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.

As previously stated to those, who asked, Letby was not working alone, also acknowledged by the prosecution.

Quite normal for those here, who can not articulate their ramblings, to accuse others of sock- puppetry, perhaps they should look in the mirror.

www.chesterstandard.co.uk/news/23155217.lucy-letby-trial-colleague-denies-adding-anything-babys-feed-bag/

How do the people who think she's innocent explain the confessional notes and medical documents (souvenirs) found in Letby's bedroom?

Try Lucia de Berk, may give you an insight.

Exactly. And she falsified and amended patient records. If the evidence proving her innocence is so overwhelming why did the defence fail to produce any expert witnesses? Presumably none of our oversight posters were available?

I'd love to see some of this overwhelming evidence you have? It certainly wasn't presented in the trial I followed.

I absolutely feel for the parents, they are innocent victims getting dragged through this mess. However extraordinary claims (the most prolific serial killer of our generation popping out of nowhere) require extraordinary evidence, at the exclusion of all other possibilities. That's the very basis of science. That's not been met here by a longshot. Whereas there is evidence for the sadly much more normal explanation of an underfunded poorly managed hospital, not meeting the needs of its patients with tragic consequences has. I know that's significantly less satisfying than being able to punish a single person, but we can not leave someone in a prison for 50 year because it make us uncomfortable.

But the point is that Letby’s defence AGREED that the bags were tampered with. Blaming Myers is convenient for you but read his bio, he’s not a fool:

Benjamin Myers KC is a leading criminal silk. Described as ‘brilliant’, ‘extremely astute’ ‘an exceptionally gifted lawyer – a fearsome advocate,’ with ‘an exceptional ability to digest complex cases’, he appears in courts across the country and is ranked at the top of his field in crime and financial crime in Chambers Guide to the Legal Profession and in the Legal 500. He has been shortlisted as the Legal 500 Crime Silk of the Year 2022.

Here is The Times reporting on the insulin:

The cases of Baby F and Baby L, the two children injected with insulin, were in many ways the pivotal charges.
They were the only victims for whom there was unimpeachable evidence that their care had been sabotaged. Letby’s defence struggled to respond to these allegations, and did not contest the fact that the babies had been poisoned, but argued that someone else had done the poisoning.
Johnson said that the fact the insulin dosage was doubled for Baby L, following the unsuccessful attempt to kill Baby F, was clear evidence of an “intention to kill”.

What a non-answer. Typical for LL’s defenders here.

Hi, I'm the sock puppet allocated to the day shift today.

Anything I can help you with?

What do you mean she wasn’t working alone, are you saying she was killing babies with someone else’s support?

Any evidence for your ramblings?

Times reporting good as ever I see. Nothing about the insulin evidence is impeachable. From the laboratory that the tests for the insulin children:

"Please note that the insulin assay performed at RLUH is not suitable for the investigation of factitious hypoglycaemia. If exogenous insulin administration is suspected as the cause of hypoglycaemia, please inform the laboratory so that the sample can be referred externally for analysis"

So the test is not fit for that diagnostic purpose. In addition the levels of insulin that the prosecution are proposing were in these children's bloodstream don't make sense. In once instance>4000mcU/ml. For reference 2000 is enough to kill a grown man. Yet this infant survived completely unaffected double those levels.

Letby herself is not a pathologist. She is not an expert witness and should not be treated as such.

The case against Lucy Letby lacked scientific evidence and is based on unverified hypotheses. The lawyer who represented Lucy did a terrible job.
https://rexvlucyletby2023.com
This case is eventually going to be recognized as a terrible miscarriage of justice, in the same category as Amanda Knox's case.

Records not presented to the court, nor referenced by the experts, reveal a pattern of stillbirths and perinatal deaths that for a five year period follow the exact same trend.

The cumulative infant mortality rate at the Countess of Chester Hospital, for 2015 and 2016 was LOWER than the national average.
The number of perinatal deaths in 2017 and 2018 was HIGHER than in 2015 and 2016, but Lucy Letby was not on the ward in these years. Why is it similar unexplained deaths continued in the months after Letby was removed from clinical practice and no longer had access to the unit?

In June 2019, Dr Gibbs retired. Dr Gibbs was the Senior Consultant who accused Lucy Letby of murdering infants. In that same year the number of perinatal deaths and stillbirths dramatically declined.

Air embolism can only be determined by very specific tests done at the time of death, which were not performed. The experts rely on a journal article depicting gas embolism and not air embolism.

The presence of synthetic insulin cannot be established using the type of test that was performed. Child F was treated with insulin in the days prior which is related to the production of autoantibodies (Liu et al., 2023), and Child L was born to a mother who was seriously unwell, and had a diagnosis of gestational diabetes. It was identified that 24% of umbilical vein cord blood contained non-human insulin, demonstrating the transfer of exogenous insulin from the mother to her infant in utero (Lindsay et al., 2004).

@Mish15 this is what they say on that website

‘Without knowing the entirety of every element of the case,’

They don’t know the entire case, it wasn’t just based on science. You’re being incredibly disrespectful to the babies that were killed and their families.

unless she admits it we’ll never have solid proof she did it but we have to trust the jury heard enough

She and her defence agreed the bags had been tampered with. From the Guardian:

Lucy Letby, the nurse on trial for murdering babies in her care, has told a jury that two babies were deliberately poisoned with insulin – but not by her.
Nick Johnson KC, cross-examining Letby for a second day, asked her if she agreed that “someone” had “unlawfully” given Child F and Child L insulin. She agreed, saying that the feeding bags must have been tampered with by either someone on the unit or before the bags arrived on the ward.
“Insulin has been added by somebody – how or who I can’t comment on, only that it wasn’t me,” she said. “I don’t believe that any member of staff on the unit would make a mistake and give insulin.”

Not sure where you’ve got your quote from but the judge accepted the insulin evidence as expert testimony and the defence didn’t call forth any experts.

Yes, why habeas corpus is relevant?

You and your cohort keep posting that rexv link like it’s a talisman, but they’re just a conspiracy theorist.

The BBC have reported below:

Since Letby left the hospital's neonatal unit, there has been only one death in seven years.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66120934

@Mish15

The presence of synthetic insulin cannot be established using the type of test that was performed. Child F was treated with insulin in the days prior which is related to the production of autoantibodies (Liu et al., 2023), and Child L was born to a mother who was seriously unwell, and had a diagnosis of gestational diabetes. It was identified that 24% of umbilical vein cord blood contained non-human insulin, demonstrating the transfer of exogenous insulin from the mother to her infant in utero (Lindsay et al., 2004).

Again, from the BBC article:

Late one evening, he was going through some historic medical records when he discovered a blood test from 2015 for one of the babies on his unit. It recorded dangerous levels of insulin in the baby's bloodstream.
The significance of the test result had been missed at the time.
The body produces insulin naturally, but when it does, it also produces a substance called C-Peptide. The problem with the insulin reading that Dr Brearey was looking at was that the C-Peptide measurement was almost zero. It was evidence the insulin had not been produced naturally by the baby's body and had instead been administered.
"It made me feel sick," Dr Brearey recalls. "It was quite clear that this baby had been poisoned by insulin."

You're missing the point. Once again, the defence could have brought in their own expert witness. If the Crown witness was genuinely not in his field of expertise the defence could have challenged his evidence.

The paediatricians investigating the ward didn't, on your description of them, have anything relevant to say. They investigated the ward overall. Not the deaths specifically.

The reports you mention weren't relevant for the reasons I've already given.

Everything you say is either irrelevant or something that the defence chose not to run, almost certainly because it wasn't tenable.

Same with your stats man.

@Mish15 This case was about a series of unexpected and unexplained neonatal deaths in babies expected to make full recoveries, not about perinatal deaths. Nobody is denying there are issues at the Countess hospital but unless you have literally any information otherwise, these perinatal deaths are not unexplained or otherwise suspicious and are irrelevant to the very different situation in the neonatal unit.

Unless you can stop conflating neonatal and perinatal deaths on two separate units, there is really no point you are making here.

Whilst what LL did is horrific I wonder if she ever lost a baby herself in difficult circumstances - or maybe she was pushed into having a termination that she herself didn't want to have & if her behaviour is in some way subconsciously connected to that.

Although often we don't understand the 'why' of it and maybe she doesn't either.

It is disrespectful not to challenge a flawed explanation for what happened. The families deserve to know the truth. It is harrowing to think of families believing someone intentionally killed their babies if this didn’t happen.

So what if she did ?
Many people have traumatic experiences they don't resort to.murdering babies there is absolutely no.excuse what she did none whatsoever.

The families have been very clear they agree fully with the jury. They, unlike you, sat through ten months of this and know the facts.

And yet another of her lies. From the live reporting of LL's testimony.

She said she would have been aware she still had the handover sheets when she got home, and put them in a folder in the spare room.
She said she "didn't know how to dispose of them" and no-one else had seen them.
She said she did not have a shredder and those sheets were at home 'inadvertently'.

And yet what did the police find in her spare room, as shown in the pictures? A shredder. It was revealed she shreds a lot, including her bank statements.

Tom Pinch.

"You're missing the point. Once again, the defence could have brought in their own expert witness. If the Crown witness was genuinely not in his field of expertise the defence could have challenged his evidence"

The defence did challenge his evidence and his inclusion as an "expert witness", after his very public evisceration by Law Lord Justice Jackson, who described his report as worthless, in another case.

Lord Jackson said for all that had gone before “For all those reasons, no court would have accepted a report of this quality even if it had been produced at the time of the trial.”

For whatever reason the Letby judge dismissed Lord Justice Jackson's opinion, out of hand, saying it was for the jury to decide, something else that the appeal court will look at I think, notwithstanding the totally erroneous report produced by evan's in the letby trial.