Nurse arrested for murdering babies

[arknor]

I'm not really about rating people on their appearance, but surely 6 makes you above average?

come on bro, almost everyone is at least a 6 at some point in their life.

6 is probably more the average than 5 would be.


Seems like Females get more unattractive as they age, starting to drop off fast as they approach 30.
Where as a lot of males seem to get better looking with age as their faces get more gaunt and chiselled

 

[Jokester]

The majority of experts say it doesn't and there's nothing wrong with the test at all.

Also, two separate cases (Baby F and Baby L) , tested in two different labs - got the same results (unnaturally high levels of insulin that could not have been produced by the body)

Plus - both children were showing symptoms of insulin poisoning, which severely hurts the possibility of both tests being false positives, or there being any problem with the tests at all.

The Telegraph have spoken to further experts in addition to those spoken to by the BBC and they said the same thing as what the BBC reported:

Insulin tests used to convict Letby cannot be relied upon, scientists say

Specialists argue results are notoriously unreliable as antibodies can cause interference

www.telegraph.co.uk

The original reporting on this also says Child F only recovered after a 2nd feed bag was also subsequently replaced by an alternative source of glucose so it's possible there was an issue with the feedbags themselves.

And as SGF states, Letby isn't an expert in this and may have only been repeating what she was told.

On the liver injury death, the original BBC article covered that as well:

Lucy Letby: Experts raise doubts about medical evidence presented in court

Doctors and scientists' concerns contribute to speculation about the safety of the nurse's convictions.

www.bbc.co.uk

However, a leading senior perinatal pathologist told File on 4 she agrees with the original post-mortem on Baby O - that his liver injury and death were by natural causes.

The pathologist - who asked not to be identified because of the controversial nature of Letby's case - said she has seen this kind of liver damage at least three times in her career. Each time there were natural causes.

This has all the hallmarks of similar cases where forensic evidence was used to secure a conviction, whilst the underpining science wasn't as robust as was made out in court.

DNA in the dock: how flawed techniques send innocent people to prison

Many juries believe crime-scene DNA evidence is watertight – but this is far from the case. As forensic technology gets ever more sophisticated, experts are only just realising how difficult interpreting the evidence can be

www.theguardian.com

A lot of this stems from Letby's defense team not questioning how robust the science was in the various different means of attack Letby had supposedly had deployed. Because it wasn't addressed by them during the trial, I don't believe Letby has a means of challenging this now as it's not "new" evidence.

The feeding tubes thing was mentioned again recently, that was also debunked at the time it first came up:

Evidence suggesting Letby tampered with breathing tubes ‘not credible’, say experts

Last week, Thirlwall Inquiry heard that dislodgement of breathing tubes occurred at rate 40 times higher than normal during her shifts

www.telegraph.co.uk

 

[Felon]

The Telegraph have spoken to further experts in addition to those spoken to by the BBC and they said the same thing as what the BBC reported:

I can't get there, sorry.

Two different cases, same results - in both cases the babies showing symptoms of insulin poisoning, as well as tests confirming it.

They were poisoned with insulin.

The feeding tubes thing was mentioned again recently, that was also debunked at the time it first came up:

Nothing has been 'debunked' it's just fresh experts with fresh opinions. Other experts have the opposite opinion.

Also - look at the charge sheet lol:

She must be the unluckiest person alive.

 

[Jokester]

I can't get there, sorry.

Two different cases, same results - in both cases the babies showing symptoms of insulin poisoning, as well as tests confirming it.

They were poisoned with insulin.



Nothing has been 'debunked' it's just fresh experts with fresh opinions. Other experts have the opposite opinion.

Also - look at the charge sheet lol:

She must be the unluckiest person alive.

Indeed she is, experts have also questioned the air embolus deaths so we're at a point where experts can't even say beyond reasonable doubt that attacks even took place...

 

[SexyGreyFox]

Nothing has been 'debunked' it's just fresh experts with fresh opinions. Other experts have the opposite opinion

So if all these experts are disagreeing it should at least be investigated because she had no experts speaking up for her in court.
It really is unbelievable she didn't have one expert in her defense but they are now willing to come out of the woodwork.

 

[Felon]

So if all these experts are disagreeing it should at least be investigated because she had no experts speaking up for her in court.
It really is unbelievable she didn't have one expert in her defense but they are now willing to come out of the woodwork.

Two things,

I think the main reason we're seeing these 'experts' come out of the woodwork, is because they're appearing in papers, in TV interviews, in a safe setting. That's quite different to appearing at the old bailey, under oath - to fight against a prosecution team with a defendant who's facing 7 counts of murder and 7 counts of attempted murder.

The second thing is the jury: having a stream of expert witnesses come in from both sides and contradict each other over complex medical evidence is probably going to confuse the jury.

The defence had a fair opportunity to do all of this the first time around and they didn't, you don't get to keep 'having a go' until you get the result you desire.

 

[ANDREW GREEN]

So if all these experts are disagreeing it should at least be investigated because she had no experts speaking up for her in court.
It really is unbelievable she didn't have one expert in her defense but they are now willing to come out of the woodwork.

She did. The defense choose not to call him. Their tactic was to try and throw out the prosecution expert witness. They were less likely to be able to do this if they called their own expert witness.

 

[SexyGreyFox]

She did. The defense choose not to call him. Their tactic was to try and throw out the prosecution expert witness. They were less likely to be able to do this if they called their own expert witness.

So you've actually made the argument for me, they need their expert witness to speak up now with all the others who have come out of the woodwork.

Just imagine you're in court but because of your defense you end up going to jail, do you think because of their error you should stay in jail? Of course not.

She's probably guilty as sin but she is entitled to a fair trial.

 

[Felon]

Just imagine you're in court but because of your defense you end up going to jail, do you think because of their error you should stay in jail? Of course not.

Usually things like that (who you want to call) are decided by the defendant, AFAIK - it was Letby who chose not to call the expert defence witness, despite having the option to.

 

[SexyGreyFox]

Usually things like that (who you want to call) are decided by the defendant, AFAIK - it was Letby who chose not to call the expert defence witness, despite having the option to.

Can you confirm this as absolute fact?
My Lawyer boss advises the defendants what to say and if he gives the wrong advise then how can you blame the defendant?
How many times do we here that defendants were advised to plead guilty or not to talk etc?
The fact is she has a shoddy defense and you are saying that because she followed her defenses advise that she should suffer
She is probably 100% guilty of some of the crimes but she still deserves the best defense.

At our hospital we now have NICU staff who really don't want to work there and I've heard it's the same around the country because they feel Letby hasn't had a fair trial and they could be accused of the same things.

I suppose working in the Legal trade I just believe in fairness and for somebody who was holding the 100% pitchfork months ago I'm now sitting on the fence.

 

[Felon]

Can you confirm this as absolute fact?

Yes.

Panorama - Lucy Letby: Unanswered Questions

Former nurse Lucy Letby was convicted of harming and murdering babies in her care. Now, a growing number of experts are questioning the prosecution's evidence.

www.bbc.co.uk

09:35 - Panorama interviewed Dr Michael Hall, the expert defence witness, who states that it was her (Lucy Letby) who made the final decision not to call him.

The fact is she has a shoddy defense and you are saying that because she followed her defenses advise that she should suffer
She is probably 100% guilty of some of the crimes but she still deserves the best defense.

How many go's do you want to give her?

How many times, do you want to drag the families, the witnesses, the relatives, the media, the lawyers, the internet sleuths, the newspaper columnists and god knows who else - through another full-fat trial, for what would likely be the same result?

 

[SexyGreyFox]

How many times, do you want to drag the families, the witnesses, the relatives, the media, the lawyers, the internet sleuths, the newspaper columnists and god knows who else - through another full-fat trial, for what would likely be the same result?

Until the new findings have been answered.
We can spend years on cases, we have one now that will hit the National News but we need to get everything in and leave no stone unturned.
The accused's defense needs to do the same.

You're also saying that because she made the wrong decision with her defense she deserves to burn

 

[Felon]

Until the new findings have been answered.

There aren't any.

That was the whole reason the court of appeal rejected her appeal - there are no new findings, just new experts with new opinions. (which will always be the case)

You're also saying that because she made the wrong decision with her defense she deserves to burn

Play the world's smallest violin!

She was found guilty of 7 murders, and 7 attempted - across two trials (the 2022/23 trial, then a re-trial) saying that she was found guilty of all of that, purely because her defence team sucked, (when she made the final calls) isn't realistic.

 

[SexyGreyFox]

There aren't any.

That was the whole reason the court of appeal rejected her appeal - there are no new findings, just new experts with new opinions. (which will always be the case)



Play the world's smallest violin!

She was found guilty of 7 murders, and 7 attempted - across two trials (the 2022/23 trial, then a re-trial) saying that she was found guilty of all of that, purely because her defence team sucked, (when she made the final calls) isn't realistic.

Fancy a job talking to our NICU staff since you are obviously the expert in all of this and have the answers to put their minds at ease
Some of them are seriously worried and we've heard it isn't an isolated case.
You could earn yourself some good money.

 

[ANDREW GREEN]

The fact is she has a shoddy defense and you are saying that because she followed her defenses advise that she should suffer

You're also saying that because she made the wrong decision with her defense she deserves to burn

No, we think she should suffer and burn because she's a serial killer of babies and almost certainly killed more than she got convicted on now that we learn she overdosed another baby with morphene. We now know during her prior neonatal job, baby tubes came loose in 40% of her shifts, compared to it occurring 1% of times during shifts where Letby did not work. So there's probably some murders unsolved amongst those that we'll never know about.

The idea of her getting off on a technicality would be horrific. That technicality would be that a test gave a false positive for insulin, twice (or was it 3 times?). Those insulin readings were off the charts too, so the likelyhood of it being a false positive is less likely. Which would be argued in any re-trial.

 

[SexyGreyFox]

No, we think she should suffer and burn because she's a serial killer of babies and almost certainly killed more than she got convicted on now that we learn she overdosed another baby with morphene. We now know during her prior neonatal job, baby tubes came loose in 40% of her shifts, compared to it occurring 1% of times during shifts where Letby did not work. So there's probably some murders unsolved amongst those that we'll never know about.

The idea of her getting off on a technicality would be horrific. That technicality would be that a test gave a false positive for insulin, twice (or was it 3 times?). Those insulin readings were off the charts too, so the likelyhood of it being a false positive is less likely. Which would be argued in any re-trial.

There is nothing you or Felon have said that I didn't say months ago and I was 100% positive of her guilt.
Now we have questions, that is all.

 

[Mr Badger]

There is nothing you or Felon have said that I didn't say months ago and I was 100% positive of her guilt.
Now we have questions, that is all.

Are there potential questions about some of the details of a complicated case involving numerous victims? Yes.

Is it likely that there is a smoking gun that will totally overturn the outcome of the previous investigations and trials, exonerate Letby and explain the dead babies and numerous other suspicious incidents of poor care/abuse that are still coming to light? No.

The idea of her getting off on a technicality would be horrific.

Indeed. But also pointless unless that technicality was able to significantly undermine the whole case, rather than just raise a potential challenge about one or two of the multiple charges on which she was found guilty.

 

[SexyGreyFox]

Indeed. But also pointless unless that technicality was able to significantly undermine the whole case, rather than just raise a potential challenge about one or two of the multiple charges on which she was found guilty.

For starters I don't think she's innocent however at the moment some convictions are unsafe.
I know that some NICU staff are concerned about premature babies dying and the toxicology could show increased insulin as in the Letby case.
On the documentary I think a Professor whose main expertise is in insulin stated that premature babies can show an increase in insulin when they die.
If this can be proved in court Letby could have a couple of murders quashed and NICU Staff around the country can rest.
This is also important for Best Practise in the NHS and we need to know these things.
She'll still rot in jail but NHS staff can go to work feeling better.

 

[Minusorange]

She must be the unluckiest person alive.

I'm not saying she isn't guilty but what were the stats of the other babies on the ward, did none of the others have any problems ? Was it just the babies she attended to ? Or are there other babies not on this list who she attended to ?

 

[Mr Badger]

For starters I don't think she's innocent however at the moment some convictions are unsafe.
I know that some NICU staff are concerned about premature babies dying and the toxicology could show increased insulin as in the Letby case.
On the documentary I think a Professor whose main expertise is in insulin stated that premature babies can show an increase in insulin when they die.
If this can be proved in court Letby could have a couple of murders quashed and NICU Staff around the country can rest.
This is also important for Best Practise in the NHS and we need to know these things.
She'll still rot in jail but NHS staff can go to work feeling better.

If this is a widespread concern, wouldn't it be better addressed through a targeted study and a review of the medical evidence for all existing insulin cases on record, not just the ones related to the Letby case?