Lucy Letby, Unanswered Questions.

As did I...

Oreo

You’re very invested in this case gentleshores?

I thought the same with some concern.

Oreo

You’re very invested in this case gentleshores?

🤔
Yes.

Since there was an extensive trial and they had all the facts and we don’t…..

You’re very invested in this case gentleshores?

One comment about the insulin results was they were so unbelievably high that if they had been correct, the baby would have been dead ten times over. They were apparently impossibly high to be correct.

Her new Barrister is acting for free apparently.

However, as I said above, I am thinking she is probably guilty - but then I see something else and there are doubts again.

There are many many arguments about the insulin cases - the ones you've mentioned from court evidence, and other experts saying differently. As Lucy Letby's new Barrister says - when these things are put to him - he has other medical experts whose opinions disagree with that. I think one thing was the low c peptide is not relevant with hyperinsulinism. Another argument was that the dextrose in the tpn bag would have counteracted any insulin in it (don't know how reliable that is).

If the medical notes say that the levels went up and down with the bags - I can see that is a persuasive argument, but it's not proof there was insulin in the bags. And that is the issue - there was no evidence at all or proof of insulin being in the bags. Or of any missing insulin. Or of Lucy Letby being anywhere near the fridge where the TPN bags were kept (the day before - she wasn't on duty when the TPN bags were put up).

Thanks. I'm aware of the prosecution case. And just posted above I think she probably did it (but there are still doubts.

The last appeal was recorded and is now on youtube. It's a lengthy watch but interesting to see both barristers (the same ones from the original trial) and I'm still of the opinion that one is a much better barrister than the other. The prosecution barrister is completely mesmerising, measured and authoritative. Letby's barrister waffled, looked disorganised, repeated himself a lot and, at times, sounded like a public schoolboy reading an essay.

None of which is relevant to whether she's guilty or not of course, but that was the issue with the Post Office trial - the Post Office had the best barristers and unlimited funds.

gentleshores

Skye. I do hear you and I know some people are convinced of her guilt. I read the daily court reporting in the Chester Standard so I'm aware of all the arguments and the skilfull prosecution case. Most of that though was making a case for her being guilty - without any actual evidence of her doing anything. It sounded very persuasive. There were parts when the defence did point out contradictions and inconsistencies.

What happened was - a medical expert decided these were suspicious deaths and came up with a theory of what she had done to cause them. The prosecution then elaborated that into a story that was mesmerising to read, as if it was fact. Aligning various notes etc with it (which also weren't all fact).

A very strong case was made.

The issues being raised now, by scientists and medical experts, is with the initial medical expert's theory - without that, the rest of the story means nothing.

Prosecutors are very good at making these arguments. There was a point where he claimed she killed them to get the attention of her Doctor friend so he'd be called out. That isn't fact, it's making an argument.

But if the medical information and science used to say they babies were killed, is incorrect, the whole case falls apart.

And I think that's why medical experts and scientists are raising issues.

I don't agree with you on the insulin. Much was made of the fact, in the press mainly, that low c peptide with high insulin "can only" mean it's synthetic insulin that has been injected. But that isn't the case, as the Telegraph article shows.

If the reliable/correct tests had been done and shown it was synthetic insulin then there would have been no doubt. But they weren't done. Therefore the tests done aren't reliable to prove it (as the article shows). I also take the point that they used medical records to suggest glucose went up and down at various times - which might or might not build a picture, if a baby had an immune condition or hyperinsulinism.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/10/18/insulin-tests-convict-letby-cannot-be-relied-upon/

The other thing was about the Dr who says he saw her when a baby's tube had been dislodged and that she must have done it. His evidence has just been dismissed by the latest court ruling because a) he had never mentioned it or recorded it until the actual trial and b) he had contradictory stories.

There are also medical experts who disagree with the argument that babies can't dislodge their own breathing tubes. The video below is very good on that topic. (By a neonatologist).

I am not arguing she is innocent - I don't know - but there are doubts about whether the trial was fair and the medical evidence reliable enough to convict someone to prison for life.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0QI6GiA8ZU

What the lawyer on Reddit said about expert witnesses acting for the court is technically correct, but that is the same for both the defence and prosecution and although technically expert witnesses have a duty to the court, the prosecution and defence select witnesses who will argue their case. So they are not entirely neutral. I just read that somewhere today from a lawyer.

The prosecution then elaborated that into a story that was mesmerising to read, as if it was fact.
They backed up their narrative with medical and other evidence, as described in my post above, made on 25 Oct 24 at 21:21.

I also take the point that they used medical records to suggest glucose went up and down at various times - which might or might not build a picture, if a baby had an immune condition or hyperinsulinism.
1. Correlation of blood glucose levels with hanging and removal of bags
But even if Baby F or Baby L did have an immune condition or hyperinsulinism, that would not explain why their blood glucose levels went down when a certain IV nutrition bag was hung and up when it was removed.

The idea that there was insulin in the bag does explain this. The insulin brought down the babies’ blood sugar while it was running into their bodies, and when it stopped being given their blood sugar recovered.


(The medical records didn't just suggest that their glucose levels went down and up when the spiked bags were given and removed. They demonstrate conclusively that this happened. One set is given here (scroll down):
www.reddit.com/r/lucyletby/comments/164gpk1/child_f_prosecution_case_in_chief_insulin_evidence/

2. Autoimmune disorder
Babies F and L didn’t suffer further from hypoglycaemia (low blood sugar) once they stopped being given those particular bags. But if they had had an autoimmune condition like insulin autoimmune syndrome, I have read that it would not suddenly clear up in this way. Symptoms would persist for longer.

3. Third baby with high insulin
You mentioned previously a third baby who was found to have extremely high insulin and was subsequently diagnosed with a hyperinsulinism. However, //four experts have informed Panorama that CHI [congenital hyperinsulinism] could not account for such an extraordinarily high insulin reading for the infant - partly due to the low C-peptide level, but also because a baby with CHI would never generate that much insulin.//
www.walesonline.co.uk/news/uk-news/new-evidence-suggests-lucy-letby-30190576

His evidence has just been dismissed by the latest court ruling
The Court of Appeal ruling, refusing LL leave to appeal against her conviction for the murder of Baby K, doesn’t say that the judges dismissed Dr Jayaram’s evidence. It says:

//Legitimate criticism could be made of his evidence.//
(Paragraph 18.)
www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/R-v-LETBY-202402750-B4-FINAL-_.pdf

As the judges refused leave to appeal, it seems they did not think legitimate criticism of his evidence made a significant difference.

Or unless it was the alleged affair/relationship with that Doctor that was keeping her there.

There's one thing I find odd as well. When she went to a tribunal and it was found in her favour and the Doctors had to apologise. She wanted to go back to the neonatal unit and her old job. If that was me and those Doctors had accused me of harming children - there is no way I would have wanted to go back to the same job - I'd have wanted a transfer to a different hospital. But maybe, at that stage, she thought they were just criticising her practice, and she wasn't aware that they were thinking she'd caused deliberate harm. And wanted to prove herself. Either way, I wouldn't have wanted to be around the same Doctors.

So if she actually had murdered babies and she knew she was suspected - why on earth would she want to go back and do the same again - rather than "get away with it" and move on to a new hospital having been exonerated. Even if she didn't know the Doctors suspected foulplay and thought they just thought her practice was inadequate, surely it would have been better to move on to a better working environment.

I can't see why she would want to go back to that same job, whether she was innocent or guilty. But can only think that, at this stage, she just thought they were critical of her practice and wasn't aware they thought she was causing deliberate harm. Which suggests she might be innocent.

Unless it was some kind of powerplay.

I actually think she probably did it. But I still have the odd doubt. A sort of Munchausens by proxy maybe. And she got addicted to it. It doesn't make sense unless she went mad. Maybe the affair drove her mad.

bump

It could mean - dreading a first death and wanting to get rid of that dread by getting it out of the way - but the way it's phrased does sound bad.

All I would say is thank heavens they don’t still have the death penalty. How dreadful if it turns out this woman is not guilty. From what I have read this is not likely but still …

I also agree - you think most people would be dreading their first death. This is what the nurse reported she said. To get it out of the way. But the "can't wait for" does seem strange. This is a second hand report of what she said though.

"Recalling the conversation, she said: “[Letby] commented that she can't wait for her first death to get it out of the way."

www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cz7jd3jd7qvo

Indeed, it's awful for them. I hope it gets sorted out somehow. I noticed a couple of journalists are making profit out of the speculation and doubts now as well.

Oh thank you gentleshores!

Yes I guess the ‘first death’ comment could be interpreted as you suggested, but saying “I can’t wait” is a very strange way to phrase it. Surely most medics would be dreading such an occurrence.

Most of all of course I just feel so desperately sorry for the poor parents of all those babies she murdered who are now having to endure all this speculation about whether Letby really is guilty.

The first thing I ever saw about this was a news report that she was under arrest for killing babies, her photo and the post it notes all over the papers - I think this was just before the trial. It was shocking and gruesome. I thought - ugh. Then I read a bit more and the post it notes a bit more and thought - what if they've got this wrong. Throughout the trial I hoped she'd be found innocent somehow - because it was too awful to contemplate. I had a peak at Websleuths where they'd already decided her guilty. But then I saw this newspaper article - from before she was arrested - about the hospital and the deaths. Before the police gave all the medical notes to Dr Evans.

It was clear the hospital had serious problems already and there was mention of a particular locum Doctor the nurses didn't like being there. So that chart that was done for the court, showing who was on duty the night the babies died - only showed nurses - no Doctors. That did suggest they'd already decided it must be a nurse.

The investigation was into "an NHS Hospital baby unit criticised for staffing shortages and serious failings". Those were historical criticisms - before the baby deaths.

Also after the rise in baby deaths "The mortality rate rise prompted the hospital to stop caring for babies born before 32 weeks and to close its three intensive care cots in July last year".

So when people say the baby deaths stopped when Lucy Letby was removed - it was also at a time when the hospital stopped taking the youngest neonates and closed the intensive care cots - ie - they downgraded their ability to care for younger neonates and very sick babies.

It also quotes a Mother who had previously had issues with the hospital and how there were so many critical delays for her son due to the shortage of Doctors (they only had 3 instead of 8 available most of the time).

The police said they couldn't rule out foul play but no one individual was under suspicion and no one had been arrested.

I think it was this article in the paper that I read prompted Dr Dewi Evans to contact the police and say it sounded like his kind of case. And the Doctors had already given the police the name of their suspect - Lucy Letby.

Anyway - the point being - there were very serious issues with that baby unit before the rate in baby deaths - and they were not really fit or staffed to care for such young neonates by the sound of it.

But the nurses seemed to have doubts about a particular doctor - that bit didn't seem to get investigated.

"The RCPCH report found nurses had expressed concerns about the capabilities of one locum doctor and, despite seeking reassurances that he would not be re-employed, he was allowed to return".

I think they should have investigated the Doctors as well as looking at nursing rotas.

This is from 2017

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4518212/Baby-deaths-Countess-Chester-Hospital-probed.html

Allira

So many armchair forensic experts on Gransnet!

I haven't seen any. Some open and some closed minds, and many cliches. The norm for GB.

So many armchair forensic experts on Gransnet!

I don't know where people get the "sweet and innocent" cliche from

I am talking about people who have never met her, including some posters on here.

They may never know, of course, if some people they may have met have had psychopathic tendencies.

M0nica

Allira

Good post Ziplok

It is hard to think of a pretty, blonde, blue-eyed English nurse as having psychopathic tendencies but sadly, they do not come with a label round their necks nor do they look like ogres.

That, of course, is the nub of the problem, Lucy Letby looks like everyones perfect daughter or grand daughter. But that is always the case.

Dr Harold Shipman was the perfect family GP, many of his patients spoke highly of him and the care he gave them. It did not stop him killing unknown numbers of his older patients.

If someone looked or acted in a way that had 'psychopathic killer' written all over them, they would, actually, get very little chance of living up to their presentation.

The reason serial killers like Leyby are so successful is because it seems impossible to believe that some one as sweet and innocent looking as her, could possibly have committed the crimes she did, as this thread has shown.

I don't know where people get the "sweet and innocent" cliche from. She was pulled apart by the prosecuting barrister for being cold and uncaring, arrogant even, a criticism some of her working superiors made of her too. I think had she been perceived as sweet and innocent during her 4 days giving evidence then that may have gone more in her favour.
It seems the reasons being raised that there may have been a miscarriage of justice is that expert opinions are being countered by other experts. The evidence is only circumstantial. The unit was mismanaged, underfunded, the doctors too inexperienced to take proper responsibility and make judgement calls and deferring to a consultant who was too busy to make the normal daily rounds and only did biweekly rounds. A jury who were reduced to 11 and then allowed to consider a majority verdict based on massive (10000 pages?) of detailed neonatal medical and pathology information that would be beyond most people's comprehension. Statistical evidence misinterpreted and presented by non statisticians.
No, her supposed sweetness is yet another smokescreen, if the verdict is beyond reasonable doubt that should have been proved. It seems to many far more knowledgeable than me that it hasn't been. It is their doubt that concerns me.