GUILTY 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

[Sweeper2000]

i use serial killer because she’s a convicted serial killer. I don’t believe she is one. It’s not a question of is Lucy Letby guilty or innocent, I don’t think that question exists, because I don’t think deliberate harm has been done.

As always, I’ll caveat it by saying it all mostly comes down to the insulin evidence for me. For that, I’d like to see a larger sample of results from premature babies with hypoglycaemia. I do not want to see a graph of fasting samples from adults.

Nothing else in this case stands up to scrutiny. That’s why people end up arguing about handover sheets and text messages.

In terms of Letby being a monster, if I was to “believe” in Letby’s guilt, I would think she’d be doing it to get work experience for emergency nursing situations. I don’t even know what sort of personality you’d be dealing with in that scenario.

On this forum at least rather than a Facebook "live, love, laugh" kinda forum there isn't much arguing. Its roughly 99% pro conviction.

 

[Sweeper2000]

Just wanna say well done @Tortoise . I remember way back when you said you thought she didnt have a clue they would turn up at her house and that explains the look on her face when she was walking out. She was worried about them finding the stuff. When they first released that footage. The Netflix documentary proves you right. She said "are you going to search the house". Suggests almost total unawareness and at a broader level, just like you said.

 

[katydid23]

i use serial killer because she’s a convicted serial killer. I don’t believe she is one. It’s not a question of is Lucy Letby guilty or innocent, I don’t think that question exists, because I don’t think deliberate harm has been done.

As always, I’ll caveat it by saying it all mostly comes down to the insulin evidence for me. For that, I’d like to see a larger sample of results from premature babies with hypoglycaemia. I do not want to see a graph of fasting samples from adults.

The insulin cases were only 2 of 27. I don't see how the whole thing could hinge upon just those two cases.

Nothing else in this case stands up to scrutiny. That’s why people end up arguing about handover sheets and text messages.

MANY of the cases stood up to scrutiny. That's why she is a convicted serial killer. She was acquitted of the ones that did not stand up to scrutiny.

In terms of Letby being a monster, if I was to “believe” in Letby’s guilt, I would think she’d be doing it to get work experience for emergency nursing situations. I don’t even know what sort of personality you’d be dealing with in that scenario.

What? I'm not sure what that even means...she'd have killed innocent newborns in order to 'get work experience for emergency nursing situations>' Is that even a thing? It sounds inhumane and vile.

 

[Baileyboo]

i use serial killer because she’s a convicted serial killer. I don’t believe she is one. It’s not a question of is Lucy Letby guilty or innocent, I don’t think that question exists, because I don’t think deliberate harm has been done.

As always, I’ll caveat it by saying it all mostly comes down to the insulin evidence for me. For that, I’d like to see a larger sample of results from premature babies with hypoglycaemia. I do not want to see a graph of fasting samples from adults.

Nothing else in this case stands up to scrutiny. That’s why people end up arguing about handover sheets and text messages.

In terms of Letby being a monster, if I was to “believe” in Letby’s guilt, I would think she’d be doing it to get work experience for emergency nursing situations. I don’t even know what sort of personality you’d be dealing with in that scenario.

Other evidence does stand up to scuntity. The liver injury can't actually be explained by natural means.
The insulin evidence is sound. Babies inherit antibodies from the placenta but they are only antibodies the mother has. Anti insulin antibodies are very rare, if either of the mothers were diabetic the NNU would have known - as this effects the baby's care.
If what happened to the insulin babies was common they would have been other cases and guidance for the NNU team to follow.

 

[WaneLyrical]

Other evidence does stand up to scuntity. The liver injury can't actually be explained by natural means.
The insulin evidence is sound. Babies inherit antibodies from the placenta but they are only antibodies the mother has. Anti insulin antibodies are very rare, if either of the mothers were diabetic the NNU would have known - as this effects the baby's care.
If what happened to the insulin babies was common they would have been other cases and guidance for the NNU team to follow.

It doesn’t stand up to scrutiny at all.

The liver injury, we have Hawdon’s initial review saying a subcapsular haematoma likely formed as a consequence of the main collapse, and we’ve got Lee’s review saying the subcapsular haematoma was likely formed prior to that.

Neither of those things involve anyone deliberately inflicting blunt trauma on the infant.

Or, perhaps, is it another example of Letby’s fortune-telling, she just so happened to deliver car-crash force to the liver of a baby who just so happened to have an unknown subcapsular liver haematoma, making her crime all the more difficult to diagnose.

So no, the liver injury does not stand up to scrutiny, and will almost certainly be heard in court again. What’s left with Baby O is whether that initial collapse was caused by Letby using air. The defence closing statement makes it clear that there’s not even a suggestion of where, when or how Letby is supposed to have done this. We’re just back to ‘Letby is in the hospital, therefore she must be the cause’.

On the insulin, I will wait to see what is presented in court, and what does and does not stand up to scrutiny.