The professor's evidence made no sense if there was one bag contaminated then a whole new bag, long line and giving set used later that morning, as he said the rate of infusion would have been the same right up until the evening. However he's saying that he believes the second bag was also contaminated, therefore it now makes perfect sense to me. I'm sure it's more clearly to the jury, the judge seems to be asking for clarification a lot when needed.No, it’s probably best not isn’t itespecially as I’m quite rightfully getting in trouble for making my frustrations obvious this morning. It’s not personal though, I’m not here to call people tin foil hatters or anyrhing like that either. Listen, if you’re unsure and don’t think the insulin evidence is compelling then that’s cool, I’m not sure how that’s possible that’s all. If the first bag in both poisonings is hung by Letby then for me it really doesn’t matter about which of the scenarios the professor said is the most likely, all of them rely on the first bag being purposefully contaminated - I believe that can only be by her. If people don’t then I’d rather they just said it. Sometimes people come on and say “yeah innocent I just have a feeling. Something I can’t put my finger on. Or she’s innocent- come at me”. I admire that tbh and can scroll past those
I’m still not sure why us here on the forum are saying that yesterdays evidence from the professor made no sense. It made no sense to you then ok but in the balance of things, he seems incredibly intelligent and I think if there was a hole or flaw in the evidence he gave then Ben would have noticed in cross, the jury would have noticed, the judge. Sorry just don’t think we’re able to sleuth some key detail in the case that nobody has noticed until now. Perhaps people should wait for the defence?
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
Professor Hindmarsh said the following possibilities happened.
That the same bag was transferred over the line, that the replacement stock bag was contaminated, or that some part of the 'giving set' was contaminated by insulin fron the first TPN bag which had bound to the plastic, and therefore continued to flow through the hardware even after a non-contaminated bag was attached.
"There can be no doubt that somebody contaminated that original bag with insulin.
"Because of that...the problem continued through the day."
I think they are suggesting the other bags may have been contaminated. However, from reading the evidence, I don’t think the TPN was replaced at noon that day. I think it was the same bag that was transferred over. I think I missed a day of evidence though, when it stated the nurse said she changed the bag? Can someone clarify this for me please
The only time a new bag was 100 percent given was here!
Child F's blood glucose increased, before falling back. A new bespoke TPN was made for Child F, delivered at 4pm. - which shortly after child Fs blood sugar started to return to normal.
The prosecution say this could not have been the same one fitted to Child F at noon that day which would have been either a bespoke bag which Lucy Letby co-signed for, or a stock bag from the fridge. I think the evidence is getting confused. This comment is referring to the bag change at 4pm or shortly after (4 pm states when it was ordered so I so don’t think the timing is exact here), and highlighting how the noon bag was a ‘letby bag’.
Child F's blood sample at 5.56pm had a glucose level was very low, and after he was taken off the TPN and replaced with dextrose, his blood glucose levels returned to normal by 7.30pm. He had no further episodes of hypoglycaemia.
Blood sugar readings for that period:
1.9 (4pm)
1.9 (6pm)
2.5 (7pm)
4.1 (9.17pm)
From the above it suggests that there is only a 1 hour and 56 minutes window that baby F had the actual NEW TPN bag (probably less) and then his blood sugar started to return to normal.
Is this Because he was taken off from a 4pm NEW contaminated bag (through the lines etc) and given dextrose ? Or because the bag before 4pm was the **original bag*** ? My thoughts are the high readings are In reference to the previous bag, perhaps there was a much higher amount of insulin in the original set then they realise. His blood sugar started to return to normal once they intervened but perhaps it was just the normal process of things. What I mean is insulin has a four to 6 hour window to be broken down and be undetectable. His readings were high yes at 5.56 pm (after a new bag), but let’s say perhaps they were even higher at 3.30 or 4pm (they didn’t check these). What I’m suggesting is could baby Fs insulin levels have been double this previously and basically by 4 pm onwards it was correcting its self naturally and with the help of dextrose and had nothing to do with being taken off that particular TPN bag?
I hope people understand what I’m saying, it’s so confusing I know and I’m not sure I’m explain my self very well. I think she 100 percent contaminated the original bag and that that bag was never changed. I’m just confused over the last bag, doesn’t change her guilt but wondering if it is being interpreted wrong not by the experts but by us and the defence.
That the same bag was transferred over the line, that the replacement stock bag was contaminated, or that some part of the 'giving set' was contaminated by insulin fron the first TPN bag which had bound to the plastic, and therefore continued to flow through the hardware even after a non-contaminated bag was attached.
"There can be no doubt that somebody contaminated that original bag with insulin.
"Because of that...the problem continued through the day."
I think they are suggesting the other bags may have been contaminated. However, from reading the evidence, I don’t think the TPN was replaced at noon that day. I think it was the same bag that was transferred over. I think I missed a day of evidence though, when it stated the nurse said she changed the bag? Can someone clarify this for me please
The only time a new bag was 100 percent given was here!
Child F's blood glucose increased, before falling back. A new bespoke TPN was made for Child F, delivered at 4pm. - which shortly after child Fs blood sugar started to return to normal.
The prosecution say this could not have been the same one fitted to Child F at noon that day which would have been either a bespoke bag which Lucy Letby co-signed for, or a stock bag from the fridge. I think the evidence is getting confused. This comment is referring to the bag change at 4pm or shortly after (4 pm states when it was ordered so I so don’t think the timing is exact here), and highlighting how the noon bag was a ‘letby bag’.
Child F's blood sample at 5.56pm had a glucose level was very low, and after he was taken off the TPN and replaced with dextrose, his blood glucose levels returned to normal by 7.30pm. He had no further episodes of hypoglycaemia.
Blood sugar readings for that period:
1.9 (4pm)
1.9 (6pm)
2.5 (7pm)
4.1 (9.17pm)
From the above it suggests that there is only a 1 hour and 56 minutes window that baby F had the actual NEW TPN bag (probably less) and then his blood sugar started to return to normal.
Is this Because he was taken off from a 4pm NEW contaminated bag (through the lines etc) and given dextrose ? Or because the bag before 4pm was the **original bag*** ? My thoughts are the high readings are In reference to the previous bag, perhaps there was a much higher amount of insulin in the original set then they realise. His blood sugar started to return to normal once they intervened but perhaps it was just the normal process of things. What I mean is insulin has a four to 6 hour window to be broken down and be undetectable. His readings were high yes at 5.56 pm (after a new bag), but let’s say perhaps they were even higher at 3.30 or 4pm (they didn’t check these). What I’m suggesting is could baby Fs insulin levels have been double this previously and basically by 4 pm onwards it was correcting its self naturally and with the help of dextrose and had nothing to do with being taken off that particular TPN bag?
I hope people understand what I’m saying, it’s so confusing I know and I’m not sure I’m explain my self very well. I think she 100 percent contaminated the original bag and that that bag was never changed. I’m just confused over the last bag, doesn’t change her guilt but wondering if it is being interpreted wrong not by the experts but by us and the defence.
Wait so you think she contaminated the first bag without hearing the defence
sorry not being petty. Just don’t get the anger at others in that case. If the questioning is just to be totally clear on how Letby managed to poison the baby then I don’t think we have a disagreement at all. I thought it was coming from a place of the expert in insulin didn’t have his facts straight. I’m sorry if I’ve been angsty today! I do try to hold my hands up when I’m letting my frustrations spill out! Sometimes all the “in my opinion” “personally speaking” “respectfully if I can just say” stuff I have to write out as a disclaimer makes me feel like a Tory I’m sorry if I’m “toxic” 
Wishing everyone a good weekend x
Daisy sorry can’t quote and in a rush which I know everybody enjoys too when I make no sense.. So as I understand it, those were his three theories, always have been and they rely on the first bag being contaminated. If he has now heard that the nurses are saying they would have changed those things, the only scenario is the second bag is contaminated. So if that’s the case then, why does it make it less believable to anybody that the other bag is contaminated by Letby
So I need to duck off and let you postProfessor Hindmarsh said the following possibilities happened.
That the same bag was transferred over the line, that the replacement stock bag was contaminated, or that some part of the 'giving set' was contaminated by insulin fron the first TPN bag which had bound to the plastic, and therefore continued to flow through the hardware even after a non-contaminated bag was attached.
"There can be no doubt that somebody contaminated that original bag with insulin.
"Because of that...the problem continued through the day."
I think they are suggesting the other bags may have been contaminated. However, from reading the evidence, I don’t think the TPN was replaced at noon that day. I think it was the same bag that was transferred over. I think I missed a day of evidence though, when it stated the nurse said she changed the bag? Can someone clarify this for me please
The only time a new bag was 100 percent given was here!
Child F's blood glucose increased, before falling back. A new bespoke TPN was made for Child F, delivered at 4pm. - which shortly after child Fs blood sugar started to return to normal.
The prosecution say this could not have been the same one fitted to Child F at noon that day which would have been either a bespoke bag which Lucy Letby co-signed for, or a stock bag from the fridge. I think the evidence is getting confused. This comment is referring to the bag change at 4pm or shortly after (4 pm states when it was ordered so I so don’t think the timing is exact here), and highlighting how the noon bag was a ‘letby bag’.
Child F's blood sample at 5.56pm had a glucose level was very low, and after he was taken off the TPN and replaced with dextrose, his blood glucose levels returned to normal by 7.30pm. He had no further episodes of hypoglycaemia.
Blood sugar readings for that period:
1.9 (4pm)
1.9 (6pm)
2.5 (7pm)
4.1 (9.17pm)
From the above it suggests that there is only a 1 hour and 56 minutes window that baby F had the actual NEW TPN bag (probably less) and then his blood sugar started to return to normal.
Is this Because he was taken off from a 4pm NEW contaminated bag (through the lines etc) and given dextrose ? Or because the bag before 4pm was the **original bag*** ? My thoughts are the high readings are In reference to the previous bag, perhaps there was a much higher amount of insulin in the original set then they realise. His blood sugar started to return to normal once they intervened but perhaps it was just the normal process of things. What I mean is insulin has a four to 6 hour window to be broken down and be undetectable. His readings were high yes at 5.56 pm (after a new bag), but let’s say perhaps they were even higher at 3.30 or 4pm (they didn’t check these). What I’m suggesting is could baby Fs insulin levels have been double this previously and basically by 4 pm onwards it was correcting its self naturally and with the help of dextrose and had nothing to do with being taken off that particular TPN bag?
I hope people understand what I’m saying, it’s so confusing I know and I’m not sure I’m explain my self very well. I think she 100 percent contaminated the original bag and that that bag was never changed. I’m just confused over the last bag, doesn’t change her guilt but wondering if it is being interpreted wrong not by the experts but by us and the defence.
aah I’m not sure if I’m correct at all just musing.Wait so you think she contaminated the first bag without hearing the defence
Wishing everyone a good weekend x
Daisy sorry can’t quote and in a rush which I know everybody enjoys too when I make no sense.. So as I understand it, those were his three theories, always have been and they rely on the first bag being contaminated. If he has now heard that the nurses are saying they would have changed those things, the only scenario is the second bag is contaminated. So if that’s the case then, why does it make it less believable to anybody that the other bag is contaminated by Letby
So I need to duck off and let you post
It’s very confusing though isn’t
can you point me to where it states the nurse changed the bag at noon? I’m sure someone said she said she changed it, but I havnt seen that particular evidence.
Horrible, horrible practice!
I agree it’s confusing. I think he went through 3 possible scenarios? All of which concluded the first bag must have been contaminated. But the reporting isn’t clear at all as to whether he’s saying the second bag definitely was, or if it was one possible scenario.
The nurse said it was practice to always bin a bag once the circuit was opened and the line was changed. I didn’t read that they *did*. Worth noting that because Monday was missed, we’ve had a very disjointed week with a lot of evidence to get across - there’s heaps still to come. If we are seeing gaps that could sway thinking then it’s guaranteed the legal teams will. Might be worth squabbling over the smaller details if needed once baby F is rounding up hey? I think we have a fair bit to hear still.
we’re all here to see that justice is done for those babies and families, where that lies at this time is only normal to have differing opinions
we’re all here to see that justice is done for those babies and families, where that lies at this time is only normal to have differing opinions
Is it awful that I hope when this is over, the BBC produce a Panorama episode on this? (Hint: they did a Panorama episode on Shipman, which is still available on YouTube)
I think then that would make things clearer for all of us - those who are sure of her guilt, and also for her relatively large fan base/cult following
I think then that would make things clearer for all of us - those who are sure of her guilt, and also for her relatively large fan base/cult following
Yep. Sounds like they were basically 'trusting' each other to administer the right medication later on when the first 'checker' was no longer present. That's what it sounds like to me anyway. Against policy and very very dangerous.
Can't lie I'm completely lost re the "bags"The nurse said it was practice to always bin a bag once the circuit was opened and the line was changed. I didn’t read that they *did*. Worth noting that because Monday was missed, we’ve had a very disjointed week with a lot of evidence to get across - there’s heaps still to come. If we are seeing gaps that could sway thinking then it’s guaranteed the legal teams will. Might be worth squabbling over the smaller details if needed once baby F is rounding up hey? I think we have a fair bit to hear still.
we’re all here to see that justice is done for those babies and families, where that lies at this time is only normal to have differing opinions
Guessing BM is waiting to throw this into his defence and confuse the jury(sew the seed of doubt that it was LL ) as much as we all seem to be..
Why is it that questioning the evidence heard makes you a super fan or cult follower? Hasn’t it occurred to anyone sniping that asking questions and clarifying can actually cement a guilty thought process? Honestly it’s getting really tiresome reading snipe after snipe about how we must be better experts than the professionals etc. It’s actually so insulting! I’m asking questions because *I* don’t understand what I’ve read, or because I don’t have experience in that area.
I think she’s guilty, but I don’t think there’s anything wrong with asking questions. And I don’t think it’s helpful to insult people that disagree. I don’t think anybody, in the history of time, has ever changed their mind on something because somebody told them they were stupid/part of a cult/brainwashed etc.
We all want justice for these babies and their families, whatever that might look like.
We all want justice for these babies and their families, whatever that might look like.
I was just reading up on child L, it seems the defence has a lot more say on the matter once they get to child L in the opening statement. He references child F a few times (they accidentally write child E but that’s a typo and they mean child F). I think he is saving his defence for child F and going to defend both incidents together.
He references a sample taken from the ‘second bag’.
The defence say Child E's (child F’s) TPN bag was put up by Letby in August 2015 and hours later there were blood sugar problems. That bag was replaced, in the absence of Letby, but the problems continued.
The sample taken came from "the second bag", the defence say.
A professor had given "three possible explanations", none of which identified Letby as a culprit. - I think He says this because the alleged second bag was contaminated but letby wasn’t there, and even though baby F had blood sugar problems prior to this they don’t have the hard proof that the first bag was contaminated.
For Child L, there were issues with the documentation provided, so those are challenged, the defence say.
There is "nothing to say" Letby was directly involved in the acts.
I think myers is going to go down the route that there definitely was a second bag which was contaminated, (the sample comment suggests so) so they don’t have the proof it was letby. However, I do not think there ever was a second bag. I really believe the same TPN bag was used at noon. I think the prosecution’s professor just covers all basis if they can’t prove either way if the bag was changed at noon. This really is a head f*ck and so hard to prove, he really is or will begin poking holes to cast doubt. It is not a case of did it happen, it’s just how, and is it letby (to the defence).
It’s so scary to think that had the hospital not checked for the insulin and c-peptide readings at the time Letby would not even be up on this charge. The only thing that proves without a doubt that baby F was poisoned are those blood results. She is one clever b*tch!
He references a sample taken from the ‘second bag’.
The defence say Child E's (child F’s) TPN bag was put up by Letby in August 2015 and hours later there were blood sugar problems. That bag was replaced, in the absence of Letby, but the problems continued.
The sample taken came from "the second bag", the defence say.
A professor had given "three possible explanations", none of which identified Letby as a culprit. - I think He says this because the alleged second bag was contaminated but letby wasn’t there, and even though baby F had blood sugar problems prior to this they don’t have the hard proof that the first bag was contaminated.
For Child L, there were issues with the documentation provided, so those are challenged, the defence say.
There is "nothing to say" Letby was directly involved in the acts.
I think myers is going to go down the route that there definitely was a second bag which was contaminated, (the sample comment suggests so) so they don’t have the proof it was letby. However, I do not think there ever was a second bag. I really believe the same TPN bag was used at noon. I think the prosecution’s professor just covers all basis if they can’t prove either way if the bag was changed at noon. This really is a head f*ck and so hard to prove, he really is or will begin poking holes to cast doubt. It is not a case of did it happen, it’s just how, and is it letby (to the defence).
It’s so scary to think that had the hospital not checked for the insulin and c-peptide readings at the time Letby would not even be up on this charge. The only thing that proves without a doubt that baby F was poisoned are those blood results. She is one clever b*tch!
That’s interesting - so the prosecution expert has given 3 possible explanations as to how it could be LL, and the defence have countered with 3 on how it wasn’t?
no they haven’t countered it with three, they are just disputing the three explanations.
That is how I read it any way. Him saying professor Hindmarshe’s explanation’s don’t directly make letby culpable.
The three explanations being-
1. That the same bag was transferred over the line,
2.that the replacement stock bag was contaminated,
3.or that some part of the 'giving set' was contaminated by insulin fron the first TPN bag which had bound to the plastic, and therefore continued to flow through the hardware even after a non-contaminated bag was attached.
Last edited:
The bags evidence is so frustrating. We don't have anything to say that the same bag was there at noon but we do have is a nurse on shift saying that if the line was changed, she would have changed the bag too. I wonder if we'll hear from the designated nurse to clarify.
Yes and I think that's why he didn't question any if rhe witnesses really yesterday, this I'm sure will be his defence
Can you point to this evidence please, I’ve asked a few times but no one has yet
, about the bag change. I think I missed it in between working and being a birthing partner this week.and no we don’t. I just think out of everything and looking at the pattern of things and the likely hood of everything it is the most plausible explanation. I struggle with the contamination through the lines due to the readings being similar throughout and that the level of insulin poisoning is suggested to stay relatively the same, when ignoring the dextrose.
Yes the second bag could have been contaminated, but I can see how easy it would to dispute that this was letby if she didn’t hang it. Yes she could have contaminated it previously, but I just don’t know there’s a lot of holes in this scenario imo. Not impossible but just doesn’t fit.
I think the most plausible thing would be the bag not being changed. It just fits, from the readings and logistically. yes I’m looking at it as letby being guilty but if for a minute let’s say she 100 percent is for arguments sake (I mean some is here and it is likely her) , this seems the most plausible to me of the three.
Last edited:
Yes so somebody is guilty of it. If not Letby then who? He doesn’t have to prove that but as a jury you would have to have a serious amount of doubt to assume two separate people do it when she is hanging the first indisputably intentionally contaminated bag. If some people on the jury would like to say well it’s stilllll not enough to say she was culpable and I have more reason to believe that two/one other person tried to poison babies, then that’s honestly terrifying and will imo mean a baby killer goes free. I don’t see how it could possibly be explained as being somebody else and I would need to at least see some kind of way that was possible to believe it was not Letby. Maybe people that are legal buffs would happily see her get a NG despite it not meaning she’s innocent. Scary and icky to me personally.
I think the general procedure would be that the bag was changed at the same time as everything else. And this is what the nurse has said SHOULD be done.
But there is no documentation/notes to say that the bag actually WAS changed….so who knows?!
But there is no documentation/notes to say that the bag actually WAS changed….so who knows?!
- Status