Please point me in the right direction of evidence why the causes i mentioned weren't possible for those babies? As i can't find anything
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
@Whythough i don’t think it’s that those things you’ve suggested aren’t plausible or alternative explanations that are possible, it’s that for these particular babies, the medical records does not suggest any of those things happened.
Each baby was spoken about in great detail with the medical experts cross examined on the stand. The Wiki on here is really good - it’s all the live reporting that was available.
I think the other thing to remember too is that all of these babies were reported to be doing well, responding to whatever treatments they were having and then no sooner had Letby had contact with them, they unexpectedly collapsed. A lot of them also didn’t respond like they should have to interventions either…often leaving the doctors completely baffled how/why it had happened. I guess since you work in the field maybe imagine that happening and it constantly being the same nurse that’s been with those babies just before…
Each baby was spoken about in great detail with the medical experts cross examined on the stand. The Wiki on here is really good - it’s all the live reporting that was available.
I think the other thing to remember too is that all of these babies were reported to be doing well, responding to whatever treatments they were having and then no sooner had Letby had contact with them, they unexpectedly collapsed. A lot of them also didn’t respond like they should have to interventions either…often leaving the doctors completely baffled how/why it had happened. I guess since you work in the field maybe imagine that happening and it constantly being the same nurse that’s been with those babies just before…
There’s a pink wiki button, top right corner. It’s a collation of all the live reporting through the ten month trial as reported in the Chester Standard (which didn’t report every day and is also not a transcript so it’s really a small amount in the context of the trial). You can go into each baby and there is a menu with shortcuts to things like sequences of events, witnesses and experts.
There is probably more info on the Reddit r/LucyLetby sub though to be honest because the mod there collated far more than we did here (different journalists reported different things).
Bear in mind some of the reporting is quite brief if it wasn’t a live reporting day, so from the perspective of a member of the public it may not feel like it’s sufficient evidence on that one paragraph or sentence alone, but when you consider what has been brought up (e.g. any discussion over possible air from CPR) we can be confident the jury had significant more information and it wasn’t enough to cause them reasonable doubt and they still came to a guilty verdict for all murders and most of the attempted ones too.
With regard to the tube dislodgements, how would you explain the tubes getting pushed in further?
If poorly secured it could slip further down the trachea
This baby was sedated.
Yes, if sedated and the tube was poorly secured the tube could have slipped or could move on repositioning.
They can and do move unfortunately. There are various fixing devices some better than others.
The babies had sustained hypoglycemia confirmed by multiples blood tests. That hypoglycemia had a cause. The insulin and c peptides were tested and there is a clear discrepancy pointing towards administered insulin rather than a naturally occurring insulinoma or other causes.
You have the symptomatology, it resolved when the bags were changed (meaning the source of insulin was removed) and there was no special treatment given beyond dextrose to correct the blood sugar deficiency/counteracting the effects of
Keith Frayn, an emeritus professor of human metabolism at the University of Oxford who has been using immunoassay for insulin since the 1970s, rejected the notion that the tests were unreliable. “I don’t think many people who know about insulin assays would say you can disregard those tests,” he said. “They are very clear.”
He acknowledged there was a small margin for error but said the Letby case results were far outside that, given the two babies had insulin between ten and 40 times the normal level. Crucially, C-peptide was undetectable in one baby and very low in the other. Given that natural insulin produces with it higher levels of C-peptide, the only explanation was insulin introduced from outside. “There are most unlikely to be analytical errors,” Frayn said.
He agreed with other experts that follow-up insulin assays to confirm results would have been desirable but insisted the insulin levels in both cases were so far outside the margin of error that it was unlikely to have made a difference
Even LL has agreed that the insulin poisoinings could not have been accidental. As for why, well the conversations that were happening at the time shed a light on what her reasons may have been
The following conversation took place at 7.55pm on 4th August. In it her colleague had pointed out two things, that LL seemed to be having some "very bad luck" and that she "needed a break from it being on [her] shift". Within a few hours of this conversation, Letby changed her method to insulin poisoining via a TPN bag. (The TPN was started at 12.25am on the 5th August). This was a method that would see the poisoning carry on onto the next shift, after LL had left, thus implicating somebody else on that next shift, if the baby were to collapse or die after LL had left. So, was this a reaction to her colleague's comments? An alleged deliberate change of method to implicate somebody else on the next shift?
"Jennifer Jones-Key, a nursing colleague, contacted her at 7.55pm that evening to ask: 'Hey, how's you? X'
Letby: 'Not so good. We lost E overnight.'
Ms Jones-Key: 'That's sad. We're on a terrible run at the moment. Were you in (Nursery) 1? x'
Letby: 'Yes, I had him and F'.
Ms Jones-Key: 'That's not good. You need a break from it being on your shift'.
Letby: 'It's the luck of the drawer (sic), isn't it unfortunately. Only 3 trained (nurses) so I Iended up having both whereas just had F the other shifts'.
Ms Jones-Key: 'You seem to be having some very bad luck though.'"
Letby had been linked to the other deaths by association. Not only that but her nurse colleagues had also thought that the deaths had been unusual. This was also something else that Letby tried to downplay over text
Its simply not possible to be that unlucky. Letby was alone immediately beforehand with the babies or giving IV meds in all instances. She was one of only 2 staff present for both insulin cases. She is noted to be behaving inappropriately around multiple families when their babies are dying. She is noted to be behaving inappropriately by her own colleagues and making strange remarks about death. She gives an account which is at complete odds with baby Es mother, who has called her a liar. Their interaction is crucial because it shows that Letby was harming baby E and giving false reasons for blood around the babies mouth while telling the mother to leave. The mother is not lying. Baby E like many of the babies were noted to be screaming in an unusual manner. The babies that were given Air embolism had sudden unexpected collapses, featuring a rash that was testified about in court over a dozen times. Everyone thought it was very unusual. Letby tried to downplay this rash at every opportunity on court, despite the testimonies of the colleagues. There is a mountain of evidence against Letby, these are just snippets. When Letby was suspected and she first heard about air embolism through her friend Dr, she then filed a datix about a bung warning about the dangers of air embolism. She was then removed after the death of 2/3 triplets. When she is arrested she is in possession of the handovers of nearly every baby in the charges underneath her bed, along with a blood/gas report that her colleague has testified to say she would have disposed of in the confidential wastebin. Letby just happens to stay back and hour and half on that shift, making it possible to obtain it (was used by a Dr to type notes at a computer) not only does she have the handovers but she has scrawled confessions exclaiming she is evil and she killed the babies on purpose. She has a note drafted out to write about the three triplets dying, when only 2 died. Yet she made a comment to a Dr that the other triplet wasn't leaving here alive.
You can believe what you want but Letby is so guilty and evidence presented over 10 months was monumental. There wasn't any doubt. The behaviour was off the scale. She was morbid, had a fascination with death and enjoying forcing herself into parents grief. She also like to search the families on special dates such as birthday and Christmas.
We now know that Letby was lucky to ever become a nurse because her assessor said she was cold, detached and lacking empathy with families and babies. She gave a drug overdose which would have killed a baby if not noticed. Her reaction was to be annoyed that she couldn't give meds and go behind her managers back and get reinstated. Her nurse colleague was distraught. Not Letby thought. She also had to go to management and get a new assessor just to get passed off as a nurse. Her new assessor was conflicted with this but passed Letby off. There was multiple red flags.
None of this was known when she was initially suspected. What a stroke of luck that the nurse that's been present for all these collapses has also displayed all this behaviour. What a stroke of luck that she can be proven to be cotside immediately before all of the unexpected collapses. Then you have multiple nurse colleagues implicating Letby in deaths such as when Letby can suddenly see in the dark and see that a baby is unwell. You have her changing MO, when she is suspected. You have her text messages, downplaying all the deaths and giving incorrect diagnosis for them. You have the collapses and deaths moving from nights to days when she is moved to days, you have no collapses when she goes on holiday for 2 weeks, followed by 2 deaths on subsequent shifts when she returns. She already knows she is returning to care for triplets, as she is messaging colleagues on holiday. From the moment Letby was removed, there was never another unexplained collapse. There wasn't another death.
I could talk all day about the things that show Letby is guilty. Theres a huge stack of medical and behavioural evidence. With each babies case there was so much showing her guilt. It wasn't just the medical experts. It was the witness testimony from parents, Drs, nurse, consultants and from Letby herself.
Just like the mother of baby E said, Letby testifying was the best thing that could have happened because everyone got to see the real Lucy once the mask slipped. Lie after lie. Changing her story from already agreed evidence. Changing her story when new information was put to her. Her selective memory that very conveniently forgets any situations that point to her guilt, so she doesn't have to explain her actions.
Well said, and thanks for bringing these points back up because it’s been so long now it’s easy to forget just how bleeping obvious it was that she’s guilty
I had to heard about them doing 2 ward rounds a week. Surely it should be a daily thing?
Baby K is a great example where there is theoretically another medical explanation but the non-medical evidence stacks up against Letby and makes the deliberate harm explanation more likely and beyond reasonable doubt to many of us and the jury.
The tube becoming dislodged three times is not in dispute with baby K. I’m sure there could be experts that would argue over the sedation.
But the non-medical evidence points significantlytowards deliberate harm. Just off the top of my head
1. Letby was not the designated nurse. Baby was settled and designated nurse left to speak to parents and Letby was on her own with the baby
2. A credible witness walked in on her and the baby to find the baby deteriorating and Letby not acting. Letby tried to defend this as waiting to self correct even for 25weeks gestaton. is this answer credible?
3. He testified there was no alarm as not going off - we heard evidence the machines sounds can be paused for one minute
4. The designated nurse came back in to find Letby and Dr J with the alarm sounding. It corroborates both Dr J’s story and also the possibility the alarm could be sounded
5. The baby was moved to another hospital in less than 24hrs after birth and I don’t think she ever met the parents.
6. She did a Facebook search for the parents in 2018
7. Despite throughout her cross examination saying she basically can’t recall anything of baby K, her response to searching for the parents was that she often thinks of the babies. Why is this baby so memorable to her? That she’s searching the baby’s name on Facebook two years after briefly meeting her? How would she even know baby K was part of the investigation at this point - her first arrest was July 2018. Why can’t she give a reasonable explanation as to why she was searching for this baby’s surname on Facebook two years later?? This again is just not the slightest bit credible?
8. there were two further incidents of desaturations and Letby can be placed in room 1 with baby K for both of them
third incident it was Letby that called for help:
Last edited:
There really is no point saying anything else is there because you're not willing to listen to any other views?
Sick babies desaturate and babies that Premature will often have significant apneas. Waiting to see if they self correct isn't uncommon.
What do you make of six of the seven babies found to have been murdered had postmortems at Alder Hey hospital?
These pathologists had had the advantage of physically examining the babies and reported no unnatural findings. But these were disregarded?
Sick babies desaturate and babies that Premature will often have significant apneas. Waiting to see if they self correct isn't uncommon.
What do you make of six of the seven babies found to have been murdered had postmortems at Alder Hey hospital?
These pathologists had had the advantage of physically examining the babies and reported no unnatural findings. But these were disregarded?
Campaigning to free Lucy Letby is not the right thing to do, says Wes Streeting
Health secretary says he will believe her conviction is fair unless a court decides otherwise
Health secretary says he will believe her conviction is fair unless a court decides otherwise
But your views have been listened to and then countered with actual evidence that was discussed in depth at the trials.
And unless I missed it (in which case I apologise), you still haven't answered who she has been scapegoated by.- Status