Lucy Letby Case #72

[sebanna]

https://archive.is/THLdS

The other day she had a supportive article from the left wing Guardian. Now she's got one from the right wing Daily Mail. She's getting support from across all sides of the media spectrum.

The mainstream media couldnt comment on the New Yorker article until after the trial but now can and its now relevant as she just been given her 15th WLO.

They make out (in the article) the Facebook searches were a keypiece of evidence for people thinking she was guilty but they just supported the medical information that the babies had been harmed.

The complete, raw medical evidence in the baby's medical records needs analysing by experts for anyone to have an opinion on wheter the babies were harmed. On the Internet people are challenging the experts without the relevant medical knowledge and knowing what tests the baby's are having. I read somewhere that the babies may have died of sepsis, but wouldn't this have shown on blood tests? Without knowing every test done and the importance of the results, how can these people come to an alternative explanation.

 

[WatermelonSugar22]

https://archive.is/THLdS

The other day she had a supportive article from the left wing Guardian. Now she's got one from the right wing Daily Mail. She's getting support from across all sides of the media spectrum.

She’s not getting support. They just want clicks. Read the wiki for the trial and see if you can honestly state there’s no evidence.

 

[jolt321]

This is a NG opinion on the insulin for example.



"The tests didn’t confirm exogenous insulin, that’s entirely the point. Experts have have been forward saying that they don’t agree with that, such as in the New Yorker one makes the claim that had it been exogenous the c-pep should have been zero if insulin was infused for such a long period, but it was within the normal range in one of the cases.

Where are you getting the idea it’s an agreed fact from? Myers iterated in his closing statement that the defence did not agree on the accuracy of the testing, although they offered no evidence against it"

 

[IGiveUp22]

This is a NG opinion on the insulin for example.



"The tests didn’t confirm exogenous insulin, that’s entirely the point. Experts have have been forward saying that they don’t agree with that, such as in the New Yorker one makes the claim that had it been exogenous the c-pep should have been zero if insulin was infused for such a long period, but it was within the normal range in one of the cases.

Where are you getting the idea it’s an agreed fact from? Myers iterated in his closing statement that the defence did not agree on the accuracy of the testing, although they offered no evidence against it"

So was professor hindmarsh not an expert then? this is what gets me that why are these “experts” in these articles better “experts” than those used in the trial? Was it because they presented evidence based on their medical knowledge that she was guilty?

 

[MmmB777]

This is a NG opinion on the insulin for example.



"The tests didn’t confirm exogenous insulin, that’s entirely the point. Experts have have been forward saying that they don’t agree with that, such as in the New Yorker one makes the claim that had it been exogenous the c-pep should have been zero if insulin was infused for such a long period, but it was within the normal range in one of the cases.

Where are you getting the idea it’s an agreed fact from? Myers iterated in his closing statement that the defence did not agree on the accuracy of the testing, although they offered no evidence against it"

That was based on the timing and conditions of the sample for which an expert was used to say was all perfectly fine. Not that it wasn’t synthetic insulin. That is not disputed.
Any reason you’re only posting these comments here?

 

[sebanna]

This is a NG opinion on the insulin for example.



"The tests didn’t confirm exogenous insulin, that’s entirely the point. Experts have have been forward saying that they don’t agree with that, such as in the New Yorker one makes the claim that had it been exogenous the c-pep should have been zero if insulin was infused for such a long period, but it was within the normal range in one of the cases.

Where are you getting the idea it’s an agreed fact from? Myers iterated in his closing statement that the defence did not agree on the accuracy of the testing, although they offered no evidence against it"

There was no reason to doubt the accuracy of the blood testing. The machines were calibrated and no concerns about other tests done that day. Baby F was given glucose injections which boosted his blood sugar and partly counterbalanced the insulin. The NNU went through a lot more vials of insulin between 2015 -2016.

 

[MmmB777]

There was no reason to doubt the accuracy of the blood testing. The machines were calibrated and no concerns about other tests done that day. Baby F was given glucose injections which boosted his blood sugar and partly counterbalanced the insulin. The NNU went through a lot more vials of insulin between 2015 -2016.

Double the usual amount wasn’t it? She poisoned loads of babies I’m sure. Another massive failing that this wasn’t picked up on.

 

[AllieBee]

This is a NG opinion on the insulin for example.



"The tests didn’t confirm exogenous insulin, that’s entirely the point. Experts have have been forward saying that they don’t agree with that, such as in the New Yorker one makes the claim that had it been exogenous the c-pep should have been zero if insulin was infused for such a long period, but it was within the normal range in one of the cases.

Where are you getting the idea it’s an agreed fact from? Myers iterated in his closing statement that the defence did not agree on the accuracy of the testing, although they offered no evidence against it"

Probably a normal C-pep because it was a normal baby not a diabetic. High insulin levels v normal/low C pep will only happen if insulin was injected. I don't see how they can possibly argue against that, it's fact.
---

Double the usual amount wasn’t it? She poisoned loads of babies I’m sure. Another massive failing that this wasn’t picked up on.

Exactly. I don't know how many bags of TPN they kept in the fridge at a time but it wouldn't have been many. She may have injected them all for all we know.

 

[tay65]

https://archive.is/THLdS

The other day she had a supportive article from the left wing Guardian. Now she's got one from the right wing Daily Mail. She's getting support from across all sides of the media spectrum.

It sells papers as it's different news. They can't talk about "guilty" Lucy now as that's old news.

 

[MmmB777]

Cullen also liked to just poison bags at random to be hung by others. It’s not really that far fetched.

 

[IGiveUp22]

Cullen also liked to just poison bags at random to be hung by others. It’s not really that far fetched.

Best way to get away with it isn’t…poison at random, and then when they’re hung chances are, they’re removed from the poisoner. It’s not far fetched at all if you know anything about heath care serial killers.
they’re not the same as your “text book” serial killers who use weapons such as knives, guns, rope etc and again, if you knew more about this, you wouldn’t be screaming for “more forensic evidence” as it’s all there already

 

[craig84]

And if you don’t believe she targeted the bag in the fridge then who the duck did? Because there’s only one other option for who was on shift both poisonings. So she was murderous? And then by chance a babies had catastrophic injuries on her other shifts. Cos she also accepts baby O didn’t have that injury before or naturally doesn’t she, so somebody else did that. It’s just a nonsense.

and if you believed that the other nurse was responsible for the insulin cases and Letby was responsible for none of the others charges that she's been convicted off you would have to believe that there were at least 3 other nurses attacking babies going off the staff presence chart. So that would mean that there would have to have been at least 4 healthcare worker serial killers operating in not just the UK at that time or even at the COCH in general but on the neonatal unit. Then as soon as Letby was removed all 4 of them stopped.

 

[lotusbiscoff]

It's sickening that certain news outlets are capitalising off the back of this. Cream of chicken soup ain't going anywhere other than within the vicinity of those four cold concrete walls.

 

[jolt321]

That was based on the timing and conditions of the sample for which an expert was used to say was all perfectly fine. Not that it wasn’t synthetic insulin. That is not disputed.
Any reason you’re only posting these comments here?

I'm posting here because I feel we are all pretty much unanimous in knowing that Letby is guilty, so its good to be reminded of certain points about the trial and evidence that I have probably forgotten.

 

[AllieBee]

It's sickening that certain news outlets are capitalising off the back of this. Cream of chicken soup ain't going anywhere other than within the vicinity of those four cold concrete walls.

I hope not. Hopefully all the newspaper crap will die down soon. The Twitter mob is louder and bigger than ever, think I'm just going to block them all because it makes me seriously uneasy if there's even a tiny chance that bleeping witch gets out of jail.

 

[MmmB777]

I'm posting here because I feel we are all pretty much unanimous in knowing that Letby is guilty, so its good to be reminded of certain points about the trial and evidence that I have probably forgotten.

You are literally just coming here to post things they’ve said though nothing else. I’m just not buying it.. all you do is occasionally throw in the word holes.
Don’t think anyone’s forgotten anything. It’s like we’ve all said, we’ve heard it all before a thousand times.
If I’m wrong I’ll apologise but I don’t think I am hun. Would rather people just came with their arguments than the covert nonsense xx

 

[AllieBee]

You are literally just coming here to post things they’ve said though nothing else. I’m just not buying it.. all you do is occasionally throw in the word holes.
Don’t think anyone’s forgotten anything. It’s like we’ve all said, we’ve heard it all before a thousand times.
If I’m wrong I’ll apologise but I don’t think I am hun. Would rather people just came with their arguments than the covert nonsense xx

Agreed. It's probably either that person who was posting in the last trial who got outed or any one of a load of other nutters. Can't remember last years ones name but she was pretty active on the FB groups too.

 

[jolt321]

You are literally just coming here to post things they’ve said though nothing else. I’m just not buying it.. all you do is occasionally throw in the word holes.
Don’t think anyone’s forgotten anything. It’s like we’ve all said, we’ve heard it all before a thousand times.
If I’m wrong I’ll apologise but I don’t think I am hun. Would rather people just came with their arguments than the covert nonsense xx

Not buying what?
Covert nonsense?
Get a grip please. I'm literally updating users with some of the rubbish that's been spouted online. I'm interested in peoples opinions. If you don't like it keep scrolling.
---

You are literally just coming here to post things they’ve said though nothing else. I’m just not buying it.. all you do is occasionally throw in the word holes.
Don’t think anyone’s forgotten anything. It’s like we’ve all said, we’ve heard it all before a thousand times.
If I’m wrong I’ll apologise but I don’t think I am hun. Would rather people just came with their arguments than the covert nonsense xx

And for the record, I'm in no doubt whatsoever about Letbys guilt. Knew she was guilty and was adamant about it before the defence had even started.


I have followed this thread since the beginning of the trial but was unable to make an account until recently. Even now I tell people to come to tattle if they want to know about the Letby case. This thread and websleuths are literally the only place where the users have a proper grasp of the facts.
---

 

[MmmB777]

Not buying what?
Covert nonsense?
Get a grip please. I'm literally updating users with some of the rubbish that's been spouted online. I'm interested in peoples opinions. If you don't like it keep scrolling.
---

And for the record, I'm in no doubt whatsoever about Letbys guilt. Knew she was guilty and was adamant about it before the defence had even started.


I have followed this thread since the beginning of the trial but was unable to make an account until recently. Even now I tell people to come to tattle if they want to know about the Letby case. This thread and websleuths are literally the only place where the users have a proper grasp of the facts.
---

I do scroll by, I don’t read big quotes from other websites. If I wanted to see what they were saying word for word then I’d be reading there. You’re posting in exactly the same way as people have when they’ve been doing this previously so that’s why it seems suspicious to me. Nothing personal. By all means carry on if you like. I’ve said what I’ve said, I’m not the only one thinking it. Just seems off imo. Like I said, sorry if I’m wrong

 

[jolt321]

I do scroll by, I don’t read big quotes from other websites. If I wanted to see what they were saying word for word then I’d be reading there. You’re posting in exactly the same way as people have when they’ve been doing this previously so that’s why it seems suspicious to me. Nothing personal. By all means carry on if you like. I’ve said what I’ve said, I’m not the only one thinking it. Just seems off imo. Like I said, sorry if I’m wrong

No worries. Apologies if it's coming off like that as it's not my intention at all. If anything I like to hear the opinions of people on here before I fire off at these idiots online because i can't help myself. It gives me more ammunition!