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

[Planigale]

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

Reference please

 

[smartcooky]

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

Fail: You are demanding an impossible test.
Injected insulin becomes undetectable in the body after just a few minutes, but its adverse effects linger on for hours. This is how Charles Cullen, Beverly Allit and Colin Norris were able to murder their victims with no trace of insulin found in the autopsies of their victims, and why their actions went undetected for as long as they did. It is also why insulin poisoning is something of a "go-to" method for Angel of Death killers - its easy for them to procure, and to covertly administer to their victims.

In every case where insulin has been used to poison victims, it has been detected through its side effects, and thorough clues it leaves behind , such as the insulin/C-peptide concentration in plasma, which is used as a biomarker of an insulin overdose.

If you can be bothered, you can read about the insulin evidence in the Norris case here...

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1752928X2300001X

if you have been following the Letby case at all closely, a lot of this will seem very familiar.

 

[Vixen]

You can find out more about the insulin evidence in court in these references:

Professor Peter Hindmarsh (UCL Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health) analysed the results of a blood sample taken from the baby boy who was allegedly poisoned by nurse Lucy Letby and said he was “quite certain” that non-natural insulin was present in his system.
Read: Evening Standard, More: Independent, BBC News, ITV

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/headline...sugar-levels-over-three-days-letby-trial-told

In addition, this issue was one of the few questions the jury had and they were provided with further detailed information about how the C-Peptides work. So it is not as if the subject was not deliberated on.

 

[Nessie]

A point that I had not considered, is that natural deaths can be allowed to happen, when medical intervention would stop the death. Even if all the deaths were ruled to be from natural causes, that does not therefore mean they were not intentional.

 

[smartcooky]

A point that I had not considered, is that natural deaths can be allowed to happen, when medical intervention would stop the death. Even if all the deaths were ruled to be from natural causes, that does not therefore mean they were not intentional.

And a fair point too. If a nurse or doctor allows a person to die through their own deliberate inaction, that is just as much murder as if they were the instrument of that person's death.

 

[Planigale]

And a fair point too. If a nurse or doctor allows a person to die through their own deliberate inaction, that is just as much murder as if they were the instrument of that person's death.

You have just judged most doctors as guilty of murder. One of the key things doctors do is make a decision that at some point nature must take its course. There may be the choice of maintaining a person for many years on ventilators in a coma, or similar intensive therapies but with poor quality of life. What is important is not the action or inaction but the consent. It would be criminal to act to preserve life against the will of the patient, but entirely legal to let them die.

 

[smartcooky]

You have just judged most doctors as guilty of murder. One of the key things doctors do is make a decision that at some point nature must take its course. There may be the choice of maintaining a person for many years on ventilators in a coma, or similar intensive therapies but with poor quality of life. What is important is not the action or inaction but the consent. It would be criminal to act to preserve life against the will of the patient, but entirely legal to let them die.

Utter poppycock. I've done no such thing.

We're not talking about people at the end of their natural lives, or people on death's door due to incurable illnesses, or people who are so badly injured that they have little or no chance of surviving. No, we are talking about premature babies who, while not in the best of health, were nonetheless expected to live and grow up to lead relatively normal lives. A medical professional who does nothing while one of these babies collapses, and allows it to die, is every bit as much a murderer as one who takes active step to end the victim's life.

A doctor's job is healing the sick, and to fight like hell for the life of his patient. If he/she stands by and does nothing, makes no attempt to save the life of their patient,

 

[catsmate]

Channel Four is doing a documentary series about ten case.
https://www.channel4.com/press/news/channel-4-announces-lucy-letby-documentary

The documentary will examine the case of Lucy Letby, a 34-year-old former neonatal nurse at the Countess of Chester Hospital who in August 2023 was convicted of murdering seven babies in her care and attempting to murder six others. Her trial, which ran for ten months from October 2022 to August 2023, was one of the longest murder trials in British legal history. In July 2024, a retrial found her guilty of attempting to murder a seventh infant. She is currently serving fifteen whole-life terms for the offences.

Currently in pre-production, the documentary will air on Channel 4 in two parts and also have a feature-length theatrical release. A release date has not been set.

 

[Nessie]

You have just judged most doctors as guilty of murder. One of the key things doctors do is make a decision that at some point nature must take its course. There may be the choice of maintaining a person for many years on ventilators in a coma, or similar intensive therapies but with poor quality of life. What is important is not the action or inaction but the consent. It would be criminal to act to preserve life against the will of the patient, but entirely legal to let them die.

There is a strict process involving DNRs, withdrawal of treatment etc. It is not decided by one person, on their own.

 

[catsmate]

Substantial concern that the planned Levy enquiry will be counterproductive

A group including some of the UK’s leading neonatal experts and professors of statistics is calling on the government to postpone or change the terms of a public inquiry over concerns about the conviction of the neonatal nurse Lucy Letby.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...y-inquiry-should-be-postponed-changed-experts

The letter to the UKGov is signed by twenty four experts, with substantial experience, who consider the investigation and trial were flawed.

 

[Vixen]

Substantial concern that the planned Levy enquiry will be counterproductive


https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...y-inquiry-should-be-postponed-changed-experts

The letter to the UKGov is signed by twenty four experts, with substantial experience, who consider the investigation and trial were flawed.

We are not told how many declined to sign it.

So now there is going to be a sympathetic-to-Letby Netflix documentary. Because the victims were granted anonymity, people forget there are real people and families involved in this make believe innocence project for entertainment. The conviction met Criminal Law standards so the agitators should spend more time understanding the impact of Letby's crimes on the surviving twins and other children, who are now missing a sibling or siblings, not to mention the poor little mite who has to live with the equivalent of Cerebral Palsy for the rest of her life. The aim of the innocence campaigners seems to be to keep the issue in the news, with a new article almost daily in the mainstream press. If the GUARDIAN keeps up this nonsense, I will cancel my subscription.

 

[smartcooky]

We are not told how many declined to sign it.

So now there is going to be a sympathetic-to-Letby Netflix documentary. Because the victims were granted anonymity, people forget there are real people and families involved in this make believe innocence project for entertainment. The conviction met Criminal Law standards so the agitators should spend more time understanding the impact of Letby's crimes on the surviving twins and other children, who are now missing a sibling or siblings, not to mention the poor little mite who has to live with the equivalent of Cerebral Palsy for the rest of her life. The aim of the innocence campaigners seems to be to keep the issue in the news, with a new article almost daily in the mainstream press. If the GUARDIAN keeps up this nonsense, I will cancel my subscription.

Some people simply cannot bring themselves to believe that a seemingly ordinary woman could be truly evil. For years, there were members of the general UK public who were in denial about how evil Myra Hindley was, not least of whom was Frank Pakenham (Lord Longford) a prisoners’ rights campaigner. He believed Hindley was an innocent victim of the truly evil orchestrator of the Moors child murders Ian Brady, and he campaigned for years to have her released on parole. He failed, Hindley died in prison... and rightfully so.

I see Letby as another truly evil person. Even she admits to this....“I am a horrible evil person”. Those campaigning on her behalf are clearly pretending her own admissions... “I killed them on purpose because I am not good enough” don't exist. Well, they do, and they were used to show conciousness of guilt in her trial.

Letby was calculated and cunning about how she went about murdering those babies, but not cunning enough not to get caught. She knew early on that the deaths were suspicious, but made no effort to destroy her personal notes, and/or the medical documents directly related to the victims she illegally had in her possession.

Letby is in prison - exactly where she belongs.

 

[Ian Osborne]

Some people simply cannot bring themselves to believe that a seemingly ordinary woman could be truly evil.

I think this is the issue in a nutshell. It's certainly why I have a nagging doubt about her guilt when all the evidence points in that direction.

 

[angrysoba]

I think this is the issue in a nutshell. It's certainly why I have a nagging doubt about her guilt when all the evidence points in that direction.

I don't think this is the issue at all.

I have no reason for thinking she didn't do it based on pictures of her. In fact, I think there is a good chance she did do it.

The reason for doubts are those raised by experts in medicine and statistics.

Are they only motivated by the photographs of her?

It seems, on the contrary, that the people who are most passionate about this are those who are CERTAIN, 100%%!% that she is guilty.

Maybe she is. But that is no reason not to have a look at the evidence again.

 

[Ian Osborne]

But that is no reason not to have a look at the evidence again.

If there's a question mark over the evidence (and perhaps there is) that's always a good reason to look at it again. But remember, flaws in the evidence as presented at her trial don't necessarily point to her innocence. The notes she wrote are very damning.

 

[Vixen]

I don't think this is the issue at all.

I have no reason for thinking she didn't do it based on pictures of her. In fact, I think there is a good chance she did do it.

The reason for doubts are those raised by experts in medicine and statistics.

Are they only motivated by the photographs of her?

It seems, on the contrary, that the people who are most passionate about this are those who are CERTAIN, 100%%!% that she is guilty.

Maybe she is. But that is no reason not to have a look at the evidence again.

The four major opposition IMV arises from:

1. Academic infighting: there was a lot of resentment of the key pathologist in neonatal deaths being brought out of retirement; some kind of professional jealousy.
2. A movement by the same guy who managed to secure an overturn for an Itlaian healthworker; he has the backing of a US group of 'statisticians' who were part of the High Court appeal that was denied.
3. The high level NHS Trust honchos and Nursing Union shakers and movers, who are now going to be investigated at a statutory Public Inquiry for seemingly to have refused to act in removing Letby away from the vulnerable babies.
4. The friends and family of Letby who appear to have a PR agency working on their behalf to keep the story of 'injustice' in the news.

The problem with the latter for me is that they are using publications famous for speaking up on behalf of the underdog (for example: the SubPost Office Masters unfairly convicted to protect PO bosses/Windrush / Carole Cadwallerer (_sp?) vs Arron Banks libel case re Brexit) which strikes me as a cynical ploy, as if Letby is an underdog. Ben Myers KC, her counsel, failed to produce any real defence but that is hardly grounds for appeal as they had years to prepare and top-drawer defence barrister Myers must know that the court room is the place to present the defence, not a press campaign.

 

[angrysoba]

If there's a question mark over the evidence (and perhaps there is) that's always a good reason to look at it again. But remember, flaws in the evidence as presented at her trial don't necessarily point to her innocence. The notes she wrote are very damning.

The four major opposition IMV arises from:

1. Academic infighting: there was a lot of resentment of the key pathologist in neonatal deaths being brought out of retirement; some kind of professional jealousy.
2. A movement by the same guy who managed to secure an overturn for an Itlaian healthworker; he has the backing of a US group of 'statisticians' who were part of the High Court appeal that was denied.
3. The high level NHS Trust honchos and Nursing Union shakers and movers, who are now going to be investigated at a statutory Public Inquiry for seemingly to have refused to act in removing Letby away from the vulnerable babies.
4. The friends and family of Letby who appear to have a PR agency working on their behalf to keep the story of 'injustice' in the news.

The problem with the latter for me is that they are using publications famous for speaking up on behalf of the underdog (for example: the SubPost Office Masters unfairly convicted to protect PO bosses/Windrush / Carole Cadwallerer (_sp?) vs Arron Banks libel case re Brexit) which strikes me as a cynical ploy, as if Letby is an underdog. Ben Myers KC, her counsel, failed to produce any real defence but that is hardly grounds for appeal as they had years to prepare and top-drawer defence barrister Myers must know that the court room is the place to present the defence, not a press campaign.

Motivations are irrelevant and focusing on them is bad methodology.

In particular, if you are assuming that publications with good reputations are only reporting on this because of some kind of cynical ploy then you are essentially suggesting that the publications are mere gullible marks for nasty people.

Does it ever occur to you that maybe some people are not convinced on the basis of the evidence itself rather than because they are deficient human beings?

 

[Vixen]

Motivations are irrelevant and focusing on them is bad methodology.

In particular, if you are assuming that publications with good reputations are only reporting on this because of some kind of cynical ploy then you are essentially suggesting that the publications are mere gullible marks for nasty people.

Does it ever occur to you that maybe some people are not convinced on the basis of the evidence itself rather than because they are deficient human beings?

What? More than half of what you see in the press is PR. Publications such as the GUARDIAN and PRIVATE EYE do rely a lot on contributing journalists and freelancers. The Letby defence brigade targetting these outlets and Netflix in an attempt to stir up doubt in Letby's case is the cynical brigade IMV.

Unfortunately the Criminal Law justice system is all we have for determining guilt. There is a safety net insofar as you can appeal on points of law. The UK has an adversarial jury system so you really do need to bring your defence in front of the jury at the criminal trial proper because the judges in high profile cases - Justice Goss in the Letby case - are experienced and skilled enough to ensure any hearing and subsequent conviction is safe. They make sure the jury concentrates on the evidence presented in court alone, which is why the PRIVATE EYE article recently released had a sub judice injunction placed on it. It is now cynically being presented by its author, Dr Philip Hammond, as some kind of censorship and miscarriage of justice (ha ha).

We have the Napoleonic Roman Law system here in Europe (here in Finland, the north Europe [German] version) which some believe is fairer insofar appeals are allowed automatically (the downside being the prosecutor is also allowed an appeal) and the persons weighing up the evidence being a tribunal style of a panel of judges, each qualified barristers and legal experts.

Which one is better? Either way, trial by paper or by armchair is known to be deeply inferior to a proper hearing in which both/all sides get to present their evidence.

The problem with Netflix and newspaper articles is like that of documentaries: we get the perspective of one side. The public being soft-hearted and empathic will often side with a perceived injustice, which is why it irks me that the Letby defence brigade are cynically targetting this media in particular.

If you've been sentenced to fifteen whole life terms, you might think it worth doing the same. After all, it worked on Letby's bosses, the Nursing boss and the NHS Trust bosses, who even played golf with Letby's father and allowed him to be present at her disciplinary hearings. Why, he even managed to force the complaining doctors to apologise to both him and his beloved daughter. So it's worth playing on the sympathy card for all its worth, as it worked before!

Which one of the above is the reprobate miscreant?

 

[angrysoba]

What? More than half of what you see in the press is PR. Publications such as the GUARDIAN and PRIVATE EYE do rely a lot on contributing journalists and freelancers. The Letby defence brigade targetting these outlets and Netflix in an attempt to stir up doubt in Letby's case is the cynical brigade IMV.

Unfortunately the Criminal Law justice system is all we have for determining guilt. There is a safety net insofar as you can appeal on points of law. The UK has an adversarial jury system so you really do need to bring your defence in front of the jury at the criminal trial proper because the judges in high profile cases - Justice Goss in the Letby case - are experienced and skilled enough to ensure any hearing and subsequent conviction is safe. They make sure the jury concentrates on the evidence presented in court alone, which is why the PRIVATE EYE article recently released had a sub judice injunction placed on it. It is now cynically being presented by its author, Dr Philip Hammond, as some kind of censorship and miscarriage of justice (ha ha).

Where does Hammond say this? The Private Eye articles are here.

Why would these articles be sub judice when the trials are over?

 

[Nessie]

David Davis thinks Letby is innocent. He raised a point that half the deaths were when she was not on duty. How does that work? Were there a whole load of murders identified, which have been ignored and there are more killers working at the hospital? Or were they not identified as murders, so they don't count as murder?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/lucy-letby-david-davis-innocent-appeal-b2605610.html

In many serial cases, not just murder, not all crimes are identified or provable. There will be a disconnect between how many crimes were actually committed and how many are tried or convicted. It is also possible to falsely convict someone of one or more crimes, out of a series of crimes, but get it right for the rest.