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

[Marantz4250b]

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

What does this relate to? Have I missed something?

 

[Marantz4250b]

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?

What on earth does that have to do with my point?

 

[Marantz4250b]

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 US is a totally different legal system.

There is no relevance to the UK system.

 

[Tortoise]

What does this relate to? Have I missed something?

She has to waive her confidential discussions with her trial defence team for the decision not to call her experts, and she hasn't, showing McD is not privy to that information. Without that knowledge he won't get anywhere at the COA because they need to know why this evidence was not adduced at her trials, ie is it really new, not available to experts at the time of trial, and did she make a tactical decision not to use it.

 

[Marantz4250b]

She has to waive her confidential discussions with her trial defence team for the decision not to call her experts, and she hasn't, showing McD is not privy to that information. Without that knowledge he won't get anywhere at the COA because they need to know why this evidence was not adduced at her trials, ie is it really new, not available to experts at the time of trial, and did she make a tactical decision not to use it.

Ah, right.

Yeah, that says it all, really!

So, basically, if she refuses to do that then it's obvious that she has absolutely zero case and her supporters really need to shut the hell up!

 

[JosieJo]

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.

Great thanks ... strange as you wouldn't think she holds any loyalty to her original defence team ..interesting

 

[May72031]

Ah, right.

Yeah, that says it all, really!

So, basically, if she refuses to do that then it's obvious that she has absolutely zero case and her supporters really need to shut the hell up!

They should, but I bet they won't. Conspiracy theorists never admit when they're wrong.

 

[Marantz4250b]

Great thanks ... strange as you wouldn't think she holds any loyalty to her original defence team ..interesting

I'm sure that I read somewhere around the time that MM took over that Myers was still officially her KC and that he was working under him or something?

Can't recall where I read it now, though.

 

[Ruthbullock]

“I have a black-tie reception here tonight with Lady Justice Thirlwall,” he says, speaking of the judge conducting the public inquiry into how Letby could have been stopped.

“Let’s see if she talks to me.”

Oh to be a fly on the wall at this event.

Access Restricted

 

[Tortoise]

“I have a black-tie reception here tonight with Lady Justice Thirlwall,” he says, speaking of the judge conducting the public inquiry into how Letby could have been stopped.

“Let’s see if she talks to me.”

Oh to be a fly on the wall at this event.

Access Restricted

Very interesting remark from Mark McDonald in your article

“This is not the case where something went wrong at trial and the convictions are unsafe because of a problem with the way that the jury were directed, or something like that."

 

[Charlot123]

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

Well, this is why quality control exists.

We see it all the time not realizing what had happened. This is why we see recalls, of medication batches, or certain cars, or lamps. Not passing QC usually has significant ramifications in industry because the producer doesn’t want to be responsible should something happen with the product. It has to be known. If the lab gave high readings of insulin (higher by 800%) with lower levels of CRP, it means that its data is unreliable.

If I am not mistaken, one of the babies was later diagnosed with congenital hyperinsulinism. And, the doctor who ordered insulin and C-peptides did not act on the results immediately, did she? So she probably was trying to understand what was going on, not suspecting poisoning outright?

BTW, I always hear about “circumstantial evidence.” But, I don’t see it. The way it is presented, it is not “beyond reasonable doubt.” JMO.

So in my mind, I have two versions. Either the court withheld some information from the public, and other, from the jury, then it is a major procedural error. Then, we may never know, “innocent or not”, but LL has to be released because she does look like a victim of flawed judicial system. Or, LL she is truly innocent. Then, at least one of the NICU doctors has psychologically flawed thinking, which is dangerous in itself.

 

[Parker Knoll]

I'm sure that I read somewhere around the time that MM took over that Myers was still officially her KC and that he was working under him or something?

Can't recall where I read it now, though.

It would depend on if and when legal aid was discharged.
As there is no LA going forward everyone attached to this are either pro bono or being funded by other means ( donor ? )
From what they have spouted previously I’m guessing they are working for free.
As they say … you get what you pay for.

 

[Marantz4250b]

It would depend on if and when legal aid was discharged.
As there is no LA going forward everyone attached to this are either pro bono or being funded by other means ( donor ? )
From what they have spouted previously I’m guessing they are working for free.
As they say … you get what you pay for.

I'm getting images of peanuts and primates here.

 

[Parker Knoll]

You are not far out there M !

 

[Charlot123]

What on earth does that have to do with my point?

Respectfully,
I am answering your comment.
I remember from that time one comment, that GB had more cameras than any European country. I assumed it applied to hospitals as well. If it is no, then understood.

Still waiting where this case moves.

 

[joltz]

Well, this is why quality control exists.

We see it all the time not realizing what had happened. This is why we see recalls, of medication batches, or certain cars, or lamps. Not passing QC usually has significant ramifications in industry because the producer doesn’t want to be responsible should something happen with the product. It has to be known. If the lab gave high readings of insulin (higher by 800%) with lower levels of CRP, it means that its data is unreliable.

If I am not mistaken, one of the babies was later diagnosed with congenital hyperinsulinism. And, the doctor who ordered insulin and C-peptides did not act on the results immediately, did she? So she probably was trying to understand what was going on, not suspecting poisoning outright?

BTW, I always hear about “circumstantial evidence.” But, I don’t see it. The way it is presented, it is not “beyond reasonable doubt.” JMO.

So in my mind, I have two versions. Either the court withheld some information from the public, and other, from the jury, then it is a major procedural error. Then, we may never know, “innocent or not”, but LL has to be released because she does look like a victim of flawed judicial system. Or, LL she is truly innocent. Then, at least one of the NICU doctors has psychologically flawed thinking, which is dangerous in itself.

So in your mind, there are 2 versions of events and they both should result in Letby being freed.

You should try considering the actual real events that happened, instead of some made up ones in your head.

JMO

 

[Tortoise]

Well, this is why quality control exists.

We see it all the time not realizing what had happened. This is why we see recalls, of medication batches, or certain cars, or lamps. Not passing QC usually has significant ramifications in industry because the producer doesn’t want to be responsible should something happen with the product. It has to be known. If the lab gave high readings of insulin (higher by 800%) with lower levels of CRP, it means that its data is unreliable.

If I am not mistaken, one of the babies was later diagnosed with congenital hyperinsulinism. And, the doctor who ordered insulin and C-peptides did not act on the results immediately, did she? So she probably was trying to understand what was going on, not suspecting poisoning outright?

BTW, I always hear about “circumstantial evidence.” But, I don’t see it. The way it is presented, it is not “beyond reasonable doubt.” JMO.

So in my mind, I have two versions. Either the court withheld some information from the public, and other, from the jury, then it is a major procedural error. Then, we may never know, “innocent or not”, but LL has to be released because she does look like a victim of flawed judicial system. Or, LL she is truly innocent. Then, at least one of the NICU doctors has psychologically flawed thinking, which is dangerous in itself.

Sorry but your post doesn't reply to the points in my post. The discovery of the poisonings was nothing to do with quality control.

Hearing about circumstantial evidence, but not knowing what it was, is not going to help with understanding the quality of what was relied on to convict her.

The standard of proof (BRD) you yourself purport to hold up as being the gold standard in a judicial system is not met in untested allegations, a press conference or two, or an unprocessed application to the CCRC.

If I am not mistaken, one of the babies was later diagnosed with congenital hyperinsulinism. And, the doctor who ordered insulin and C-peptides did not act on the results immediately, did she? So she probably was trying to understand what was going on, not suspecting poisoning outright?

I can confirm you are mistaken, if you're talking about the convictions.

 

[Charlot123]

So in your mind, there are 2 versions of events and they both should result in Letby being freed.

You should try considering the actual real events that happened, instead of some made up ones in your head.

JMO

OK let us not discuss what is in my head (more and more questions to be honest).

“Two versions of the events” probably applies to Dr. Ravi Jay’s story about baby K. His version of events Dr. Jay: a) never reported to anyone when it happened; b) was suddenly remembered a year later. Then there is another, digital, factual, version of the events, the digital card swipe data. Which is at variance with his story. This you can call two versions of the events. I’d say that “Dr. Jay’s memory is not supported by objective data”, though.

The C-peptide and insulin case is very far from “two versions of the events”. These are not “versions” but a solid fact. The lab performing the insulin and C-peptide measurements had failed quality control soon afterwards, specifically on these tests. In QC testing, this very lab provided falsely high insulin readings and low C-peptide.

Another fact that no one disputes: at trial, the judge was fully aware of the lab failed QC. Yet he decided to suppress this information.

LL’s case is so high-profile, with so many people following it, that to me it looks like far more than “being not transparent with the jury”. It would seem like the people of the UK were kept in the dark.

So no matter what I think, the trial cost UK so much money. I think a retrial will cost more. It would be interesting to see what the decision would be, though.

 

[Tortoise]

Then there is another, digital, factual, version of the events, the digital card swipe data. Which is at variance with his story.

Please explain how it is at variance with his story. The jury knew about the correct swipe data and found on the facts, including the swipe data, he was telling the truth.

The lab performing the insulin and C-peptide measurements had failed quality control soon afterwards, specifically on these tests. In QC testing, this very lab provided falsely high insulin readings and low C-peptide.

Do you have an approved link for the outcome of the lab "failed quality control" please.

Another fact that no one disputes: at trial, the judge was fully aware of the lab failed QC. Yet he decided to suppress this information.

Again, link please.

 

[mrC]

jayram said he saw lucy trying to harm a baby but hes previos statement said there was no evidence against her