Lucy Letby

[kkloo]

New thread as the last one has filled up.

No, it is not. It means low blood sugar, and it's common in neonates for a variety of reasons. No one suspected insulin poisoning at the time. If they were testing for that, why did they not check the results until months later?

They were checking the babies' blood sugars, and they didn't look at the results because the symptoms resolved once the correct treatment was eventually given, which was before they got the results back.

There is some (fairly obscure) research predating Chase and Shannon and the trial, showing results with the same "impossible" relationship of insulin to c-peptide. Chase and Shannon build on it with explanations. The data is older. There's no evidence Hindmarsh or Hall would have come across it.

And it's also caused by insulin poisoning. I'm amazed the doctors aren't being accused of faking the tests at this point. Probably would be if not for Chase and Shannon 🙄

Yes, but insulin poisoning presents with other symptoms which were absent in these babies, e.g low potassium, low glucose, seizures, and heart arrhythmia.

Oh ok. I hadnt heard about that.

@Daygloboo

They discuss the falsified medical notes here (I tried looking for a source in google but everything is buried under innocence articles now unfortunately) there's baby E but everyone decided the mum got her timings wrong so they could claim Letby didn't lie about any of it😔a few others are mentioned as well-

https://www.reddit.com/r/lucyletby/comments/1ev5556/medical_notes/

Thanks

The thinking that mum E’s timings were out was because there were other hospital records corroborating LL’s timings and mum got the records from her phone provider much later. As they are an hour out and typically the phone provider would use UTC not BST this seems a reasonable explanation.

No one just 'decided' the mum got her timings wrong so they could claim Letby didn't lie about it. And you know they didn't, despite your manipulative little emoji that you threw in there.

People went back through the evidence and saw that the other evidence corroborated what Letby said, which you know, because you've been part of all of these discussions.

How can anyone who isn’t suitably qualified and hasn’t seen all the relevant evidence add anything to the debate on the medical evidence? It completely blows my mind that there are so many people on this thread that think they can.

Although I can tell you one thing about the new evidence I disagree with. I disagree with a group of scientists, most of them doctors, going on television and sharing confidential and incredibly traumatic details of the last days and hours of these babies’ lives, culminating in a dramatic “ladies and gentlemen, there were no murders” mic drop, whilst their families had to look on with absolutely no say in the matter. It makes me sick and I absolutely question the judgement, intelligence and motives of any doctor who thinks that’s an okay thing to do.

I think it's rather overstating things to say the families had to look on, at Shoo Lee's press conference. The families did not have to look on. They could choose to engage or not to engage with the press conference and associated publicity. Obviously, they are in a tough situation and are to be pitied.

That cannot justly constrain Lucy Letby's options in asserting her innocence. The press conference was highly effective in shifting public and media opinion. It was organized by Lucy Letby's defence team, whose legal duty is to act in their client's best interests. While it is right that they should be respectful towards the families, it is not right that voices in Lucy Letby's defence should be silenced or asked to be more circumspect out of respect for the families.

We are dealing with a case where the police made payments for media management, training and publicity; granted interviews to recipients of those payments; organized press conferences to record responses to a guilty verdict on the last day of the defence closing speech. It was very reasonable, in those circumstances, for Lucy Letby's defence team to put information challenging her conviction firmly and clearly in the public domain.

There are obviously plenty of ways in which people here can comment on the medical evidence. Nobody is claiming to have reviewed the files personally. But people are perfectly capable of commenting on e.g. what symptoms one would expect to see in insulin poisoning; what are the major causes of neonatal hypoglycemia; what claims re air embolism are supported by the literature.

@Oftenaddled @Dolphin37 @kkloo @Firefly1987
Is there something you have come across online which is almost a spreadsheet for newbies to see the arguments side by side
I.e insulin - for and against
Swipe card data for and against
Air embolism/ wretched confessional notes/ timings/ Facebook searches/ expert panel etc?
I feel we have a lot of the arguments on this and other threads but new people are joining all the time and the arguments are becoming circular

It's a good point. I have seen it done on Shoo Lee's panel and on criticisms of the panel, but that is probably not where you'd begin with the case. Will have a think

Well the families either had to look on or they had to avoid it, knowing that intimate private details of their children’s lives and deaths were being shared on television, and in front of the nation’s press, all for the benefit of the person who was convicted of injuring or murdering them.

None of the things you say that the police have done around media engagement come even close to justifying Mark McDonald and Shoo Lee’s three-ring circus. If their evidence is as slam dunk as they are saying it is, why couldn’t they have just submitted it to the CCRC and waited.

And in relation to your final paragraph, we didn’t do neonatology GCSE at my school, so I for one do not think I’m capable of commenting on what symptoms you would expect to see in insulin poisoning or what the major causes of neonatal hypoglycaemia are. But I bow to other posters’ superior expertise in these matters.

None of the other things the police and media did are needed to justify the press conference. If the state deprives you of liberty, you have the right to protest your innocence and you have the right to do that loudly and publicly.

If, as a medical expert, you encounter an apparent miscarriage of justice, you have the right and some would say the duty to speak out. It's not in public interest that any such statements should be suppressed, or softened, or censored, so that we are left complacent about out medical and legal systems while the experts hush things up.

It's okay not to talk about the medical issues if you don't want to do so; but obviously, others feel competent to exchange information and will do that. I've seen nothing particularly arcane on these threads anyway.

And in relation to your final paragraph, we didn’t do neonatology GCSE at my school, so I for one do not think I’m capable of commenting on what symptoms you would expect to see in insulin poisoning or what the major causes of neonatal hypoglycaemia are. But I bow to other posters’ superior expertise in these matters

This is yet another straw man though. The discussions about the medical evidence are based on what has been said by highly credentialed experts, not the personal opinions of random MN posters. So your sneering about GCSE neonatology is fallacious and disingenuous.

I wonder how many people on here, accused of a murder they didn’t do, would remain silent, refuse any offers of help and trust the CCRC to deal with it out of respect for the victims family?

I don’t think anyone is disputing the families have been through the most awful time but I don’t believe it is of Lucy Letby’s making.

@rubbishatballet I didn't learn medicine at school either, but I did learn research and study techniques at college and uni, and how to assess the quality of a source (hint: PubMed = good source; Liz Hull = bad source)

I feel suitably qualified to look at the information given to me, assess the quality of the source, and find suitable materials online to support or question that information.

If you don't feel capable of doing that, that's fine, but it does make me wonder how you can be so certain Letby's conviction is safe when there are so many professionals, who, by your own admission, you are not qualified to question, who believe her conviction is unsafe.

Low glucose = hypoglycaemia. Obviously you’re right about the rest.

Funny how you can't possibly comment on things that might undermine the convictions because you don't have the knowledge, but when it comes to how professionals who believe there's been a significant MOJ should draw attention to it you're well qualified to wade in then.

After all, you're no more an expert on the best way to deal with a system that has a history of leaving innocent people to fester until sufficient public outcry kicked in than you are on neonates. But apparently it's open season on some things. Or perhaps your school had a GCSE in the CCRC?

@rubbishatballet

i couldn’t agree more! It quite unbelievable hence me sharing the judges summing up

these people challenge every last bit of evidence and refuse to accept that there is a point when coincidence is no longer just that and it tips over into something bigger - ie the deaths, the collapses, the searching for families on fb on Xmas day, the confessional notes, the demanding to be put back in with the most sickest babies, likewise she hardly protested her innocence in the police interviews, and finally she has allegedly befriended Ms Batool in jail who is one of the most evil step mother killers I have come across in my lifetime!

For some of her defenders in here they won’t accept anything as a marker of guilt aside from a cctv clip showing her in the act!

What grade did you get in GCSE criminal psychology that qualifies you to determine that a post-it note containing conflicting statements like "I did it" and "I am innocent" is a confession note?

I don't need a CCTV clip or fingerprints or a confession.
I'd be satisfied with evidence that the deaths were actually murders with plausible causes of death rather than the mish mash of possible causes ( that weren't spotted by the pathologists at the time), the changes in cause of death when it was pointed out to the expert that it wasn't possible and the deaths that she was meant to have set up before she went on leave.
That would make me more certain that justice has been done.
At the moment it is- babies died, someone must have done it.
That should be frightening to us all if we can be accused of something without clear evidence and based on the fact that something bad happened and we happened to be there.
How can anyone prove a negative ?

@Iamateadrinker yes there’s definitely a group of people who also still wouldn’t believe she was guilty even with CCTV evidence

could you be in that camp

@Frequency please look into what a confessional note is 😂😂😂 I mean the irony - you are asking about my grades! Just because you have decided the notes were not a confession (do you really get to decide such a thing? Clearly you think so)

anyway I will leave you sleuths to it!

@Quitelikeit
My first sentence expressly says that I don't require that.. not sure how I can put it any clearer really.....