New Lucy Letby details

[Mrsdoyler]

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

Reason: Lack of empathy

A criminal trial should not be on the balance of probabilities. It’s about the presence or absence of reasonable doubt.
Five experts of the same opinion offer reasonable doubt.

Can someone explain why baby C was included in the table of shifts that LL was present for if she wasn't actually there at the time of death? By that logic the table should be expanded to include all staff present before other deaths too surely?

I was also wondering whether it is usual for so many witnesses to be given anonymity? I understand the babies and their families being anon. But the rest doesn't make sense to me. It's not like drug gang crimes where there is very likely to be retaliation for giving evidence. Hiding who the consultant was seems unfair as regardless of the outcome of the trials the ward was clearly unsafe and I certainly wouldn't want any of the consultants involved in the care of my kids.

@Quitelikeit

for those few coming out saying the insulin evidence was unreliable many other medical professionals disagree Im sure Prof Hind was reliable

There are far more “experts” now - disagreeing with the prosecution case than supported it at the trial.

I’m sure Prof Hindmarsh is generally reliable but the evidence he gave to the trial was not accurate. He claimed that exogenous insulin was the only explanation for the insulin results and that is not true. He may come to regret his testimony.

@sunshine244 she was there was baby C died

she shouldn’t have been - she had been placed in nursery 3 as Child A and B had come to harm in nursery 1 under her care

Child Cs nurse made a complaint about Letby persisting in hanging around nursery 1 when she should have been focusing on her own babies

What evidence do you had that LL harmed Baby C?

@Mirabai The insulin cases stand because LETBY herself admitted on the stand that they had been poisoned

They were majority verdicts which means at least one member of the jury wasn’t convinced.
the judge doesn’t decide the verdict. They just accept the jury verdict. They didn’t give an opinion.

Who decided on leave to appeal?

Sorry I meant child F I think. She wasn't there when the baby died and was blamed for putting insulin in a bag previously. If someone could have done this then surely it opens up the timeline of harm for other cases too?

You didn’t answer the question. If you are really under the impression that the insulin cases are secure on the basis of what LL said at trial, I’m not interested in continuing this discussion.

well that’s what the expert said, it seems that her and her legal team made a mistake not challenging that. She is a nurse. Not an expert in insulin tests. She wouldn’t know the wrong test was used. I presume if an expert said that this was the only conclusion she would have agreed. During the trial the insulin evidence is what convinced me she was guilty, because it seemed like conclusive proof that someone was attempting to harm babies. But then finding out after that it’s not as black and white as they presented in court, the whole case falls apart. I didn’t think any of the other evidence was particularly compelling.

@Neodymium the defence did hire a number of experts they just didn’t call them to give testimony at the trial

Even Myers did not dispute the insulin poisoning- highly likely because his own expert advised him the tests were indicative of synthetic insulin

@Mirabai

what is your issue with the insulin?

you understand that the child kept crashing and was being given glucose to no effect?

you understand once the bag was removed and replaced with another there was a remarkable recovery?

even if the other test was done you would still come on here and say it could have been a different nurse

you just don’t want to believe that justice can be served unless there’s cctv or a eye witness!

@Quitelikeit the problem with the insulin is that the information regarding the test from the people who conducted the test clearly said that the test is not suitable for forensic purposes.

that means that to some extent the test is unreliable. If it was as black and white as you say, then it could be used for forensic purposes.

there could be other reasons why it took while for the babies blood glucose to stabilise. one of the bags was replaced when she wasn’t even on shift.

Letby was on shift when Baby C died. The charge was brought on the evidence of an x-ray from the day before she was on shift. The judge neither ordered an acquittal nor even made the situation clear in his summing up.
It seems that since 2008 and enshrined in The Coroners and Justice Act 2009, the courts* *have quite broad powers to grant anonymity. Assuming that means the judge in charge of the case, why he used this power so extensively I don’t understand either.

Yes and under the circumstances you would not expect a forensic test to be carried out as there was no suspicious circumstances at the time

So all things considered the blood test used at the time is considered to be reliable enough under the circumstances

The bags that were used had an opening where you could add to them

For some reason I can't do a link, but there is a very interesting article in the Telegraph covering the insulin issues this evening.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/10/18/insulin-tests-convict-letby-cannot-be-relied-upon/

Fixed it ....

This article is behind a paywall unfortunately

Ah sorry - I believe it can be accessed by some "archive" thing in that case but I'm never sure how it works - I'm a bit of an idiot in that regard. Perhaps someone more savvy can find it.

Open it and immediately turn aeroplane mode on / internet off.

Copy the link from the article and go onto a website called archive.ph and paste it in and it will come up.
Can take a couple of minutes if no one has copied that link into it before.

It should be there, I read it that way earlier.

https://archive.ph/pksJK

Hope this works - thank you for the help - behold an old dog learning a new trick lol 😆

scientific testing doesn’t work like that. If something isn’t suitable for forensics then it’s not suitable for forensics. It’s not suddenly good enough for forensics because the correct test can’t be done. It’s one of those things, if you contaminate the DNA in a case or mess up the chain of custody then it’s inadmissible. You can’t just decide that it’s ok to use. This seems to be a major oversight by the judge for allowing the evidence.

if it was ‘good enough’ and there was no doubt of the results then it would be fine to use for forensics. They wouldn’t say it’s not suitable unless there is major chance of the test being wrong.