Not sure if I’m reading you wrong, but the babies that were poisoned with insulin didn’t die. Baby F survived.
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
The insulin has to have been administered in the bag Letby hung because this is when the problems started and persisted as long as that bag and other equipment that it had run through were still on. Nobody would administer it this way accidentally.
The police were notified before that yes, when a local gp that was co-signing things for shipman and told them there were an extremely unusual amount of old ladies dying at home in the afternoon. Unfortunately this wasn’t seen as “hard evidence”. When the will was brought to their attention it triggered things but it took one detective to say - oh hang on, why weren’t this other doctors suspicions investigated properly and the exhuming his victims to prove.
There’s a great wiki on here, if you care to read it.
Yes, apologies - my mistake.
I’m pages and pages behind on the thread, going to start catching up here shortly. But before then just want to say a massive thanks to @docmum and @mRsKbRoOkS for both taking the time to explain exactly how the insulin ins and outs works, and peptides etc. It has made reading the live reporting of Dr Gibbs this morning so much easier, and I’m able to follow it understanding exactly what he is saying, so thanks again fellas 
Still not seeing the link between the video about the machine logs and the insulin if they think it was already in the TPN bag? I thought perhaps it was the delayed evidence due to some rejigging of witnesses from earlier this week but they seem to have introduced it and moved on quickly.
Consultant very clearly explaining that the insulin was administered. I wonder if the defence will jump on his wording that 'baby F shouldn't have received it" and try to state that it was given accidentally by other neglectful staff, besides the earlier evidence showing that no other babies had been prescribed any and neither had baby F since the initial dose shortly after his birth several days before.
Consultant very clearly explaining that the insulin was administered. I wonder if the defence will jump on his wording that 'baby F shouldn't have received it" and try to state that it was given accidentally by other neglectful staff, besides the earlier evidence showing that no other babies had been prescribed any and neither had baby F since the initial dose shortly after his birth several days before.
The insulin:c-peptide ratio was 0:0.
no words.
no words.
tpn is a bigger bag and a ‘bigger’ bolus for this little one would be a few mls still.
I was just coming to say exactly this. The live feed reporting sort of misses the importance of the peptides and the insulin (I’m sure in court it was clearer though) so I’m really grateful that we’d had such a detailed and clear explanation of how it works before we heard the evidence being presented.I’m pages and pages behind on the thread, going to start catching up here shortly. But before then just want to say a massive thanks to @docmum and @mRsKbRoOkS for both taking the time to explain exactly how the insulin ins and outs works, and peptides etc. It has made reading the live reporting of Dr Gibbs this morning so much easier, and I’m able to follow it understanding exactly what he is saying, so thanks again fellas
Ben Myers KC, for Letby's defence, explains on this count [for Child F], Dr Gibbs will not be asked any questions on his evidence.
He adds that Dr Gibbs will be cross-examined on a future occasion in the trial on evidence that has been raised.
so they’re not questioning anything Dr Gibbs has said today, and her defence accept “The doctor says this insulin result showed Child F had been given a pharmaceutical form of insulin administered, and he "should have never received it".”
Last edited:
Was just going to post this. That's hugely damning in my opinion and might just be the undoing of LL in the jury's eyes.I was just coming to say exactly this. The live feed reporting sort of misses the importance of the peptides and the insulin (I’m sure in court it was clearer though) so I’m really grateful that we’d had such a detailed and clear explanation of how it works before we heard the evidence being presented.
Ben Myers KC, for Letby's defence, explains on this count [for Child F], Dr Gibbs will not be asked any questions on his evidence.
He adds that Dr Gibbs will be cross-examined on a future occasion in the trial on evidence that has been raised.
Thank you.
I really do hope they have the infusion pump recordings for that time. They said they were normally cleared though.
I do hope that this shows the people that believe she is NG that they can at LEAST now see that “someone” on that ward tried to murder that baby … there is a murderer on that ward.
For me the evidence is just getting stronger for that person being LL and LL only.
For me the evidence is just getting stronger for that person being LL and LL only.
Can we have a new thread with a poll please 
Can we just have a few hours where we can all be friends first please 
I’m starting to feel really angry at her today.. very weird emotion for someone I have seen only a photo of?!
eta - thanks for lovely comments, it’s no trouble at all especially when it’s something I’ve had to explain to myself in order to understand it anyway. And refreshing things in my mind has probably led to why I’m feeling so upset and angry today as it’s led to beyond reasonable doubt here that it was someone in there, and needs adding together with the investigation/patterns.
I’m starting to feel really angry at her today.. very weird emotion for someone I have seen only a photo of?!
eta - thanks for lovely comments, it’s no trouble at all especially when it’s something I’ve had to explain to myself in order to understand it anyway. And refreshing things in my mind has probably led to why I’m feeling so upset and angry today as it’s led to beyond reasonable doubt here that it was someone in there, and needs adding together with the investigation/patterns.
Last edited:
Very interesting that there's no questioning for Dr Gibbs. That seems huge for the prosecution.
I've always been on the unsure fence as wanted to hear everything first before. But this is so damning and as BM isn't even questioning it, it is now swaying me towards guilty. I fail to believe there were 2 different people harming babies at the same time, yet there is absolutely no evidence given so far to show how this could have accidentally been administered, it has to be intentional. And so far, the common denominator is LL
People will probably disagree, but even baby D was a strong sign of guilt for me. Yes she needed oxygen and was unwell with an infection, but loads of babies need oxygen… it doesn’t mean they suddenly collapse. She was a full term baby with fully developed lungs and no reasonable natural cause was found.
So the defence don’t want to ask questions
it’s obvious baby F was poisoned with insulin . If onoy the hospital did something with the results investigate at that time .
it’s obvious baby F was poisoned with insulin . If onoy the hospital did something with the results investigate at that time .
Attachments
BM not questioning the Dr is hugely damning IMO. They are accepting that someone administered that insulin to the baby, so who did it BM?
I’m wondering did they cover it up thinking staff had made a mistake but baby is fine so left it
I’m not saying all staff but many things get covered up in the NHS but I don’t think for one minute they imagined a baby killer they probably just thought being under staffed things happen
I am pretty surprised BM has not cross examined him at all today. I know he said he will at a future date (presumably the other insulin case?), but for me, if I was sat in that room listening to the evidence, looking at the families, knowing everything we’ve heard already I would really struggle to keep an open mind from this point. Her own defence barrister can’t come up with anything to dispute the evidence a doctor has given to say this baby was definitely poisoned. He isn’t trying to claim an accident, plant seeds of reasonable doubt, give alternative explanations - he is simply going “you’ve said it’s poisoning - I’m not going to question that”. That thought will be firmly in their mind now, and from a defence point of view I think it will be pretty difficult to try and argue and change that in a few weeks when we get to the next insulin case.
I know most of us are all very strong in our opinions on here and a lot of us made our minds up weeks ago. But it is very different being in court. You hear so much information and conflicting information from both sides constantly and you really do keep an open mind as much as you can. When I did jury duty I didn’t make my mind up fully until something the defendant said on the stand in his defence which made me believe he was guilty. I really think for LL, this could be that moment for the jurors sitting in court today.
I know most of us are all very strong in our opinions on here and a lot of us made our minds up weeks ago. But it is very different being in court. You hear so much information and conflicting information from both sides constantly and you really do keep an open mind as much as you can. When I did jury duty I didn’t make my mind up fully until something the defendant said on the stand in his defence which made me believe he was guilty. I really think for LL, this could be that moment for the jurors sitting in court today.
- Status