Lucy Letby: have you changed your mind - thread 3

[Typicalwave]

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

@Typicalwave what I am saying is that Lucy Letby had access to her own expert on Insulin and instead of calling him to the stand they decided that Myers should cross examine Dr Hindmarsh.

Why? Probably because their own expert was in agreement with Dr Hindmarsh and may well have helped Letby reach the conclusion that the babies had been poisoned- else how did she say it with such certainty- I bet Myers knew she was going to agree with it in advance too.

So just because there’s a few experts in the world saying something different then it means not a lot I’m afraid!

I’m genuinely interested in why you believe there’s zero possibility it’s an unsafe conviction.

A panel of unpaid international experts have objectively reviewed the evidence and said there were no murders: “in all cases death or injury were due to natural causes or just bad medical care".

On what basis do you disagree with them?

Thanks Firefly. As regards the CCTV and that quote from the unrelated piece about raising funds for the unit, that’s a bit of a reach isn’t it?

“On the facebook searches-she searched baby K's surname over 2 years after their death (at Arrowe Park) when she wasn't even the designated nurse. Why would she need to do this if she had no connection to baby K? Unless she was worried she'd be accused of harming them?
The prosecutor questioned the defendant why, 26 months after Child K's collapse, she had searched the infant's surname at around midnight on April 20, 2018. Asked why she had conducted the search, Letby said: "I can't answer that. I don't know why."
The prosecutor suggested to the defendant that by then, although it would be another three months before she was arrested, she 'knew' police were asking questions about her. She denied she was friends with Child K's designated nurse, Joanne Williams, who the jurors heard was interviewed in March 2018.
Asked if she was telling the truth when she agreed it was 'just a coincidence' she made the Facebook searches a few weeks after Nurse Williams had been interviewed, the defendant said: "I am."

This sounds like she’s defending her friend Joanne Williams who plainly told her they were looking at baby k after her police interview, which prompted her to remind herself of what family that was by looking them up. It also sounds like Nick Johnson knew this and wanted to put her in a position where she would either shop her friend, which she didn’t do, or be called a serial killer yet again.

As regards the MBRRACE-UK data, I already shared a breakdown of that data yesterday. I underlined that in the 12 month period that the deaths occurred Sherwood Forest had a much higher spike, but no search for a serial killer. You’ve pulled the data from 2015 alone, not the 12 month period spanning 2014 into 2015.

Your data does underline something that people tend to overlook, which is that the deaths declined in 2016 at the same time that the hospital was downgraded and could no longer accept such a vulnerable cohort of babies.

Here’s the graph illustrating the 2014-2015 spikes highlighting the Sherwood Forest peak again.

@EdithBond

no one knows for certain but they are allowed to believe either way

a lot of people who are now doubting it seem to be falling for the PR hype

So what if Joanne Williams told her about baby k? Where is the harm in saying Joanne told me that police asked about baby K so I searched K on FB?

That’s hardly dropping her friend in it?

Imagine if JW did not tell her about baby K and police interest but Letby searched baby K anyway…..as that is what happened according to Letby

In fairness, the sequence of events you've theorised in your second paragraph means not a lot either. There's more than one explanation for why defence might choose not to call a particular witness (this blog by a respected legal commentator further elucidates https://davidallengreen.com/2024/07/the-lucy-letby-case-some-thoughts-and-observations-what-should-happen-when-a-defence-does-not-put-in-their-own-expert-evidence-for-good-reason-or-bad/) and it's not like you're in any position to assess which is accurate. You're allowed a vibes based opinion, like anyone else, but that's all it is.

I hadn't actually known he'd guessed at the way insulin sticks to plastic bags at the trial. That does seem rather an overreach for a medical doctor. I've spoken before about the need for juries with specialist knowledge in cases where evidence is particularly complex and technical, and wonder what view such a jury would've taken if used here.

@Imperativvv

Of course Myers did not rely on his own knowledge of insulin poisoning!!!!

Give the guy a break!

100% we’re all entitled to an opinion on whether it’s a safe conviction, i.e. beyond reasonable doubt.

I’m really genuinely interested in why people think it’s a safe conviction. It’s the why that interests me.

When the starting point is no reasonable doubt there were murders. Because if there’s a reasonable doubt murders happened, then what crime is there to be convicted of?

@Imperativvv

please show me the quote on insulin sticking to a bag’ I’ve not read that one!!!

Haven't seen anyone say he did?

It was from a post on page 3 of the thread at 9.56 today by Oftenadded. I hadn't heard about this previously.

Great then we are on the same page to an extent on the whys and hows of the insulin poisoning admission of Letby!

Page 3 of the thread was not today so I can’t find it

Because it was all laid out during the trial. She was always there-the minute a baby was left alone they'd collapse and LL would either be the one to raise the alarm or would be found standing over the baby. She showed an obsession with being in the room with the sickest babies that crossed all professional boundaries. She sought out the parents of babies that died on facebook days (sometimes hours) after to see if they had put anything on there so she could revel in their grief. Then there is all the medical evidence showing deliberate harm. Babies that were completely stable and nowhere near expected to die would just collapse-this was something that was very unusual. As was the way the babies didn't respond to resuscitation that doctors didn't understand. They had rashes that had rarely ever been seen before. That's why the air embolism paper was used.

Almost everyone who followed the trial knows she's guilty. Those that think she's innocent and are constantly blaming the system never even followed the trial! At least I can't recall anyone saying they did. They all came on board long after the trial ended and think there is compelling evidence she's not guilty because of articles that came out questioning it all.

It would absolutely be dropping JW in it. JW also testified and her testimony was not in alignment with the prosecution narrative, particularly Dr Jayaram’s ever changing timings regarding child k. Johnson would have reamed her in the stand for being in cahoots with a “baby killer” if Letby had taken the bait and dropped her in it. He would have used that to discredit JW and make her look bad, thus discrediting a powerful witness that was not in alignment with Dr Jayaram’s account.

If you really don’t see this heavy subtext in that quoted exchange then I’m at a loss to understand your perspective. I accept that that is your view, but it’s far from the only take. The subtext there is heavier than a wet Great Dane imo.

I know. It's like trying to argue with a cult about their supreme leader Lucy Letby. Nothing is allowed to be said against her. Smarter people than me know not to waste their time because she's where she belongs and never getting out.

I think @Imperativvv was referring to Hindmarsh’s guess regarding the level to which insulin would have stuck to the TPN bag. It’s not in question that insulin would have stuck to the bag, everyone agrees on that as ‘stickiness’ is an inherent quality of insulin. The question was how much and Hindmarsh, given that he is not qualified to make that call, guessed. It turns out he guessed wrong, once actual chemical engineers (whose area of expertise that is) ran the numbers on it.

Oh come on @Firefly1987 thats not fair and you know it.

Thankfully the pontifications on this thread have no bearings on actual reality!

That claim would have substance if we weren’t discussing actual detailed facts and evidence, but we are. It’s the facts and evidence that illustrate the glaring issues here.

I think it might be you who has fallen for PR hype and cannot get past what you have taken in from the media onslaught before experts were allowed to speak (which wasn’t until after the reporting bans).

I agree, but possibly for very different reasons.

@Kittybythelighthouse it is a little bit? Have you ever said she did anything wrong? It's been excuse after excuse for her. Now she's wonderful for not dropping her colleague in it about baby K? Which I don't even understand. How is she dropping anyone in anything if there were no murders?

“Almost everyone who followed the trial knows she's guilty. Those that think she's innocent and are constantly blaming the system never even followed the trial! At least I can't recall anyone saying they did. They all came on board long after the trial ended and think there is compelling evidence she's not guilty because of articles that came out questioning it all.”

I have read everything available. As much as you have if not more. All you’re doing here Firefly is illustrating the fact that a lot of people were so awash in one narrative (she’s an evil baby killer) for the entire duration of both trials until the reporting bans lifted that they can’t even consider anything that contradicts that narrative.

dear @Kittybythelighthouse

the only facts/evidence and experts to draw an opinion from are those presented in court - and there was a conclusion reached

the ones you are talking about (PR hype) are no longer relevant to the outcome of the case

experts were not called by the defence because Myers knew better than you do

Your data does underline something that people tend to overlook, which is that the deaths declined in 2016 at the same time that the hospital was downgraded and could no longer accept such a vulnerable cohort of babies.

Nope we all know the hospital was downgraded. I think it's shocking the deaths were still high (just not AS high because LL was removed 7 months into 2016) so we're only taking into account the first half of 2016 and they were still high! After that there weren't any deaths to contribute to the high figures because LL was removed/unit was downgraded.