Lucy Letby case expert witness was under fitness to practise investigation

[ITMA2000]

Wow! Pot, kettle, black? Need a new investigation?
Lucy Letby case expert witness was under fitness to practise investigation during trial | Lucy Letby | The Guardian

No - this is objective published data that contradicts the prosecution narrative on the tests. If they say certain measurements always mean poisoning and then we get data and case studies where they don't mean that, they've misinformed the jury.

I'm leaving the expert disagreements completely out of it. I know who I'd be more likely to rely on. But we have yet to see much detail of the new expert opinion.

@Oftenaddled where are these case studies showing the same ratio of c-peptide? I remember one but it turned out someone had just written the results the wrong way round. They had an insulin expert for the defence, they didn't call him. It simply makes no sense why they couldn't find anyone to say these tests weren't accurate in court. They were obviously all in agreement. Myers would've been desperate to get anyone to say there was even the tiniest amount of doubt with the results.

And all Lucy could say was "it wasn't me" about the insulin. Now yes it's true she doesn't know about insulin tests but my point being, if it comes down to the defendant having to say well yes they were poisoned but not by me then that really paints a picture that there was no other conclusion by every expert involved. Why are we to suddenly believe the insulin experts at the trial didn't know what they were talking about?

Prosecution: There is no other possible explanation.

Defence: We don't know how else to explain this other than it wasn't me.

New experts: Here's another possible explanation.

The existence of another possible explanation is not a difference of opinion, it's really bad for the argument that there is NO other possible explanation.

@LuisCarol there's no credible other explanation. And she's implicated in them on top of everything else she's suspected of. She was also there for the 3rd insulin case I believe. The babies didn't recover until removed from the bag. They know it was the bag also because the infusion of insulin poisoning was gradual. The babies had all the signs of insulin poisoning. What are the chances that they would have symptoms entirely consistent with insulin poisoning AND tests confirm this but both have other explanations? Astronomical odds I'd think.

It could have been a doctor.

I haven't followed this bit, so genuine question... If the babies recovered when removed from the bag and there were three instances, I assume it was so obvious that they kept the bag for immediate testing, especially given their growing suspicions and given there were three of them to give them due warning?

Unfortunately the insulin tests were only "noticed" way down the line, so bags were not retained, nor was any further investigation done at the time as to why the babies were showing such "inexplicable" symptoms. Oops.

https://lawhealthandtech.substack.com/p/ll-part-14-insulin-the-first-issue

This is a useful substack that deep dives alot of the medical evidence and how it was presented at court.

Did they have hypokalaemia?

Nope, even when the lab queried if it was exogenous and they could have sent it for further testing they still chose not to.

To be fair, the bag would have been discarded well before the lab results came back. As soon as a bag is taken down it is put into the waste. They would have had to suspect during the infusion to have had the opportunity to test.

Ah I see, but when the doctor got the results he didn't even take any steps to see if the tests might have been wrong such as checking with the lab that they were reliable. .

Why could it not just be LL? Because she's a woman?

Which is curious isn’t it? I wonder why they assumed it was an erroneous result.

It could have been anyone, that’s the point.

OK so now we're going back and forth between there being a serial killer (but anyone but Letby, naturally) and poor care. If there was someone else doing it they wouldn't have stopped when LL was removed.

And so were the trial witnesses and other experts objective - many concur they would conclude the same - insulin poisoning

Oh for goodness sake.

You believe there was a serial killer poisoning babies (non-fatally) with insulin, so we’re talking about that scenario.

IF there was a serial killer it could have been anyone on the shift - Letby, other nurses or doctors.

Doctors were not even considered. Why not?

Irrelevant really. The tests proved the insulin was exogenous and not naturally occurring.

Maybe because they were never on the unit as so many are always pointing out so wouldn't have had the opportunity...

But they narrowed it down to her and when all the evidence presented And cross examined at length over ten months she was convicted by two juries on separate occasions that weren’t misled

Based on what's coming out now many people believe that they were misled, about pretty much everything.

Yep. They're just mad they narrowed it down to her and her alone and proved she did it. So it must've been the investigation and trial that was wrong, of course!

They didn't "prove" anything......

No, not irrelevant.

a) The test performed did not show this. They are not capable of showing this.

b) Lack of hypokalaemia means that the symptoms are not “entirely consistent” with synthetic insulin poisoning.