn't really fit the lab result in that case.
They were also on lipids and heparin with the TPN and if the lab draw was drawn from the line without a sufficient waste, both lipids and heparin can cause falsely elevated insulin immunoassay levels.
Child F's insulin reading of 4657 was so high as to kill an adult a couple of times over.
Prof Marks, who invented the test for insulin (or rather insulin antibodies) said the test should never be used in isolation due to the danger of false positives.
Insulin is a terrible murder method. Especially in a NICU where they can just..... Give the baby sugar... Because they are checking its blood every few hours and it's under constant supervision.
The prosecution opening (propensity statement that because she was already found guilty of something else, it's important - and therefore the jury should find her guilty here) is disturbing. It makes me wonder whether, at the start, the prosecution believed they couldn't have a successful case without smearing her first. Surely in a fair justice system and if they honestly believed their case to be strong, they should have had to present this case on its own merits before a Letby-naive jury?
Yes, Lucy Letby was (and I hope will be again) a dedicated neonatal nurse: intelligent, compassionate, caring, hard-working, a sensitive yet courageous young woman, She was not afraid to make VALID complaints about the doctors - the reason she was scapegoated by them. As part of her role she was required to highlight incidents and she did.
Yes, she was a bit infatuated with one of the doctors - again, normal human behaviour. Unfortunately it was a doctor who would later reject their friendship to protect his own derriere. Doctors at this particular hospital are particularly good at covering their backsides.
Taking handover sheets home? - I did this all my working life. At the end of a shift I went home in my uniform., handover sheet in one of my three pockets which contained all manner of stuff needed to get me through the shift. At home I would simply empty out my pockets and throw my uniform into the washing machine. I mention this here and elsewhere because there is so much misunderstanding about it.
Of course, my handover sheets contained confidential information. That's why they used to pile up a bit at home until I had time to shred them properly. I would never just throw them in a bin. Every working day was a new handover sheet. They contained useful information about each patient on the unit/ward, information I would need to refer to during my work, before writing up the formal notes and when giving a verbal handover to the next shift before I left work. It was important to pass on all this information. At home, sometimes the sheets came in handy if a nursing colleague rang me with some query about a patient's care. Every day stuff - common practice for me and my nursing colleagues. Yet this same practice was described as bizarre and sinister behaviour and even mentioned in the sentencing hearing of Lucy Letby. I see people noting concerns about confidentiality. What about everything inside my head? It was all confidential and remained so. People even talk about it being a sackable offence. Good luck with that! Can we afford to sack them all?
Every caring and compassionate thing that Lucy Letby ever did was portrayed in the media as something vile. Her parents were scrutinised for the way they brought her up. Lots of psycho-babble emerged in social media. I am so disgusted by the UK media's role in all this. And so disappointed in the number of people who gorged on it all.
I note the media are now starting to cover their own derrieres. We should start taping their past videos to publicly play back after the aquittal.
If I had been in Lucy Letby's shoes - being accused by doctors of heinous acts of harm and even murder of babies - I would most certainly have wondered who was behind it all .... the parents??? Surely not??? I would know that I could not possibly approach the parents and ask them so I would do the next best thing and determine if there was anything to learn on social media. Its a no brainer. Who would't? Yet this too was categorised as bizzarre stalking behaviour. No, it wasn't the parents. It was only the gang of four doctors.
Proper consideration of the "evidence" presented required knowledge of work practices in a hospital setting and especially the *culture* that prevails. The jury did not have this knowlege and no one educated them about it.
This was not a miscarriage of justice that could be expected to occur in the UK from time to time - everything about this particular trial process was shambolic from the start. A real embarassment for the police and judicial system. An embarassment to the UK. Its not going to go away until it is all properly addressed.
I doubt that she will return to nursing though I hope to see her totally exonerated. I too see her as a caring, dedicated nurse who was betrayed by those she should have been able to trust.
Excellent summary and analysis of the trial. As many others have commented, I also believe Dr. Jayaram and co were not competent in neonatal care and they are using Lucy Letby as a scapegoat. My blood boils every time I think about the LL case and the terrible injustice I have witnessed. The headline from the Daily Mail thoroughly sickened me.
Honestly, it is like two new green airline pilots who have taken command of an Airbus A380 calling in the airline stewardess who just qualified to fly a Cessna 172 and getting her to take the left seat while the pilots fumble around for the flight manuals in the back of the cockpit - and then, when she undoubtably finds an A380 is nothing like a Cessna 172 and asks them to take over, and they do, and they crash because they still haven't found the flight manual that would tell them which buttons to push and how to fly the plane, blaming her for the inevitable death and destruction caused by their lack of competence that crashed the A380 into a shopping mall.
At the top of this article is a link to the previous article with the word "HERE" that takes you back to Part 21. For each article in the main series I have put a link to the previous article at the top of the page, and a link to the next article (once published) at the bottom. Thanks for reading!
Hello - thank you for your Excellent and (sadly) all too Heart breaking description of Baby K's tragic - for it is - case. Haunting in particular is the realization - with Hindsight - that Baby K might well have had a better outcome had she BEEN transferred directly to Arrowe Park, Liverpool, NNU. It is as it is - but VERY CLEARLY your conclusion of Incompetency within the C of CH hospital Neo Natal Unit ( Lucy and a few other Nurses and even FEWER Medics excepted) chimes exactly with mine. I particularly like the "economical with the Truth" summation of Dr. Ravi Jayaram's entire Testimony. Contradictions abound, sheer "false witness" where Miss Letby is concerned - the BREATHING TUBE was not dislodged by Lucy at all - it was removed by Dr. J. himself on his own admission before being replaced. The Locum / Trainee - Dr. Smith is an interesting figure in all of this - 94% leakage from the Ventilator - he should have KNOWN that that was hugely significant and Dr. Jayaram's implicit trust in Dr. Smith's own COMPETENCY comes into Question. I always believed Lucy - and even more so now having seen this account - Lucy to be BLAMELESS of ALL ..... her hands crucially weren't in the Incubator and the lid was undisturbed. So "etched on his Memory were his sightings ( of Lucy apparently' doing nothing' with respect to Baby K ), that he will forever have nightmares" of it - well, Sir, frankly, after the way you fabricated the "incident" and laid Blame at Lucy's door, you deserve to. And DR. Jayaram - did not possess the Courage of his Convictions in going to the Cheshire Constabulary with his evident - by -now Concerns over Lucy - Reputation, Reputation, Reputation - lest anyone think i am singling him out here, there are others FUILTY of putting their Reputations before Truth.... self - interest before Truth. Lucy - by contrast - the Paragon of a Courageous and Blameless Good Neo - Natal Nurse. Thank you, Lucy, for teaching ALL of us - some more than others - a Lesson in Moral Conduct as well as the ability to Challenge and Question. The C of CH hospital was lucky to have Lucy - - but Lucy was not so lucky to have the C of CH hospital. Kind regards - Christopher.
A neonatologist here. A 24 or 25 week infant just born and requiring intubation in the DR is not stable. So many questions...about the medical care, not the nursing care. Infection is always a consideration in any preterm birth. Fever is rarely a sign of infection in a preterm infant, can't believe anyone even mentions this. It is very possible for such a baby to have been intubated, or never intubated properly, and be able for a short period to sustain herself briefly, breathing on her own, then have her tire out and decompensate. The tube being dislodged or never in is one reason a large leak may occur. Incredible and bizarre is the inability of these docs to understand the leak. They should be fired based on their testimony alone and self-admittance of incompetency. Last, decompensations and low blood pressures like this can occur for other non-stated reasons...pulmonary hemorrhage after surfactant requiring an increase in vent support or bleeding in the brain ,intraventricular hemorrhage or IVH. Neither is specifically mentioned by there is reference to blood in the ETT and mouth, this raises the possibility of pulmonary hemorrhage which the docs did not recognize.
Hi Martin. Thank you for your professional input - it's nice to see that someone with the chops can look at the same information and ask many of the same questions. I have to say that one of the biggest realisations I have had looking at the babies I have investigated thus far is that this small group of paediatricians moonlighting as neonatologists at Chester lived in a strange bubble universe where all their premature neonates were stable, happy, doing well... even as proper neonatologists from the Level 3 NICUs in the surrounding areas who were receiving the most critical neonates from Chester were finding them to be poorly, infected, severely unwell and unavoidably dying. This happened in so many cases - including cases that didn't end up at Letby's feet (like the baby boy I reported on who got sepsis in Chester, was sent out to (I think) Liverpool and they found the infection and treated him with ABs, then he was sent back to Chester only to end up severely ill with sepsis again a week later. There is a severe and striking lack of competence at Chester, but worse than that, there is this reality distortion field around these doctors whereby they believe they are the best paediatric doctors to ever walk gods earth and that all their even most poorly neonates are going to survive to be rocket scientists while anyone not affected by the distortion field sees the truth and knowns that the lack of competence is surely what has killed these children.
The more I think about it the worse it seems. Do we know if any of the paediatricians had specialist training for neonates? This goes beyond the Lucy Letby case. How do we know that competent medics will treat us in hospital?
We don't. We can only hope. About 25-30% of all medical issues are iatrogenic.
I had surgery about ten years ago. It did not end as intended. I discovered the MD performing the procedure had lied on the ops report, giving a completely different reason for the operation.
Apparently the only neonataologist was the lead consultant Dr Breary, the rest being paediatricians. Hard to believe.
Yes ! So many questions. Like: why did not more doctors, specialists, speak up for her ? Why did nurse's organizations not come to her defense ?
Also, I keep reading "but the jury knew so much more !" Apparently they had hundreds of pages of additional information ? What was in those reports ? Did Lucy's defense have acces to this material ?
Anyone ?
"The jury knew so much more" is the mantra of those who don't like people suggesting Lucy Letby is innocent.
"why did not more doctors, specialists, speak up for her ? Why did nurse's organizations not come to her defense ?"
Yes, all she was given was a PLUMBER.
Dr Jarayram’s testimony clearly shows CYA (an American term for covering your a ss (aka as arse in UK english).
Clearly Dr. JARAYRAM and Dr. Smith had no idea how to care for sickly premie babies and this kept torturing the poor baby with several intubation attempts, some with wrong size intubation tube: "Dr Smith took three attempts to successfully intubate Baby K, twice with what he acknowledged may have been the wrong (too large) breathing tube..."
Lucy's coworkers are covering up by blaming Lucy.
I agree I think its very sad for this poor infant, I think the intubation attempts must have been hugely traumatic all by themselves.
Can there be a relation between the repeated incubation attempts and the baby dislodging the breathing tube shortly afterwards ? Yes, the intubation attempts would have put lot of stress on the system of this prematurely-born baby.
Apparently an inexperienced doctor had great difficullty intubating the baby and on the third attempt used a size 2.0 ETT rather than a size 2.5. Perhaps his inexperience lead to a failure to tether the tube adequately and in any case a smaller ETT would likely slip out of position rather than a larger snug fitting ETT. Later, in yet another re-intubation a 2.5 was inserted. Do we know for sure Dr Jayarem was actually present for the initial intubation immediately after delivery? I read that he had been called at home to notify him of an impending admission of a woman in preterm labour as per protocol. But at what point did he arrive at the hospital? If he was there for the delivery why did he not intubate the baby himself? It doesn't make sense to me that he was even present at this point. I know junior doctors have to get experience but surely Dr Jayarem didn't stand by and watch an inexperienced doctor failing in this critical procedure? I'm wondering just how much they are now covering each others backs.
https://jameganx.notepin.co
I may be wrong but I get the impression that Lucy's friends and nursing colleagues still support her - privately - but are too intimidated to show this publicly. We have heard this week from a nursing colleague who wanted to provide support to Lucy in the trial process and she was actually warned by the Trust not to get involved. Again, its NHS hospital culture. I have also read similar posts from nurses "in the know" who wanted to remain anonymous - perfectly understandable. If I'm honest its the fact that I am retired that gives me the courage to speak my mind. Its wonderful to see though that there's a growing number of senior health professionals starting to speak out.
Did you see the Channel 5 program. Two defense-experts spoke out, but anonymously, as they fear retribution. The documentary also includes doctor Laney Squier, who testified on behalf of a woman accused of killing her child - Shaken Baby Syndrome. The woman was exonerated but Dr. Squier lost a her license, was stricken from the register, etc. (She was later reinstated.)
Who is willing to sacrifice everything he/she studied/worked so hard for, for a mere stranger ?
Yes, I saw the program. Pleased to see that some have changed their minds since it aired and they now believe Lucy to be innocent. Unfortunately, as with Dr Squier, the impact of grossly unfair treatment has lasting consequences even after being exonerated.
"A registrar has told a court that an extremely premature baby's condition deteriorated when her breathing tube became displaced.
Lucy Letby, 34, is accused of deliberately displacing a breathing tube attached to the infant, known as Baby K, within two hours of her birth at the Countess of Chester Hospital. Letby denies a single count of attempted murder.
Dr James Smith, a locum mid-level registrar, was on duty when Baby K was born at 25 weeks in February 2016, weighing just 1lb 8oz (692g), Manchester Crown Court was told. He aid he had resuscitated the baby before she was then intubated.
The jury heard Baby K's condition deteriorated and the breathing tube had to be re-inserted a further two times . Dr Smith said it had become displaced - something he said under cross examination "could happen", the jury heard.
Dr Ravi Jayaram - a consultant pediatrician who has worked at the Countess of Chester since 2004 - said the registrar made three attempts to insert the tube but he did not intervene because there was good chest movement and ventilation.
The prosecution said Letby was "caught virtually red-handed" by Dr Jayaram when he entered nursery one on February 17 and saw her standing over Baby K’s cot "doing nothing" as the baby’s blood oxygen levels dipped.
Baby K was eventually transported to Wirral’s Arrowe Park Hospital later the same morning. She died there three days later although the prosecution does not allege that Letby caused her death."
The above was copied from a UK newspaper. Iy shows Jayaram was present when the intubations happened. He told police and court he went later that eve to check on baby K. "because he realized Lucy was alone wth her". If you ask me, he went to check on the baby as that morning he witnessed the issues with inserting the breathing tube.
Of course later on, in a second trial, Lucy was found guilty of trying to kill baby K.
Yes, you are correct in giving an account of what Jayaram said. I'm more interested in what we know, what can be corroborated. He has said so much that just does not add up.
Nurse Lucy Letby says she is totally innocent. She was not believed, But everything Doctor Jayaram says MUST be true? ... because he's a doctor?
I watched nurse Letby watching the baby....
A big issue are her scribblings, stating that she did it, that she is evil. As well as the suitcase full of copies of patient records.
I'm a retired engineer. One of the classic sources of error arises when a person carrying out a task is being watched by a supervisor who is more senior. If neither knows how to competently carry out the task, the person carrying out the task may think to themselves ... 'I don't really know how to do this, but I don't want to admit that I don't, and thank goodness the supervisor who is watching me does know how to do it. They would surely intervene if I get it wrong'. And meanwhile the supervisor is thinking, 'I don't really know how to do this, but I don't want to admit that I don't, and thank goodness the technician who is carrying out the work does know how to do it.'
"he did not build the ventilator and therefore did not know what the builders meant by that reading". If I get caught for speeding can I try - I did not build the car so not sure what the speedometer reading means? If infection or surfactant can show a similar appearance on X-ray the prudent decision would be a start with what would be worse; be prepared as in the Scouts moto. "I do wonder why the supposedly illustrious ‘tv’ paediatric doctor stood aside and watched as a locum/trainee first performed multiple cycles of resuscitation and then failed on the first two attempts to intubate Baby K" - painful to read; totally unprofessional.
I think a jury cannot decide on complex matters of medicine myself. as lay person I do not think I could. there is a HUGE learning curve, years of training and analysis that laypeople unless they have these backgrounds cannot in my view fully appreciate. The consequences for a Lucy of that is really serious.
I also agree the media have done a great deal to paint a monster Lucy. That is what sells papers. the 'so called confession note was touted by many of them. This note with its I'm innocent, was wrongly and seriously taken out of context to totally alter its meaning. A jury member out of their depth with the science could easily have been swayed by the use of that note to a guilty verdict.
Very good detailed analysis of Baby K, I hope people are listening!
Just what I have been thinking. The jury are being asked to make probability judgements on matters where they may have no medical knowledge or proper grasp of statistics, which is notorious for fallacious reasoning.
I know what you mean but the fault here does not lie with statistics. Its the people who don't have a clue what they are doing. They don't consider the actual question they seek an answer to, don't consider the actual data they need to collect. There's a well known saying in statistics "shit in, shit out". You must ensure at each step of the way the collection of appropriate data so that you can correctly interpret the results. Then again, perhaps they knew exactly the kind of picture chart they wanted to show the jury and set about getting it. That's not stupid, that's corrupt.
Yes. A murder is a blessing for a newspaper. A serial killer is even better because that means many articles. A serial baby killer ? Jackpot ! It does not get better than that. And indeed we have seen how the media - print, television, radio, so-called social media all had a field day for the past few years. Journalism - critical thinking, investigating - is apparently not done anymore in the UK. Hang the wench and take the money !
I think perhaps the jury would have managed to arrive at an innocent verdict IF they had experts helping them to understand all that was presented. Instead they had biased and CLUELESS so-called medical experts to dupe them. How on earth could a man who had NEVER been a neonatologist and who hadn't worked as a paediatrician for over 15 years be considered an expert??? He made a living by touting himself into a role of "expert" in court proceedings - as he did here. He had no idea how to conduct himself, coming up with his own personally held theories of what happened instead of sticking to the facts and relating them to relevant research findings. He was obviously not impartial but was going along with the strategy developed by police and "gang of four" doctors. Together they were weaving a thread* to lay at Lucy Letby's feet: the notion that she had injected air into babies ... sometimes used insulin. Pure invention. I really don't know how all this was allowed to happen.
* the golden thread* is the term used in podcast discussions between Dr Michael McConville and Peter Elston "We need to talk about Lucy Letby" easily found on internet & good listening.
This whole saga hasn’t ‘felt’ right from the start.
I can only commend you for your honest diligence and hard work in reporting the facts as documented, and for voicing obvious concerns about the evidence for Ms Leroy’s guilt.
Just a thought.
I assume you are aware of Prof. Norman Fenton who is currently Professor Emeritus in Risk Management at Queen Mary’s College, University of London.
I mention Prof. Fenton because he was involved in a similar case to Ms Letby’s some years ago where a male NHS nurse was accused of serious crimes, but the Court was shown using Bayesian statistical analysis (Fenton’s speciality) that the events ascribed to the nurse could have just as easily happened by chance.
It’s a straw in a torrent but might have merit in an Appeal.
The author of the article has worked with the excellent Prof Fenton.
Yes, I did
But while Norman is a genius I am just... well... me :-)
Yes, an excellent MAN who has shown he puts Truth, honesty, and integrity before credentials, position, money, and even his own personal tragedies.
I hope history judges him well.
I found in Facebook discussion several people who stated they knew for sure Lucy Letby was guilty, as it had been proven by Bayesian statistics !
A shocking miscarriage of justice!
Stable...you mst be joking or at least Dr J and his boy Robin were joking.
The ONLY way that the 94% number was due to the tube being displaced by Lucy...really....Did Dr J and his boy ever read the instruction manual and even consider if the right ET tube was in. It makes good reading to read those instructions and it is a pity that they were never read to the jury but like so many things in this trial a lot has been hidden and a lot is going to come out.
Yes all these poor babies died but not one was murdered, however that does not mean nobody was responsible and that will come out too in due course. How convenient to point the finger at 'the witch' when it will get a lot of powerful men out of the shit.
In fact if you look at this whole fiasco you have a man in fancy dress siting in judgement. You have another abhorrent man in slightly less fancy dress bullying a young woman day after day.
You have hysterical mendacious witnesses to come in for the kill and a baying mob in the street.
I have just described the Salem Witch Trials powerful men overcoming ironically and truly in this case, a defenceless woman....seems remarkably similar to what we have seen in Manchester in 2024.
Long before these sorry episodes reached public consciousness, it was well known in that region that CoCH had clinical management problems. Your reports highlight this terrible situation.
A bleak picture of the practice of medicine and law in England indeed.
A warning to anyone aspiring to positions in the NHS. And avoid having anything to do with the police and the law if at all possible.
With the fact that it was Dr. J. who was clearly involved (and, as the senior specialist, ultimately responsible) for Baby K, it suddenly strikes me that the string of circumstances you've elucidated here lend a serious level of circumstantial evidence to the idea that this whole persecution of Lucy stems directly from Dr. J (another commenter mention 'covering your arse' - I totally agree). If it was up to me I would have him seriously interrogated and evaluated in great detail and, if necessary, not just struck off but potentially put on trial for, well, I'll think of something. Malicious prosecution, libel, perversion of the course of justice, perjury - and we haven't even gotten on to medical malpractice or manslaughter and such like.
I've always thought there was 'something about him' - it immediately triggered my primal, instinctive 'warning' thing. And that primal instinct has always been really prominent in me since I was an abused child...
How brave of you to mention past trauma. It helps others ... and perhaps you too. I've had other difficulties in my life and feel wiser, stronger because of them. I hope you can relate.
You are certainly doing good work here. I am in complete accord with your views.
I can definitely relate - thank you! That which does not kill us etc.
I couldn't agree more. Imagine what it must have been like for Lucy Letby in the dock when Jayaram was allowed to provide so-called "eye-witness testimony". Sorry, I meant "virtual" eye-witness testimony. Or should I say "no eye-witness testimony" because he saw nothing untoward, wrote nothing at the time, did nothing at the time.
He is good-looking, does well on tv. In the original home country, India, he is hailed as a hero.
Evelyn, so sorry to read that.
I think he was born in UK, accent suggests this too. Yes, parents from India where everyone loved the hero stories about the good doctor Jayaram - him catching the serial killer of babies. Many in the UK loved the fairy story too Yes, good looking and TV would suit him and his craving for attention ... but can we please keep him away from neonates and nurses ... and anyone who is sick and needs care? I prefer consultants to be dedicated, experienced, hard working team players and committed to the care and safety of their patients. Call me old-fashioned but that's how I like them to be.
You are right, he was born in the UK. I used "original home country" too loosely.
Nothing old-fashioned about the qualities you mention. In fact the first inquiry into CoCH NICU mentioned these were the issues to be improved.
Having looked at this case in great detail I find Dr Jayaram to be very shady and untrustworthy.
One of the key accusing consultant's testimony (Dr Ravi Jayaram) was described by the Judge Goss, as "tainted and unreliable" in his summary of the case.
Jayarams claims are full of contradictions.
Key points:
Baby K treated by Dr J who described her as “very very settled" and "stable - poorly, but stable".
Baby K transported to Arrowe Park. A doctor on the transport team described Baby K as
"extremely unwell".
Arrowe Park neonatologist found Baby K had a severe lung disease.
Arrowe Park neonatologist described Baby K as extremely ill with low and uncontrolled blood pressure, uncontrolled blood sugars and kidney failure.
None of these conditions had been identified or treated at CoCH.
Baby K was cared for at Arrowe Park for two days until care was withdrawn. The cause of death was noted as severe respiratory distress and extreme prematurity.
The mortality review at Arrowe Park concluded that:
Baby K's extremely poor condition on arrival meant death was unavoidable. Yet Jayaram describes Baby K as being very very settled and stable..
Babies born before 25 weeks have somewhere between 31.9-68.4% chance of survival - meaning roughly that between 4-7 neonates like Baby K will die and that Baby K is statistically more likely to die than live.
The mortality review also found that she had received sub-optimal care at
Сосн.
There was a case the year before where a baby died because they'd put the tube down his oesophagus, instead of his trachea, by mistake and then failed to pick up on it, blaming the machines instead. Also Baby K which COCH staff tried and failed to intubate, multiple times. But when the transfer team turned up, their doctor did it easily, first time, and couldn't see what the problem had been.
The sub-optimal care included multiple repeat procedures, delays in achieving central lines and administration of fluids and antibiotics, and the three contended extubations - one of which the Arrowe Park neonatologist witnessed first-hand as part of transport team caring for Baby K Jamie Egan corroborates this unholy mess with the comment: "This will go back to court only with the proper defendants in the dock".
The Prosecution also states that no other babies on the unit were receiving insulin at the time.
But we know that:
1. Baby F who is considered one of the insulin babies had a twin who had hours prior been alive and receiving insulin. Twins are often labeled Baby A Lastname and Baby B Lastname, which could have caused a mixup if one didn't look closely at A and B.
2. Baby F had previously been prescribed insulin.
3. The lab test to check blood sugar levels is not sufficient enough to be used to rule in or out exogenous insulin in a criminal case. It's stated from the lab that performed it.
4. Baby F's blood sugar levels improved not just with the change of fluid, but with a change that included a higher % of sugar in the bag, instead of being bolused with the same bag of lower % sugar.
For the air bubbles in the blood vessels:
1. One of the air bubbles was noted by the spine, which could have been caused from trauma during compressions, as that baby received.
2. The idea of air embolism based on the skin mottling was refuted by a co-author of the paper used by the prosecution that referred to the look of skin after an air embolism. He said that it does not match their research.
3. Baby A who the prosecution said died of an air embolism did not have any matching symptoms of air embolism on autopsy and had gone close to 7 hours without fluids at less than 24 hours of life, meaning the baby was dehydrated, and the team had difficulty placing a line and one the line was running was when the collapse happened and originally the idea was that the line was too close to the heart, which is a common complication of the type of line placed
- more common and likely than an air embolism.
Six of the seven babies found to have been murdered had postmortems at Alder Hey hospital, a centre of excellence. These pathologists had had the advantage of physically examining the babies and reported no unnatural findings.
There is a child mortality oversight meeting in Cheshire which is multidisciplinary and has a member of the police in attendance. It is designed especially for clinicians to raise cases where there are questions/suspicions around deaths and the causes. Despite claiming to be so alarmed by the deaths the consultants never took any of the babies cases to this meeting.
Postmortem for Child A was unknown natural cause of death, prosecution say it's air embolism.
Child C was natural death related to being IUGR. Prosecution says air in the NG tube.
Child D was congenital pneumonia.
Prosecution said air embolism.
Child E did not have a postmortem but was considered natural death.
Prosecution said it was air embolism.
Child I had a natural cause of death but I can't remember the specific cause.Prosecution said air embolism into veins and NG tube.
Several pieces of evidence presented at the trial have since been found to be questionable, for example:-
* The statistical chart of who was on duty: doubts raised by Royal Statistical Society
* the reasoning for suspecting air embolism: doubts raised by the author of the research paper
* the evidence for insulin poisoning: doubts raised by Prof Alan Wayne
If the insulin and C-Peptide ratio is so conclusive, then why wasn't anyone charged with poisoning the third baby identified by the prosecution's expert as having that same "suspicious" test result? Could it be that the prosecution actually only considers that result to be proof of a crime if they can pin it on Lucy Letby?
One of the babies had an insulin result so abnormally high that the baby would almost certainly be dead had the result been accurate. Instead, that baby had relatively mild symptoms of hypoglycemia and made a full recovery (this is also the baby that Letby basically could not have poisoned anyway, since the "poisoning" persisted even after the baby's feed bag was changed while Letby was off shift and not around to poison it).
One interesting fact is that the initial insulin prescription by a doctor for Child E was 2.5 times higher than was actually administered, according to the notes. It is likely the insulin "attack" was a medical mistake.
The other baby also had a test result that essentially had to be an error, because although the c-peptide level in that baby was lower than what you would expect based on its insulin level, it also wasn't nearly as low as you'd expect to see in a baby that had been poisoning with exogenous insulin.
So the only real explanation of a result like that is that one of the test results for that baby was inaccurate. And that also tracks with the fact that this baby survived the incident and had only very mild symptoms of hypoglycemia.
The clinical findings are only consistent regarding hypoglycaemia.
Child F's insulin level, per the lab result, was so high it could have killed an adult, let alone a baby, but Child F survived without harm. So the clinical picture doesn't really fit the lab result in that case.
They were also on lipids and heparin with the TPN and if the lab draw was drawn from the line without a sufficient waste, both lipids and heparin can cause falsely elevated insulin immunoassay levels.
Child F's insulin reading of 4657 was so high as to kill an adult a couple of times over.
Prof Marks, who invented the test for insulin (or rather insulin antibodies) said the test should never be used in isolation due to the danger of false positives.
Insulin is a terrible murder method. Especially in a NICU where they can just..... Give the baby sugar... Because they are checking its blood every few hours and it's under constant supervision.
AMEN
Seems to me Lucy Letby has been found guilty in this case because she is Lucy Letby.
The prosecution opening (propensity statement that because she was already found guilty of something else, it's important - and therefore the jury should find her guilty here) is disturbing. It makes me wonder whether, at the start, the prosecution believed they couldn't have a successful case without smearing her first. Surely in a fair justice system and if they honestly believed their case to be strong, they should have had to present this case on its own merits before a Letby-naive jury?
Yes, Lucy Letby was (and I hope will be again) a dedicated neonatal nurse: intelligent, compassionate, caring, hard-working, a sensitive yet courageous young woman, She was not afraid to make VALID complaints about the doctors - the reason she was scapegoated by them. As part of her role she was required to highlight incidents and she did.
Yes, she was a bit infatuated with one of the doctors - again, normal human behaviour. Unfortunately it was a doctor who would later reject their friendship to protect his own derriere. Doctors at this particular hospital are particularly good at covering their backsides.
Taking handover sheets home? - I did this all my working life. At the end of a shift I went home in my uniform., handover sheet in one of my three pockets which contained all manner of stuff needed to get me through the shift. At home I would simply empty out my pockets and throw my uniform into the washing machine. I mention this here and elsewhere because there is so much misunderstanding about it.
Of course, my handover sheets contained confidential information. That's why they used to pile up a bit at home until I had time to shred them properly. I would never just throw them in a bin. Every working day was a new handover sheet. They contained useful information about each patient on the unit/ward, information I would need to refer to during my work, before writing up the formal notes and when giving a verbal handover to the next shift before I left work. It was important to pass on all this information. At home, sometimes the sheets came in handy if a nursing colleague rang me with some query about a patient's care. Every day stuff - common practice for me and my nursing colleagues. Yet this same practice was described as bizarre and sinister behaviour and even mentioned in the sentencing hearing of Lucy Letby. I see people noting concerns about confidentiality. What about everything inside my head? It was all confidential and remained so. People even talk about it being a sackable offence. Good luck with that! Can we afford to sack them all?
Every caring and compassionate thing that Lucy Letby ever did was portrayed in the media as something vile. Her parents were scrutinised for the way they brought her up. Lots of psycho-babble emerged in social media. I am so disgusted by the UK media's role in all this. And so disappointed in the number of people who gorged on it all.
I note the media are now starting to cover their own derrieres. We should start taping their past videos to publicly play back after the aquittal.
If I had been in Lucy Letby's shoes - being accused by doctors of heinous acts of harm and even murder of babies - I would most certainly have wondered who was behind it all .... the parents??? Surely not??? I would know that I could not possibly approach the parents and ask them so I would do the next best thing and determine if there was anything to learn on social media. Its a no brainer. Who would't? Yet this too was categorised as bizzarre stalking behaviour. No, it wasn't the parents. It was only the gang of four doctors.
Proper consideration of the "evidence" presented required knowledge of work practices in a hospital setting and especially the *culture* that prevails. The jury did not have this knowlege and no one educated them about it.
This was not a miscarriage of justice that could be expected to occur in the UK from time to time - everything about this particular trial process was shambolic from the start. A real embarassment for the police and judicial system. An embarassment to the UK. Its not going to go away until it is all properly addressed.
I doubt that she will return to nursing though I hope to see her totally exonerated. I too see her as a caring, dedicated nurse who was betrayed by those she should have been able to trust.
At the very least I want to see her in the house of her dreams with her two cats back at home, visiting her lovely parents regularly.
Excellent summary and analysis of the trial. As many others have commented, I also believe Dr. Jayaram and co were not competent in neonatal care and they are using Lucy Letby as a scapegoat. My blood boils every time I think about the LL case and the terrible injustice I have witnessed. The headline from the Daily Mail thoroughly sickened me.
Honestly, it is like two new green airline pilots who have taken command of an Airbus A380 calling in the airline stewardess who just qualified to fly a Cessna 172 and getting her to take the left seat while the pilots fumble around for the flight manuals in the back of the cockpit - and then, when she undoubtably finds an A380 is nothing like a Cessna 172 and asks them to take over, and they do, and they crash because they still haven't found the flight manual that would tell them which buttons to push and how to fly the plane, blaming her for the inevitable death and destruction caused by their lack of competence that crashed the A380 into a shopping mall.
Please, Mr. HLandT, How do I access the other 21 (?) parts of LL, please ?!
At the top of this article is a link to the previous article with the word "HERE" that takes you back to Part 21. For each article in the main series I have put a link to the previous article at the top of the page, and a link to the next article (once published) at the bottom. Thanks for reading!
Not seeing HERE. But I think I found another way to acces previous articles.
Hello - thank you for your Excellent and (sadly) all too Heart breaking description of Baby K's tragic - for it is - case. Haunting in particular is the realization - with Hindsight - that Baby K might well have had a better outcome had she BEEN transferred directly to Arrowe Park, Liverpool, NNU. It is as it is - but VERY CLEARLY your conclusion of Incompetency within the C of CH hospital Neo Natal Unit ( Lucy and a few other Nurses and even FEWER Medics excepted) chimes exactly with mine. I particularly like the "economical with the Truth" summation of Dr. Ravi Jayaram's entire Testimony. Contradictions abound, sheer "false witness" where Miss Letby is concerned - the BREATHING TUBE was not dislodged by Lucy at all - it was removed by Dr. J. himself on his own admission before being replaced. The Locum / Trainee - Dr. Smith is an interesting figure in all of this - 94% leakage from the Ventilator - he should have KNOWN that that was hugely significant and Dr. Jayaram's implicit trust in Dr. Smith's own COMPETENCY comes into Question. I always believed Lucy - and even more so now having seen this account - Lucy to be BLAMELESS of ALL ..... her hands crucially weren't in the Incubator and the lid was undisturbed. So "etched on his Memory were his sightings ( of Lucy apparently' doing nothing' with respect to Baby K ), that he will forever have nightmares" of it - well, Sir, frankly, after the way you fabricated the "incident" and laid Blame at Lucy's door, you deserve to. And DR. Jayaram - did not possess the Courage of his Convictions in going to the Cheshire Constabulary with his evident - by -now Concerns over Lucy - Reputation, Reputation, Reputation - lest anyone think i am singling him out here, there are others FUILTY of putting their Reputations before Truth.... self - interest before Truth. Lucy - by contrast - the Paragon of a Courageous and Blameless Good Neo - Natal Nurse. Thank you, Lucy, for teaching ALL of us - some more than others - a Lesson in Moral Conduct as well as the ability to Challenge and Question. The C of CH hospital was lucky to have Lucy - - but Lucy was not so lucky to have the C of CH hospital. Kind regards - Christopher.