I have a feeling Lucy tried to protect some doctor(s), not realizing the danger she herself was in.
It is interesting how little press the death of baby Noah got when it happened. The coroner had during the inquest some choice words for the two doctors involved. But their names were withheld.
yeh i got that impression too, Lucy trying herself not to drop others in the frame. I am guessing Ben Myers advised her the case would likely be thrown out due to 'no case to answer', and I think this may have been one of the reasons why he didn't call in medical experts for the defence. Also in 2020 there was the death of Olly Stopworth after having been wrongly discharged from the unit, also down to negligence. I am surprised they haven't claimed that was murder by Lucy too whilst escaping from prison one night
If I understand the reporting correctly, yes she was.
Olly's death shows again how hard it is to diagnose sepsis properly and timely. Yet during the Thirlwall enquiry doctors stated for several babies that crashed/died "we excluded sepsis as a reason for the baby deteriorating". No one asked: how did you do this ? How could you be sure ?
Lucy is made to look more guilty by implying she killed, or tried to kill, more babies, since 2012 already, at other hospitals as well as CoCH; and by reporting how she "befriended" fellow-prisoner Beinash Batool. Again press/TV/radio are having field days by regurgitating & publishing what they are being told. Who supplies these stories to the media ?
What is your opinion about the press conference McDonald KC gave ? He had no real news, the flip-flop Dr. Evans made and now denies making, was reported in the media some time ago already.
THe press conference raised the issue the Mark is going back to the Court of Appeal (so this is in addition to going to the CCRC . Because the CCRC takes years, Mark is trying to get the Court of Appeal themselves to reconsider allowing a retrial . There is a precedent for this I believe but it is very rare. It is not new evidence which is why he is taking this route on some kind of grounds that what has emerged has meant that the conviction is unsafe. HOwever, that was teh case at the last application to appeal and yet the judges blocked on a letter of law issue, which is what they always do as they don't give a toss about what is morally sound, only about legalise. NOt sure why Mark thinks they will do different but due to teh massive amount of public support Lucy now has, inc a debate about to happen in parliament, I think the judges have to take some notice (they do move if the public sentiment is strong enough which is why all of us are doign the right thing by playing a part in exposing this.
Some time ago I raised the above question regarding the elimination of sepsis as the cause of death in some cases. It has never been answered. Were all the relevant tests carried out ?
I doubt it. ~They consistently fail to diagnose sepsis, a baby died of sepsis around the same time as babies A /C/D , yet they failed to understand why other babies were dying. There is a cover up of sepsis in UK . IN the whole of Europe it has been on the rise and I think some hospitals like COCH are just trying to pretend its not a probelm
I think that the hygiene and infection problems are at the core of the CoCH difficulties . A possible escape route failed compounding the issue and led to the current, probably unintentional situation - a good nurse incarcerated for life having probably done nothing but her job conscientiously, with no voice except via her legal team .
The CoCH incident in 2014 where a baby was accidentally injured might also have been significant and it led to a legal claim. I understand that these take years to settle for various reasons. Muddied water could create further delay.
Lucy L., had reported sewage problems and,, also, intubation difficulties - not known when this was. The first matter might have been the most difficult to resolve in the short term and the most problematical. Both had funding implications.....
yes 2020, my mistake 2024 was the inquest, I suppose 'covid' was also the excuse for why it took them 4 years to do an inquest. Not sure if Alison Timmis was working at COCH neonatal unit in 2015/2016 - its possible
She must have been, as she (Alison Timmis) was the doctor who sent that email to Tony Chambers in 2015 to say the unit was at breaking point and that the result would be the staff's mental health and babies lives
But was the Doctor responsible for Olly's death in 2020 the same as the doctor who caused the death of little Noah in 2014 ? We know now it was this doctor who gave evidence detrimental for Lucy.
not sure, not necessarily, I think there are many doctors/consultants making mistakes at COCH . . Alison TImmis and Dr. Mcarthy (a male) were both named as playing a part in Olly death, but Noah's inquest the woman concerned was allowed to remain anonymous, as she still is at the Inquiry as Dr. V.
It is odd - and somewhat confusing- that the anonymous doctor who was Dr B during the, 22/23 trial, became Dr V., during the Statutory Inquiry. Could this be a necessary precaution to protect the privacy of other possible connections?.
Yeh the gutter press can't help themselves. The press conference is because he is now taking an almost unprecedented route to go back to the Court of Appeal itself, because the Dewi mind changing is not counted as 'fresh evidence' as such rather it is just a situation showing that her conviction is unsafe. He is also going to the CCRC, the application to that will be made at the same time. The evidence on baby O will be new to most re aspirate causing liver damage . If that was concealed by COCH in first trial then I assume it can be counted as fresh evidence, although what is counted as fresh evidence is quite complex like everything else in our ridiculous and deliberately over complicated legal system
I have just read a very recent news report in which it is claimed that Lucy L., had psychopathic tendencies because she had followed up parents whose children had died during 2015/6 at CoCH NICU.. The suggestion is that this was her fatal error confirming her guilt.
I lived alone for 10 years. My employment was important to me and the work place was also the source of my friendships. I often spent non working time at home with hours to fill one way or another. I think that Lucy L., cared about the babies who were in her care and their parents and occasionally might have wondered about them. Maybe on-line investigation was not the best policy but it should not be assumed that this was an indication of any wrong doing or macarbre intention..
Neither is it the only explanation. Away from CoCH and her colleagues she might have been lonely sometimes. I was and , as far as I know , I have not seriously - or even mildly- harmed anyone.
News hounds want to increase newspaper sales and they focus on their target audience.
Yeh it's not clear whether she looked them up before or after she knew she was under suspicion, if it was after then that explains it. If before, she did make friends with some parents so that would be a reason, feelings perhaps of responsibility,or grief soon after incidents. She also probably knew some of the mistakes that had been made, perhaps she was considering contacting them, there are many reasons and tbh I think most people could be convicted of all kinds of horrendous things if assumptions are made about what they google. I also think it is fairly normal amongst young people to look up people they meet. On the alone theme did you listen to any of my memoir podcast ' I only See Strangers?' It is about the long term consequences of social isolation - where years of being alone 24/7 took me ...
Yes, or the level of bullying left her badly intimidated. It says a lot about Lucy's character that all this time it appears as if she has known and never pointed the finger. We are discovering that her defence team found the achilles heal of the prosecution case but that the judge had no ability to judge or ulterior motives
I get the impression she has quite a strict moral code which she adheres to. That is unusual, maybe she has a particular faith, I don't know, maybe she is just naive, but unfortunately human nature leans towards dishonesty (that is natural - it is the same in wildlife) - it is about survival. Lucy appears to be putting her own needs last and has not yet learned that honesty in the real world gets you absolutely nowhere. I am no suggesting she should start lying, but understanding that most people will lie to save their own skins even in relatively non threatening situations, might help her defend herself better
I lack knowledge of such things but I have wondered how the legal teams are appointed for trials. Who decides on the appropriate counsel fpr the prosecution, defence etc.,
IT depends firstly on how much money the defendant has. If they are wealthy they will appoint their own law firm and barrister. If they cannot afford lawyers they will be offered legal aid for a criminal case. THey can choose their lawyer from among a list of lawyers who accept legal aid. THe fact that LUcy was reliant on legal aid is one of the reasons she was found guilty. The prosecution is the CPS by default so they appoint the barrister depending on what type of case it is.
Thank you for this brilliant summary of part of the “doctor fiddling” and for your focus on this case!! Even for a Dane listening to the police interviews of Lucy - it is very very obvious that she has a constant of clear, honest and helpful way of answering - her consistency is immense !!
My hope is, with genuine credible opinions from recognised international experts evolving and all available evidence available to thoroughly evaluate, HM Coroner will have the last word, honestly and transparently about causes of death. Until these are scrutinised and debated properly, and conclusions drawn by respected professionals, the ‘Lucy did it’ nonsense will not be replaced with ‘OMFG Lucy was a scapegoat’! It may be faster and more reliable than the painfully problematic legal processes with credibility given to the questionable expert opinions, that led to where we are today.
what I don’t yet understand is how Dewi Evans was able to change causes of death which had already been ruled as natural by the coroner. I am assuming he must have gained permission from the coroner to do this.
I think not. It was Dr. Marnerides - Consultant perinatal and children's pathologist - who in court pushed aside the existing autopsy reports. The original verdict was death from natural causes "pneumonia" (and/or NEC). "No", he said, "these babies did not die FROM pneumonia, they died WITH pneumonia" - while being murdered by Lucy Letby.
The argument for this change was apparently that the original pathologists had not looked for any evidence of foul play. Probably also why the coroner during the inquiry stated he was "horrified" that he had not been given information about the Consultants suspicions.
In one interview Dr. Evans showed he did not know the autopsies had been done by three different neonatal pathologists (at Alder Hay Children's Hospital).
Cally Starforth, Thanks for your essay, and for helping to free Letby. It had a lot of new information, very relevant, that I had not seen before. There is no doubt that Letby is innocent and that she was framed on no evidence, by the prosecution. The corruption in this case is off the charts. There has never been any evidence against Letby, only spin to make evidence out of thin air. You story about the doctor being asked a question at the coroner’s office, and her reaction, certainly caught my eye. I will search for that on youtube - I assume you were talking about Thirlwall enquiry.
I understand that Lucy L., had reported a case of incorrect intubation and also the hygiene problems in the NICU. The intervention might not have been well received. It seems to me that she was acting professionally but also naively- and she is paying the price. The only voice that she has at present is through her legal team which has my full support.
Another case of an institution protecting itself, whether it is a police force, an NHS hospital, The Church of England or the Post Office - what did Denning say? "It is better that some innocent men remain in jail than that the integrity of the English judicial system be impugned."
At the risk of repetition, were all the CoCH NICU babies in question tested for the full range of relevant infections ? If not, there would be no results to consider.
I don’t know, but doubt it. Some had known infections, like baby D ,pneumonia and were not given antibiotics in time, but they just claim that didn’t cause the death. REally they just make it up as they go along …
In 2014 an accident occurred fatally injuring a baby and involving Dr V. The parents of the child are seeking legal redress. The medical team consisted of Dr V, Dr U, and Lucy L., - maybe others ?
On a later occasion a further incident involving Dr V., occurs ( Baby B). Lucy L. is also part of that team.
Some time after, Dr V., speaks of serious errors in the context of Baby O and suggests that they could have been caused by Dr V, Dr U, Lucy L, or one of a number of other people present.If I have followed the story correctly ( please confirm or otherwise) the effect of this information appears to deflect and disperse the responsibility for medical errors and meanwhile the original legal claim possibly remains unresolved .
I didn't say that Lucy was part of the medical team when baby Noah died , unless you heard that elsewhere? I am not aware of that. Dr. V seems to be saying she can't explain baby O, but no not just her, Dr. U and LUcy, Brearey was also there and likely the one who inserted the problem line in wrong place, the Guardian newspaper claim the medical evidence shows it was Brearey, although I have not stated this in my article since i have not seen the evidence on that. All I know is that it was one of the consultants there, ie. Dr. V, or Brearey. They are all deflecting responsbility onto LUcy for the wider failures of the hospital , and mistakes by doctors and consultants.
I have a feeling Lucy tried to protect some doctor(s), not realizing the danger she herself was in.
It is interesting how little press the death of baby Noah got when it happened. The coroner had during the inquest some choice words for the two doctors involved. But their names were withheld.
yeh i got that impression too, Lucy trying herself not to drop others in the frame. I am guessing Ben Myers advised her the case would likely be thrown out due to 'no case to answer', and I think this may have been one of the reasons why he didn't call in medical experts for the defence. Also in 2020 there was the death of Olly Stopworth after having been wrongly discharged from the unit, also down to negligence. I am surprised they haven't claimed that was murder by Lucy too whilst escaping from prison one night
Yes, that death was in 2020. Alison Timmis is named in that one. Failure to screen for sepsis. Could Alison Timmis be the female dr with anonymity??
If I understand the reporting correctly, yes she was.
Olly's death shows again how hard it is to diagnose sepsis properly and timely. Yet during the Thirlwall enquiry doctors stated for several babies that crashed/died "we excluded sepsis as a reason for the baby deteriorating". No one asked: how did you do this ? How could you be sure ?
Lucy is made to look more guilty by implying she killed, or tried to kill, more babies, since 2012 already, at other hospitals as well as CoCH; and by reporting how she "befriended" fellow-prisoner Beinash Batool. Again press/TV/radio are having field days by regurgitating & publishing what they are being told. Who supplies these stories to the media ?
What is your opinion about the press conference McDonald KC gave ? He had no real news, the flip-flop Dr. Evans made and now denies making, was reported in the media some time ago already.
THe press conference raised the issue the Mark is going back to the Court of Appeal (so this is in addition to going to the CCRC . Because the CCRC takes years, Mark is trying to get the Court of Appeal themselves to reconsider allowing a retrial . There is a precedent for this I believe but it is very rare. It is not new evidence which is why he is taking this route on some kind of grounds that what has emerged has meant that the conviction is unsafe. HOwever, that was teh case at the last application to appeal and yet the judges blocked on a letter of law issue, which is what they always do as they don't give a toss about what is morally sound, only about legalise. NOt sure why Mark thinks they will do different but due to teh massive amount of public support Lucy now has, inc a debate about to happen in parliament, I think the judges have to take some notice (they do move if the public sentiment is strong enough which is why all of us are doign the right thing by playing a part in exposing this.
Thank you for explaining. I am not from/in the UK, so many aspects of this case are unclear to me.
no probs, there are some complex issues and it gets confusing for us here too.
Some time ago I raised the above question regarding the elimination of sepsis as the cause of death in some cases. It has never been answered. Were all the relevant tests carried out ?
I doubt it. ~They consistently fail to diagnose sepsis, a baby died of sepsis around the same time as babies A /C/D , yet they failed to understand why other babies were dying. There is a cover up of sepsis in UK . IN the whole of Europe it has been on the rise and I think some hospitals like COCH are just trying to pretend its not a probelm
I think that the hygiene and infection problems are at the core of the CoCH difficulties . A possible escape route failed compounding the issue and led to the current, probably unintentional situation - a good nurse incarcerated for life having probably done nothing but her job conscientiously, with no voice except via her legal team .
This whole case is riddled with unanswered questions.
The CoCH incident in 2014 where a baby was accidentally injured might also have been significant and it led to a legal claim. I understand that these take years to settle for various reasons. Muddied water could create further delay.
Lucy L., had reported sewage problems and,, also, intubation difficulties - not known when this was. The first matter might have been the most difficult to resolve in the short term and the most problematical. Both had funding implications.....
yes 2020, my mistake 2024 was the inquest, I suppose 'covid' was also the excuse for why it took them 4 years to do an inquest. Not sure if Alison Timmis was working at COCH neonatal unit in 2015/2016 - its possible
She must have been, as she (Alison Timmis) was the doctor who sent that email to Tony Chambers in 2015 to say the unit was at breaking point and that the result would be the staff's mental health and babies lives
But was the Doctor responsible for Olly's death in 2020 the same as the doctor who caused the death of little Noah in 2014 ? We know now it was this doctor who gave evidence detrimental for Lucy.
not sure, not necessarily, I think there are many doctors/consultants making mistakes at COCH . . Alison TImmis and Dr. Mcarthy (a male) were both named as playing a part in Olly death, but Noah's inquest the woman concerned was allowed to remain anonymous, as she still is at the Inquiry as Dr. V.
It is odd - and somewhat confusing- that the anonymous doctor who was Dr B during the, 22/23 trial, became Dr V., during the Statutory Inquiry. Could this be a necessary precaution to protect the privacy of other possible connections?.
it happened with Dr. U who became Dr. A at the inquiry too. NOt sure why, maybe just to confuse people?
i gather that Dr B., was a young woman; perhaps she had married before the inquiry started and the identity code was changed as a result.
Yeh the gutter press can't help themselves. The press conference is because he is now taking an almost unprecedented route to go back to the Court of Appeal itself, because the Dewi mind changing is not counted as 'fresh evidence' as such rather it is just a situation showing that her conviction is unsafe. He is also going to the CCRC, the application to that will be made at the same time. The evidence on baby O will be new to most re aspirate causing liver damage . If that was concealed by COCH in first trial then I assume it can be counted as fresh evidence, although what is counted as fresh evidence is quite complex like everything else in our ridiculous and deliberately over complicated legal system
I have just read a very recent news report in which it is claimed that Lucy L., had psychopathic tendencies because she had followed up parents whose children had died during 2015/6 at CoCH NICU.. The suggestion is that this was her fatal error confirming her guilt.
I lived alone for 10 years. My employment was important to me and the work place was also the source of my friendships. I often spent non working time at home with hours to fill one way or another. I think that Lucy L., cared about the babies who were in her care and their parents and occasionally might have wondered about them. Maybe on-line investigation was not the best policy but it should not be assumed that this was an indication of any wrong doing or macarbre intention..
Neither is it the only explanation. Away from CoCH and her colleagues she might have been lonely sometimes. I was and , as far as I know , I have not seriously - or even mildly- harmed anyone.
News hounds want to increase newspaper sales and they focus on their target audience.
Yeh it's not clear whether she looked them up before or after she knew she was under suspicion, if it was after then that explains it. If before, she did make friends with some parents so that would be a reason, feelings perhaps of responsibility,or grief soon after incidents. She also probably knew some of the mistakes that had been made, perhaps she was considering contacting them, there are many reasons and tbh I think most people could be convicted of all kinds of horrendous things if assumptions are made about what they google. I also think it is fairly normal amongst young people to look up people they meet. On the alone theme did you listen to any of my memoir podcast ' I only See Strangers?' It is about the long term consequences of social isolation - where years of being alone 24/7 took me ...
https://open.substack.com/pub/callystarforth/p/lucy-let-her-be?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=1eq51l
Yes, or the level of bullying left her badly intimidated. It says a lot about Lucy's character that all this time it appears as if she has known and never pointed the finger. We are discovering that her defence team found the achilles heal of the prosecution case but that the judge had no ability to judge or ulterior motives
I get the impression she has quite a strict moral code which she adheres to. That is unusual, maybe she has a particular faith, I don't know, maybe she is just naive, but unfortunately human nature leans towards dishonesty (that is natural - it is the same in wildlife) - it is about survival. Lucy appears to be putting her own needs last and has not yet learned that honesty in the real world gets you absolutely nowhere. I am no suggesting she should start lying, but understanding that most people will lie to save their own skins even in relatively non threatening situations, might help her defend herself better
I lack knowledge of such things but I have wondered how the legal teams are appointed for trials. Who decides on the appropriate counsel fpr the prosecution, defence etc.,
IT depends firstly on how much money the defendant has. If they are wealthy they will appoint their own law firm and barrister. If they cannot afford lawyers they will be offered legal aid for a criminal case. THey can choose their lawyer from among a list of lawyers who accept legal aid. THe fact that LUcy was reliant on legal aid is one of the reasons she was found guilty. The prosecution is the CPS by default so they appoint the barrister depending on what type of case it is.
Google has info., re.. senior appointments.
Trouble messaging
Thankyou. I was thinking a little more broadly - something along the lines of your last sentence ie... horses for courses".
Thank you for this clear and informative article, great work
Thank you for this brilliant summary of part of the “doctor fiddling” and for your focus on this case!! Even for a Dane listening to the police interviews of Lucy - it is very very obvious that she has a constant of clear, honest and helpful way of answering - her consistency is immense !!
My hope is, with genuine credible opinions from recognised international experts evolving and all available evidence available to thoroughly evaluate, HM Coroner will have the last word, honestly and transparently about causes of death. Until these are scrutinised and debated properly, and conclusions drawn by respected professionals, the ‘Lucy did it’ nonsense will not be replaced with ‘OMFG Lucy was a scapegoat’! It may be faster and more reliable than the painfully problematic legal processes with credibility given to the questionable expert opinions, that led to where we are today.
what I don’t yet understand is how Dewi Evans was able to change causes of death which had already been ruled as natural by the coroner. I am assuming he must have gained permission from the coroner to do this.
I think not. It was Dr. Marnerides - Consultant perinatal and children's pathologist - who in court pushed aside the existing autopsy reports. The original verdict was death from natural causes "pneumonia" (and/or NEC). "No", he said, "these babies did not die FROM pneumonia, they died WITH pneumonia" - while being murdered by Lucy Letby.
The argument for this change was apparently that the original pathologists had not looked for any evidence of foul play. Probably also why the coroner during the inquiry stated he was "horrified" that he had not been given information about the Consultants suspicions.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4glpgn0g28o
In one interview Dr. Evans showed he did not know the autopsies had been done by three different neonatal pathologists (at Alder Hay Children's Hospital).
Cally Starforth, Thanks for your essay, and for helping to free Letby. It had a lot of new information, very relevant, that I had not seen before. There is no doubt that Letby is innocent and that she was framed on no evidence, by the prosecution. The corruption in this case is off the charts. There has never been any evidence against Letby, only spin to make evidence out of thin air. You story about the doctor being asked a question at the coroner’s office, and her reaction, certainly caught my eye. I will search for that on youtube - I assume you were talking about Thirlwall enquiry.
It's on thirwell website you can look st transcripts
Thanks Cally Starforth, I found it.
For some, Silence is Golden.
I understand that Lucy L., had reported a case of incorrect intubation and also the hygiene problems in the NICU. The intervention might not have been well received. It seems to me that she was acting professionally but also naively- and she is paying the price. The only voice that she has at present is through her legal team which has my full support.
yes I think it is her that is the whistleblower, who needed protection, instead they twisted it to make Brearey and Jayaram ‘whistleblowers’
Makes you wonder who the conspirators are!
Another case of an institution protecting itself, whether it is a police force, an NHS hospital, The Church of England or the Post Office - what did Denning say? "It is better that some innocent men remain in jail than that the integrity of the English judicial system be impugned."
At the risk of repetition, were all the CoCH NICU babies in question tested for the full range of relevant infections ? If not, there would be no results to consider.
I don’t know, but doubt it. Some had known infections, like baby D ,pneumonia and were not given antibiotics in time, but they just claim that didn’t cause the death. REally they just make it up as they go along …
Yes !
I had pneumonia at the age of 3. This was serious then but how much worse must it be for a premature and possibly fragile child ?
From what I understand, prematurely born babies have no immune system.
Exacrly !
Surely, therefore, it would be a very serious problem for vulnerable new borns especially if appropriate medication was delayed .
In 2014 an accident occurred fatally injuring a baby and involving Dr V. The parents of the child are seeking legal redress. The medical team consisted of Dr V, Dr U, and Lucy L., - maybe others ?
On a later occasion a further incident involving Dr V., occurs ( Baby B). Lucy L. is also part of that team.
Some time after, Dr V., speaks of serious errors in the context of Baby O and suggests that they could have been caused by Dr V, Dr U, Lucy L, or one of a number of other people present.If I have followed the story correctly ( please confirm or otherwise) the effect of this information appears to deflect and disperse the responsibility for medical errors and meanwhile the original legal claim possibly remains unresolved .
I didn't say that Lucy was part of the medical team when baby Noah died , unless you heard that elsewhere? I am not aware of that. Dr. V seems to be saying she can't explain baby O, but no not just her, Dr. U and LUcy, Brearey was also there and likely the one who inserted the problem line in wrong place, the Guardian newspaper claim the medical evidence shows it was Brearey, although I have not stated this in my article since i have not seen the evidence on that. All I know is that it was one of the consultants there, ie. Dr. V, or Brearey. They are all deflecting responsbility onto LUcy for the wider failures of the hospital , and mistakes by doctors and consultants.
Apologies !
What for? No need to apologize we all make mistakes!
Thank you! I do also realise that Noah's injury was fatal.
I hope that we all have a better year in 2025. Meanwhile, thanks for all that you are doing to help Lucy L.,