This, they also would have potentially been internally investigating it as well to make sure it wasn’t an accidental drug error, rather than instantly assume it was foul play.
This, they also would have potentially been internally investigating it as well to make sure it wasn’t an accidental drug error, rather than instantly assume it was foul play.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 shit and LL can be a murderer at the same time, they’re not exclusive to each other.
So what are you suggesting? Why do you think they didn't do anything with the results?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?
They initiated a review to see if any other baby was prescribed insulin at that time (they weren’t) incase insulin was administered to the wrong baby. Maybe they concluded it was an unexplained anomaly.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
Why wouldn’t you have to be an expert? The doctors in the hospital in the BA case didn’t understand how to interpret the results at the time properly. Yes we all think it’s a pretty simple concept now but we have been discussing for the past 4 + weeks, if you don’t specialise in this area or come across it very often why would you know ? Taking blood sugar readings and understanding the effects of hypoglycaemia isn’t the same as understanding specialist blood results that can rule out a natural cause. I’m not saying someone didn’t know, perhaps they did and thought shit someone fucked let’s cover it up. But we can not just assume they understood something that is actually pretty complex. My thoughts are IF they did know how to interpret the results they wanted to avoid an investigation and put it down as an accident (fairly sure that was actually stated), or the other explanation was they just didn’t understand what the result meant fully. Either way it doesn’t rule out letby, just highlights, the hospital failed to act at the time.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.
They’ve just sent off for a rare test though it doesn’t make sense they seem pretty vigilant in terms of finding the issue with child f. The ward wasn’t the greatest no, but they seem to have done the right thing initially by testing but then either ignored the fact there was obviously a murderer on the ward or they came up with another reason other than foul playBecause 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 shit and LL can be a murderer at the same time, they’re not exclusive to each other.
I get exactly what you are trying to highlight but the fact is that once a blood test shows a normal result all concern for the previous test result vanishes. I doubt anyone gave it much if any thought once the levels returned to normal until the investigation started.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
But we know that it has to have been synthetic insulin, how the hospital dealt with the findings etc doesn’t change that?They’ve just sent off for a rare test though it doesn’t make sense they seem pretty vigilant in terms of finding the issue with child f. The ward wasn’t the greatest no, but they seem to have done the right thing initially by testing but then either ignored the fact there was obviously a murderer on the ward or they came up with another reason other than foul play
if the defence had mentioned an alternative reason if their opening statement I would completely understand the point here. But they haven’t. They’re just going down the route that it wasn’t LL.They’ve just sent off for a rare test though it doesn’t make sense they seem pretty vigilant in terms of finding the issue with child f. The ward wasn’t the greatest no, but they seem to have done the right thing initially by testing but then either ignored the fact there was obviously a murderer on the ward or they came up with another reason other than foul play
Hahaha slightly condescending but I’m an easy going young man I’ll let it slide cos I like the little word play in your username, I’m just open minded to what’s gone on here and without all the facts I’m not willing to make a judgement either way is all.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
So the hospital knew synthetic insulin that nearly killed a baby in their care was administered deliberately (given that it's accepted that it had to be deliberate) but just shrugged their shoulders and carried on for another year before the investigation startedBut we know that it has to have been synthetic insulin, how the hospital dealt with the findings etc doesn’t change that?
I’m genuinely just curious that’s why I’m asking, but it seems like you question even the agreed facts/ base line information in this case, is there anything you actually are convinced by?Hahaha slightly condescending but I’m an easy going young man I’ll let it slide cos I like the little word play in your username, I’m just open minded to what’s gone on here and without all the facts I’m not willing to make a judgement either way is all.
If they give a reason why nothing was done and it was put down to an anomaly or whatever I’m happy to accept that. All I’m saying is the fact nothing was done at the time given they had the same information available could mean there’s another explanation we’ve not heardThey initiated a review to see if any other baby was prescribed insulin at that time (they weren’t) incase insulin was administered to the wrong baby. Maybe they concluded it was an unexplained anomaly.
Why was it not taken further? I’m sure that will have to be answered, amongst other things, in an enquiry.
Whatever the reason, it has no relevance to the fact Baby F was poisoned by artificial insulin.
Why would they send test results to a medical professional who couldn’t interpret them correctly? You’ve said it’s a rare test. Surely a specialist would have reviewed the resultsWhy wouldn’t you have to be an expert? The doctors in the hospital in the BA case didn’t understand how to interpret the results at the time properly. Yes we all think it’s a pretty simple concept now but we have been discussing for the past 4 + weeks, if you don’t specialise in this area or come across it very often why would you know ? Taking blood sugar readings and understanding the effects of hypoglycaemia isn’t the same as understanding specialist blood results that can rule out a natural cause. I’m not saying someone didn’t know, perhaps they did and thought shit someone fucked let’s cover it up. But we can not just assume they understood something that is actually pretty complex. My thoughts are IF they did know how to interpret the results they wanted to avoid an investigation and put it down as an accident (fairly sure that was actually stated), or the other explanation was they just didn’t understand what the result meant fully. Either way it doesn’t rule out letby, just highlights, the hospital failed to act at the time.
well I guess the time for that other explanation would likely only come out at the defence stage, as it would help them wouldn’t it?. I am reluctant to think they have one as I would assume it would have had to have been stated in the opening statement.If they give a reason why nothing was done and it was put down to an anomaly or whatever I’m happy to accept that. All I’m saying is the fact nothing was done at the time given they had the same information available could mean there’s another explanation we’ve not heard
Do we not see a similar case later though? And then the murder still continues without action being taken? ( I don’t think changing her shift pattern is appropriate action when you suspect murder either)I get exactly what you are trying to highlight but the fact is that once a blood test shows a normal result all concern for the previous test result vanishes. I doubt anyone gave it much if any thought once the levels returned to normal until the investigation started.
But the fact baby was deliberately poisoned by artificial insulin is an agreed fact.All I’m saying is the fact nothing was done at the time given they had the same information available could mean there’s another explanation we’ve not heard
It most definitely does though, the fact the did nothing gives room for another possible reason imoBut we know that it has to have been synthetic insulin, how the hospital dealt with the findings etc doesn’t change that?
What’s the other possible reason? Hospital cover up?It most definitely does though, the fact the did nothing gives room for another possible reason imo
Can you explain why a blood test that showed insulin levels that we are being told could only have happened by being deliberately injected was ignored at the time?What’s the other possible reason? Hospital cover up?
The specialist could interpret them. And advised that they send the bloods for further analysis, the hospital didn’t do this. That specialist doesn’t work for the hospital though. What the doctors who requested the bloods did with the results after is down to them, not the facility that actually tested the blood. I said this back along there should be some sort of multi agency safe guarding framework in place when a testing facility finds something suspicious, and they should have a duty to see what went on after and do a follow up.If they give a reason why nothing was done and it was put down to an anomaly or whatever I’m happy to accept that. All I’m saying is the fact nothing was done at the time given they had the same information available could mean there’s another explanation we’ve not heard
Why would they send test results to a medical professional who couldn’t interpret them correctly? You’ve said it’s a rare test. Surely a specialist would have reviewed the results
No because I wasn’t there and have no medical background.Can you explain why a blood test that showed insulin levels that we are being told could only have happened by being deliberately injected was ignored at the time?
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?