New Lucy Letby details

[Mrsdoyler]

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

Reason: Lack of empathy

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/oct/21/nursing-boss-tells-letby-inquiry-she-pleaded-with-hospital-to-contact-police?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

So allegedly Letby poisoned with insulin a child who produces too much insulin. Statistician required.

“Tests later revealed the baby had congenital hyperinsulinism – a condition where the body produces too much insulin.”

I didn't search out your other threads. You're unpleasant on every thread. If you can throw insults at me then I can do the same right back at you. Tit for tat, toots.

@GossIsAGit

She was not charged with the third baby and the insulin in that case even though they have said the insulin was too high for a baby who had that particular condition anyway

There is a constant theme of posters on here posting misinformation because they simply haven’t read the full facts of the case

It’s like whackamole on this thread!

@HazelPlayer
I don't think you're one to talk about debating skills 😂
Are you even able to type a post without calling other people insane, nutters, thick etc?

@HollyKnight

I have found Hazels post to be quite reliable and informative on this subject which is more than can said for those who are coming on posting misinformation

Debate is good but bringing ‘toots’ in and other threads really is poor taste

I didn’t say she had been charged with it. I’ve read the allegation and it sounds unlikely.

The CoA judgment literally tells you this. The defence claimed they didn't realize the significance of the skin discoloration evidence until the trial was advanced and it was too late to call Dr Lee as a witness. The CoA say well that's not true as the relevant witnesses had all been called early in the trial so there was plenty of time to adduce relevant evidence to rebut the evidence of air embolism IF they had any. But Dr Lee's testimony didn't help much as whilst he claimed only a very specific pattern of red rash against cyanosed skin was diagnostic of air embolism and it has only been observed in around 10% of the cases he had reported nowhere did the prosecution claim the rashes various witnesses recalled seeing on the babies bodies were diagnostic of air embolism. The case for air embolism in each case included additional evidence of unexplained collapse, unusual response to resuscitation and air in the great vessels observed on scans and in some cases tissues as well as eye witness reports of unusual rashes. The new evidence would not justify a retrial both because if it were evidence at all it should have been adduced at the original trial and because it wasn't really new evidence at all.

@HollyKnight reported

There is no need for your tone

Lol my tone.

@Grahamhousehushand if only more people would read that judgement then they’d understand a few things much better!

Both of you have spent this whole thread calling other people names. Failing to debate without insulting other people. There is no need for it.

What? No it doesn't tell me that.

It tells me why they didn't allow an appeal. It doesn't tell me why the defence didn't try to use Shoo Lee for the original trial, which is what I said I find puzzling.

Someone who is entirely entitled to post her views on this thread?

@kkloo read the judgment again the defence explain their actions at para 176. It's just meretricious nonsense as they know it's a dodgy argument and the judges won't buy it.

It's really simple. IF the defence had thought aducing Dr Lee's evidence would help them at trial that was their chance to do it. It isn't new evidence. He didn't review the notes and say these babies didn't die of air embolism. All he said is the rash my paper is about is only specific for diagnosis if it has these characteristics - the mechanism is explained in the paper and it is clear why you would only see skin discoloration like that in air embolism and no other situation hence it is specific but not especially sensitive since it has only been observed in 10% of air embolism cases. That's it.

As such it isn't new evidence at all as none of the prosecution expert witnesses claimed the babies having a rash was the specific evidence that diagnosed air embolism.

So the CA said no dice. If this was relevant to your case the time to bring it was during the trial.

It would be different if Dr Lee had looked at the cases here and said I have found new evidence in their histories inconsistent with air embolism. That might be new evidence justifying a retrial. But he didn't say that.

There's a lot of dust being kicked up around Letby but it's worth remembering dealing with expert evidence and admissibility is what the counsel and judges in these cases do every single day. Just because this case was high profile does not mean it was an especially difficult or unusual case for any of them and the defence were only doing their job in attempting to secure any new evidence as a ground for appeal since the theories of scapegoating and death by infection had gone nowhere at trial. But the CA were only doing theirs when they said 'Nice try'.

Nowhere on this thread have I called people names

Do you think Ben z Myers is so stupid that he would turn down expert testimony that could clear his client?!
He really is not stupid, dumb or foolish - that would be those of you here who are doubting him! And defending Letby

and then you're reporting someone else for their 'tone'?

Yes so that's why I'm saying I'm puzzled by the defences approach.

The judge didn't buy their argument. I also don't buy their argument that they only realised the significance later on.

So therefore I still remain puzzled as to why they didn't call him for the original trial. Myers did try to submit a motion to say there was no case to answer on the air embolism charges and detailed reasons for that. Had he not even thought to speak to Shoo Lee at that point? One of the reasons he gave with the submission was that the cited research was so poor and inconsistent that it failed to meet the scientific evidence capable of supporting the allegations. I would be very curious to know if he just decided on the 'no case to answer' approach straight away or did he even try to speak to experts to see if he could put a case together?

I also am puzzled about why for the retrial Dr Shoo Lee hadn't reviewed all the notes, I believe he made two reports. Was he just not asked to? Or did Dr Lee only agree to be involved insofar as he was involved?

@kkloo

The answers you are looking for are in the appeal document

And yes I admit I said that out of frustration but I did not aim it at anyone

Judge said that Lee does not have the over-riding say on what constitutes an embolism

The answers I'm looking for are not in the appeal document.
You just are misunderstanding my question and trying to make out that it's my mistake.

You might not have aimed it at one person in particular, but instead aimed it at a whole group just because they have a different opinion to you.

So what if you're frustrated? Do you not think that maybe the poster you reported might be a little frustrated too because of all the insults thrown into all the posts? And yet you went and reported her even though you've said worse yourself!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-64732275.amp

Revisiting the original hypothesis of air embolism. This is what was reported during the trial.