New Lucy Letby details

[Mrsdoyler]

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

Reason: Lack of empathy

I agree and I am honestly scared that a large number of people think it does.

I think this may be the same poster who earlier in the thread listed LL having an affair with a married man as evidence she committed the murders (sorry if I’m wrong).

God help us all if we are ever wrongly accused of something and face a jury of our peers.

In the interests of a balanced discussion, sharing this new article: BBC

The new evidence seen by Panorama shows a blood test from a third baby being cared for by Letby in November 2015 also recorded very high levels of insulin and low levels of C-peptide.

[…]

Medical records seen by Panorama show how quickly the boy became poorly after Letby came on duty. A blood test taken at 06:56 showed the infant had a normal blood sugar level of three millimoles per litre (mmol/L).

Letby started her shift at 08:00, and by 13:54 his blood sugar level had plummeted to one mmol/L – a dangerously low level, and a strong indication the baby had too much insulin.

The boy’s blood sugar level remained low throughout the nurse’s shift and he only recovered after she went off duty at 20:00.

My immediate thoughts about the above article are that, as in some of the other cases, there doesn’t seem to be much to suggest LL did this, other than that she was there. How many other staff were there?

But separately from the question of LL’s guilt, I am wondering does this back up the fact that someone was deliberately harming babies? If it’s unlikely two synthetic insulin tests could give a false positive, it’s vastly more unlikely that three would.

The main source of reasonable doubt to me (in general, not in the case of baby c who I believe died naturally) is the lack of solid evidence of intentional harm. Does this new insulin evidence change that?

Realise the article doesn’t give enough detail to know for sure, but interested in what others think.

I agree.

If you know medics, you'll be aware they often do say what most of us would consider to be insensitive/inappropriate things on a regular basis, some more than others, and frequently have an off hand/casual manner. If their colleagues made a note of every instance and utterance over the years it would make horrendous reading but most of the time they are fine and do their best for patients. I know this having worked in hospitals for a great many years until I retired.

Lucy Letby's detractors remember such things and ignore the positive, some because they enjoy seeing the worst in people and others to divert attention from elsewhere. The intense media attention has not helped, public opinion is so easily swayed and we've seen that many times with different people and diverse issues. So far in this country we have not had televised trials, I sincerely hope we never do but I fear that will happen. I can imagine entire families grouped around the television with morbid interest, speculating and pontificating; it's unhealthy.

The business about her failing final exams and the comment made is atrocious; there was nothing unusual about it, it happens to a lot of people and details should remain confidential. She went on to pass when she re-took the exams so what's the big deal? Some folk need more than two goes and also need time to mature. Exams can be nerve-wracking for some, others sail through but a year or so down the line they can be equal.

Lucy Letby may or may not be guilty but the whole prosecution case stinks and she is perfectly entitled to have it all reviewed.

If she is released she will have to have a change of name and identity, will never again be able to work as a nurse and be forever looking over her shoulder in case the media are sniffing around. Also what man would want to marry and have children with her? Not much of a future if she is innocent, however it must be better than being in gaol.

It's enough to put anyone off going into the medical field.

I was a nurse. 6 nurses all gave the wrong dose of a drug to a baby because they calculated wrong. It didn’t make them a serial killer. Also many students fail modules through their training and resit. Regardless of that. She’s a serial killer.

The bag that had to be randomly chosen from the cupboard presents a reasonable doubt.

My previous post, currently two above, was addressed to Dramatic and something-Greens.

I wanted to add a postscript but had run out of time for editing. I found this online from a site called "TheyWorkForYou" and think it is relevant:

"There isn't much information about the current mortality rate at the Countess of Chester Hospital's neonatal unit, but here's some information about the hospital's neonatal unit history:

2014: The hospital had four neonatal deaths

2015: The hospital had nine neonatal deaths, the highest rate in the UK for similar sized units

2016: Between June and July, at least 13 babies died in the neonatal unit

2017: The hospital stopped providing care for babies born before 32 weeks

2022: The hospital reported a stillbirth rate of 0 and a neonatal mortality rate of 0 for the first quarter of the year

In 2021, the overall neonatal mortality rate in England and Wales was 2.7 deaths per 1,000 live births. Babies born at shorter gestational ages have higher neonatal mortality rates than those born at longer gestational ages."

One of the questions that I haven't seen answered about the whole insulin thing is how easy it would be to obtain and use insulin nefarious on a typically busy ward.

While it's not, as I understand it, a controlled drug as such, it is well known that wrongly administered it is a life threatening substance.

So my questions would be why nobody noticed that insulin had been taken from wherever it was kept if it wasn't being used in treatment at the time.

Can nurses - or doctors - simply go to the fridge it's stored in and help themselves without any monitoring of quantities?

A blood sugar of 3 at 7am is low, what action was taken during the day to get it up, was the baby being fed and had regular bm testing, were the doctors aware it was low from the start. Was it bm testing or blood tests. There's also a question about there being water in a breathing tube in that article, which part of the breathing tube, would it gave been humidifed oxygen water. I just don't know what to think anymore.

The prosecution argued that it would only require undetectably small amounts. This has since been disputed. It was on the File on Four programme.

Insulin is kept in a locked fridge. The amounts used are not monitored. All doctors and registered nurses have access to the drug room keys and entry to the medicines room.

there are a plethora of drugs that could be used.. Adrenalin, atropine, benzodiazepines. All could result in fatal overdose. There is no system to track every drug because it would be infeasible.

If the ward or unit has a stock supply of insulin or a patient who needs insulin then yes anyone with the fridge key can access it, it's not just used for diabetes and pharmacy or nurses may not notice usage.

Sadly it'll always be the case - where evidence is 'only' circumstantial (even when it's overwhelming!) - that some will insist innocence. People who'll (in their obsessed/warped thinking) equate lack of direct evidence to innocence.
The armchair detective aspect of this case reminds me of the rabid reaction to the Nicola Bulley case. It's vile.
It must be awful for the parents of Letby's little victims, I feel heart sorry for them.

Could any of those factors lead to the c-peptide levels indicating synthetic insulin?

I’m not a medical professional so I’m not sure what the things you’ve mentioned might signify!

Oh yes, certainly reasonable doubt about who administered it. But is there reasonable doubt that it was done intentionally, whoever might have done it? That what I’m not sure about.

Believe me, having managed nursing, there would have been an independent investigation undertaken including analysis of blood results etc that the public will be unaware about. The fact is. Babies c peptides were low. Insulin was high. Someone poisoned them.

Thanks. If it’s really indisputable there was deliberate harm in these three cases, that shines a very different light on things for me. These for me are the only cases where the natural causes explanation doesn’t seem a lot more likely than deliberate harm.

I would still think we need a lot more context than was given in the trial to remove reasonable doubt about exactly who is responsible.

I know, of course, that the insulin tests used are said to be unreliable. But to give a false positive three times?

It's only in the last few years our fridges have been locked - there was another incident involving insulin and nurses with murderous intent

The "armchair detectives" are the ones saying she didn't say hello to the midwife when they were being shown the NICU, so she definitely did it (as claimed on a previous LL thread) or when being told that the scan of baby C showing the apparent cause of death was taken before she had actually met the baby, just declared "well, she was there when they died, so she did it."

The ones discussing what highly qualified individuals are saying about the issues around the conviction are not the armchair detectives.

Even if the fridge is locked any nurse with the keys can access it at any time day or night, it's not foolproof. Staff are too short-staffed and busy to keep checking whose got the keys,or what's going on with each patient.m

The defence conceded it couldn’t have been accidental because no patients were being treated with insulin so would there have been any in the fridge?

Blimey I thought it was a requirement of nhs staff to have a lack of empathy.
Or have I just been unlucky in the ones I have met?

I'd agree with you that the reporting restrictions probably, at the time, allowed only scant snippets.

Regarding your referenced highly qualified individuals. It would be correct to say that every one of those people freely admit they have no knowledge of exactly what was rejected by the courts. None of them were present for the entirety of the trial. Full court transcripts are not publicly available.

Of what IS available now via the press and selected transcript, the evidence of foul play is absolutely compelling. To dismiss those who accept the verdicts as mere 'armchair detectives' is ridiculous. Snippets are no longer required. Those who accept the verdicts are doing so on the basis of everything said by countless medics who worked at the hospital at the time, the opinions of pathologists, neonatologists, radiologists and haematologists, in addition to the views of TWO juries and three appeal court judges. Not to mention that the level of conspiracy that would've been required (amongst the aforementioned professionals; even her own defence would've needed to be in on it!) to demonstrate compelling foul play, to convict an innocent women, is simply too ridiculous for any reasonable person to consider.

It's worth noting too that this idea of her lawyer being inept is twaddle (she's only changed her legal team since the notion of her being innocent gained traction. She was happy enough with him at appeal!); in reality he's highly esteemed. The reason her defence appeared weak is because she didn't have a leg to stand on!

Do you really have no doubts about any of the cases?