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.

Who needs a law or medical degree when you have mnetters

I think I posted a reply to the wrong message. Sorry. I tried to reply to you but replied to placemats by mistake. It’s a little bit further down the thread.

No you can’t. But grounds for appeal does allow for new evidence - up to a point. I hope our justice system doesn’t penalize a person because neither she or her legal aid solicitor isn’t a specialist in endocrinology biochemistry.

Just this I think

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

I NEED that phrase in my life. I often describe trying to round up kids in my school like herding cats. I'm now using jelly and walls

So the defences isn't bring in a biochemist then because ........?

Didn't

Yes insulin was actually administered. They found insulin levels of 4500 units in child F's blood! C-peptide was low which points to low levels of natural insulin being produced but even without that there isn't any way that any baby or adult could produce that amount of insulin! I'm diabetic and I take about 40 units of insulin a day.

Poor baby Fs blood sugar levels went down to 0.8. The lowest I have ever been is 2.5 or so and at 2.5 I am shaky and unable to function. It is a miracle that these babies survived! I believe however that Baby F has suffered long term brain damage.

Because the insulin was in the baby's nutrition bags, there sugar went low and stayed low for a prolonged period of time. Very very dangerous. Despite being given twice the amount of sugar a baby would normally be given, Baby Fs sugars remained low for some 17 hours! (the staff didn't realise at the time what was happening as they didn't suspect for a minute that the babies were being poisoned!)

For Baby L, the other baby to be poisoned with insulin, the blood sugar levels stayed low for even longer. So DANGEROUS.

Please before publishing this nonsense, do some basic googling. The medical experts, the defence, everyone accepts that two babies were poisoned with insulin - Letby's defence claimed it was "someone else wot done it".

She has a right to appeal, just like anyone else. But hopefully it will be done soon and she can get back to her prison hole.

Ben Myers is a KC ffs. He is one of the leading Criminal Law silks in the country and gave LL a super defence. He is one of the finest defence lawyers in the land. He would have consulted with medical experts on the medical evidence. The defence didn't take on the insulin poisoning cases as there was no question but that these babies were poisoned!

The insulin administered to Baby F and Baby L was off the scale. Baby F was at 4500 units of insulin!

I am diabetic and I am 6 foot 2 and I take about 40 units of insulin a day. No baby could naturally produce 4500 units of insulin.

The pancreas of a normal adult contains approximately 200 units of insulin, and the average daily secretion of insulin into the circulation healthy individuals ranges from 30 to 50 units.

I repeat as you don't seem well informed 4500 in a tiny neonate is off the scale . Which is why little Baby F went to blood sugar levels of 0.8 - scarily low and it is a miracle he survived. I believe however that he has suffered permanent brain damage.

Now please do some research before printing this mishmash of stuff. A British criminal trial for offences of this gravity is conducted very very carefully. It is touching that you think with your vast lakes of no knowledge that you can somehow assist the process.

So why didn't her defence team - including a KC, no less - consult with a specialist in endocrinology biochemistry and call them as a witness for the defence?

You may want to look at this from a Barrister, about insulin false positives

x.com/legalmarkmc/status/1693334045856317692?s=20

According to some, it's incredibly hard to get medical defence witnesses in this country because they are scared for their reputation, so it means going to the US to get one - which costs a lot of money and the defence team were on a legal aid budget. But yes they needed a forensic scientist.

There were several no verdicts returned ini this trial. One of those is set for retrial.

Some witnesses were not called by the defence to give evidence.

It's not hard to get medical witnesses at all

Not true. The only reason there could possibly be for the dearth of defence of clinical experts is that their evidence concurred with that of the prosecution witnesses making them valueless to the defence case.

That doesn't have anything to do with appeals

https://www.diabetes.org.uk/diabetes-the-basics/other-types-of-diabetes/neonatal-diabetes

Simply not true. There are plenty of medical expert witnesses in the UK ready to act for the defence, and it doesn't harm their reputation in the least to do so provided of course that they do a good job - if anything it can very much enhance their reputation. No-one wants innocent people to be convicted, and everyone wants the guilty to receive a fair trial, not least because otherwise they will have grounds for appeal. So that means ensuring they have adequate funding to find and call experts.

We also know that the defence did have expert witnesses, because they were involved in pre-trial discussions and referred to at the opening of the case. The defence would have been well aware that the insulin cases were the strongest ones and there is no way they would have failed to get experts who could advise them fully on this. It seems very clear that they weren't called because they agreed that the evidence demonstrated insulin poisoning, which is no doubt why LL conceded it and why her counsel didn't try to counteract that.

But grounds for appeal does allow for new evidence - up to a point.

Only if it's evidence that wasn't reasonably available at the time of the original hearing. Having had a long time to prepare for the hearing and having actual produced medical reports, it would be very difficult for the defence to say they hadn't had time to find the relevant medical evidence.

I am actually diabetic so I know something about this. Look where you have cases where the blood test is showing high insulin but you aren't seeing hypoglycaemia then you might think the blood insulin test has got it wrong and there is a false positive.

Where you are seeing a baby - baby F - with an off the scale insulin result ~ 4500 units and hypoglycaemia - low low blood sugar which went down to 0.8 - which is very dangerously low - and where that hypoglycaemia continues for 17 hours - despite that neonate receiving twice the amount of glucose which would normally be provided a neonate... then you know that you don't have a false positive. (For baby L the hypoglycaemia went on even longer.)

For you to even attempt that line of argument means that either you don't know much about insulin and hypoglycaemia or that you are simply dripping in misinformation in order to mislead.

Which is it?

Almost everything Hazel writes is untrue or misleading or both. The attempt to label Ben Myers (LL's defence lawyer) as a legal aid lawyer when he is actually a KC and a leading silk makes my blood boil. The attempt to claim that expert witnesses are hard to find for the defence is entirely made up! The attempt to set aside the high insulin levels found in the babies might just about work - but when put side to side with the actual and severe hypoglycaemia which both baby F and Baby L suffered for 17 hours (baby F) and much longer for baby L, no one who knows anything about anything is going to attempt a false positive claim.

Look Hazel if you had a genuine argument then we would have to respect that - but making stuff up and saying things that are not true - why do that? It isn't helping anyone, least of all LL.

Why? It's simply a recommendation of a 17 year old book.

That twitter guy seems a bit attention seeking to me

Oh go on, it has 10 reviews on amazon . One of them is the co author though