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 #37

[Tortoise]

"Mr McDonald will also give the CCRC a separate report on the insulin cases of Child F and Child L from seven experts including two consultant neonatalogists, a retired professor in forensic toxicology and a paediatric endocrinologist.

Their report summary concluded the jury were misled in a number of “important areas” including medical and evidential facts, and that key information on the insulin testing procedure was not submitted.

It added that the biomechanical test used in both cases “can give rise to falsely high insulin results” due to the presence of antibodies which can interfere with the outcome.

The authors said: “Our inescapable conclusion is that this evidence significantly undermines the validity of the assertions made about the insulin and C-peptide testing presented in court.”"

Lucy Letby lawyer to hand over ‘fresh’ evidence to Criminal Cases Review Commission

Lucy Letby, 35, from Hereford, is serving 15 whole-life orders after she was convicted across two trials at Manchester Crown Court

www.standard.co.uk

 

[Tortoise]

Speaking from a non-medical background, I'm not sure how this claim of falsely high insulin results marries up with the glucose treatments given not having a detrimental effect (ie causing too high blood sugar), and the babies' blood sugars resolving spontaneously when the bags were stopped/changed. And baby F in particular vomiting and heart rate rocketing within 25 minutes of the bag being attached, which is the time it takes insulin to have effect. That's why it's not just about the lab results.

JMO

 

[JosieJo]

Speaking from a non-medical background, I'm not sure how this claim of falsely high insulin results marries up with the glucose treatments given not having a detrimental effect (ie causing too high blood sugar), and the babies' blood sugars resolving spontaneously when the bags were stopped/changed. And baby F in particular vomiting and heart rate rocketing within 25 minutes of the bag being attached, which is the time it takes insulin to have effect. That's why it's not just about the lab results.

JMO

Yes that makes sense as if the results were falsley high the giving of glucose would likely make the blood sugars sky rocket

 

[Tortoise]

I haven't had a chance to read this fully, but the article summarises the 14-panel's findings on all cases.

https://www.itv.com/news/granada/2025-04-03/letby-barrister-to-hand-over-fresh-evidence

 

[JosieJo]

Presumably getting it to the court of Appeal is one thing but getting past the court of Appeal is very much another

 

[Parker Knoll]

Very much so Jo.
It’s all word salad.

Summary of Joint Expert Witness Insulin Report on Babies F and L - EMBARGOED UNTIL NOON GMT on Thursday 3rd April.pdf

drive.google.com

International Expert Panel New Summary Report of additional 10 cases - EMBARGOED UNTIL NOON GMT on Thursday 3rd April.pdf

drive.google.com

 

[Parker Knoll]

Not listened this yet.

30: The Inquiry: Over to the CCRC — The Trial of Lucy Letby: The Inquiry — Overcast

overcast.fm

 

[Furore]

The thing about the insulin test is even if it has a certain false positive rate, it was the one used as standard throughout NICUs in the region…you’re really telling me the only two fake results happened in two babies who had no other cause for sudden collapse, cared for by someone who has been found guilty of murder. Pull the other one.

 

[Sweeper2000]

I haven't had a chance to read this fully, but the article summarises the 14-panel's findings on all cases.

https://www.itv.com/news/granada/2025-04-03/letby-barrister-to-hand-over-fresh-evidence

Baby A and B, thrombosis. Baby c, unrecognised acute small bowel obstruction, Baby D, The panel found no evidence of air embolism and ruled the child died of systemic sepsis, pneumonia and disseminated intravascular coagulation (blood clotting). Issues with failures to give relevant antibiotics were also identified, Baby E, The panel said there was no evidence of air embolism and bleeding was caused either by a lack of oxygen pre-birth or a congenital blood vessel condition, Baby F, . The panel ruled that the child’s insulin levels and insulin/C-peptide ratio did not prove that exogenous insulin was used and were within the norm for pre-term infants. It added that there was poor medical management of the child’s prolonged hypoglycaemia. Baby G, The panel said there was no evidence to support air injection into the stomach or overfeeding. The infant’s vomiting and clinical deterioration was due to infection, it found. Baby H, The panel said the deteriorations were due to medical mismanagement of a tension pneumothorax where air is trapped between the lung and chest wall. baby I, The panel said it found no evidence of air injections and that the baby died of breathing complications caused by respiratory distress syndrome and chronic lung disease. Baby J, The panel said the deterioration was caused by sepsis and there was no evidence to support malicious airway obstruction. Baby K, Among its findings the panel said there was no evidence to support a dislodged endotracheal tube (ETT) and the clinical deterioration was caused by use of an undersized ETT. Baby L, The panel said the infant’s insulin-related levels were within the norm for pre-term infants and there was no evidence of deliberate administration. Baby M, The panel said there was no evidence of air embolism and his collapse was caused by sepsis or a heart problem. Baby N, The panel said there was no air embolism and it was likely his blood oxygen levels dropped due to his haemophilia condition or routine cares, which was “exacerbated” by repeated attempts to insert a breathing tube. Baby O, The panel said he died from liver damage caused by traumatic delivery, resulting in bleeding in the abdomen and profound shock. Baby P, The panel said there was no evidence to support that mechanism and that he died from a collapsed lung that was “suboptimally managed”. Baby Q, The panel said there was no evidence to support air injection into the stomach and the child deteriorated because he had early symptoms of a serious gastrointestinal problem, or sepsis.

 

[Parker Knoll]

So she hasn’t waived privilege then.
We can all pack up and go home as it’s finished before it’s started.

 

[Tortoise]

I was reading up on one of the experts in the insulin panel. Prof Matthew Johll. He was involved in the unsuccessful appeal of Dee Winzar via the CCRC, where they claimed the insulin assays were unreliable.

Judgement here if anyone is interested.

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5fcdc09d2c94e0485ac935f1

 

[mrC]

dr lee has 400 papers to his name Dawi Evans has 1

 

[Ruthbullock]

I was reading up on one of the experts in the insulin panel. Prof Matthew Johll. He was involved in the unsuccessful appeal of Dee Winzar via the CCRC, where they claimed the insulin assays were unreliable.

Judgement here if anyone is interested.

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5fcdc09d2c94e0485ac935f1

If you select the full summary- all the experts agreed though the tests are unreliable on there own both in terms of the defence and prosecution stance

89. Professor Gama's cautious approach to the immunoassay tests is not unwarranted in general terms and is acknowledged by all the experts who gave evidence before us. His evidence that the tests that were performed by Guilford and FSS would be incapable of conclusively excluding the possibility of interference in an uncertain clinical picture mirrors that of Professor Marks at trial. However, in accordance with his evidence before us, once we are satisfied that the immunoassay test results are entirely congruent with the clinical picture of exogenous insulin, and there is no alternative natural cause that has been identified, this is capable of verifying the results obtained by Guilford Laboratories and FSS.

Another difference is that the test was done 3 times in this case- so they had 3 sets of results

 

[JosieJo]

So she hasn’t waived privilege then.
We can all pack up and go home as it’s finished before it’s started.

What's your thoughts on this Parker .. I'm at a loss with legal stuff ?

 

[Charlot123]

You suggested that the doctors could deceive TC in order to get their cameras installed;

Why couldn’t they install hidden cameras on the unit? You are not supposed to warn everyone. You don’t even need to explain Tony Chambers why you need it. You are investigating statistics, looking at people’s practices, suspecting someone of stealing, enough reasons.

Leaving that aside, the whole issue of installing covert cameras is absurd, quite frankly. The data-protection issues alone make it a complete non-starter. Can you imagine what the upshot would be when it came out that you'd been covertly filming staff - let alone patients?

All I remember during the infamed “Novichok” case is the commentaries, “Luckily, GB has the cameras basically on every corner.” I don’t know what the rules are but cameras are in banks or any public places. In fact, I would not be surprised if any place that has the potential of being burglarized has cameras. What about pharmacies? What about hospital pharmacies?

 

[Charlot123]

"Mr McDonald will also give the CCRC a separate report on the insulin cases of Child F and Child L from seven experts including two consultant neonatalogists, a retired professor in forensic toxicology and a paediatric endocrinologist.

Their report summary concluded the jury were misled in a number of “important areas” including medical and evidential facts, and that key information on the insulin testing procedure was not submitted.

It added that the biomechanical test used in both cases “can give rise to falsely high insulin results” due to the presence of antibodies which can interfere with the outcome.

The authors said: “Our inescapable conclusion is that this evidence significantly undermines the validity of the assertions made about the insulin and C-peptide testing presented in court.”"

Lucy Letby lawyer to hand over ‘fresh’ evidence to Criminal Cases Review Commission

Lucy Letby, 35, from Hereford, is serving 15 whole-life orders after she was convicted across two trials at Manchester Crown Court

www.standard.co.uk

The problem is of a different type.

Remembering Annie Doorkan’s case in the US, and a much less-known but a case in my state related to poorly calibrated device for BAL determination in DIU cases, and some others…

Once the validity of the results obtained by the lab is questioned, all samples processed by the lab within several years have to be thrown out of court cases because it indicates unreliable practices followed by the lab.

In this regard, I do have a question how a trial could sit on the information that could potentially indicate bad laboratory practices. More than that, use these data for the trial?

The strongest case, the only convincing one may have faulty results and yet it was allowed to be used in trial? Did they warn the jurors that the results of the lab could potentially be wrong?

 

[Parker Knoll]

You really don’t need to Jo as it’s almost farcical at this point !
One cannot ( if it ever should happen and it does get referred ) pitch up at the COA without knowing why experts were not called at the original trials except the Plumber and you are relying now on new experts as that is going to be the first question asked.
She has to give consent to MM that he can have access to original documents that could have been used to support her case in the original trials in a nutshell, good, bad or indifferent.
Now I’m guessing that the expert opinions were not used at trial because they did not help her case, in fact they most probably helped dig the hole even deeper for her when cross examined by the prosecution so experts not called.
It a nightmare scenario for the defence but if they are not called the can of worms remains shut and it’s a salvage situation all round.
The fact that they are going forward to me without this transparency speaks volumes as to the strength of the case they are now putting forward and the characters involved.
Just my opinion here as ever.

 

[Tortoise]

The problem is of a different type.

Remembering Annie Doorkan’s case in the US, and a much less-known but a case in my state related to poorly calibrated device for BAL determination in DIU cases, and some others…

Once the validity of the results obtained by the lab is questioned, all samples processed by the lab within several years have to be thrown out of court cases because it indicates unreliable practices followed by the lab.

In this regard, I do have a question how a trial could sit on the information that could potentially indicate bad laboratory practices. More than that, use these data for the trial?

The strongest case, the only convincing one may have faulty results and yet it was allowed to be used in trial? Did they warn the jurors that the results of the lab could potentially be wrong?

The claim that the results could have been faulty is just that, a claim, by a barrister with a track record of presenting doctors making absurd and erroneous claims (IMO), and failed CCRC applications. It is untested and unproven until the CCRC, after consultation with the prosecution, determines that it passes muster to be passed back to the court of appeal, and then is considered by the appeal judges. As it stands, that part of the defence claim is unsubstantiated, and heavily countered by evidence from the testing lab and the quality control lab that the testing lab and the results were reliable and accurate.

Ben Myers KC examined the director of the quality control lab during the trial, and did not use that argument then or subsequently at her two appeals. Thankfully it will be aired, and I believe will be debunked.

As a non medical person, I don't hold out hopes for this going anywhere. The results fit with the clinical picture of both babies, which is the most important thing. The babies were hypoglycaemic, and this started with the bags and resolved after the bags were removed. That is not how disease/natural causes manifests and resolves IMO. Especially talking about placental antibodies in a baby who was seven days old when this happened. There was also enough evidence that LL knew insulin was in the bags (and not injected into the babies) because she asked police if the bags were kept. And they only discovered the c-peptide irregularities by chance because experts had already concluded that both their twins (E and M) had been deliberately harmed and wanted to look over their records, probably in the context that twins A and B, and triplets O and P had also been deemed to have been deliberately harmed.

There is a lot more circumstantial evidence surrounding these two cases of poisoning, but I'm not here to fill in the patent gaps in anyone's knowledge about the trial and the inquiry, when it is available to anyone who is so interested in the case.

MOO

 

[Marantz4250b]

It's funny in most cases the police dont feel the need to comment like that the starment sounds rather like desperation

In most cases the police are not investigating even more potential murders and assaults.

In most cases there are not random groups of agitators who aren't in full possession of the actual facts trying to get a convicted multiple murderer out of prison and actively causing upset and distress to the families of said murderers victims!

Tbh, I really just wish they'd arrest her on suspicion of something which would have the effect of severely limiting what could be published on threat of being held in contempt!

 

[Marantz4250b]

dr lee has 400 papers to his name Dawi Evans has 1

And.....??