Take care and please do come back, though I feel LL is guilty I am intrigued to listen to other points of view and have questioned my own thoughts at times, especially in last week or so.Yeah idk, someone literally called me woke and offended just for simply asking if we could not get the thread banned. That is arguably petty.
This isn’t aimed at you in particular but at this point I’m dipping out of this thread for a whole. It’s the anniversary of my best friends death tomorrow and maybe it’s making me super sensitive, but to me this thread does just feel a bit bitchy and snipey at the moment.
I don’t usually get arsed by anything anyone says on a gossip site and idgaf if people think I’m an idiot and hate my posts, but this topic in particular is super emotive and it just seems like people are getting off on sniping at eachother and it’s just not nice to keep reading.
I hope to come back at some point as I genuinely enjoy reading peoples poste on here, but for now peace out and stay safe everyone
I'm interested to see where this is going!! Could have a massive impact!!I'm intrigued to see if this video evidence about the logs being recorded bears any significance here. If it can show that the pump was stopped and restarted or alarms were silenced then it will be hard to defend
This has baffled me too since the prosecution presented the case and reading it again now , I just don't get it...thankfully baby F is ok but why on earth was the incident just left, gjven it was clear he had synthetic insulin in his system?I’m struggling to understand why nothing was done when they got the blood results back, even if baby was ok. They knew it couldn’t have been accidental, they knew it wasn’t a natural cause - so why did this not raise any alarm bells in anyone? I know the baby was ok by this point but surely it still points to a deliberate act.
View attachment 1756602
I'm waiting to see too...cos I'm lostAm I missing something? It’s quite possible - done a night shift, still not slept, definitely not off to salsa before my next night tonight.
I’m struggling to see the relevance of the current evidence about the air bolus and machines alarming for air when we’re talking about an insulin poisoning baby? Wouldn’t this evidence be more relevant to an air embolism baby?
I am hoping that they have evidence in a bit to show that it was stopped and restarted maybe?Am I missing something? It’s quite possible - done a night shift, still not slept, definitely not off to salsa before my next night tonight.
I’m struggling to see the relevance of the current evidence about the air bolus and machines alarming for air when we’re talking about an insulin poisoning baby? Wouldn’t this evidence be more relevant to an air embolism baby?
That's what I'm thinking....I am hoping that they have evidence in a bit to show that it was stopped and restarted maybe?
As I understand it, the only evidence presented so far is that a blood test showed low levels of a metabolite which is normally present with endogenous insulin, but absent in exogenous insulin. However, in my opinion it has not been conclusively shown that this was something administered with intent to harm rather than a prescribing or other error, nor has it been linked to her. If my understanding is correct, it wasn't a case where insulin poisoning was suspected at the time, so suppositions have been made long after the event based on tests which were not specifically looking for insulin. All I'm suggesting is that even without the defence case being heard, I can see where reasonable doubt could well exist.The evidence is actually exactly as you should expect as per other similar cases. So who poisoned with insulin because it is not a case of did it happen, it is a case of who did it.
As I understand it, the only evidence presented so far is that a blood test showed low levels of a metabolite which is normally present with endogenous insulin, but absent in exogenous insulin. However, in my opinion it has not been conclusively shown that this was something administered with intent to harm rather than a prescribing or other error, nor has it been linked to her. If my understanding is correct, it wasn't a case where insulin poisoning was suspected at the time, so suppositions have been made long after the event based on tests which were not specifically looking for insulin. All I'm suggesting is that even without the defence case being heard, I can see where reasonable doubt could well exist.The evidence is actually exactly as you should expect as per other similar cases. So who poisoned with insulin because it is not a case of did it happen, it is a case of who did it.
Dreadful.....if guilty, they've made it so easy for her to carry on, it's beyond beliefI am firmly in the guilty camp, and I can’t see that changing.
BUT, one thing which is apparent is the standard of care at the COCH was disgraceful. Any doctor reading the insulin and C Peptide results would have known there was a poisoner at work. But, so far at least, it appears he did nothing.
Our life in their hands - makes you feel very safe, doesn’t it?
There ought to be two inquiries once this is over. The first, to look at ALL deaths under Letby during her career. The second, to look at the failings of the hospital as a whole and not just related to LL.
They’ll have to close the unit. It’s name is destroyed now.
Both the Defence and LL have admitted, in agreed evidence, that this poisoning, and Baby L’s, were foul play.As I understand it, the only evidence presented so far is that a blood test showed low levels of a metabolite which is normally present with endogenous insulin, but absent in exogenous insulin. However, in my opinion it has not been conclusively shown that this was something administered with intent to harm rather than a prescribing or other error, nor has it been linked to her. If my understanding is correct, it wasn't a case where insulin poisoning was suspected at the time, so suppositions have been made long after the event based on tests which were not specifically looking for insulin. All I'm suggesting is that even without the defence case being heard, I can see where reasonable doubt could well exist.
As I understand it, the only evidence presented so far is that a blood test showed low levels of a metabolite which is normally present with endogenous insulin, but absent in exogenous insulin. However, in my opinion it has not been conclusively shown that this was something administered with intent to harm rather than a prescribing or other error, nor has it been linked to her. If my understanding is correct, it wasn't a case where insulin poisoning was suspected at the time, so suppositions have been made long after the event based on tests which were not specifically looking for insulin. All I'm suggesting is that even without the defence case being heard, I can see where reasonable doubt could well exist.
Indeed - the plural of accusation is not evidence; it would appear that many people have decided the case based on the opening submissions, before any of the evidence was heard, and that simply isn't right. I have no idea whether she is guilty or not, but so far I can see lots of scope for reasonable doubt to come into play.Literally, it actually shocks me that there are people willing to lock someone up without even hearing their defense. Everyone has the right to a fair trial, regardless of whether you think they’re guilty or innocent!
I think baby F had previously been prescribed insulin, had he not? Could you point me to the form of words used, if possible - have they agreed that insulin was implicated in the deaths of these two infants, or agreed that 'foul play' was used, or agreed that those deaths were categorically caused by insulin? I'm sorry to be pedantic, but they don't all mean the same thing.Both the Defence and LL have admitted, in agreed evidence, that this poisoning, and Baby L’s, were foul play.
Baby F, and every other baby on the unit, were not prescribed insulin at this time.
Just catching up but this just isn’t true. As has been said already, we’re discussing this on a forum. Our opinions mean nothing. If someone says they believe she’s 100% guilty, so what? We’re not on the jury, it doesn’t matter.Indeed!
Indeed - the plural of accusation is not evidence; it would appear that many people have decided the case based on the opening submissions, before any of the evidence was heard, and that simply isn't right. I have no idea whether she is guilty or not, but so far I can see lots of scope for reasonable doubt to come into play.
To be fair, we can decide on the evidence whenever we like, we’re not the jury.Indeed!
Indeed - the plural of accusation is not evidence; it would appear that many people have decided the case based on the opening submissions, before any of the evidence was heard, and that simply isn't right. I have no idea whether she is guilty or not, but so far I can see lots of scope for reasonable doubt to come into play.
I think baby F had previously been prescribed insulin, had he not? Could you point me to the form of words used, if possible - have they agreed that insulin was implicated in the deaths of these two infants, or agreed that 'foul play' was used, or agreed that those deaths were categorically caused by insulin? I'm sorry to be pedantic, but they don't all mean the same thing.
Actually, I'm not sure that's true. For starters, there was the fact that he was a beneficiary of the will of one of his victims, and the fact that her new will seemed very suspicious - I believe this was actually the first indication that something was amiss, when her family contacted the police?I wish somebody had informed the two independent reviews, the police and the CPS that there was “nothing” to link Letby to all these incidents she was present at. I am desperately trying not to post one of my annoying lists of all the ways in which she is VERY much linked
But I guess it is a lot easier to say there is “nothing” that links her rather than try to explain away multiple multiple reasons she absolutely is linked as totally innocent in one giant A-Q post. Even Benny doesn’t fancy doing that. Because it will look ridiculous.
Until there was toxicology involved, nothing ‘linked’ Shipman to all the old ladies dying except- well him being there directly before they died. Thank goodness someone noticed the link.
Would the designated nurse not notice that boluses had been given? Even if it was reset, there would be a decreased volume and running time.Could it show that she was potentially giving boluses of tpn when the nurse looking after the baby wasn’t directly around? To give a higher quick dose of insulin to cause more sudden crashes alongside the continuous infusion? If they’ve got the same pump with over-ride of what they think is an air embolus in a baby down the line it would almost certainly connect the same person who is using the pump?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?