Lucy Letby: have you changed your mind - thread 3

[Typicalwave]

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

Excellent last post @Kittybythelighthouse, you’ve probably wasted your time though. It doesn’t matter how compelling the argument or how much detail you go into, some people just won’t see any other viewpoint.

I expect you’re right, but I’m always thinking of the people who are following but not contributing. I can’t allow suggestions that we “don’t have answers” to go unchallenged. From now on I’ll probably just link to the previous comment that already addressed the question because at this stage I don’t think there’s anything left that hasn’t been addressed. It is exhausting though.

I think what this debate says to me is that actually there isn't a rational, evidence based argument as to why Lucy is guilty and that is why one isn't made.

Not sure that our adversarial justice system is that much of an improvement over medieval trial by combat. The two sides to slug it out and whoever has the best champion wins.

It was clearly not plainly implausible as far as the police, prosecution, several expert witnesses, the jury and finally court of appeal judges were concerned though. Every one of the points you have listed here were considered and argued in great detail over the course of the trial.

Actually, all of these points were not “considered and argued over in great detail over the course of the trial.” On a very basic level even the laboratory guidelines stating in bold red letters that the test is not suitable for forensic purposes were glossed over.

But that aside, how many times do we have to repeat the obvious truth that every single miscarriage of justice ever included the police, prosecution, expert witnesses, juries, and court of appeal judges all making the wrong calls?

In any case, I was asked why I find it implausible. That’s ‘I’ as in me, not you, or the police, the prosecution, the jury, etc who are not scientists and no better than the information they are given, which at the trial was questionable at best.

There are experts who agree with me too, but of course you know that.

“Prof Geoff Chase, one of the world’s foremost experts on the effect of insulin on pre-term babies, told the Guardian it was “very unlikely” anyone had administered potentially lethal doses to two of the infants.”

For starters.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/feb/07/strong-reasonable-doubt-over-lucy-letby-insulin-convictions-experts-say

Actually, all of these points were not “considered and argued over in great detail over the course of the trial.” On a very basic level even the laboratory guidelines stating in bold red letters that the test is not suitable for forensic purposes were glossed over.

Sorry, but this is not true - the jury were absolutely made aware of the limitations of the test for forensic purposes (not ‘glossed over’).

Which of the sets of twins/triplets were born healthy and stable?

None of them.

They were all in the NNU - by definition they were not well. At all. None of them were admitted to the NNU for ahuts and giggles.

Next point: do you understand that twins and triplets are more likely to have similar problems given the fact that they share DNA, shared the same womb, are the aAnd gestational age, were born in the sand theatre eith the same consultant and team, were exposed to the sand drugs administered to mum, exposed to the same autoimmune disorder (possibly two autoimmune disorders) in the case of babies A&B? Are exposed to the sand pathogens in the womb, the theatre, those first few minutes, tens of minutes?

This increases the likelihood ig one goes down the other will too.

You are just wildly guessing on the basis of nothing.

Please show us where you have gotten this information from - that baby F has lifelong disabilities consistent with insulin poisoning.

This will be countered with ‘Geoff Chase isn’t even a Dr’

It's my understanding that Baby F has significant disabilities and that this information was released by mistake - but not neccessarily due to insulin poisoning

Baby A was also on CPAP and had suspected sepsis (was suspected within two hours of birth abx needed CPAP shortly after) - sepsis increases thrombosis risk, CPAP, though rare, as been known to cause air embolism.

I agree with you. I find the adversarial system to be quite primitive. A bit barbaric. It’s very traumatic to e.g witnesses in cross examination - I’d ask critics to remember that innocent people get absolutely pummelled in cross examination too, because that’s what the adversarial barrister’s job is and it is merciless.

Also all witnesses can be cross examined, not just the accused. I was a first witness for the prosecution in a rape case when I was 19 and the defence barrister was absolutely vile. Not just to me, to every witness for the prosecution. That’s their job in the adversarial system though. There must be a more civilised approach to this than traumatising teenage girls.

It’s not easy to replace though, as of course defendants should have a right to robustly challenge allegations and not all defendants are guilty. Other countries have other alternatives, though nothing is perfect of course.

Scotland uses a more hybrid model than England and Wales. It is still adversarial, but the judge leads the questioning and most of the fact-finding happens in writing beforehand. I think that sounds better, makes for shorter trials too. Nordic countries also have variations on this. I appreciate that this model is focused on the truth, not who is best at performing in the courtroom and/or pummelling witnesses. I'd welcome something like that here.

Fact finding in advance of trial would be helpful in addressing our myriad issues with expert witnesses.

To recap on that issue: most expert witnesses here are retired or by default not the most established, respected, or experienced in their fields. This is because the best experts in any one field are generally too busy with front line research and practice to give months or years over to researching and presenting evidence for one court case. There’s no real oversight on what qualifies one as an “expert” either, beyond the most basic (e.g registered with GMC etc).

Fact-finding in advance with input from a range of high quality experts would go some way towards resolving that issue and also make trials shorter/less traumatic for victims/witnesses, plus dispense with any possibility of theatrical expert invention/overstating/understating of fact that the British justice system is currently vulnerable to.

Are you serious? If this wasn’t glossed over (which it absolutely was) then the jury wouldn’t have been told that the results definitively meant that it “must be that they have been given or taken” synthetic insulin that had not been prescribed.

The jury were not told that a second, more forensic, test should have been used to check the result. The immunoassay test used here cannot even be used in an employment tribunal, but the jury were led to believe that it was hard evidence of murder.

Thing is that “insulin poisoning” is essentially induced hypoglycaemia. Liz Hull is just doing what Liz Hull does in classic daily fail style by calling a clinical picture “consistent with insulin poisoning” when it’s also “consistent with” hypoglycaemia.

I’ve already got my nutcrackers ready for that old chestnut.

Also to consider as an issue in our system, the fact that juries need a clear cut black and white answer from experts - something which is often difficult to do in medical cases (if an expert is being completely honest) Some expert witnesses have reputations for being less ambivalent, cutting the corners of the truth, and prosecutors know who these experts are and will choose them, effectively rigging the system.

You are missing my point - this is confidential information about Baby F's current health and should not have been released - it was an error to do so

In any case, I was asked why I find it implausible. That’s ‘I’ as in me, not you, or the police, the prosecution, the jury, etc who are not scientists and no better than the information they are given, which at the trial was questionable at best.

@KittybythelighthouseYou said “because it is implausible. Plainly so.” Which does rather imply an objective rather than subjective analysis.

Also, we have absolutely no idea about the backgrounds of anyone on the jury - you cannot definitively say there were no scientists among them.

I cannot fibd anything pertaining to baby F’s ‘lifelong’ disabilities except that there was a discharge from hospital wigh a clean bill of health abx no ongoing issues and then several years later mum saying the baby F has lifelong complex needs, which she believes is because of insulin poisoning.

This doesnt match up with @Firefly1987 claim that baby F has lifelong disabilities ‘consistent with insulin poisoning’

At the time baby F’s assay came back with high insulin levels there was nothing reported in the trial or publuc records that F suffered any symptoms that would be consistent with very low hypoglycaemia - no fits, no loss of consciousness, no coma, no organ failure.

It’s not that confidential - baby F’s oarents impact statement read out in court contained the information.

Yes, which is one reason why I think a hybrid model might work better. Facts can be established in advance of the trial to the best possible scientific standard by consulting the best possible experts.

Currently the legal system doesn’t concern itself with scientific standards, as long as legal procedure is adhered to, and it badly misuses terms like ‘peer review’. Juries would have to do with a non black and white answer if that is the actual science. It is what it is. If that means reasonable doubt then that’s what that means. It’s certainly not better than simply picking something and arguing as if it is scientific fact, when it is actually contended. Science cannot bend to procedure. It’s nonsense to try and make it so for bureaucratic convenience.

The aftermath of this trial, which makes the trial itself (trials) and investigation look extraordinarily wasteful in terms of time and money, not to mention much more traumatic for everyone involved (including the public actually) than it needed to be, is what should have happened in a calm and measured way beforehand.

I’m not saying a hybrid model would be perfect either of course, but it’s likely that nothing would be absolutely perfect.

Yes.

Question re #6, @Kittybythelighthouse

TPN bags at COCH - were they generic bags that could be hung for any baby or were they child specific? If the were generic bags, once that bag had been used on one child it couldn’t be used on another child, yes? (That’s probably a stupid question, I’m leaning towards no because of cross contamination)

@Kittybythelighthousei was hoping you were going to address it, but I think maybe you missed it - if I’ve missed you addressing it.

@Firefly1987claims that insulin did go missing on the unit ‘iirc they went through more insulin than expected’

I cant find anything at all that matches that claim. Have you?

Some bags were mixed with different combinations in the pharmacy for individual children, but baby F was on a generic bag, also pre-mixed in the pharmacy, but then sent up for storage in the wards so the nurses could grab one straight from the fridge for any child. Baby F's two bags (one replacing the other while Lucy Letby was off shift) were both taken by nurses from a batch of five in the fridge.