Lucy Letby - Specifically those who think she is guilty…

And yet you deny Liz Hull has ever made stuff up or twisted the truth.

@DistantEarlyWarning I don't know, has she? I only listened to the trial podcasts where they literally report what happened in court. Maybe the odd article-I don't usually pay much attention to who wrote it though. Unless of course I happen to see the name Peter Hitchens or Sarah Knapton!

She's been found guilty in a court of law after a long trial where lots of evidence was presented that I cannot claim to have seen or understood. On the whole, I trust the judicial system. Obviously miscarriages of justice do happen occasionally, but, on balance, the likelihood is that she is guilty, as proven.

You're second guessing everything that was already covered in court. You don't think the first thing her defence would've done is determine no one can possibly tamper with TPN bags? They had a demonstration of exactly how it could be done.

No I don't think everyone would be second guessing the court evidence if this was a Filipino nurse-I mean Victorino Chua is Filipino and I don't see any campaigns to have him released?

Do you think that Professor Shoo Lee, a Canadian of Chinese heritage, would not have minded his paper on air embolism being misconstrued and misused if the suspect had not been white British? Surely not.

Yes he probably would, but I doubt anyone else would be listening to him.

She was crying after the second death but calm in a debriefing meeting. I think it's pointless to try to draw conclusions there. Do we know if the consultants were calm or crying? Does it matter?

No, I don't see any more significance in a baby dying one day after she returned from Ibiza than three days, five days or seven days, because there isn't any more significance.

No, all they were shown is that the tamper evident seal applied by COCH pharmacy can be removed and replaced. The bag was not in its cover and they did not look at a stock bag, which is different. I have read the transcripts involving the pharmacist, and I know first hand what these bags look and feel like, wrapped and unwrapped.

I have not seen any evidence that suggests Chua was innocent of the lab-proven insulin poisoning of medicines containers. If I had, I would be interested in that too.

Oh look, you’re appealing to (junk) statistics again.

Do you think we should ignore what Shoo Lee is saying because Lucy Letby is white, in case anybody else concerned about her is racist?

Seeing as neither the babies nor their parents are allowed to be identified, how can you know that these ‘statements’ are actually from the parents?

That's because you keep ignoring the fact there were three babies on three consecutive days. You know how sus it sounds because you don't even want to write it out!

Well thankfully it was enough to get her off the unit, at last. I don't need a statistician to tell me this is a pattern.

You are drawing a false inference because of your bias.

Letby would have been present on the unit for at least 1700 hours in a year. This is calculated from the number of contracted hours (37.5 pw) minus annual leave (25 days for less than 10 years service) and bank holidays (8).

There are 8760 working hours per year in a NNU (that is to say all day, every day).

This means Letby was on the ward for a minimum of 19.4% of the time. and we know she took all the extra shifts she could, so it’s more than reasonable to round this up to 20%.

A 20% chance of something happening (i.e. being present for the 3 deaths and collapses you’re talking about) is a pretty large chance.

I'm not worried about typing out details, no.

So, Lucy Letby was found guilty of causing two deaths, of triplets, one day apart. Lee's expert panel found that the same errors in ventilation settings were made with both. As triplets they were under the care of the same consultant doctor. The unit was extremely busy, and there were delays in treating both children - 40 minutes until a consultant attended resuscitation for the first; over an hour to read an X-ray and treat a pneumothorax for the second. They were vulnerable children admitted to a unit under pressure who suffered failings in care.

The next day, a child deteriorated with an infection. Lucy Letby was not found guilty of causing this. The consultant in charge was satisfied that it could be a natural collapse

Interestingly, the expert witness who examined all three cases at first found that they had had suspicious collapses at night, when Lucy Letby wasn't on shift. It is not much of a coincidence, finding she was in shift for events when you disregard the events when she wasn't on shift ...

Lee's expert panel found that the same errors in ventilation settings were made with both.

Lee can say any old crap he likes, none of this has been tested so it's basically "trust me bro". The third triplet was absolutely fine?

The unit was extremely busy, and there were delays in treating both children - 40 minutes until a consultant attended resuscitation for the first; over an hour to read an X-ray and treat a pneumothorax for the second. They were vulnerable children admitted to a unit under pressure who suffered failings in care.

That explains treating them, none of that explains why they collapsed in the first place the minute LL got near them?

The next day, a child deteriorated with an infection. Lucy Letby was not found guilty of causing this. The consultant in charge was satisfied that it could be a natural collapse

You mean by the jury? Baby Q? So you discount every single charge she was found guilty on but suddenly have blind trust in the jury for the no verdicts?

Interestingly, the expert witness who examined all three cases at first found that they had had suspicious collapses at night, when Lucy Letby wasn't on shift. It is not much of a coincidence, finding she was in shift for events when you disregard the events when she wasn't on shift ...

Source for this?

Stable Period: While they were born, Letby was away on a holiday in Ibiza. During her absence, all three infants were completely stable, progressing normally, and had no health concerns. Baby O was so healthy that he was actually cleared to go home

Sudden Deteriorations: Almost immediately after Letby took over, the sudden, unexplainable, and catastrophic collapses began. Baby O collapsed and died on 23 June. Baby P suffered multiple unexplained collapses and died on 24 June

No, Baby Q did not have any suspicious collapses before Lucy Letby took over his care.
Medical records, trial evidence, and findings from the Thirlwall Inquiry confirmed that Baby Q was "initially stable" from the time of his birth up until the morning he collapsed under Letby's care

Do you have something completely different to the above?

Let's get granular with this chain of events. So you've admitted that Shoo Lee would likely be concerned when he found out Filipino/a Letby had been convicted based on a misunderstanding of his research, which is progress. But apparently just him. Nobody else would be listening, even though at least one of the people who listed to him, the also not white Neena Modi already had concerns.

So what would've happened in this scenario when he, in all his expertise and repute in the field, approached the other experts?

I am very comfortable in believing in the robustness of these jury verdicts. It is arrogant to think listening to a podcast or watching documentaries is the equivalent to trials which lasted months.

I don't have blind faith in the jury - obviously - but I don't see why you are adding events Lucy Letby wasn't found guilty of causing to the list. The case for Lucy Letby having caused Baby Q's deterioration was particularly weak. What was it that made it persuasive for you?

Here https://t.co/9iJ0vn5eLY is the account of Evans's original findings re baby O, baby P and other incidents with Lucy Letby not present which were not brought to court.

Neither of these children collapsed "the minute Lucy Letby got near them". Both had also deteriorated the night before. If you want to claim that the timing of events proves things were more than coincidental, you need to stop making timings up and exaggerating. Why should people believe you, when you do that, instead of Lee's panel, which is very well qualified to comment on these events?

I don't think it is arrogant to doubt the safety of a verdict when the science used at the trial doesn't stand up to scrutiny.. Unfortunately, miscarriages of justice happen and experts have misled courts before.

“Doesn’t stand up to scrutiny”? By who?

The people who make Channel 5 documentaries? Or podcasts? Opportunistic experts who get some nice publicity? A whole load of bored mumsnetters who’ve been “doing a lot of research”?

I’d rather believe two whole jury trials, the appeal refusal and a public enquiry than that TBH.

Do you think the public enquiry was examining whether the safety of the conviction stood up to scrutiny?

By anyone who believes that the science presented at a trial should meet the standards for use in any other setting. This would mean it should match published findings where the experts at court have claimed it does so.

If they are wrong to assert that, which is very obviously the case in Lucy Letby's case and has been admitted on some points by the lead medical expert himself, then the conviction based on this pseudoscience is obviously unsafe.

We know what the jury decided based on pseudoscience, but not what they would have decided based on verified science

Synthetic Insulin has a different molecular make up to natrually produced insulin and behaves slightly differently in the body. From the testing done on the baby's blood it was inferred that the insulin was exogenous from the level of another preotein called C-peptide. But they never sent the bloods off at this point for moelcualr anaysis to confirm if it was actually a ssytetic Insulin, so this is potentially a hole that the defense could poke and make a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. On the flip side if the molecular analysis confirmed tat it was a sythetic Insulin it would have given her less legs to stand on in court. Just one example.

But that wasn’t a defence mistake. Insulin poisoning wasn’t suspected at the time of the immunoassay testing that showed an inverted insulin to c-peptide ratio. The results were not acted upon at all, and certainly not sent for confirmatory testing. Poisoning was only suspected years afterwards.

The only thing it tells us is just how poor her defence team were.

There's a growing number of very highly regarded experts, often with more expertise than the 'expert witnesses' presenting the evidence who have gone through all the evidence that the jury had (and even more) and have come to a very different conclusion.

It exposes the weaknesses in our judicial system very clearly, if nothing else