• 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

Feelings of guilt are common in healthcare workers when a patient dies. It is not uncommon to feel that you may have killed them (sometimes doctors do (unintentionally) kill patients with the best of intentions). What seems to be taken seriously are the few times she wrote she was guilty and ignored those times she wrote she wasn't. If you are going to give weight to her doodling then equal weight needs to be given to all. False confessions are common.

Having medical records in ones possession is not uncommon for health care staff. Although 'illegal' you may take them home by accident (surprisingly easy), or because you want to review them. Again you assume that this is unusual behaviour, with no evidence that it is.

Finally you assume a motive, with no evidence that this was the motive. No psychological or psychiatric evidence was given to say that the killing of babies in itself was the intent. The limited psychological evidence I have seen suggests this was thrill seeking behaviour with deaths a consequence but not the intent. (Unlike many other health care associated multiple murder cases where 'ending suffering' or 'reducing workload' was the cause and deaths a deliberate intent.)

Whilst I am sure Letby caused some or all of the deaths, I don't think that her doodles on post it notes or having records at home are particularly pathological in the given circumstances and certainly not evidence of guilt.

I disagree with all of this (and, I might add, so too did both juries).

I will be sticking with my opinion, that she is guilty of seven murders and six attempted murders until such time as there is evidence that directly contradicts her guilt. There is none so far.
 
The police said that Letby was a prolific writer. People who keep diaries and journals do tend to pour out their true feelings, not expecting any third party to ever read their jottings, which are more of a reference for themselves. Letby jotted down in her diary - which macabrely is in shades of girly lilac and pink - by the dates of death of her victims, their initials.

7000166af653b51243.png



Key medical notes, one of which was proven to have been retrieved from a bin for confidential material of how one of her victims desaturated to death. These notes were kept in a supermarket bag under her bed. People file their documents according to category, importance and sentimental value. Given her victims did die from unnatural causes (synthetic insulin, overfeeding, brutally dislodged feeding tubes, injections of air, etc) and their notes all kept together in a special place of their own, they appear to have had some value for Letby. Planigale thinks it could be for feelings of guilt rather than as trophies with the sentimental value to relive the incidents again and the addictive rush of adrenaline that accompanies highly risky behaviour. Letby writes a fair bit about her crush on the married doctor and he leads her on in return. After Letby killed one twin, this married doctor offered her the use of his car to drive home, as they were close enough to use each other's car. Letby mentions the names of her cats and her nephews, as well as her parents. She calls the four doctors who wants her off the wards, 'BASTARDS'. ISTM she wasn't writing for the benefit of a third party but adds occasional disclaimers just in case, for plausible denial she meant what she said about 'I did this'.

Her father was present when the police arrived to arrest her. Her bedroom as largely designed by Dad seemed to be as if for a nine-year-old.

7000166af5f3fb5d85.png


Mr. Letby was present at Letby's disciplinary hearings; he became friendly with the Head of the NHS Trust and Letby moved in with her parents after arrest and took the bag of victim documents with her to her new address.

ISTM Letby suffered arrested emotional development, having needed thyroid therapy when young and thus had overbearing stifling parents keen to cushion their only child, still going on holiday with them every year as a grown adult. So, on an emotional level, she was like a young child that is keen to boss around and control say, her pet animals, without understanding their being sentient animals and thus not so much knowingly cruel but more not mature or developed enough to have empathy towards the objects of her bullying behaviour. Plus, having Mum and Dad being able to see no wrong in their dear 'yes, my darling' daughter. However, on an intellectual level, Letby surely knew her treatment of the neonatal babies was wrong.

She was in a fix, though, because she had the backing of her authoritarian father, the NHS Trust Boss and the nurses union against the hospital doctors. They were even made to apologise to her by her father. Such was Dad's belief that Letby could do no wrong. So, IMV Letby wrote all of that stuff confessing she killed them because on one level she wanted to be caught and stopped. Hence the escalation in killings and attempted killings because on a subconscious level she was saying, look, isn't it obvious???!!! These are all twins, triplets, can't just be coincidence. Her affirmation in court after the last guilty verdict of, 'I am innocent', IMV, was really for the benefit of her parents whom she didn't want to disappoint because she knew in their eyes they idolised her.


7000166af649f09da5.png



7000166af60e7544bf.png



7000166af60e736ab5.png


So one could say the notes confessing guilt were cries for help, albeit for self-tranqulisation purposes.

The other reward she got from her behaviour was the attention of the married doctor who plied heaps of sympathy on her and reassurance that everyone thought she was a great nurse and highly competent. It was all just incredibly bad luck the deaths should happen to her. And the thing is, the nursing head believed Letby.
 
Last edited:
Not in this case. It didn't change to "more likely than not", which is what she said.

Agreed. 'More likely than not' means if there is a 51% chance of guilt the jury should convict. No reasonable person would be 'satisfied that they are sure' on that basis.
 
Feelings of guilt are common in healthcare workers when a patient dies. It is not uncommon to feel that you may have killed them (sometimes doctors do (unintentionally) kill patients with the best of intentions). What seems to be taken seriously are the few times she wrote she was guilty and ignored those times she wrote she wasn't. If you are going to give weight to her doodling then equal weight needs to be given to all. False confessions are common.

Having medical records in ones possession is not uncommon for health care staff. Although 'illegal' you may take them home by accident (surprisingly easy), or because you want to review them. Again you assume that this is unusual behaviour, with no evidence that it is.

Yes, this is why I used the evidence of nurses on Reddit discussing such things as feelings or guilt, searching for information about the deceased and taking home records. It is not “good” to do it, but it seems that plenty of nurses do, and there is also further evidence that they sometimes worry about being seen as responsible for the deaths of those they care for.

smartcooky laughed off the source because he prefers his own - his posterior.



Finally you assume a motive, with no evidence that this was the motive. No psychological or psychiatric evidence was given to say that the killing of babies in itself was the intent. The limited psychological evidence I have seen suggests this was thrill seeking behaviour with deaths a consequence but not the intent. (Unlike many other health care associated multiple murder cases where 'ending suffering' or 'reducing workload' was the cause and deaths a deliberate intent.)

Whilst I am sure Letby caused some or all of the deaths, I don't think that her doodles on post it notes or having records at home are particularly pathological in the given circumstances and certainly not evidence of guilt.

Much of this just seems like speculation. I don’t think we have to wonder about motive. What should be established is intent. That seems to be on fairly dubious grounds if the insulin claims and embolism claims fall through.

Again, I have no idea if she is guilty or not. That said, I am puzzled that some people are all in, 100%, on something that seems also based on large amounts of circumstantial evidence.
 
Yes, this is why I used the evidence of nurses on Reddit discussing such things as feelings or guilt, searching for information about the deceased and taking home records. It is not “good” to do it, but it seems that plenty of nurses do, and there is also further evidence that they sometimes worry about being seen as responsible for the deaths of those they care for.

smartcooky laughed off the source because he prefers his own - his posterior.





Much of this just seems like speculation. I don’t think we have to wonder about motive. What should be established is intent. That seems to be on fairly dubious grounds if the insulin claims and embolism claims fall through.

Again, I have no idea if she is guilty or not. That said, I am puzzled that some people are all in, 100%, on something that seems also based on large amounts of circumstantial evidence.

Sometimes sufficient circumstantial evidence is enough. The insulin overdoses are inarguably malicious. I think there is sufficient evidence that actions of letby led to deaths of babies. I suspect that some of the deaths she was accused of were natural. But at the end of the day is probably more just that she is wrongly found guilty of one or two murders than she gets away with them all.

This doesn't get away from my concerns that selecting out a few phrases expressing guilt nd excluding those where she expressed innocence is inappropriate analysis of evidence, it wouldn't be allowed in other areas of evidential analysis, evidence of innocence would be required to be presented. There are techniques to semi-quantitatively analyse narratives. The evidence from the post it notes should have been presented neutrally and analytically. There should be a summary of the number of expressions of innocence and guilt, instead of the prosecution being able to cherry pick the facts they wanted. This I think comes back to the inequality in resources the defence had.
The professional medical witness employed by the prosecution earned approximately £100,000 a year for several years.
 
Yes, this is why I used the evidence of nurses on Reddit discussing such things as feelings or guilt, searching for information about the deceased and taking home records. It is not “good” to do it, but it seems that plenty of nurses do, and there is also further evidence that they sometimes worry about being seen as responsible for the deaths of those they care for.

smartcooky laughed off the source because he prefers his own - his posterior.





Much of this just seems like speculation. I don’t think we have to wonder about motive. What should be established is intent. That seems to be on fairly dubious grounds if the insulin claims and embolism claims fall through.

Again, I have no idea if she is guilty or not. That said, I am puzzled that some people are all in, 100%, on something that seems also based on large amounts of circumstantial evidence.

All evidence is circumstantial. Even forensic evidence is circumstantial evidence. It is hilarious when people claim that it is a miscarriage of justice because 'it was only circumstantial evidence'.

I think over time people will begin to see just how serious this crime was. ATM they still feel incredulous that someone so ordinary looking and seemingly middle class can do this. After all, the head of nursing and the hospital head of NHS Trust for the region were all on Letby's side, so it is no surprise people cannot believe it. OTOH there are those who do not qute see neonatal babies as sentient human beings. The fact that one died shortly after being moved away to Arrowe Park and yet Letby was still guilty of attempted murder before then is something people find hard to grasp. 'Oh but the baby would have died anyway' is what they prefer to believe. The fact that some babies were premature, low weight and with concomitant problems in breathing or feeding doesn't mean they were any less worthy of justice than any other member of society. Babies are also sentient beings that feel pain and distress and in addition, were 100% dependent on their carer/s. The idea that Letby's convictions and 15 whole life orders are based on mere speculation and an ignorant belief that 'circumstantial evidence counts for nothing' is understandable because people read Peter Hitchens and think, yeah this guy has inside information; if he doesn't feel happy with the convictions, it must be a miscarraige of justice.
 
Last edited:
Sometimes sufficient circumstantial evidence is enough. The insulin overdoses are inarguably malicious. I think there is sufficient evidence that actions of letby led to deaths of babies. I suspect that some of the deaths she was accused of were natural. But at the end of the day is probably more just that she is wrongly found guilty of one or two murders than she gets away with them all.

This doesn't get away from my concerns that selecting out a few phrases expressing guilt nd excluding those where she expressed innocence is inappropriate analysis of evidence, it wouldn't be allowed in other areas of evidential analysis, evidence of innocence would be required to be presented. There are techniques to semi-quantitatively analyse narratives. The evidence from the post it notes should have been presented neutrally and analytically. There should be a summary of the number of expressions of innocence and guilt, instead of the prosecution being able to cherry pick the facts they wanted. This I think comes back to the inequality in resources the defence had.
The professional medical witness employed by the prosecution earned approximately £100,000 a year for several years.

The jury is entitled to see the original exhibit and not just a summary of it. Of course all of the relevant notes were produced. All of this is decided in advance at a disclosures hearing in which the parties agree on what the evidence exhibits will be. There was nothing to stop the defence requesting the court to show the notes in Letby's favour. Plus, of course there would have been a summary of all these documents for the jury, for ease of reference, as well as the notes themselves.

Letby as someone accused of a serious crime would have had the best legal defence. Ben Myers KC, her counsel, is top drawer and well-respected in getting his clients off.
 
The conviction on retrial of Letby for the death of child K is one where I think the conviction is unsafe. I think she was convicted on her name.

The child was born prematurely, the likelihood of death was between 30 and 40% given a good standard of care. Therefore the death was not unexpected. The death happened at another hospital, which documented deficiencies in care prior to the arrival of child K.

It is alleged Letby disconnected a breathing tube, and delayed alerting about this. But there is no evidence of this. It is reverse supposition, if Letby had killed the child how could she have done this? There is considerable evidence that the care was substandard, and the child was ill from birth requiring transfer even before Letby's involvement. I think it is difficult to claim in the case of child K who had an expectation of death of around 50% given sub-standard care that it is 'beyond reasonable doubt' or satisfactorily sure that the explanation for death is murder.
https://lawhealthandtech.substack.com/p/lucy-letby-the-trial-for-baby-k

To repeat what I have said before. I think Letby is guilty of murder, but not of all murders she was convicted of. I think the first jury was right not to convict in the case of baby K, and the second jury only convicted because they knew the history, and probably because they thought it made no difference since she was already convicted and sentenced to life for murder.
 
The conviction on retrial of Letby for the death of child K is one where I think the conviction is unsafe. I think she was convicted on her name.

The child was born prematurely, the likelihood of death was between 30 and 40% given a good standard of care. Therefore the death was not unexpected. The death happened at another hospital, which documented deficiencies in care prior to the arrival of child K.

It is alleged Letby disconnected a breathing tube, and delayed alerting about this. But there is no evidence of this. It is reverse supposition, if Letby had killed the child how could she have done this? There is considerable evidence that the care was substandard, and the child was ill from birth requiring transfer even before Letby's involvement. I think it is difficult to claim in the case of child K who had an expectation of death of around 50% given sub-standard care that it is 'beyond reasonable doubt' or satisfactorily sure that the explanation for death is murder.
https://lawhealthandtech.substack.com/p/lucy-letby-the-trial-for-baby-k

To repeat what I have said before. I think Letby is guilty of murder, but not of all murders she was convicted of. I think the first jury was right not to convict in the case of baby K, and the second jury only convicted because they knew the history, and probably because they thought it made no difference since she was already convicted and sentenced to life for murder.

Baby K was the one that finally decided Dr Jayaram to take it to the police, despite the NHS Trust Boss threatening him and his colleagues with BMC disciplinary action.

Imagine you witness a lifeguard passively standing watching a young child drowning and doing nothing. That is murder or attempted murder if someone else rescues the kid. A witness is prima facie evidence assuming they turn up in court to be cross-examined. It really has nothing to do with whether that child was disabled and was about to die of leukaemia anyway. The allegation of murder or gross negligence manslaughter for not doing anything when you are expected to, in your role, doesn't change just because the victim has a medical condition (the 'thin skull' case law wherein it doesn't matter if your victim had a thinner than normal skull when you hit him over the head and he died).

Now imagine a qualified neonatal nurse standing over a newly-born baby in great distress desaturating and she is doing nothing at all to help that child and even the baby monitor alarm has suspiciously not gone off. Baby K was only resuscitated thanks to Dr Jayaram coming to her rescue. It matters not a whit that Baby K died later. The nurse who actively failed to do anything about a clearly desaturating neonate baby is still criminally liable for not doing anything, just as a life guard standing doing nothing when a child is drowning before his eyes is also culpable.

The first jury failed to come to a majority verdict so it was retried. It is quite wrong to claim she was initially cleared and then tried again. As at that stage she was convicted of 14 murders/attempted murders in English law the prosecution was legally entitled to tell the jury they were allowed to take that fact into account.
 
The conviction on retrial of Letby for the death of child K is one where I think the conviction is unsafe. I think she was convicted on her name.

The child was born prematurely, the likelihood of death was between 30 and 40% given a good standard of care. Therefore the death was not unexpected. The death happened at another hospital, which documented deficiencies in care prior to the arrival of child K.

It is alleged Letby disconnected a breathing tube, and delayed alerting about this. But there is no evidence of this. It is reverse supposition, if Letby had killed the child how could she have done this? There is considerable evidence that the care was substandard, and the child was ill from birth requiring transfer even before Letby's involvement. I think it is difficult to claim in the case of child K who had an expectation of death of around 50% given sub-standard care that it is 'beyond reasonable doubt' or satisfactorily sure that the explanation for death is murder.
https://lawhealthandtech.substack.com/p/lucy-letby-the-trial-for-baby-k

To repeat what I have said before. I think Letby is guilty of murder, but not of all murders she was convicted of. I think the first jury was right not to convict in the case of baby K, and the second jury only convicted because they knew the history, and probably because they thought it made no difference since she was already convicted and sentenced to life for murder.

The baby was in clear distress. Letby was right there doing nothing. She was observed by a doctor, doing nothing.
 
Last edited:
Baby K was the one that finally decided Dr Jayaram to take it to the police, despite the NHS Trust Boss threatening him and his colleagues with BMC disciplinary action.

Imagine you witness a lifeguard passively standing watching a young child drowning and doing nothing. That is murder or attempted murder if someone else rescues the kid. A witness is prima facie evidence assuming they turn up in court to be cross-examined. It really has nothing to do with whether that child was disabled and was about to die of leukaemia anyway. The allegation of murder or gross negligence manslaughter for not doing anything when you are expected to, in your role, doesn't change just because the victim has a medical condition (the 'thin skull' case law wherein it doesn't matter if your victim had a thinner than normal skull when you hit him over the head and he died).

Now imagine a qualified neonatal nurse standing over a newly-born baby in great distress desaturating and she is doing nothing at all to help that child and even the baby monitor alarm has suspiciously not gone off. Baby K was only resuscitated thanks to Dr Jayaram coming to her rescue. It matters not a whit that Baby K died later. The nurse who actively failed to do anything about a clearly desaturating neonate baby is still criminally liable for not doing anything, just as a life guard standing doing nothing when a child is drowning before his eyes is also culpable.

The first jury failed to come to a majority verdict so it was retried. It is quite wrong to claim she was initially cleared and then tried again. As at that stage she was convicted of 14 murders/attempted murders in English law the prosecution was legally entitled to tell the jury they were allowed to take that fact into account.
There is a great deal of difference from saying that she negligently failed to act and someone else had to do something and successfully resuscitate the child, and saying that act was the cause of death beyond reasonable doubt, given there was about 50% chance of death in any event. Especially when you consider quite separate from Letby there had been failed intubation attempts resulting in hypoxia and delayed resuscitation due to a failure to insert vascular access. Which event of several was the cause of death if any? The mere fact that the child survived for more than a day after the disconnection event makes it highly unlikely it was a genuine contributor to death.
 
The baby was in clear distress. Letby was right there doing nothing. She was observed by a doctor, doing nothing.

That does not mean that was ultimately the cause of the child's death. Yes it does mean she was a bad person. You could argue for attempted murder, it just seems out of the many failures in the care of this child and the very high risk of death from birth that one can say this single event was the cause of death beyond reasonable doubt.
 
There is a great deal of difference from saying that she negligently failed to act and someone else had to do something and successfully resuscitate the child, and saying that act was the cause of death beyond reasonable doubt, given there was about 50% chance of death in any event. Especially when you consider quite separate from Letby there had been failed intubation attempts resulting in hypoxia and delayed resuscitation due to a failure to insert vascular access. Which event of several was the cause of death if any? The mere fact that the child survived for more than a day after the disconnection event makes it highly unlikely it was a genuine contributor to death.

That does not mean that was ultimately the cause of the child's death. Yes it does mean she was a bad person. You could argue for attempted murder, it just seems out of the many failures in the care of this child and the very high risk of death from birth that one can say this single event was the cause of death beyond reasonable doubt.

This is just excuse-making and apologism. You seems to be arguing for "no harm - no foul". We're not talk about lay bystanders here, we're talking about people who have a DUTY of care. In this case, a nurse, in the example Vixen gave, a life-guard.

How many times do you think someone in a position of responsibility should be excused for doing nothing when it was their duty and responsibility to take action... twice? Three times? Five Times. Ten times? How many?
 
Last edited:
There is a great deal of difference from saying that she negligently failed to act and someone else had to do something and successfully resuscitate the child, and saying that act was the cause of death beyond reasonable doubt, given there was about 50% chance of death in any event. Especially when you consider quite separate from Letby there had been failed intubation attempts resulting in hypoxia and delayed resuscitation due to a failure to insert vascular access. Which event of several was the cause of death if any? The mere fact that the child survived for more than a day after the disconnection event makes it highly unlikely it was a genuine contributor to death.

Fact is, the tube was dislodged. Letby claimed the neonate had dislodged it herself. To preclude suspicion, in the following hours Letby kept pointing out to colleagues that Baby K had dislodged her tube again, several times. The prosecution presented expert evidence that it was highly unlikely that a baby of that age and condition would be able to keep doing this, albeit it was not uncommon in itself. In addition, the monitor alarm had been switched off. Another nurse came to Letby's defence (although this never came to court [I wonder why?]) saying she had turned it off (Letby had a lot of people trying to cover her back, for well-intentioned but misconceived reasons = none of us likes to see our colleagues get into trouble). But in any case, the jury inferred that the subsequent behaviour by Letby pointed to her knowing she had been caught by Dr. Jayaram, and that was the reason she made a point of telling colleagues Baby K had pulled out her own tubes again several times.

Even if statistically Baby K had a 50-50 chance of dying anyway, there is no way a neonatal nurse can just stand and watch a baby desaturate (the equivalent of drowning before her eyes) but yet do nothing. She should have been resuscitating her or calling for assistance. It was only by the fact of Dr Jayaram having his suspicions about her that he even followed her in and caught her red-handed. Sure, there is always an element of uncertainty as to the mens rea but the jury decided they were more sure than not she was guilty of attempted murder, in Letby's campaign of harming babies in her care, for whatever motive.

ETA: Nobody was claiming that "that act was the cause of death beyond reasonable doubt", Letby was not charged with causing the death of Baby K. She was simply charged with Attempted Murder. Note, not professional negligence Manslaughter or Assault but Attempted Murder: a deliberate and intentional attempt to end that baby's life.
 
Last edited:
Sometimes sufficient circumstantial evidence is enough. The insulin overdoses are inarguably malicious. I think there is sufficient evidence that actions of letby led to deaths of babies. I suspect that some of the deaths she was accused of were natural. But at the end of the day is probably more just that she is wrongly found guilty of one or two murders than she gets away with them all.

This doesn't get away from my concerns that selecting out a few phrases expressing guilt nd excluding those where she expressed innocence is inappropriate analysis of evidence, it wouldn't be allowed in other areas of evidential analysis, evidence of innocence would be required to be presented. There are techniques to semi-quantitatively analyse narratives. The evidence from the post it notes should have been presented neutrally and analytically. There should be a summary of the number of expressions of innocence and guilt, instead of the prosecution being able to cherry pick the facts they wanted. This I think comes back to the inequality in resources the defence had.
The professional medical witness employed by the prosecution earned approximately £100,000 a year for several years.

The "insulin overdoses" are the least well supported of all the convictions. There is absolutely no evidence that the alleged victims were injected with insulin, merely a suggestion that it may have happened, the test to prove it never having been done.
 
The "insulin overdoses" are the least well supported of all the convictions. There is absolutely no evidence that the alleged victims were injected with insulin, merely a suggestion that it may have happened, the test to prove it never having been done.
I have to disagree, these are the most certain. These children suffered unexplained hypoglycaemia, this may happen in neonates for a variety of reasons, there is a standard panel of tests that you would do. Blood was sent off and the insulin level was high and the c-peptide level was low. Insulin is produced as proinsulin, and activated by cleavage releasing C-peptide and insulin. Natural insulin and C-peptide will be found in an approximately 1:1 ratio. In the two babies tested, insulin was very high and the c-peptide level low, the only explanation for this is exogenous insulin. What is not clear is how that was administered and who administered it. Certainly Letby had opportunity. Unfortunately the bags of fluid and feed were disposed of and never tested for insulin so it is a (reasonable) hypothesis that insulin was added to iv fluids or iv feed, but only a hypothesis. The medical team could be criticised for their delayed recognition of the significance of the results; these are classic features of having a homicidal nurse on the ward. I frequently explain to junior doctors the importance of checking insulin and C-peptide levels if unexpected low glucose levels are found in non-diabetic patients. Those results should have resulted in immediate police referral. The level of insulin was administered was potentially a fatal one. Insulin overdosage is a well known method of murder (favoured by homicidal nurses) and suicide. All things considered, I do think that Letby was correctly convicted of murder in these cases.
 
I have to disagree, these are the most certain. These children suffered unexplained hypoglycaemia, this may happen in neonates for a variety of reasons, there is a standard panel of tests that you would do. Blood was sent off and the insulin level was high and the c-peptide level was low. Insulin is produced as proinsulin, and activated by cleavage releasing C-peptide and insulin. Natural insulin and C-peptide will be found in an approximately 1:1 ratio. In the two babies tested, insulin was very high and the c-peptide level low, the only explanation for this is exogenous insulin. What is not clear is how that was administered and who administered it. Certainly Letby had opportunity. Unfortunately the bags of fluid and feed were disposed of and never tested for insulin so it is a (reasonable) hypothesis that insulin was added to iv fluids or iv feed, but only a hypothesis. The medical team could be criticised for their delayed recognition of the significance of the results; these are classic features of having a homicidal nurse on the ward. I frequently explain to junior doctors the importance of checking insulin and C-peptide levels if unexpected low glucose levels are found in non-diabetic patients. Those results should have resulted in immediate police referral. The level of insulin was administered was potentially a fatal one. Insulin overdosage is a well known method of murder (favoured by homicidal nurses) and suicide. All things considered, I do think that Letby was correctly convicted of murder in these cases.


Indeed.

Charles Cullen (American) used insulin to kill some of this 13 confirmed victims.
Beverly Allitt (English) used insulin to kill four children
Colin Norris (Scottish) used insulin to kill four patients
 
Indeed.

Charles Cullen (American) used insulin to kill some of this 13 confirmed victims.
Beverly Allitt (English) used insulin to kill four children
Colin Norris (Scottish) used insulin to kill four patients

Thank you.
Whilst I may disagree with you on some details, I do not disagree with you on the guilt of Letby.
 
I have to disagree, these are the most certain. These children suffered unexplained hypoglycaemia, this may happen in neonates for a variety of reasons, there is a standard panel of tests that you would do. Blood was sent off and the insulin level was high and the c-peptide level was low. Insulin is produced as proinsulin, and activated by cleavage releasing C-peptide and insulin. Natural insulin and C-peptide will be found in an approximately 1:1 ratio. In the two babies tested, insulin was very high and the c-peptide level low, the only explanation for this is exogenous insulin. What is not clear is how that was administered and who administered it. Certainly Letby had opportunity. Unfortunately the bags of fluid and feed were disposed of and never tested for insulin so it is a (reasonable) hypothesis that insulin was added to iv fluids or iv feed, but only a hypothesis. The medical team could be criticised for their delayed recognition of the significance of the results; these are classic features of having a homicidal nurse on the ward. I frequently explain to junior doctors the importance of checking insulin and C-peptide levels if unexpected low glucose levels are found in non-diabetic patients. Those results should have resulted in immediate police referral. The level of insulin was administered was potentially a fatal one. Insulin overdosage is a well known method of murder (favoured by homicidal nurses) and suicide. All things considered, I do think that Letby was correctly convicted of murder in these cases.

And yet every expert with relevant experience in the matter has stated that the tests to identify insulin dosage were not carried out.
 

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