Lucy Letby, Unanswered Questions.

gentleshores- me too. My first pregnancy ended mid-trimester, just over 19 weeks.

I don't remember many details about the birth except we did get to hold her afterwards and tell her how much she would have been loved.

These experiences stay with you for life. I was a neonatal nurse at the time.

Her tiny body was incinerated. Now I could have a place to grieve I was never given.

I believe Letby to be guilty.

I thought I had forgotten about it, but this type of thing does bring it up I suppose. I should probably stop reading all the stuff about it. So yes it's an awful grief to lose a baby even at just 20 weeks or so. I actually had quite a few health problems some months later - dizziness and shortness of breath. Had to go to A&E on holiday. The Doctor there told me it was delayed grief because I hadn't been able to see the baby. That is something I wish had happened and was not happy that it didn't happen. I kept asking and was told - it's too late now. Then discharged - after being in labour all night. They needed the bed.

Anyway - I did make a friend while in there. In the waiting room before I left. Her husband had died so it put things in perspective.

I'm interested to know why you think she's guilty though.

gentleshores

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).

Pleased to see you now think she is probably guilty.

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.
As there is no other explanation for the blood glucose levels going up and down with the bags, apart from insulin being in the bags, this is surely good evidence that there was insulin in the bags.

This is certainly the view of Dr Sandie Bohin, former head of Neonatology at University Hospitals Leicester, Fellow of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health and member of the British Association of Perinatal Medicine. She was an expert witness at Lucy Letby’s first trial.

//For the most part, she agreed with Dr Evans… she concluded that… a further two babies who had suffered non-fatal collapses [i e Babies F and L] had been poisoned with insulin//.
— Unmasking Lucy Letby by Jonathan Coffey and Judith Moritz (Panorama journalists)
amazon.co.uk/kp/kshare?asin=B0D86TC1BF&id=vxilb6t3svfcva5225hfom5v64]]

I have seen no convincing counter-arguments about the insulin evidence.

Or [proof] 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).
Records of insulin use were not kept, so there could not be a record of missing insulin. In addition, it only takes a small amount of insulin to poison a newborn baby. Lucy Letby had access to the fridge where the insulin was kept on the NNU.

I believe it is a question of three TPN bags, two of which she hung. (I would have to check that to be sure.) It would have been easy for her to spike a third bag and leave it to be hung by someone else when she was not on shift. This would shift suspicion away from her.

The link to the book Unmasking Lucy Letby doesn't seem to work, so here's another one:
amzn.eu/d/1e2SjFS

The journalists who wrote this are good at explaining things simply and clearly, and engaging the reader's attention. I can recommend it.

The journalist is profiting from it. I've seen some of her articles and her reasons for thinking Lucy Letby is guilty are flimsy. Talking about her looking frumpy. I think after a couple of years in prison (and on anti depressants apparently) judging someone's demeanour isn't necessarily helpful.

It's the same journalist who was part of the Panorama programme this thread was about. I linked the insulin arguments on the previous page or two - explanations for it.

There was no evidence insulin was in the bags and the blood sugar readings don't prove that either - according to the info linked earlier, from an insulin expert. As he says - it's a guess - nothing concrete. If someone is in prison for life, there needs to be something concrete. There's no actual evidence she did anything at all or that any of the babies were murdered.

Those are the arguments put forward by the experts who think the trial was flawed.

I think this was one of the senior Nurse Managers from the Thirlwall inquiry.

Skye17
I am totally with you, as I have stated before I was a NNIC nurse I think like you she is guilty. I do wonder about her mental health.

Sorry the image looks too small. It says

"Neonatal Unit review 2015-16

1. There is no evidence whatsoever against LL other than coincidence. LL works full time and has the Qualification in Speciality (QIS). She is therefore more likely to be looking after the sickest infant on the unit. LL also avails herself to work overtime when the acuity or unit is over capacity.

2. There are no performance management issues, and there are no members of staff that have complained to me or others regarding her performance.

3. I have found LL to be diligent and have excellent standards within the clinical area.

4. Whilst our mortality rate has risen in the January 2015-January 2016 we have had x3 mortalities from January 2016 to date (May 2016) x2 died due to congenital abnormalities.

5. Dr H and Dr G (Consultant) appears to be involved in many of the mortalities.

6. The Cheshire and Mersey transport service have been involved in a few of these mortalities and they may have survived if the service was running adequately.

7. Alderhey's children's hospitals failure in facilitating a cot also added to the complexities of these mortalities. If there had been a bed sooner, the infant may not have died.

8. Some of the issues were related to midwifery problems.

9. Two of the babies PM's (post mortems) diagnosed Congenital Pneumonia - transport team issue.

10. 4 babies had congenital abnormalities.

11. 1 maternal syndrome.

12. 2 with ? necrotising enterocolitis

13. 1 overwhelming sepsis - transport team issue.

14. AHCH cot availability - 6 admissions between LWH/APH and COCH.

15. Of all the post mortem results there was no evidence of foul play.

Actions:
1. A debrief was held for all the staff involved in the mortalities.
2. Dr Brearey/Debbie Peacock and myself have reviewed all the mortalities.
3. A thematic review was held and led by an external neonatologist (Nim Subedhar) from the level 3 unit at Liverpool womens hospital.
4. These mortalities have also been highlighted to the ODN and discussed at the meetings
5. Debbie Peacock was aware of the commonalities of both the nursing and medical staff.
6. In order to ensure that we support this particular practitioner I have brought her onto days to ensure that she is well supported (I have included her shift pattern since January 2016).
7. Any profound event is monitored closely irrespective of members of staff involved.

gentleshores

The journalist is profiting from it. I've seen some of her articles and her reasons for thinking Lucy Letby is guilty are flimsy. Talking about her looking frumpy. I think after a couple of years in prison (and on anti depressants apparently) judging someone's demeanour isn't necessarily helpful.

It's the same journalist who was part of the Panorama programme this thread was about. I linked the insulin arguments on the previous page or two - explanations for it.

There was no evidence insulin was in the bags and the blood sugar readings don't prove that either - according to the info linked earlier, from an insulin expert. As he says - it's a guess - nothing concrete. If someone is in prison for life, there needs to be something concrete. There's no actual evidence she did anything at all or that any of the babies were murdered.

Those are the arguments put forward by the experts who think the trial was flawed.

I think this was one of the senior Nurse Managers from the Thirlwall inquiry.

Is there any reason why writers shouldn’t profit from their books? These two journalists are doing a service to the public by making the picture clearer and hopefully restoring confidence in the justice system.

Judith Moritz sat through the entire trial. She thinks Lucy Letby is guilty based on the full picture – the evidence brought against her plus the arguments of her defence team. I doubt she was that influenced by whether LL looked frumpy or not. She was probably just adding some colour to her article by saying that.

It is noticeable that almost everyone who attended the trial thinks LL is guilty.

I have come across the arguments you linked to re insulin, and found them unconvincing. The people who are advancing them did not have access to the medical records that the experts who testified at trial saw. These arguments aren’t strong enough to outweigh the existing evidence.

I am surprised that you don’t see that the immunoassay and C peptide blood test results, plus the way that the babies’ blood glucose levels varied as TPN bags were hung and removed, are strong evidence of attempted murder. That’s probably why the jury verdict of guilty of attempted murder in these two cases was unanimous.

There is a very good circumstantial evidence case for murder and for attempted murder. Circumstantial evidence is not inferior to direct evidence in law. Many murderers are convicted on circumstantial evidence alone.

On this we will have to agree to differ!

Fartooold

Skye17
I am totally with you, as I have stated before I was a NNIC nurse I think like you she is guilty. I do wonder about her mental health.

Apart from the prosecution case, (which might be flawed according to other experts), what is it makes you think she is guilty. Is it something you recognise from working in a unit?

I still think it could be either way.

Fartooold

Skye17
I am totally with you, as I have stated before I was a NNIC nurse I think like you she is guilty. I do wonder about her mental health.

Thank you, Fartooold. I also wonder about her mental health. Psychologically she would be a fascinating case.

I too am interested in her mental health and background but my post was dismissed as twaddle.
Conjecture, yes. But I am sure over the years we will find out more.

Skye17

gentleshores

The journalist is profiting from it. I've seen some of her articles and her reasons for thinking Lucy Letby is guilty are flimsy. Talking about her looking frumpy. I think after a couple of years in prison (and on anti depressants apparently) judging someone's demeanour isn't necessarily helpful.

It's the same journalist who was part of the Panorama programme this thread was about. I linked the insulin arguments on the previous page or two - explanations for it.

There was no evidence insulin was in the bags and the blood sugar readings don't prove that either - according to the info linked earlier, from an insulin expert. As he says - it's a guess - nothing concrete. If someone is in prison for life, there needs to be something concrete. There's no actual evidence she did anything at all or that any of the babies were murdered.

Those are the arguments put forward by the experts who think the trial was flawed.

I think this was one of the senior Nurse Managers from the Thirlwall inquiry.

Is there any reason why writers shouldn’t profit from their books? These two journalists are doing a service to the public by making the picture clearer and hopefully restoring confidence in the justice system.

Judith Moritz sat through the entire trial. She thinks Lucy Letby is guilty based on the full picture – the evidence brought against her plus the arguments of her defence team. I doubt she was that influenced by whether LL looked frumpy or not. She was probably just adding some colour to her article by saying that.

It is noticeable that almost everyone who attended the trial thinks LL is guilty.

I have come across the arguments you linked to re insulin, and found them unconvincing. The people who are advancing them did not have access to the medical records that the experts who testified at trial saw. These arguments aren’t strong enough to outweigh the existing evidence.

I am surprised that you don’t see that the immunoassay and C peptide blood test results, plus the way that the babies’ blood glucose levels varied as TPN bags were hung and removed, are strong evidence of attempted murder. That’s probably why the jury verdict of guilty of attempted murder in these two cases was unanimous.

There is a very good circumstantial evidence case for murder and for attempted murder. Circumstantial evidence is not inferior to direct evidence in law. Many murderers are convicted on circumstantial evidence alone.

On this we will have to agree to differ!

True about agreeing to differ :-) I can see arguments both sides of the insulin argument. But prison for life on circumstantial evidence is quite unprecedented I think. Apart from Dr Jayaram's testimony, and the possible insulin argument, the rest seems to be mostly supposition. And trying to make details fit a crime.

Dr Jayaram's testimony changed a few times. At one time he said he couldn't remember if an alarm went off, then it might have gone off, then it didn't go off. Another nurse that night said she heard an alarm go off and commented that it is standard practice for nurses to "do nothing" when a baby starts to desaturate, to see if they recover naturally before any interventions start.

Still think the journalists are making a meal out of and profiting from a book. That seems wrong. They are Panorama journalists, paid for us by a licence fee - a personal book for profit seems like a conflict of interests.

I wonder about the people who can’t accept she had a fair trial

gentleshores

Sorry the image looks too small. It says

"Neonatal Unit review 2015-16

1. There is no evidence whatsoever against LL other than coincidence. LL works full time and has the Qualification in Speciality (QIS). She is therefore more likely to be looking after the sickest infant on the unit. LL also avails herself to work overtime when the acuity or unit is over capacity.

2. There are no performance management issues, and there are no members of staff that have complained to me or others regarding her performance.

3. I have found LL to be diligent and have excellent standards within the clinical area.

4. Whilst our mortality rate has risen in the January 2015-January 2016 we have had x3 mortalities from January 2016 to date (May 2016) x2 died due to congenital abnormalities.

5. Dr H and Dr G (Consultant) appears to be involved in many of the mortalities.

6. The Cheshire and Mersey transport service have been involved in a few of these mortalities and they may have survived if the service was running adequately.

7. Alderhey's children's hospitals failure in facilitating a cot also added to the complexities of these mortalities. If there had been a bed sooner, the infant may not have died.

8. Some of the issues were related to midwifery problems.

9. Two of the babies PM's (post mortems) diagnosed Congenital Pneumonia - transport team issue.

10. 4 babies had congenital abnormalities.

11. 1 maternal syndrome.

12. 2 with ? necrotising enterocolitis

13. 1 overwhelming sepsis - transport team issue.

14. AHCH cot availability - 6 admissions between LWH/APH and COCH.

15. Of all the post mortem results there was no evidence of foul play.

Actions:
1. A debrief was held for all the staff involved in the mortalities.
2. Dr Brearey/Debbie Peacock and myself have reviewed all the mortalities.
3. A thematic review was held and led by an external neonatologist (Nim Subedhar) from the level 3 unit at Liverpool womens hospital.
4. These mortalities have also been highlighted to the ODN and discussed at the meetings
5. Debbie Peacock was aware of the commonalities of both the nursing and medical staff.
6. In order to ensure that we support this particular practitioner I have brought her onto days to ensure that she is well supported (I have included her shift pattern since January 2016).
7. Any profound event is monitored closely irrespective of members of staff involved.

I can think of answers to most of that off the top of my head, but I'm not sure it's worth going into it. If you want to know them you will find them using the resources I previously mentioned.

Don't you think the evidence brought at trial, following years of careful police investigation, gives a fuller picture than the view of one nurse manager with very limited knowledge, in 2016?

Whoever wrote that is probably now deeply embarrassed by it.

loopyloo

I too am interested in her mental health and background but my post was dismissed as twaddle.
Conjecture, yes. But I am sure over the years we will find out more.

I thought your post was interesting and should have said so at the time.

Re her mental health. I wonder why the Police didn't do a psychological assessment of her?

I think Dr Evans has been involved in a Munchausens by Proxy case previously. If he was hinting at that. That diagnoses was controversial apparently.

"Prof Jones said he has no doubt they suffered sharp drops in blood sugar levels, but that there could be another natural explanation for why that had happened."

www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c39k44n8j1mo

gentleshores

Skye17

gentleshores

The journalist is profiting from it. I've seen some of her articles and her reasons for thinking Lucy Letby is guilty are flimsy. Talking about her looking frumpy. I think after a couple of years in prison (and on anti depressants apparently) judging someone's demeanour isn't necessarily helpful.

It's the same journalist who was part of the Panorama programme this thread was about. I linked the insulin arguments on the previous page or two - explanations for it.

There was no evidence insulin was in the bags and the blood sugar readings don't prove that either - according to the info linked earlier, from an insulin expert. As he says - it's a guess - nothing concrete. If someone is in prison for life, there needs to be something concrete. There's no actual evidence she did anything at all or that any of the babies were murdered.

Those are the arguments put forward by the experts who think the trial was flawed.

I think this was one of the senior Nurse Managers from the Thirlwall inquiry.

Is there any reason why writers shouldn’t profit from their books? These two journalists are doing a service to the public by making the picture clearer and hopefully restoring confidence in the justice system.

Judith Moritz sat through the entire trial. She thinks Lucy Letby is guilty based on the full picture – the evidence brought against her plus the arguments of her defence team. I doubt she was that influenced by whether LL looked frumpy or not. She was probably just adding some colour to her article by saying that.

It is noticeable that almost everyone who attended the trial thinks LL is guilty.

I have come across the arguments you linked to re insulin, and found them unconvincing. The people who are advancing them did not have access to the medical records that the experts who testified at trial saw. These arguments aren’t strong enough to outweigh the existing evidence.

I am surprised that you don’t see that the immunoassay and C peptide blood test results, plus the way that the babies’ blood glucose levels varied as TPN bags were hung and removed, are strong evidence of attempted murder. That’s probably why the jury verdict of guilty of attempted murder in these two cases was unanimous.

There is a very good circumstantial evidence case for murder and for attempted murder. Circumstantial evidence is not inferior to direct evidence in law. Many murderers are convicted on circumstantial evidence alone.

On this we will have to agree to differ!

True about agreeing to differ :-) I can see arguments both sides of the insulin argument. But prison for life on circumstantial evidence is quite unprecedented I think. Apart from Dr Jayaram's testimony, and the possible insulin argument, the rest seems to be mostly supposition. And trying to make details fit a crime.

Dr Jayaram's testimony changed a few times. At one time he said he couldn't remember if an alarm went off, then it might have gone off, then it didn't go off. Another nurse that night said she heard an alarm go off and commented that it is standard practice for nurses to "do nothing" when a baby starts to desaturate, to see if they recover naturally before any interventions start.

prison for life on circumstantial evidence is quite unprecedented I think

//Most criminal convictions are based on circumstantial evidence, although it must be adequate to meet established standards of proof.//
- Encyclopaedia Britannica
www.britannica.com/topic/circumstantial-evidence

Many murderers have been convicted on purely circumstantial evidence. It's the strength of the case that counts, not the type of evidence.

Anniebach You mentioned Timothy Evans who was wrongly hung for a murder he didn’t commit. I thought of James Hanratty who many thought was wrongfully hung. It made me feel, as I do to this day, that the death penalty was wrong BUT after years of campaigning by his brother to prove his innocence DNA evidence in 2002 conclusive proved his guilt so who knows what may be found out later about her guilt or innocence.

Sorry I will not reply, must not be ridiculous again , could get reported

Anniebach

Sorry I will not reply, must not be ridiculous again , could get reported

I think most posters have left the thread anniebach as it seems to be a campaign to try to prove that this conviction was unsafe, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

Agree with you Allira. The OP initially presented faux innocent face wondering if the conviction was safe. It became clear no matter the evidence, she believes it was a miscarriage of justice

This video covers a lot of both sides of the arguments going on at the moment. Recommended by Dr Phil Hammond (the Dr who writes for Private Eye).

www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gO_oYpoov4

Give it a rest, gentleshores, and have some empathy for the parents.