Marantz4250b
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2020
- Messages
- 3,266
- Reaction score
- 18,270
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 #36
- Thread starter sleuth777
- Start date
- Status
Highlandspring
Former Member
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2023
- Messages
- 64
- Reaction score
- 344
Highlandspring
Former Member
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2023
- Messages
- 64
- Reaction score
- 344
Apologies for all the typos it was too late to edit it, but I the main one is I should've put Neena Modi.
the prosecutions insulin expert seems to longer be practicing Registrants details page
Marantz4250b
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2020
- Messages
- 3,266
- Reaction score
- 18,270
Sweeper2000
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2022
- Messages
- 2,741
- Reaction score
- 8,259
honestly there is yet to be anything of substance that would change the outcome of the trial, this recent gathering of med experts and their opinions on what happened at the hospital is the strongest challenge to the verdicts yet and imo it doesn't reach the bar. I don't think what they say and lucy letby lawyer mark mcdonald will successfully challenge the conviction.
Marantz4250b
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2020
- Messages
- 3,266
- Reaction score
- 18,270
Sweeper2000
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2022
- Messages
- 2,741
- Reaction score
- 8,259
dont know the rules but hes actually been based in research for a long long time. that might be different from clinical practice. here he is also. he got this for developing a machine that has been used globally since its invention.
Your hero: We proudly present the winner of our competition to find Britain’s most inspiring health worker — crowned by the PM herself at No10
Professor Peter Hindmarsh — or The Prof as his small patients call him — is a consultant in paediatric endocrinology and diabetes at University College London Hospitals and Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children.
To both parents and children, he is, quite simply, a hero. That’s why they nominated him for our awards, and last week at a special event at Downing Street, he was announced the overall winner. His prize was a £5,000 holiday from Oliver’s Travels.
Britain’s most inspiring health worker
When we asked readers to nominate their unsung champions of the NHS, we were overwhelmed by moving stories about staff from all parts of the health service.
ETA. that article has got theresa may in it, did she retire and take up ballroom dancing?
this is from a freedom of information requst to thr hospital Neonatal deaths and FOIs - a Freedom of Information request to Countess of Chester Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
testmony of prof modi to the thurwell inqusrry https://thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk/wp-content/uploads/thirlwall-evidence/INQ0102753.pdf
I take your point on serial killers being different. My simple point is that I think her part mea culpa part exculpatory notes are more likely the mind of an innocent person in these circumstances; what would the point of writing these notes be if she is a murderer? I'm just saying it's more likely someone writing down jumbled thoughts in a guilty/stressed out state (guilty because she worked with the babies not because she killed them).Hi rohmer , I do not see in your post on which side of the fence you sit and nor does it matter but your assertion that no psychopath or serial killer would record details of their victims murders is wrong
It implies that all serial killers are the same when in fact they are as individual as you and me some may have traits that seem to create a pattern of sameness but trait and personality differ . I have gathered some links for you to look at .
Serial Killer Diaries
Some serial killers record their horrific deeds in writing, which often hurts them when they're caught.www.psychologytoday.com
Killer nurse 'kept diary of murders'
A NURSE has admitted killing patients at a new Milan hospital to make herself feel powerful and important and then kept a diary noting details of their deaths.m.independent.ie
Killer nurse's diary of death - Document - Gale Academic OneFile
<em>Gale</em> Academic OneFile includes Killer nurse's diary of death by . Read the beginning or sign in for the full text.go.gale.com
Neither of us know for sure if Lucy letby is guilty or innocent. We can only form opinion based on the information in front of us . I feel the jury ,LE and the judge made a decision based on the same thought processes .
What is quite telling is how a person behaves .I think this case has the ability to draw a tear from the eye of even the most hardened of law enforcement and many many of us at WS as it involves the most vulnerable. Lucy letby only showed emotion twice during her two trials and the most telling episode was when her married doctor lover spoke , she did not show emotions at any time for any of the babies whom died . This to me reveals a person who lacks empathy, a narcissist will only cry for themselves and one pattern we do see in serial killers is this trait it is often the common denominator that links crimes of this type .
What I learned about Lucy Letby after 10 months in court
The nurse was questioned for nearly 60 hours - the BBC's Judith Moritz watched it all.www.bbc.com
Suspect's diary in 'alphabet murders' case describes victims
www.nbcnews.com
I disagree with your comments on her behaviour. I cannot imagine the stress of being on trial falsely accused of being a serial killer of babies? I think losing a child is the worst thing that can happen to anyone. But I mean, other than losing loved ones, being on trial in such circumstances must be one of the worst things that could happen to someone. In that situation, I don't think her emotional affect can tell us very much. Perfectly decent people with anxiety often have trouble with emotional regulation in difficult situations. If she's innocent, which is what we're trying to determine, she's on trial knowing that she's probably the most abhorred person in the galaxy at that moment. I don't think when she displayed emotion carries much weight.
Moreover, there's a difference between cognitive and emotional empathy, too. Many many people don't really experience much emotional empathy. They may not be super sensitive to the suffering of others; that doesn't preclude them caring very much about other people in a more cognitive/intellectual sense.
Finally, I can relate to her crying when speaking to the person with whom she had the strongest connection, if she is innocent. That isn't necessarily indicative of her coldness towards the babies; it could be in my opinion a classic case of... perhaps when you're sometimes feeling numb or depressed and you speak to someone you're close to and you kind of get jolted out of that emotion and into another.
I think the emotional performance you describe is just as compatible with an innocent person wrongly accused. Look at the way people were accusing Nicola Bulley's partner of having something to do with her murder because he smirked while being interviewed. These things happen to all of us in times of great stress.
Her 'constant presence and involvement with serious incidents' is the thing which experts in statistics are now saying is a statistical abomination if used as the basis of an investigation in the absence of any other evidence. In other words, her constant presence and involvement with serious incidents, given her role, given the probability of serious incidents occurring in a disastrously under resourced hospital, given the probability of these serious incidents being the result of a poor standard of care for the babies versus the probability of her being a serial killer, while very striking and salient for our intuition as humans is not in reality a statistically significant piece of evidence, at all. That's what the experts are saying.
Regarding retrieving notes from the bin being akin to serial killers keeping trophies. I see what you're saying that it arguably fits with a bigger picture in which she's guilty of the crimes. But given the fact that there is no concrete evidence, as you admit, the bar for circumstantial evidence to put someone away for life has to be exceedingly high. And the way you would determine her guilt or not is by reviewing the evidence against her and then comparing that to the null hypothesis that she is innocent. So yes, perhaps retrieving notes from the bin on babies she has murdered is one plausible scenario. But her morbidly retrieving notes from the bin on babies who have died in her care is just as plausible and in my opinion a lot more probable. Why? Because remember, the statistics here have been shown to be basically a red herring. So what's more likely, a serial killer murdering babies or babies dying tragically from natural causes and systemic failures and a nurse with a morbid curiosity in collecting information on them.
I suppose reasonable people can disagree, but it strikes me that when you add up the individual probabilites of any one part of Letby's behaviour all together, when you arrive at that full picture and give honest objective odds on how likely it therefore is that she's a killer, I still think it's looking significantly less probable than the other explanation. Given what we know. Serial killers are incredibly incredibly rare. And these failings that led to the deaths might be a lot more likely to have been the cause.
I'm not saying the case was solely made up of statistical or medical evidence, but when those two have been so discredited, the conviction looks unsafe. If 14 or 30 experts pop up in a few months arguing Dr Lee and co are way off, that they're absolutely adamant that air embolism and so on *were* present, at that point I think it would be up to a jury to decide which experts are more plausible and weigh all the other evidence in light of that. But I would say so far it seems pretty telling that most if not all of the experts who have spoken out after the trial have been questioning aspects of the case against her. I haven't really seen anyone coming out strongly in support of the original medical or statistical evidence. If anyone has seen anything compelling then I'm still keeping an open mind.
Here's what a media report says about the incident:
'
Nick Johnson KC, prosecuting, told the jury she “interrupted Lucy Letby who was attacking [Baby E]”.
He added: “She did not realise it at the time but I’m going to suggest why you can be confident that is what happened. When [she] arrived, [Baby E] was acutely distressed and he was bleeding from his mouth.”
Johnson said Letby allegedly tried to reassure the boy’s mother, telling her the blood was due to a nasogastric tube irritating his throat, adding: “Trust me, I’m a nurse’ – that’s what she [Letby] told the mother.”
The infant, who weighed 1.3kg (just under 3lbs) at birth, rapidly deteriorated and was pronounced dead less than five hours after Letby was seen attacking him, the jury was told.
A doctor present said he “had never seen a baby bleed like this” and that the child lost more than a quarter of his total blood volume, the court heard.
Baby E’s death was initially put down to a gastrointestinal disorder that can occur in premature babies and no postmortem was undertaken. This, Johnson said, was “a big mistake”.
Experts later concluded that Baby E died as a result of gas intentionally injected into his bloodstream and “bleeding indicative of trauma”, the jury was told.
Letby took an “unusual interest” in the twins’ family, searching for them on social media two days after Baby E’s death and several times over the following months – even on Christmas Day 2015, the court heard.
The nurse allegedly “wiped out” the mother’s visit from the medical records then falsely claimed to be in another room when Baby E collapsed. This, the prosecution alleged, was Letby trying to establish an “alibi in someone else’s medical records”.
Jurors were told that Letby then took a “sinister” interested in Baby E’s twin brother, six-day old Baby F.
The nurse allegedly administered a feeding bag laced with insulin to Baby F less than 24 hours after his sibling had died.'
But these experts, one of whom has been studying insulin in neonates his entire life, have said that the experts who later concluded that Baby F had been administered with a feeding bag laced with insulin are wrong and that their levels of peptides or whatever are within the perfectly normal range and so it's very likely a false positive insulin reading. What these experts also say is that consultants clearly didn't know what they were doing and in one case made a common error that students are warned about avoiding in medical school. So if these experts are in fact more knowledgeable and reliable than those who testified at the trial, as by all accounts they seem to be, that means that Letby wasn't attacking the baby. And the back and forth about who can remember what, who said and done what when in an emergency situation or a gravely serious and high pressure situation, it definitely seems a lot less sinister and more innocuous and explainable in that objective light.
'
Nick Johnson KC, prosecuting, told the jury she “interrupted Lucy Letby who was attacking [Baby E]”.
He added: “She did not realise it at the time but I’m going to suggest why you can be confident that is what happened. When [she] arrived, [Baby E] was acutely distressed and he was bleeding from his mouth.”
Johnson said Letby allegedly tried to reassure the boy’s mother, telling her the blood was due to a nasogastric tube irritating his throat, adding: “Trust me, I’m a nurse’ – that’s what she [Letby] told the mother.”
The infant, who weighed 1.3kg (just under 3lbs) at birth, rapidly deteriorated and was pronounced dead less than five hours after Letby was seen attacking him, the jury was told.
A doctor present said he “had never seen a baby bleed like this” and that the child lost more than a quarter of his total blood volume, the court heard.
Baby E’s death was initially put down to a gastrointestinal disorder that can occur in premature babies and no postmortem was undertaken. This, Johnson said, was “a big mistake”.
Experts later concluded that Baby E died as a result of gas intentionally injected into his bloodstream and “bleeding indicative of trauma”, the jury was told.
Letby took an “unusual interest” in the twins’ family, searching for them on social media two days after Baby E’s death and several times over the following months – even on Christmas Day 2015, the court heard.
The nurse allegedly “wiped out” the mother’s visit from the medical records then falsely claimed to be in another room when Baby E collapsed. This, the prosecution alleged, was Letby trying to establish an “alibi in someone else’s medical records”.
Jurors were told that Letby then took a “sinister” interested in Baby E’s twin brother, six-day old Baby F.
The nurse allegedly administered a feeding bag laced with insulin to Baby F less than 24 hours after his sibling had died.'
But these experts, one of whom has been studying insulin in neonates his entire life, have said that the experts who later concluded that Baby F had been administered with a feeding bag laced with insulin are wrong and that their levels of peptides or whatever are within the perfectly normal range and so it's very likely a false positive insulin reading. What these experts also say is that consultants clearly didn't know what they were doing and in one case made a common error that students are warned about avoiding in medical school. So if these experts are in fact more knowledgeable and reliable than those who testified at the trial, as by all accounts they seem to be, that means that Letby wasn't attacking the baby. And the back and forth about who can remember what, who said and done what when in an emergency situation or a gravely serious and high pressure situation, it definitely seems a lot less sinister and more innocuous and explainable in that objective light.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
