Page 39 | Lucy Letby appeal

GonnaGetGoingReturns · 2023-09-16T06:33:17+00:00

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.

Jurisprudense · 27/09/2023 00:58

It's two months since Andrew Malkinson's conviction was quashed despite Greater Manchester Police, the Criminal Cases Review Commission and the Crown Prosecution Service knowing that a miscarriage of justice had taken place and that an innocent man had spent 17 years in prison for a crime that he didn't commit..
Sally Clark was convicted based upon an expert with a novel theory who contradicted the findings of the pathologists who had carried out post mortems.
The decisions were difficult for the jury who saw all of the evidence offered, those of us who weren't there should support due process.

RafaistheKingofClay · 27/09/2023 01:24

placemats · 26/09/2023 23:25

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

Don’t know about baby L because I haven’t looked at the evidence but it certainly isn’t relevant to baby F. Your own link says the issue is high blood sugars as it usually is with diagnosed diabetes. The issue with Baby F was very very low blood sugars despite a dextrose infusion and additional boluses.

Not only were they low but he’d had no issues managing his own blood sugars in the previous few days and they were perfectly normal (c 6 IIRC) an hour before the TPN bag was hooked up and 0.8 within half an hour of the TPN bag being started. They stayed low throughout the day despite him being treated for all normal causes of low blood sugars in a baby and being given double the amount of dextrose that would normally be given to a baby over the course of a day. The only points at which they rose to anything near normal were when the first TPN bag was disconnected in the middle of the day and after he was taken off TPN in the evening. He was fine within an hr or so if that.
The very high insulin levels and very low c-peptide levels indicative of non natural insulin are in addition to that.

Unless a biochemist or endocrinologist can explain the medical condition that lasts under 24hrs causes a huge insulin spike, doesn’t respond to dextrose and by a huge co-incidence corresponds with the time the baby was hooked up to TPN I don’t think it’s going to get far in appeal. I haven’t yet seen any of them give a plausible one.

TomPinch · 27/09/2023 02:36

Jurisprudense · 27/09/2023 00:58

It's two months since Andrew Malkinson's conviction was quashed despite Greater Manchester Police, the Criminal Cases Review Commission and the Crown Prosecution Service knowing that a miscarriage of justice had taken place and that an innocent man had spent 17 years in prison for a crime that he didn't commit..
Sally Clark was convicted based upon an expert with a novel theory who contradicted the findings of the pathologists who had carried out post mortems.
The decisions were difficult for the jury who saw all of the evidence offered, those of us who weren't there should support due process.

I agree that those of us who weren't there (and those who were) should support due process, however, I don't see the relevance of those other cases.

TomPinch · 27/09/2023 02:39

HazelE123 · 26/09/2023 22:47

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.

Show quote history

I expect you can get a name suppression order if there is a risk to the witness. I don't think there is any accuracy in this anyway, regardless of what some think.

lubylo · 27/09/2023 05:24

Jurisprudense · 27/09/2023 00:58

It's two months since Andrew Malkinson's conviction was quashed despite Greater Manchester Police, the Criminal Cases Review Commission and the Crown Prosecution Service knowing that a miscarriage of justice had taken place and that an innocent man had spent 17 years in prison for a crime that he didn't commit..
Sally Clark was convicted based upon an expert with a novel theory who contradicted the findings of the pathologists who had carried out post mortems.
The decisions were difficult for the jury who saw all of the evidence offered, those of us who weren't there should support due process.

The likelihood is that an appeal shall be granted.

What are the grounds for a miscarriage of justice?

These include eyewitness misidentification, faulty forensic analysis, false confessions by vulnerable suspects, perjury and lies told by witnesses, misconduct by police, prosecutors or judges and inadequate defence strategies put forward by the defendant's legal team.

HelenD1 · 27/09/2023 06:32

It’s because I have done my research that I am posting. Go to the Royal Liverpool Hospital Laboratory website and check for yourself. I agree that the insulin levels recorded could not be generated naturally. But the reason why this test cannot and should not be used as evidence for administered insulin is that it does not only measure insulin as insulin. It would measure a number of other chemicals as insulin too - eg proinsulin. To measure insulin accurately a more sensitive test is needed which is performed in Guildford but was not done in this case. So from this test we learn nothing about insulin / c peptide ratio. What we do learn is that none of the ‘experts’ had discovered this easy-to-find fact. Why not post back when you have checked? Like you I believed the narrative on insulin until I was pointed to some deeper analysis.

HelenD1 · 27/09/2023 06:40

I only wish I knew. FWIW I suspect they believed the existing expert witnesses and didn’t know that this was an area to contest.

HelenD1 · 27/09/2023 06:59

Well since you see fit to comment on my intelligence- a person you don’t even know and with no idea of my professional qualifications- I will offer you a reflection on your logical abilities. The court did not quote the units of insulin measurement, however let’s go with yours. Whatever units you want to use, the insulin readings are off scale. You rightly quote the levels of insulin that you as a 6’2 man could tolerate. If you had that amount of insulin in your system you would be dead - twice over. As for a neonate, they would not have experienced low blood sugar, they would have been straight into a coma and I doubt that any medical intervention would have been able to save them. As a scientist, when I see an inconsistent fact I go looking a bit harder to see if there is something else going on. Do you really think that those babies could ever had that much insulin? The test doesn’t just measure insulin as insulin but lumps together a range of chemicals. That is why it cannot be used to determine administered insulin. And btw an off-scale result like this which suggests physically impossible readings is usually a duff test. There are many reasons why that could happen - not refrigerating the sample properly is one.

Robertius · 27/09/2023 06:59

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

itsgettingweird · 27/09/2023 07:21

HelenD1 · 27/09/2023 06:32

It’s because I have done my research that I am posting. Go to the Royal Liverpool Hospital Laboratory website and check for yourself. I agree that the insulin levels recorded could not be generated naturally. But the reason why this test cannot and should not be used as evidence for administered insulin is that it does not only measure insulin as insulin. It would measure a number of other chemicals as insulin too - eg proinsulin. To measure insulin accurately a more sensitive test is needed which is performed in Guildford but was not done in this case. So from this test we learn nothing about insulin / c peptide ratio. What we do learn is that none of the ‘experts’ had discovered this easy-to-find fact. Why not post back when you have checked? Like you I believed the narrative on insulin until I was pointed to some deeper analysis.

I'm loving the fact you think your research is superior to that of Ben Myers KC and his team.

I'm sure he'll be eagerly awaiting your correspondence to help you can get his appeal through for his client and get her off on misrepresented evidence.

Can you let us know when he replies?

itsgettingweird · 27/09/2023 07:24

HelenD1 · 27/09/2023 06:59

Well since you see fit to comment on my intelligence- a person you don’t even know and with no idea of my professional qualifications- I will offer you a reflection on your logical abilities. The court did not quote the units of insulin measurement, however let’s go with yours. Whatever units you want to use, the insulin readings are off scale. You rightly quote the levels of insulin that you as a 6’2 man could tolerate. If you had that amount of insulin in your system you would be dead - twice over. As for a neonate, they would not have experienced low blood sugar, they would have been straight into a coma and I doubt that any medical intervention would have been able to save them. As a scientist, when I see an inconsistent fact I go looking a bit harder to see if there is something else going on. Do you really think that those babies could ever had that much insulin? The test doesn’t just measure insulin as insulin but lumps together a range of chemicals. That is why it cannot be used to determine administered insulin. And btw an off-scale result like this which suggests physically impossible readings is usually a duff test. There are many reasons why that could happen - not refrigerating the sample properly is one.

Cannot be determined to measure the amount of delivered insulin.

Correct.

But it can was determined to derive that synthetic insulin was administered and how.

A fact which wasn't disputed by anyone in this case.

The dispute was LL putting it in the feed Vs someone else.

lubylo · 27/09/2023 07:32

Helen are you referring to this, as a diabetic myself, I found the whole article very enlightening.

"Please note that the insulin assay performed at RLUH is not suitable for the investigation of factitious hypoglycaemia. If exogenous insulin administration is suspected as the cause of hypoglycaemia, please inform the laboratory so that the sample can be referred externally for analysis".

RafaistheKingofClay · 27/09/2023 08:02

HelenD1 · 27/09/2023 06:32

It’s because I have done my research that I am posting. Go to the Royal Liverpool Hospital Laboratory website and check for yourself. I agree that the insulin levels recorded could not be generated naturally. But the reason why this test cannot and should not be used as evidence for administered insulin is that it does not only measure insulin as insulin. It would measure a number of other chemicals as insulin too - eg proinsulin. To measure insulin accurately a more sensitive test is needed which is performed in Guildford but was not done in this case. So from this test we learn nothing about insulin / c peptide ratio. What we do learn is that none of the ‘experts’ had discovered this easy-to-find fact. Why not post back when you have checked? Like you I believed the narrative on insulin until I was pointed to some deeper analysis.

That’s by the RLH sent the test back to the CoC with a query exogenous insulin and suggested they sends sample to Guildford. But by that point it was a week after the episode and the baby was fine so there was no need for further blood tests so CoC investigated to see whether the insulin could have been administered accidentally and decided it couldn’t have.

There really isn’t any doubt that synthetic insulin was administered. It’s just a case of who and how and the most likely explanation is through the TPN bag. Letby’s defence team agree this. They’ll have had their own experts look at it. Any suggestion otherwise is just clutching at straws without looking at all the evidence.

RafaistheKingofClay · 27/09/2023 08:09

What people should be questioning is why after concerns had been raised by clinicians about suspicious and unexpected deaths, a baby was given insulin that shouldn’t have been, the staff determined that it wasn’t accidental and nobody did anything.

Mirabai · 27/09/2023 08:15

Robertius · 27/09/2023 00:00

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.

Show quote history

?? KC paid for by legal aid @ £975,889.24.

lubylo · 27/09/2023 08:44

RafaistheKingofClay · 27/09/2023 08:09

What people should be questioning is why after concerns had been raised by clinicians about suspicious and unexpected deaths, a baby was given insulin that shouldn’t have been, the staff determined that it wasn’t accidental and nobody did anything.

Who signed the babies death certificates and entered cause of death.

BIossomtoes · 27/09/2023 08:45

Mirabai · 27/09/2023 08:15

?? KC paid for by legal aid @ £975,889.24.

Show quote history

And your point is? One of the most eminent KCs in the country was engaged and tax payer funded.

lubylo · 27/09/2023 08:51

Eye watering.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12483479/Lucy-Letbys-legal-aid-cost.html

BIossomtoes · 27/09/2023 08:58

Yes, eye watering. Surely we should be delighted that she had the best defence money can buy?

Mirabai · 27/09/2023 08:59

BIossomtoes · 27/09/2023 08:45

And your point is? One of the most eminent KCs in the country was engaged and tax payer funded.

Show quote history

My point was that @Robertius was talking crap. In a serious complex case such as this a KC will be instructed with the agreement of the judge paid by legal aid. The division implied between “legal aid lawyer” and “KC” is mistaken.

BIossomtoes · 27/09/2023 09:06

Mirabai · 27/09/2023 08:59

My point was that @Robertius was talking crap. In a serious complex case such as this a KC will be instructed with the agreement of the judge paid by legal aid. The division implied between “legal aid lawyer” and “KC” is mistaken.

Show quote history

The term they took issue with was a derogatory reference to “legal aid solicitor”, implying that she was defended by the junior duty solicitor from the local office. Not acknowledging that her barrister is one of the most eminent KCs in the country.

lubylo · 27/09/2023 09:07

BIossomtoes · 27/09/2023 08:58

Yes, eye watering. Surely we should be delighted that she had the best defence money can buy?

She very obviously didn't, going by the lack of coherent defence, looks like BM had a bad 10 months at the office, I wonder if Mr Myers will be the appeal KC

BIossomtoes · 27/09/2023 09:11

You can’t polish a turd @lubylo. No barrister, no matter how eminent, can magic up a compelling defence in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

RafaistheKingofClay · 27/09/2023 09:26

It is quite odd how many people some posters are willing to badmouth on the basis of little evidence in order to defend a serial killer.

lubylo · 27/09/2023 09:31

RafaistheKingofClay · 27/09/2023 09:26

It is quite odd how many people some posters are willing to badmouth on the basis of little evidence in order to defend a serial killer.

Can you enlarge on your statement, is free speech/ discussion not to be tolerated.