Lucy Letby

[clockspeed]

1 hour ago, Kevin D said:

MH was an expert witness for the defence at the Letby trial who was not called to the stand

So your defense team is up against it and you are facing a life sentence and the expert witness you engaged to debunk or throw doubt on evidence and sway the jury is not called to the stand ????   

 

 

 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

9 minutes ago, clockspeed said:

So your defense team is up against it and you are facing a life sentence and the expert witness you engaged to debunk or throw doubt on evidence and sway the jury is not called to the stand ????   

 

 

 

@Anubis, how do they normally decide which witnesses get called and which ones don't?

[clockspeed]

4 minutes ago, No2 said:

It can't be undeniably correct. There is no murder weapon. No survivors that can give evidence. Man City's lawyers would have got her off. 

I think she would have got off (rightly or wrongly) with high powered representation. Convicting on circumstantial evidence backed up with expert testimony is always going to raise doubts as to how safe the conviction is . Think the issue here is we are not getting the golden bullet that we as (mostly sane) individuals on the forum that makes us comfortable .  I get both sides here but for me the employer had enough information and whistleblowing concerns to remove her from the night shift but , and hit me with info if I am wrong , they were considering putting her back on shift but only didn't due to day staffing issues . So data this data that  when she was removed from night shift either the rate of deaths or whatever metric they used ( to remove her)  indicated no change to the point they were prepared to put her back . 

 

Why not take her out of the firing line altogether ? Monitor her in another department ? See what happens when she removed .  

 

I have cctv cameras everywhere bar the toilets (but have them outside) why in this day and age ( dont quote privacy baby's should be being monitored anyway) was there not surveillance put in place ??  

 

 

[clockspeed]

10 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

@Anubis, how do they normally decide which witnesses get called and which ones don't?

Will wait for the answer but I assume a defence witness can be called by the defence team then cross examined by prosecution.  Whether as a team they were over confident of getting a result, its not like they were calling Kenny Senior  onto the stand, someone who could wreck the whole defence, your calling your expert witness who on reading that letter to the lancet fundamentally disagrees with some analysis/diagnosis the prosecution  is making and more fundamentally has or is going to present to the jury . 

[Numero Veinticinco]

50 minutes ago, Strontium said:

 

Not as amazing as Lucy Letby though, who was able to kill numerous people at will without anyone ever witnessing it, using numerous different MOs, and without a single one of the murders being detected by autopsy. Truly, we are dealing with this century's great criminal mastermind.

Well, that answers my previous question. SHE’S GUILTY! 
 

This would surely be one of the biggest miscarriages of justice in the history of the country. They surely had to have something on her?

 

No, no, don’t answer that, the less I know the better. 

[Babb'sBurstNad]

28 minutes ago, clockspeed said:

So your defense team is up against it and you are facing a life sentence and the expert witness you engaged to debunk or throw doubt on evidence and sway the jury is not called to the stand ????   

 

 

 

 

Yeah, does seem a bit weird. Leads you to think either her experienced KC was bizarrely remiss, or had doubts about the witness's testimony standing up to scrutiny.

[Bjornebye]

Amanda Knox > Lucy Letby 

[Code]

2 hours ago, Section_31 said:

 

Can't open that as it's banned in the UK.

 

 

https://londonletter.substack.com/p/special-edition-the-lucy-letby-new

[Numero Veinticinco]

25 minutes ago, Bjornebye said:

Amanda Knox > Lucy Letby 

Very cheap rep bait. Repped. 

[M_B]

1 hour ago, Code said:

https://londonletter.substack.com/p/special-edition-the-lucy-letby-new

 

That is very sobering.

[M_B]

Here's a counter argument:

 

https://www.spiked-online.com/2024/08/30/the-case-against-lucy-letby/

[Code]

22 minutes ago, M_B said:

Here's a counter argument:

 

https://www.spiked-online.com/2024/08/30/the-case-against-lucy-letby/

Having lived with a nurse working on such a unit, I lost interest after the first sentence of that. 

[Engineman Hicks]

5 hours ago, Kevin D said:

From the British Medical Journal

 

Lucy Letby is found guilty of attempting to murder premature baby after retrial | The BMJ

 

Dear Editor,

 

The verdict following the retrial of Baby K followed soon after the announcement by the Appeal Court judges, on 2nd July 2024, that all applications for leave to appeal the convictions in the original 2023 trial were refused. The trial jury would have been aware of this decision and it is possible it influenced them in reaching their verdict. The judgement raises important issues concerning the interface between the legal and medical professions with regard to evaluation of medical and scientific evidence and the regulation of expert witnesses.

 

The phrase "skin discolouration" appears 48 times in the judgement; the names "Lee and Tanswell" appear 25 times. A major component of the prosecution case was that the skin discoloration observed in some of the babies who were the alleged victims of Lucy Letby was caused by her injecting air into their veins, leading to "air embolism". The main medical evidence offered by the prosecution in support of this accusation was a paper by Lee and Tanswell which reviewed 53 published cases of neonatal "air" embolism.(1) Certain types of skin discoloration were reported in some of the cases. After reviewing this evidence, the judges concluded that any form of skin discoloration may be a sign of air embolism, provided that it is not the only clinical sign. The judges did not list the other signs but sudden unexpected collapse seems to be one of them.

 

The basis for the judges’ determination is flawed, in my opinion, for the following reasons:

(i) The Lee and Tanswell paper, despite its misleading title, did not describe features of air embolism – the gas which entered the babies’ circulation was primarily oxygen, not air, and it was pumped at high pressure into the pulmonary circulation, not injected into a peripheral vein.

(ii) I have found only one paper which describes specific skin changes associated with the accidental injection of air, rather than oxygen, into a peripheral vein.(2) The changes were quite different to those described by Lee and Tanswell and to those described in the trial babies. Of particular note, the changes were not transient or "migratory", a pivotal feature of the case alleged by the prosecution and embraced by the judges.

 

It is likely that an independent experienced medical reviewer would have identified these evidential concerns and would have been able to advise the judges accordingly.

 

The second issue relates to the suitability of the two prosecution neonatal expert witnesses to interpret for the Court neonatal practice as it was in 2015-2016. Dr Evans had retired from full-time clinical practice in neonatal intensive care in 2009 and Dr Bohin also in 2009, although she continued to practise in Guernsey as a consultant paediatrician with neonates – that is in each case 13 years before the start of the trial. In all, five judges determined that the two expert witnesses were suitably qualified to give evidence and that it was for the jury to assess the validity of their evidence.

 

But, first, on what basis were the judges qualified to make this decision? Second, as no medical expert witnesses were called for the defence, how could the jury assess the validity of the prosecution medical expert evidence, in the absence of any peer comparators offered by the defence?

 

There is a need to explore how we – the medical and legal professions - can do better in combining our areas of expertise in the identification and evaluation of medical evidence. In the meantime, we need to recognise and respect the boundaries of our different areas of expertise.

 

Dr Michael Hall
Retired Consultant Neonatologist

 

1. Lee SK, Tanswell AK. Pulmonary vascular air embolism in the newborn. Arch Dis Child. 1989;64(4 Spec No):507-10.

2. Willis J, Duncan C, Gottschalk S. Paraplegia due to peripheral venous air embolus in a neonate: a case report. Pediatrics. 1981;67(4):472-3.

 

Competing interests: MH was an expert witness for the defence at the Letby trial who was not called to the stand

This was the central plank of the prosecution case, the main evidence. If the air embolism evidence is discredited then all that’s left is that she was on duty at the time when babies died and her mad notes. Without the air embolism evidence there’s no proof that a lot of these poor babies had even been murdered. 
 

Re the on duty point, in one case, the baby had been declining all night and died 4 minutes after she started her morning shift but they still charged her with the murder.
 

The prosecution also omitted to show the cases where babies had died on the unit and she hadn’t been at work. 

 

Some of us have been saying for years that this conviction is not beyond all reasonable doubt. 

[M_B]

26 minutes ago, Code said:

Having lived with a nurse working on such a unit, I lost interest after the first sentence of that. 

 

It is opinionated, but it's important to see past the fluff. There are still some interesting points.

[skend04]

1 hour ago, Engineman Hicks said:

This was the central plank of the prosecution case, the main evidence. If the air embolism evidence is discredited then all that’s left is that she was on duty at the time when babies died and her mad notes. Without the air embolism evidence there’s no proof that a lot of these poor babies had even been murdered. 
 

Re the on duty point, in one case, the baby had been declining all night and died 4 minutes after she started her morning shift but they still charged her with the murder.
 

The prosecution also omitted to show the cases where babies had died on the unit and she hadn’t been at work. 

 

Some of us have been saying for years that this conviction is not beyond all reasonable doubt. 

 

I had read that there were around 6 or 7 other deaths within the same time frame that Letby was said to have been acting all Beverly Allitt around the neo-natal unit. 

 

[lifetime fan]

 

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

[Bjornebye]

4 minutes ago, lifetime fan said:

 

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

Is that true? So she’s a callous murdering cunt then 

[lifetime fan]

Just now, Bjornebye said:

Is that true? So she’s a callous murdering cunt then 

It’s been read out at the inquiry. 

[Bjornebye]

12 minutes ago, lifetime fan said:

It’s been read out at the inquiry. 

Im sure @Strontium and @Code will be right along to justify her knowingly admitting murder had happened but not reporting it….. yep any minute now ……

[No2]

8 hours ago, Engineman Hicks said:

This was the central plank of the prosecution case, the main evidence. If the air embolism evidence is discredited then all that’s left is that she was on duty at the time when babies died and her mad notes. Without the air embolism evidence there’s no proof that a lot of these poor babies had even been murdered. 
 

Re the on duty point, in one case, the baby had been declining all night and died 4 minutes after she started her morning shift but they still charged her with the murder.
 

The prosecution also omitted to show the cases where babies had died on the unit and she hadn’t been at work. 

 

Some of us have been saying for years that this conviction is not beyond all reasonable doubt. 

Why would they bring in babies that weren't murdered?

[No2]

6 hours ago, lifetime fan said:

 

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

From the judges summary.

 

 29. In both cases of poisoning, the prosecution relied upon the evidence of Professor Hindmarsh, a consultant in paediatric endocrinology. He gave evidence in the case concerning Baby F, that the blood test results demonstrated that he had been given exogenous insulin over a period of 17 hours and that the insulin had been administered at a constant level over that time. One bag which was already running had been spiked. Another bag of stock insulin had also been contaminated. The same person must have contaminated both as the level of insulin added to the two bags was similar. In the case of Baby L, Professor Hindmarsh said that the baby’s hypoglycaemia had continued from 9 April until around 15.00 on 11 April and that the only way in which the hypoglycaemia could have been induced was via the administration of insulin in the feed. He calculated that either 2 or 3 bags of fluid had been contaminated.30. At trial, the integrity of the blood samples and reliability of the biochemical testing was challenged by Mr Myers. However, in her evidence at trial, the applicant admitted that both babies had been poisoned by insulin, but denied that she was the poisoner. The prosecution relied upon the unlikelihood of there being two poisoners at work on the unit.

[VladimirIlyich]

7 hours ago, No2 said:

From the judges summary.

 

 29. In both cases of poisoning, the prosecution relied upon the evidence of Professor Hindmarsh, a consultant in paediatric endocrinology. He gave evidence in the case concerning Baby F, that the blood test results demonstrated that he had been given exogenous insulin over a period of 17 hours and that the insulin had been administered at a constant level over that time. One bag which was already running had been spiked. Another bag of stock insulin had also been contaminated. The same person must have contaminated both as the level of insulin added to the two bags was similar. In the case of Baby L, Professor Hindmarsh said that the baby’s hypoglycaemia had continued from 9 April until around 15.00 on 11 April and that the only way in which the hypoglycaemia could have been induced was via the administration of insulin in the feed. He calculated that either 2 or 3 bags of fluid had been contaminated.30. At trial, the integrity of the blood samples and reliability of the biochemical testing was challenged by Mr Myers. However, in her evidence at trial, the applicant admitted that both babies had been poisoned by insulin, but denied that she was the poisoner. The prosecution relied upon the unlikelihood of there being two poisoners at work on the unit.

If that is true,that is pretty damning in itself.

[Engineman Hicks]

8 hours ago, No2 said:

From the judges summary.

 

 29. In both cases of poisoning, the prosecution relied upon the evidence of Professor Hindmarsh, a consultant in paediatric endocrinology. He gave evidence in the case concerning Baby F, that the blood test results demonstrated that he had been given exogenous insulin over a period of 17 hours and that the insulin had been administered at a constant level over that time. One bag which was already running had been spiked. Another bag of stock insulin had also been contaminated. The same person must have contaminated both as the level of insulin added to the two bags was similar. In the case of Baby L, Professor Hindmarsh said that the baby’s hypoglycaemia had continued from 9 April until around 15.00 on 11 April and that the only way in which the hypoglycaemia could have been induced was via the administration of insulin in the feed. He calculated that either 2 or 3 bags of fluid had been contaminated.30. At trial, the integrity of the blood samples and reliability of the biochemical testing was challenged by Mr Myers. However, in her evidence at trial, the applicant admitted that both babies had been poisoned by insulin, but denied that she was the poisoner. The prosecution relied upon the unlikelihood of there being two poisoners at work on the unit.

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. 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

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

[AngryOfTuebrook]

18 hours ago, M_B said:

Here's a counter argument:

 

https://www.spiked-online.com/2024/08/30/the-case-against-lucy-letby/

Thanks. 

 

This is all I was asking for, when I got my head bitten off.