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

[smartcooky]

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.

Utter Rubbish! This is just desperate clutching at straws!

Ever seen a nurse giving an injection? See how they point the needle upwards, flick the top of the syringe, and then push the plunger until they get liquid coming out? Why do you think they do that? ... take all the time you need!!

Even I, with no medical qualifications whatsoever, would not need an internet search to know that injecting air into a person is potentially deadly. A nurse will certainly NOT need to carry out a search for how to kill people - they are already going to know how to do this. In their training, they get warnings about things they must avoid in order to not injure their patients. That becomes a "how to" list for a killer nurse.

 

[Vixen]

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.

Try and think of it this way. Letby was an abuser. Abusers often look normal. They could be that nice chap down the road, who in private beats his wife or keeps her short of money. Or the popular guy at school who bullies the fags. Gives them a kicking when noone is looking. Or the parent that thrives on cruelty. We have all seem people being nasty to little children in shops and supermarkets, never mind what abuse goes on behind closed doors. Or the work colleague who thrives on making other's lives difficult by mind games and office politics. You have met the office bully.

What do abusers get out of their cruelty? Power. They get to lord it over someone they perceive as weaker than themself. Letby was an abuser. Entrusted with helpless newly born babies in her care, many of them extremely vulnerable because of premature birth, she took pleasure in abusing them. She overfed them with milk; she dislodged their feeding tubes, she injected them with air bubbles, misapplied insulin. She particularly targetted twins. In the case of one set of twins, she already had a condolences card ready for the parents for the second twin. She photographed the condolences cards carefully posed in the neo natal unit. She creepily approached the grieving parents of a baby she killed and offered to help bathe them. She spied on the victims' parents via social media.

What did she get out of it? A sense of power, contempt towards the babies and their parents: a classic bully. Not much different from the person who gloats when they cause another pain.

And Hitchens and Dorries are wrong: there is plenty of forensic evidence. In addition, circumstantial evidence is perfectly valid in a criminal court. You were there when the victim died? Then it is perfectly reasonable to question your presence.

Circumstantial evidence - which is what the detractors claim 'is all there is' (wrongly, because they have not followed the trial) - is acceptable evidence in a criminal trial, as is eye witness testimony and expert witness testimony. The idea that this is somehow a guessing game is utter nonsense.

 

[Matthew Best]

Utter Rubbish! This is just desperate clutching at straws!

If you can point to a single search she made for ways to kill babies, then let me know.

 

[catsmate]

Reading an article in a New York newspaper or by Peter Hitchens (and now Nadine Dorries is spouting off) is no substitute for following the trial itself.

What nonsense are you spouting now? There are serious concerns about the evidence at the Letby trials, expressed by scientists and physicians. Why do you refuse to acknowledge them?

All the issues were properly brought up at trial,

No, actually there weren't.
There were, and are, serious questions about the evidence presented.
Let us look at one example, the allegation that Letby killed babies by injecting air into their stomachs, as propounded by Evans. This has been repeatedly called "nonsense" by numerous other experts, is not supported by any literature citations and, in fact, this technique was used as a diagnostic procedure (the "whoosh" test) up to about 2005. It was not abandoned due to risks either.

Then there is Evans' dubious assertions about venous air embolisms and the supposed skin discolorations caused. This was refuted by the surviving author the the paper that Evans cited to support his contentions. Further those marks only occurred in a scenario where high pressure air was mechanically introduced, not my means of a ~10ml syringe. Oh, and that physician also stated that the marks on the allegedly murdered babies don't match those in his work either.

It really does not matter if someone who has not followed the trial but read a newspaper opinion piece feels it in their bones that Letby is innocent.

Pathetic. You ignore the professional opinions of actual experts in preference to your own prejudices. Rather like the Luton airport fire thread.

 

[catsmate]

It looks to me that the evidence is clear about Letby's proximity to the deaths, it is the medical evidence that is in dispute.

Her proximity to a selected group of infant deaths. Which is kinda unsurprising really given where she worked.

The prosecution's dubious statistical claims were based on the assertion that it was always Letby, and only Letby, who was there when the babies collapsed or died unexpectedly. Which, of course, simply isn't true. The prosecution selected certain deaths, but ignored at least six others, omitting them from the chart that was used at trial.

Two years ago Stian Westlake, of the Royal Statistical Society, warned that murder accusations in medical settings had repeatedly been based on incorrect use of statistics. Her it is again.

 

[catsmate]

Let's take the issue of the insulin overdoses. SOMEONE did indeed apply insulin overdoses to two or more neonatal babies

And on what do you base this assertion? It's not actually supported by the evidence presented.

At trial the prosecution submitted it's only empirical scientific evidence, the two test results for the non-fatal alleged administrations of synthetic insulin. They claimed that the test results indicated that a steady flow of synthetic insulin had been administered.

Except the test used doesn't actually measure insulin, it measures antibodies to insulin and can cross-react with other molecules in the body. Something the prosecution omitted to mention....

This matter has been challenged by several experts, including Pr. Alan Wayne Jones, a leading experts on toxicology and specifically on insulin, who has written about the limitations of immunoassay tests in criminal cases.

Of course the Appeal Court refused to look at this evidence.....

 

[catsmate]

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

Citation? Because six of the several infants allegedly murdered were autopsied at Alder Hay without any such findings.

 

[smartcooky]

If you can point to a single search she made for ways to kill babies, then let me know.

What a pathetic attempt at a handwave!

She didn't need to search, because she was a nurse. She would already know exactly how to kill babies.

And even if she didn't know (which is unlikely to the point of impossible) there are these things called text books. When you search for information in a ******* book, there is no record of the search.

ETA: Oh, and here is the rest of my post, you know, the inconvenient parts that you snipped out because you are unable to address them.

Ever seen a nurse giving an injection? See how they point the needle upwards, flick the top of the syringe, and then push the plunger until they get liquid coming out? Why do you think they do that? ... take all the time you need!!

Even I, with no medical qualifications whatsoever, would not need an internet search to know that injecting air into a person is potentially deadly. A nurse will certainly NOT need to carry out a search for how to kill people - they are already going to know how to do this. In their training, they get warnings about things they must avoid in order to not injure their patients. That becomes a "how to" list for a killer nurse.

I dare you to address this, but I expect crickets!

 

[Vixen]

What nonsense are you spouting now? There are serious concerns about the evidence at the Letby trials, expressed by scientists and physicians. Why do you refuse to acknowledge them?


No, actually there weren't.
There were, and are, serious questions about the evidence presented.
Let us look at one example, the allegation that Letby killed babies by injecting air into their stomachs, as propounded by Evans. This has been repeatedly called "nonsense" by numerous other experts, is not supported by any literature citations and, in fact, this technique was used as a diagnostic procedure (the "whoosh" test) up to about 2005. It was not abandoned due to risks either.

Then there is Evans' dubious assertions about venous air embolisms and the supposed skin discolorations caused. This was refuted by the surviving author the the paper that Evans cited to support his contentions. Further those marks only occurred in a scenario where high pressure air was mechanically introduced, not my means of a ~10ml syringe. Oh, and that physician also stated that the marks on the allegedly murdered babies don't match those in his work either.


Pathetic. You ignore the professional opinions of actual experts in preference to your own prejudices. Rather like the Luton airport fire thread.

What do you have to say about the testimony of 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.

It is clear you haven't followed the trial, just read articles by defence campaigners, who as a matter of course look for 'defences'.

I dare say you consider it trendy to claim Letby is innocent. But have you given a thought to the immense suffering of her small victims, parents and the twins left without their twin or triplet, not to mention one young victim who is now dependent on 24/7 personal care for life, thanks to her life-changing injuries caused by Letby.

For you, fifteen whole life sentences are all 'miscarriages of justice' because you cannot be bothered to acquaint yourself with the facts, preferring instead, some propaganda piece.

 

[Nessie]

The CPS reasoning;

https://www.cps.gov.uk/mersey-cheshire/news/lucy-letby-found-guilty-baby-murders

"Key evidence in the prosecution case

Medical records – these were crucial to establish the condition of the babies when they were attacked. When some babies recovered, the speed of their recovery was too sudden to be seen as a natural occurrence. Several medical documents featured falsified notes made by Letby to hide her involvement. She amended timings on several documents in an attempt to distance herself from incidents where babies had suddenly become severely unwell.

Text messages and social media activity – these were an important part of the case as they coincided with the attacks happening on the neonatal Unit. They were dated and timed, sometimes they were similar to a live blogging of events. They also explained how Letby deceived her colleagues into believing that these inexplicable collapses were simply a natural worsening of children’s underlying conditions. They also revealed an intrusive curiosity about the parents of babies she had harmed.

Staff rotas – we were able to show the jury that Letby was the one common denominator in the series of deaths and sudden collapses on the neonatal unit. We were also able to show the jury that many of the earlier incidents occurred overnight, but when Letby was put onto day shifts, the collapses and deaths began occurring in the day. We were able to corroborate this further using Letby’s personal diary in which she had noted her shift patterns.

Handwritten notes and diaries – many handwritten notes were discovered by police during their investigation. They included phrases such as: “I killed them on purpose because I’m not good enough to care for them”; “I am evil I did this”; and “today is your birthday and you are not here and I am so sorry for that”. These notes gave an insight into her mindset following her attacks."

 

[Vixen]

Her proximity to a selected group of infant deaths. Which is kinda unsurprising really given where she worked.

The prosecution's dubious statistical claims were based on the assertion that it was always Letby, and only Letby, who was there when the babies collapsed or died unexpectedly. Which, of course, simply isn't true. The prosecution selected certain deaths, but ignored at least six others, omitting them from the chart that was used at trial.

Two years ago Stian Westlake, of the Royal Statistical Society, warned that murder accusations in medical settings had repeatedly been based on incorrect use of statistics. Her it is again.

Stop talking rubbish. The case had nothing to do with statistics. Each case was presented as a discrete individual case and not as a class action - a common misconception by the trendy-innocenters - and in fact, Chester Police went to great pains to avoid the halo effect by giving each separate case its own team of detectives who had zero communication with each other individual team. Each case was correctly assessed on its on individual merits.

Likewise in court: the case were not presented as one class case case as one might for a serial killer - but each case was considered individually and the jury were free to find guilty or not guilty in each.

Think about it. Letby got fifteen whole life sentences. But she only has one life. Just one murder is enough for a whole life sentence.

Please explain what statistics you believe are incorrect as I don't believe you have the foggiest idea. BTW the Lucia Berk case was to do with a statistician wrong calculating a t-test. That was in Italy and that was to do with two or three cases. How you can claim it is quid pro quo to the Letby case strikes me as being either completely mindless or that you simply haven't given it any thought but just accepted someone's word for it.

Prove me wrong. Tell me in which way the 'statistics' are wrong.

 

[Nessie]

Again from the CPS;

"Manchester Crown Court heard that doctors at the hospital began to notice a significant rise in the number of babies who were dying or were unexpectedly collapsing.
When they were unable to find a medical explanation, police were alerted and an investigation followed."

That is and should be the only use of statistics in the case. The sudden rise in deaths sparked the enquiry. It is not in itself evidential.

 

[Vixen]

And on what do you base this assertion? It's not actually supported by the evidence presented.

At trial the prosecution submitted it's only empirical scientific evidence, the two test results for the non-fatal alleged administrations of synthetic insulin. They claimed that the test results indicated that a steady flow of synthetic insulin had been administered.

Except the test used doesn't actually measure insulin, it measures antibodies to insulin and can cross-react with other molecules in the body. Something the prosecution omitted to mention....

This matter has been challenged by several experts, including Pr. Alan Wayne Jones, a leading experts on toxicology and specifically on insulin, who has written about the limitations of immunoassay tests in criminal cases.

Of course the Appeal Court refused to look at this evidence.....

Child F and Child L didn't die, simply by dint of the skilled medical staff saving their lives! Given Child L was given twice the dose of insulin as Child F, it doesn't look as though 'she just wanted to make them sick'. Why would a neonatal nurse inject synthetic insulin into a baby when it hasn't been prescribed? That is extremely dangerous. Letby tried to make out that it must have been added to the Baby's feedbag by the pharmacists, but the pharmacists do not put anything in the feedbag that is not nutritional. The insulin was kept elsewhere in a fridge. Letby, having agreed under cross-examination, that someone must have illicitly added the insulin to the feedbag, then tried to claim it must have been the other nurse, and even named her. Of course no-one observed Letby adding the insulin. Letby seemed to thrive on stealthiness. ~ my post #111 where this was already discussed.

See also post #112 re statistics:

De Berk's conviction was found to be unsafe because Richard Gill, professor in Statistics found that there was an error in how some of the statistics had been calculated. Letby's conviction didn't centre around statistics. The Chester Police made in it clear in their programme Operation Hummingbird that each individual baby had their own individual discrete team of detectives, who were all china-walled from each other. Thus the case were build up individually n their own merits. If there was an issue with 'statistics' then the Defence had every opportunity during the trial to challenge them. Circumstantial evidence is just as powerful as prima facie evidence. Perfectly acceptable in criminal law. Unfortunately, there is a perception amongst people that 'circumstantial' = 'guesswork'. No. One of the strongest tools of a lawyer/barrister is the timeline or chronology. That is circumstantial but shows a clear logical sequence, whether it be for a defendant alibi or for the prosecution. An FBI authority (forget the name) said the most important part to solving a crime is working out what happened immediately before. [ends]

It is a fact: SOMEONE administered potentially fatal doses of insulin and Letby agrees this must be so, except she names another nurse. When will the penny drop?

 

[smartcooky]

When will the penny drop?

Never! There are people who so vested in her innocence that even if she now gave a full confession, their opinions would remain unchanged!

 

[Matthew Best]

What a pathetic attempt at a handwave!

She didn't need to search, because she was a nurse. She would already know exactly how to kill babies.

And even if she didn't know (which is unlikely to the point of impossible) there are these things called text books. When you search for information in a ******* book, there is no record of the search.

ETA: Oh, and here is the rest of my post, you know, the inconvenient parts that you snipped out because you are unable to address them.



I dare you to address this, but I expect crickets!

So injecting air into babies' stomachs is an obvious way to kill them? Well, you learn something new every day.

 

[angrysoba]

So injecting air into babies' stomachs is an obvious way to kill them? Well, you learn something new every day.

I mean it is. And nurses will know about air embolisms.

 

[smartcooky]

So injecting air into babies' stomachs is an obvious way to kill them? Well, you learn something new every day.

No, YOU have just learned something you didn't know.

I repeat...

Ever seen a nurse giving an injection? See how they point the needle upwards, flick the top of the syringe, and then push the plunger until they get liquid coming out? Why do you think they do that? ... take all the time you need!!​

You still haven't addressed or answered this. All you did was make another pathetic handwave attempt.

There would not be a medical professional anywhere on the planet who doesn't know that injecting air into humans can be deadly.

 

[GlennB]

No, YOU have just learned something you didn't know.

I repeat...
....
You still haven't addressed or answered this. All you did was make another pathetic handwave attempt.

There would not be a medical professional anywhere on the planet who doesn't know that injecting air into humans can be deadly.

As I read it he's wondering why air in the stomach itself might be dangerous, when there's often plenty of gas in there from natural causes. People are well known for belching, and babies are notorious for it.

Meanwhile, medics go through that procedure you describe with hypodermics to avoid getting air in the blood stream, which is a very different matter.

 

[smartcooky]

As I read it he's wondering why air in the stomach itself might be dangerous, when there's often plenty of gas in there from natural causes. People are well known for belching, and babies are notorious for it.

Meanwhile, medics go through that procedure you describe with hypodermics to avoid getting air in the bloodstream , which is a very different matter.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...injecting-air-into-her-bloodstream-court-told

A baby girl was killed after a nurse injected air into her stomach three times and ultimately into her bloodstream over a period of three weeks, a court has heard.

Child I, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, died in the early hours of 23 October 2015. Her death followed sudden collapses on 30 September and 13 and 14 October, the jury was told.
Dr Dewi Evans, a retired consultant paediatrician, gave expert evidence at Manchester crown court.

He stated that in his opinion Child I had been injected with air into her stomach via a feeding tube on the first three occasions.

But an “extremely disturbing phenomenon” of Child I’s noted “relentless, loud” crying before her final collapse led him to believe a different method had been used.

The first collapse was “out of the blue”, he told the court.

“She was entirely stable right up to the point of collapse.

“My opinion was that [Child I] had been subjected to an infusion of air. In other words, air had been injected into her stomach.

“That interferes with your ability to move your diaphragm up and down, and that interferes with your breathing.”
He told the court an X-ray showed an “astonishingly large amount of air” in her stomach.
Asked by the prosecutor, Nick Johnson KC, about his conclusion in terms of the cause of the fatal collapse, Evans replied: “I think she was the victim of air being injected into her blood circulation. This probably explains her crying and distress, and the failure of the medical team second time round to save her life.”​

 

[Elaedith]

Stop talking rubbish. The case had nothing to do with statistics. Each case was presented as a discrete individual case and not as a class action - a common misconception by the trendy-innocenters - and in fact, Chester Police went to great pains to avoid the halo effect by giving each separate case its own team of detectives who had zero communication with each other individual team. Each case was correctly assessed on its on individual merits.

What is your source for this?