Lucy Letby. Why do some people only read headlines?

[skyfirechesnut]

I was at work today and someone says so Lucy letby is innocent now. They have just gone with the media headlines. Instead of researching.

Sorry for the fail link but this is quite a good article below on the current state of things. The author has attended all trials and listened to appeals and conferences.

I also don't understand people who say she was scapegoated. If people follow the Thirwall enquiry this is far from the case. She was totally protected, her parents calling up, being in meetings, dictating apologies. It beggars belief.

I can somewhat understand people saying she is innocent based on medical evidence after the press conference but even that is nothing new.

You can't say my expert is better than yours.

Also people seem to think it was all Dewi Evans for the prosecution it wasn't. There was Dr Bohin, Prof Arthurs , Prof Hindnarsh and Dr Mar etc.

That is without the Doctor colleagues if you want to dispute them.

Then they new defence have changed ideas from the conference they had in December.

They are also not totally impartial.
It isn't as simple as the headlines.

Here is the article.

archive.ph/NYg7U

I'd say the case is more a problem for the Home Secretary/ Ministry for Justice at this point. Not really for Wes Streeting, and he could rightly be criticised for raising concerns about care at Chester openly at this point.

If it's all an NHS maternity and neonatal care scandal in the end, it's actually a relatively small one in numbers, where the hospital took action and stemmed the tide. Much worse in the press from elsewhere right now, unfortunately.

It's the justice and prosecution systems that are really looking at major embarrassment in the shorter term.

Agree - it wasn't what he was there to talk about - so gave a bit of a bland non-answer to try to avoid controversy

It is crazy in a way. All this money, time and effort wasted prosecuting imaginary cirmes and there are most likely babies and children dying every single day due to failings in NHS care.

Insulin

The test used to determine whether the high levels of insulin in the babies’ bodies was exogenous are not capable of determining the levels. This is a fact.

Can you link to where this is a fact please?

No, we most certainly do not. There are lots of things that are uncertain at the moment, but the claim that we should trust a system that left Andrew Malkinson rotting for years after problems became apparent is just plain wrong.

Even if LL is guilty of all she's been convicted of and more, our justice system has a significant problem with identifying and promptly rectifying mistakes. It only seems 'pretty good' in this respect if you aren't paying attention.

Where does he say he agrees with the prosecution theories/murder methods? He doesn’t.

What he actually says is that in his experience babies rarely die unexpectedly. What he’s missing is that these babies deaths were only “unexpected” in that the consultants were barely present on the ward and missed vital signs of deterioration that were evident in each case. He appear to have been unaware that all of the post mortems returned natural causes. He does correctly note the strange fact that the coroner was not informed of the majority of the deaths despite consultant claims that the deaths were “unexplained and unexpected”. The coroner was clear at Thirlwall that this was extremely baffling if they actually felt that the deaths were “unexplained and unexpected” and actually very much against GMC regulations. He doesn’t express any support for the prosecution’s actual theories whatsoever, probably because they are totally fantastical theories that no neonatologist is going to stand up for.

“There’s no need for them to defend anything” I guarantee you they aren’t as naive about this as you seem to be. Their professional reputations have been savaged by all this. Totally dragged through the mud. They would have much to gain by defending their position if they could do so with integrity. They have everything to lose by not doing so, unless of course they are well aware that the prosecution’s theories are indefensible and the best damage control right now is to go to ground.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/feb/07/strong-reasonable-doubt-over-lucy-letby-insulin-convictions-experts-say?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

The lab reports from Liverpool specifically say that the c-peptide result can’t be relied upon in the case of suspected criminal/deliberate insulin overdose.

I know that in the press conference they said the test showee C Peptide was within a normal range for a neonate (as opposed to an older child or adult), but not sure if you consider that a fact or not.

Completely agree. I find it chilling that people are so bloodthirsty and quick to dehumanise here. It illustrates how little our society has actually moved on from the days of public executions as a form of entertainment. It appears that having a witch to burn is serving some sort of emotional or psychological need in some. It gives me the willies tbh. Brrrrr.

There’s no need for them to defend anything” I guarantee you they aren’t as naive about this as you seem to be. Their professional reputations have been savaged by all this. Totally dragged through the mud. They would have much to gain by defending their position if they could do so with integrity. They have everything to lose by not doing so, unless of course they are well aware that the prosecution’s theories are indefensible and the best damage control right now is to go to ground.

@Kittybythelighthouse how can they possibly defend their position with integrity while they have not even seen a full report of the panel's conclusions? They don't even know exactly what they're defending! And that is setting aside the professional and ethical issues of doing so via the press/social media, outside of a formal legal process.

And your last sentence is ridiculous - the prosecution's theories are perfectly defensible, having been thoroughly tested during a 9 month trial. And defend them I'm sure they will. It remains to be seen whether the findings of Shoo Lee's panel will serve to nullify any of the prosecution's theories, but so far these new opinions are completely untested. I have no idea whether what they are saying is 'right' or not, and I do not believe that all the people on this thread who seem so sure that the panel are 'right' have the credentials to accurately assess this either.

Dr Anna Milan, a principal clinical scientist at the lab where the test was done, told the Thirlwall Inquiry that Baby F's ratio of C-peptide to insulin, which should have been between 5:1 and 10:1, was recorded as 0:0 because the C-peptide was at 'an undetectable level'.

A bio engineer vs several other experts. I am not sure its a fact. Opinion however.

This is extremely naive. Public and media scrutiny, not to mention independent experts publicly raising concerns about misleading evidence used to convict, are a vital check on British justice. These elements are a feature of British justice, not a bug. Without these checks nobody, including the postmasters, the Birmingham 6, Andrew Malkinson, Sally Clark etc would ever have been released from their convictions. That is just a fact. Arguing against public scrutiny, as if it’s somehow naughty or poor etiquette, is so naive as to be childlike. It’s being a turkey voting for Christmas. It certainly isn’t the more grown up or reasonable position here.

As for “jumping on a bandwagon because Twitter says so” who has said they are coming to any conclusions because “Twitter said so?” People are literally talking about a panel of the world’s best experts in this area, not twitter. At least engage honestly.

P.S: why is it only a “bandwagon” if you don’t agree? Where’s your criticism of the “bandwagon” that convicted her? That was entirely dependant on hysteria and totally devoid of sober reflection and facts. That “bandwagon” included some of the ugliest human behaviour I’ve seen exhibited in my entire life, but no. You’re only concerned with “bandwagons” once the tide has turned towards adults behaving like actual adults and soberly considering serious flaws with the case based on the best science available to us. You don’t get to claim the moral high ground here. Sorry.

We really do not have to trust the justice system!

The system is sometimes pretty good, other times it's abysmal, and for those times it is usually the cases that have had a swell of public input of some kind that get the negative publicity required for further investigation.

Yeah she got that wrong, she said the lowest detectable level was 169 but Roche, the test’s makers, confirmed to Sarah Knapton at the Telegraph that the lowest detectable level was, in fact, 3.

The prosecution theories are either erroneous nonsense on the face of it, which is what is being stated by literally every expert who has spoken out since the trial, or they are not. If they are not erroneous nonsense, and do stand on their own merit, they should be able to say so, and stand by them. They could have done so at any stage since the reporting ban was lifted, because that’s the instant that responses from their professional peers began pouring in calling the theories “fantastical” “ridiculous” and “nonsensical”. They don’t need to respond to the detail of the panel’s conclusions to defend the very idea that the theories used to convict are scientific and defensible at all whatsoever in the first place. They haven’t though. Have they?

Evans’ theories (because they were HIS theories) were not “thoroughly defended” during the trial. As you well know the defence didn’t call any experts to rebut his theories. Myers made an attempt, but the judge made sure to inform the jury that anything a barrister says cannot be used as evidence.

You believe they’ll defend them. I marvel at your faith in the prosecution despite all the evidence that is giving everyone else pause for thought. That must be what it’s like to be very religious, or perhaps a flat earther. Whether or not they will defend Evans theories remains to be seen. There’s no evidence to think that they will though, and every reason to think that they won’t. I am sure Evans will, because he’s clearly unhinged. I’d wager that the others likely aren’t going to chain themselves to the bow of his sinking ship, though it remains to be seen. I’d put a tenner on them not doing so though, if the bookies are taking bets.

It’s a fact that the Liverpool lab test is expressly not intended for use where evidence of criminal activity is suspected, because of the potential for interference.

Professor Geoff Chase is a renowned expert on the effects of insulin on pre-term neonates. You do him a (deliberate?) disservice by implying he isn’t. His conclusions relate not to the Liverpool assay, but to explaining why the insulin to c-peptide ratio identified by the assay doesn’t indicate exogenous insulin administration in neonates.

So that’s two reasons why the slam dunk insulin evidence is unsound.

@rubbishatballet the prosecution's theories are perfectly defensible, having been thoroughly tested during a 9 month trial

Can we really say complex medical
evidence has passed a thorough “test” because a jury with zero medical background accepted it as plausible? That is actually one of the key questions to be raised by this whole debacle.

And that’s assuming the evidence was fairly presented and sufficiently challenged at the trial - another key question.

The manufacturers of the test used don't support Dr Milan's interpretation: room for doubt therefore.

You can't provide any alternative evidence or differing opinion without being ripped to shred over on tattle!
I think I'll stay here

It's not about winning though is it, maybe to you it's just a game...end of the day though justice has prevailed because she's sat in jail being best mates with Beinesh Batool (that should tell you all you need to know) and never getting out. And posters like you who are so defensive of your favourite little victim will be having quite the meltdown when realisation finally dawns on you.

As for everything else it's been covered a million times, you just say all the tests are wrong so what's the point.

Parents of babies she was not even supposed to be caring for and had barely even met them, MONTHS later? Whilst claiming she later couldn't remember anything about that baby, yeah right.

This is extremely naive. Public and media scrutiny, not to mention independent experts publicly raising concerns about misleading evidence used to convict, are a vital check on British justice. These elements are a feature of British justice, not a bug. Without these checks nobody, including the postmasters, the Birmingham 6, Andrew Malkinson, Sally Clark etc would ever have been released from their convictions. That is just a fact. Arguing against public scrutiny, as if it’s somehow naughty or poor etiquette, is so naive as to be childlike. It’s being a turkey voting for Christmas. It certainly isn’t the more grown up or reasonable position here.

Exactly. And this also goes for Wes Streeting

@LoztWorld ”And that’s assuming the evidence was fairly presented and sufficiently challenged at the trial - another key question.”

Based on the opinions of literally every expert who has spoken out since the reporting ban lifted, the evidence was not fairly presented at the trial. The response hasn’t just been critical of some technical detail or vague point of disagreement, the evidence has been completely rubbished by every expert who has stated an opinion including many of the world’s best experts in relevant fields.

The evidence was challenged only by the defence barrister Myers KC. The judge informed the jury that they couldn’t take anything a KC says as evidence, only what the experts present in court say. Given the defence didn’t call any experts this left the jury of lay people completely open to being hood winked by bad science and a man we now know to be a total charlatan. So no, I think it’s fair to say that the evidence was neither fairly presented nor sufficiently challenged at the trial.

If I'd been told I was suspected of harming or killing children, I'd certainly be looking them and their families up online to see who they were if I didn't remember them. Who wouldn't?