Lucy Letby - new thread

[anonymousamy]

No idea why the last one was taken down, but for anyone who wants to continue the discussion on Letby, I’m starting a new thread here.

I’m 100% sure she’s guilty, but I’m still massively struggling to comprehend why on earth she did it.

You’d all be clamouring to have her look after your neonates, would you?

There isn't any
I was asking them. How do you explain the insulin? Please do it in a way I can understand (have insomnia so hard of thinking).

I think probably the acknowledgement from the defence lawyer that the babies’ nutrient bags had been laced with insulin was a key moment.

This is a very good point

Cherry I was asking the sceptics, because the insulin I keep reading was the "smoking gun" and I don't understand either of these statements/claims.

The two claims of insulin poisoning are not supported by the testing conducted, and the infants (who are still alive and well) did not have dangerously low or dangerously high blood glucose levels for any period of time. There are many physiological reasons that could explain their low blood glucose during the whole period. In one of the two cases, assumptions are being made on the basis of one test taken at a single time point, clearly inconsistent with the other medical readings, and contravening the manufacturer’s own instructions for use The report detailing the conclusions from that single test violates the code of practice of the forensic science regulator. Moreover, it appears that some numerical error has been made in the necessary calculation, resulting in an outcome which is physiologically impossible (or the person responsible did not know about the so-called “hook effect”). The mismatch between C-peptide and insulin concentration does not prove that the excess insulin found must have been synthetic insulin. There are many other biological explanations for a mismatch. No testing was done to determine the origin of the insulin. Similarly, there are many innocent explanations for the detection of some insulin in a feeding bag.

Reddit poster (who's been doxxed or banned or impersonated, fuck knows)

Prof Hindmarsh claimed that 0.56 ml insulin was added to 165 ml of TPN for Child F, and 0.1 ml of insulin was added to the 500 ml stock bags of dextrose for Child L. This means that amount of insulin concentrations were:
Child F was 0.339 U/ml
Child L it was 0.02 U/ml.
Both cases result in a insufficient amount of insulin to give the whopping great steady state concentrations of 4657 pmol/L (Child F) and 1099 pmol/L (Child L).
In order for these tiny concentrations to result in the steady state concentrations above, for a period of 17 hours and 48 hours, respectively, one would be required to take a lot of insulin, or essentially have an exceedingly slow rate of insulin clearance from the blood. We know this is not the case for insulin, so basically, there is no way the numbers provided by the prosecution are remotely close to any sort of real world finding.
Studies show that an infusion rate of insulin of 2.4 units/hour results in a blood concentration of insulin of ~250 pmol/L. Based on Prof Hindmarsh’s calculations nothing close to that was being delivered to either child and yet their plasma levels were several times higher.

I don't understand

Quite.

You don't understand this very well. There were lots of charges. You should be specifying which charge you're talking about.

But save your breath. My opinion isn't worth any more than yours as I wasn't on the jury that sat through months of evidence that, surprisingly, didn't include the thoughts of random bloggers, Redditors or others whose opinion isn't relevant but who have an axe to grind or are perhaps Internet loudmouths. My point is that if you really think they've spotted something that everyone else has missed, you're probably being had.

If relevant evidence wasn't put before the jury (and bear in mind that lots of court time is taken up with what is genuinely on point and what is prejudicial - ie it just makes the defendant look bad) then the verdict may be unsafe and might get set aside. Letby's lawyers will know this.

The defence could always have produced their own expert evidence on this. The fact that they didn't probably indicates that they couldn't find one who would come up with a similar analysis to this random Redditor.

It makes me wonder how much of what LL got away with was because staff numbers are cut to the bone. What should the staff ratios really be? If the unit had been fully staffed would someone have seen what was happening earlier?

This person understands their point very well and their maths holds. You just simply don't want to consider the possibility that it's true. The hook effect is also not the creation "some redditor" you can google it. The TPN bags were never examined as this theory about insulin did not materialise until months and years later.

Those who call this a smoking gun, honestly are misusing the term. A smoking gun would be an insulin syringe found on her, or a colleague catching her tampering with a bag. Not simply her, a qualified nurse, physically existing in the same space as insulin.

What we can't do is deify 11 members of the public picked at random who have no medical training. Public juries can and do get things wrong particularly in complex medical cases like.this. I mean a man who was wrongly imprisoned for 18 years was released just last week. No evidence they've seen isn't in the public record. However there is multitude of evidence they were not shown or not allowed to be shown. The other babies who died that can not be attributed to Lucy and the results of the College of Paediatricians report for some reason judge Goss decides we're not permissible to discuss. Meanwhile the defence were given a statistical report from members of the Royal Statistical Society they did not use. No relevant scientific or medical witnesses were called. Nobody understands why. Though Dewi Evans price tag between £80-150k per year for his work on the case may hold a clue.

I'm not a conspiracy minded person. The world is round, vaccines work, the world is not controlled by Illuminati. I would feel much better if I thought we'd just jailed a killer. But the burden of proof needed for this lifelong jail sentence is far below where it should be. And that's worrying.

Bigger units are better staffed with Doctors in the nurseries 24/7 she would never have been in a room alone with a baby and fairly sure of being undisturbed. I may be completely wrong about LL ( I probably am) but I know but I know about :
a) Neonatal units in the UK since 2000
and
b) The procedure in hospitals for child death including neonates.

There's no reason why the person quoted is more correct than the expert witness produced by the Crown in court. One again, the defence could have produced their own expert witness. They didn't. Unless Letby's defence team was astonishingly negligent it seems that the Crown's expert evidence wasn't very contestable.

Regarding the other things you cite, what gets put before a jury isn't ultimately decided by the trial judge. If the Crown or defence disagree with the judge's ruling on anything they can appeal. I imagine that the Royal Statistical Society's report simply wasn't terribly useful in proving whether or not Letby did x or y act to prove she killed baby a or b. If the College of Paediatricians report was the one that exonerated her, it would be pointless producing it as it would be ignoring the very point of having a trial.

Miscarriages of justice do happen. Hopefully less than before, and I accept that juries can be bamboozled by evidence. The Post Office fiasco is another example. In the present case, however, Letby put up an astonishingly weak defence. One witness: a plumber. Rather than resort to conspiracy theories I think it's more likely that there just wasn't that much to say on her behalf.

The expert witness produced by the crown is not an expert neonatologist. He specialises in diabetes much older children. His selection by the crown doesn't magically give him experience he doesn't have. But your assumption that because nothing was presented, there was nothing to present doesn't hold. The pathologists at the hospital all found these babies died of natural causes. They should have testified but their expertise was simply thrown out. The expert opinion of paediatricians who investigated the ward was one of systematic failure was thrown out. The report did exonerate her. She was allowed to return to work after it was published. The consultants only went to the police after it was published and their own failings were brought to light. As such only their version of events has been considered by the police and only the cases they wanted examined have been cherry picked for the case. Bad science 101.

Failure of the defense is not a conspiracy theory, it's the old adage of never put down to malice that which can be explained by incompetence. The statistical report I mentioned was co-written by a professor of mathematics who worked on an appeal that freed another nurse who'd been wrongly imprisoned. He himself is baffled as to why the defence didn't use it.

What do you mean by the fathers behaviour was questionable at the grievance?

Babies were brutally murdered. One of the longest trials in British history was undertaken, overwhelming evidence was provided. Lucy Letby is beyond all reasonable doubt a brutal serial killer.

other child deaths are now under investigation. Approx 30 of them. With the parents notified, the investigation is that far on. There is potential she will appear in the dock again in the coming years as those pathology/forensic and investigations are completed. There will be no appeal as grounds will be required for this. There are none.

the families have suffered enough without some people trying to argue their babies murderer is innocent.

lucy Letby is Harold shipman in a dress. Both repeatedly murdering the patients in their care, shipman the elderly, Letby the young.

my only thought is with the families, the babies and what they suffered at her hands, and I am thankful she’s been stopped and locked up , as without this, there is no doubt, more babies would have suffered and died at her hands.

I dont understand all the details about insulin, but surely if this is arguable where was the defence argument, where were the experts, where were the pathologists who apparently exonerated her?

If that were the case the defence would have asked them to be expert witnesses for the defence and they would have appeared

Do we know if they were approached and if so why they said no?

It was not arguable. I am unsure why people are posting what they are posting, it’s heinous if you think about it. Letby herself agreed at trial there was no other possible scenario than the children were murdered/it was a deliberate act. Her defense was it was not her who did it to them.

I know its not arguable. Im asking those that think it is.

There are actually 2 issues;
Were the children murdered? and secondly, if they were murdered, then who by?
The significant increase in deaths in the unit over a short period of time, caused the consultant to re-examine some of the deaths, and at first it seems they considered negligence, but as there were more deaths they realised it was done deliberately.
The prosecution called in an outside Dr to reexamine the deaths.
Did the defence do likewise? If not presented to the court, then I suppose the defence could not find a Dr who disagreed with the fact the babies were murdered.
Secondly, who by? On an individual basis then the evidence against LL appears inconclusive (It is possible she may appeal). However, taking the accumulative evidence, her manner towards the parents (some parents had complained about her attitude to them), her stalking of parents; her postit notes; the grievance complaint, etc
[Frankly, if I had such a complaint against me, I would have left, as how could you possibly work within that unit again]

Cherry MaDeara

SequinsandStiIettos
There isn't any
"I was asking them. How do you explain the insulin? Please do it in a way I can understand (have insomnia so hard of thinking).

I think probably the acknowledgement from the defence lawyer that the babies’ nutrient bags had been laced with insulin was a key moment."

You are familiar with the term,habeas corpus?, apparently not many here are.

Can you indicate when the bags where examined, and when said bags were produced to the court as an evidence exhibit. Also can you point to the production of any post-mortem results from any of the babies, which indicates suspicious or non natural causes.

To save you the bother both questions have a negative answer, no bag(s) produced and no suspicious/foul play post-mortem results produced to the court, the bag(s) theory is without the bag(s) as evidence, is pure conjecture.
The post-mortem results on the other hand are clear cut, unambiguous.

Later we shall detail how appallingly bad the Crown's "star witness" turned out to be, using the entirely wrong "test" to describe air embolism, in the meantime feel free to peruse his theory, flawed as it is👇

Whither Ms Letby is guilty of anything I know not, how could I or anyone else know, what I am certain of, is that there will be a retrial, for such a public aberration of the justice system will not go unchallenged, fwiw, I am less than impressed by Letby's defence KC, which is something the appeal court may also look at.

Even Letby didn’t disagree they were murdered /deliberately poisoned, the medical evidence was clear. There was no doctor or scientist who would dispute it.

the evidence against her is anything but inconclusive for the 13 children she murdered or attempted to murder, it it was, she’d not have been found guilty beyond reasonable doubt, it was inconclusive for the remaining children hence why she was not found guilty on those charges.

the jury spent ten months listening to evidence, 3 weeks deliberating. I am sure they and the families of these children are aghast at people trying to proclaim her innocence without even taking the time to fully educate themselves on the case.

the only good thing now is the children she would have went on to murder are now saved.

There is a whole chapter about the insulin here:

https://rexvlucyletby2023.com/work_1/

I will try and summaries it later, but I have work now.

Right? They always come out at night when MN isn't moderated.

There was long and interesting discussion on the last Lucy Letby Trial threads about exactly this - thread was deleted because of repeated violations of sub judice rules

My recall of the discussion [which may be biased] was that there were experts for the defence lined up and meetings had taken place with them and the defence team throughout the trial. The experts weren't called because they were either of no longer of value to the defence or because they withdrew. No-one knows which or why and likely won't ever be known unless it is part of an appeal

LL taking the stand was seen as pretty damaging to the defence/defence experts

None of those apparently well informed posters contributing to that discussion have as far as I can see contributed to this thread or other post conviction threads