• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Merged Concerns over baby killer ignored? / Nurse Lucy Letby killed babies in her care

angrysoba said:
You can’t “handwave away” the death of a 1.4kg baby? Seriously!? That’s an extremely underweight baby.

As for the insulin one, this seems extremely elaborate from what I understand.

Read or Listen to the article again.
Click to expand...

Not big on context or comprehension are you?

Its the fact that she was caught, in a nursery room, with a baby screaming its lungs out, with blood around its mouth, and DOING NOTHING ABOUT IT! And then, within a very short space of time, doctors are fighting to save that baby's life from a massive (more than 25%) blood loss.

It is the INCIDENT that cannot be hand-waved away!
 
Matthew Best said:
The shouting and exclamation points really ram the point home and make it unanswerable.
Click to expand...

I don't use all caps for "shouting", I use it for emphasis (yes, I know its supposed to be some kind of "convention" for interwebz speak/whatever. Well bollocks to that - I refuse to allow arbitrary conventions to dictate my stylistic choices. I was writing articles, essays, and dissertations at a time when computers ONLY rendered caps, figures and punctuation, and long before there was any such thing as the internet.

But if I do want to shout, you'll know about it!

This is me shouting



Now can we please stop the bloody sniping and nitpicking about language and form, and just discuss the ******* topic!
 
smartcooky said:
Read what I said again....

"these babies only ever died or collapsed when she was on duty, and the incidences of babies dying in the manner they did , stopped when she was removed from the ward..."​

You highlighted the part you wanted to contest, but you ignored the part that explained the context...


Child A - air injection (died)
Child B - air injection (survived)
Child C - air injection (died)
Child D - air injection (died)
Child E - air injection (died
Child F - insulin overdose (survived)
Child G - excessive milk feeding (survived but severely disabled)
Child H - not specified (survived)
Child I - air injection (died)
Child J - smothered (died)
Child K - breathing tube removed (died)
Child L - insulin overdose (survived)
Child M - adrenaline overdose (survived)
Child N - breathing tube jammed into back of throat (survived)
Child O - air injection (died)
Child P - air injection (died)
Child Q - air injection (died)

Did any of the six babies who died when she was not on the ward die from air injection or massive insulin overdoses, or have a breathing tube removed or jammed into the back of their throat?
‎
‎
Click to expand...

I do not know how the other six babies died. I was just pointing out one tiny inaccuracy in what you wrote in your poorly structured sentence.

As I stated in the original post, I think the convictions are safe.
 
smartcooky said:
I don't use all caps for "shouting", I use it for emphasis (yes, I know its supposed to be some kind of "convention" for interwebz speak/whatever. Well bollocks to that - I refuse to allow arbitrary conventions to dictate my stylistic choices. I was writing articles, essays, and dissertations at a time when computers ONLY rendered caps, figures and punctuation, and long before there was any such thing as the internet.

But if I do want to shout, you'll know about it!

This is me shouting



Now can we please stop the bloody sniping and nitpicking about language and form, and just discuss the ******* topic!
Click to expand...

Yes, well computers no longer only render caps. On this forum you also have the italics, bold and underline which have traditionally been used for emphasis for long before computers were a thing.

You should also not forget that you are writing your posts because you want to convey your thoughts to others. In that context, it makes sense to know what they understand by certain conventions and take that into account when you format your posts.
 
jeremyp said:
Yes, well computers no longer only render caps. On this forum you also have the italics, bold and underline which have traditionally been used for emphasis for long before computers were a thing.

You should also not forget that you are writing your posts because you want to convey your thoughts to others. In that context, it makes sense to know what they understand by certain conventions and take that into account when you format your posts.
Click to expand...

More blather about style and form.

All caps for shouting is not a hard and fast rule, its a convention - one I choose to ignore

SWSWSW!

ETA: I've put note in my signature to that others cannot feign ignorance.
 
Last edited:
Matthew Best said:
You should have put a colon at the end of the first line, instead of a full stop.
Click to expand...

whatever-get-over-it.gif
 
Gulliver Foyle said:
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/...-guilty-of-killing-seven-babies-did-she-do-it

An innocent woman is in jail, at best this is another Lucia de Berk or Sally Clark case.
Click to expand...

There may well be many innocent woman in jail, but Letby is NOT one of them.

Innocent people...

- Do not search Facebook for the parents of the deceased babies that were under her care.
- Do not have a couple of hundred confidential medical documents in their bedrooms, related to dead babies who were under her care.
- Do not take the very creepy step of unofficially contacting grieving parents, and send them personal notes.
- Do not write murder confessions in their diaries.

The evidence against her is overwhelming, and there is no evidence exculpating her. She is as guilty as they come!

The only questions I have are

1. Does she suffer from some undiagnosed mental disorder such as as a form of NPD.
2. Are there other, as yet undiscovered victims.
 
Last edited:
There are basically only two pieces of evidence needed to prove guilt in this case.

1 - medical evidence to prove a baby died of an unnatural, deliberately inflicted cause at a certain time and place.

2 - documentary and/or witness evidence to prove who was on duty and had access to the baby at that time and place.

I think people are overcomplicating this case, with discussions about statistics and clusters. There was medical evidence to prove the babies were killed and Letby was the only person who had access on every single occasion. The other evidence is circumstantial, such as her possession of documents and what she wrote. It is just extra evidence, as people try to understand motive. It is not needed to prove guilt.
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
Innocent people...

- Do not search Facebook for the parents of the deceased babies that were under her care.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure this is true. If the death of a baby in her care had a profound affect on her, it's not difficult to imagine her researching the family, out of grief rather than malice.

Fair enough on all your other points, though.
 
Nessie said:
There are basically only two pieces of evidence needed to prove guilt in this case.

1 - medical evidence to prove a baby died of an unnatural, deliberately inflicted cause at a certain time and place.

2 - documentary and/or witness evidence to prove who was on duty and had access to the baby at that time and place.

I think people are overcomplicating this case, with discussions about statistics and clusters. There was medical evidence to prove the babies were killed and Letby was the only person who had access on every single occasion. The other evidence is circumstantial, such as her possession of documents and what she wrote. It is just extra evidence, as people try to understand motive. It is not needed to prove guilt.
Click to expand...

The sum total of 1 is a doctor with no expertise claiming expertise*. And the sum total of 2 is the kind of dodgy evidence that got Lucia de Berk wrongly convicted.

*If you read the article, you'd realise that the prosecution's "expert" witness openly admitted that he never experienced a case of what he alleged happened in his professional career nor read the relevant literature to familiarise himself with symptoms and causes.
 
Gulliver Foyle said:
The sum total of 1 is a doctor with no expertise claiming expertise*. And the sum total of 2 is the kind of dodgy evidence that got Lucia de Berk wrongly convicted.

*If you read the article, you'd realise that the prosecution's "expert" witness openly admitted that he never experienced a case of what he alleged happened in his professional career nor read the relevant literature to familiarise himself with symptoms and causes.
Click to expand...

Utter bollocks!

"They also pointed to a research paper on air embolus in babies, written by scientists from the University of Western Ontario, in Canada, in 1989, which described a 'migrating' discolouration of the skin, which would typically manifest itself as pale, with flitting bright pink patches.

This strange rash became a 'hallmark' of the case and was witnessed by different doctors in five of the babies – Baby A, Baby B, Baby D, Baby M and Baby O - prior to death or while they were being resuscitated.


The scientists explained that, while the babies' tissues and muscles were starved of oxygen during their collapses, causing them to appear white, the pink patches could be explained because air injected into the circulation was temporarily oxygenating red blood cells as it came into contact with them inside the blood vessels themselves."​

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...dical-evidence-finally-caught-Lucy-Letby.html

Five babies,
all suffering system-wide collapses
all showing the same symptoms and rashes
all seen with Letby short before their collapse.

No, not at all suspicious....


.. if you are an ostrich! :rolleyes:
Ostrich-man-head-in-sand.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom