Lucy Letby

[Engineman Hicks]

23 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

Are there any other possible causes of raised levels of insulin? Or are they 100% certain that (one way or another) insulin was administered?

The defence argued that the test used was inappropriate as it was designed for adults not very premature babies. This wasn’t accepted by the jury but it’s very technical stuff.
 

Remember this whole case was mainly deduced from reading patchy medical notes written at the time  but reviewed years later. In one of the air embolism cases, there’s no record in the actual medical notes of skin discolouration but the consultant said years later that he thinks re remembers it being present but somehow didn’t think at the time to write it down. That’s the standard of actual evidence. 
 

it’s obvious to me that they worked backwards from the unusual pattern of deaths to construct a case. This conviction is surely not beyond reasonable doubt. 

[VladimirIlyich]

9 minutes ago, Engineman Hicks said:

The defence argued that the test used was inappropriate as it was designed for adults not very premature babies. This wasn’t accepted by the jury but it’s very technical stuff.
 

Remember this whole case was mainly deduced from reading patchy medical notes written at the time  but reviewed years later. In one of the air embolism cases, there’s no record in the actual medical notes of skin discolouration but the consultant said years later that he thinks re remembers it being present but somehow didn’t think at the time to write it down. That’s the standard of actual evidence. 
 

it’s obvious to me that they worked backwards from the unusual pattern of deaths to construct a case. This conviction is surely not beyond reasonable doubt. 

I'd argue that most aren't and that's the problem with any judicial system. Again,if,that Spiked article is reliable then that is as close to it as is possible.

[No2]

1 hour ago, Engineman Hicks said:

What you are omitting is that the bags were kept in a fridge and there were several other completely heterogenous bags. The theory is that another nurse took out the bag and used it when Letby wasn’t working. The prosecution case argued that Letby had planted it there the night before in the hope that the other nurse would somehow select that one bag from several other uncontaminated and completely identical bags and administer it. Remember this was conjecture years after the eveht. Nobody tested any bags at the time or saw her put anything in the fridge. The poor baby had high levels of insulin but everything else leading up to that point is conjecture only. It’s a ludicrous hypothesis but the jury accepted it. 

I'm not omitting anything, lifetime had said she had acknowledged herself that someone used insulin. I merely shared that part. The rest of it is there in the same judgement. 

[No2]

1 hour ago, Engineman Hicks said:

What you are omitting is that the bags were kept in a fridge and there were several other completely heterogenous bags. The theory is that another nurse took out the bag and used it when Letby wasn’t working. The prosecution case argued that Letby had planted it there the night before in the hope that the other nurse would somehow select that one bag from several other uncontaminated and completely identical bags and administer it. Remember this was conjecture years after the eveht. Nobody tested any bags at the time or saw her put anything in the fridge. The poor baby had high levels of insulin but everything else leading up to that point is conjecture only. It’s a ludicrous hypothesis but the jury accepted it. 

I'm not omitting anything, lifetime had said she had acknowledged herself that someone used insulin. I merely shared that part. The rest of it is there in the same judgement. 

[No2]

1 hour ago, Engineman Hicks said:

What you are omitting is that the bags were kept in a fridge and there were several other completely heterogenous bags. The theory is that another nurse took out the bag and used it when Letby wasn’t working. The prosecution case argued that Letby had planted it there the night before in the hope that the other nurse would somehow select that one bag from several other uncontaminated and completely identical bags and administer it. Remember this was conjecture years after the eveht. Nobody tested any bags at the time or saw her put anything in the fridge. The poor baby had high levels of insulin but everything else leading up to that point is conjecture only. It’s a ludicrous hypothesis but the jury accepted it. 

I'm not omitting anything, lifetime had said she had acknowledged herself that someone used insulin. I merely shared that part. The rest of it is there in the same judgement. 

[Engineman Hicks]

7 minutes ago, No2 said:

I'm not omitting anything, lifetime had said she had acknowledged herself that someone used insulin. I merely shared that part. The rest of it is there in the same judgement. 

Treble post ? 

[Mudface]

Are you sure you're not omitting anything, @No2?

[Babb'sBurstNad]

No2's going to get the papers 

[M_B]

16 hours ago, lifetime fan said:

 

Letby acknowledged some babies had been murdered by insulin in saline bags - just not by her. 

 

The babies poisoned with insulin both survived, but yes she did acknowledge foul play.

 

However, whilst the blood tests suggest the babies were administered insulin, the validity of those tests has been questioned. This is an interesting section from the doc that code linked:

 

Quote

The blood sample for the first baby had been taken 10 hours after Letby had left the hospital; any insulin delivered by her would no longer be detectable, especially since the tube for the first I.V. bag had fallen out of place, which meant that the baby had to be given a new one.

 

I have no idea if that is true, but if the insulin argument swayed the jury (which it no doubt did) then you do have to wonder. I wonder how much of that article is untrue though.

 

Edit: I know I am in danger of stepping into armchair detective land here so I'll stop now, but still, it does raise an eyebrow.

 

[Babb'sBurstNad]

But surely they can't know when the IV line fell out? Therefore, they can't say when the spiked dose ended, and would be out of the child's system.

[M_B]

Well I assume they recorded the time when they administered the new bag and made the calculation from there, but we know what assumptions do and this is really armchair detective territory so I'll leave it there.

[Babb'sBurstNad]

But if us armchair detectives don't solve it, who will? The courts, with 1000s of hours of expert testimony? Pfft. I've read at least three articles about this, and Code used to live with a nurse. You can't assemble a more crack team to get justice.

[Mudface]

1 minute ago, Babb'sBurstNad said:

But if us armchair detectives don't solve it, who will? The courts, with 1000s of hours of expert testimony? Pfft. I've read at least three articles about this, and Code used to live with a nurse. You can't assemble a more crack team to get justice.

 

We just need to carry on doing our own research and just asking questions. That'll work.

[Bjornebye]

How many did she murder in total? That’s the burning question 

[lifetime fan]

https://snowdon.substack.com/p/lucy-letby-and-the-texas-sharpshooter?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&triedRedirect=true

[Engineman Hicks]

I think in certain high profile horrific cases, the jury is more worried about lettting somebody 'evil' go free than a wrongful conviction so almost convict on gut feel rather than the evidence. The Jeremy Bamber case is similar, mainly circumstantial evidence and a dodgy witness statement from his ex girlfreind. He has been claiming innocence for decades now and I suspect Letby will do the same.
 

The problem is that becuase the rest of society is understandably focussed on the victims, not many people want to consider the convictions may be unsafe. We are already seeing this at the inquiry with the lawyers saying it is disrespectful to the parents to question the conviction. She’s fucked basically becuase nobody cares about her compared to the parents. 

[lifetime fan]

We should have just had a jury of cranks, statisticians and dumped boyfriends of nurses then. 

[Babb'sBurstNad]

55 minutes ago, lifetime fan said:

We should have just had a jury of cranks, statisticians and dumped boyfriends of nurses then. 

 

So, 12 Codes then?

[Bjornebye]

Baffles me the sheer arrogance of some people thinking they are somehow better informed than those who found her guilty after an intense, long trial with all the evidence. 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

5 hours ago, Engineman Hicks said:

Treble post ? 

I didn't bother reading it.

 

I'm all about the bass.

[Engineman Hicks]

35 minutes ago, Bjornebye said:

Baffles me the sheer arrogance of some people thinking they are somehow better informed than those who found her guilty after an intense, long trial with all the evidence. 

See also the Guildford 4, the Birmingham 6, the Post masters etc etc. All guilty according to your logic. 

[Bjornebye]

6 minutes ago, Engineman Hicks said:

See also the Guildford 4, the Birmingham 6, the Post masters etc etc. All guilty according to your logic. 

Yeah really comparable them. 

[Engineman Hicks]

Just now, Bjornebye said:

Yeah really comparable them. 

How are they different ? All of these cases had intense trials with evidence presented to a jury. Where the people who campaigned to overturn these convictions arrogant ? 

[Bjornebye]

4 minutes ago, Engineman Hicks said:

How are they different ? All of these cases had intense trials with evidence presented to a jury. Where the people who campaigned to overturn these convictions arrogant ? 

Of course not but you’re talking about cases from years ago that are in no way comparable to this case especially in the modern day. 

[No2]

3 hours ago, Engineman Hicks said:

How are they different ? All of these cases had intense trials with evidence presented to a jury. Where the people who campaigned to overturn these convictions arrogant ? 

They're different because your Tory mates set out to stitch up the accused. The jury's were right to convict on the evidence presented to them. The fact the evidence was fabricated is the key difference.