Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Politics

Lucy Letby innocent?

378 replies

dubsie · 04/02/2025 18:51

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.

No medical evidence to support Lucy Letby’s conviction, expert panel says

Letby’s lawyer claims report demolishes case against her and provides ‘overwhelming evidence’ her conviction is unsafe

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

OP posts:
Thread gallery
6
Oftenaddled · 05/02/2025 16:28

Pomped · 05/02/2025 15:26

Could someone kindly link to the press conference please?

Here is the press conference - it's long

Before you continue to YouTube

https://www.youtube.com/live/DT8CO15IHMs?si=mjcqVa0RBWSgrvYA

Oftenaddled · 05/02/2025 16:30

And here is a link to the summary of the press conference the panel passed on to the media

drive.google.com/file/d/1aV4zwwdBYw8Z_E-Tpe9_-iPR7n8cZdFk/view

YourAmplePlumPoster · 05/02/2025 17:38

These were babies who were very sick and vulnerable simply because they were neonates. Yet some people testifying said they were "healthy." Already a red flag.

YourAmplePlumPoster · 05/02/2025 17:52

Really,hearing this devastating take down of the so called "expert" evidence, she should be freed now. Unfortunately, although there have been MANY miscarriages of justice over the years, the justice system is not only achingly slow but extremely reluctant to overturn a court judgement even when they know it to be wrong. In the case of the Guildford 4, wrongly convicted for bombings, the justice system wilfully ignored that an IRA terrorist in prison confessed to the bombings but the innocent men were kept in detention. Only a determined campaign by activists got them out after many years. The same will happen here, I suspect the appeal will be turned down but I hope I'm wrong. Covering up for the failures of the NHS, the police and the legal system is what they're most interested in.

YourAmplePlumPoster · 05/02/2025 18:13

I keep thinking about poor Sally Clark, convicted through a dodgy "expert." But this case is possibly the worst miscarriage of justice we have ever seen.

onwardsup4 · 05/02/2025 20:19

Quitelikeit · 05/02/2025 15:26

What is not normal is multiple collapses and babies not responding to resuscitation in a way they normally would

How is that down to poor care? Otherwise given the poor care in this country there would be preemies collapsing left right and centre!!!

Also not normal to have insulin administered! This was a fact, it is undeniable

I wonder what the experts said about the insulin!!!

Oh don't have to wonder you can watch the press conference in full. It's on YouTube. It's long but very enlightening.

Halycon · 05/02/2025 20:25

onwardsup4 · 05/02/2025 20:19

Oh don't have to wonder you can watch the press conference in full. It's on YouTube. It's long but very enlightening.

It’s also here, summarised in written format.

drive.google.com/file/d/1aV4zwwdBYw8Z_E-Tpe9_-iPR7n8cZdFk/view

Oftenaddled · 05/02/2025 20:28

Re: insulin. Here you are, @Quitelikeit , from the summary report.

My summary: the hospital got the treatment wrong. The prosecution misrepresented the test results, which actually show that there was no exogenous insulin. They also falsified the timings. That hid the fact that the baby recovered when the hospital started the right treatment.

....

CONVICTION

It was alleged that Baby 6 was given exogenous insulin through the infusion bag because there was a prolonged period of hypoglycemia, his blood glucose inexplicably rose from 1.3 to 2.4 when his dextrose infusion stopped from 1000 to 1200 hours, his blood sugar rose after his infusion bag was changed at 1900 hours, and he had high insulin but low c-peptide levels which indicates exogenous insulin was used.

PANEL OPINION

The hypoglycemia started with sepsis and was prolonged because the IV infiltrated for several hours.

When hypoglycaemia persisted despite 10% dextrose infusion, a higher glucose infusion should have been given earlier. Repeat boluses of 10% dextrose worsen hypoglycemia because they cause surges of
blood sugar, which trigger surges of insulin secretion, resulting in a yo-yo pattern of sharp rises and falls in insulin and blood sugar.

When the dextrose infusion was stopped from 1000 to 1200 hours, the blood
sugar did not rise from 1.3 to 2.4 as alleged, because the blood sugar was 1.4 at 1146 hours. The 2.4 level was measured after 1200 hours, when the IV was restarted.

Since infusion bags were prepared in
the pharmacy, stored in the unit, and changed at 1200 hours, multiple infusion bags would have to be contaminated if there was insulin poisoning.

The blood sugar rose after 1900 hours, not because the infusion bag was changed, but because the dextrose was increased to 15%. Chase and Shannon (see Annex) reported that preterm infants have different insulin and c-peptide normative standards than
adults.

Exogenous insulin is unlikely to be the cause of hypoglycemia because the C-peptide was not low for preterm infants (20-45 percentile), potassium levels were normal (insulin decreases potassium), glucose levels should be lower if exogenous insulin was used, the Insulin / C-Peptide (I/C) ratio was within the expected range for preterm infants, insulin autoimmune antibodies (IAA) which are common in preterm infants bind to insulin and increase measured insulin levels, and the immunoassay test is unreliable because interference factors like sepsis and antibiotics can give false positive insulin readings.

CONCLUSIONS

  1. Baby 6 had prolonged hypoglycemia because of sepsis, prematurity, borderline intrauterine growth restriction, lack of intravenous glucose when the long line infiltrated for a prolonged period of several hours, and poor medical management of hypoglycemia.
  1. Baby 6’s insulin level and I/C ratio do not prove that exogenous insulin was used, and are within the norm for preterm infants. Preterm infants and especially those with illness and drug treatments like antibiotics have different normative standards compared to healthy adults and older children.
onwardsup4 · 05/02/2025 20:29

Thanks @Halycon I can't believe people are still posing their doubts over the new report without even watching or reading it

Oftenaddled · 05/02/2025 20:42

Quitelikeit · 05/02/2025 15:26

What is not normal is multiple collapses and babies not responding to resuscitation in a way they normally would

How is that down to poor care? Otherwise given the poor care in this country there would be preemies collapsing left right and centre!!!

Also not normal to have insulin administered! This was a fact, it is undeniable

I wonder what the experts said about the insulin!!!

There's an easy answer on the resuscitations, @Quitelikeit .

The hospital wasn't good at infant resuscitations and made fundamental errors (babies K and O). These two babies collapsed because of poor intubation and unrecognised internal bleeding respectively.

In other cases the children had unrecognised events or conditions that went untreated and caused frequent collapse (I) or made resuscitation futile (A and D).

CantStopBuyingSeeds · 05/02/2025 21:19

LL's very own Solicitor was on the radio yesterday and he said that even if the CCRC decide to allow a review, it could take 8 years before it's heard!

CantStopBuyingSeeds · 05/02/2025 21:21

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

There is no process within UK law for a "rapid look" please see my previous comment just before this

RafaistheKingofClay · 05/02/2025 21:30

dubsie · 04/02/2025 21:28

The evidence is all circumstantial and I'm saying there's doubt over her conviction and that must be looked at.

There is no medical evidence of any foul play, no evidence of air or substance being injected. The statistical anomaly that led to a police investigation.... found circumstancial link and a diary entry from Lucy Letby.

Has anyone considered that this might be just a poorly functioning hospital department. It's not the first time...Stoke on Trent, Nottingham....all very similar.

If she is innocent I hope she sues the hospital trust for hundreds of millions in damages. Because they threw her to the wolves if that's the case.

Edited

The hospital trust bent over backwards to protect her. They were still proclaiming her innocence after the police began investigating.

This idea that the hospital trust were using her as a scapegoat goat to cover up issues seems to have been invented and is quite at odds with some of the extraordinary lengths they went to deny there was an issue. I’m still not sure they are out of the woods on a corporate manslaughter charge.

springtimeconcerts · 05/02/2025 21:32

RafaistheKingofClay · 05/02/2025 21:30

The hospital trust bent over backwards to protect her. They were still proclaiming her innocence after the police began investigating.

This idea that the hospital trust were using her as a scapegoat goat to cover up issues seems to have been invented and is quite at odds with some of the extraordinary lengths they went to deny there was an issue. I’m still not sure they are out of the woods on a corporate manslaughter charge.

The doctors weren’t, though. They were certainly pretty keen to decide a murderer was working with neonates.

YourAmplePlumPoster · 05/02/2025 22:40

Look at how swiftly the courts moved to lock up the summer rioters. If there's a political will there's a way to get action.

Quitelikeit · 06/02/2025 07:37

@springtimeconcerts

no the drs didn’t think there was a killer! They were not determined to do anything aside from have her removed from the ward!

they did not even consider that she was deliberately harming babies - that’s why people are upset ffs because she was not stopped sooner!!!!!

the misinformation on this thread is astonishing

Squidtentacles · 06/02/2025 07:43

Thedownsideisup · 04/02/2025 21:06

Being awkward and making people feel uncomfortable is more likely to be due to some sort of neurodiversity than being a killer (I know this from personal experience, unfortunately).

I know it's always unpopular to jump onto this on MN, but this was exactly what I was thinking. I don't know much about this particular case as I haven't followed it much.

onwardsup4 · 06/02/2025 07:45

CantStopBuyingSeeds · 05/02/2025 21:19

LL's very own Solicitor was on the radio yesterday and he said that even if the CCRC decide to allow a review, it could take 8 years before it's heard!

I personally do not believe it will take anything like this time. I think he's just stating facts about how long previous miscarriages of justice have taken to be resolved to manage expectations.
To the poster saying the panel have shot themselves in the foot, the decision to make the report public was to make sure it was noticed and rightly so.
The condition of doing the report was that it would be made public regardless of the findings whether they went in letbys favour or not. So nobody has shot themselves in the foot.

Oftenaddled · 06/02/2025 07:49

Quitelikeit · 06/02/2025 07:37

@springtimeconcerts

no the drs didn’t think there was a killer! They were not determined to do anything aside from have her removed from the ward!

they did not even consider that she was deliberately harming babies - that’s why people are upset ffs because she was not stopped sooner!!!!!

the misinformation on this thread is astonishing

The doctors hedged their bets. They played "wargames" privately to see how she might have killed. They compiled a list of "suspicious" incidents for the police with her name on it. But they wanted management to be the ones who contacted the police.

Management took her off the ward within a week of the consultants requesting it. It's not obvious how they failed to listen to the consultants or why anyone should have thought the consultants had evidence of murder that was being ignored

AiryFairyLights · 06/02/2025 07:51

YourAmplePlumPoster · 04/02/2025 20:52

In effect, the NHS stitched up a nurse for serious failings on that ward. Very convenient, when you have male doctors and consultants who have failed.

This is my thoughts exactly!
Lucy Letby was made the scapegoat for a broken system with major failings in that particular hospital!
I truly hope this gets sorted soon for her AND the parents of the babies that died because they are in so much pain and limbo not knowing what to believe!

Keepgettingolder81 · 06/02/2025 07:56

Having been an NHS Nurse for 20 years, I wouldn't even bat an eyelid in surprise if it transpired that the Hospital Consultants and Management were in cahoots to pin their failures on a Nurse.

Sadly, this is not a one off.

AiryFairyLights · 06/02/2025 08:03

Oftenaddled · 05/02/2025 16:30

And here is a link to the summary of the press conference the panel passed on to the media

drive.google.com/file/d/1aV4zwwdBYw8Z_E-Tpe9_-iPR7n8cZdFk/view

Thanks for posting this, anyone interested in this case really should read the report fully..... You'll sit back and shake your head in utter dismay 😞

WaitingForMojo · 06/02/2025 08:08

ginasevern · 05/02/2025 13:13

I'm sure that any measure of neurodiversity would have been used in court to explain her odd behaviour. She naturally underwent psychiatric reports. At the very least it would surely have been flagged up by the many people who think she's innocent.

Edited

You are overestimating the legal system here, I’m afraid. A court ordered psych assessment wouldn’t particularly look for neurodivergent conditions, for many reasons.

YourAmplePlumPoster · 06/02/2025 10:55

Aside from the "Letby babies" there are 10 others not linked to Letby whose parents are still awaiting an explanation. I didn't know that until I read it in the DT yesterday.

ThatsNotMyTeen · 06/02/2025 10:56

Oh, yet another thread defending the baby murdering witch.