Lucy Letby Case #19

[Treesy19]

I know nursing and medicine is a very trusting profession in general, but considering how lethal insulin can be, and how little it takes to do some real damage, it blows my mind that it's not a controlled drug.

Controlled technically means listed under the misuse of drugs act, which it isn’t listed. And insulin would never be added to this particular legislation. But I agree i would consider it needing better hospital controlled. Although rare (thankfully) it does give me the creeps that if I were to receive a bag, or any of my loved ones, I’d be paranoid now that someone had added insulin to it. I’ve just finished watching The Good Nurse so I’m proper paranoid of course now. Letby is not the first and she won’t be the last

 

[slingo16]

It's brought up a couple of pages back, the witness claims insulin was added to the TPN and the defence has no questions. (These are from today).

View attachment 1772476

I don’t think having no questions means the defence agree with everything that’s been said though personally

 

[Deeznutslol]

But it’s a fact that the insulin in F’s blood was synthetic, therefore it had to been given externally, that is a fact. The pharmacy has been ruled out, as have any other ways of it being delivered, that’s fact. All that leaves is the high probability that it was added to the tpn bag as way of administering it. The only bit that isn’t certain is who did it

When did they say the pharmacy had been ruled out? I must have missed that

 

[OldBlondie]

When did they say the pharmacy had been ruled out? I must have missed that

Pharmacist was on stand, went through how the tpn is made up with the chart etc, and said there’s no way insulin would EVER be put in tpn. Was on live reporting yesterday and the round ups last night, there were few posts on here last night about it but they’re probably on the last few pages of last thread cos this new one started today

 

[od12839]

I don’t think having no questions means the defence agree with everything that’s been said though personally

In general I'd agree, but they're in court. Ben cross examined an upset mother about whether or not her baby was really crying the night he died. If he's allowing 2 medical experts to state that this was insulin poisoning via TPN with no questions, I'd say that's conceding.

 

[mRsKbRoOkS]

If we can have no doubt that child f was deliberately poisoned with insulin because of the test results then how come that conclusion wasn’t reached at the time? I’m going to assume it was explained away in one way or another, therefore why can’t the reason used at the time not apply any more

But you have been arguing two separate points this whole time. In one breath you are saying basically was it even synthetic insulin? And then the next you are saying it is, but could be innocently explained.

The fact that baby F was administered with synthetic insulin is 100 percent indisputable, the unit may have or may not have realised this at the time, there is certainly questions marks around the standard of care at the unit. I think it is a failing that it wasn’t looked into further but this doesn’t change the fact baby F was given synthetic insulin. Many experts have stated this without a doubt now, there is ample of research out there that supports this, it isn’t just a theory. This really is how synthetic insulin works, and no alternative explanation has been given, because there really isn’t one. Myers is not disputing it took place just stating letby isn’t culpable.

What is a theory right now is ‘how’ not if. If you want to come to the conclusion that letby is innocent, the only other plausible explanation would be someone on the ward accidentally putting insulin in baby F’s TPN not once but twice. I know which is more likely.

 

[IdeletedbutI'mbackagain]

She still contaminated the original bag, and allegedly falsified the notes round 5am to make it look as if baby’s sugar levels were higher than what they really were.

You see to me this is all that really matters. We can tie ourselves in knots over everything else but I cannot escape these "facts".

To me it makes the rest irrelevant. Unless the defence can point the finger at someone else and back it up, she's guilty to me.

 

[Deeznutslol]

Pharmacist was on stand, went through how the tpn is made up with the chart etc, and said there’s no way insulin would EVER be put in tpn. Was on live reporting yesterday and the round ups last night, there were few posts on here last night about it but they’re probably on the last few pages of last thread cos this new one started today

Thanks, I’ll check it out!
If BMs strategy is to go down the route of someone poisoned the babies but it wasn’t letby, will he start pointing fingers at the pharmacy when the defense get their turn? Is he allowed to do that?

 

[OldBlondie]

Thanks, I’ll check it out!
If BMs strategy is to go down the route of someone poisoned the babies but it wasn’t letby, will he start pointing fingers at the pharmacy when the defense get their turn? Is he allowed to do that?

I’ve honestly no idea, but it seems pharmacy ruled out completely atm. It would be more likely it’s another nurse he’ll go after. Every single nurse on duty that night/day have all been asked whether they ever gave F insulin, or added anything to bag so I think that’s where he’s going, but that’s just my guess

 

[Haveyouanywool]

I don’t agree that this is them conceding anything
We don’t hear the question she’s responding to, it’s a vague statement as part of the opening statement that they’ve not expanded on (in the reporting anyway) so imo I don’t think she has agreed to anything particularly incriminating I think it’s similar to the mother who walked in on LL in the act. Its probably not quite what it first seems,

besides even if she said yep someone definitely had to have done this deliberately. What does that even prove? Just because she said it doesn’t make it a medical fact , if she’d have said no this definitely wasn’t a deliberate act everybody would say ”well what qualify her to make that judgment”

It is a medical fact though. The massively high insulin level and low c-peptide (in the proven absence of very rare medical conditions) make it a medical fact. It simply is and BM cannot argue against it, he just can’t, and he knows it.
He’s going to have to come up with another defence ie it wasn’t LL, you can’t prove it was.

 

[OldBlondie]

You see to me this is all that really matters. We can tie ourselves in knots over everything else but I cannot escape these "facts".

To me it makes the rest irrelevant. Unless the defence can point the finger at someone else and back it up, she's guilty to me.

Yes I couldn’t agree more. The very first bag was enough to kill F, along with the note changing.

I’m so surprised at BM not challenging though, only because by the time we get to Baby L we will have heard even more evidence against LL, more of the same patterns being shown over and over, more repeated searches and sinister behaviour from her too. There’s some stuff coming up with G that is going to sound very similar and show her starting to tamper with equipment and I think that’s when one consultant starts getting very suss of her. And then Baby I is particularly compelling I think (with the sympathy card on phone, and her sending it to them, and more searches on Fb, and the in appropriate bath comment), so by the time we get to L, it would be even harder again to believe there’s 2 poisoners, or it’s yet just another coincidence.

Although I do agree with why other posters have felt he’s not challenged a lot at the moment, I find their reasons totally plausible, I’m just surprised by it I have to say

 

[slingo16]

But you have been arguing two separate points this whole time. In one breath you are saying basically was it even synthetic insulin? And then the next you are saying it is, but could be innocently explained.

The fact that baby F was administered with synthetic insulin is 100 percent indisputable, the unit may have or may not have realised this at the time, there is certainly questions marks around the standard of care at the unit. I think it is a failing that it wasn’t looked into further but this doesn’t change the fact baby F was given synthetic insulin. Many experts have stated this without a doubt now, there is ample of research out there that supports this it isn’t just a theory. This really is how synthetic insulin works, and no alternative explanation has been given, because there really isn’t one. Myers is not disputing it took place just stating letby isn’t culpable.

What is a theory right now is ‘how’ not if. If you want to come to the conclusion that letby is innocent, the only other plausible explanation would be someone on the ward accidentally putting insulin in baby F’s TPN not once but twice. I know which is more likely.

That’s the thing though I don’t think it is indisputable, you don’t need to be an expert to understand that c peptide and insulin have a relationship so the obvious conclusion of the test would be the explanation we’re hearing now (synthetic insulin) I’m struggling to see how they saw these results that apparently can’t be disputed in anyway and point to one explanation only and nothing is done. The only way that works is if we have another possibility which they used to explain the situation at the time.

 

[IGiveUp22]

I’m confused how you can think the defence haven’t conceded that the insulin was deliberate? In their defence opening statement for the insulin babies, they’ve not once disputed the insulin was synthetic nor that it can’t have possibly being in the bag etc. It was included in the agreed facts that it was deliberate.

The defence basically said “we don’t know what we don’t know” (duh) & implied that however the insulin got in the baby, it wasn’t down the LL.

that to me suggests he will be focusing on whoever else may have had an opportunity to tamper with the bag. However, earlier in the defence opening statement he mentions how all the staff in the hospital did their best?? So I’m not sure where he is going to go with the blame…maybe just emphasise that LL didn’t hang that second bag. Maybe the prosecution have something to counter that back

 

[slingo16]

It is a medical fact though. The massively high insulin level and low c-peptide (in the proven absence of very rare medical conditions) make it a medical fact. It simply is and BM cannot argue against this, he just can’t, and he knows it.
He’s going to have to come up with another defence ie it wasn’t LL, you can’t prove it was.

But then it doesn’t make sense as to why nothing was done at the time, it seems a really obvious conclusion to reach after the test. As I’ve said to another poster. This has to have been explained one way or another at the time

 

[OldBlondie]

That’s the thing though I don’t think it is indisputable, you don’t need to be an expert to understand that c peptide and insulin have a relationship so the obvious conclusion of the test would be the explanation we’re hearing now (synthetic insulin) I’m struggling to see how they saw these results that apparently can’t be disputed in anyway and point to one explanation only and nothing is done. The only way that works is if we have another possibility which they used to explain the situation at the time.

If you genuinely don’t understand this I suggest you read over the past thread @docmum and @mRsKbRoOkS both have explained in great detail about it, and it’s also been discussed in quite a lot of detail the reasons and thoughts around the tests being done at that time

But then it doesn’t make sense as to why nothing was done at the time, it seems a really obvious conclusion to reach after the test. As I’ve said to another poster. This has to have been explained one way or another at the time

As I say if you have time read over the last thread, it’s been discussed in great detail especially after we heard from the consultant Dr Gibbs that got the test results back at that time

 

[slingo16]

Bsbdbsbs

If you genuinely don’t understand this I suggest you read over the past thread @docmum and @mRsKbRoOkS both have explained in great detail about it, and it’s also been discussed in quite a lot of detail the reasons and thoughts around the tests being done at that time

I’m far from intelligent but I’ve researched the topic to the best of my ability and basically everything says low c peptide and high insulin means the presence of synthetic insulin I can’t find anything to contradict this. Which makes me wonder how the conclusion wasn’t reached at the time? That’s what I don’t understand

 

[IGiveUp22]

But then it doesn’t make sense as to why nothing was done at the time, it seems a really obvious conclusion to reach after the test. As I’ve said to another poster. This has to have been explained one way or another at the time

we know the hospital was pretty tit, the baby survived & it’s possible it was passed for some sort of investigation & didn’t have any movement for whatever reason. It was mentioned on a previous thread that this isn’t a usual test & there aren’t many insulin experts etc so it’s quite possible they weren’t aware what the results meant at the time they received them it wasn’t until this investigation started when further experts looked at them they realised hang on, that’s not right. The point it, we don’t know fully as the reporting is grey however, BOTH defence & prosecution agree this was synthetic insulin given to a baby that shouldn’t have got it. It’s the who is responsible that they’re disputing

edited to add - we also don’t know if they didn’t probe due to the loss the parents had already suffered. The baby survived & was able to go home. It’s possible unless they parents wanted further investigations that the hospital left it unfortunately. I don’t agree obv, it definitely should have been picked up & looked at at the time

 

[friedeggontoast]

Bsbdbsbs

I’m far from intelligent but I’ve researched the topic to the best of my ability and basically everything says low c peptide and high insulin means the presence of synthetic insulin I can’t find anything to contradict this. Which makes me wonder how the conclusion wasn’t reached at the time? That’s what I don’t understand

Because clearly the ward weren’t working to the highest standard it should’ve been. Just because they didn’t highlight it at the time, doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. The ward can be tit and LL can be a murderer at the same time, they’re not exclusive to each other.

 

[FastAndTheCurious7]

But then it doesn’t make sense as to why nothing was done at the time, it seems a really obvious conclusion to reach after the test. As I’ve said to another poster. This has to have been explained one way or another at the time

You do realise you’re not actually on the jury right? if I didn’t know any better I’d say you were secretly working for the defence

 

[slingo16]

we know the hospital was pretty tit, the baby survived & it’s possible it was passed for some sort of investigation & didn’t have any movement for whatever reason. It was mentioned on a previous thread that this isn’t a usual test & there aren’t many insulin experts etc so it’s quite possible they weren’t aware what the results meant at the time they received them it wasn’t until this investigation started when further experts looked at them they realised hang on, that’s not right. The point it, we don’t know fully as the reporting is grey however, BOTH defence & prosecution agree this was synthetic insulin given to a baby that shouldn’t have got it. It’s the who is responsible that they’re disputing

For me it’s absolutely impossible that whoever read these results didn’t understand the relationship between c peptide and insulin. I understand it’s an unusual test, but it’s not a difficult conclusion to reach, the results are described by the prosecution as there being no other conclusion. low c peptide and high insulin means the insulin is synthetic it doesn’t seem difficult to grasp especially for professionals. Why send off for a test that no one would understand the results of anyway?