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

[Vixen]

We have this, from the Guardian...



Link

The skin coloration was not the sole symptom, it was the line of the air embolism, which showed up in a post-mortem scan.

I am at my summer villa ATM so don't have the reference to hand but I did refer to this issue earlier in the thread if you want further detail as to why the pathologist was so damning about this.

 

[angrysoba]

The skin coloration was not the sole symptom, it was the line of the air embolism, which showed up in a post-mortem scan.

I am at my summer villa ATM so don't have the reference to hand but I did refer to this issue earlier in the thread if you want further detail as to why the pathologist was so damning about this.

Thanks. I'll look for it.

ETA: Could you let me know which of the babies had this line?

 

[smartcooky]

We have this, from the Guardian...

Link

Well there you go. They could have called him and didn't, and I still wonder why that was? In any case, its their mistake, and therefore not the prosecution's problem.

Another thing worth noting

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...ucy-letby-appeal-court-what-could-happen-next

Dr Shoo Lee, an academic who researched the phenomenon of air embolus in babies in 1989, gave evidence to the appeal court on behalf of the defence, telling judges that the “only sign” of it was pink blood vessels “superimposed” on a pink or blue body.

When questioned by the prosecution, Lee accepted he had not assessed any of the victims’ medical records in Letby’s case or seen any of the witness testimony provided by other medical staff, who noted strange rashes on a number of the dead babies. ​

Oops! Why not? Why didn't the defense get him to asses the autopsy reports and the babies' medical records, or transcripts of the witness testimony.

I'm not sure if the UK has an equivalent of the US' "Ineffective Assistance of Counsel" provision, but if they do, Letby should argue that. The defense didn't call a key witness or enter his research as evidence at trial, and didn't arrange for their key witness at the appeal to examine any of the important evidence or witness testimony. Smells like incompetence to me!

 

[angrysoba]

Well there you go. They could have called him and didn't, and I still wonder why that was? In any case, its their mistake, and therefore not the prosecution's problem.

Another thing worth noting

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...ucy-letby-appeal-court-what-could-happen-next

Dr Shoo Lee, an academic who researched the phenomenon of air embolus in babies in 1989, gave evidence to the appeal court on behalf of the defence, telling judges that the “only sign” of it was pink blood vessels “superimposed” on a pink or blue body.

When questioned by the prosecution, Lee accepted he had not assessed any of the victims’ medical records in Letby’s case or seen any of the witness testimony provided by other medical staff, who noted strange rashes on a number of the dead babies. ​

Oops! Why not? Why didn't the defense get him to asses the autopsy reports and the babies' medical records, or transcripts of the witness testimony.

I'm not sure if the UK has an equivalent of the US' "Ineffective Assistance of Counsel" provision, but if they do, Letby should argue that. The defense didn't call a key witness or enter his research as evidence at trial, and didn't arrange for their key witness at the appeal to examine any of the important evidence or witness testimony. Smells like incompetence to me!

Yes, indeed. It could well be incompetence, which is very worrying if true.

 

[Planigale]

Let's take the issue of the insulin overdoses. SOMEONE did indeed apply insulin overdoses to two or more neonatal babies, who either by coincidence or design were each of twins or triplets. Even Letby herself admitted that SOMEONE must have tampered with the insulin dosages for the overdose to occur. The insulin bags were made up in advance by the hospital pharmacists and placed ready for use in the ward refrigerator and carefully controlled as to who had access to the bags. SOMEONE who was on duty the same time as Letby must have wilfully and maliciously tampered with the insulin dosage. Perhaps it was a complete fluke that (a) the babies involved were part of multiple births, (b) the insulin dosages - literally up to 200 bags at a time - had by a strange fluke been mismeasured by the hospital pharmacists and by random sheer coincidence in each case the wrong dosages went to not only the neonatal twin/triplet but was also administered under the responsibility of Nurse Letby. Bloody statistics - don;t prove nuffink! That doesn't mean it was Letby what done it. Noone saw her actually do it, did they? Bloody babies. In any case that would only have been one or two of them. That's not worth a life sentence, eh?

Sorry this is nonsense. Had the babies been on exogenous insulin they could never have demonstrated insulin poisoning. It is only because the babies weren't on insulin infusions (but did develop low sugar levels) that they could detect non-human insulin and know this was criminally administered. Also you wouldn't give neonates insulin in bags the volume would be too great, it would be given by a syringe pump.

 

[Planigale]

Well there you go. They could have called him and didn't, and I still wonder why that was? In any case, its their mistake, and therefore not the prosecution's problem.

Another thing worth noting

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...ucy-letby-appeal-court-what-could-happen-next

Dr Shoo Lee, an academic who researched the phenomenon of air embolus in babies in 1989, gave evidence to the appeal court on behalf of the defence, telling judges that the “only sign” of it was pink blood vessels “superimposed” on a pink or blue body.

When questioned by the prosecution, Lee accepted he had not assessed any of the victims’ medical records in Letby’s case or seen any of the witness testimony provided by other medical staff, who noted strange rashes on a number of the dead babies. ​

Oops! Why not? Why didn't the defense get him to asses the autopsy reports and the babies' medical records, or transcripts of the witness testimony.

I'm not sure if the UK has an equivalent of the US' "Ineffective Assistance of Counsel" provision, but if they do, Letby should argue that. The defense didn't call a key witness or enter his research as evidence at trial, and didn't arrange for their key witness at the appeal to examine any of the important evidence or witness testimony. Smells like incompetence to me!

Submitting written evidence may be cheap, obtaining that evidence is not. Expert witnesses are expensive, to review all the evidence and produce reports would have cost probably around £100,000. Then there would have been the cost of bringing him over from Canada and paying expenses and fees for a prolonged trial.

There are other massive trials like this

Around 150 serving and retired Police officers are working on Operation Magenta.

So far, they have assessed more than 3 million pages of documents. This includes the medical records of over 750 patients and taken witness statements from more than 1,150 individual family members.

https://www.itv.com/news/meridian/2...ion-with-gosport-war-memorial-hospital-deaths

It is very difficult for the defence to match the resources of a prosecution that can call on 150 investigators for years to go through documents etc.

 

[Matthew Best]

Yes, indeed. It could well be incompetence, which is very worrying if true.

Some people don't seem to be worried by that prospect at all. If it's the defence's fault, then justice was apparently done, as far as they are concerned.

I find this attitude baffling.

 

[smartcooky]

Some people don't seem to be worried by that prospect at all. If it's the defence's fault, then justice was apparently done, as far as they are concerned.

I find this attitude baffling.

While I suggested the possibility of incompetence, but I do not believe it is the case here.

Its far more likely that if a defense that has not introduced what seems to be "winning goal" evidence/witness testimony they have available, it is because they know something about that evidence/witness that will look bad for their client (the prejudicial v probative balance I talked about earlier).

I don't buy Planigale's resources argument here. If evidence is "slam dunk" with no hooks, you do whatever it takes to introduce it. If this really was the reason, they could have argued at appeal that introducing it at trial was beyond the defendants resources. That is reasonable explanation that the court would accept.


[ASIDE]
I do agree it is grossly unfair for an individual to have to compete with the resources of the state or a big business. IMO, in a criminal trial, if the defendant is found not guilty, the state should have to pay ALL of the defendant's court costs and reasonable lawyers fees. In a civil trial, the complainant (or plaintiff, petitioner or claimant) should have to pay ALL of the defendants court costs and reasonable lawyers fees.

 

[angrysoba]

Its far more likely that if a defense that has not introduced what seems to be "winning goal" evidence/witness testimony they have available, it is because they know something about that evidence/witness that will look bad for their client (the prejudicial v probative balance I talked about earlier).

Which is fine. If it is true that there was something wrong with Dr Lee’s opinion (assuming it was even sought by the defence for the initial trial), then surely it would also work the other way where the paper itself would not be very good evidence for the prosecution.

Either way, I would like to know why Dr Lee’s testimony is not something to be considered other than on procedural grounds.

 

[smartcooky]

Which is fine. If it is true that there was something wrong with Dr Lee’s opinion (assuming it was even sought by the defence for the initial trial), then surely it would also work the other way where the paper itself would not be very good evidence for the prosecution.
Either way, I would like to know why Dr Lee’s testimony is not something to be considered other than on procedural grounds.

I repeat what I said earlier, I don't know the answer to that, nor have I ever claimed to. It is a question for the defence.

But just because there is evidence that seems on its face, to call into question the expert witness' testimony, it does not make the conviction unsafe just because the defence chose not to introduce it.

 

[angrysoba]

I repeat what I said earlier, I don't know the answer to that, nor have I ever claimed to. It is a question for the defence.
But just because there is evidence that seems on its face, to call into question the expert witness' testimony, it does not make the conviction unsafe just because the defence chose not to introduce it.

It's not a question merely for the defence though, is it?

If I say, "How did the babies die, and how do we know?"

And you say, "They died of air embolism. The symptoms perfectly matched the description given in a medical paper."

Then I said, "Well the author of the paper disputes that claim..."

You then say, "Well, that's a problem for the defence."

...then you give the impression that you're concerned more with procedure than the facts and ultimately the truth of the case and the conviction.

Of course, the case for claiming air embolism may be stronger than that. I don't know. Vixen has suggested there were other signs of air embolism in some post-mortem tests. Were these initial post-mortem tests or were they conducted some time after when Lucy Letby came under suspicion?

My understanding is that the coroners and pathologists had ruled death by natural causes in each case.

 

[smartcooky]

It's not a question merely for the defence though, is it?

If I say, "How did the babies die, and how do we know?"

And you say, "They died of air embolism. The symptoms perfectly matched the description given in a medical paper."

Then I said, "Well the author of the paper disputes that claim..."

You then say, "Well, that's a problem for the defence."

...then you give the impression that you're concerned more with procedure than the facts and ultimately the truth of the case and the conviction.

Of course, the case for claiming air embolism may be stronger than that. I don't know. Vixen has suggested there were other signs of air embolism in some post-mortem tests. Were these initial post-mortem tests or were they conducted some time after when Lucy Letby came under suspicion?

My understanding is that the coroners and pathologists had ruled death by natural causes in each case.

It doesn't matter how you slice it. TWO juries accepted the expert witness testimony, and returned guilty verdicts. The defence had an opportunity to introduce what appeared to be evidence to to impeach those expert witnesses, but they did not do so, and therefore, the jury never got to see or hear that evidence.

Its over, unless the defence can come up with fresh evidence that was unavailable at trial.

According to UK law, fresh evidence can be grounds for appeal even if there doesn't appear to be a reasonable explanation as to why it wasn't introduced at trial. In order to determine if the conviction is unsafe the Court of Appeal has an over riding power to admit fresh evidence where it is necessary or expedient in the interests of justice.

https://www.lexisnexis.co.uk/legal/guidance/appeal-on-fresh-evidence-in-criminal-cases

https://forrestwilliamssolicitors.com/services/criminal-appeals/fresh-evidence-grounds-for-appeal/

 

[Sergei Walankov]

Why would you give more credence to Peter Hitchens' ravings than the rule of law?

https://medium.com/@renegadeinc/the-bizarre-world-of-peter-hitchens-renegade-inc-65ef72bf7c1b

Quote:
In addition to fanning hatred of women and gay people while helping to legitimize poverty, Hitchens also helped fan the flames of the anti-MMR vaccine hysteria. He has consistently promoted and attempted to justify his pseudo-scientific outlook by citing the disgraced former physician and medical researcher, Andrew Wakefield, who was one of the modern movement’s originators.

I was intrigued by the implication that Hitchens is some kind of MMR vaccine truther, but the link frankly doesn't back it up. Contrary to the stated claim, the link shows Hitchens not citing Andrew Wakefield, but arguing he had been vilified beyond reason. Hitchens in fact acknowledges Wakefield's notorious study to have been a "mistake" and "discredited".

 

[angrysoba]

Okay, maybe this goes someway to answering one of my questions:

Professor Arthurs found unusual 'columns' of air in the major blood vessels of Babies A, D, and O. The jury was also shown a striking X-ray of a 'line of gas' in a blood vessel along Baby D's spine which, in the absence of a fracture or infection, Professor Arthurs said, must have been injected into her circulation. Dr Marnerides also found a bubble of air in Baby A's brain and lung at post-mortem, while Baby D also had gas in a blood vessel in her belly which could not be explained by infection or death.

Link

It's from an article in the Daily Mail (yes, I know, I know...).

 

[Vixen]

Okay, maybe this goes someway to answering one of my questions:



Link

It's from an article in the Daily Mail (yes, I know, I know...).

I discussed this in post #115 as follows:

"Dr. Arthurs, a radiologist, who gave expert witness, took X-Rays of Child A and Child B. He said whilst it was normal to see air int he bowels, he said it was totally unnatural to see the embolisms lined up parallel to the babies' spines. He had never seen that before.

The doctor who examined the crushed abdomen said it was of the same severity of someone who had been crushed in a car accident at great speed. She did falsify records. For example, coming in early but then only signing in later, is just one instance, when she claimed she could not have been present as the signing in record showed her arrival as being 15 minutes later.

Neither synthetic insulin administration or air bubble injection are accidental.

Whilst most of us have no idea of what either of these feel like, we can all imagine how incredibly painful being overfed on milk for someone with a tiny stomach must have been. Letby precluded this by telling the changeover nurse that the baby had had an extended stomach to make it seem as if it was something that developed gradually and that she would be well away from the hospital when the baby finally died."

This is based on an excerpt in a book I have at home about the case citing court testimony.

So it is not just about skin coloration but also the line of gases that constitutes the air embolism.

 

[smartcooky]

I was intrigued by the implication that Hitchens is some kind of MMR vaccine truther, but the link frankly doesn't back it up. Contrary to the stated claim, the link shows Hitchens not citing Andrew Wakefield, but arguing he had been vilified beyond reason. Hitchens in fact acknowledges Wakefield's notorious study to have been a "mistake" and "discredited".

That's like defending Ted Bundy as just a poor misunderstood boy and claiming that his killing of young girls were just mistakes.

That bastard Andrew Wakefield deserved all the vilification he received, and more. His actions weren't "mistakes", he intentionally faked his research, and even worse, he didn't do it for ideological reasons, he did it for money!!! And the worst aspect was that the £millions and vast amount of resources spent testing his results to debunk them, could have been spent of actual research into autism.

Anyone defending that bastard in any way is supporting him, even if they don't believe they are.

 

[angrysoba]

I discussed this in post #115 as follows:

"Dr. Arthurs, a radiologist, who gave expert witness, took X-Rays of Child A and Child B. He said whilst it was normal to see air int he bowels, he said it was totally unnatural to see the embolisms lined up parallel to the babies' spines. He had never seen that before.

The doctor who examined the crushed abdomen said it was of the same severity of someone who had been crushed in a car accident at great speed. She did falsify records. For example, coming in early but then only signing in later, is just one instance, when she claimed she could not have been present as the signing in record showed her arrival as being 15 minutes later.

Neither synthetic insulin administration or air bubble injection are accidental.

Whilst most of us have no idea of what either of these feel like, we can all imagine how incredibly painful being overfed on milk for someone with a tiny stomach must have been. Letby precluded this by telling the changeover nurse that the baby had had an extended stomach to make it seem as if it was something that developed gradually and that she would be well away from the hospital when the baby finally died."

This is based on an excerpt in a book I have at home about the case citing court testimony.

So it is not just about skin coloration but also the line of gases that constitutes the air embolism.

Right, that makes sense. Thanks for that.

 

[Sergei Walankov]

That's like defending Ted Bundy as just a poor misunderstood boy and claiming that his killing of young girls were just mistakes.

That bastard Andrew Wakefield deserved all the vilification he received, and more. His actions weren't "mistakes", he intentionally faked his research, and even worse, he didn't do it for ideological reasons, he did it for money!!! And the worst aspect was that the £millions and vast amount of resources spent testing his results to debunk them, could have been spent of actual research into autism.

Anyone defending that bastard in any way is supporting him, even if they don't believe they are.

Fine, but if the truth is enough to damn Hitchens, the writer should have stuck to it. It surprised me to learn that Hitchens believed in a link between the MMR vaccine and autism because, much as I dislike his politics, it didn't seem like the kind of thing he would say. And sure enough, when I checked the record, it turned out that he hadn't.

 

[catsmate]

No kidding.

 

[Matthew Best]

Another interesting thing that doesn't prove anything either way is that, although the police were able to go through Letby's phones and computers and as a result we know of her thousands and thousands of internet searches for the names of the families of various dead babies, she never seems to have done a single search for the methods of killing those babies, even though some of them were quite obscure, even for a nurse.