Lucy Letby: have you changed your mind - thread 3

[Typicalwave]

New thread for those following or wishing to comment - originally started by @kittybythelighthouse.

Hi @Firefly1987 - I really would like to know why you think Rachel Aviv’spiece was not up ti scratch. Can you share your thoughts?

Just as an aside, we’re you aware that she bought the transcripts from the first trial? They were the centre piece of information surrounded by various other sources from interviews, hospital records and other sources that she used to write her piece.

She also had fact checkers.

I did once call a parents GP because there was form for downplaying things with the doctor (both from the 'mustn't grumble, be polite' generation) and no amount of pleading would lead to the parent opening up. I could see that the doctor was not getting the full picture from them, and it was increasingly clear that this was seriously affecting what was being offered by way of treatment. So I called and told him that I did not expect him to share information with me, but I had to share my concerns with him. Never done anything like it since, if you had asked me before if I could imagine doing that I would have said no. But I was very very worried so I did it. I did not feel great about it, but I was desperate.
Maybe looking from outside people will just condemn me for it. But it made a significant difference to his treatment in a positive way. So while I cant imagine calling an employer, I dont find the idea as out there as I would have prior to that experience.

It’s really not the same thing at all.

I wouldn’t call my child’s employer, ever, to fight their corner - least if all if they were being accused of something serious around safeguarding and potential criminal charges.

It is indeed the role of the opposing council to eviscerate the defendant by any means possible. It’s not Johnson’s style that riles me (though I do have issues with the adversarial system as it stands). It’s the fact that little bits of absolutely nothing like this were spun into an illusion of somethings and consumed wholesale by nodding dog idiots like Liz Hull, Judith Moritz etc that baffles me. Literally zero critical thinking skills on display there. No journalistic integrity either.

At least Liz has the excuse of A: murky financial entanglement with CP and B: working for the Daily Mail, the supervillains of British media, who go out of their way to be on the wrong side of everything.

Moritz, on the other hand, is being paid public money to create content for the BBC, our national broadcaster, while engaging as much human curiosity/empathy as a carpet. Unforgivable.

I think you’re being quite unfair to carpets.

It is unforgivable - and it’s the capitalist system we live in: people profiting off misery by any means, no matter the cost.

BTW - I don’t think those you mentioned did just ‘buy’ it - they have a financial incentive to do just that.

The only headlines allowed before the removal the reporting prohibitions were those of salacious damnation: even a simple cleaving from the reporting norm was removed in a popular medical journal, whilst others supporting Letby’s condemnation continued to stand.
That says a lot of the justice system that is accepted in this country.

I think we will have to agree to disagree. It is a major line I never expected to cross, until I was desperately worried about the welfare of a loved one. Can I imagine calling an employer? No. But based on what I said, I would not completely rule out what I might do if desperately afraid for someone.

It’s taken je this long to realise what it reminds me of: The Hunger Games.

That’s ok - if I went back 20 years I’d have likely fibd the same. I’ve had experience since then that would steer me away.

I’m not sure (can’t remember) whether you and I personally discussed it, but it has been discussed multiple times across these threads.

If you brought it up it was 100% addressed by someone because there is 100% a totally rational and logical explanation. Indeed more rational and logical than the convoluted ‘murder by a distance’ theory the prosecution were forced to allege, given Letby wasn’t even there for either of these events.

As I said earlier (to someone else I think) despite Liz Hull’s framing, it isn’t a coincidence that the babies showed signs of hypoglycaemia. It’s par for the course.

Hypoglycaemia is a very common condition in neonates, especially premature ones. Routine immunoassay tests (which are done pretty frequently btw) are not generally done in order to test for exogenous insulin and they weren’t done to test for exogenous insulin here. Hull frames it as though the test is for that purpose, and that it was ordered for that purpose, so therefore the result seems damning.

Hull says the babies were showing signs of “insulin poisoning” which is also a dishonest framing. They were showing signs of hypoglycaemia. This is so routine, as is testing to confirm it, that the tests were not even followed up on at the time.

The tests are not reliable enough to even have someone fired for incompetence, let alone convicted of murder. The lab’s own guidelines outline in red that the test is not suitable for forensic purposes and that more accurate tests must be undertaken if exogenous insulin is suspected.

The babies recovered and went home despite apparently having taken in enough exogenous insulin to fell a grown man.

A quality control test at the same lab shortly after these tests returned an equally high result. This was due to a fault in the testing process.

The test results were inaccurate.

Did you have any other questions about the insulin cases?

You shouldn’t really be dismissing it unless you’re able to say why. I’m willing to hear whatever criticisms you have, if they’re based in evidence, but I already know that the article is meticulously researched to the nth degree. Implying that it isn’t, without providing evidence, is just spreading misinformation.

You could say that about anything though. There is a clear pattern re her victims. Just think how rare twins/triplets are (less rare now due to IVF but still unusual) and then think what the odds are of them both being healthy and stable for many days and then suddenly collapsing within a day of each other of completely different things. All with the same nurse there or having just hung their nutrient bag. You want to believe this is all nothing but an unbelievable set of coincidences and bad luck for Lucy defying all odds then that's your call. But as I said before, if it looks like a duck...

@Kittybythelighthouse The babies recovered and went home despite apparently having taken in enough exogenous insulin to fell a grown man.

Baby F has lifelong complex needs consistent with insulin poisoning.

What’s your evidence for the claim that “the majority of people who followed the trial know she's guilty”? Was there a questionnaire sent round that I missed?

That’s an assumption on your part. Nothing more. It’s also totally irrelevant when it comes to a discussion about what wasn’t presented or understood during the trial.

Every miscarriage of justice had a prosecution who did a great job of making the accused look guilty. It didn’t actually mean they were guilty though. In every single one of those cases they weren’t guilty.

“Those podcasts are the next best thing but if it doesn't convince you it doesn't convince you. Nothing probably will.”

If anyone is being convinced by those podcasts I truly despair at wtf happened to our education system. Those podcasts are a completely uncritical regurgitation of the prosecution’s case. Nothing more. The podcasts and the Moritz/Coffey book are not going to give you an overview of this case. If you’re truly an objectively interested person you should be taking in content that challenges that position, as well as that which supports it, like the Private Eye articles I linked, or John Sweeney’s podcast ‘Was There Ever a Crime?’

If you don’t want to I think it’s because you’re afraid of having your beliefs challenged. If you were truly sure in your position you wouldn’t feel like that.

“That all might be true but if a baby was naturally hypoglycaemic they would not have low c-peptide levels.”

You misunderstand me. A premature baby being hypoglycaemic is extremely normal. When a baby is hypoglycaemic it’s normal to order a routine immunoassay to confirm it. Both of these things are normal.

Immunoassay tests have a reasonably high failure rate given the number of them that might get done in any NICU over a period of time. The lab that conducted this specific immunoassay:

1. Found a similar result in a quality control test shortly after these tests were done.
2. Warns on its guidelines that these tests cannot be used forensically, in part because of the above possibility.

In addition, pre‑term infants have unique physiology, particularly in insulin metabolism, making it impossible to import expectations from full term babies, older children, or adults. This is a constant issue in this case, likely because no one in the hospital or the prosecution team was a neonatologist (save Sandie Bohin, whose neonatology experience is on an SCBU on Guernsey, not a NICU, that only has two cots for short term stays awaiting helicoptering to the mainland).

Immunoassay tests are widely agreed to be far from infallible. And that's without even taking into account the wildly implausible story that LL spiked multiple bags (which were somehow given to the target baby while LL was at home, asleep) and somehow nobody noticed either any suspicious behaviour or missing vials of insulin, and then she did it again months later.

Even if you did think that this is what happened, there is zero evidence (besides ridiculously poor statistics and the totally debunked claims of Evans & Co) to link any of it to LL as the culprit.

The alternative explanation, that (as the data indicates) the I/C ratio isn't a reliable indication of exogenous insulin in neonates or that perhaps the sample got contaminated etc are simple, coherent explanations consistent with the evidence.

The DM podcast you like being baffled by all that is just to be expected, particularly when they’ve already shown themselves to be utterly wedded to the prosecution, not least via dirty money from Cheshire Police. How you take them seriously is what baffles me.

@Firefly1987

Oh but it just so happened the test was wrong these times they suspected Lucy? Come on, even you don't believe it.”

I almost forgot to address this bit: what exactly are you suggesting here?

That I know that she’s a serial killer of babies but that I dont mind about that because…I hate babies?!

Because…I love serial killers?!

Literally what is your suggestion here?

Of the twins and triplets:

Babies A and B both suffered clotting irregularities likely related to antibodies from their mother

Babies E and F both suffered from (very common) swings in blood sugar, likely related to their mother's condition. Baby E's death was probably an outcome of complications unique to twin pregnancies.

Babies L and M both had sepsis (on the same ward at the same time), which is a possible explanation for both baby L's hypoglycemia and baby M's circulatory collapse.

Babies O and P (on the same ward under treatment by the same doctor, on successive days) both had desaturations treated with inappropriately high ventilated oxygen pressures, undermining attempts to resuscitate them effectively.

It doesn't take anyone to have a fixation with twins and triplets for more than one of them to fall ill in these circumstances: the children share obstretic, genetic and (because the neonatal ward was organized to keep them together under a single consultant's care) environmental risks.

Consistent with prolonged hypoglycemia.

This is yet another string of assumptions about statistics being ‘common sense’ when they are anything but. Have you looked into the odds of any these things? Or are you just gut feeling your way through it again?

P.s: she wasn’t there. That’s why the prosecution had to invent all sorts of fairy tales to accommodate her poisoning the babies from a distance while she was at home asleep.

I’m still working my way through responses and see that @Oftenaddled got there before me.

Switching hypoglycaemia out for insulin poisoning is the exact same disingenuous framing that you previously produced directly from the mouth of Liz Hull. You really need to be more critical of your sources, particularly if you’re going to insist on limiting yourself to those few remaining voices that are not challenging to your extant beliefs.

Why do you find it so implausible to believe she spiked the bags? That's far more believable than tying yourself in knots to dismiss everything else about the insulin (or any other incident for that matter) How many bags were there supposed to be? I expect she left the spiked one up front and the other nurse just grabbed the first one she came to-hardly impossible to believe! She knew they'd be stumped and switch bags and also wanted to distance herself from the hanging of the first bag being the point when the issues started. It's like you can't fathom she'd do something like this to try and put herself out of the frame?

and somehow nobody noticed either any suspicious behaviour or missing vials of insulin, and then she did it again months later.

Again, it's like you expect serial killers to be stupid and do all this in front of people. I doubt it would take her long to do it and IIRC they DID go through more insulin than expected.

Even if you did think that this is what happened, there is zero evidence (besides ridiculously poor statistics and the totally debunked claims of Evans & Co) to link any of it to LL as the culprit.

Yeah something tells me you'd believe there's another culprit who just so happened to stop the minute Lucy was removed before you believed the most simple logical explanation.

So on the one hand she liked the drama of being there when babies collapsed and always rushed to be there first, except when she made sure that she was well out of the way and off shift by doing something that would be slow acting?

The insulin thing doesn't really make sense as a murder weapon because if you have to rely on other people doing something like picking a particular bag and giving it to a particular baby then it's completely out of your control.

The reason that everybody doesn't just accept what the prosecution says uncritically is because the prosecution take the facts that they have and spin them into the most damning series of events that they can. If you're already convinced that someone is a killer then literally everything is going to make them look more guilty. They don't pick the most likely chain of events, they pick the one that makes the defendant look the worst.

What is the clear pattern then?
That she attacked multiples? but she also attacked singles
That she attacked babies on significant milestones? but also attacked other babies when there wasn't any specific milestone...
That they were all doing great and then suddenly they weren't? That's not even true....

Where is the clear pattern?

@Firefly1987
On what planet is a serial killer the most logical explanation, especially in a hospital where there was very clearly serious issues?

Firefly, the only one tying herself in knots here is you.

“Why do you find it so implausible to believe she spiked the bags?”

Because it is implausible. Plainly so. You’re arguing that she spiked these bags undetected, not even mildly suspected, even though:

1. TPN bags at COCH were compounded under sterile conditions in the hospital pharmacy (not mixed ad hoc on the ward) and had tamper-evident seals. Substituting or secretly adulterating multiple bags without detection would have been highly improbable.
2. Insulin is not stable in TPN solutions. It absorbs onto plastic surfaces, binds to amino acids, and degrades in glucose-rich mixtures. Concentrations would fall drastically, quickly. Extremely large amounts would need to be used to allow for this, yet:
3. No insulin was missing from the fridge.
4. No evidence of LL having stolen or attempted to buy insulin, despite the large amount required hereafter.
5. Even if insulin was injected, the actual amount delivered to the infant could easily be negligible, making it utterly unsuitable as a method of deliberate poisoning.
6. A single tampered batch could unintentionally affect several babies, making “targeted” poisoning (of the like she is alleged to have carried out) virtually impossible.
7. Tampering with TPN bags would be visible, leave forensic traces. A calculated killer would be unlikely to choose such an impractical and unreliable method.
8. Why on earth would she do any of this this, given she had already (according to the prosecution) invented and used several undetectable yet highly effective murder methods?
9. She wasn’t even there.
10. There is literally nothing to link LL to this idea.
11. She would have to have the predictive powers of Nostradamus in order to foresee that one of the bags she poisoned would tissue after she left work and need to be replaced AND she was able to spike the exact bag that another nurse would select from the fridge to continue the poisoning on that baby, specifically.

There are no documented cases of insulin murders via TPN adulteration. It is not considered a plausible modus operandi in toxicology or forensic medicine, even if she didn’t have to literally be a witch in order to carry this out while miles away in bed, asleep.

“She knew they'd be stumped and switch bags”

HOW?! Witchcraft? The bag was switched because the line tissued. She could not have known this would happen.

“and also wanted to distance herself from the hanging of the first bag being the point when the issues started.”

OR - just hear me out here - OR she could have had no idea whatsoever that the line would tissue and it’s a flipping mad reach to claim that she did somehow divine this future event and that she preemptively spiked another bag because she somehow knew this.

“It's like you can't fathom she'd do something like this to try and put herself out of the frame?”

It’s like you can’t fathom that I’m not going to accept anything for which there is zero evidence.

“Again, it's like you expect serial killers to be stupid and do all this in front of people.”

Again, it’s like you think this genius killer is stupid enough to leave incriminating evidence in her house when she has known for ages that she’s under investigation by the police and has been searched before once already. Which is it? Is she clever or is she stupid? Pick one.

“Yeah something tells me you'd believe there's another culprit who just so happened to stop the minute Lucy was removed before you believed the most simple logical explanation.”

Nope. I think the babies were hypoglycaemic and that the immunoassays returned false results, as they are well known to do. Simple as that. Occam’s Razor.

You are the one who should be looking for a different perpetrator, if they were murder attempts, given the fact that there is ZERO evidence to connect LL to these cases.

I think the death spike tailed off when LL was removed from the unit because they downgraded the unit at the exact same time so that they were no longer taking in babies of the same acuity.

Of course you already know all this because it’s been meticulously laid out for you dozens of times, by multiple people, but you keep somehow forgetting about that.

Good grief - are you actually serious?!