Lucy Letby denied leave to appeal

[Viviennemary]

Just heard on the news Lucy Letby the convicted serial killer has been denied leave to appeal. Good decision I think. She should stay behind bars for the rest of her life.

"Thirlwall rejected the idea that livestreaming the inquiry would dispel “toxic and offensive” conspiracy theories. She said: “Searching for truth is not a characteristic of conspiracy theorists. Like those who promulgate fake news, they search for information which supports their worldview. When they find none, they manufacture it, often using and distorting video footage to be found on the internet.”

Ironically, this sounds like what the doctors on the unit did.

Except none of that is unusual or unexplained on an overworked, understaffed, inexperienced, failing unit.

At least some of the babies were being treated for suspected sepsis, and it may be that there were infections going round. The CQC report found that infection control and cleanliness in the entire hospital was inadequate. We will never know becaue the hospital did not bring in an infectious disease expert or epidemiologist.

Equally, the royal paed college report concluded the CoC did not have the staffing levels or equipment to deal with level 2 babies. In an overstretched, under-staffed unit with doctors making mistakes leading to death and injury, it’s hardly surprising that babies died, unfortunately.

That has no comparison to a well run level 2 unit.

Exactly.

I’ve said already on this thread I have a lot of experience in nicu and scbu at different hospitals as a parent. Not once were any of the rooms quiet - always multiple staff around - especially nicu. From speaking to friends this is typical. The fact it’s mentioned how often LL was alone seems extremely strange ? This unit must have been very understaffed which isn’t safe ?? They even had 2 staff checking feeds to make sure there were no mix ups with expressed milk etc on the nicu and scbu we were on. something was wrong with the unit LL was on

Really they need to re look at every single death on the unit and not just the ones where LL was on shift. It all needs to be anonymous data and new experts to look at every single case and no information about who was there on any particular day and to just rule if the deaths were considered natural or not/suspcious and then look at who was there - I would imagine there’s just as many that she couldn’t have been responsible for which would mean the unit was responsible via substandard care / medical neglect

I’ve seen that thank you.

I was looking for a link that states There was a third insulin case when Letby wasn’t on duty - that a poster mentioned a while back. But I guess there isn’t one.

I don’t dispute there was a third insulin case, Dr Dewi Evans has mentioned that in several video interviews. I was more interested how posters concluded Letby wasn’t on duty.

Letby defenders have a habit of stating something, in an attempt to defend her, that they cannot back up.

In the New Yorker article, Dr Hall, was interviewed and asked why he thought that case wasn't taken to trial, he said " He imagined because Lucy wasn't on duty". I don't think he actually knew why. The case is part of an ongoing investigation so no further information will be available.

I agree.

What the die hard supporters fail to realise (or accept) is the trial only included babies named in the indictment. There will be more charges brought against her, once ongoing investigations are complete.

“Among the new suspicious episodes that Evans said he flagged was another insulin case. Evans said that it had similar features as the first two: high insulin, low C-peptide. He concluded that it was a clear case of poisoning. When I asked Michael Hall, a retired neonatologist at University Hospital Southampton who worked as an expert for Letby’s defense, about Evans’s third insulin case, he was surprised and disturbed to learn of it. He could imagine a few reasons that it might not have been part of the trial. One is that Letby wasn’t working at the time. Another is that there was an alternative explanation for the test results—but then, presumably, such an explanation could be relevant for the other two insulin cases, too. “Whichever way you look at this, that third case is of interest,”

We don’t know for sure that she wasn’t working, it’s Dr Hall’s conjecture that this may be why that case wasn’t included in the trial. As he says, no matter which way you slice it, it is notable that this case wasn’t included. We do know for sure though that the actual lab that returned all the positive insulin tests clearly states that the test is not conclusive and only indicative that a further more accurate test should be done. This was not done for any of the tests, presumably because they were not felt to be hard evidence of attempted murder until years later when it was convenient to reframe them as such, despite the clear advice from the actual lab which returned the tests (pic attached, red emphasis isn’t mine). What else do you believe isn’t backed up?

Again, I don’t think there is anyone here “defending” Lucy Letby as an individual. There are people interested in the integrity of the justice system we all live under. As citizens in a democracy we have a right to comment on it and to have opinions. Weaknesses in our judicial system have repercussions far beyond LL as an individual or this one case. It’s an important and nuanced case, worthy of careful thought and extremely relevant to the public interest if (and I emphasise IF) there has been a miscarriage of justice. There are other people who appear to be annoyed that any of us are questioning anything. People who would prefer to keep a salacious story and a head on a spike than even consider any other possibilities. That’s the two sides I see in this thread, unfortunately.

Edit: it’s simply a lazy smear to call anyone not 100% on your side a “die hard supporter”. Many here, myself included, had no interest at all in this case until recently. I assumed she was guilty and didn’t give it much thought until I looked into it. The only thing I’m “die hard” interested in is actual justice and truth. I’m not sure whether or not Letby is guilty or innocent, but I am very uncomfortable with certain questions that have been raised and what these questions imply about the integrity of our justice system.

https://www.scienceontrial.com/post/shifting-the-data

This was written based upon the chart that the police published and widely circulated. I'm sure that I remember seeing that a couple of he shifts were incorrectly recorded - maybe someone else can confirm if I had that right.

I'm not defending Letby, I'm questioning the issues along the way that make the process look less than just.

For example, Dewi Evans chased the police, he has no relevant experience in neonatal healthcare and seems to be doing financially very well out of spinning theories as far as he can. Like Roy Meadow and others who have led to proven or suspected miscarriages of justice, his motives seem less than laudable.

The police investigation will take time to go through all the babies cared for. It's likely the reason third insulin case wasn't include in the trial was because it wasn't found in time.

Dr Hall, neonatologist, who acted as defence? Where did he act as defence? There were no defence witnesses, other than Letby and a plumber!

Did you watch the same trial as everyone else?

Do you have a link where Dr Hall was called on behalf of the defence? Cancel that. He wasn’t. You know it, I know it and anyone who followed the trial knows it.

NINE other babies died during that time. That's ridiculous. God knows how many other babies were close. I would love to see an accurate table of all the deaths and incidents from that time period along with which doctors were on the ward too, not just the nurses.

He wasn’t called in the event, however he worked with the defence team. Have you read the article?

Edit: it’s simply a lazy smear to call anyone not 100% on your side a “die hard supporter”.

Agreed. “Supporter” smacks to me of a tabloid mentality, and indicates a failure to understand the issues under discussion.

Agreed.

And a definition of “incident” is needed.

No. I don’t read trashy articles. I read credible sources who concentrate on the evidence provided in a Court of Law.

Every Court hearing is based on the evidence presented in Court. The Jury don’t get to read conspiracy blogs on SM - for good reason

Not convinced you understand the standing of the New Yorker as a publication if you label it’s “trashy”.

Also not keen on conversing with inappropriate capitalisation.

The ridiculous verbal diarrhoea from this trashy article, which omits great chunks of the more salient evidence, has been banned in the UK.

Do you have a link as to who Dr Hall is? What’s his/her relevance to this case? Is he a medical Doctor or just another foreign statistician who calls him/herself “Doctor”?

Do you have a credible link which proves LL was not on duty during a third insulin case?

I look forward to your reply

A reporting restriction is merely a temporary ban as the retrial will shortly be sub judice.

Feel free to actually read the NYer article to establish who Dr Hall is for yourself.

Any link to an article which provides evidence that LL was not on duty for the third insulin case?

I’ve read the article thanks. I considered it to be a load of shit tbh

It is obviously just another conspiracy piece written by someone who has no clue about the British Judicial System.

I’m another who would be interested in an article that provides information why Letby was not on duty when a 3rd baby collapsed from an insulin overdose. I won’t hold my breath for a reply.

it’s a shame Letby wasn’t tried in Texas really.

You watched the trial? As pp said, you can act for the defence without being called to the trial. Just fyi. Dr Hall did, in fact, do this. Feel free to fact check it.

How come you don’t know who Dr Hall is?