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 aren’t questioning the evidence though. Not even close. Nor from your posts do any of us thing you are either knowledgeable enough about the case or educated in the subject matter enough to do so.

This is where the wheels are coming off for you. Do you understand? You are not questioning the evidence in any way, other than basically casting odd aspersions.

if you wish to question the evidence, then go ahead and do so, quote your evidence and then tell us with evidence, not from some fan site, but quoting reliable names experts, on your issue.

and then show us how you can question the evidence Better than the highly experienced defense team.

we are all willing to listen to your expertise.

@Janieforever quite frankly, neither do you, Janie! But that's irrelevant anyway.

As I said before, it's just like knocking my head against a brick wall, which I'm not prepared to do.

My point stands, many of you are totally defensive and ignorant to others opinions. You won't discuss anything other than LLs guilt. If people raise anything that vaguely critical or questionning of the case, you aim to shut it down immediately. Fair enough, this thread isn't for me.

Again, these sites are not privy to the full information from the investigation. What rational basis is there for giving them credence over the findings of the experts consulted during that investigation? You know, the independent experts who have actually looked at each case in detail?

Letby had one of the top defence lawyers/teams in the country. They didn't use all this 'information' in her defence. What does that tell you?

Look at the tone, for a start! "The testimony was false". No. The test showed very clearly that there was high insulin and low C-Peptide. It may not be a test designed to check for exogenous insulin, obviously they weren't thinking that was even a possibility at the time, but that doesn't mean the results themselves are either a) unreliable or b) they don't provide incredibly strong evidence of insulin poisoning.

Parents of a baby born in Nov 2013 at Countess of Chester Hospital say LL was standing over their baby’s cot moments before their baby collapsed.

https://www.itv.com/news/granada/2023-08-23/family-believe-daughter-may-have-been-one-of-lucy-letbys-first-victims

I think it’s likely we will see more people come forward.

The difference is I never said I was “questioning the evidence”, in this scenario i understand my own limitations and also respect the very difficult job the jury did, and the very experienced and highly qualified defence team, as well as the medical experts . I also took the time to understand the case from the information published from reputable sources. I also without a shadow of a doubt respect the families own feelings on the matter.

if someone wants to question the evidence, then do so, but do it reputably and in a credible and skilled manner. If you feel you are skilled and knowledgeable enough to do so, then mumsnet is not the forum. Message her legal team with your findings.

because without any of that it lacks any form of credibility and moves into distasteful territory given the context of how heinous these crimes are.

no one is against you “questioning the evidence” or anyone else doing so in a credible, knowledgeable and skilled manner .

What people are taking issue with is no such thing is occurring.

the test for exogenously administered insulin is to test insulin and c-peptide levels. Thats
what's sent to the lab in every hospital everywhere.

C-peptide is attached to the insulin produced by the body and is then cleaved off. Administered insulin is identical to natural insulin but does not have c-peptide. Therefore if insulin levels are high and c-peptide low, some of the insulin must have been administered.

Saying that exogenous insulin was not identified is sophistry, not a gotcha

Do you have a medical background loyalist?

TBH I'm m ore interested in whether the much- touted "Dr" Riachard Gill does

All I've been able to find is some reference to a zoology qualification, a lot about his interest in statistics and absolutely nothing about any medical expertise ... unless someone knows different?

Spot on. Agree with every word.

CLAIM: The deaths of the 7 babies in this case were initially considered "unexplained".

Who claimed they were unexplained?

TRUTH: The presence of synthetic insulin cannot be established using the type of test that was performed. The testimony was false.

What type of test should have been performed and what type of test was actually performed?

Are you saying the laboratory results from Royal Liverpool Hospital showing high levels of synthetic insulin in Child F’s blood were fake or falsified?

She has been tried and found guilty, no amount of questioning by amateurs is going to change that.

@WhisperingHi

As I said before, it's just like knocking my head against a brick wall, which I'm not prepared to do.

Believe me, no one is under any illusion that you are prepared to look at the facts.

TRUTH: The presence of synthetic insulin cannot be established using the type of test that was performed. The testimony was
false.

Well that's blatantly a total lie, considering even Letby testified in court that the babies had been deliberately drugged with insulin (she claimed that someone else on the ward had deliberately poisoned them, she didn't claim they died from natural causes).

Christ, are Letby Truthers going to be the new far right wing conspiracy theory polluting MN for the next few years?

Well it’ll be interesting to see if Letby and her legal advisers decide to appeal. I’m sure if they do, the conspiracy theorists will be their first stop.

And if there’s no appeal, I shall assume she’s guilty as charged.

In light of other families coming forward as a PP said, and the current ongoing investigations into the outcomes of other babies Letby nursed prior to the events of 2015-2016, we may yet see other charges and trials.

I wonder how many babies collapsing and dying on Letby’s shifts it would take for her supporters to concede that yes, she dunnit? Another 10? 100? 1000?

Or would they just think she’s the unluckiest nurse that ever lived?

Her colleagues were very much involved, they appeared as witnesses throughout the trial.
The prostitution called them as witnesses for their side which meant the defence could cross-examine them, but couldn’t call them themselves.

Why the defence had no other witnesses, we don’t know. I expected to hear about other deaths that she couldn’t have been part of or alternative experts‘ views on the deaths of the babies in question, but there was nothing really. Her defence amounted to little more than ‘it wasn’t me.’

Peer reviewed?

A website?

Do you know what peer reviewed means?

Her KC was one of the most well regarded and experienced there are. She got extensive legal aid and sold her house to fund it. He will have sought tirelessly for anything to contradict the findings, anything, and from what I understand he used multiple renowned experts to try to see if he could.

If no one was called it tells us solely there was nothing anyone could do to refute the evidence. Even Letby herself said the babies were killed. There was no way round rhe medical facts.

as such, the only possible defence she had was it wasn’t her, but someone else killed all these poor children and tried to murder the others.

Just thinking back to LL’s text to a colleague about her being eager to get back into nursery 1 asap after the death of Child A because this is what she did at the Liverpool Women’s Hospital when a baby in her care died. I wouldn’t be surprised if she was doing the same thing at that hospital.

Letby: “Well that's how I feel, from when I've experienced it at the Women's I needed to go straight back and have a sick baby otherwise the image of the one you lost never goes. Don't expect people to understand but I know how I feel... Anyway forget it. I can only talk about it properly with those who knew him... I'll overcome it myself. You get some sleep x”.

This

Is there a record somewhere of these text messages to colleagues, that one above is so manipulative, self serving, definitely PD

She may never be charged/tried for further deaths though, they dont tend to for people already serving a life sentence and tariff.

I’d normally agree but the NHS Trust Management handled it so poorly that I wonder if a continued investigation is one way to give some closure (sorry, terrible word but you know what I mean), to the families of what likely happened to their babies.

I agree. And the families are being actively encouraged to sue the hospital. Obviously the poor surviving children with awful injuries will win massive sums because they’re going to need lifelong care. It’s important that any other victims are identified so they too can claim. I have a horrible feeling that this is far from over.

So much arguing back and forth about the strength of the medical evidence/statistics but not many comments on the less sensational but damning testimony from LL herself! I too at points felt there were questions on some of the evidence but this cleared my doubts as it likely did with the jury. I've asked on several threads now, those who fear she's innocent, what about her lies, baby E, falsifying records, gaslighting colleagues and not once has anyone responded. Feels like some have an agenda rather than just an impartial interest.

I agree. I'd LOVE to see what some people have to say about Baby E, which was the case that, to me, was most clear-cut, based on her lies in the face of the parents' testimony and phone records.

Well said. All this questioning of the verdict is just like Trump's fans claiming that the election was stolen in 2020. They also had their reasons. It's just that the reasons weren't any good and showed that they didn't really understand the process.

They believed so much that Trump won that they got all their reasoning back-to-front: any argument that he won, however weak, must be right and any argument against, however strong, must be wrong.

Just the same here.