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?

For your benefit, NHS Resolution is taxpayer funded, as are the trusts that make up the NHS, as is the spendthrift governments, who waste our taxes, so yes it is taxpayer funded. NHS has no private insurers, very sensibly no insurance company would touch it, with the proverbial barge pole.

It's not really News that the COCH is a shitty hospital - anyone who followed even a small part of the trial heard about problems there. And as I'm sure you're aware there is a government enquiry planned which doubtless will expose further issues

One of your links was to the Chester Standard which has been a brilliant campaigning local paper highlighting the shortcomings at COCH - the people of Chester know only too well how awful their local hospital is

That being said your posts seem somewhat tangential to the Letbys Appeal - if not deliberately de-railing

So I'll leave you to it

The risk is farmed out exactly the way a conventional insurance company does. I’m very surprised someone so knowledgeable doesn’t know that.

As I said taxpayer funded and insured, whither you like it or not, perhaps you would like to name the insurance companies you very loosely try to insert, thought not.

I think I'm just going to save this to my clipboard to save myself having to keep typing it.

Maternity care in the UK can be absolutely shocking - Telford and Shrewsbury, Kent, Nottingham, examples of absolutely appalling care over a significant period of time. Hopefully the mass reviews will go somewhere to address the issues.

This is entirely separate from LL, unless you are linking the two with the intention of disparaging the NHS.

The NHS doesn't need anyone to disparage it, does it all on its own, probably CoC being one of the worst if not the worst example.

Of course that environment connects to LL, where the death of a baby, baby Noah, at the hands of incompetent doctors, was reported and classed as misadventure at the inquest, they should have been charged, not escaped with a telling off, from the Coroner.

There are thousands of babies, pre-term and at term who are well cared for throughout the UK because of difficulties and in the majority of hospitals the care is good. Most of these babies do well.

CoCH is not one of those hospitals, nor are about 7-8 others. It's always a failure and lessons to be learnt. Meanwhile for those who suffer, nothing can compensate for the loss but money does help.

Thanks for confirming that even you can't produce any sort of argument that makes a historic negligence claim against a different department in the hospital remotely relevant.

As pointed out, you will find records of successful negligence claims against virtually every hospital in the country, particularly the maternity departments which are obviously dealing with one of the most vulnerable points in the human life cycle. None of it is remotely relevant to the activities of a murderer in a different ward.

You probably never heard of baby Noah, who iis entirely relevant, as are all the others, however you continue to defend the indefensible, appears to be your forte.

No one has said she'd shouldn't have the right to appeal.

What they are questioning is the grounds on which she may do so because you can just say "I'm innocent" there are limited reasons you can appeal.

She may well have one.

I believe she's guilty but she has appealed and we await the outcome of the judges decision.

His death is relevant. And his parents should follow every avenue welcome to them.

But he wasn't a victim of LL. it's not relevant to her appeal for her convictions.

I'm not really sure what your getting from this thread other than a felling of insulting people who are rolling their eyes at you.

Insulted, you are quaint, if I were to insult anyone, I wouldn't miss and hit the wall, get over yourself.

You're making it up now. I haven't defended anything to do with that. I've simply pointed out its irrelevance to the issue of a possible appeal by LL.

Any danger of you answering that question, @lubylo?

"You're making it up now"

no one other than you mentioned letby's appeal, if you need the relevance of that toxic environment explained to you, there isn't much point.

You need reminded too often, that no test was ever done for exogenous insulin, the RLHU, have no facility to test, an unavailable blood test sample, obviously botched by milan, readings that would have seen off adults never mind babies, in actual fact impossible readings, 4657 uU/ml/27,402 pmol/L., turn it up.

It really does sound like not a nice environment to have your babies treated, I read the thing about Baby Noah too, heartbreaking for his parents. Quite incredible no one was held to account for obvious negligence.

They dont test for insulin, they test the cpeptide. Im having the test next week.

They can't test for exogenous insulin, that is the whole point. It should have gone to Guildford it didn't.

They don’t need to. The C peptide level is the indicator.

Interestingly, there a newish thread on Reddit [yesterday] about Noahs death linking it to the Letby appeal 'cos 'systemic failures' and 'negligent doctors'

The Reddit OP is pretty arm-wavey and aggressive and not responding with much knowledge to informed posters challenging their hypothesis

Noahs death also popped up on one of the Letby Trial threads here on MN as another example of the the on-going problems on the unit focussing on one particular consultant - I'm not going to name them here

So this a bit of a resurrection of Letbys cabal of witch-hunting consultants framing her for the deaths which she dropped into her evidence on the witness stand - and wasn't part of the defence case

IDK if Noahs family are in agreement with his death being linked in this way - just feels a bit distasteful to say the least

no one other than you mentioned letby's appeal

It's literally up there in the title to the thread, @lubylo

You mentioned the appeal, it's in the title is about the lamest excuse I've heard.

The C-peptide reading of 169, bears no parentage to the reading of the very likely false 4657 uU/ml, with good reason. C-peptide is not influenced by exogenous insulin.

About covers it.

We know C peptide isn’t influenced by exogenous insulin. We’ve been telling you that repeatedly. That’s how they knew it was exogenous without having to test.

"We know C peptide isn’t influenced by exogenous insulin. We’ve been telling you that repeatedly. That’s how they knew it was exogenous without having to test"

I can't quite believe I read that, but I did, no more needs said.