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.

Because it’s far from stone cold certain that anyone was murdered at all.
Geen was stealing drugs from the hospital and claimed to be returning the syringe.
If you’re genuinely interested it’s not hard to find the statistical arguments online.

🙄 while discharging the contents into his pocket. Why on earth would you take back a syringe

Who believes this shit

What on earth is this vigilante gang? This isn't questioning a suspect, LL has been found guilty, therefore we are discussing the situation in light of that. This really doesn't meet the definition of a vigilante. Those that are accusing everyone else, on the other hand, may well do.

Is it comfy that hat?

Still waiting for the people who think Letby is innocent to shed light why she told appalling lies on the stand and falsified notes. Or why the parents of baby E would lie....you're all wrapped up in the insulin and air embolism evidence but the most damning evidence came from her own mouth 🤔

Yep, me too.

I'm not sure anyone has said she is innocent, but you can correct me by indicating the relevant poster(s).

What has ceratinly been said is Lucy Letby is entitled to apply for appeal.

There are a small number of posters who have not actually directly said she is innocent has very much implied that they think she is.

The right to apply to appeal is a completely different thing.

@WhiteFire She has every right to appeal. It has been discussed at length earlier in the thread. I'm just bemused that it has turned into a rehashing of the case and certain posters are continually repeating themselves on all the LL threads, the same arguments. I keep asking them the same question, they aren't responding. Odd.

Oh I agree it is very odd.

I didn't say I thought she was innocent - I have no idea if she is or not and presumably an appeal (if there is one) will shed light on that. I just felt the evidence was lacking - presumably why they had to try and catch her out with questions like pyjamas and shredders because there was no real evidence she did anything. There were a lot of accusations though. One of babies was only 24 weeks old. A preterm baby of 24 weeks has less than a 60% chance of survival and a high risk of long term disability. Apparently the hospital, and staff, were not qualified to deal with such very preterm babies and only did so in 2015 and 2016 and were then downrated so they didn't have such early or sick babies - hence the death rate reduced accordingly.

I just find it hard to accept that 6 of the 7 babies had coroner post mortems who found nothing other than natural cause of death. Coroners are experienced in these things. And if the Doctors suspected there had been foul play they could have asked for an inquest. They also didn't take any notice of the insulin results and neither did they follow up the advice by the lab to send to Guildford to ascertain whether or not it was exogeneous insulin. If they had done that it would have been clear whether or not insulin had been injected or it was some condition caused by the Mother being diabetic and on insulin. Presumably they didn't bother because the baby got better and went home. In most murder cases they exhume bodies (horrible thought) and do a second post mortem. Presumably that isn't even possible. But why wasn't the coroner who did the post mortems involved in the trial?

But why wasn't the coroner who did the post mortems involved in the trial?

Possibly because his evidence wouldn’t have added to either side’s case. He sounds pretty useless. He told Brearey that his department wasn’t “the quality control service for the NHS”. The enquiry may find that he was negligent.

We get to see this in the States too, colleagues in our London chambers, cannot believe the mess of this whole trial , from Judge down.

Whatever anyone thinks, the below are incontrovertible medical facts, confirmed by the facility, of the witness who gave the erroneous testimony.

www.scienceontrial.com/post/criminal-justice-in-england-disagreeable-facts

HazelE.
When they downgraded the unit the reduction is deaths wasn't closely and directly attracted to the reduced age of the babies term. Prior to 2016 they took babies from 27 weeks. It was downgraded to 32. Only 2 of the babies in the case were below 32 weeks. And it didn't change that the babysits who did collapse and/or die after 2016 were expected to. Consultants know when a ore term baby is unlikely to survive. They know when a baby is poorly and becoming ill. Sudden collapses remain low in pre term babies like they do in term. Statistically and medically babies (and young children) will die of sudden respiratory distress (which isn't often instant death) rather than cardiac arrest (which is often instant/ immediate death and much more common cause of sudden death or death where resuscitation failed in adults)

I followed the trial closely and it was certainly not a mess. It was a fair trial.

Ben myers the defence barrister is not a medical expert but he would have consulted with medical experts. There is no doubt that insulin was given to two neonates who should not have received that insulin. Which just doesn’t happen. Unless a poisoner is at work…

insulin has been used by other nurse poisoners as insulin is quite quickly washed out of the blood…

This was the point I tried to make earlier - a fatal air embolus can be extremely hard, if not impossible to find/see, even with gold standard imaging and post mortem with circumstances of death known.

No. The majority / all of the jury decided it was sufficient to convict. But it's not concrete by any means.

Can someone tell me which hospitals she worked at? Did she ever work in any London hospitals?

Just Liverpool Women's and the Countess.

I would take nothing from that website as incontrovertible. It's been thoroughly discredited. It was set up by Sarrita Adams, a severely mentally ill English woman living in California who has had manifold legal issues including in relation to physical attacks on and threats to her ex-husband, and has been declared mentally incompetent. . There's no evidence she's actually worked as a scientist since graduation or even that she submitted her PHD thesis.