Lucy Letby, Unanswered Questions.

I don’t know if this has been mentioned before, but I read that the person doing Letby’s final assessment at the end of her training, failed her as she found her very cold, and therefore unsuited to nursing.

She was later re-assessed by a different person who passed her, but the first comment about her coldness has always stuck in my mind.

Iam64

Exactly - we can disagree on some subjects, agree on others. That adds to the interest

It does, and as adults, we can surely all agree to disagree while still respecting the other person's point of view.

Exactly - we can disagree on some subjects, agree on others. That adds to the interest

Crossstitchfan

M0nica

Anniebach

You call me ridiculous ? you are entitled to your opinion

I am not ?

I did not call you ridiculous. I referred to one opinion you hold as ridiculous. In the past you have held opinions which I respected even when I didn't agree with them and I am sure that will be the case in the future, but I consider this one opinion to be ridiculous.

Anniebach and MOnica, you are two of the people I follow most on here and I can’t have you fighting! Please kiss and make up! 🥰

As I said, Anniebach is someone I respect, but we have our disagreements, we wouldn't be human if we didn't.

I caannot speak for Anniebach, but, my irritation, like in this case dissipates with the expression of it, so no need to kiss and make-up, we were never split.

gentleshores - you insist you don’t know whether LL is a serial murderer of infants yet everything you post suggests you believe her to be innocent. You see her as the victim of medical experts, all of whom got it wrong and an incompetent defence team.

M0nica

Anniebach

You call me ridiculous ? you are entitled to your opinion

I am not ?

I did not call you ridiculous. I referred to one opinion you hold as ridiculous. In the past you have held opinions which I respected even when I didn't agree with them and I am sure that will be the case in the future, but I consider this one opinion to be ridiculous.

Anniebach and MOnica, you are two of the people I follow most on here and I can’t have you fighting! Please kiss and make up! 🥰

One thing that raised the most doubts recently, was when Dr Evans was found to have been incorrect about Baby C - and then "changed his mind" about how she might have been killed.

He said Baby C had been killed by an injection of air into the stomach, after looking at an X ray. It was recently found that the x ray he looked at was taken at a time Lucy Letby wasn't even there. The baby was born while she was off duty and the x ray taken a day before she returned to duty.

So she couldn't have injected air into the baby's stomach, as Dr Evans claimed as part of the trial.

Dr Evans then changed his story saying - well even she didn't inject the air into his stomach she must have done something later.

That is almost ridiculous. He diagnosed the cause of death as an injection of air into the stomach, by someone who couldn't possibly have done it. And that was used in the trial as the cause of death, which people believed. And now turns out not to be the case at all.

He says he has "amended his opinion" but it was his opinion at the trial that helped convict Lucy Letby as a murderer. And his opinion that claimed air injected into the stomach killed the baby and split his diaphragm. When it couldn't possibly have been Lucy Letby.

That's a bit like saying - ok so the suspect wasn't there when the victim received a head injury that I said killed the victim, but the suspect might have made it worse later.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/10/01/lucy-letby-witness-changed-mind/

So there is a lot being raised as to how reliable the medical evidence used to convict was.

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.

amp.theguardian.com/world/2024/oct/19/killer-nurse-daniela-poggiali-fought-to-clear-her-name-lucy-letby

This is an interesting read. 🤔

Thanks Monica 😀 It's not my own summary, but I'm glad it's helpful. That was from Sadubehuh on the r/lucyletby subreddit.

BlueBelle

But that’s just it loopyloo ‘you think’ and that is mostly what everyone including the jury is doing, just thinking absolutely no one knows but Lucy Letbie herself
I too read about the Dutch doctor gentleshores and thought how similar it sounded
I have no idea whether she did or didnt I feel for those parents of the babies but if its been a miscarriage of justice how dreadful for LL trapped with no way to prove anything

The jury made up their minds based on the evidence. They didn't only think. If you look into the evidence, BlueBelle, I think you'll be reassured.

You could try the podcast The Trial of Lucy Letby, or look on reddit.com/r/lucyletby.

Skye17 Thank you very much for summarising the evidence so well. Your post will be my 'go to' for any discussion on this subject.

The simple fact of the matter is that the defence team were on a hiding to nothing. The evidence for LL being responsible for the deaths and injuries to those children wass so overwhelming that there was very little to build a defence on.

It is like the paedophile case in Northern Ireland, that had a sentencing hearing today. The perpetrators defence are seen to look almost inadequate, but really, the evidence of this man's guilt was so complete - and at the last minute he pleaded guilty that they really had nothing, not even mitigation, on which to base the defence.

gilljack68

*I have yet to hear of a serial killer being proved innocent*

What about Lucia de Berk.
The Lucia de Berk case was a miscarriage of justice in the Netherlands in which a Dutch licensed paediatric nurse was wrongfully convicted of murder. In 2003, Lucia de Berk was sentenced to life imprisonment, for which no parole is possible under Dutch law, for four murders and three attempted murders of patients under her care. In 2004, after an appeal, she was convicted of seven murders and three attempted murders.

Her conviction was controversial in the media and among scientists, and it was questioned by the investigative reporter Peter R. de Vries. Most prominently, the prosecution's case rested on statistical misrepresentation. In October 2008, the case was reopened by the Dutch Supreme Court, as new facts had been uncovered that undermined the previous verdicts. De Berk was freed, and her case retried; she was exonerated in April 2010.
You can read the case on her wikipaedia page this case included babies too.

That is true, she was a (supposed) serial killer proved innocent.

But she was convicted mainly on the grounds that it was statistically very unlikely that her shifts would coincide with so many deaths and collapses purely by chance. The odds of this happening were said to be one in 342 million.
dutchreview.com/culture/lucia-de-berk-dutch-nurse-wrongfully-imprisoned-6-years/

Whereas Lucy Letby wasn’t convicted on the basis of any statistical evidence. The evidence in her case was mainly medical.

This is a comment from the r/lucyletby thread on reddit.com. I think the writer is a lawyer.

//The prosecution case was that LL did deliberate harm to each baby. In each charge, they used 4 separate, independent experts to show specifically what harm was done. These experts owe a duty to the court, and not their instructing party. It is a very different system to the one you might see on crime dramas. The expert evidence is much more objective and if there is another possible alternative interpretation of the evidence, the expert must acknowledge that.

In each case, Dr Evans, who was the investigating expert, determined precisely when and what harm was done to each baby. Then, CPS engaged their own expert, Dr Bohin, to review these cases and Dr Evans' work. Dr Bohin largely agreed with his conclusions, with some minor matters she didn't agree on. These two experts based their review on the medical notes available.

They also had an expert radiologist whose name escapes me [Dr Owen Arthurs] and Dr Marnerides who was an expert pathologist. Each of these experts also supported the conclusions of deliberate harm. The radiologist used contemporaneous imaging and Dr Marnerides used retained tissue samples and medical records.

The defence engaged at least one medical expert and possibly more. They completed the pretrial conference but for some reason were not called to give testimony. They don't seem to have provided Myers with any significant material to use in cross of the prosecution experts.

Then for each baby, for each specific allegation of harm, they introduced eye witnesses and swipe card data to place Letby by the baby's cotside and having accessed the baby's IV, TPN, dextrose, or having fed them in a way that showed she had unique opportunity to inflict the harm.

Finally, they had eye witness testimony that Letby was shown to have lied about, in a way that indicated her guilt. Particularly for baby E, where Letby's account differed entirely to Baby E's parents, mum's midwife, and phone records. … They were also able to show that Letby falsified some notes and records to try to show that she wasn't near a particular baby.

This prosecution was not the result of a statistical exercise.

… there are five alleged means of harm here. There is AE, forceful overfeeding with milk and air, insulin poisoning, some kind of physical attack to the liver, and interference with breathing support and suffocation. Each of these allegations has a wealth of physical and witness evidence to back it up. None of these cases have the sole point of failure seen in the LdB case.

It's also much harder to convince a jury of 11 random people than it is to convince 3 magistrates, as in the LdB case.

… Further, the defence had a statistical expert conduct a review, and also elected not to introduce that into evidence.

Finally, Richard Gill [statistician] says that he reached out to the prosecution, defence, and judge in advance of this trial and offered his advice. This was also rejected. Neither side in this case proceeded based on statistics.//

But that’s just it loopyloo ‘you think’ and that is mostly what everyone including the jury is doing, just thinking absolutely no one knows but Lucy Letbie herself
I too read about the Dutch doctor gentleshores and thought how similar it sounded
I have no idea whether she did or didnt I feel for those parents of the babies but if its been a miscarriage of justice how dreadful for LL trapped with no way to prove anything

gentleshores

There was no proof or evidence that synthetic insulin had been administered. They made a case for it, but there was no evidence. And the third case was diagnosed as hyperinsulinism. There are a number of medical papers online that say how raised insulin can be caused by immunological issues or genetic disease etc.

I'm no expert in it obviously - but there are medical experts and scientists raising these issues. Dr Evans of course is going to believe she did it because his reputation would be in shreds if he admitted to any doubts at all.

Both sides seem to have such strong beliefs about this case. I think there are some doubts. I'm not saying I think she didn't do it - just that there are quite a lot of issues.

Her KC Barrister has been in court with the prosecuting Barrister a number of times and lost a number of times. Not saying he's no good, but that his opponent was better.

I think generally her defence wasn't much in her favour though. They could have got all these experts together earlier maybe. But there are also odd laws that exclude various evidence as well so some things aren't seen or heard in court. I think the Judge decides on whether some things can be used or not.

There was no proof or evidence that synthetic insulin had been administered.
The high blood insulin levels found by immunoassay, plus the low blood C peptide levels, plus the decrease and increase in blood glucose levels as the TPN bags allegedly containing insulin were hung and removed, plus the other symptoms such as vomiting and heart rate, are the evidence.

These facts are good evidence – so good that the defence, who did engage their own medical experts, brought no argument against them.

Her KC Barrister has been in court with the prosecuting Barrister a number of times and lost a number of times. Not saying he's no good, but that his opponent was better.
I agree with Iam64 here. I think the strength of the cases they were each arguing had to be a factor in the outcomes.

I think generally her defence wasn't much in her favour though. They could have got all these experts together earlier maybe.
I think the defence team will have wanted to maintain their professional reputations. I have wondered whether possibly they felt she was guilty and unconsciously were not that motivated to defend her. But I think more probably they did the best they could with what they had. There just wasn’t a good case either that the babies had not been murdered, or attacked with intent to murder, or that someone else had done it.

The experts who have come forward since the trials have not read any of the medical records.

gentleshores

*In addition, the lab used for the immunoassay has regular checks on the accuracy of its findings. It is extremely unlikely that two separate tests on two occasions would give false readings.*

It isn't the lab that's in question, it's the type of test. That was mentioned by an expert in the Panorama programme. That the test done at the time was not conclusive enough to be used as medical evidence in a court of law. And on the test itself it has a warning saying it can't be relied on (can't remember the wording) but to establish what type of insulin it needs a specific test doing at a specific lab. Those tests weren't done because there were no suspicions and the babies got better.

Five scientists have said the tests weren't reliable. There are medical experts disputing the evidence used in court. That's why the issue has arisen again.

the test done at the time was not conclusive enough to be used as medical evidence in a court of law
I am not an expert in insulin either, but from what I have gathered the test used plus the symptomology together (as described in my post at 20:27 yesterday, 24 October) are enough to be used as medical evidence in a court of law.

It is true that the test used doesn’t establish the exact type of insulin. But that was not needed. The test used was enough to show high levels of insulin and that this insulin could not have come from the babies’ own bodies. Therefore the babies must have been given insulin from outside their bodies (exogenous insulin).

You know about C peptide and insulin? That insulin is formed in the body from a larger molecule which is broken down to form two molecules, insulin and C peptide? So when insulin is produced by the body, the level of C peptide should also be high. But in both baby F and baby L, insulin was high in their blood but C peptide was extremely low. This showed that the babies could not have made the insulin themselves and had to have been given insulin.

This would not have been done in these two cases for any good medical reason, and it was pretty much impossible for it to have been done by accident. Therefore the insulin must have been put into them from outside in order to poison them.

gentleshores

*Air embolism does not leave obvious traces.*

I believe air was seen in the post mortem but accepted as normal - which is another argument I saw against the deliberate air embolism theory. Because it is supposed to be normal for air embolisms to form after death - which is why it was not seen as anything abnormal.

It's confusing how some Doctors saw it as normal and others saw it as suspcious but then it's confusing for anyone who isn't a pathologist or medical Doctor presumably.

I did read that it was a senior coroner who did the initial autopsies though.

I take your points though. But this thread shows the division of thought in the country at large perhaps - those who are absolutely sure and those with doubts. And those who just don't know whether there was enough evidence to be absolutely sure.

Thank you about taking my points, gentleshores.

Dr Owen Arthurs, the eminent radiologist who gave evidence for the prosecution, said that in all the post mortem X-rays he had looked at, he had only seen as much air as there was in Baby A's X-ray in one other case - another of the babies LL was accused of murdering.

He will be more expert on X-rays than the pathologist who did the post mortems, so perhaps that is why he found the air embolisms he saw on the X-rays suspicious but the pathologist did not. Any other experts who have commented since the trial will not have seen the actual X-rays in the case.

As soon as I hear "No comment" their goose is cooked, for me.

Sorry! I don't know enough about it - I'm just thinking out loud I suppose. It's just something I read somewhere.

I’m bewildered that anyone could think a “no comment” police interview could assist an alleged serial killer. Gangsters and career criminals go ‘no comment’. We ordinary mortals talk

The one thing that I've also found odd was the Police interviews. Did she actually have a solicitor with her? And if so why didn't the solicitor advise her to no comment everything? From my (brief) understanding, if she had said no comment to all the questions, the Police couldn't pass it on to the CPS unless they had evidence. There wasn't any evidence, which is why they asked Dr Evans to go through all the files.

It's very odd. Her medical witness, that wasn't called, is a Professor in neonatal medicine - far more highly qualified in the topic than Dr Evans.

Without a balanced view for the jury they could only really find her guilty.

Iam64

gentleshores. her kc barrister has been in court with the prosecuting barrister on a number of times and lost a number of times. Not saying he’s no good, but that his opponent was better. The judge directs the jury based on her/his careful consideration of the evidence before the court. Barristers aren’t likely to ‘win’ for their clients if the evidence isn’t there to help them.

Your posts suggest you believe Letby’s defence team let her down. It’s likely they didn’t call their own independent experts because they reached similar conclusions to those called by the prosecution.

Letby had a lengthy trial after her not guilty plea. All the evidence will have been examined thoroughly. My sympathies are with the parents of those babies

Their medical witness, that wasn't called, was interviewed on the Panorama programme - he had wanted to speak as he didn't agree with the other side's medical evidence and was there every day waiting to be called. He didn't understand why he hadn't been called and said he lost sleep over the case. As he still didn't agree with the medical theories put forwards. There wasn't any evidence really. Just theories.

What I didn't like in that Panorama programme was where the interviewer (who seemed to be on the side of "definitely guilty" asked him if he knew why he hadn't been called. He said no - something like - presumably her barrister decided not to. The interviewer said something like - but the decision would have come down to Lucy Letby herself. And he agreed.

She then said, in an article - it would have been Lucy Letby herself who decided whether to call him or not.

That is misleading. Firstly she doesn't categorically know that. But mainly, people take advice from their Barristers - they don't unilaterally decide whether to call someone - they are not lawyers so they follow what the Barrister advises them to do or not do. I do think maybe her defence let her down, yes.

But I don't know whether she was guilty or not.

That's not theory it's twaddle

Personally, definitely think she's guilty and had the unit been better managed would have been identified much sooner.
Think she was always expected to be the pretty charming child, and found no outlet for her darker side.
One reason why she lived so far from her parents.
Found it difficult to live up to their expectations and could not risk a teenage rebellion.
Then as her 20s went on she felt she wasn't likely to marry and have kids so despair set in.
Looking after sick small babies is not fun and needs some emotional maturity.
Just my theory, of course.