Lucy Letby Case #78

[Hazara04]

Scapegoated by who though?

Scapegoated by the consultants? Why would they actively push for investigations into the deaths and incidents if they were responsible for them?

Scapegoated by management? I hardly think so as they did everything in their power to keep her on the unit!

I honestly don't understand the scapegoat theory.

It doesn't make any sense. The consultants weren't being blamed for the deaths, so why would they need to scapegoat anyone.A police investigation and trial meant that their practice was put under intense scrutiny.

The management were actively trying to protect her and cover up her crimes. Having a serial killer murdering patients on the hospital undetected for over a year gas done far worse damage to the reputation of the trust and NHS than babies collapsing due to lack of resources and poor care.

 

[Futtrit]

Interview with Karen Rees, this woman is shameless.

Latest news & breaking headlines

The latest breaking UK, US, world, business and sport news from The Times and The Sunday Times. Go beyond today's headlines with in-depth analysis and comment.

www.thetimes.com

 

[Whythough]

@Whythough re the insulin - is it your contention that there wasn't a way to poison the babies with insulin because of the safeguards you mention or that there was no evidence that anyone was harmed by insulin in the first place? Just because you can't believe safeguarding potentially dangerous drugs can be eluded, doesn't negate the fact that even the defence during the trial accepted that there were at least one (it's been a while, I haven't doubled checked the wiki/trial reporting to see if more than one was acknowledged by the defence) baby who had been harmed by having massive doses of insulin administered. So how did whoever did it circumvent the safety protocols? And some of that safeguarding is around miscalculating amounts rather than preventing deliberate harm, so it had failed regardless on your view on Letby.

What are your thoughts on the rate of tube dislodgments during her earlier placements? Genuinely interested!

I'm saying it would be very difficult to do so from my experience.
There are many reasons babies have low blood sugars. Some are caused by medications given during labour, sepsis, metabolic issues.
As for the tube dislodging babies when ventilated aren't always sedated and if you take your eyes of them tubes can be dislodged as they are essentially awake and uncomfortable and want the tube out!
Of course this could be done deliberately but I've known vented babies who's tubes have moved despite having a 1-1 nursing ratio as it only take a second.
Also if you have a nurse who's not competent in caring for vented babies tubes can also move.

 

[King Seagull]

@Whythough

Okay, maybe splitting stuff up might help me explain what I'm asking you.

A) During the trial even the defence accepted that insulin was used in a way that harmed babies. Is your vague 'oh it's all too complicated, things happen, safeguarding the insulin means Letby didn't do it' meaning that
1) no babies were actually harmed by insulin or
2) your personal incredulity that someone was capable of circumventing the safeguards means Letby didn't do anything wrong (disregarding the fact that some safeguards must have failed for babies to have been harmed).

B) I can understand that dislodgments happen for various reasons. I would expect those reasons to be equal opportunity chances. Letby had a shocking rate in comparison to other nurses (I'm incredibly lazy and not looking up the number, not sure if it's in the wiki or the source is somewhere in a previous thread, I am having a bath after hoiking tit about all day). Do you have any feeling as to why her rate was so high (NOT why dislodgments happen)?

Bloody hell I'm a wordy person! Sorry, but I am trying to be very clear in what I am asking.

 

[Tofino]

I'm saying it would be very difficult to do so from my experience.
There are many reasons babies have low blood sugars. Some are caused by medications given during labour, sepsis, metabolic issues.
As for the tube dislodging babies when ventilated aren't always sedated and if you take your eyes of them tubes can be dislodged as they are essentially awake and uncomfortable and want the tube out!
Of course this could be done deliberately but I've known vented babies who's tubes have moved despite having a 1-1 nursing ratio as it only take a second.
Also if you have a nurse who's not competent in caring for vented babies tubes can also move.

Don’t you think Professor Hindmarsh, a professor in paediatric endicronolgy at UCL, would have considered other causes?

He said he concluded the cause of the hypoglycaemia was exogenous, and the chemical findings were compatible with the administration of exogenous insulin.

ETA: that was one sentence out of a lengthy witness testimony including cross examination where he obviously goes into a lot of detail.

 

[IGiveUp22]

There are many reasons babies have low blood sugars. Some are caused by medications given during labour, sepsis, metabolic issues.

The blood tests done proved, due to the c-peptide levels that it was synthetic insulin. Both defence and prosecution accepted this an agreed fact. Letby’s own defence for the insulin poisoning was that it happened, it just wasn’t her.
I believe the drs reviewed the medical records and ruled out the other things you have mentioned.

Also, I don’t want this to feel like a pile on btw! There is a very heavy “she’s guilty” opinion on here (like we get told ) and often when people come here to explain they’re not convinced/she’s innocent they never actually engage afterwards so thank you for coming with explanations, experiences and reasons for why you’re unsure.

 

[Aberscot]

Omg just read the Rees interview, why is she not embarrassed and hiding out in her farmhouse with her pension instead of giving interviews to the press. ( Will she be getting paid, if so that’s sick ]
If she had acted sooner maybe Letby would have been removed sooner and some parents would not be going through the heartbreak of loosing their child.
I really hope the Thirwell enquiry highlights this and we see some of the management charged in the future.

….and after all the support she was giving her she hasn’t been granted a visitors pass to see Letby in prison.
Rees you are no use to Letby now, hence she doesn’t want to see you!

. She has since contacted HMP Bronzefield, Surrey, where Letby is serving her sentence, to apply for a visiting order. So far Letby has not accepted. “I just want her to know that there is support out here for her,” she said. .

she should go joint the sickos having a Birthday party for her…

 

[Whythough]

@Whythough

Okay, maybe splitting stuff up might help me explain what I'm asking you.

A) During the trial even the defence accepted that insulin was used in a way that harmed babies. Is your vague 'oh it's all too complicated, things happen, safeguarding the insulin means Letby didn't do it' meaning that
1) no babies were actually harmed by insulin or
2) your personal incredulity that someone was capable of circumventing the safeguards means Letby didn't do anything wrong (disregarding the fact that some safeguards must have failed for babies to have been harmed).

B) I can understand that dislodgments happen for various reasons. I would expect those reasons to be equal opportunity chances. Letby had a shocking rate in comparison to other nurses (I'm incredibly lazy and not looking up the number, not sure if it's in the wiki or the source is somewhere in a previous thread, I am having a bath after hoiking tit about all day). Do you have any feeling as to why her rate was so high (NOT why dislodgments happen)?

Bloody hell I'm a wordy person! Sorry, but I am trying to be very clear in what I am asking.

Of course!
So what I'm suggesting is potentially no babies were actually harmed by insulin and it could have been other conditions such as Transient hyperinsulinaemic hypoglycaemia.
Could be lack of experience/competence or unit pressures. Vented babies should be 1-1 if it was busy and she had other babies this could also have been a factor.

 

[MmmB777]

 

[Tofino]

Of course!
So what I'm suggesting is potentially no babies were actually harmed by insulin and it could have been other conditions such as Transient hyperinsulinaemic hypoglycaemia.

What makes you think other conditions weren’t explored during years of police investigation, trial preparation and a ten month trial?

 

[Whythough]

What makes you think other conditions weren’t explored during years of police investigation, trial preparation and a ten month trial?

Because one test was preformed from evidence I've seen

 

[Whythough]

Not sure why so dismissive of other opinions?

 

[sebanna]

Of course!
So what I'm suggesting is potentially no babies were actually harmed by insulin and it could have been other conditions such as Transient hyperinsulinaemic hypoglycaemia.
Could be lack of experience/competence or unit pressures. Vented babies should be 1-1 if it was busy and she had other babies this could also have been a factor.

The C peptide was very low with high insulin meaning the baby didn't make the insulin. There was a third insulin case ( not tried) where the baby was diagnosed with hyperinsulinism but Dr Evans said the diagnosis was wrong as the c peptide was low to the insulin.

 

[Tofino]

Because one test was preformed from evidence I've seen

But medical experts have testified in court, under oath, based on their expertise, this was exogenous insulin. Do you think someone like Professor Hindmarsh would have done that if he couldn’t rule out conditions like the one you gave as an example?

 

[MmmB777]

Not sure why so dismissive of other opinions?

Because nothing else explains the cpeptide ratio. Nothing. You think you’re smarter than Professor Hindmarsh? Worrying if you’re truly a health professional tbh.

 

[Whythough]

The blood tests done proved, due to the c-peptide levels that it was synthetic insulin. Both defence and prosecution accepted this an agreed fact. Letby’s own defence for the insulin poisoning was that it happened, it just wasn’t her.
I believe the drs reviewed the medical records and ruled out the other things you have mentioned.

Also, I don’t want this to feel like a pile on btw! There is a very heavy “she’s guilty” opinion on here (like we get told ) and often when people come here to explain they’re not convinced/she’s innocent they never actually engage afterwards so thank you for coming with explanations, experiences and reasons for why you’re unsure.

Not sure if you've read this

https://www.archive.is/oldest/https...er-lucy-letby-insulin-convictions-experts-say

I think they couldn't do further tests as samples had been discarded.

 

[Whythough]

Because nothing else explains the cpeptide ratio. Nothing. You think you’re smarter than Professor Hindmarsh? Worrying if you’re truly a health professional tbh.

When did i say i was smarter? Others have come out with other explanations and said the test wasn't reliable on its own?
Also no need to be rude because there's other possible explanations. I've not plucked it out of thin air

 

[Tofino]

Not sure if you've read this

https://www.archive.is/https://www....er-lucy-letby-insulin-convictions-experts-say

I think they couldn't do further tests as samples had been discarded.

Ok if you are getting your sources of information from places like the guardian and I’m guessing also the telegraph then that’s at least half the problem.

 

[MmmB777]

When did i say i was smarter? Others have come out with other explanations and said the test wasn't reliable on its own?
Also no need to be rude because there's other possible explanations. I've not plucked it out of think air

Was that discussed in court? Who gave evidence in court? You think the clinical picture counts for nothing too? You think babies had terrible hypos that didn’t respond to treatment. That it started and ended with the TPN. Then by chance.. tests showed poisoning by synthetic insulin but were wrong. She’s so unlucky!

 

[IGiveUp22]

.

Not sure if you've read this

https://www.archive.is/https://www....er-lucy-letby-insulin-convictions-experts-say

I think they couldn't do further tests as samples had been discarded.

I have read it yeah, it was also discussed in the original trial about re-testing the samples.
Me personally? I trust Professor Hindmarsh’s testimony in court and the discussion that was had around the re-testing/how the levels were missed in the first place/the witness testimony’s of the doctors present.
The fact she didn’t have a defence for the insulin (despite having medical experts) is genuinely huge if you know anything about criminal investigation (this is more my background).

Edit - sorry don’t know why my original post was there again I’ve tried to get rid of it