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.

 

[joltz]

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.

You think it's almost certainly going to be heard in court.

I think almost certainly that everything you believe and say is filtered through a "Letby is innocent" lens. Your reasoning isn't sound. I would have to disagree on almost every single point you have ever made. But that's just me. I'm very open to new evidence, that stands up to scrutiny.


Still waiting for some....

I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest they don't have any because Letby is guilty, therefore realistically, none exists. Instead we have the Letby PR machine in overdrive, offering a large amount of BS, which would be eviscerated in a courtroom. 90% of it has been widely mocked and pulled apart by the likes of us.

I see plenty of new opinions, with no new evidence. It's now rent a gob season. I would love to be a fly on the wall in the Maltin PR meetings. The tactic seems to be to continually pump out articles, much of them old news. Try to get as much information out there as possible until the actual truth is almost impossible to discern. That might have an effect on the general public, but I imagine it's not going to work with the CCRC. I know of not a single person that followed the trial and knew Letby to be guilty, to have been swayed by this so called new evidence.

JMO

 

[joltz]

If you search on most nursing forums- they are told to keep them to document and write up their evidence to pass (or fail) training units- so in many ways it’s also one of those blurred lines in a work environment- you can take them home when you need them to write up your latest assessment, but then quickly get out of the habit of doing that (unless you might do a course later on where they may be useful as evidence).

Let's not pretend Letby was in some habit of bringing them home because it was somehow ok.

COC had had 2 recent data breaches involving patient data with paperwork leaving the hospital, which had made the local news, so this was an issue that Letby would have been very much aware of.

Tony Chambers actually commented on the last one in a local news article and stated that they have been through the implications with staff but it would be reiterated.

There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that Letby knew exactly what she was doing and how wrong it was, yet continued to do it: purposely and with absolute awareness. FACTS

There is no way to possibly minimise the handovers, despite your best attempts.

 

[joltz]

So which press were not invited? It was broadcast live on all the main news channels. Are you suggesting all of the UK broadcasters were sympathetic to the cause prior to the revelations in the press conference? In your opinion they could only ask pre determined questions - on what basis can you possibly know that, and even if that were the case, again contradicting your point about the news conference restricting discussion- the press then openly published articles discussing it regardless of their narrative of guilty or innocent. Articles were shared from both sides. No journalist was excluded and that is the point it was aired with very limited opportunity for discussion to every journalist in real time contract however they wanted to, some with scorn, some with support - how do you believe they should have shared it? By doing a 121 with Liz Hull for her podcast?

They had Hitchens, Crapton up front asking the questions. The point is, that they were able to present a bunch of half cocked theories without scrutiny. Some of the claims were outlandish. Accusing Breary of killing a baby, and everything that went with that.

It was crass, beyond belief.

 

[Baileyboo]

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.

Baby O has an impact injury to his liver. It doesn't make sense that this could have occured from a caesarean birth where the baby was cushioned by the aminotic fluid until just before birth. He showed no signs of liver trauma before meeting Letby. Ben Myers repeatably questioned the pathologist about trauma from the cannula or resuscitation and he explained to the jury using photographs why that wasn't the case.

Letby being completely innocent of all crimes doesn't make sense.

 

[Parker Knoll]

This thread is like a fever dream at times.

 

[WaneLyrical]

Baby O has an impact injury to his liver. It doesn't make sense that this could have occured from a caesarean birth where the baby was cushioned by the aminotic fluid until just before birth. He showed no signs of liver trauma before meeting Letby. Ben Myers repeatably questioned the pathologist about trauma from the cannula or resuscitation and he explained to the jury using photographs why that wasn't the case.

Letby being completely innocent of all crimes doesn't make sense.

How do you know what “makes sense”? Are you a pathologist?

I already know what Marnerides said during the original trial. He was also someone who was certain the Baby C xray showed deliberate harm (until they figured out Letby wasn’t there, at which point the xray was no longer suspicious and perfectly normal). So I do not consider him to be a reliable witness.

Letby being “innocent of crimes” does indeed make sense if there weren’t any crimes.