Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Chat

Join the discussion and chat with other Mumsnetters about everyday life, relationships and parenting.

Lucy Letby - have you changed your mind thread 4

990 replies

MistressoftheDarkSide · 28/08/2025 21:20

With thanks to the original poster @kittybythelighthouse and @Tidalwave for continuing the discussion.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
53
Typicalwave · 05/09/2025 10:07

EyeLevelStick · 05/09/2025 10:01

The swipe cards are just to keep
unauthorised people out. If you leave, you get your swipe card cancelled. They are not meant to track people.

Which makes it even more incredible it was considered acceptable as evidence of putting staff in certain places at certain times.

MistressoftheDarkSide · 05/09/2025 10:32

There's an awful lot of "evidence" that really isn't "evidence" throughout this case.

OP posts:
Kittybythelighthouse · 05/09/2025 10:37

rubbishatballet · 05/09/2025 06:38

I don’t know if that would make a difference in terms of probability though. They didn’t start with the dodgy test results and then move on to having suspicions about those babies’ twins, it was the other way round (and with a long gap inbetween). The test results are concrete - ie whether they are correct or incorrect they tangibly exist and were produced outside of the unit - so either way it still seems probabilistically more complicated that it was these two babies that happened to have those results (with symptoms of severe hypoglycaemia) if they are incorrect.

And then for the third baby there is clearly some dispute about whether the result was naturally occurring (which I believe has been excluded for the other two) or potentially whether she might have harmed that baby too.

Things “seeming” probabilistically one thing or the other without a proper statistical analysis undertaken are exactly what caused this mess in the first place. Without a properly defined sample space, distribution, and base rate, an intuition about probability is usually completely and utterly wrong. Humans are notoriously terrible at intuitive probability.

Kittybythelighthouse · 05/09/2025 10:51

rubbishatballet · 05/09/2025 07:18

That’s what I had thought too, but other posters are saying there is some dispute about that and whether it would have caused the test result.

This baby was properly tested for hyperinsulinism at LWH. I don’t think anyone is suggesting that this was a faulty test.The suggestion is that this (hyperinsulinism) could have been true for the other babies also, we don’t know because they were not tested for that.

It also could be true that the test results were incorrect, or the the test results were due to a process error, which is exactly what happened with another very high insulin to low c-peptide reading returned during a quality control test at the same lab the following month.

In short there is plenty of reasonable doubt before getting into questions about the logistics of poisoning from afar while off shift, or poisoning without upsetting several tamper evident seals multiple times.

EyeLevelStick · 05/09/2025 10:58

Kittybythelighthouse · 05/09/2025 10:51

This baby was properly tested for hyperinsulinism at LWH. I don’t think anyone is suggesting that this was a faulty test.The suggestion is that this (hyperinsulinism) could have been true for the other babies also, we don’t know because they were not tested for that.

It also could be true that the test results were incorrect, or the the test results were due to a process error, which is exactly what happened with another very high insulin to low c-peptide reading returned during a quality control test at the same lab the following month.

In short there is plenty of reasonable doubt before getting into questions about the logistics of poisoning from afar while off shift, or poisoning without upsetting several tamper evident seals multiple times.

I think hyperinsulinism is a red herring.

Neonatal hypoglycaemia is a “thing” with multiple causes, only one of which is congenital hyperinsulinism, which is quite rare.

We do know the babies had hypoglycaemia as evidenced by the blood glucose tests, and we also know they were not subsequently diagnosed with congenital hyperinsulinism.

Kittybythelighthouse · 05/09/2025 10:59

Typicalwave · 05/09/2025 09:06

Where does the card swipe data (a) which was found to be reversed by Cheshire Police and b) it was found that the unit was accessible by at least 1 other door that was a keypad pin entry system rendering the data completely meaningless) relate to insulin magically appearing inside TPN bags that have several tamper evident devices and no one hanging the bags ever noticed that these devices had been tampered with?

Yes, the issue with the door swipe data being back to front was down to Cheshire Police’s “data analyst” making yet another huge mistake.

Kittybythelighthouse · 05/09/2025 11:01

EyeLevelStick · 05/09/2025 10:58

I think hyperinsulinism is a red herring.

Neonatal hypoglycaemia is a “thing” with multiple causes, only one of which is congenital hyperinsulinism, which is quite rare.

We do know the babies had hypoglycaemia as evidenced by the blood glucose tests, and we also know they were not subsequently diagnosed with congenital hyperinsulinism.

What I’m saying is that there is reasonable doubt in spades.

Kittybythelighthouse · 05/09/2025 11:02

GingerPower · 05/09/2025 08:21

I thought there was some doubt around the accuracy of the card swipes being used to determine which staff were on duty? Weren't they mislabelled? Perhaps there were further errors which we're not privy to. It doesn't sound completely out the question.

I 100% agree, but the door swipe error, amongst others, was Cheshire Police’s error.

Typicalwave · 05/09/2025 11:03

EyeLevelStick · 05/09/2025 10:58

I think hyperinsulinism is a red herring.

Neonatal hypoglycaemia is a “thing” with multiple causes, only one of which is congenital hyperinsulinism, which is quite rare.

We do know the babies had hypoglycaemia as evidenced by the blood glucose tests, and we also know they were not subsequently diagnosed with congenital hyperinsulinism.

And hyperinsulinism will result in high cpeptide results.

Kittybythelighthouse · 05/09/2025 11:06

GingerPower · 05/09/2025 07:43

There's clearly a lot of stuff to consider but I do think Frayn possibly has a point about the Evans stuff being a bit of a rabbithole/red herring in light of the insulin questions (I appreciate it's hard not to scrutinise his contributions).

From my admittedly limited knowledge of the specifics it seems to me that the big questions to answer are what natural mechanism could be responsible for a baby having insulin levels 40x the norm, and what biological factors specific to newborns would create a bodily state that could normally only be induced with exogenous insulin (in terms of the peptide levels etc)?

Premature babies are not the same as newborns. Their physiology varies even from infant to infant. This is why neonatology is an important specialism and another reason why COCH not having actual neonatologists on staff was an issue.

Oftenaddled · 05/09/2025 11:13

rubbishatballet · 05/09/2025 06:18

So maybe she poisoned that third baby as well?

The documents accidentally uploaded on Thirlwall, and then removed, suggested that the child had symptoms of hypoglycemia and the sample for testing was taken and dispatched before Lucy Letby came on shift.

MistressoftheDarkSide · 05/09/2025 11:19

Oftenaddled · 05/09/2025 11:13

The documents accidentally uploaded on Thirlwall, and then removed, suggested that the child had symptoms of hypoglycemia and the sample for testing was taken and dispatched before Lucy Letby came on shift.

Well that's quite a revelation. Be very hard to suggest that Lucy was responsible for those readings in such circumstances. I really hope those documents got screen spotted somewhere.

OP posts:
Oftenaddled · 05/09/2025 11:21

EyeLevelStick · 05/09/2025 10:58

I think hyperinsulinism is a red herring.

Neonatal hypoglycaemia is a “thing” with multiple causes, only one of which is congenital hyperinsulinism, which is quite rare.

We do know the babies had hypoglycaemia as evidenced by the blood glucose tests, and we also know they were not subsequently diagnosed with congenital hyperinsulinism.

Hyperinsulinism is a thing, but it is not "supposed" to produce a high insulin low C-peptide rate naturally, any more than any other condition.

It can be both chronic and transient, and if transient, won't produce a further diagnosis.

So the point is, if the tests could show this child having the high insulin low C-peptide ratio, either there was a problem with tests or samples, or - as Chase and others have been saying - premature neonates have distinct insulin profiles.

Let's bear in mind that the court was told that there was no way a child could have these test results naturally; and that while Evans saw this file, it was not disclosed to the defence.

Oftenaddled · 05/09/2025 11:23

MistressoftheDarkSide · 05/09/2025 11:19

Well that's quite a revelation. Be very hard to suggest that Lucy was responsible for those readings in such circumstances. I really hope those documents got screen spotted somewhere.

He was also for at least part of the time, not on TPN. (His condition continued over days, though BBC Panorama 2024 blurred out the figures showing him deteriorating after Lucy Letby went off shift.)

Oftenaddled · 05/09/2025 11:26

MistressoftheDarkSide · 05/09/2025 11:19

Well that's quite a revelation. Be very hard to suggest that Lucy was responsible for those readings in such circumstances. I really hope those documents got screen spotted somewhere.

It's one of the grounds for appeal Letby's solicitors listed in their letter to Thirlwall in February, so it was preserved. Lots of people downloaded the document.

rubbishatballet · 05/09/2025 11:29

Oftenaddled · 05/09/2025 11:13

The documents accidentally uploaded on Thirlwall, and then removed, suggested that the child had symptoms of hypoglycemia and the sample for testing was taken and dispatched before Lucy Letby came on shift.

What were the documents uploaded by Thirlwall? The timings given in this article fit with LL being on shift (although I don’t know what evidence Panorama had seen that they were taken from).

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cevywl7jmm3o.amp

Lucy Letby police mugshot

Lucy Letby may have harmed more babies in her care, new evidence suggests - BBC News

BBC Panorama sees documents which show a baby's blood sugar dropped soon after Letby came on duty.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cevywl7jmm3o.amp

EyeLevelStick · 05/09/2025 11:35

Kittybythelighthouse · 05/09/2025 10:59

Yes, the issue with the door swipe data being back to front was down to Cheshire Police’s “data analyst” making yet another huge mistake.

I don’t even understand the door swipe data. Most wards have a swipe in, but a push-button out. And it seems incredible that no-one understood that if two people walk in together only one will swipe.

Surely everyone involved in the case had visited hospitals and knew they have a big green button to get out? It is that different in neonatal units (or at Chester). Baffled tbh.

Kittybythelighthouse · 05/09/2025 11:40

EyeLevelStick · 05/09/2025 11:35

I don’t even understand the door swipe data. Most wards have a swipe in, but a push-button out. And it seems incredible that no-one understood that if two people walk in together only one will swipe.

Surely everyone involved in the case had visited hospitals and knew they have a big green button to get out? It is that different in neonatal units (or at Chester). Baffled tbh.

I totally agree. But to what extent it was used at trial, and was later found to be upside down and back to front, that was Cheshire Police’s blunder.

Why it seemingly went unchallenged by the defence, or even got as far as trial without these elementary issues being noticed by CP, is another question entirely.

Insanityisnotastrategy · 05/09/2025 12:03

Just catching up on the thread and wanted to clarify. Am I right in understanding that:

  • Another baby (subsequently diagnosed with hyperinsulinism) had the high insulin to low c-peptide reading, and that Letby wasn't on shift in the relevant period?
  • The prosecution was aware of this and did not disclose it?
  • The same lab reported wonky results in a quality check around this time (separate to the indictment babies and the baby with hyperinsulinism)? Was this the same type of test?

There's so much detail I just want to make sure I'm not misunderstanding anything!

Kittybythelighthouse · 05/09/2025 12:16

Insanityisnotastrategy · 05/09/2025 12:03

Just catching up on the thread and wanted to clarify. Am I right in understanding that:

  • Another baby (subsequently diagnosed with hyperinsulinism) had the high insulin to low c-peptide reading, and that Letby wasn't on shift in the relevant period?
  • The prosecution was aware of this and did not disclose it?
  • The same lab reported wonky results in a quality check around this time (separate to the indictment babies and the baby with hyperinsulinism)? Was this the same type of test?

There's so much detail I just want to make sure I'm not misunderstanding anything!

Yes. That is correct. There are other issues too. Here is a link to the new defence joint expert witness insulin report:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1SQ8sgUwerw8n5H_u-pRcHqJaxgqeef4K/view

To summarise:

We have concluded that the Jury were misled in important areas as follows:

a) Medical facts: the evidence for sepsis, leakage of the central line into surrounding tissues, and consideration of alternative causes for the hypoglycaemia.

b) Evidential facts: errors in the glucose results presented, changes in the glucose levels in response to TPN infusion connection/disconnection, ward-based blood glucose tests presented as if they were laboratory results.

c) Testing: that the results of the immunoassay tests can be relied upon, and that the Roche immunoassay method used at the Royal Liverpool University Hospital (RLUH) was specific for identification of insulin alone (endogenous or exogenous)- neither of which are correct.

d) Background error rate: this is at least 0.5-2% despite excellent quality control for the type of insulin immunoassay test used, which the jury were not made aware of.

e) Quality Control testing information was not revealed to the Court in expert witness evidence. The results showed a quality control test with high insulin and a low C-peptide.

f) Abnormal results: it is essential requirement according to published standards to undertake confirmatory testing of the immunoassay result using a different, more specific methodology, such as liquid chromatography mass spectrometry (LC-MS).

g) Reference ranges not applicable in small preterm infants for C-peptide results and insulin/C-peptide ratios. Studies in adults and older children were quoted which are not relevant, and the limited appropriate information was not referred to.

h) The testing did not meet acceptable forensic standards at the Liverpool laboratory in terms of analytical specificity, chain of custody, control testing for interfering substances, and obtaining confirmatory result using alternative available methods or another laboratory.

The new evidence undermines the validity of the results of the insulin and C-peptide testing presented in Court and shows that these immunoassay results cannot be safely relied upon (without undertaking further confirmatory testing).

There is now evidence that:

Shows that the presence of antibodies (IAA insulin autoantibodies and other antibodies such as HAMA) can interfere with the immunoassay result and cause falsely high insulin results.

Demonstrates that insulin autoantibodies can be transferred from mother to baby during pregnancy causing hypoglycaemia in the baby and falsely high insulin levels.

That IAA (insulin autoantibodies) can be found in pregnancy and in the umbilical cord blood of infants, that this is not rare, and that the prevalence can vary over time.

In the context of a falsely high insulin result the insulin/C-peptide ratio is meaningless.

Demonstrates there are alternative medical explanations which explain the hypoglycaemia in both babies, such as line failure, sepsis and perinatal stress-induced hyper-Insulinism (PSIHI). These alternative possibilities were not considered.

Indicates that the testing undertaken did not meet acceptable standards of clinical, laboratory or forensic practice, and therefore cannot safely be relied upon.

Our inescapable conclusion is that this evidence significantly undermines the validity of the assertions made about the insulin and C-peptide testing presented in Court.

Expert Biographies:

Dr Neil Aiton

  • Consultant Neonatologist at Royal Sussex County Hospital since 1998. Over 25 years of neonatal care experience, extensive experience as an expert witness, especially in Family Court. Expertise in neonatal hypoglycaemia and hyperinsulinism.

Professor Alan Wayne Jones

  • Retired Professor of Forensic Toxicology, senior scientist at Swedish National Laboratory of Forensic Medicine. Specialises in forensic toxicology, alcohol/drug pharmacology, and insulin as a toxic agent.

Dr Richard Taylor

  • Consultant Neonatologist with 30 years of neonatal intensive care experience in Canada. Assistant Professor at the University of British Columbia.

Dr Adel Ismail

  • Retired Consultant in Clinical Biochemistry and Chemical Endocrinology. Expert in endocrinology, chromatography, immunoassay errors, and clinical diagnostic accuracy. Extensive research, especially in immunoassay error detection and analysis.

Professor Matthew Johll

  • Professor of Chemistry and Forensic Science, consultant for insulin-related forensic cases.

Dr Hilde Wilkinson-Herbots

  • Associate Professor at University College London, expertise in probability theory, statistics, genetics, and epidemic modelling. Experienced in statistical consultancy for forensic sciences.

Professor Charles Stanley

  • Paediatric Endocrinologist, Emeritus Professor of Pediatrics, internationally recognised expert in paediatric endocrinology, particularly hyperinsulinism and hypoglycaemia disorders.

Summary of Joint Expert Witness Insulin Report on Babies F and L - EMBARGOED UNTIL NOON GMT on Thursday 3rd April.pdf

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1SQ8sgUwerw8n5H_u-pRcHqJaxgqeef4K/view

Oftenaddled · 05/09/2025 12:20

rubbishatballet · 05/09/2025 11:29

What were the documents uploaded by Thirlwall? The timings given in this article fit with LL being on shift (although I don’t know what evidence Panorama had seen that they were taken from).

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cevywl7jmm3o.amp

The BBC statement came out before Thirlwall uploaded the documents.

Here's an account from Unherd, based on the new documents.

unherd.com/2025/03/how-safe-is-the-letby-verdict/

In terms of Lucy Letby's potential involvement, Judith Moritz and Jonathan Coffey made a big deal of her being on the day shift while the baby suffered hypoglycemia (literally airbrushing out the evidence that this returned during the night shift). But they were presumably not aware at this point that the doctor who sent the sample for testing was working night shifts, and did so within hours of the baby's birth, before Lucy Letby came on duty.

Typicalwave · 05/09/2025 12:52

Oftenaddled · 05/09/2025 12:20

The BBC statement came out before Thirlwall uploaded the documents.

Here's an account from Unherd, based on the new documents.

unherd.com/2025/03/how-safe-is-the-letby-verdict/

In terms of Lucy Letby's potential involvement, Judith Moritz and Jonathan Coffey made a big deal of her being on the day shift while the baby suffered hypoglycemia (literally airbrushing out the evidence that this returned during the night shift). But they were presumably not aware at this point that the doctor who sent the sample for testing was working night shifts, and did so within hours of the baby's birth, before Lucy Letby came on duty.

Oh dear - do we have another incident of the COS failing to disclose evidence to the prosecution.

rubbishatballet · 05/09/2025 13:11

Oftenaddled · 05/09/2025 12:20

The BBC statement came out before Thirlwall uploaded the documents.

Here's an account from Unherd, based on the new documents.

unherd.com/2025/03/how-safe-is-the-letby-verdict/

In terms of Lucy Letby's potential involvement, Judith Moritz and Jonathan Coffey made a big deal of her being on the day shift while the baby suffered hypoglycemia (literally airbrushing out the evidence that this returned during the night shift). But they were presumably not aware at this point that the doctor who sent the sample for testing was working night shifts, and did so within hours of the baby's birth, before Lucy Letby came on duty.

Okay, so clearly I am not a neonatologist, but there are no specifics regarding the timeline in that article and I have no idea (and the article doesn’t make it clear) whether the fact that baby Y had three seizures before Letby came on shift excludes the possibility that he had been given exogenous insulin at some point after this. We are often reminded of on these threads that these were sick babies, and it sounds like he may have had a traumatic birth also.

In relation to the paragraph in that article about the expert panel’s report and insulin/c peptide ratios in babies F, L and Y being “not uncommon”, Prof Geoff Chase very clearly rowed back from this in the most recent Panorama - here’s an extract from the transcript of that programme.

Lucy Letby - have you changed your mind thread 4
Typicalwave · 05/09/2025 14:01

Really interesting piece on the funding difficulties within the criminal justice system and how it creates an almist two tier system (the same can be said be said for the family court system too - Legal said us no longer fit for purpose) https://www.criminalbar.com/resources/news/monday-message-23-06-25/

Monday Message 23.06.25 - Criminal Bar Association

The crisis within the criminal justice system extends far beyond the backlogs in the Crown Courts and the lack of […]

https://www.criminalbar.com/resources/news/monday-message-23-06-25/

OP posts:
Swipe left for the next trending thread