UK - Nurse Lucy Letby, murder of babies, 7 Guilty of murder verdicts; 8 Guilty of attempted murder; 2 Not Guilty of attempted; 5 hung re attempted #35

[Sweeper2000]

And it all exploded after the RETRIAL.

Strange they all say it has similarities with other cases of wrongful convictions of health care workers which I really disagree with. Like the rss report, the way that read it seemed designed for her trial with "advice" for the courts on how to deal with cases like it. Its unlike the Dutch nurse who was literally convicted on wrong maths. Unlike the allitt case where motive was apparent. Also unlike this one in that the stats were not a particularly important part of the evidence and in this case the nurse was convicted due to false readings off of blood charts. As far as I know in those other cases there was no falsification of med records.

Letby case ‘has echoes’ of wrongly accused Canadian nurse, says expert

Eminent neonatologist says ‘same flawed statistical methodology’ that led to wrongful accusation of nurse Susan Nelles used in Letby case

www.telegraph.co.uk

 

[Jazmania]

Surprising to see so many articles on the safety of the conviction. Again most are not including all of the evidence specifically the datix forms.

Lucy Letby Murder Conviction: Key Evidence May Be Unreliable | National Review

Lucy Letby verdict: ‘There’s a chance this is a terrible miscarriage of justice’

As experts take a closer look at the evidence, Telegraph readers weigh in on Lucy Letby’s guilty verdict

www.telegraph.co.uk

Letby case ‘has echoes’ of wrongly accused Canadian nurse, says expert

Eminent neonatologist says ‘same flawed statistical methodology’ that led to wrongful accusation of nurse Susan Nelles used in Letby case

www.telegraph.co.uk

Former Cabinet ministers concerned by Letby case, Telegraph understands Former Cabinet ministers concerned by Letby case, Telegraph understands

Concerns raised over safety of Letby conviction – The Justice Gap

www.thejusticegap.com

It is very frustrating. It would be good if these mostly unnamed "experts" would be explicit about what their concerns about the medical evidence actually are.

We know Michael Hall was present and believes the baby's were sicker than the prosecution argued. Ok, fine, don't know why he didn't testify at trial to that. However it has not been said what the supposed problems with the insulin evidence are. Some "experts" saying that the mechanism of causing collapse by injecting air into the stomachs of babies is "implausible" is directly contradicted by Michael Hall himself in the Telegraph article, who explains that this can happen with cpap belly. When oxygen is pumped into the stomach it can inflate, stopping the diaphragm from being able to move and causing the baby to asphyxiate. That was why it was so important in the trial to establish that the babies weren't on cpap at the time. So the defence's own expert doesn't find this explanation implausible at all.

Who are these experts, and what exactly are their arguments.

 

[DianaWW]

It is very frustrating. It would be good if these mostly unnamed "experts" would be explicit about what their concerns about the medical evidence actually are.

We know Michael Hall was present and believes the baby's were sicker than the prosecution argued. Ok, fine, don't know why he didn't testify at trial to that. However it has not been said what the supposed problems with the insulin evidence are. Some "experts" saying that the mechanism of causing collapse by injecting air into the stomachs of babies is "implausible" is directly contradicted by Michael Hall himself in the Telegraph article, who explains that this can happen with cpap belly. When oxygen is pumped into the stomach it can inflate, stopping the diaphragm from being able to move and causing the baby to asphyxiate. That was why it was so important in the trial to establish that the babies weren't on cpap at the time. So the defence's own expert doesn't find this explanation implausible at all.

Who are these experts, and what exactly are their arguments.

Exactly. And unless they've had full access to all of the medical evidence that the trial experts had access to (very unlikely), then I don't feel their opinions hold much esteem quite frankly.

 

[Sweeper2000]

It is very frustrating. It would be good if these mostly unnamed "experts" would be explicit about what their concerns about the medical evidence actually are.

We know Michael Hall was present and believes the baby's were sicker than the prosecution argued. Ok, fine, don't know why he didn't testify at trial to that. However it has not been said what the supposed problems with the insulin evidence are. Some "experts" saying that the mechanism of causing collapse by injecting air into the stomachs of babies is "implausible" is directly contradicted by Michael Hall himself in the Telegraph article, who explains that this can happen with cpap belly. When oxygen is pumped into the stomach it can inflate, stopping the diaphragm from being able to move and causing the baby to asphyxiate. That was why it was so important in the trial to establish that the babies weren't on cpap at the time. So the defence's own expert doesn't find this explanation implausible at all.

Who are these experts, and what exactly are their arguments.

Fro memory I believe that allot of what DR Michael Hall is saying now was relayed and then spoken by Mr Myers so he didn't testify but did influence. Does it sound better coming from a actual DR? I think so but that's irrelevant imo.

I think I may have realised what they are saying. The tests used to prove extrogenous application of insulin were tests on the presence and amount of a certain type of chemical that is only produced when insulin is present but what's normal is an equal amount of this chemical. Ie if its equal its correct showing the body is working OK if too little is present it means the body is not producing it which means you have diabetes. If there is an external amount of insulin the body will produce it in excessive amount which is what the tests showed. However the presence of too much of this chemical does not mean that its definitely insulin causing it as there are other ways it can happen.

I think the doctors saying the air bolus through the nasogastric tube isn't feasible as the cpap is continuous pressure whereas air bolus via syringe isn't. So the cpap is constantly pumping air in whereas a syringe wouldn't. The cpap will inflate the stomach and keep it inflated whereas an injection of air will likely just be expelled if it isn't continously reinforced. Think it's applicable to Dr Evans theory of a splinted diaphragm, the damage done to the diaphragm via a sharp forceful injection of air meant it couldn't inflate the lungs leading to asphyxiation. I think I am no expert. Maybe someone else will real experience can inform?

 

[Parker Knoll]

Exactly … Word salad.

Exactly. And unless they've had full access to all of the medical evidence that the trial experts had access to (very unlikely), then I don't feel their opinions hold much esteem quite frankly.

 

[Sweeper2000]

Interesting though, I do not remember hearing anywhere that Mr Myers was being advised by a medical professional. Does sound different coming from lawyer than it does a doctor.

 

[marynnu]

Fro memory I believe that allot of what DR Michael Hall is saying now was relayed and then spoken by Mr Myers so he didn't testify but did influence. Does it sound better coming from a actual DR? I think so but that's irrelevant imo.

I think I may have realised what they are saying. The tests used to prove extrogenous application of insulin were tests on the presence and amount of a certain type of chemical that is only produced when insulin is present but what's normal is an equal amount of this chemical. Ie if its equal its correct showing the body is working OK if too little is present it means the body is not producing it which means you have diabetes. If there is an external amount of insulin the body will produce it in excessive amount which is what the tests showed. However the presence of too much of this chemical does not mean that its definitely insulin causing it as there are other ways it can happen.

I think the doctors saying the air bolus through the nasogastric tube isn't feasible as the cpap is continuous pressure whereas air bolus via syringe isn't. So the cpap is constantly pumping air in whereas a syringe wouldn't. The cpap will inflate the stomach and keep it inflated whereas an injection of air will likely just be expelled if it isn't continously reinforced. Think it's applicable to Dr Evans theory of a splinted diaphragm, the damage done to the diaphragm via a sharp forceful injection of air meant it couldn't inflate the lungs leading to asphyxiation. I think I am no expert. Maybe someone else will real experience can inform?

I don't think there was any suggestion the diaphragm was damaged?
Re. air injected into the stomach being expelled naturally, I wonder if this doctor has ever tried winding a baby! And babies with excess wind in the stomach often get flatulence so that implies the air travels down the digestive tract. The air in those babies' bowels didn't appear by magic.
In the end, in practice nobody legitimately injects large amounts of air into babies' stomachs so it"s hard to say what would happen.

 

[May72031]

Well, one of the 'armchair experts' popping up in newspapers and on radio, insisting LL "might be innocent" for reasons he can't elaborate in any sensible or logical way, is one Peter Hitchens.

He is the same 'armchair expert" who believes that Assad's numerous chemical weapon attacks were some sort of InfoWars-style "false flag". So, war crime denial, essentially.

You'll find quite a few of the "LL is innocent" cult are involved in lots of other fringe conspiracy theories. I note that a lot of them appear to be anti-vax for no logical or scientific reason, as are ALL conspiracy theorists.

This makes it all the more concerning that supposedly credible media outlets (hello, Guardian!) are publishing poorly-researched opinion pieces echoing the claims of the some of the cranks.

 

[Sweeper2000]

I don't think there was any suggestion the diaphragm was damaged?
Re. air injected into the stomach being expelled naturally, I wonder if this doctor has ever tried winding a baby! And babies with excess wind in the stomach often get flatulence so that implies the air travels down the digestive tract. The air in those babies' bowels didn't appear by magic.
In the end, in practice nobody legitimately injects large amounts of air into babies' stomachs so it"s hard to say what would happen.

That was what I interpreted from Dr Evans suggested "splinted diaphragm"?. Baby C.

Lucy Letby: Expert denies 'reaching' to support allegations

Dr Dewi Evans clashed with nurse Lucy Letby's barrister Ben Myers KC over his evidence.

www.google.com

 

[marynnu]

That was what I interpreted from Dr Evans suggested "splinted diaphragm"?. Baby C.

Lucy Letby: Expert denies 'reaching' to support allegations

Dr Dewi Evans clashed with nurse Lucy Letby's barrister Ben Myers KC over his evidence.

www.google.com

Splinted just means being held rigid, like when you have a splint for a broken bone.

 

[Sweeper2000]

Splinted just means being held rigid, like when you have a splint for a broken bone.

Ah ok, Thanks for clearing that up. Kind of gathered that it meant altered the diaphragms function but not that. What do you think Mary?

"Other prosecution expert witnesses largely agreed with Evans’s opinion on this. But the idea that injecting air into the stomach via a nasogastric tube could cause collapse leading to death was described as nonsensical or “rubbish”, “ridiculous”, “implausible” and “fantastical”, by EIGHT separate expert clinicians who spoke to the Guardian, SEVEN of them specialising in neonatology."

"Several said it was not practically feasible. Nasogastric tubes are tiny; it would take several refills using the 10ml syringes on neonatal units to inject a significant quantity of air. Furthermore, it would leak out or the baby would burp or vomit it up, or pass it as wind, they said."

Lucy Letby: killer or coincidence? Why some experts question the evidence

Exclusive: Doubts raised over safety of convictions of nurse found guilty of murdering babies

www.google.com

 

[ColourPurple]

That was what I interpreted from Dr Evans suggested "splinted diaphragm"?. Baby C.

Lucy Letby: Expert denies 'reaching' to support allegations

Dr Dewi Evans clashed with nurse Lucy Letby's barrister Ben Myers KC over his evidence.

www.google.com

I think you’re mixing up splinting and splintering.

I think LL may have got the idea of injecting air into the stomach to affect the baby’s breathing from the programme she mentioned watching. They didn’t inject air but the baby had a diaphragmatic hernia . I’ll repost what I posted on here before( last year) about that …

LL confirmed via text that she had watched this episode of "An hour to save your life". It aired on 9th June 2015, with trailers on 2nd June 2015. The episode is "Surviving Birth" and there is a baby who was born with a diaphragmatic hernia meaning their stomach and bowel was in the wrong place (higher than it should be) and the doctor explained that they had to operate as the bowel was in the chest squashing the lungs .

He explained that once born, as the baby swallowed air it would start to inflate their stomach and bowel inside the chest, and would put more pressure on the lungs and they would eventually suffocate.

I think LL injecting air into babies' stomachs via the NGT was her attempt at recreating this effect!

BBC Two - An Hour To Save Your Life, Series 2, Surviving Birth

The life-or-death decisions facing doctors and midwives in neonatal emergencies.

www.bbc.co.uk

Full episode is here (There’s also an almost 31 week old baby in this episode who dislodges their breathing tube once and then the breathing tube has to be pulled back as it’s slipped in too far … sound familiar ? Though of course Baby K was much younger )

 

[marynnu]

Ah ok, Thanks for clearing that up. Kind of gathered that it meant altered the diaphragms function but not that. What do you think Mary?

"Other prosecution expert witnesses largely agreed with Evans’s opinion on this. But the idea that injecting air into the stomach via a nasogastric tube could cause collapse leading to death was described as nonsensical or “rubbish”, “ridiculous”, “implausible” and “fantastical”, by EIGHT separate expert clinicians who spoke to the Guardian, SEVEN of them specialising in neonatology."

"Several said it was not practically feasible. Nasogastric tubes are tiny; it would take several refills using the 10ml syringes on neonatal units to inject a significant quantity of air. Furthermore, it would leak out or the baby would burp or vomit it up, or pass it as wind, they said."

Lucy Letby: killer or coincidence? Why some experts question the evidence

Exclusive: Doubts raised over safety of convictions of nurse found guilty of murdering babies

www.google.com

Well yes, splinting it would affect the diaphragm's function in assisting breathing as it wouldn't be able to move up & down.
I don't know exactly what injecting air into a baby's stomach would do. I'm not sure why refilling a 10ml syringe would be a problem though, or why you couldn't use a 20ml syringe instead!

 

[May72031]

Makes you wonder why none of those (unnamed) "experts" who spoke to the Guardian were asked to appear on behalf of the defence... Perhaps they could form their own group, Clinicians and Neonatologists for Lucy Letby Truth. I mean, they have to be taken seriously because they are 'professionals', just like all those architects and engineers in that Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth group. /s

 

[Sweeper2000]

Interesting. So let's say enough medical experts bring enough clout to get to court, would they come under an admission of new evidence?

This is the guy I was thinking of

"Dr ANDREAS MARNERIDES, a paediatric pathologist, said he did not believe the 'impact' injury caused to Child O could have been the result of efforts to resuscitate him.

The consultant was approached by Cheshire Police in late 2017 to review the deaths of a number of babies at the hospital, the court heard."

Triplet suffered injury akin to traffic collision, Letby trial hears

Manchester Crown Court heard how Child O was born in a good condition until he suddenly collapsed two days later in the care of Letby before going progressively downhill and dying.

www.dailymail.co.uk

This guy is another really top doctor. I doubt there is much contest really. I remember him saying he got yo the same conclusions independently. I doubt there is much arguing to be had. That's a solid opinion.