Lucy Letby innocent?

[dubsie]

I posted a thread a while back saying that the conviction of Lucy Letby was questionable and I believe it might be a miscarriage of justice.

The more I read and the more evidence that comes to the public space the more I think this is going to be one of the biggest miscarriages of justice in British history.

Turns out there's no medical evidence at all

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/feb/04/no-medical-evidence-to-support-lucy-letby-conviction-expert-panel-finds

So the conviction has been based on circumstial evidence and a written note authored on the advice of a therapist.

I think a rapid look at this trial and the evidence is imperative.

I do sort of get it. Once you realise what has been going on then if you have bought in to the evil baby killer and brave whistle blowing consultant narrative then you can feel quite duped / silly especially when you realise just how bad those consultants were with their twice weekly ward rounds and tendancy to not prescribe the correct medicines, insert the wrong sized breathing tubes etc etc

It mildly messes with your sense of reality and you start to wonder if there is anything else you feel strongly about in the news or have been reading about in the newspaper which is utter bollocks too.

I would speculate that is also why people who have been the victims of scams struggle to change their minds. Anyway always best to try to keep an open mind to new information.

That the c peptide ratio was within the bounds of normal for a preterm infant. But you’d need an accurate c peptide reading for that and I don’t think they have one. From what I remember, the test has a baseline below which it can’t accurately determine a level so if levels are lower than that it just returns the base line figure. Which it did in this case. So all that is known is that the c peptide level was below that.

There may well be further testing or information in the notes that gives them that number which is why it’s not certain they’ve over reached here. But equally doctors, even world leading ones, aren’t experts in the parameters of the tests they use in the same way a lab scientist might be.

I don’t want her to be guilty. But I believe she is. Just because I’m not part of the hard of thinking trial by TikTok mob doesn’t mean I want her guilty. It means I’ve read sufficient on the case and have reached the conclusion that there’s nothing that IMO would lead me to think she’s a victim of a mc of justice or a n NHS cover up.

Does anyone know if there’s a press conference transcript anywhere?

That's not a problem. If they don't have an accurate c-peptide reading on the basis that you can't distinguish values below a certain point, they don't have to prove where the child's reading fell below that point.

They just have to ask whether the C-peptide reading gives positive data to show the child was poisoned with insulin. Are there values within the range of possible C-peptide results which allow for other interpretations. Is so, they can't accuse Letby on the assumption the values prove exogenous insulin if we just assume the precise values that the test can't measure were lower than it can prove.

The panel uncovered numerous issues with the insulin cases anyway - their claim is both that the test results are unreliable, so that what we see is unlikely to be accurate, and that even if it were accurate, its significance has been misread.

You’ve missed my point, which is that they are making a claim that isn’t supported by evidence. It’s absolutely fine for there not to be an accurate reading. What you don’t then do is state that the reading is high enough to be normal when you don’t know that.

And if they’ve made that mistake here, are there other errors they’ve made that would be spotted by other neonatologists when the report is questioned.

Do you think that two reviewing neonatologists have made the same mistake?

It is often said medicine is not an exact science. Hence experts disagreeing. This makes things complicated when experts are summoned to give their opinion. Presumably the investigations into baby deaths at other hospitals Letby worked at are still ongoing.

I see what you mean. Okay, that was all in question prior to the conference.

The child had a low reading - was it 129? Not sure. Lab said this indicated undetectable. Manufacturer of testing system said this was an error and only 3 and below are undetectable, so the low reading can be taken as accurate.

I presume it's spelt out in the full report that the manufacturer's account of test is correct.

Relatives of the poor victims/doctors/hospital management/prosecution team?

There is almost certainly no mistake: lab indicated that a low result meant range of possible values from zero up, test manufacturer says otherwise which makes this a true value. The panel will have looked into this and satisfied itself manufacturer is right (as you'd expect!)

I feel very sorry for all of them.

Sorry, my comment makes no sense - it was in answer to why people might be entrenched in their views.

Oh I see, yes, agreed

Except management have had a kicking for not agreeing that Letby was implicated and insisting that failings on the ward were the only problem with any evidence. At least two of them were forced out of their jobs for that after Letby was arrested

It’s a complete mess & many have already suffered/will suffer.

The Thirwall enquiry was started far too early and I wonder how many involved are secretly thinking whether continuation is sensible.

Would silence on the whole issue for year or so in terms of public enquiry allow the new expert evidence to be digested and allow for any potential retrial?

I think a lot of confidence has been lost in the justice system or at least there are a lot of questions when dealing with complex scientific evidence

I think if there are doubts and significant doubts the enquiry could really be on danger of being irrelevant and could really have the potential of looking farcical.

The families are obviously distraught but now in reality many are clearly in doubt to the cause of their child's death. The families can only be served by further examination of the evidence.

If they are ongoing one can only hope they won’t be getting some charlatan to retrofit medically illiterate cause of death to cases that were not suspicious at the time

I think it was only one ward round a week, but you should question everything, not believe everything you are told imo.

Problem is that if you take it too far you could end up some kind of crazed conspiracy theorist raving about the deep state......

On a serious note however the experts saying there were no babies murdered or intentionally harmed seem very calm, rational and well qualified which is why I paid attention in the first place.

I think the basics of understanding statistics really needs to be properly taught at school. Including why correlation doesn't necessarily equal causation.

Yes I agree but I think we know when it's right to question something which doesn't feel right, and as you did, not to be closed off if something challenges a commonly held belief. After all they used to think the world was flat, Hitler was worth voting for, cigarettes were good for you, slavery was acceptable etc etc common logic and being objective.

This is the sub headline this week:

The inquiry is not examining the question of Letby’s guilt. Instead, it is exploring how she was able to kill repeatedly

Sorry, forgot to link.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-30341313-26f6-448a-ba92-b397a802fbb9

Yeah there is an elephant in the room and they don't mention it. Mainstream media towing the official line. Terrifying really.

I’m really disappointed in the reporting of this by the BBC.