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.

That was five days earlier.

That’s exactly what happened @ZadocPDederick. Brearey described his discovery in detail in the Panorama programme.

CSI is fiction. It bears no resemblance to the UK justice system. HTH

The consultant quoted in the article was giving slightly misleading evidence, in fact Baby E was being given insulin before their death. Even the judge seemed to pick up on this discrepancy at the time. This is one of the reasons why so many are concerned about this case, that there are several instances of misleading evidence being put before the jury. I'd advise those who are so convinced of her guilt because they believe everything they read in the press to do some of their own research.

I followed the trial at the time when press could only report the facts so yes I do believe what I read in the press when they’re reporting on an active court case

in fact Baby E was being given insulin before their death

Five days before. The fact remains that no baby on the unit was being prescribed insulin on the date in question.

@BeechTreeJo do you have a source for your claim that a doctor lied on the stand?

Also Baby E had already died by the time Baby F was found with synthetic insulin in his system

@BeechTreeJo if you manage to actually read that article the Dr is quoted as stating in the witness box She said Child F had been given a small dose of insulin to help regulate his blood sugar shortly after his birth, but this would have "long gone" by that time.

I agree, it was a technically true but disingenuous statement. If the evidence against Letby was so strong why the need for half truths?

How can something be “technically” true and half true at the same time? Truth and facts are absolute - something is either true or it isn’t. Is there a link to Goss casting doubt on the veracity of this evidence?

I’ve searched and I can’t find anything. I also followed the trial and don’t recall at all Goss bollocking a doctor for lying about insulin

From what I have read from someone who has gone through the court notes she didn't necessarily lie, just got a bit confused about the dates, so had to correct her evidence to say there were no insulin prescriptions made out on 4/5 August, as baby E died on 4th. I think the issue is that if insulin was being prescribed to a sibling at some stage could it still be in the fridge?

I have to say I don't know if she is innocent or not, just concerned that because all the evidence is circumstantial this could end up being yet another miscarriage of justice. Also I am surprised at the credentials of the expert witness, Dewi Evans, who doesn't appear to be an expert in any of the fields required for such a case. I understand the defence questioned the validity of his testimony but the judge let the jury decide whether to believe him or not. Can that be right? So the court was allowed to believe his new theories as to how the babies died, basically overturning the post mortems held at the time (which gave natural causes)? This seems odd to me and I am getting the impression there are quite a few nurses out there feeling just a little worried! People seem so convinced that justice always prevails in our legal system especially with a jury. However I sat on jury service recently and was appalled at the quality of the evidence, the case should never have come to court at all. I think the police were just hoping for a 'different' jury!

If Dewi Evans wasn't sufficiently expert the defence could have got a ruling from the trial judge excluding his evidence. The defence could also have produced their own (genuine) expert who would have successfully challenged his evidence.

The fact that they did neither suggests to me that there was nothing wrong with Evans' evidence.

Letby actually agreed that the insulin was synthetic and had been administered by someone, her contention was it was someone else. Everyone else on duty at the time was clear they didn’t administer it either. It’s quite telling that the defence didn’t cross examine Dr Gibb’s testimony on Baby E so there’s a clear indication that it wasn’t questioned by anyone, let alone the judge.

It's part of a judges job to question things that are said, he's not a medical expert and neither are the jury so for example if a witness got a bit confused about the dates then the judge would query that so it was clear to everyone in the court the exact dates

If the baby was not on insulin at the time the judge could query when they were last on insulin and how long that took to leave the body so its clear to the jury that the insulin given to the baby 5 days before had no effect on what happened at the time the baby collapsed

Insulin is kept in a locked fridge, no one is going to be giving it accidently

Isnt Dewi Evens a retired paediatric consultant and a medical legal expert .

That may have been quoted but it was incorrect. It was stated by an unnamed Doctor during the trial and the Judge picked up on it and queried the discrepancy, and the Doctor then changed the statement to the correct facts which were that she was not referring to Baby F's entire stay, only specifically to prescriptons written on 4 and 5 August. Her original statement had been misleading. Baby E was still on the unit, alive on 4th August and insulin had already been ordered and delivered for baby E who then died at 1.24am on 4th August and had the same surname as Baby F (the twin). And the prescription would still have been in the fridge.

Where’s your link? Frankly I don’t believe anything Letby’s defenders say unless they can provide evidence.

You can't believe everything printed by the media! Even the BBC. The Chester Standard printed the quotes from the trial as it went along however.

I can’t believe randoms who don’t provide evidence either. If you have a link to the Chester Standard’s coverage and it confirms what you’ve said surely you’ll be happy to post it?

It wasn't technically true, it was true. If insulin was prescribed for a baby and duly administered, it wouldn't be hanging around five days later.

"Where’s your link?"

Just trying to find it :-) This is related to it.

2.15pm

"A chart showing a form of insulin - Actrapid - is administered on several occasions to Child E.
The first is on July 31 at 6.45am, and the rate of insulin administration lowers at 2pm on August 1 and is increased slightly again at 2.10am on August 2.
A prescription for 3pm on August 3 is made, but then crossed out, then redone with 'a correct dose'. The nurse says the previous, crossed out one, was 'an incorrect dose' of 0.05units/kg/hr. The second is the 'correct dose' of 0.02units/kg/hr.
Insulin of a neonatal is a "continual infusion", the nurse tells the court."

2.30pm

"...It would be the same infusion, via a syringe of diluted sodium chloride, administered via a computer.

....The court hears the insulin would be paused in the event of the syringe being emptied or the insulin expiring, and a replacement dose would have been prescribed prior to that."

https://www.chesterstandard.co.uk/news/23125020.recap-lucy-letby-trial-tuesday-november-15/

Just going through it ,................

According to the summing up both E and F had low doses of insulin around 31st July. That of course is consistent with saying that there were no babies on the unit prescribed insulin on 4th-5th August, when F was attacked.

So someone accidently give an insulin infusion to the wrong baby at a time when no baby on the unit was prescribed insulin and without putting it in their notes.

Seems a bit far fetched to me

So the description of the conversation and query by the Judge was from someone who had been at the trial. The Chester Standard just describes it briefly without quoting exactly what was said

10.50am

".....The doctor says it was looked to see if anyone else at the time was prescribed insulin in the whole neonatal unit, for a possible 'accidental administration', but there were no other babies at that time. No further action was taken.
Ben Myers KC, for Letby's defence, asks to clarify that Child F's blood sugar had stabilised at that time. The doctor agrees.
The doctor clarifies, on a question from the judge Mr Justice James Goss, that the scope of the 'insulin prescription' checks were made for August 4 and August 5."

https://www.chesterstandard.co.uk/news/23146323.recap-lucy-letby-trial-thursday-november-24/

But there had been a prescription for Baby E who had died the night before so although he was no longer a baby on the ward - he had been.