Letby Case (part 2)

[OneFrenchEgg]

www.mumsnet.com/talk/_chat/4652340-lucy-letby-court-case?reply=121815754

follow up, remember rules around discussion of active cases

Yes - that's exactly how to understand it. She's admitted that she wouldn't know they could tell the difference between babies own insulin, and synthetic insulin

That's really interesting. I can't find anything about it in any live feeds however. Where did that transcript come from? It does look like a typo which is supposed to say "or had not heard of"

https://www.chesterstandard.co.uk/news/23566971.recap-lucy-letby-trial-june-5---cross-examination-continues/

That's from the Chester Standard who are reporting daily from court, if sky was there that day you can compare with their reporting.

There is a very detailed compiled wiki on tattle that might help too

I can't really find anything else that covers this bit of the questioning. Perhaps they spent more time on it in court but it just hasn't been reported. Seems like it's a pretty important detail to me but I wasn't 100% certain in due to there been a typo in the write up.

This is what I mean. I can't find anything but surely it's paramount to the case if she wasn't aware synthetic insulin could be detected.

Why would it be? Am I missing something?

i didn’t know synthetic insulin could be detected? Does that demonstrate i’m a child murderer?

i don’t expect many staff members knew that. They are neonatal nurses, not endocrinologists

I think that's exactly the point. Whoever murdered those babies didn't think it would be detectable and so could be potentially explained as natural, like the others. If someone knew it could be detected then they wouldn't have killed them that way. Perhaps in her interview she was just telling the truth, perhaps she was gobsmacked and didn't realise and she answered honestly as she was shocked and now she has to just go with it, who knows. But it is pretty important in the context of the case.

Like I said before though. The post contains a typo and therefore I was just looking for clarification.

If she didn’t know synthetic insulin could be detected it could have been her or anyone else on the ward that didn’t know.

Of course it could, but for me the insulin cases have always been outliers, but now they come under the same umbrella of trying to make it look natural like the rest.

Strangely I would assume you can detect anything synthetic added to the blood, perhaps that's just me and the majority of people don't think like me so it's quite a big fact for me to hear.

that wasn’t my question though.
@Prevmidwife suggested her lack of knowledge was paramount to the case.
how could it be?
loads of people don’t know this. It proves nothing

Exactly. It’s not exactly common knowledge is it.

For me, the insulin cases are the only ones with hard evidence of human interference. The rest are speculative.

All I'm saying, is that if she did know, then it would be an odd method to use, because it's easily detectable. So she may have been shocked to discover this if she hadn't been aware and she was responsible.

With all of us, it's just my own personal opinion. Like someone else has said, I feel personally that the insulin cases are the only ones with indisputable evidence. So I do personally, feel it's paramount... but that's just me and feel free to disagree anyone!

But as we don’t know she was shocked and we don’t know what she knew, and all we should be discussing is the actual evidence, then all we know is that she like the vast majority of the population was unaware of the details of detecting different types of insulin.

I suspect this hasn’t been picked up more by the papers because it doesn’t actually show anything without applying a load of speculation and assumption which would be against court orders

Obviously it’s not a method likely to be used by someone who knows it’s detectable, but that doesn’t really narrow it down.

Both the defence and prosecution accept that synthetic insulin was used.

The prosecution have established (and Letby agreed) that only there are only two people who had the relevant access to do it.

Letby denies it was her. Other option is not present in any other incident on the indictment.

I think being one of only 2 people with access is much more significant!

Yes probably it's all just part of the puzzle but then I didn't expect the word I used to have so much attention. The prosecution questioned her eyesight. Again probably a small factor but it has been widely reported so I expected that the insulin coverage would be the same.

The prosecution have established (and Letby agreed) that only there are only two people who had the relevant access to do it.

Letby denies it was her. Other option is not present in any other incident on the indictment.

Doesn’t rule them out though. As no tainted drips were found there’s no hard evidence of the means by which the insulin was administered or accessed, the assumption of how it was accessed is no more than that.

I think Occams Razor comes into play here

She has been there or thereabouts after every single collapse and death.

The insulin thing well Belinda was around for both but not the other collapses and deaths

Some maternity units in the country have had appalling death rates in the past and no one ever bothered to call the police.

Well the police have clearly ruled out Belinda.

I think it's the shear amount of times that this has happened in this case, where the doubt cast is so outlandish it completely contradicts the experts. It's not feasible to me and it's not It's not reasonable doubt in my book either. I understand others opinions differ.

She either did this or the unluckiest person to ever walk the planet.