New Lucy Letby details

[Mrsdoyler]

Did you see today in the news that LucyLetby originally failed her nursing training.

Reason: Lack of empathy

I haven’t seen anything that stated she wasn’t there - however she did set things in motion with other babies before she left her shift

Also she would pop into the ward on her days off and forget her badge so someone would just open the door for her

Well an expert has said that c peptide evidence is flawed
”Another crucial part of the prosecution's case were blood samples from babies who had collapsed with low blood sugar.
They showed exceptionally high levels of insulin and low levels of a substance called C-peptide.
That combination is only generally seen when the body takes in synthetic insulin, leading to the charge that Letby had deliberately poisoned the babies by adding it to their nursery feed bags.
An expert in paediatric diabetes told the nurse's trial fluctuations in the readings were unusual.
Prof Alan Wayne Jones, an expert in forensic toxicology, is one of those who has challenged the results.
He pointed out that the test used measures the body’s reaction to insulin rather than the substance itself.
"The problem is that the method of analysis used [in these two cases] was probably perfectly good from a clinical point of view, but not a forensic toxicology point of view," he said.
"That test cannot differentiate between synthetic insulin and insulin produced by the pancreas."

Lucy didn’t admit to administering insulin on the stand. She just did not contest the prosecution stating this flawed evidence, after all she would not know it was flawed.

Poor legal representation is grounds for appeal.

The parents have described claims she’s innocent as “like a knife” and people who want her freed as “sick”, so they seem 100% certain.

And yet, not one she’s gone with 🤷🏼‍♀️

Ofc, but I don’t want her freed, I want her conviction to be safe.

Not yet.

As I understand it the papers author has stated that his work is not relevant to this case, so as the only paper ever written on the subject, that should be evidence in the trash.

Well that is something we agree on! 😊

It's really hard to know if she did it as there is not concrete evidence.

Part of me thinks that she was just very incompetent and not up to the task of looking after seriously ill babies which is a very hard task.

This also shows that the ward was incompetent if they didn't have enough staff and If she wasn't well trained enough.

The other part of me thinks that she could have killed them on purpose.

there is evidence that these babies had been injected with air! It is on the scans and the gas readings

in medical opinion they said it was air embolism- they are much more qualified to state that than you are

for ethical reasons no solid research can be done!

if you read the transcripts of the medical data for the babies you will see that these readings and scans were abnormal and not caused by premature birth

Good to know that by the way this trial was run so many people would happily accept that they were guilty of a crime they hadn't committed because the prosecution could convince a jury by dint of circumstantial evidence.

If you find yourself in the vicinity of an unexplained death and experts are convinced you did it, you can't prove you didn't and suddenly people are "remembering" lots of inconsequential issues that in retrospect might imply you were a closet psychopath, you'd all be fine with that would you?

Because that is where this case could lead.

The forensic evidence is flawed and as in the Roy Meadows situation, largely based on one expert witness who inserted himself into the case and sought back up for his theories from other experts.

That expert has, since the trial, changed his mind on at least one proposed mechanism of death. Another expert in the trial couldn't propose a coherent explanation for the "force of a car crash liver injury" beyond things falling out of the sky in the desert.

Part of the "expert testimony", when being probed by the defence to elaborate on one case was simply to repeat several times "the baby collapsed and died".

This is not guilt beyond reasonable doubt, this is "the balance of probabilities" and that is not the standard required in criminal justice cases.

The thought that some people don't believe solid forensic evidence in a case of this nature should be the strongest foundation is utterly chilling. It honestly smacks of people wanting to see defendants accused and jailed because they don't like the look of them. Or to prove a point such as "nice middle class white women kill babies too".

If you're all happy with this standard of justice then God help us all.

such a cheap shot, tut tut

Problem is when you try to resuscitate a baby you drive air in the same way, then at autopsy you can't tell what caused it.

As I understand it resuscitation was attempted on these babies.

There really wasn’t
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/uk-news/lucy-letby-court-air-injection-27211112

and
”There was also a new witness - neonatologist Shoo Lee, from Toronto, the co-author of a 1989 medical research paper about air embolism in neonatal babies. An air embolism occurs when one or more air bubbles enter a vein or artery, causing a block in circulation. The consequences can be fatal.
Letby was found guilty of injecting air into the bloodstreams of some of the infants, causing air embolism. Prosecution experts had based some of their evidence on Dr Lee’s paper, although he hadn’t been called to give evidence.
Now he was appearing on behalf of the defence.
During the trial, much was made of changes in skin colour observed on some of the babies, which it was suggested were symptomatic of air embolism. The prosecution cited Dr Lee’s paper in support of this, and paediatric consultant Dr Ravi Jayaram told the court a “chill went down (his) spine” in June 2016 when he read the research and believed it fitted with what he’d seen on babies in Chester.
But nobody had checked with Dr Lee. The point he now made, via webcam from 3,500 miles away, was that only one, very specific skin discolouration was diagnostic of air embolism, and none of the babies in the case had displayed this exactly.
For Letby’s defence, it was a basis for appeal. The prosecution disagreed. They argued that all of the instances of skin discoloration in the Letby case were consistent with air embolism, and some of these could be proven using Dr Lee’s own diagnostic method.
They said Dr Lee hadn’t been shown any of the eyewitness testimony from the trial, or any of the babies’ records – and so was not qualified to weigh in now.
Sitting on the uncomfortable wooden benches of court 4, one couldn’t help but wonder why this development hadn’t been aired at the trial. Letby’s lawyers were arguing the science was too weak to support as many as nine of her 14 convictions.
But on 24 May, Court of Appeal judges again rejected Letby’s request for permission to appeal against her convictions.”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c727jgdm7r4o

There was a shit ton of circumstantial evidence, not just that she was stood there at the wrong time. I wanted to see her jailed because from the evidence I’d seen following the trial, she was guilty. Couldn’t care less how she looked or proving some weird societal point.

Yet she used the same defence team for her next trial. Guess she could see they did the best they could in the face of her blatant guilt.

It’s entirely true. They could’ve accessed any expert and yet none of them would either accept instructions or they wouldn’t put them on the stand. Any of these points could’ve been contested at trial, the fact they weren’t suggests those more in the know felt it was unhelpful or unreliable or they wouldn’t fare well under cross examination.

Ah, the mask slips. You’re not interested in proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt as required by our justice system. You’re back in the “it’s a witch, burn her” rough justice mentality.

Not really, they had a limited budget. So it wasn’t unlimited resources.

So you'd be happy being convicted purely on circumstantial evidence if you were in the vicinity of an unexplained death?

And before you go "but but but all those babies...." it was an environment full of premature high risk infants with so many issues caring for them that it was downgraded to take less high risk infants. There were huge issues on that unit regardless of Lucy Letby.

I think the most frightening part of threads like this is that those of us with a questioning eye, concerned that in a fair system guilt should be properly proven can construct reasoned arguments at least worthy of discussion - yet the prosecutions allies main argument is she's a psycho baby killing bitch, the baying mob who used to hang around the gallows on hanging day.

Except there was far more to it than just being in the vicinity and it’s disingenuous to suggest otherwise.

😂😂 I’m tapping out on that ridiculous note.

Babies are part of the problem, we are pre conditioned to nurture and not hurt them, therefore the thought of a human killing babies is hugely emotive and repulsive.

If it was fat blokes in their 40's being bumped off the emotional thought process would be different.