Lucy Letby

[kkloo]

New thread as the last one has filled up.

The NCA hold the national expert witness database, which Dewi Evans was on, and which the police would have gone through to find an expert. Of course it was okay for him to get in touch to say that he thought he might have the right expertise having read about the investigation (not sure why you’re inferring it was an ‘informal’ contact?). The NCA didn’t then have to give his name to the police if they thought his approach was inappropriate.

With the above being said, I think what you are trying to suggest is that the judicial system cannot be corrupt because Jamie Varley was given a whole life order and therefore it is above reproach and should not be questioned.

No I'm saying some of us were as sure LL was guilty as Jamie Varley so I thought the comparison might actually help you understand why we'd all be glad of the verdicts. Apparently not though.

As for being happy and relieved babies are dead, no, I can’t say I think anything about either Lucy Letby’s case or Jamie Varley’s is a cause for happiness and relief. At best, I hope Varley’s brought some closure to those who knew and loved Preston Davey but it doesn’t bring him back so again, I’m afraid we disagree on that one.

I'm just going to ignore your ridiculous "happy and relieved babies are dead" comment. Right so you're NOT relieved the perpetrators are locked away forever and will never be able to get near any other potential victims? Interesting viewpoint. If they didn't get a WLO or even worse found not-guilty it doesn't suddenly mean they're actually innocent (MOJs can go both ways) it means justice hasn't been done. No one wanted that. Not sure why that's controversial.

Everyone has insulin in their bodies. Without it, we die. That’s why people with T1 diabetes inject it. Exogenous insulin - that produced by the pancreas - is excreted with c-peptide in a typical ratio. Medicinal insulin has no c-peptide.

The babies whom LL was accused of harming displayed symptoms of hypoglycaemia that the doctors struggled to control. Blood tests were sent to Liverpool, and the tests showed a ratio of insulin and c-peptide that indicates that medicinal insulin may have been administered.

For confirmation, tests have to be sent to a different lab for a different and more accurate test, but this was not done. We don’t know why not, but no-one suspected foul play at the time. Perhaps because the babies recovered and nobody thought the result was important, or maybe they thought it was just wrong.

The results were only considered much later, when the police were looking for evidence.

Since the trial, it turns out that neonatal insulin and c-peptide ratios can be very different to full term babies, children and adults. So there’s no certainty that medicinal insulin was administered at all.

No I'm saying some of us were as sure LL was guilty as Jamie Varley so I thought the comparison might actually help you understand why we'd all be glad of the verdicts. Apparently not though

I was / am unsure who the ‘we’ is. Tattle? If you do mean Tattle it’s a bit more than relief at the verdict, as in ‘thank goodness a guilty person has a whole life order.’ It’s falling about laughing on delight at stupid photographs and posts and putting photographs of a stunned Letby as avatars and conversations about dildos and much giggling about that. That’s not relief and is so far from respect for the families that it would be laughable if it wasn’t for the fact that there’s nothing funny about this case, whether she’s guilty or not.

I am not surprised you are part of that, not surprised at all. Don’t be part of that and make out I’m the one lacking intelligence or integrity. Even when I believed she was guilty I got to the point where I felt dirty just reading that thread. THAT is what is controversial.

You mean implying not inferring and I used the word “informal” because that is what the article said. “very, very informal” were Evans’ words.

It’s for the police to contact the NCA for a list of relevant witnesses to their case.

It is not for expert witnesses to cold call police forces investigating cases they think may be lucrative for them if they go to court. For obvious reasons.

Even so, it's interesting that tests dhowed the type if insulin not produced in the body. I understand all the other things but it sounds like the tests were not absolutely for or against. More 'might' not have shown anything suspicious rather than definitely didnt show anything suspicious.

These babies were twins as well with their siblings attacked by other methods but this just gets ignored. People don't want to put 2+2 together they'd rather focus on one thing they can debunk and think it magically makes her innocent. They only found the insulin results when they looked to see if anything had happened to the siblings of the babies she attacked. And lo and behold they had what very much looked like insulin poisoning that improved when their bags were removed. Basically, the babies were showing exact symptoms of insulin poisoning, with the test confirming it. But conspiracy loons are convinced it's all suddenly been debunked and what endocrinologists have known for decades suddenly isn't true.

Its possible that the tests meant insulin from outside the body (or that they didn't)

The real can of worms is how she could have got it into the children. Because the samples were taken after she went off shift. And after any infusion she had hung had been changed. So the prosecution claimed she might have poisoned some bags in advance. But there are major questions over whether it would be physically possible to do that ...

Very well said 👏👏

It's just entertainment for the general tattle lot and they get such joy and glee out of it, it's not relief at all, that's fooling no one.

Yes. You might say there was reasonable doubt.

My word, there was incontrovertible evidence against Varley that even the most vehement paedophile apologist couldn’t explain away in court. Everything regarding Letby appears to be circumstantial. No one saw her do anything. There is no dna or cctv evidence. She wasn’t even there for some of the deaths she has been accused of. The ward and the hospital was an absolute shit show and it sounds like the trial was a farce. So much now rides on Letby being guilty, so many reputations and so many millions of pounds spent perhaps in error on inquiries and investigations into the wrong things.

Exact symptoms? Did they have low potassium levels?

They didn't. The tests used were not forensic tests. They only showed insulin and C-peptide levels, not where the insulin came from. It was assumed exogenous insulin was administered based on the C/I ratios; however, recent research has shown that the C/I ratios for neonates are not the same as for newborns and that the ratios in Letby's case were not outside the norm for neonates.

A different test is used to confirm if the insulin is naturally occurring or exogenous, but because the results weren't discovered until much later down the line, it was too late to order the forensic tests.

No, I mean why are you inferring from the article it was an ‘informal’ contact at the NCA as if it was his mate or something. It just says he emailed a contact. Given he was on their expert witness database, there’s no reason to think he didn’t contact whoever he usually dealt with there.

I have more often than not had informal conversations before instructing experts, expressly for the purpose of finding out if they’re going to be able to provide the expertise needed, aren’t conflicted, whether they would be interested in the job etc. I really can’t see what the issue is here.

And have you actually read the article? It says Evans contacted the NCA - he didn’t cold call the police!

Yes Tattle. You didn't say any of that before. No I didn't get involved in that kind of humour but it was probably some light-hearted jokes after months of harrowing evidence. They have always respected the families and victims.
Apparently that kind of thing is wrong, but Lucy treating baby deaths as gossip and making inappropriate comments is just her being awkward bless her.

This just absolutely proves to me so many posters on here are biased and will defend anything she says or does whilst throwing as many other people under the bus as possible.

So, sorry to go back to basics....how did it actually all start. Did consultants decide there were more deaths than usual and then they looked at rotas and foung LL was on shift each time ? Then, according to many on here, it became a long process of a lot of individuals and organistions cherry picking evidence to fit the narrative they chose to create i.e. that Letby had been engaging in a variety of behaviours designed to harm and kill babies.

Ive been reading this on and off for 2 days now and I have come across convincing and very well articulated arguments on both sides , and I still have to say that I cant make my mind up. I was starting to be persuaded by the ' she's innocent' people, but I dont think I can ever truly get away from those small details here and there which just put a bit of doubt in my mind. I just get a sense when you add it all up that aomething is just a bit off.

@Daygloboo Private Eye is a good place to start reading up on the case

https://www.private-eye.co.uk/special-reports/lucy-letby

Have you read the article? I explained why I used the word informal as those were Dewi’s own words.

You have many informal conversations when instructing experts for police investigations do you?

Evans cold-called the NCA which is effectively cold-calling the police given he was put straight in touch.

Experts should not "volunteer" or insert themselves to take part in specific active investigations.

Police and CPS should independently select, vet & instruct experts to preserve absolute impartiality and adhere to strict criminal procedure rules.

This process is to ensure the expert/s remain independent and serve the court, not the police.

Which is precisely what failed in this case.

Have you read the article? I explained why I used the word informal as those were Dewi’s own words.

Yes, but it would seem you still haven’t. He said the initial conversations were informal, and I can’t see how they could have been anything else. You couldn’t just go straight into formally instructing an expert for a case like that - you’d have to give them too many details before you even knew if they’re conflicted, or available, or even want to do it.

You have many informal conversations when instructing experts for police investigations do you?

No, but I used to when I worked in criminal defence.

Evans cold-called the NCA which is effectively cold-calling the police given he was put straight in touch.

No it’s really not. He was already on their database as an expert and he made contact to let them know he likely had the right expertise to help with the investigation he’d read about in the press. You do realise there are really not many neonatologists around who are also expert witness trained, and able to dedicate many months or years to a case like that? The NCA were under no obligation to pass his details on to the police, and the police were perfectly free to ignore and see who else the NCA could suggest from their database instead.

Experts should not "volunteer" or insert themselves to take part in specific active investigations.
Police and CPS should independently select, vet & instruct experts to preserve absolute impartiality and adhere to strict criminal procedure rules.

Well it’s a good thing he did none of those things then. The police decided to make contact with him, having been made aware of his existence by the agency whose literal job it is (amongst many other things) to connect the police with specialist expertise.

This process is to ensure the expert/s remain independent and serve the court, not the police.
Which is precisely what failed in this case.

Okay thanks for this.

The whole premise of our judicial system is it has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. With all these issues and queries, it cannot possibly be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

@Firefly1987 i don’t really want to get drawn into a discussion about the rights and wrongs of Tattle, tbh. I meant what I said earlier; I started to feel dirty just reading it. I will suggest that perhaps ‘light hearted jokes’ (and it wasn’t, it was hoots and screeching and more than one poster used Letby’s stunned face as their avatar.

Whether that describes your behaviour or not, you are part of that, you cannot disassociate yourself from it by ‘well I didn’t …’ because if you are an active participant and if you are using the pronoun ‘we’ you are complicit.

That is all I want to say about Tattle. That thread is repugnant and rather puts me in mind of this Every variety of offensive and foul behaviour, indeed.

The NHS is made up of hundreds of completely separate organisations, I don’t get how you think ‘it’ can be corrupt.

An institution can absolutely be corrupt. It can gloss over or encourage behaviour that is immoral, careless, dishonest or just wrong. See Stephen Lawrence, or the grooming gangs, or the north wales care home scandal.

So in this instance we have consultants not doing their jobs properly. That’s a failing on an individual level but it goes way beyond that. It’s an institution which says ‘this is OK, this is about what we expect, something has gone wrong (badly wrong) - cover it up.’

Yes, if it was just the Countess of Chester it might be possible to say it was one badly run unit in one hospital, but even a cursory glance at the news tells us otherwise and I don’t think that can be disputed.

The problem is that when things do inevitably come to light it’s because of the scale on which it’s happened - how many babies have died if we take Chester into account (and we can’t just claim Letby for this given that the number of stillbirths were also high, even if we take her convictions at face value) and Nottingham, and Shrewsbury?

It isn’t a culture which is open and honest, admits to mistakes and errors of judgement and seeks to put them right in future. It is a culture which hides and evades and shifts blame around (most frequently to the very patients they are supposed to be committing to helping) and that’s corrupt.

@DayglobooWhich small details do you keep coming back to?

Probably not small details really. Just all the bits and pieces that add up to a slightly iffy picture. In spite of all the articles, some of which I have now read, as well as all the well articulated posts on here, I still end up with a bit of a question mark over the whole thing. Yes, you can argue each point for sure, but when you put it all tigether, there's just so much iffy stuff, and you find yoursrlf asking would there reallybbe do many question marks if there wasnt something dodgy going kn. But the reasonnable doubt is there. I can see it's not ' smoking gun ' clear, and for that reason she probably should be released. But would I like to find myself in hospital one day and look up to see LL standing over me....no, I would not.