Lucy Letby

[kkloo]

New thread as the last one has filled up.

I'd be happy to discuss the medical evidence-the fact you think the trial evidence has all been "debunked" is the problem. If I bring up AE- debunked, overfeeding-debunked, insulin-debunked, liver injury-debunked. So what's the point? You only want to listen to what Shoo Lee says. Hell if it wasn't for the fact the morphine overdose is documented that'd be disputed as well. Of course the second nurse just gets the blame for that. So yes we do always end up on handover sheets (not that I bring them up-I was responding to a new poster asking about them) because that's the only thing anyone can agree actually happened.

You mean she didn't wait until she had an audience or ask them to install CCTV so she could be caught harming a baby on it 🙄

If she is innocent then I doubt she thought too much about it. In the context of being accused of murder, having some handover sheets at home which probably every nurse has somewhere probably just didn't register as too important. Admittedly she had a lot but if she'd just kept the ones from when the babies died, filed away, rather than loads seemingly in rubbish bags , I could understand her thinking to destroy them.

I think they mean the lack of evidence that the deaths were suspicious.

It's not only Lee who has an issue with the evidence presented at trial, but since you have something against him you've yet to explain, let's focus on Chase and Shannon instead.

Why do you think the findings of their study on C/I levels in neonates don't apply to Letby's case, but insulin poisoning does, despite the potassium and glucose levels being lower than would be expected if exogenous insulin had been administered, and the babies not showing any clinical signs of insulin poisoning?

How do you think Letby managed to poison the babies with insulin?

Well that would be everything covered in court over several months proving the deaths were suspicious.

Except the main expert witness for the defence has now cycled back on most of the evidence he gave (air down the NG tube and overfeeding), and none of it has ever been documented anywhere outside of CoCH, despite an excess of gas in the gut being a common side effect of CPAP.

Do you have any theories as to why this condition only causes harm at CoCH?

Slight deviation but can you imagine just for a moment (as I believe she is) that she is innocent. Everything she's gone through second only to those poor parents. Her face and name forever ruined, knowing she didn't do this. Appreciate she would be given a huge new identity etc but still. To know you didn't do it and have everyone baying for your guts on a spear, it beggars belief.

My brother is a barrister and I a police officer. We were discussing this around a year ago and both agreed that. Innocent or not, there was no way the guilty conviction was secure and definitely no 'beyond reasonable doubt', even without what we know now.
She had piss poor defence.

Yesterday you said Basically, the babies were showing exact symptoms of insulin poisoning. But they weren’t. Why are you saying that they were?

Mr Justice Goss sentenced Lucy Letby to a whole-life order, describing her actions as a "cruel, calculated and cynical campaign of child murder" that involved "deep malevolence bordering on sadism." The judge emphasized a severe breach of trust, noting that the neonatal nurse used her specialized training to harm vulnerable babies while falsifying records to conceal her actions. Letby, who refused to attend the hearing, will spend the rest of her life in prison with no possibility of parole._

Just a reminder

How did she falsify records ?

No one is debating what sentence she received?

Do you have anything to add to the debate on the medical evidence? Does anyone convinced the conviction is safe have anything to add to the debate over the medical evidence?

There's plenty of new evidence and studies that have come out since the trial, but deafening silence on the matter from people who have no concerns about the safety of the conviction. Perhaps, if you explain to the rest of us what it is about the new studies you disagree with, you might convince us the conviction is safe.

That person said the records were falsified. I havent heard that. Do you know what has been said about that ?

This is all old news apparently...

What were they showing signs of then? Why were the tests ordered?

I can’t believe there are still people who believe the medical evidence makes any sense :/

She wrote some times down incorrectly, which is an easy mistake to make. When you're managing an emergency situation, the last thing you're doing is checking your watch; you guesstimate the times later on when things have calmed down.

I think there were also times when she went back and corrected things in notes, which again is not uncommon. As far as I know, there were no accusations of outright forgery, just some timings being slightly off and some corrections made, which the prosecution claimed was Letby trying to make sudden declines appear more gradual. The defence claimed they were simple mistakes, and we're talking a few minutes here and there, not hours, so I'm inclined to side with the defence here.

Once she was convicted of multiple counts of murder, the judge had to uphold those convictions.

I certainly think many things have come out to suggest Judge Goss was not impartial but nonetheless, it becomes a bit cyclical and ‘there’s a hole in my bucket’

The judge said this because the jury said this, and the jury said this because the lawyers said this, and the lawyers said this because the police said this, and the police said this because the consultants said this. That’s a really childish way of expressing it all but honestly I don’t think is hugely far removed from what actually happened!

I think if those findings were accurate it would already have been well known about and her defence wouldn't have been forced to admit "yes someone must've poisoned the babies, but there's no proof it was the defendant" they would've just used Chase and Shannon's research or similar. If it's because it didn't exist then and those two are the only ones who have suddenly "discovered" this remarkable finding-well I'm not that gullible.

Hypoglycemia. The tests were not ordered to determine whether exogenous insulin had been administered; no one suspected that at the time because they were not showing any clinical signs of insulin overdose.

@Frequency hypoglycemia is a hallmark of insulin poisoning.

Chase and Shannon's research had not been published at the time of the trial, so it could not be used by the defence.

What evidence do you have that Chase and Shannon's study was based on inaccurate data?

The tests were ordered because the children were experiencing persistent hypoglycemia, with the attendant symptoms. Hypoglycemia isn't uncommon in neonates. In some cases it relates to sepsis. Neonatal hypoglycemia is also a common phenomenon, affecting some children in the first 72 hours of life.

Persistent hypoglycemia can occur if hypoglycemia is not treated effectively.