If you were previously on the fence about Lucy Letby’s guilt, have the Thirlwall findings swayed you either way?

Chua was accused of poisoning saline bags, not TPN bags in a cellophane wrap with a tamper evident cap.

When a result comes back like this, there is usually more than one possible explanation. For example, it is picking up the wrong substance, it is picking up on a natural surge in the right substance, the sample has been contaminated, the sample has not been stored properly, there is a clerical error, samples have been mixed up, the substance was administered by accident, the substance was administered deliberately.

If you still have the sample, you can test to see what happened or to exclude some of these possibilities.

If you don't still have the sample, all you can do is say, one of these things may have gone wrong. For each of them, here's how it could have happened, how likely it is etc. So you don't choose just one possibility for the CCRC. You explain that all of them exist and that they combine to make it less likely than that the substance was administered deliberately.

The explanations given by Dr Shoo Lee's panel would show why babies expected to survive and even thrive didn't do so. Not all were in this category anyway

Briefly -

Baby A, a clotting event probably caused by failures in care
Baby C, confirmed pneumonia, extremely vulnerable, not considered a surprising death by the doctor who delivered him, direct cause of death delayed resuscitation after desaturation
Baby D, confirmed pneumonia, not considered a surprising death by the pathologist who did the autopsy, died after delayed antibiotics
Baby E, very vulnerable, not considered a surprising death by the doctors on the unit, as they told both the coroner and the police.
Baby I, ill for weeks before dying, inappropriate antibiotic treatment
Baby O, haemorrhage from difficult to detect condition, deterioration since preceding shift
Baby P, delay in treating lung puncture following wrong ventilation settings.

This is all covered in more detail in the press conference and reports posted at: https://lucyletbyinnocence.com/#shoolee

It's worth being aware that the Thirlwall report didn't consider this material: it has been sent to the Criminal Cases Review Commission but the Inquiry assumes Lucy Letby is guilty under its terms of reference.

So these "world's best experts" are so sure she's innocent yet can't agree what natural explanation there is for the results? And you're just fine with this? Because you'll double down rather than admit you got this case wrong.

It is more difficult to explain how Lucy Letby poisoned a tamper evident stock bag (baby F) or how insulin is supposed to have "stuck" at the rates the endocrinologist admitted he only guessed. There are lots more logistical problems around the insulin too.

It might seem difficult for you to believe, but the evidence proves she managed it. It's not like it hasn't happened before. How did Victorino Chua do it?

Chua had worked on two wards, A1 and A3, at the hospital, but it was a “lottery” as to which patients were harmed, because the saline bags and ampoules he contaminated with insulin were then used by other unsuspecting doctors and nurses on innocent patients, Wright said.
“In the vast majority of cases, the poisoner seem to have contaminated products or altered prescription dosages completely at random. It was therefore a lottery as to who was treated with contaminated products and who was not.”

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jan/20/stepping-hill-hospital-nurse-victorina-chua-poison-trial

Your claims might have more validity if other serial killers hadn't done the exact same thing.

Followed the trial closely and still believe she's guilty.

Sure, you can find a narrative to fit those facts.

It is more difficult to explain how Lucy Letby poisoned a tamper evident stock bag (baby F) or how insulin is supposed to have "stuck" at the rates the endocrinologist admitted he only guessed. There are lots more logistical problems around the insulin too.

But the main thing is that, while you can work backwards and assume Lucy Letby poisoned children and then explain why, since the forensic tests weren't done, there's doubt that they were poisoned at all. Rightly, her defence team is exploring this angle.

He didn't block the police from investigating her. He didn't report her to them. The doctors didn't either. They just asked the hospital to.

As I said, you can read that as protecting her inappropriately or appropriately from the doctors' accusations. But people who knew about the case never argued the managers scapegoated her. Some claim the doctors did. Obviously that depends whether you believe she did it or not, among other things.

But the CEO of the hospital blocked the police from investigating for A WHOLE YEAR! How were they scapegoating her? Thirlwell said that if she had been investigated sooner that lives could have been saved.

I thought that she was inept, rather than a killer

@Oftenaddled well it's a lot more likely than not, especially when you take into account they happened two separate times and she's connected to both. THEN you add in the fact that both these babies were twins and their sibling also unexpected collapsed (on her watch) it makes sense she doesn't want to be tied to two twin deaths/collapses so chooses one to poison whilst off shift.

Then you add in the fact both babies are suffering from the effects of insulin poisoning (which is the reason the test is done in the first place) and there really is no other conclusion. Even you have to admit it looks more like poisoning than not.

These types of insulin results haven't always meant poisoning and haven't been judged to do so, either in the UK or the US. More and more causes of interference with the immunoassays have been found over recent years. The jury at Lucy Letby's trial was told what you have said here, which is incorrect

Not at Chester. Dr Deakin got her a placement observing operations at Alder Hey Children's Hospital. She wasn't working at Chester. She never worked on the maternity ward there, only in the neonatal unit in its separate block until 2016. So that wasn't her, though obviously we are all vulnerable and on the watch after giving birth and I think people already knew about the police investigation which must have been a worry. Hope it all went well for you.

I followed the trail extremely closely, I think she’s guilty and still do.
I also think the only reason people jump to defend her is because we are still very much a looks based society and she’s a pretty white woman. Nobody would think for a moment she was innocent if she were a black woman, or overweight

You'd leave a nurse on a unit who doctors are saying is harming patients because you don't think suspicion is enough? So if this was your baby on that unit and a nurse who was going to be caring for them was suspected of harm you'd be perfectly happy with this? To just "see what happens" and not have her removed until you were sure she was definitely harming patients? Really?

the inclusion of this recommendation seems to acknowledge the lack of evidence of wrongdoing on Letby's part.

Not really because you need the police and court case to prove guilt unless the managers saw it with their own eyes or she confessed to them. Both of which are pretty unlikely.

It was 2018 but if you read into it her boyfriend got her further work

It's a bit concerning that this report was entirely about how Letby could've been stopped sooner and you've still got a majority of people claiming she's an innocent scapegoat. You can really see how people get stuck in their views and are unwilling to look at things objectively. They should've at least removed her even if they thought there was only 1% chance she was harming babies (lets be real here, no healthcare worked is immune from being a potential killer) which is why I wonder how so many here can be sure of her innocence? You think because she wasn't caught on CCTV or gathered an audience to do it that she must be innocent?

You cannot handwave all evidence away by claiming the hospital was subpar. Those type of insulin results have ALWAYS meant poisoning so her barrister scoured the globe for someone to come up with an "alternative" theory which has massive holes in it. And now he's jumped ship too. My feeling is he suddenly realised things were getting serious and the tide was about to turn thanks to Thirlwall and got out whilst he could.

I've read both the report and the documents it is based on, and I've explained on that basis why I think this incident has been misrepresented. But I agree with you that what happened to the parents was terrible, of course.

I've never been more convinced of her guilt.

That was the task Thirlwall was set. Assume Lucy Letby was guilty. Say what the hospital did and should have done. Make recommendations to stop events like this in future.

She and the government were both asked to change the task but said no.

If it was 2018 - realise it may have been a typo - Lucy Letby was not on the ward by then. I don't think she worked at the hospital at all after mid 2018. She would also not have been working on the maternity unit at any point.

I'm afraid you are wrong on this point - Thirlwall did ask the questions and upload the answers

Regarding two experts leaving, it doesn't sound like it was because they disbelieved her innocence -

Solicitor comments on the two experts who left -

"They don’t know what I put into the CCRC because I haven’t told them. So how on earth could they make that conclusion?” he said. “But really, it comes back to this. Both sets of experts say that Lucy Letby is innocent."

“One set of experts remains in the CCRC. One set of experts have withdrawn. But they both are of the same position that whatever happened at the trial, what took place at the trial, was wrong, that the jury was misled.”

I do think she's innocent and the Inquiry hasn't changed my view on that. I'm not sure how much I agree with the recommendation that 'suspicion is enough' to suspend a nurse, and the inclusion of this recommendation seems to acknowledge the lack of evidence of wrongdoing on Letby's part.

Any evidence of this please?

No, she’s a murderer.