- Joined
- Oct 27, 2016
- Messages
- 2,243
- Reaction score
- 9,663
- A new digital system will be rolled out to all maternity services by November to flag potential safety concerns in trusts and support rapid, national action.
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 #38
- Thread starter sleuth777
- Start date
-
NE NE - Chance Englebert, 25, Gering, 6 July 2019 (new father) #2- Latest: Songbird1973
She really attracts the best and the brightest, doesn't she?
I expect she'll be out by the weekend now that she got Farage and Hunt in her corner.
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2016
- Messages
- 2,243
- Reaction score
- 9,663
<modsnip - referenced post was removed>
The information about the door swipe discrepancies I have found are:
“During the retrial, prosecutor Nick Johnson KC revealed that door swipe data, crucial in tracking nurses' and doctors' movements in the intensive care ward, had been "mislabelled".
The CPS confirmed to The Telegraphthat the discrepancy related to one door in the neonatal unit and was corrected for the retrial….
The door swipe data was pivotal in the initial trial, used to demonstrate Letby was the sole nurse present during several catastrophic baby collapses. However, the CPS has not confirmed the accuracy of all other door swipe data from the first trial.“
www.standard.co.uk
The information about the door swipe discrepancies I have found are:
“During the retrial, prosecutor Nick Johnson KC revealed that door swipe data, crucial in tracking nurses' and doctors' movements in the intensive care ward, had been "mislabelled".
The CPS confirmed to The Telegraphthat the discrepancy related to one door in the neonatal unit and was corrected for the retrial….
The door swipe data was pivotal in the initial trial, used to demonstrate Letby was the sole nurse present during several catastrophic baby collapses. However, the CPS has not confirmed the accuracy of all other door swipe data from the first trial.“
Evidence in first Lucy Letby trial was incorrect, CPS admits
The Crown Prosecution Service said the discrepancy related to one door in the neonatal unit and was corrected for the retrial
www.standard.co.uk
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2020
- Messages
- 1,641
- Reaction score
- 13,075
No you are incorrect.
It wasn’t “ deliberately withheld “ but mislabelled and both the prosecution and Letbys own defence accepted this had been a genuine mistake at the retrial of Baby K.
It wasn’t “ deliberately withheld “ but mislabelled and both the prosecution and Letbys own defence accepted this had been a genuine mistake at the retrial of Baby K.
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2016
- Messages
- 2,243
- Reaction score
- 9,663
Who is incorrect????? No one posted on here it was deliberately withheld- a dubious twitter bot link was shared that apparently disputed that the information was deliberately withheld - Thanks @WaneLyrical, for having to submit yourself to that and attempting to share the details, as you said it’s from the twitter cesspit.
Regarding the so-called confession notes, which were one of the prosecutions key pieces of evidence, it’s true that Kathryn De Beger was Letby’s occupational health worker at the time (counsellor; therapist; same difference) and the jury did not hear from her to provide crucial context on these notes. Does that not count as ‘new evidence’ in the spirit of giving Letby an actual fair trial as opposed to going with a narrow procedural head-in-the-sand definition which tells us all that you’ve already made up your mind based on a clearly hopelessly biased and faulty appraisal of the evidence?
Even David Wilson thought the notes were meaningless and worthless as evidence, one of the few public voices willing to put his neck on the line and still support her guilt.
So many people in here felt back on the fact that Letby didn’t bring up that context in court while under relentless cross-examination. But I think you’ll find that the prosecution don’t tailor their questions in such a way that allows her much room to mount her own defence. People would rather work backwards towards their conclusion and therefore the Guardian must have been lying about sources claiming she wrote the notes in consultation and with support from a professional. Despite the fact that Kathryn’s name was literally in said notes.
So , no, the jury were not given adequate context on this matter alone, these notes were presented as a gotcha when they were anything but. Just as her colleagues were pressured not to testify as character witnesses on her behalf, just as she wasn’t allowed any defence witnesses (for whatever reason; does the reason actually matter given ALL that we now know?!), just as the jury was never shown the reports one defence expert did write on her behalf, just as the jury wasn’t shown the official reports into the documented dire conditions at the hospital and so on and so on.
The cognitive dissonance and mental gymnastics required to insist that there’s no new evidence is honestly mind-blowing. No serious people still think this.
Even David Wilson thought the notes were meaningless and worthless as evidence, one of the few public voices willing to put his neck on the line and still support her guilt.
So many people in here felt back on the fact that Letby didn’t bring up that context in court while under relentless cross-examination. But I think you’ll find that the prosecution don’t tailor their questions in such a way that allows her much room to mount her own defence. People would rather work backwards towards their conclusion and therefore the Guardian must have been lying about sources claiming she wrote the notes in consultation and with support from a professional. Despite the fact that Kathryn’s name was literally in said notes.
So , no, the jury were not given adequate context on this matter alone, these notes were presented as a gotcha when they were anything but. Just as her colleagues were pressured not to testify as character witnesses on her behalf, just as she wasn’t allowed any defence witnesses (for whatever reason; does the reason actually matter given ALL that we now know?!), just as the jury was never shown the reports one defence expert did write on her behalf, just as the jury wasn’t shown the official reports into the documented dire conditions at the hospital and so on and so on.
The cognitive dissonance and mental gymnastics required to insist that there’s no new evidence is honestly mind-blowing. No serious people still think this.
And yet, even Letbys own defense barrister has himself said that there is no new evidence.
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2020
- Messages
- 3,552
- Reaction score
- 20,087
Correct. There is no "new" evidence.
People are claiming that putting a very slightly different spin on old evidence and repeating it often enough and having new people repeat it often enough equates to "new" evidence. It doesn't.
I also think that people seem to assume that even if actual new evidence does appear then it automatically makes her innocent. It doesn't because the veracity of said evidence needs to be examined in court. A LOT of new evidence is going to be required to get Lucy Letby out of prison!
Interesting line from the Court of Appeal judgment in the matter of Colin Norris AKA Campbell handed down today -
Medical issues
65. The medical issue raised at trial, on appeal in 2009 and in 2025 can be stated quite simply: when and in what circumstances is it proper to infer poisoning by an overdose of injected insulin, as opposed to severe hypoglycaemia arising from natural causes?
66. All the experts are agreed that there is only one route to absolute certainty of insulin poisoning: where high levels of insulin are found in the bloodstream, with no corresponding levels of a substance known as c-peptide, then the insulin in that blood is manufactured (exogenous) rather than naturally arising (endogenous).
Medical issues
65. The medical issue raised at trial, on appeal in 2009 and in 2025 can be stated quite simply: when and in what circumstances is it proper to infer poisoning by an overdose of injected insulin, as opposed to severe hypoglycaemia arising from natural causes?
66. All the experts are agreed that there is only one route to absolute certainty of insulin poisoning: where high levels of insulin are found in the bloodstream, with no corresponding levels of a substance known as c-peptide, then the insulin in that blood is manufactured (exogenous) rather than naturally arising (endogenous).
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2020
- Messages
- 1,641
- Reaction score
- 13,075
Amen.
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2020
- Messages
- 1,641
- Reaction score
- 13,075
He can’t make up his mind whether it helps or hinders it would seem - pick a lane please fgs !
www.theguardian.com
Nurse loses appeal against 2008 convictions for murder of four patients in Leeds
Colin Campbell fails to overturn convictions for murder of four women by injecting them with insulin
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2016
- Messages
- 2,243
- Reaction score
- 9,663
I don’t think he has changed his lane- the original reason Mark McDonald was quoted as stating was “Letby’s barrister, Mark McDonald, said Norris’s case had similarities with Letby’s and those of two other nurses who contest murder convictions because of the “improper use of so-called expert evidence”.”He can’t make up his mind whether it helps or hinders it would seem - pick a lane please fgs !
Nurse loses appeal against 2008 convictions for murder of four patients in Leeds
Colin Campbell fails to overturn convictions for murder of four women by injecting them with insulin
He has now said as did the judge, not to draw parallels between the two cases, because they were obviously very different in what has been put forward to the COA.
The original argument to the CCRC and COA was that the expert evidence was in doubt. If you read the judges final judgement, that is not why it was thrown out- in the case of Norris they were attempting to use examples from 5 other patients and also arguing that the expert witness testimony had affected the case. Specifically it was noted the jury were possibly not informed about these other cases (and should have been), but no one had copies of court transcripts from 17 years ago and it was unlikely the experts could recollect their testimony, especially as one is terminally ill. Regardless the jury asked the question to the judge if there were any similar cases that they were not aware of, and the assumption by this judge is that they would have been granted this information.
The crux of the matter was that the new expert witnesses disagreed with the previous expert witnesses. This was the basis for the original quote, but during the hearing it became apparent it was not due to their original trial testimony, but because they felt other patients had died from the same issues when Norris wasn’t around and this should have been shared in court, and therefore someone else could be blamed and Norris found innocent. Both sides of experts relooked at the evidence, twice, of all the cases (an additional 23), not just the cases with charges. It was subsequently felt that the judge made the other cases clear and the jury were well informed about these other incidents- so it was no longer about the expert testimony.
If anything this judges summary sets an example of how you would hope that Letby’s will go. In that everything was relooked at as fairly and as thoroughly as possible (with two sessions where the experts assessed the evidence). This dismissal was also without prejudice, which allows it to be submitted to the COA again at a future date, so the judge did not close the door entirely.
You seem so adamant that Letby should not be given any grounds to appeal her convictions, even though that is part of our legal process and something she is entitled to. She may still be found guilty and incarcerated for life, but she will have been entitled to the same due process as every other person in the country. I have faith (albeit they are still prone to human error) that the CCRC will do their due diligence and if required so will the COA, but to be so convinced that this legal process should not happen (whether you agree with her innocence or guilt, or remain undecided) is to my mind still a question you haven’t really answered.
WaneLyrical
Active Member
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2025
- Messages
- 147
- Reaction score
- 143
I don’t think anyone is disputing that high insulin with no corresponding level of c-peptide is indicative of exogenous insulin. After all, we heard enough about it.
Shoo Lee has said this ratio does not hold true for premature infants, their physiology is not comparable to adults/children since their organs are not sufficiently developed. They have reduced insulin clearance and a longer insulin half-life. There is literature on this, it’s not just an on the hoof dollop of air.
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2020
- Messages
- 1,641
- Reaction score
- 13,075
Ruth - nobody wants an unsafe conviction … absolutely nobody so I’m offended that you think I think the legal process should not take place here for Letby ? To have an innocent woman in prison for the rest of her life for a crime she didn’t commit would be abhorrent - only she isn’t innocent.
As someone who’s spent decades working within the legal profession every single person accused of a crime has a fundamental right to a fair trial and if necessary a route to appeal the conviction if unsafe.
Her pro bono Barrister is fond of creating hype around his client and McDonald clearly says two conflicting things here and as the wind hasn’t blown in his favour the narrative has been re spun, that’s how I see it - how you see it is up to you.
That’s how he works with his unnecessary press conferences, wild sound bites and dramatic interviews - all style no substance … again my opinion only, you can think what you want.
I am not adamant Letby should not be able to appeal her convictions …. She has TWICE already ! I would expect the CCRC will refer this back to the COA in due course and for the record I really hope they do - it can go before the panel and let the best legal minds decide wether this “ new evidence “ is in fact new evidence that wasn’t available at the first two trials in order for the original legal team to use it on behalf of Letby or erm ….. not.
Just my opinion ;- )
As someone who’s spent decades working within the legal profession every single person accused of a crime has a fundamental right to a fair trial and if necessary a route to appeal the conviction if unsafe.
Her pro bono Barrister is fond of creating hype around his client and McDonald clearly says two conflicting things here and as the wind hasn’t blown in his favour the narrative has been re spun, that’s how I see it - how you see it is up to you.
That’s how he works with his unnecessary press conferences, wild sound bites and dramatic interviews - all style no substance … again my opinion only, you can think what you want.
I am not adamant Letby should not be able to appeal her convictions …. She has TWICE already ! I would expect the CCRC will refer this back to the COA in due course and for the record I really hope they do - it can go before the panel and let the best legal minds decide wether this “ new evidence “ is in fact new evidence that wasn’t available at the first two trials in order for the original legal team to use it on behalf of Letby or erm ….. not.
Just my opinion ;- )
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2011
- Messages
- 70,241
- Reaction score
- 274,130
"You seem so adamant that Letby should not be given any grounds to appeal her convictions, even though that is part of our legal process and something she is entitled to. She may still be found guilty and incarcerated for life, but she will have been entitled to the same due process as every other person in the country. I have faith (albeit they are still prone to human error) that the CCRC will do their due diligence and if required so will the COA, but to be so convinced that this legal process should not happen (whether you agree with her innocence or guilt, or remain undecided) is to my mind still a question you haven’t really answered."
She did have her opportunities to appeal her convictions and received her due process: Specifically, her initial appeal against the 14 convictions from her original trial, along with the conviction for attempted murder, was dismissed in May 2024. In October, she was also refused leave to appeal her 15th conviction because she submitted no new evidence.
- Initial convictions: Letby was convicted in August 2023 of murdering seven babies and attempting to murder six others.
- Appeal attempt 1: She applied for leave to appeal these convictions, arguing that prosecution evidence was flawed. This application was dismissed by the Court of Appeal in May 2024.
- Retrial conviction: She faced a retrial for the attempted murder of one baby (Child K) and was found guilty in July 2024.
- Appeal attempt 2: Her lawyers sought permission to appeal this conviction, arguing the retrial was unfair due to media coverage of the initial trial. This bid was also dismissed by the Court of Appeal in October 2024.
In order to have such a high insulin level the babies' pancreas would have to make a huge amount of insulin. Then the babies' kidneys would have to excrete a huge amount of c peptide. The panel of expert report is more concerned with anti insulin antibodies which is so extremely rare its virtually unheard of outside Japan.
Attachments
I definitely wouldn’t set much store in Wes Streeting’s desire to introduce A.I. into the NHS. This is the guy who has floated the idea of privitisation and member of a party that’s about to stomp on and throw into relative poverty over 100 thousand of the poorest people in society. Pretty sure ‘catching killers’ probably didn’t even figure in the motivations of whoever dreamed up this wheeze. <modsnip- accusations of misconduct>
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2023
- Messages
- 70
- Reaction score
- 431
Oooooooh
www.bbc.co.uk
Three ex-bosses of Lucy Letby arrested on suspicion of gross negligence manslaughter
All three worked at the Countess of Chester Hospital when the nurse killed babies at its neonatal unit.
www.bbc.co.uk
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
