Lucy Letby Court Case

[Pebble21uk]

Today has been the first day of the trial, which is expected to last for six months. One thread has already been pulled on the subject. Upon deletion MNHQ said that a thread about the case is fine but please read the rules around contempt of court before posting... these are copied and pasted here:
Publicly commenting on a court case:

You might be in contempt of court if you speak publicly or post on social media.
For example, you should not:
say whether you think a person is guilty or innocent
refer to someone’s previous convictions
name someone the judge has allowed to be anonymous, even if you did not know this
name victims, witnesses and offenders under 18
name sex crime victims
share any evidence or facts about a case that the judge has said cannot be made public

If any of the above take place then new threads will also be pulled. Let's please try and keep it going!

That's a good point. You're probably right that's what they're trying to do.

My sister is a nurse in a big London hospital. She always tells me the first few times she witnessed a patient die, particularly a noted returnee suffering with dementia or something that everyone in the ward knows, it would affect her ability to work that day, as well as all week and disturb her after she left her shift.

After observing several deaths, she said it was still sad, but she could compartmentalise it and happily go out to dinner after a shift, make plans for the weekend etc.

And after working covid, she had to actively force herself not be too detached around grieving relatives, as at the height of the pandemic, she had been in the grim position of having to inform relatives by phone that they couldn't come and visit their dying relatives.

No medical personnel would be able to keep on working if they couldn't learn to adapt this way. So I can't see why the press are suggesting that going salsa is a sign of callousness as opposed to normal hardening up. There had been several baby deaths at this point.

I’m confused - last week there was detail that one of the babies in the unit was in fact prescribed insulin - now I can’t find it.

Mirabai Child F had an insulin infusion for a while as his blood sugar was too high, possibly due to infection. This had stopped well before he developed a serious problem with hypoglycaemia, which is being investigated as a deliberate insulin overdose.

Oh it was child F. The fact he was originally prescribed insulin opens the possibility that he may have been injected later by mistake.

What was the time frame between stopping insulin and developing hypoglycaemia?

Or that the insulin dose was too high or that it has unexpected consequences.

Mirabai. He was never injected. Insulin is given to neonates via an infusion pump, and the dose is very small. It ended days before so is irrelevant anyway.

Whatever the method, once it had been prescribed, there’s a possibility it was given later by mistake.

I’m finding the insulin case very confusing

can you even test the level of insulin in someone’s blood ? Or do you just assumed it’s high if the blood glucose level is very low?

Additionally I’ve seen in one article that the child’s blood was tested a WEEK later and showed high levels of insulin - I’m not sure that’s possible ?? Even long acting insulins don’t have effects for a week after being given ?? It doesn’t seem factually correct ?

Mirabai. There really wasn't any chance of this. Infusions are prescribed each day on individual form, dated and signed by the two nurses checking and administering.

Specialists labs can measure both naturally occurring and pharmaceutical/ prescribed insulin in blood samples. Baby F's blood was sent to the specialist lab in Liverpool for testing.

The blood sample was taken on 4th August - the day he was hypoglycaemic but the result wasn't received back until a week later by which time everything was back to normal

Well my mother almost died of a medication mistake in intensive care - checked and signed, and my father had an operation where the surgeon operated on the wrong side. These things happen.

But it’s not so much a question of whether it was likely as to whether it’s possible as per reasonable doubt.

This is the only case imo thus far that there is clear evidence of human intervention as the hormone markers indicate the insulin as naturally occurring. However even here, there’s no hard evidence thus far to link it to LL.

That makes more sense as I was really confused (I’m type 1 diabetic so was thinking it sounded a little strange !)

the hormone markers indicate the insulin as naturally occurring

NOT naturally occurring.

Some of the reporting is a bit confusing but what a task for the reporters - and for 6 months!

Posted at precisely the same time as @HelensToenail

NNJan Thanks for explaining from an experienced point of view. Why when actual facts that can’t be explained away - staring people in the face do people still try to continue to insist there must be another explanation. I’m truly amazed by responses on here to this.

I don't think it can be a drug error because

Baby F's insulin prescription ended on 31st July

No other baby on the unit was prescribed insulin on 4th Aug

The amount of insulin in his blood was huge

So he was not only given something he wasn't prescribed/given another baby's prescription but also given too much which on the balance of probabilities looks deliberate to me

Mirabai you continue to insist you understand legal proceedings. Yet your lanaguage “no hard evidence” contravenes this. In a huge amount of trials- there is no smoking gun! The majority of cases are based on masses of circumstantial evidence. Backed up by witness reports. Backed up by medical records. Of which there are all in this case. It is then down to examine how those circumstances interconnect and play with each other. Do you only accept “hard evidence” as CCTV showing someone actually committing a crime? As the majority of cases are not formed like this.
Thanks for the info on your family and their hospital experiences too, so relevant to this case! 🤔

So he was not only given something he wasn't prescribed/given another baby's prescription but also given too much which on the balance of probabilities looks deliberate to me

If it's only a balance of probabilities, that would have to result in a Not Guilty verdict.

Sorry. You're correct I meant beyond reasonable doubt

But on the lesser test more likely to have been intentional than requiring 2 unlikely errors

On a civil burden of proof - more likely intentional than not - you might be right, but it’s not a civil case. Even so nothing to link it unequivocally to LL.

@DollyParton2 You might want to look up “contravene”.

It's a bit hard to tell as not all of te days have the live updates.

However, from what I've read it does seem likely that this baby was given insulin.

As for knowing who gave him it - I don't think we've heard anything yet. It must be coming up.

One thing is certain in my view, that the insulin was given deliberately by someone. There is no realistic scenario where it could possibly be an error.