Matthew Best
Penultimate Amazing
So injection of air into the stomach doesn't kill you?
You said it did. Make your mind up, mate.
You said it did. Make your mind up, mate.
-
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
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Not satisfied with pathetic attempts at handwaving, now you're resorting to pathetic attempts at strawman arguments.
I never said it WILL kill you, I said it CAN be deadly.
I mean, you do understand that Letby was also charged with seven counts of attempted murder? You know, those in which her killing method didn't work.
Last edited:
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Those here who have already made up their closed and bolted minds that Letby is innocent, will not be interested in watching this. The might learn some inconvenient stuff.
angrysoba
Philosophile
Huh?! I don't see anyone with "closed and bolted minds" saying she is innocent.
Would you not say that when it comes to Letby's guilt then your mind is closed and bolted?
In fact, it seems to me to be almost performatively your opinion.
On the other hand, I have no idea and I am interested to learn more.
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
...and that abusers do not need to 'search the internet' to research ways to abuse others. They just use whatever instruments or means they have at hand. Not difficult in the case of helpless - often premature - neonatal babies 100% dependent on the abuser's care.
Imagine presenting that as a defence. 'M'Lud, there is zero evidence my client ever searched the internet to find ways of killing babies. You must acquit.'
If you are a small baby with poorly developed lungs then distending the stomach (with air or food or water or milk) then splints the diaphragm and can cause respiratory failure and ultimately death.
This is a different mechanism from injecting air into the blood stream (which may happen by accident, venous blood pressure can be below atmospheric pressure and open taps / accidental disconnections can result in air being 'sucked' into to the veins). There are two main mechanisms of death by air embolism the first is that the air creates a foam in the heart leading to ineffective pumping and circulatory failure, this needs quite a lot of air (though that is relative to the size of the heart). A second mechanism is that air can lodge in the blood vessels in the brain causing a stroke like episode, this is much less likely to be fatal in a neonate and easily detected by US of the brain which would be commonly done in a neonatal unit. The problem is that large / fatal air emboli should be easily found at PM and they weren't. The small amounts of air seen on x-rays shouldn't have been fatal.
Personally I have caused many deaths by fatal air embolism, it is a common way of killing small animals at the end of experiments.
FWIW I don't think that Letby intended to kill, what she wanted to do was create a crisis, she wanted to be the centre of attention. Death was an unintended consequence of her actions.
Just to correct you, if insulin was being added to an intravenous feed bag it would be added by the pharmicist making up the bag in the sterile products room. Because of the problems with dosing and volumes in neonates and the need to maintain sterility of feed this wouldn't be done by a nurse at the bed side. Usually insulin would be given seperately by a syringe pump, but it might be added to an iv feedbag. This has the advantage that the insulin is only given when the feed is going and avoids the risk of the feed being interrupted and the insulin left running.
That many deaths? And when certain actions caused deaths then why did she persist in repeating that action, if not to kill?
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
While this could be true, it is largely irrelevant. It would mean she was intentionally trying to harm the babies. The harm resulted in six deaths, and one baby with permanent brain damage. She's just as guilty of murdering them whether she intended to kill them or not.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/law-sheets-no-1-unlawful-killing-1.pdf
8. A person is guilty of murder if he/she kills a person unlawfully (ie not in self- defence or defence of another or accidentally, each of which provides an absolute defence) and at the time intended either to kill him or cause him some really serious bodily harm (murderous intent).
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Its entirely possible that she didn't make the immediate connection between the deaths and what she was doing to them. Remember she was doing this for 13 months, and the actual cause of the collapses and deaths were not immediately known.
Anyone who would intentionally harm a defenseless baby to gain personal attention has some serious sociopathy issues going on.
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
You can read the evidence re insulin by searching Dr. David Harkness and Dr. Gibbs, who says re Child F:
The context is also important, re looking at what happened immediately BEFORE the crimes. Baby F and Baby L were both one of twins. Baby F was born in 2015 and Child L in 2016. Letby also made an attempt on Child M, Child L's twin, and Child E, Child F's twin. (Child A was killed by air embolism via an injection to the stomach was likewise a twin and her twin, Child B was also targetted by Letby in the same way; Triplets O and P were killed on successive days, immediately after Letby returned from holiday, the triplets having been stable before then, both O and P had impact injuries to their stomachs as though in a car crash, together with air injections.) So: we have a pattern of Letby going for twins/multiple births; being on shift alone at night. Her methods were cruel: overfeeding, injection of air was via a nose tube [Child C]. Child B was air direct to the bloodstream. Child C suffered a cardiac arrest. Letby searched Child C's parents on FaceBook within hours of her death. Letby was charged with seven murders and ten attempted murders. She got a vicarious pleasure from spying on the parents' grief.
Letby was considered a 'dedicated' nurse, often volunteering for overtime. Had good qualifications especially in neonatal care.
IMV she differs from Beverley Allitt, who was diagnosed with Munchausens by Proxy. Allitt was not particularly well-educated but she was manipulative and was able to fool people into thinking she was really chummy and caring, even a little scatty. Allitt finally confessed after many years of claiming innocence that she was guilty as charged in order to get parole, which was denied in the event.
Letby is a different personality type IMV. She undoubtedly has some kind of abnormal pathological psychological condition as reflected in a personality disorder. The word 'psychopath' has lost a lot of its meaning thanks to pop psychology, but I think she was emotionally arrested at a very young age. Her parents seem to have mollycoddled and doted on her, being their only child. Likely her father, an authoritarian chap who demanded the doctors and hospital management apologise personally to himself and his daughter for daring to take her off ward duty and putting her behind a desk. Mr. Letby even played golf with the head Administrator Honcho head of the area hospital trust. So, like her Dad, Letby is manipulative and sees herself as being 'in charge' (a bully), superior and controlling. She was 'in charge' of the babies' fates and even tried to control and intrude on the parents' grief. There is not an iota of remorse. Every time a baby in her care unexpectedly died, Letby discovered that she received even more attention from a love interest married doctor who expressed a lot of sympathy for Letby whenever she lost 'her' babies, offering to comfort her, especially when it was a twin or a triplet (whose births had caused a lot of excitement in the hospital).
Yeah, so Letby was just a small time bully at the end of the day and even had the temerity and brass neck to (a) refuse to listen to the victims' impact statements and (b) defiantly shouting out re Baby K, on being found guilty of that attempted murder, despite being caught red-handed standing by Baby Ks cot a baby in great distress but Letby doing absolutely nothing to help her, 'I am innocent!'
angrysoba
Philosophile
If anyone is interested, Phil Hammond is on the Private Eye podcast explaining areas of the trial where he thinks the case was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.
The podcast (Episode 118 if you are living in the future) also talks about US politics in the first part, and UK politics in the second, before moving onto the Lucy Letby case around 29:40 in...
https://www.private-eye.co.uk/podcast
The things they discuss are the statistics where things are not as clear-cut as presented in that table (apparently there were more incidents than appear in that famous table), Hammond thinks the jury were not given all the relevant detail, he thinks the defence barrister may have made an error in not bringing forward experts who could have given a different opinion on the air embolism claims as well as on the insulin claims.
Anyway, for those whose minds are not shut and bolted, they may find it interesting.
The podcast (Episode 118 if you are living in the future) also talks about US politics in the first part, and UK politics in the second, before moving onto the Lucy Letby case around 29:40 in...
https://www.private-eye.co.uk/podcast
The things they discuss are the statistics where things are not as clear-cut as presented in that table (apparently there were more incidents than appear in that famous table), Hammond thinks the jury were not given all the relevant detail, he thinks the defence barrister may have made an error in not bringing forward experts who could have given a different opinion on the air embolism claims as well as on the insulin claims.
Anyway, for those whose minds are not shut and bolted, they may find it interesting.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Interesting, but ultimately, unconvincing. He mentioned the fact that 6-10 other babies died while Letby was not on duty, but what he fails to mention is that.
1. Many of these were among the sickest - those babies were expected to have serious medical issues.
2. The doctors and other staff knew what issues they were having, so their causes of deaths were known and expected.
He also fails to mention that those who died, and those who had suffered collapses where the other nursing staff and doctors managed to save them, were completely stable before the trouble started... i.e., they were not expected to have any issues, and the collapses came as a complete surprise.
But I was really hoping he might address the elephant in the room (the one the members of the "she's innocent" brigade would prefer didn't exist - Letby's diary writings that all but amount to a confession...
"I AM EVIL I DID THIS"
"I don’t know if I killed them, maybe I did, maybe that’s all down to me."
"Please help me" and "I can’t do it any more"
"I don’t deserve to live. I killed them on purpose because I’m not good enough to care for them. I am a horrible evil person."
Now, I can't speak for others, but I know I would definitely NOT want someone with thoughts going like this going on in their head, within a mile of my sick children!
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
It obviously was proven 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. In a criminal court of law in respect of serious crime, especially complex crimes, such as this one, the bar for finding guilt is extremely high because the average person on a jury is loath to find guilt unless convinced. There is nothing that demands belief in guilt must be 'absolutely certain', just more likely than not. So, if in Civil Law the balance of probability is just 51%/49%, but in a complex serious Criminal Law case, such as multiple murders, the probability soars to - let's be lenient and say 95%/5%, with the 5% being the element of uncertainty.
Okay, do the maths: 17 cases x 5% = (0.05^17)
Number of jurors, nine out of eleven as one dropped out and they failed to be unanimous in all of the charges, but lets say it was a majority verdict in all to save time. = (0.05^17) x (9 ^ 0.05) should give you a rough estimate of the probability of doubt/belief in innocence. Vanishingly remote.
That is the system we have: trial by your peers - and statistics show juries tend to sympathize with the guy in the dock - and the verdict is usually sound. There will always be that element as in the Malkinson case in which the police in that case withheld exculpatory evidence. Letby was supported by her nursing union. Trade Unions are very well funded. They can afford top lawyers, so money was not an issue, especially with legal aid, pro bono support and selling her house. There is no claim the police acted wrongly in this case. What was extemely surprising was the near complete lack of any defence other than, 'The hospital was bullying Letby' or non-sequiturs about faulty plumbing and shortage of staff willing to work overtime. Ben Myers, a top defence KC, acting for Letby, had surprisingly little counter expert witnesses. It was all pretty feeble.
Having said that, of course it is acceptable to criticise the system and examine whether the methodology was sound. Juries are notoriously difficult to convince in highly complex cases, where often, highly specialised knowledge is required; in this case, medical opinion. Medics cannot even agree amongst themselves. So, for every medic claiming X, Y and Z, there will be other medics coming from a different angle or even a contradictory one. For example, Dr. Jayaram, the lead doctor who blew the whistle, says he looked up the skin coloration symptoms and that is what made him realise things were amiss with certain babies. Of course, a medical expert was found (Shoo Lin...?) who begged to differ about what one can infer about skin coloration in air embolism. The place for all of this however is in the Criminal Law Court room. Silk Ben Myers will surely have known all of this.
Truth is, if Letby was caught killing seven babies and attempting to kill ten others, that might well be the tip of the iceberg. The ones not brought to court could simply be those cases in which it was difficult to prove. Her proficiency in seeing off so many babies within such a short period of time indicates a well-practised professional killer, and she probably has multiple times that many victims.
Last edited:
angrysoba
Philosophile
True, but the time they were written was after she had been removed, right?
The notes have all kinds of contradictory statements, some of them saying she did nothing wrong, some that they died because she wasn't good enough, and some that she was evil etc...
The idea that they should be used as a confession when they might have been written when she was in a crazed state of mind is a stretch, especially when it requires that we selectively take parts of the manic scrawling at face value and assume that other parts of it are not true.
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
That point was put by Ben Myers KC during the trial. The jury as advised by the judge didn't come to their verdicts - and we will never know how they deliberated as it is against the law in the UK to discuss the jury deliberations of a case - until it has heard ALL of the evidence. The ONLY evidence they are allowed to consider is that presented to the court during the hearing. The jury having heard ALL of the evidence found her guilty as charged on fifteen of the charges with two not coming to a majority decision and not retried.
You haven't heard ALL of the evidence. A column by controversialist Peter Hitchins or Boris-admirer Nadine Dorries is hardly being familiar with the evidence.
We have no idea what weight the jury gave letby's scribblings so it is futile to claim they are not relevant. The jury may have found them irrelevant and the ravings of an anxious persons or it may have found them relevant as part of the whole case, having heard ALL of the evidence.
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2012
- Messages
- 16,674
Dr Phil Hammond is using this case to argue for a change in the law and use of expert witness evidence, rather than campaigning over a definite MOJ and arguing Letby is innocent.
Expert evidence, especially medical, has found to be wanting in the past and it has caused MOJs. Removing the adversarial nature of trials and presenting expert evidence as neutral, with arguments both for and against, I think, would be a fairer way, that would reduce MOJs.
https://x.com/drphilhammond/status/1816108401224548659
"...t’s currently perfectly legal to have six expert witnesses on one side and none on the other, I do not believe it is fair because the jury is deprived of the fullest scientific picture and essential evidence. "
https://x.com/drphilhammond/status/1816116882333663264
"I agree experts are supposed to be there on behalf of the court and aren’t supposed to take sides, but when you can be coached, selected or benched by defence or prosecution, it can influence what comes out of your mouth. Multiple previous miscarriages of justice based on faulty expert evidence testify to this."
Expert evidence, especially medical, has found to be wanting in the past and it has caused MOJs. Removing the adversarial nature of trials and presenting expert evidence as neutral, with arguments both for and against, I think, would be a fairer way, that would reduce MOJs.
https://x.com/drphilhammond/status/1816108401224548659
"...t’s currently perfectly legal to have six expert witnesses on one side and none on the other, I do not believe it is fair because the jury is deprived of the fullest scientific picture and essential evidence. "
https://x.com/drphilhammond/status/1816116882333663264
"I agree experts are supposed to be there on behalf of the court and aren’t supposed to take sides, but when you can be coached, selected or benched by defence or prosecution, it can influence what comes out of your mouth. Multiple previous miscarriages of justice based on faulty expert evidence testify to this."
Last edited:
I agree. She is probably a sociopath with no empathy. It would have been almost like an addiction for her, putting her at the centre of attention. She wouldn't have cared if the babies were injured or died, or about the parents. I have no doubt she was guilty of murder, I just differ on the fact that the death of the babies wasn't her intent, it was to her just an unfortunate consequence of her perverted thrill seeking.
This is very similar to what I have said my concerns are in this case, not that I beleive Letby is innocent, but that in type of trial it is very difficult for an accused person to have an adequate defence because of the inequality of arms between prosecution and defence. The prosecution have hundreds on ivestigators over years looking for evidence of guilt. They employ experts who although officially neutral will be influenced by what the prosecution aksks of them and who employs them. In a large trial like this in a specialist area the prosecution may suck up all the available experts.
The police investigation cost around £10,000,000 and the prosecution costs including expert witnesses around £2,500,000.