Lucy Letby looking to appeal her convictions

[Gymnopedie]

How on earth does she think that's going to go?

Lucy Letby to appeal

(MSN link from the Telegraph)

I can't see what grounds she would have after a 10 month trial with all the evidence against her. And who would take her on as a client?

Clearly the police should have been involved, especially given what we know now. However, that makes no difference to the issue of Lucy Letby's guilt.

An insulinoma is a tumour in the pancreas. If there was any evidence that either of these children had a tumour it's highly unlikely that their case would have gone any further.

You keep ignoring the fact that experts for the defence looked at all these things closely. You still haven't come up with a credible reason either for the low C-peptide levels or the fact that you claim to know more than qualified and experienced medical experts.

Wrong again.

Evan's was only asked to investigate the deaths after the hospital staff had suspicions and then reviewed the blood tests.

He didn't make up the insulin theory. Nor did the defence or LL dispute it was given synthetically. If the person accused agreed it was synthetic why are others arguing it wasn't?

And I think it would be good to answer the poster above who asked what other cases are there outside of this one where these results have been presented and it was synthetic insulin? Odd that it's just 2 babies who are involved in murder and attempted murder cases.

I suspect that it may well be possible to appeal and even to succeed on some of the counts on which Letby was found guilty. Given the care with which this trial was conducted, the clear abilities of the defence team, and the care the jury gave to its verdicts, it is extremely unlikely that she will succeed in all cases. We also have the Baby K trial to come, plus the possibility of further charges in relation to other deaths. So in practical terms the outcome isn't going to make a difference to her.

An insulinoma is a tumour in the pancreas. If there was any evidence that either of these children had a tumour it's highly unlikely that their case would have gone any further.

Insulinoma is very difficult to determine in pre-term babies. Indeed a test was sent to exclude - the result was inconclusive. Sometimes this happens in pre-term neonates and can resolve eventually.

Plus you say 'tumour' however these can be microscopic and difficult to detect. @Passepartoute

Do they usually resolve within 24 hours though, probably not

She has nothing to lose. The chances of her overturning every conviction is remote. She is never getting out.

So are you saying that all the experts on both sides completely forgot or didn't know about the possibility of insulinoma, @placemats? Do you think that, if they thought it was even a slightly realistic possibility in either case we would have heard all about it?

She didn't accept this at all. She accepted that the insulin in those two cases had been given to the babies (who didn't die) because apparently there wasn't any other explanation, but really how could she know? She's not a scientist.

Regarding your second point, she was the only one on the rota for each of the seven deaths considered in court. That's because she was on trial so those are the ones they were examining. There were nine other neonate deaths during the same period, but we don't know if she was on duty for all of them. I'd guess probably not. As for why deaths stopped when she was taken off the ward, the ward was downgraded and stopped treating seriously ill babies because of its record of poor care.

I don't know if she's guilty or not but there's no intelligent reading of this case that could conclude she's definitely guilty beyond doubt.

Call me a cynic, but I'm not sure the plumber 'expert' witness, the only 'expert' witness called for the defence had a clue about insulinoma @Passepartoute

Little is known about maternal blood circulation in a pre-term baby after birth. However what is known is that babies in utero do transfer cells back to the mother that may well be there for life.

I feel you're being a bit unfair on John Gibb here - his ward based investigation suggested something very wrong about such a large dose of insulin being found in a baby who wasn't prescribed it. He took it to the consultants group and they tried to take it [and other very worrying events] to management who refused to act, He clearly deeply regrets not picking up the phone and calling the police.

I never mentioned Gibb. Why would you mention him @Efacsen ? A 'bit unfair' means that there's room for doubt.

It clearly was a case of a criminal act on Child F and no amount of wishy washing of the so called in house investigation can exculpate the delay. Deep regrets are meaningless at this point.

im having a cpeptide test next week to work out how much natural insulin im producing. i dont have to stop taking my novomix insulin before the test as they can tell the diffrence.

You are an adult not a pre term baby twin.

You haven't said whether it's type 1 or type 2 diabetes.

Except if it was a usual occurance it wouldn't have made people question it.

And it doesn't explain why it rectified when the ton bag was stopped and then after the 2nd one was removed.

It's like saying "we know trees fall over in woods. So this one that's been cut in half a meter from the bottom could also have fallen over as there's no evidence someone cut it" the evidence being a witness.

Someone shared a report online just after the sentencing which looked at all the stuff her defence should have done and didnt and raised some questions that made me think "oh shit". So there is some questions to be answered.

https://rexvlucyletby2023.com/
This was it

Also good practice is listening to consultants when they raise concerns. Something management didn't do.

In fact they all but threatened their jobs if they were silent and offered LL a funded master degree as an apology for the accusations.

It wasn't as easy as "call the police". The enquirey will be illuminating in so many ways.

The question I have is how many babies would have been murdered or victims of attempted murder if the consultants had been listened to in October 2015? It's not just LL with blood on her hands.

That's been wildly discredited as the "scientists" haven't said their qualifications nor identified themselves - just first names.

It’s been widely discredited because it’s the work of a group of people with no scientific qualifications. Richard Gill and Sanita Adams are fantasists.

thats the point with our current legal system , everyone has the right to appeal even if people think omg, how dare they etc

I do t think anyone has said she doesn't have the right to lodge an appeal?

Just that they cannot see how after a 3 year investigation and trial that 4 weeks later there's new evidence or a point in law to appeal against.

I'm not surprised she's lodged one and I'm fine with her right to do so.

But I do t think it'll be granted nor do I think she can realistically overturn 14 WLO.

im presuming the public dont have all the facts which could then be used for the appeal ?

Why are you presuming that new facts have emerged since the trial? It only finished last month.

because they could of been known at the time but were unable to use x information for one reason or another etc ?

im only guessing

Any information the prosecution intends to use has to be shared with the defence before the trial. I think it highly unlikely that the defence would have withheld anything. Why would it?

A point I keep making that never gets answered!

It's like they think 3-4 years of investigations and a trial and suddenly new evidence just "popped up".