Lucy Letby appeal

[GonnaGetGoingReturns]

Sorry if not allowed to discuss here but just seem that this vile creature plans to appeal against her original sentence as per yesterday’s news. Her defence team is leading this potential appeal.

WTAF?!

They haven’t reached a verdict on is it 6 or 7 poor other little babies who died and she’s suspected, I thought?

So sad for the poor parents and babies still.

I admit it was just a rumour I heard and didn’t look into

A scientist has suggested a reason for a neonatal baby born of a diabetic Mother to have high insulin levels and low c peptide due to anti-insulin antibodies in the baby (created by the Mother being on insulin).

"At 120 minutes after birth, glucose, 0.5 gm/kg body weight, was infused quickly into the umbilical
vein of 6 patients in Group 1 and the two in Group 2. In the former, insulin levels rose significantly,
1- to 4-fold, despite the elevated level at commencement of infusion; in the latter, the insulin levels
rose 4-fold in one case and 18-fold in the second. The amount ofanti-insulin antibody present in serum
of infants in Group 1 did not change significantly during the first 240 minutes after birth; neither was
it affected by the administration of glucose and the subsequent appearance of endogenous insulin"

https://www.nature.com/articles/pr196712.pdf

This is why I'm curious about the insulin. Baby F's Mother was diabetic and on insulin. Baby F had apparently required resuscitation at birth and put on a ventilator and continued to have breathing difficulties so was put on a glucose infusion. He then had too high blood sugar and was given an insulin infusion. He then came off the ventilator but still needed CPAP for supported breathing. He had several desaturation events when nurses tried to get him off CPAP. During Dr Gibbs ward round it was apparently recorded that he was recovering from respiratory distress syndrome, being treated for suspected sepsis and had some jaundice and a possible heart murmur. His blood sugar was still getting raised. He was also waiting for a test for downs syndrome.

He didn't sound like a well baby. Despite all this he survived - he wasn't one of the babies that died.

And by an astounding coincidence the person this magic invisible doctor chose to frame just happened to have pages and pages of handwritten notes saying "I killed them on purpose" and other deranged psycho-ranting; had taken boxes of medical papers home with her; had alarmed multiple other nurses by having angry outbursts and being obsessive over specific babies and not wanting other nurses around them; and had removed all breathing tubes and apparatus from a baby without consent then lied about it.

Must be the luckiest sod on earth.

seems very unlikely seems more like a plot from shows like csi etc

If you read the court transcripts when giving her evidence she agrees it was synthetic. Just because someone claims they know a ‘medical expert’ who says it could be natural doesn’t mean anything. People on fb make stuff up all the time and claim it as facts.

i personally think the reason they didn’t present any expert witnesses at trial is because they couldn’t find any who could refute any of the evidence. I’m sure the defence tried to find people.

all these so called medical experts on fb claiming other causes for the death, if that were true, then the defence would have been able to find people to refute the evidence.

We won’t know yet, at the moment they
just have to say she is going to appeal.

I think the process is that they will present to a judge their grounds for appeal and the judge will decide if they have a case. I think they have to have new evidence or beable to say they didn’t have a fair trail and specify the reasons they believe this.

You apply for permission to the court of appeal first, then they decide if there's a reason for an appeal to take place

I imagine knowledge has possibly moved on since 1967 @HazelE123. Also that baby was a twin, anything affecting a baby in the womb would affect both babies.

Yes he was a twin , he collapsed the day after his brother twin E died

On 4 August 2015, a mother walked into the unit to give her baby boy, Child E, his milk, She found the baby distressed and bleeding from the mouth, with Letby standing nearby "faffing around, not doing anything" and wanting "to look busy but not actually doing anything".The boy later died after suffering a fatal bleed, which was believed to have been the cause of death as well as the injection of air.Flecks of blood were found in his vomit.

There are definitely questions to be answered. I understand air embolisms can easily be attributed to resuscitation, ventilation issues or sepsis. These all appear possible given the medical histories of the babies concerned (and bizarrely the outdated journal article that Dewi Evans himself referred to in court describes sepsis as a possible source of air embolism!).

So, as I think Dewi Evans himself has said, it's the insulin that is key. But the high insulin results were only found later when the consultants were trying to find more evidence (2018 I think). This means that the results were either not analysed at the time by the consultants who requested them or, if they were, then the appropriate procedures in terms of sending them to a specialised lab for re-testing (as advised by the insulin suppliers) were not carried out. This would have been the only way to say for certain if it was synthetic insulin and hence either nurse error (possible, given baby E and F were twins in neighbouring cots and baby E was being prescribed insulin) or by poisoning. Don't you think, if poisoning had been suspected at the time. then one of the consultants would have double checked the results and raised the alarm?

Something dodgy going on. Of course circumstantial evidence can be used in trials but there are legal limits on its use; you have to be sure a crime has actually been committed and secondly that there are no other possible scenarios. I'd advise those who are so convinced of her guilt to hold your horses for a bit and see what happens.

Why would they have got the wrong person? Who else could have done it?

because the person it actually was could of setup lucy as the scapegoat for it all ?

Thats presuming any of it was even remotely possible

And maybe Karen Matthew’s had nothing to do with her daughter being abducted

Maybe Ian Huntley was set up

Maybe Rolf Harris just had a big misunderstanding.

We can ponder all we like about the guilt of convicted criminals but unless you’re gonna bring evidence or facts you are spouting nothing more than random drivel and irrelevant what-abboutery

on the flip side, how many eg csi episodes, how many ncis, how many films etc where it shows how a person can be setup, but the evidence is that good, that we never know then apply that to reality, can we ever be truly 100% certain.

obviously in this case i believe lucy is guilty,

this is mumsnet, and not a court of law.

anyway before you jump to presumptions about what i think, all i did was offer a different point of view.

Yeah it was professor plum in the dining room with his invisibility cloak which is why no one knew he was there .

I hope the parents are staying away from sm, can't imagine what it would feel like reading that people think the women who murdered your babies might be innocent

Without meaning to be unkind, saying that you're simply offering a different point of view is a way of saying your point of view is as good as any other.

I could say I think blue is green and say I'm just expressing a different opinion but I hope I'll always have enough self-reflection to realise that there's no tenable basis for believing that, and that saying so doesn't contribute to the discussion.

Most crimes don't have witnesses.

That's why evidence is presented and a jury has to decide if the evidence points to them being guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

Only started reading the start of this thread but FML didn't this place used to be intelligent and enlightened? I thought I was reading a Sun forum. No right to appeal? Strike off the defence lawyers?

I mean it's probably where this ridiculous government wants to take us but once the Rule of Law and right to a fair trial goes out or the window then god help us.

I think you need to re read. Apart from one poster who posted some stairs about sticking off lawyers most people are agreeing we need right to appeal despite all all thinking it'll be denied and she's guilty.

Some think she should appeal because she's innocent and it was all a set up. Those posters appear on all LL threads and type untrue "facts" and don't answer questions.

I'm just surprised after all the years of investigation she's found a point of appeal. Doesn't mean she shouldn't and isn't entitled to!

Satire about striking ...... bloody autocorrect.

No baby on the unit was prescribed insulin at the time of Baby F’s death. I’d advise those who for some inexplicable reason are so convinced they know better than numerous medical and legal experts and a jury who spent ten months hearing the evidence to stop making up alternative “facts”.

Lucy Letby: Insulin not ordered for any babies in unit, trial hears https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-63745926

Then she was extraordinary unlucky that she was on duty every time a suspicious death occurred and she happened to.be caring for the baby and by extraordinary coincidence they found loads of hand over sheets at her home and ramblings written on paper saying she was evil.and she did it
You may as well.say it wss purely coincidence that Peter Sutcliffe arrested and charged and found guilty
Or that Harold shipman just happened to have a large.amount of elderly patients who died when he was visiting them or shortly after.

You would at least have evidence that this mythical doctor was in the vicinity of all the babies at the relevant times. When they did a check of who was around, they included both doctors and nurses, and it's easy to check on doctors because there are records through their notes and on other wards. LL was the only one who was always there.

Huge coincidence that the deaths stopped when she was taken off the ward too isn’t it?

So, as I think Dewi Evans himself has said, it's the insulin that is key. But the high insulin results were only found later when the consultants were trying to find more evidence (2018 I think). This means that the results were either not analysed at the time by the consultants who requested them or, if they were, then the appropriate procedures in terms of sending them to a specialised lab for re-testing (as advised by the insulin suppliers) were not carried out. This would have been the only way to say for certain if it was synthetic insulin and hence either nurse error (possible, given baby E and F were twins in neighbouring cots and baby E was being prescribed insulin) or by poisoning. Don't you think, if poisoning had been suspected at the time. then one of the consultants would have double checked the results and raised the alarm?

I think the problem was simply that the results were just looked at at the time by a registrar who missed the low C-peptides or didn't appreciate their significance.

Baby E wasn't being prescribed insulin.