Lucy Letby: have you changed your mind - thread 3

[Typicalwave]

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

You haven't at all. That's absolutely clear to everyone and you're making yourself look very silly now by even pretending that you have considered them.

You've even said you're on here to counter all the points because it's offensive to even suggest she may be innocent and you can't just sit back and watch that happen. That is completely different to engaging in debate in good faith, and I've even provided you with a definition of it and you're still unable to grasp it.

You don't bother to actually read what the experts say or weigh up the validity, instead you dismiss them like they're conspiracy theorists, or make stupid comments like 'they didn't even follow the trial' as if that's supposed to mean something important. 🤔

I am very open to changing my mind, as I have said time and time again. I certainly won't change my mind based on what was brought up in the initial trial, I've heard the evidence from that trial 500 times now so I'm not suddenly going to be convinced when I wasn't before. But as I said I would be open to changing my mind if she was convicted on new charges with stronger, more concrete evidence.

Firefly1987 (and anybody else who is interested in a thought experiment) -

If we could rewind time to 2015 but still know then what we know now, would you be happy to give birth to premature twins and have them cared for at the CoCH if Lucy Letby was guaranteed not to be there for the whole time you were in?

As long as she didn't work there/was on holiday(!) then yes absolutely I don't see why not. Would you want your baby "cared" for by Lucy? I'm thinking no! Put it this way I'd rather be in the CoCH with no Lucy than the safest hospital in the country if you put Lucy in there just for the duration of my babies stay. Any place but near that evil.

That's interesting.

I'm assuming it means you give no weight at all to the possibility that the common factor in the deaths/collapses was the standard of care and the environment at the hospital, as suggested by the new expert panel?

To answer for myself - with current knowledge there's no way I'd give birth or allow my (hypothetical) twins to be cared for at that hospital at that time, even if Lucy Letby wasn't there.

Actually, perhaps I'm putting that a bit harshly. I don't mean to say that the doctors and nurses were deliberately neglectful or unskilled, more that they were faced with too many and too sick babies to care for to the best standard possible for the number of staff they had and that the hospital (as in the physical buildings) had serious maintenance problems.

No, I think my point is more that I can’t really understand why the defence didn’t make more of the fact that it would have been impossible for Letby (or anyone) to tamper with the bags without it being completely obvious. Why not call someone from the company who makes the bags? Or another relevant expert who could talk to this?

It makes me wonder whether they looked into it and maybe it turned out it’s not completely impossible, and that’s why it’s only mentioned in passing by her barrister (which as we know isn’t evidence).

What I do not believe is that this is something that would have just been completely overlooked by her defence team - it would potentially be a game changer for her if they could prove there was no way it could be done. I guess it would be interesting to see if the CCRC application covers this issue at all.

@rubbishatballet I think her defence just wasn't very good

Sorry, I don’t buy this - she was represented by one of the top criminal defence barristers in the country.

Yes I agree with this. I’d really like to know what can and can’t be done to those particular bags, with what, and how detectable it would be. There’s no way an insulin needle could be inserted through a polypropylene tamper evident seal, though, and the bags are deliberately designed to be tamper evident.

I’d also like to know the adsorption rate of insulin onto the bags and the giving set. The literature suggests it’s considerable, but I would expect there to be a concentration above which adsorption stops. So how much insulin would have been required? How much insulin would have been required to cause the astronomical readings from one of the babies?

No one had a problem with Letby’s until after she was arrested, and then suddenly all of her actions become ghoulish etc. it’s like putting a filter over a non filtered camera lens, the colours and gradients of the picture are shifted - every single action is combed over and the narrative of ig becomes ‘evil’

Its the very definition of a witch hunt

She continued to say she did not do it. Not once did she say that she had spiked bags.

not once.

But I challenge you to be so articulate and quick on yoir feet under these circumstances.

Do you know who DOES remain completely calm abx cool and articulate and is able to think coearly and be measured and logical in their responses under this kind of pressure?

What type of person is abod to do what you’re describing?

Psychopaths.

Nope. Becsuse the unit was a shit show with shit flooding it on a regular basis and with a dearth of qualified experienced staff proficient in dealing with babies who are sick, premature and with complex antenatal histories. Babies A&B, Babies E&F and babies O, P and Q should not have been born in a level 2 (much less a level 2 that did not have the resources to be a level 2)

You don’t understand what arguing in good faith means ( though it has been explained to you)

I’d like to know the answer to that question too - re absorption rate, and degrading rate, and rate of binding to other molecules in the mixture.

I did find a study with conclusions that it’s a really bad idea to use TPN bags as a medium for giving insulin due to all the variables, in its conclusion. I only read the abstract and the conclusion.

I can go find it if you’d like? Or try to anyway

I also found the 48 hours mystery.

The bags could be hung for 48 maximum. it was in the trial.

Yes, there was discussion - @Kittybythelighthouseposted a copy/paste of questioning with LL and also a link to a discussion with (I think) a pharmacist - possibly hospital pharmacist?

It’s somewhere in day before yesterday?

How do you know what her motives were?

Just as an aside:

What makes you think you would respond calmly, logically and articulately under extreme pressure.

And, why do you think everyone would respond in the same way as you believe you would?

Do you go through life thinking this way?

This is exactly how I feel about CS2C also, @Firefly1987 since you asked. I have listened to some. Couldn’t make it through all of it. He only presents prosecution arguments and the voice acting…. Let’s just say he won’t be getting cast in The Archers anytime soon 🥲

I do have to credit CS2C with cementing an extremely melodramatic “You’re LYING, aren’t you LUCY LETBY!!” as a me and DH’s catchphrase for 2025, best delivered while chewing all the scenery.

The daily fail podcast does a weird blank monotone for LL, which they justified by saying something like “we thought it was more fair to completely strip her of any humanity” but oddly they didn’t do the same for NJ (again I don’t recall that podcast voicing anything that wasn’t NJ cross examining LL). I know someone who went to a couple of days of the Baby K retrial and said LL was just normal, quite articulate and engaged with what was going on. Not this weird blank serial killer in a bad tv movie monotone that she keeps getting characterised in.

Loads of people appear to think they are essentially the jury if they listen to the CS2C pieces. Just goes to illustrate that Firefly isn’t the only member of the public who thinks prosecution assertions = facts. Scary how so many don’t appear to understand that barristers are basically well prepped improv actors. It’s performance and they’ll chew up the scenery for whichever side they’re working for. That’s the barrister’s job. Nick Johnson might personally think she’s not guilty for all we know. He’s not a dreamboat hero for the pro verdict side. He just did his job.

To be fair, my last I refused flatly to go into any hospital for. I’d heard and read some rum stuff about the two units available to me. I was far more fortunate than the many women with high risk pregnancies whi had no choice but to use one of those units.

Those two units were red flagged in the MBRRACE report a couple of years later.

I’ve done a quick literature search but I haven’t found anything with the detail we need.

Insulin adsorption onto plastics is well known, and there are multiple and variable components in PN, so putting insulin in is, as you say, considered a bad idea. Although it has been done in the past with some observable success, so adsorption/degradation is clearly not 100%.

Yes that aligns with my experience. Up to 60 days for simple bags, reducing as the formulation is more complex, is the shelf life before use. Completion of infusion once started is max. 48 hours. (Or less, preferably, but that’s for microbiological reasons.).

Well you can say that, but whatever his prior reputation, in practice her defense was dreadful.

That might also have been down to factors like a poor or inexperienced solicitor or lack of availability of expert witnesses or funding for them. However they had Dr. Hall and they should have called him. Just one expert saying I can't see any evidence of harm here could have made all the difference.

Her defence also needed to find and call:

• a statistician to debunk the shift chart and test error rate
• an insulin test expert
• a medical equipment expert
• a nursing expert
• a psychologist

I know @Kittybythelighthousepointed out that Meyers wished to call their experts after each prosecution expert was examined and cross examined instead of having the defence experts called after months of prosecution experts first but the judge would not allow this , have I got that right @Kittybythelighthouse?

Yes but even so Hall should have been called. And there should have been experts instructed in other fields too.

We now all know (even the people that still think she is guilty) that there are a large number of medical experts that strongly disagree with Dewi Evan's conclusions and believe the babies died by natural causes. But the jury didn't know that.

The defence did instruct a number of experts (other than Michael Hall) but the decision was taken not to call any of them. There are many potential reasons why this may have been, but currently only Letby and her team know for sure what they were.

Well given that she's currently due to stay in jail for the rest of her life I think we can safely conclude that not calling them was a serious error.

Neena Modi also wrote to the defence offering her help as she was concerned about what she was hearing about the case. They never replied. Given (I think someone said earlier) there are only around 100 practising neonatologists in the whole of the UK I don't understand why the defence wouldn't jump at the opportunity of getting such an experienced and distinguished neonatologist to help. It is clear to me the defence wasn't on top of it's game.

One question for people who are 100% sure she is guilty. How do you square that with the idea that extremely qualified and experienced doctors like Neena Modi have looked now at all the evidence and think the babies died of a combination of natural causes and medical negligence? Doesn't that introduce any doubt to your minds?