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

Whoever it was, Letby or not, it was a mistake; nurses are human, they are fallible, although the most plausible explanation is that the parents were, understandably, mistaken and unable to accept their baby was no longer with them.

However it happened, and whoever was mistaken, it is tragic, and I cannot imagine the suffering the parents lived through. What it is not is evidence of murder.

Thought the baby was dead???

@Oftenaddled why does it matter if it was Letby or not if according to you, the nurse did nothing wrong?

I would imagine that whichever nurse did this, did this because they thought the baby was dead. But the evidence that this was Lucy Letby (since the father said he had not been sure who it was until the inquiry) is pretty thin anyway.

@FrippEnos well we're all ears as to why you think she did it-considering she wasn't even baby C's designated nurse so shouldn't have had anything to do with his family.

It seems that it is possible for me to think less of the enquiry than I did before.

Only because you think Lucy Letby's innocent (which you're wrong about)

For an enquiry that should be based solely on facts

"seemed" is doing a lot of heavy lifting.

It seems that it is possible for me to think less of the enquiry than I did before.

Says the Thirwall enquiry who also said Lucy Letby seemed to enjoy the drama around death. She really is a truly evil piece of work if this is true. She wheeled the cold cot into the room and plugged it in when the baby was still alive.

https://www.bailiwickexpress.com/news-ge/sark-based-letby-supporter-hopes-his-evidence-will-help-secure-her-freedom/

Experts continuing to submit reports to the CCRC.

& you know that from where?

Interesting reading

https://www.private-eye.co.uk/pictures/special_reports/lucy-letby-16.pdf

You constantly conflate hyperinsulinaemia and hypoglycaemia.

Hyperinsulinaemia does cause hypoglycaemia, but hypoglycaemia requiring additional glucose is much, much more commonly attributable to other causes (for example, infection) and is quite common in neonates and the elderly.

I'm not an expert on insulin admittedly but these were unusual findings and the baby collapsed with severe hypoglycaemia. So that's the four abnormal insulin results, and Letby's connected to ALL of them. So yes, I'd be amazed if this wasn't indicative of poisoning given all we know.

Dr ZA said she checked and established that no other child on the neonatal unit had been prescribed insulin, making accidental administration unlikely. She dismissed the idea of deliberate administration of insulin

What about Baby E? Baby Fs identical twin who had been receiving insulin in the same room until he died the day before.

What kind of checking did she do then? Did she even check at all I wonder?

You cannot possibly be suggesting that all cases of babies with low blood sugar are attributable to insulin poisoning?

Yes of course. The results should have been followed up at the time.

But the requirement is not to prove that there were no poisonings - it’s to prove that, beyond reasonable doubt, there were. There is plenty of doubt.

Can you refresh my memory on the Panorama case because I don't think either documentary is available now. They found another case whilst recording Panorama? And it wasn't baby Y?

It's obviously not possible to link Lucy Letby to it. And that tells us something.

I don't think we can assume that at all. She was connected to baby Y and they didn't take that one to court. I've also seen something about another twin (non-indictment) with unexpected low sugars only on the night shift (LL was on) so if that was the case, she's definitely connected to that one. Assuming the info about non-indictment babies is correct.

OK but to this day it's not been proven these were non-poisonings, the experts cant agree and deliberate harm certainly hasn't been ruled out. So regardless of Lucy Letby's guilt, surely you have to take action on future test results like these from a safeguarding perspective? Too much is at stake not to do anything.

Insulin binding, test picking up antibodies, contamination of sample, lab error, any combination of these.

Insulin binding. https://www.thejusticegap.com/new-research-undermining-letbys-convictions-for-insulin-poisoning/

Dr Evans already knew about the Panorama case. He wrote a report on it years ago. The police either never looked for charges or had them refused by the CPS. It's obviously not possible to link Lucy Letby to it. And that tells us something.

Which are?

Accidental injection of insulin directly to the baby by someone who was present. Seems unlikely, but in a chaotic ward a case of mistaken identity isn’t impossible.

But I think this is a red herring. There are other explanations for apparently “impossible” insulin to c peptide ratios.

There is no evidence whatsoever that there was any insulin in the PN bags.

The idea that the PN bags were used as a vehicle is solely a prosecution theory to get around the fact that LL was not on shift for the low BG readings and when the bloods were taken.

Nobody has adequately explained how the bags could have been spiked without detection or how much insulin would have been needed to overcome the adsorption onto the bag material. And LL would have surely known about the Stepping Hill cases from a few years prior where similar spiking had been detected and confirmed in a lab test - so it seems a very strange method to choose.

@kkloo ok so what are your theories on it being accidental?

The insulin being in the TPN bags was the prosecution theory, the lab didn't suggest that.