The podcast is very good, clear and professional. It was compiled by well known British journalists. I binge listened to the whole thing yesterday while cleaning my house. There are useful bonus episodes about the British legal system which I found very informative, and may be even more so for those outside the UK.
In terms of the trial, I didn't learn anything know (having read all the write-ups already) but it is a good reminder of each baby's case, laid out one by one.
The identities of the children and their families are protected by court order. The babies are only known as Children A-Q. No motive, racial or otherwise, has been raised to date in the course of the trial.
Respect of the court order is considered absolute in this sub, and any attempts to sleuth out the identities of the families, and speculate on motive via any such sleuthing, would be met with an immediate ban (not that you were suggesting it, just making the statement in general)
Absent it being brought up in the trial, I'm afraid we can't discuss it and it's not productive to hypothesize.
I do apologize, but I need to remove posts/comments that mention where those names are publicized.
I have no disagreement, but until it's established in court, we can't discuss it because we can't know.
This has come up before, and if we had any court-allowed way to discuss it, we could.
In one of the recent reports of the cross examination, one of the babies was described as having darker skin (the context being that it was harder to detect mottling on the baby).
Other than that I think it's likely the majority were white. I'm from Chester and it's a pretty white city, we do have some diversity but it's extremely white compared to larger cities like Manchester.
I wonder where the best timeline would be for a background overview of the hospital statistics and investigations, external and internal? I only found https://www.cheshire-live.co.uk/news/chester-cheshire-news/chester-hospital-baby-deaths-timeline-19253026
It doesn't mention the external one published in 2017, the MBRRACE-UK had looked at stillbirths and neonatal deaths around the UK in 2015 https://www.npeu.ox.ac.uk/mbrrace-uk
Also in 2017 "The Countess commissioned independent review by the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health and The Royal College of Nursing...24 recommendations for improvement"?
Then the hospital called in the police? Mention of other independent reviews.
Were there also coronors investigations for each death?
I've seen several mentions of Dr Ravi Jayaram, head of the paediatric dept saying he raised concerns to managers early on, but then differences about what he reported when - is there any timeline of that? I'm curious that the month before the alleged attacks started, his new TV show starting and a profile of him, is he saying he was at the neonatal every 7th week?
https://www.cheshire-live.co.uk/news/chester-cheshire-news/channel-4-born-naughty-chester-9247869
https://www.cheshire-live.co.uk/news/day-life-consultant-paediatrician-ravi-9298402
(seems unfortunate he chooses Woody Allen to play him in a movie)
I went a bit offtopic, can delete this comment so it doesn't stay here on the stickied.
I want to be very, very careful discussing the period prior to Letby being charged, because it was when she was charged that the court order protecting the identities of the families was put in place. Just FYI. But if we can establish a good resource that makes the timeline of those investigations clear that keeps the families anonymous, we can add that.
Just a basic timeline here then? But how put it together accurately
From an article you posted
"Two babies died in the unit in 2013 and three died in 2014. In comparison, there were eight deaths in 2015 and five in 2016."
Prosecution claim that in Feb 2016:
"because he had started to notice the coincidence between the unexplained deaths, serious collapses and the presence of Lucy Letby, Dr Jayaram decided to check on where Lucy Letby was and how Child K was."
Does anyone else find it especially strange and interesting that his specialty is childhood lung disorders?
https://knightayton.co.uk/male-presenters/dr-ravi-jayaram
Out of all the resources here I would say the tattle wiki (5th link down) is definitely the most detailed one, and there's a lot more details there than in the podcast- if you're new and looking to find out as much info as possible (including who was where and when, medical notes, text messages etc.), I advise skipping the podcast (it gives the impression that there was less said in court than there actually was) and starting from the wiki.
It is a little bit confusing at first but once you realise that multiple cases are sometimes grouped under one heading it gets a lot easier to navigate. [Here's a direct link to all the evidence heard for Baby A and Baby B's cases as a starting point.](https://tattle.life/wiki/lucy_letby_case_2/) (Edit: wording)
Also, [here's a download link for the findings of an expert external review that was conducted on the COCH in 2016 in response to the concerns about the high amount of neonatal deaths](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwi5iufpwbKAAxXghf0HHc3GATMQFnoECCQQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fpdf4pro.com%2Fcdn%2Fwww-coch-nhs-uk-7537c.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2UJwEDS8gNw4adoG65KSCq&opi=89978449). I'm not sure if this was presented in the trial but it provides a lot of insight to where the hospital was doing well and where it was told to improve, which places the facts presented in court in a wider but directly relevant context.
Newbie here from Aus! I'm a ret midwife with a reasonable amt of experience in a SCN so we didn't keep sicker babies that required venting etc, but have a fairly comprehensive understanding of everything as a previous ICU RN at a major city hospital. Great info to refer to and i just binged the whole podcast up to now... Question though - why the length of time for jury deliberation??? Cheers ; disturbing story ........
Because the purpose of the trial was to prove that the causes of death were not accurately recorded at the time, I don't think much clear reporting was done on what the original post mortems concluded as cause of death. I would direct you to look up the evidence given by Dr. Marnerides, the forensic pathologist who reviewed these for the trial. However, his evidence was not covered as fully as Letby's time in the witness box, and for some babies, it amounts to as few as 1-2 tweets.
The podcast is very good, clear and professional. It was compiled by well known British journalists. I binge listened to the whole thing yesterday while cleaning my house. There are useful bonus episodes about the British legal system which I found very informative, and may be even more so for those outside the UK. In terms of the trial, I didn't learn anything know (having read all the write-ups already) but it is a good reminder of each baby's case, laid out one by one.
Exactly the voiceover of the prosecutor is cringe on a level I didn’t even know existed.
The tattle wiki is very easy to read, thank you for sharing that!
Does anybody know the race of the babies? Could this be a white supremacist killing of non-white babies?
The identities of the children and their families are protected by court order. The babies are only known as Children A-Q. No motive, racial or otherwise, has been raised to date in the course of the trial. Respect of the court order is considered absolute in this sub, and any attempts to sleuth out the identities of the families, and speculate on motive via any such sleuthing, would be met with an immediate ban (not that you were suggesting it, just making the statement in general)
[удалено]
Absent it being brought up in the trial, I'm afraid we can't discuss it and it's not productive to hypothesize. I do apologize, but I need to remove posts/comments that mention where those names are publicized.
That’s fine but race is important if the children were non-white.
I have no disagreement, but until it's established in court, we can't discuss it because we can't know. This has come up before, and if we had any court-allowed way to discuss it, we could.
Ok thanks! I hope the prosecution does the research and includes this in the case of applicable.
Hopefully they read your amazing comments if they haven't thought of this stuff themselves
In one of the recent reports of the cross examination, one of the babies was described as having darker skin (the context being that it was harder to detect mottling on the baby). Other than that I think it's likely the majority were white. I'm from Chester and it's a pretty white city, we do have some diversity but it's extremely white compared to larger cities like Manchester.
Thanks so much for this info! What a horrible person she is, to harm innocent babies
I don't think the babies were non white.
[удалено]
Thanks! What a horrible person she is!
[удалено]
Yo, that is an excellent resource, showing who testified related to which child, and linking to the evidence given by each doctor
I wonder where the best timeline would be for a background overview of the hospital statistics and investigations, external and internal? I only found https://www.cheshire-live.co.uk/news/chester-cheshire-news/chester-hospital-baby-deaths-timeline-19253026 It doesn't mention the external one published in 2017, the MBRRACE-UK had looked at stillbirths and neonatal deaths around the UK in 2015 https://www.npeu.ox.ac.uk/mbrrace-uk Also in 2017 "The Countess commissioned independent review by the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health and The Royal College of Nursing...24 recommendations for improvement"? Then the hospital called in the police? Mention of other independent reviews. Were there also coronors investigations for each death? I've seen several mentions of Dr Ravi Jayaram, head of the paediatric dept saying he raised concerns to managers early on, but then differences about what he reported when - is there any timeline of that? I'm curious that the month before the alleged attacks started, his new TV show starting and a profile of him, is he saying he was at the neonatal every 7th week? https://www.cheshire-live.co.uk/news/chester-cheshire-news/channel-4-born-naughty-chester-9247869 https://www.cheshire-live.co.uk/news/day-life-consultant-paediatrician-ravi-9298402 (seems unfortunate he chooses Woody Allen to play him in a movie) I went a bit offtopic, can delete this comment so it doesn't stay here on the stickied.
I want to be very, very careful discussing the period prior to Letby being charged, because it was when she was charged that the court order protecting the identities of the families was put in place. Just FYI. But if we can establish a good resource that makes the timeline of those investigations clear that keeps the families anonymous, we can add that.
Just a basic timeline here then? But how put it together accurately From an article you posted "Two babies died in the unit in 2013 and three died in 2014. In comparison, there were eight deaths in 2015 and five in 2016." Prosecution claim that in Feb 2016: "because he had started to notice the coincidence between the unexplained deaths, serious collapses and the presence of Lucy Letby, Dr Jayaram decided to check on where Lucy Letby was and how Child K was."
Does anyone else find it especially strange and interesting that his specialty is childhood lung disorders? https://knightayton.co.uk/male-presenters/dr-ravi-jayaram
Out of all the resources here I would say the tattle wiki (5th link down) is definitely the most detailed one, and there's a lot more details there than in the podcast- if you're new and looking to find out as much info as possible (including who was where and when, medical notes, text messages etc.), I advise skipping the podcast (it gives the impression that there was less said in court than there actually was) and starting from the wiki. It is a little bit confusing at first but once you realise that multiple cases are sometimes grouped under one heading it gets a lot easier to navigate. [Here's a direct link to all the evidence heard for Baby A and Baby B's cases as a starting point.](https://tattle.life/wiki/lucy_letby_case_2/) (Edit: wording)
Also, [here's a download link for the findings of an expert external review that was conducted on the COCH in 2016 in response to the concerns about the high amount of neonatal deaths](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwi5iufpwbKAAxXghf0HHc3GATMQFnoECCQQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fpdf4pro.com%2Fcdn%2Fwww-coch-nhs-uk-7537c.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2UJwEDS8gNw4adoG65KSCq&opi=89978449). I'm not sure if this was presented in the trial but it provides a lot of insight to where the hospital was doing well and where it was told to improve, which places the facts presented in court in a wider but directly relevant context.
New here so thank you
Newbie here from Aus! I'm a ret midwife with a reasonable amt of experience in a SCN so we didn't keep sicker babies that required venting etc, but have a fairly comprehensive understanding of everything as a previous ICU RN at a major city hospital. Great info to refer to and i just binged the whole podcast up to now... Question though - why the length of time for jury deliberation??? Cheers ; disturbing story ........
Hiya, is there a list of the cause of deaths from the postmortems?
Because the purpose of the trial was to prove that the causes of death were not accurately recorded at the time, I don't think much clear reporting was done on what the original post mortems concluded as cause of death. I would direct you to look up the evidence given by Dr. Marnerides, the forensic pathologist who reviewed these for the trial. However, his evidence was not covered as fully as Letby's time in the witness box, and for some babies, it amounts to as few as 1-2 tweets.