|
|
Post by Biblical on Sept 14, 2024 9:14:07 GMT
Wannabee
Just a couple of points in response to your last post.
In the evidence presented to the court a witness, Ian Allen, did a demonstration to show exactly how you can take tamper proof caps off TPN bags and inject insulin, so unfortunately they’re not actually tamper proof.
With this in mind there’s two points to be made re doctors and consultants that don’t accept the delivery method is possible. The first is that, unless they were in court on that day, they didn’t see the demonstration showing it is possible. The second point is that I submit that, if they are upstanding professionals, they have never tried to tamper to with a supposedly tamper proof cap. I’m not surprised they don’t get it.
The cross-examination for the insulin poisoning in particular is not compromised in any way by the mislabelled swipe data because it’s not used.
The records show Letby and every other nurse in the unit are indeed there at work at the time of the events in question, signing for giving feeds, checking on babies, signing for and administering medicine.
It’s obviously not on a minute by minute basis but it’s not necessary for the prosecution to have established that in order to make their case. It’s able to establish how many nurses and babies in the ward to determine if there was understaffing problems.
Letby, although not the specified nurse for Child F, is the one who signs for the TPN bag for Child F. Letby confirms she is in the room at the time the bag is hung up, although your point about memory comes in because she goes from knowing she definitely didn’t hang it up, to not remembering if she hung it up.
Due to the timings and drop of blood sugar levels etc, the evidence suggests this bag has the insulin added in, either at the time it’s put up or shortly after.
The level of the detail required to establish circumstantial evidence good enough to convince a jury to find her guilty is obviously not just that she was somewhere in the unit at the time insulin poisonings occurred.
It’s circumst
|
|
|
|
Post by numpty40 on Sept 14, 2024 9:23:35 GMT
Wannabee Just a couple of points in response to your last post. In the evidence presented to the court a witness, Ian Allen, did a demonstration to show exactly how you can take tamper proof caps off TPN bags and inject insulin, so unfortunately they’re not actually tamper proof. With this in mind there’s two points to be made re doctors and consultants that don’t accept the delivery method is possible. The first is that, unless they were in court on that day, they didn’t see the demonstration showing it is possible. The second point is that I submit that, if they are upstanding professionals, they have never tried to tamper to with a supposedly tamper proof cap. I’m not surprised they don’t get it. The cross-examination for the insulin poisoning in particular is not compromised in any way by the mislabelled swipe data because it’s not used. The records show Letby and every other nurse in the unit are indeed there at work at the time of the events in question, signing for giving feeds, checking on babies, signing for and administering medicine. It’s obviously not on a minute by minute basis but it’s not necessary for the prosecution to have established that in order to make their case. It’s able to establish how many nurses and babies in the ward to determine if there was understaffing problems. Letby, although not the specified nurse for Child F, is the one who signs for the TPN bag for Child F. Letby confirms she is in the room at the time the bag is hung up, although your point about memory comes in because she goes from knowing she definitely didn’t hang it up, to not remembering if she hung it up. Due to the timings and drop of blood sugar levels etc, the evidence suggests this bag has the insulin added in, either at the time it’s put up or shortly after. The level of the detail required to establish circumstantial evidence good enough to convince a jury to find her guilty is obviously not just that she was somewhere in the unit at the time insulin poisonings occurred. It’s circumst Is it at this point that you stopped typing to repeatedly bang your head against a wall Rick😂 |
|
|
|
Post by Gawa on Sept 14, 2024 14:55:22 GMT
I have to say there's a very strong and vocal contingent on the lucyletby sub reddit who seem to absolutely think this isn't a miscarriage of justice.
Think I need to read and educate myself more on both sides of debate
|
|
|
|
Post by Biblical on Sept 14, 2024 22:02:25 GMT
I have to say there's a very strong and vocal contingent on the lucyletby sub reddit who seem to absolutely think this isn't a miscarriage of justice. Think I need to read and educate myself more on both sides of debate I took an interest in this case when I saw quite a number of people claimimg it was a clear and obvious miscarriage of justice. The more I’ve looked into the case the more I’m convinced Letby is guilty. If Letby is innocent it is probably the greatest conspiracy of all time. Doctors who raised the alarm have a grudge Dewi Evans is a grifter making stuff up Experts who agree with him - groupthink Tests that prove insulin was administered - unreliable Confession notes - told to do so by councillor Letby’s Lawyer is useless The smoking gun is, and always has been the insulin poisoning cases. Letby and her defence fought robustly against the scientific basis and expert opinion for air embolism cases, both in trial and at appeal. When it comes to the insulin poisoning cases Letby initially said the test results must be unreliable but once the evidence had been clearly established, when it came to the cross examination, Letby confirmed she accepted the results of the tests and that someone deliberately harmed the babies, she just denied that it was her. People wondering if she is innocent have to ask themselves why she would accept the scientific basis for insulin poisoning but not air embolus. If anyone has a reasonable answer the floor is yours. |
|
|
|
Post by lawrieleslie on Sept 15, 2024 7:54:06 GMT
I have to say there's a very strong and vocal contingent on the lucyletby sub reddit who seem to absolutely think this isn't a miscarriage of justice. Think I need to read and educate myself more on both sides of debate I took an interest in this case when I saw quite a number of people claimimg it was a clear and obvious miscarriage of justice. The more I’ve looked into the case the more I’m convinced Letby is guilty. If Letby is innocent it is probably the greatest conspiracy of all time. Doctors who raised the alarm have a grudge Dewi Evans is a grifter making stuff up Experts who agree with him - groupthink Tests that prove insulin was administered - unreliable Confession notes - told to do so by councillor Letby’s Lawyer is useless The smoking gun is, and always has been the insulin poisoning cases. Letby and her defence fought robustly against the scientific basis and expert opinion for air embolism cases, both in trial and at appeal. When it comes to the insulin poisoning cases Letby initially said the test results must be unreliable but once the evidence had been clearly established, when it came to the cross examination, Letby confirmed she accepted the results of the tests and that someone deliberately harmed the babies, she just denied that it was her. People wondering if she is innocent have to ask themselves why she would accept the scientific basis for insulin poisoning but not air embolus. If anyone has a reasonable answer the floor is yours. The question that remains unanswered by anybody is why would she do it? Police will always look for means, opportunity and motive for committing a crime during initial investigations. She certainly had the means and opportunity but motive was never established. Whilst finding a motive is not required to reach a verdict, Lucy Letby was ostensibly a respected, caring, fun loving and popular nurse & friend to her colleagues. It’s mystifying that there was never a motive. Even Harold Shipman was shown to have had a motive, albeit after his conviction. |
|
|
|
Post by Biblical on Sept 15, 2024 10:16:17 GMT
I took an interest in this case when I saw quite a number of people claimimg it was a clear and obvious miscarriage of justice. The more I’ve looked into the case the more I’m convinced Letby is guilty. If Letby is innocent it is probably the greatest conspiracy of all time. Doctors who raised the alarm have a grudge Dewi Evans is a grifter making stuff up Experts who agree with him - groupthink Tests that prove insulin was administered - unreliable Confession notes - told to do so by councillor Letby’s Lawyer is useless The smoking gun is, and always has been the insulin poisoning cases. Letby and her defence fought robustly against the scientific basis and expert opinion for air embolism cases, both in trial and at appeal. When it comes to the insulin poisoning cases Letby initially said the test results must be unreliable but once the evidence had been clearly established, when it came to the cross examination, Letby confirmed she accepted the results of the tests and that someone deliberately harmed the babies, she just denied that it was her. People wondering if she is innocent have to ask themselves why she would accept the scientific basis for insulin poisoning but not air embolus. If anyone has a reasonable answer the floor is yours. The question that remains unanswered by anybody is why would she do it? Police will always look for means, opportunity and motive for committing a crime during initial investigations. She certainly had the means and opportunity but motive was never established. Whilst finding a motive is not required to reach a verdict, Lucy Letby was ostensibly a respected, caring, fun loving and popular nurse & friend to her colleagues. It’s mystifying that there was never a motive. Even Harold Shipman was shown to have had a motive, albeit after his conviction. What was the motive for Harold Shipman? A quick google search by myself shows plenty of different theories but no clear motive. That Letby was seemingly a nice person doesn’t really mean much does it. Ted Bundy was charming and charismatic to those who knew him. I’ve touched on it above but even before thinking about what any motivations of the police and medical experts would be to condemn an innocent young woman to die in prison we can just look at the NHS. The notion that the NHS and the Countess hospital would have decided that throwing an innocent woman under the bus, and being known for harbouring a serial killer is somehow preferential to having bad publicity as a result of a spike in neonatal deaths for other potential reasons is a mental thing to believe. Especially considering an inquiry like the one going on right now was always going to happen and potential failings within the NHS are going to come out in the wash anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by Gawa on Sept 15, 2024 11:17:54 GMT
I have to say there's a very strong and vocal contingent on the lucyletby sub reddit who seem to absolutely think this isn't a miscarriage of justice. Think I need to read and educate myself more on both sides of debate I took an interest in this case when I saw quite a number of people claimimg it was a clear and obvious miscarriage of justice. The more I’ve looked into the case the more I’m convinced Letby is guilty. If Letby is innocent it is probably the greatest conspiracy of all time. Doctors who raised the alarm have a grudge Dewi Evans is a grifter making stuff up Experts who agree with him - groupthink Tests that prove insulin was administered - unreliable Confession notes - told to do so by councillor Letby’s Lawyer is useless The smoking gun is, and always has been the insulin poisoning cases. Letby and her defence fought robustly against the scientific basis and expert opinion for air embolism cases, both in trial and at appeal. When it comes to the insulin poisoning cases Letby initially said the test results must be unreliable but once the evidence had been clearly established, when it came to the cross examination, Letby confirmed she accepted the results of the tests and that someone deliberately harmed the babies, she just denied that it was her. People wondering if she is innocent have to ask themselves why she would accept the scientific basis for insulin poisoning but not air embolus. If anyone has a reasonable answer the floor is yours. There are alot of suggestions that the Insulin tests used shouldn't be used for the purposes they were and can't be considered accurate or something? Have you read anything like this? Also seen some suggestions that Lucy was being implied/alleged of the deaths before any insulin or other tests were done? Again not sure if accurate. But sort of paints picture that it was the rota which pointed to Lucy and the other evidence came afterwards which fits the narrative of trying to find evidence to show her guilty. Rather than the evidence leading to her. Not sure if that makes sense. I'm open minded. Seems that depending on where you look there are different echo Chambers pushing different arguments but not really debating eachother |
|
|
|
Post by mickeythemaestro on Sept 15, 2024 11:18:32 GMT
The question that remains unanswered by anybody is why would she do it? Police will always look for means, opportunity and motive for committing a crime during initial investigations. She certainly had the means and opportunity but motive was never established. Whilst finding a motive is not required to reach a verdict, Lucy Letby was ostensibly a respected, caring, fun loving and popular nurse & friend to her colleagues. It’s mystifying that there was never a motive. Even Harold Shipman was shown to have had a motive, albeit after his conviction. What was the motive for Harold Shipman? A quick google search by myself shows plenty of different theories but no clear motive. That Letby was seemingly a nice person doesn’t really mean much does it. Ted Bundy was charming and charismatic to those who knew him. I’ve touched on it above but even before thinking about what any motivations of the police and medical experts would be to condemn an innocent young woman to die in prison we can just look at the NHS. The notion that the NHS and the Countess hospital would have decided that throwing an innocent woman under the bus, and being known for harbouring a serial killer is somehow preferential to having bad publicity as a result of a spike in neonatal deaths for other potential reasons is a mental thing to believe. Especially considering an inquiry like the one going on right now was always going to happen and potential failings within the NHS are going to come out in the wash anyway. The post office were happy to send innocent people to prison. Knowingly. Lots of them in fact. Its not that big a stretch when the corporate machine kicks in. |
|
|
|
Post by dirtygary69 on Sept 15, 2024 11:35:19 GMT
If we accepted that Letby is not guilty, what is the alternative? That a hospital was really THAT bad that it caused the deaths of a high number of babies over a certain period? If, since Letby was arrested, those death rates have decreased it would surely still have to point towards her? Or is it just a massive coincidence that the hospital happened to get its shit together and resolve all the issues it had, after Letby got arrested?
|
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Sept 15, 2024 12:03:45 GMT
I have to say there's a very strong and vocal contingent on the lucyletby sub reddit who seem to absolutely think this isn't a miscarriage of justice. Think I need to read and educate myself more on both sides of debate I took an interest in this case when I saw quite a number of people claimimg it was a clear and obvious miscarriage of justice. The more I’ve looked into the case the more I’m convinced Letby is guilty. If Letby is innocent it is probably the greatest conspiracy of all time. Doctors who raised the alarm have a grudge Dewi Evans is a grifter making stuff up Experts who agree with him - groupthink Tests that prove insulin was administered - unreliable Confession notes - told to do so by councillor Letby’s Lawyer is useless The smoking gun is, and always has been the insulin poisoning cases. Letby and her defence fought robustly against the scientific basis and expert opinion for air embolism cases, both in trial and at appeal. When it comes to the insulin poisoning cases Letby initially said the test results must be unreliable but once the evidence had been clearly established, when it came to the cross examination, Letby confirmed she accepted the results of the tests and that someone deliberately harmed the babies, she just denied that it was her. People wondering if she is innocent have to ask themselves why she would accept the scientific basis for insulin poisoning but not air embolus. If anyone has a reasonable answer the floor is yours. Thank you for providing such detailed Medical knowledge and certainty of Letby's Guilt. Yet literally dozens of Medical and other Professionals have written to Heath Secretary Wes Streeting after the Court of Appeal Verdict voicing their opinion on the safety of the verdict. This includes several leading Consultant Neonatologists, several senior neonatal nurses. Public Health Professionals, GPs, Biochemists, a leading Government Microbiologist and lawyers. Prominent statisticians have described as fallacious a shift table shown to the jury implicating Letby because she was the “one constant presence” when babies died or collapsed. The Countess of Chester Hospital worried by a spike in deaths, commissioned a review from the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health (RCPCH) in July 2016. It found the unit was very short of nursing staff and that consultants were spread too thinly between the paediatric ward and the neonatal unit. Junior staff did not feel they could call in consultants, often leaving the unit in the care of mid-grade doctors, many of whom lacked sufficient experience, the review reported. Many of these Professional Experts are suggesting Letby is innocent because they did not sit through the proceedings and did not have access to the extensive case notes used by the expert witnesses. I presume neither did you You like the Judge are hanging your hat on the Insulin Tests.Judge Goss directed the jury that if they concluded that Letby had deliberately harmed babies one way, they could also conclude that she had inflicted deliberate harm on others, even if jurors were not certain of her methods. The insulin cases were the first on which the jury reached a verdict, of attempted murder, and they were unanimous. Both babies survived. Letby was found guilty of sabotaging two babies by giving them synthetic insulin, causing them to suffer dangerously low blood sugar levels hypoglycaemia The prosecution presented two test results, the only empirical scientific evidence in the case. An expert witness in court said the test results indicated that a steady flow of synthetic insulin had been administered. Biochemists testified in court that the lab that conducted them was accurate and working well. But while the test results had provided a helpful clinical guide for diagnosing hypoglycaemia, the type of test used does not measure insulin itself. Instead it measures antibodies to insulin and can cross-react with other molecules. Several experts challenged the use of results from this type of immunoassay test as evidence of crime, including the forensic scientist Prof Alan Wayne Jones, who is one of Europe’s foremost experts on toxicology and insulin. He has written about the limitations of immunoassay tests in criminal convictions, and said they needed to be verified by a more specific analytical method to provide binding evidence in criminal cases. What gives you certainty on the Insulin cases being the Smoking Gun when Professor Alan Wayne Jones a Leading Expert on Toxicology and Insulin says the Tests undertaken were flawed? It appears to me that overall the Jury probably reached the correct Verdict based on the Evidence and how it was presented and how they were directed by the Judge In my opinion there are serious question marks which have arisen subsequently on the surety of that evidence with regard to Insulin Testing, and I agree it is crucial being the first decided by the Jury, the significance of differing types of Skin Discoloration and the Statistical Evidence presented even it's accurate which there is now some doubt but also the exclusion of other Employees shift pattern when other Babies died. None of this was the fault of the Jury. I think the most sensible course of action is for the CCRC to review all aspects of the case and interview other experts if necessary because the Thirwell Inquiry has a completely different Terms of Reference |
|
|
|
Post by middleoftheboothen on Sept 15, 2024 12:06:36 GMT
The question that remains unanswered by anybody is why would she do it? Police will always look for means, opportunity and motive for committing a crime during initial investigations. She certainly had the means and opportunity but motive was never established. Whilst finding a motive is not required to reach a verdict, Lucy Letby was ostensibly a respected, caring, fun loving and popular nurse & friend to her colleagues. It’s mystifying that there was never a motive. Even Harold Shipman was shown to have had a motive, albeit after his conviction. What was the motive for Harold Shipman? A quick google search by myself shows plenty of different theories but no clear motive. That Letby was seemingly a nice person doesn’t really mean much does it. Ted Bundy was charming and charismatic to those who knew him. I’ve touched on it above but even before thinking about what any motivations of the police and medical experts would be to condemn an innocent young woman to die in prison we can just look at the NHS. The notion that the NHS and the Countess hospital would have decided that throwing an innocent woman under the bus, and being known for harbouring a serial killer is somehow preferential to having bad publicity as a result of a spike in neonatal deaths for other potential reasons is a mental thing to believe. Especially considering an inquiry like the one going on right now was always going to happen and potential failings within the NHS are going to come out in the wash anyway. There have been plenty of serial killers who have been married with children and their families have known nothing of their dark side let alone work colleagues. The point you make about her being a nice person meaning nothing is exactly right mate. |
|
|
|
Post by lawrieleslie on Sept 15, 2024 12:25:02 GMT
The question that remains unanswered by anybody is why would she do it? Police will always look for means, opportunity and motive for committing a crime during initial investigations. She certainly had the means and opportunity but motive was never established. Whilst finding a motive is not required to reach a verdict, Lucy Letby was ostensibly a respected, caring, fun loving and popular nurse & friend to her colleagues. It’s mystifying that there was never a motive. Even Harold Shipman was shown to have had a motive, albeit after his conviction. What was the motive for Harold Shipman? A quick google search by myself shows plenty of different theories but no clear motive. That Letby was seemingly a nice person doesn’t really mean much does it. Ted Bundy was charming and charismatic to those who knew him. I’ve touched on it above but even before thinking about what any motivations of the police and medical experts would be to condemn an innocent young woman to die in prison we can just look at the NHS. The notion that the NHS and the Countess hospital would have decided that throwing an innocent woman under the bus, and being known for harbouring a serial killer is somehow preferential to having bad publicity as a result of a spike in neonatal deaths for other potential reasons is a mental thing to believe. Especially considering an inquiry like the one going on right now was always going to happen and potential failings within the NHS are going to come out in the wash anyway. Shipman forging a will leaving him £386k and also stealing valuable jewellery from some of his victims suggest motivation to me for some of his crimes. In addition I’m not questioning any of the reasoning behind NHS & Countess Hospital nor motivations of police & medical experts. So where do you get this from to suggest it’s "a mental thing to believe". You’re making things up as you go along. All I asked in my previous post was that it remains unanswered as to what Lucy Letby's motivation was to kill innocent babies. I’m not commenting on her guilt or innocence. |
|
|
|
Post by Biblical on Sept 15, 2024 14:08:35 GMT
I took an interest in this case when I saw quite a number of people claimimg it was a clear and obvious miscarriage of justice. The more I’ve looked into the case the more I’m convinced Letby is guilty. If Letby is innocent it is probably the greatest conspiracy of all time. Doctors who raised the alarm have a grudge Dewi Evans is a grifter making stuff up Experts who agree with him - groupthink Tests that prove insulin was administered - unreliable Confession notes - told to do so by councillor Letby’s Lawyer is useless The smoking gun is, and always has been the insulin poisoning cases. Letby and her defence fought robustly against the scientific basis and expert opinion for air embolism cases, both in trial and at appeal. When it comes to the insulin poisoning cases Letby initially said the test results must be unreliable but once the evidence had been clearly established, when it came to the cross examination, Letby confirmed she accepted the results of the tests and that someone deliberately harmed the babies, she just denied that it was her. People wondering if she is innocent have to ask themselves why she would accept the scientific basis for insulin poisoning but not air embolus. If anyone has a reasonable answer the floor is yours. There are alot of suggestions that the Insulin tests used shouldn't be used for the purposes they were and can't be considered accurate or something? Have you read anything like this? Also seen some suggestions that Lucy was being implied/alleged of the deaths before any insulin or other tests were done? Again not sure if accurate. But sort of paints picture that it was the rota which pointed to Lucy and the other evidence came afterwards which fits the narrative of trying to find evidence to show her guilty. Rather than the evidence leading to her. Not sure if that makes sense. I'm open minded. Seems that depending on where you look there are different echo Chambers pushing different arguments but not really debating eachother Richard Gill, the statistician who helped free a paediatric nurse in Holland, Lucia De Berk is making a few different claims with regards to the insulin stuff. His first point of contention is that the testing kit used from the trial has the following instructions as per the pdf link below. pathlabs.rlbuht.nhs.uk/insulin.pdfThe bit highlighted in red on the form says ‘Please note the insulin assay performed at RLUH is not suitable for the investigation of factitious. If exogenous insulin administration is suspected as the cause of hypoglycaemia please inform the laboratory so the sample can be referred for analysis’ Gill contends that the test results should have been sent to the Guildford lab, but it wasn’t, for him this means the evidence used in trial violates the code of practice of the UK’s Forensic Science Regulator and as such should have been deemed inadmissible. Richard Gill also points to the hook effect, a phenomenon that can occur in laboratory assays when there is too much substance compared to the antibodies used to detect it. So basically there is so much c-peptide that it results in a low reading. We’ve also got Professor Alan Jones, an expert in forensic chemistry saying ‘Positive immunoassay results are not sufficient as binding toxicological evidence of foul play in a criminal prosecution for murder’ Before going onto the counter arguments it’s worth pointing out a few things. Richard Gill is a statistician with no grounding in medicine, biochemistry or clinical lab medicine. Alan Jones is someone who has written a single literature review in the context of a separate insulin case and whose primary research is on alcohol poisoning. He’s well out of his lane of expertise. I haven’t seen any expert in endocrinology or diabetes say the results can’t be trusted, because it’s not true. But let’s sort out why Richard Gill is wrong. Gill is using the wording in red as some big gotcha but it’s not. Now the bit in red is true, the lab couldn’t determine what type of insulin it was, so it couldn’t determine whether it was produced from the body or exogenously, only that the insulin level was very high. Taken alone it wouldn’t be a valid test to state it was exogenous insulin. However, the very same lab under the c-peptide ratio page it clearly states that low and c-peptide and high insulin can be interpreted as exogenous insulin. It is the ratio of c-peptide and high insulin that shows the insulin is exogenous (unnatural) which means the babies in question were categorically poisoned with insulin. Now let’s go back to the hook effect, it’s a possibility and as such needs an expert to check the results before coming to a conclusion. This is exactly what the expert witness Professor Hindmarsh, a consultant paediatric endocrine and diabetes expert did. We can also address the Liverpool and Guildford lab stuff just for extra security. During the trial there was a lab representative from the Guildford lab, Dr Gwen Wark, who is an expert on insulin and she spoke about the assessments that Guildford lab performs on a 4-6 week basis to ensure that the results produced by the Liverpool Royal Hospital are accurate. Also during the trial, Dr Anna Milan, the person who tested the results made it clear that tho referral to the Guildford lab is optional and that the immunoassay used was confirmatory. The only thing a referral to Guildford lab and retesting would do is tell you the type of insulin present, which isn’t necessary because the ratio between c-peptide and insulin already confirms it was insulin poisoning. To really ram home that the results can be trusted I’ve taken the below from this article. www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/lucy-letby-evidence-against-case-h2hzsbm00‘Keith Frayn, an emeritus professor of human metabolism at the University of Oxford who has been using immunoassay for insulin since the 1970’s, 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 agreed with other experts that follow-up insulin assays to confirm results would have been desirable but insisted that in both cases were so far outside the margin of error that it is unlikely to have made a difference. Apologies for yet another long post but I’m sure everyone appreciates the context is important. In summary, there is absolutely no doubt that those babies were poisoned with insulin. It’s why Letby confirms under cross-examination that she accepts the results of the tests and her only defence in cross-examination is just to say she didn’t do it. There were only two nurses in common both times the babies were poisoned, Letby and one other, who was obviously ruled out. Letby is guilty of the insulin poisonings at the very least. |
|
|
|
Post by Gawa on Sept 15, 2024 14:15:01 GMT
Thank you for your replies  |
|
|
|
Post by Biblical on Sept 15, 2024 14:21:28 GMT
I took an interest in this case when I saw quite a number of people claimimg it was a clear and obvious miscarriage of justice. The more I’ve looked into the case the more I’m convinced Letby is guilty. If Letby is innocent it is probably the greatest conspiracy of all time. Doctors who raised the alarm have a grudge Dewi Evans is a grifter making stuff up Experts who agree with him - groupthink Tests that prove insulin was administered - unreliable Confession notes - told to do so by councillor Letby’s Lawyer is useless The smoking gun is, and always has been the insulin poisoning cases. Letby and her defence fought robustly against the scientific basis and expert opinion for air embolism cases, both in trial and at appeal. When it comes to the insulin poisoning cases Letby initially said the test results must be unreliable but once the evidence had been clearly established, when it came to the cross examination, Letby confirmed she accepted the results of the tests and that someone deliberately harmed the babies, she just denied that it was her. People wondering if she is innocent have to ask themselves why she would accept the scientific basis for insulin poisoning but not air embolus. If anyone has a reasonable answer the floor is yours. Thank you for providing such detailed Medical knowledge and certainty of Letby's Guilt. Yet literally dozens of Medical and other Professionals have written to Heath Secretary Wes Streeting after the Court of Appeal Verdict voicing their opinion on the safety of the verdict. This includes several leading Consultant Neonatologists, several senior neonatal nurses. Public Health Professionals, GPs, Biochemists, a leading Government Microbiologist and lawyers. Prominent statisticians have described as fallacious a shift table shown to the jury implicating Letby because she was the “one constant presence” when babies died or collapsed. The Countess of Chester Hospital worried by a spike in deaths, commissioned a review from the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health (RCPCH) in July 2016. It found the unit was very short of nursing staff and that consultants were spread too thinly between the paediatric ward and the neonatal unit. Junior staff did not feel they could call in consultants, often leaving the unit in the care of mid-grade doctors, many of whom lacked sufficient experience, the review reported. Many of these Professional Experts are suggesting Letby is innocent because they did not sit through the proceedings and did not have access to the extensive case notes used by the expert witnesses. I presume neither did you You like the Judge are hanging your hat on the Insulin Tests.Judge Goss directed the jury that if they concluded that Letby had deliberately harmed babies one way, they could also conclude that she had inflicted deliberate harm on others, even if jurors were not certain of her methods. The insulin cases were the first on which the jury reached a verdict, of attempted murder, and they were unanimous. Both babies survived. Letby was found guilty of sabotaging two babies by giving them synthetic insulin, causing them to suffer dangerously low blood sugar levels hypoglycaemia The prosecution presented two test results, the only empirical scientific evidence in the case. An expert witness in court said the test results indicated that a steady flow of synthetic insulin had been administered. Biochemists testified in court that the lab that conducted them was accurate and working well. But while the test results had provided a helpful clinical guide for diagnosing hypoglycaemia, the type of test used does not measure insulin itself. Instead it measures antibodies to insulin and can cross-react with other molecules. Several experts challenged the use of results from this type of immunoassay test as evidence of crime, including the forensic scientist Prof Alan Wayne Jones, who is one of Europe’s foremost experts on toxicology and insulin. He has written about the limitations of immunoassay tests in criminal convictions, and said they needed to be verified by a more specific analytical method to provide binding evidence in criminal cases. What gives you certainty on the Insulin cases being the Smoking Gun when Professor Alan Wayne Jones a Leading Expert on Toxicology and Insulin says the Tests undertaken were flawed? It appears to me that overall the Jury probably reached the correct Verdict based on the Evidence and how it was presented and how they were directed by the Judge In my opinion there are serious question marks which have arisen subsequently on the surety of that evidence with regard to Insulin Testing, and I agree it is crucial being the first decided by the Jury, the significance of differing types of Skin Discoloration and the Statistical Evidence presented even it's accurate which there is now some doubt but also the exclusion of other Employees shift pattern when other Babies died. None of this was the fault of the Jury. I think the most sensible course of action is for the CCRC to review all aspects of the case and interview other experts if necessary because the Thirwell Inquiry has a completely different Terms of Reference I’ve addressed the insulin poisonings and Alan Wayne Jones in my previous response to gawa, you should check it out. Every expert objection that I have seen to the Letby verdict comes from people who have basic misunderstandings of the trial and what the case was and haven’t even bothered to try and look at the whole prosecution case. Your guy Richard Gill falls firmly into that category as I’ve also quite clearly been able to demonstrate. Did you also know that the New Yorker have had to redact what they said about Dr Lee’s evidence in that infamous article after concerns were raised to them by the Court of Appeal. I wonder why? (It’s rhetorical btw) |
|
|
|
Post by Gawa on Sept 15, 2024 14:51:23 GMT
There are alot of suggestions that the Insulin tests used shouldn't be used for the purposes they were and can't be considered accurate or something? Have you read anything like this? Also seen some suggestions that Lucy was being implied/alleged of the deaths before any insulin or other tests were done? Again not sure if accurate. But sort of paints picture that it was the rota which pointed to Lucy and the other evidence came afterwards which fits the narrative of trying to find evidence to show her guilty. Rather than the evidence leading to her. Not sure if that makes sense. I'm open minded. Seems that depending on where you look there are different echo Chambers pushing different arguments but not really debating eachother Richard Gill, the statistician who helped free a paediatric nurse in Holland, Lucia De Berk is making a few different claims with regards to the insulin stuff. His first point of contention is that the testing kit used from the trial has the following instructions as per the pdf link below. pathlabs.rlbuht.nhs.uk/insulin.pdfThe bit highlighted in red on the form says ‘Please note the insulin assay performed at RLUH is not suitable for the investigation of factitious. If exogenous insulin administration is suspected as the cause of hypoglycaemia please inform the laboratory so the sample can be referred for analysis’ Gill contends that the test results should have been sent to the Guildford lab, but it wasn’t, for him this means the evidence used in trial violates the code of practice of the UK’s Forensic Science Regulator and as such should have been deemed inadmissible. Richard Gill also points to the hook effect, a phenomenon that can occur in laboratory assays when there is too much substance compared to the antibodies used to detect it. So basically there is so much c-peptide that it results in a low reading. We’ve also got Professor Alan Jones, an expert in forensic chemistry saying ‘Positive immunoassay results are not sufficient as binding toxicological evidence of foul play in a criminal prosecution for murder’ Before going onto the counter arguments it’s worth pointing out a few things. Richard Gill is a statistician with no grounding in medicine, biochemistry or clinical lab medicine. Alan Jones is someone who has written a single literature review in the context of a separate insulin case and whose primary research is on alcohol poisoning. He’s well out of his lane of expertise. I haven’t seen any expert in endocrinology or diabetes say the results can’t be trusted, because it’s not true. But let’s sort out why Richard Gill is wrong. Gill is using the wording in red as some big gotcha but it’s not. Now the bit in red is true, the lab couldn’t determine what type of insulin it was, so it couldn’t determine whether it was produced from the body or exogenously, only that the insulin level was very high. Taken alone it wouldn’t be a valid test to state it was exogenous insulin. However, the very same lab under the c-peptide ratio page it clearly states that low and c-peptide and high insulin can be interpreted as exogenous insulin. It is the ratio of c-peptide and high insulin that shows the insulin is exogenous (unnatural) which means the babies in question were categorically poisoned with insulin. Now let’s go back to the hook effect, it’s a possibility and as such needs an expert to check the results before coming to a conclusion. This is exactly what the expert witness Professor Hindmarsh, a consultant paediatric endocrine and diabetes expert did. We can also address the Liverpool and Guildford lab stuff just for extra security. During the trial there was a lab representative from the Guildford lab, Dr Gwen Wark, who is an expert on insulin and she spoke about the assessments that Guildford lab performs on a 4-6 week basis to ensure that the results produced by the Liverpool Royal Hospital are accurate. Also during the trial, Dr Anna Milan, the person who tested the results made it clear that tho referral to the Guildford lab is optional and that the immunoassay used was confirmatory. The only thing a referral to Guildford lab and retesting would do is tell you the type of insulin present, which isn’t necessary because the ratio between c-peptide and insulin already confirms it was insulin poisoning. To really ram home that the results can be trusted I’ve taken the below from this article. www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/lucy-letby-evidence-against-case-h2hzsbm00‘Keith Frayn, an emeritus professor of human metabolism at the University of Oxford who has been using immunoassay for insulin since the 1970’s, 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 agreed with other experts that follow-up insulin assays to confirm results would have been desirable but insisted that in both cases were so far outside the margin of error that it is unlikely to have made a difference. Apologies for yet another long post but I’m sure everyone appreciates the context is important. In summary, there is absolutely no doubt that those babies were poisoned with insulin. It’s why Letby confirms under cross-examination that she accepts the results of the tests and her only defence in cross-examination is just to say she didn’t do it. There were only two nurses in common both times the babies were poisoned, Letby and one other, who was obviously ruled out. Letby is guilty of the insulin poisonings at the very least. So what I'd ask is: - How many of the babies had high insulin levels and low c peptide levels? - Was the follow up test for exogenous insulin administered in any of these cases? - Was high insulin listed as the cause of death in any of the original birth certificates? - Why did it take a shift rota for them to realise this pattern? - And if the tests are indictive of exogenous insulin administration which caused or contributed to death. Why was that missed and the follow up tests not conducted at the time in any of the cases? - The fact that no follow up lab test was done and that it wasn't listed in original causes of death just gives more pressing questions about whether it's as indictive as made out (if so how does it get missed every time?) And serious malpractice that not once nor twice but on every occasion the follow up lab tests weren't done. - and above all else does sending the tests to a lab not ensure that standardised process is followed and rule out any potential of sample or handling errors? - So surely does that not give concern that the evidence which is being used to find her guilty could have went through further testing, as recommended, on every single occasion to rule out human error. But not once was it done. - And yes you could then say, "but what are the odds that there was human error or an issue with the sample on every test?" - I'd respond "What are the chances that on every occasion the tests indicated erogenous insulin administration, not once was standard procedure followed and not once was the high insulin considered a cause of death at the time of testing. So if they can get that wrong on every child then yes I can see why they could get the blood tests wrong too. There's a reason they're recommended to go to a lab, to remove this doubt." Please correct me if my line of thought or questioning is wrong there. You know the case much better than me. I'm making a few assumptions above. |
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Sept 15, 2024 15:51:44 GMT
Thank you for providing such detailed Medical knowledge and certainty of Letby's Guilt. Yet literally dozens of Medical and other Professionals have written to Heath Secretary Wes Streeting after the Court of Appeal Verdict voicing their opinion on the safety of the verdict. This includes several leading Consultant Neonatologists, several senior neonatal nurses. Public Health Professionals, GPs, Biochemists, a leading Government Microbiologist and lawyers. Prominent statisticians have described as fallacious a shift table shown to the jury implicating Letby because she was the “one constant presence” when babies died or collapsed. The Countess of Chester Hospital worried by a spike in deaths, commissioned a review from the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health (RCPCH) in July 2016. It found the unit was very short of nursing staff and that consultants were spread too thinly between the paediatric ward and the neonatal unit. Junior staff did not feel they could call in consultants, often leaving the unit in the care of mid-grade doctors, many of whom lacked sufficient experience, the review reported. Many of these Professional Experts are suggesting Letby is innocent because they did not sit through the proceedings and did not have access to the extensive case notes used by the expert witnesses. I presume neither did you You like the Judge are hanging your hat on the Insulin Tests.Judge Goss directed the jury that if they concluded that Letby had deliberately harmed babies one way, they could also conclude that she had inflicted deliberate harm on others, even if jurors were not certain of her methods. The insulin cases were the first on which the jury reached a verdict, of attempted murder, and they were unanimous. Both babies survived. Letby was found guilty of sabotaging two babies by giving them synthetic insulin, causing them to suffer dangerously low blood sugar levels hypoglycaemia The prosecution presented two test results, the only empirical scientific evidence in the case. An expert witness in court said the test results indicated that a steady flow of synthetic insulin had been administered. Biochemists testified in court that the lab that conducted them was accurate and working well. But while the test results had provided a helpful clinical guide for diagnosing hypoglycaemia, the type of test used does not measure insulin itself. Instead it measures antibodies to insulin and can cross-react with other molecules. Several experts challenged the use of results from this type of immunoassay test as evidence of crime, including the forensic scientist Prof Alan Wayne Jones, who is one of Europe’s foremost experts on toxicology and insulin. He has written about the limitations of immunoassay tests in criminal convictions, and said they needed to be verified by a more specific analytical method to provide binding evidence in criminal cases. What gives you certainty on the Insulin cases being the Smoking Gun when Professor Alan Wayne Jones a Leading Expert on Toxicology and Insulin says the Tests undertaken were flawed? It appears to me that overall the Jury probably reached the correct Verdict based on the Evidence and how it was presented and how they were directed by the Judge In my opinion there are serious question marks which have arisen subsequently on the surety of that evidence with regard to Insulin Testing, and I agree it is crucial being the first decided by the Jury, the significance of differing types of Skin Discoloration and the Statistical Evidence presented even it's accurate which there is now some doubt but also the exclusion of other Employees shift pattern when other Babies died. None of this was the fault of the Jury. I think the most sensible course of action is for the CCRC to review all aspects of the case and interview other experts if necessary because the Thirwell Inquiry has a completely different Terms of Reference I’ve addressed the insulin poisonings and Alan Wayne Jones in my previous response to gawa, you should check it out. Every expert objection that I have seen to the Letby verdict comes from people who have basic misunderstandings of the trial and what the case was and haven’t even bothered to try and look at the whole prosecution case. Your guy Richard Gill falls firmly into that category as I’ve also quite clearly been able to demonstrate. Did you also know that the New Yorker have had to redact what they said about Dr Lee’s evidence in that infamous article after concerns were raised to them by the Court of Appeal. I wonder why? (It’s rhetorical btw) You are being disingenuous regarding Professor Alan Wayne Jones area of expertise and the field in which he works Jones received a PhD in chemistry in 1974 he recently retired from his position as Senior Scientist at the Division of Forensic Genetics and Forensic Chemistry at the Swedish National Board of Forensic Medicine Jones is also a guest professor in Forensic Toxicology at the University of Health Sciences (Department of Clinical Pharmacology) of the University of Linköping This is PRECISELY the field that would have analysed the Insulin Test Results What on Earth other Field of Science would be involved in the Insulin Testing other than Forensic Toxicology Professor Jones pointed out that the test used measures the body’s reaction to insulin rather than the substance itself. "The problem is that the method of analysis used [in these two babies cases] was probably perfectly good from a clinical point of view, but not a forensic toxicology point of view," he said. "That test cannot differentiate between synthetic insulin and insulin produced by the pancreas." The testing lab’s own website states that if synthetic insulin is suspected, the results should be verified externally by a specialist centre.
Professor Jones said he has no doubt they suffered sharp drops in blood sugar levels, but that there could be another natural explanation for why that had happened. I know from my own knowledge that Sepsis causes high levels of Insulin. Many if not all of the babies at Countess of Chester during that period whether attended to or not by Letby suffered from Sepsis which would have shown the same signs and tests results. We know the two babies Letby was convicted of attempted Murder recovered, we do not know if the other Babies with Sepsis that Letby wasn't assigned recovered or not and it's curious none were considered suspicious although they presented with the same symptoms I have no idea what New Yorker Magazine may or may not have redacted in it's Article. It doesn't change anything what Dr Lee said in his Oral Evidence to the Court of Appeal |
|
|
|
Post by Biblical on Sept 15, 2024 16:25:12 GMT
Richard Gill, the statistician who helped free a paediatric nurse in Holland, Lucia De Berk is making a few different claims with regards to the insulin stuff. His first point of contention is that the testing kit used from the trial has the following instructions as per the pdf link below. pathlabs.rlbuht.nhs.uk/insulin.pdfThe bit highlighted in red on the form says ‘Please note the insulin assay performed at RLUH is not suitable for the investigation of factitious. If exogenous insulin administration is suspected as the cause of hypoglycaemia please inform the laboratory so the sample can be referred for analysis’ Gill contends that the test results should have been sent to the Guildford lab, but it wasn’t, for him this means the evidence used in trial violates the code of practice of the UK’s Forensic Science Regulator and as such should have been deemed inadmissible. Richard Gill also points to the hook effect, a phenomenon that can occur in laboratory assays when there is too much substance compared to the antibodies used to detect it. So basically there is so much c-peptide that it results in a low reading. We’ve also got Professor Alan Jones, an expert in forensic chemistry saying ‘Positive immunoassay results are not sufficient as binding toxicological evidence of foul play in a criminal prosecution for murder’ Before going onto the counter arguments it’s worth pointing out a few things. Richard Gill is a statistician with no grounding in medicine, biochemistry or clinical lab medicine. Alan Jones is someone who has written a single literature review in the context of a separate insulin case and whose primary research is on alcohol poisoning. He’s well out of his lane of expertise. I haven’t seen any expert in endocrinology or diabetes say the results can’t be trusted, because it’s not true. But let’s sort out why Richard Gill is wrong. Gill is using the wording in red as some big gotcha but it’s not. Now the bit in red is true, the lab couldn’t determine what type of insulin it was, so it couldn’t determine whether it was produced from the body or exogenously, only that the insulin level was very high. Taken alone it wouldn’t be a valid test to state it was exogenous insulin. However, the very same lab under the c-peptide ratio page it clearly states that low and c-peptide and high insulin can be interpreted as exogenous insulin. It is the ratio of c-peptide and high insulin that shows the insulin is exogenous (unnatural) which means the babies in question were categorically poisoned with insulin. Now let’s go back to the hook effect, it’s a possibility and as such needs an expert to check the results before coming to a conclusion. This is exactly what the expert witness Professor Hindmarsh, a consultant paediatric endocrine and diabetes expert did. We can also address the Liverpool and Guildford lab stuff just for extra security. During the trial there was a lab representative from the Guildford lab, Dr Gwen Wark, who is an expert on insulin and she spoke about the assessments that Guildford lab performs on a 4-6 week basis to ensure that the results produced by the Liverpool Royal Hospital are accurate. Also during the trial, Dr Anna Milan, the person who tested the results made it clear that tho referral to the Guildford lab is optional and that the immunoassay used was confirmatory. The only thing a referral to Guildford lab and retesting would do is tell you the type of insulin present, which isn’t necessary because the ratio between c-peptide and insulin already confirms it was insulin poisoning. To really ram home that the results can be trusted I’ve taken the below from this article. www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/lucy-letby-evidence-against-case-h2hzsbm00‘Keith Frayn, an emeritus professor of human metabolism at the University of Oxford who has been using immunoassay for insulin since the 1970’s, 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 agreed with other experts that follow-up insulin assays to confirm results would have been desirable but insisted that in both cases were so far outside the margin of error that it is unlikely to have made a difference. Apologies for yet another long post but I’m sure everyone appreciates the context is important. In summary, there is absolutely no doubt that those babies were poisoned with insulin. It’s why Letby confirms under cross-examination that she accepts the results of the tests and her only defence in cross-examination is just to say she didn’t do it. There were only two nurses in common both times the babies were poisoned, Letby and one other, who was obviously ruled out. Letby is guilty of the insulin poisonings at the very least. So what I'd ask is: - How many of the babies had high insulin levels and low c peptide levels? - Was the follow up test for exogenous insulin administered in any of these cases? - Was high insulin listed as the cause of death in any of the original birth certificates? - Why did it take a shift rota for them to realise this pattern? - And if the tests are indictive of exogenous insulin administration which caused or contributed to death. Why was that missed and the follow up tests not conducted at the time in any of the cases? - The fact that no follow up lab test was done and that it wasn't listed in original causes of death just gives more pressing questions about whether it's as indictive as made out (if so how does it get missed every time?) And serious malpractice that not once nor twice but on every occasion the follow up lab tests weren't done. - and above all else does sending the tests to a lab not ensure that standardised process is followed and rule out any potential of sample or handling errors? - So surely does that not give concern that the evidence which is being used to find her guilty could have went through further testing, as recommended, on every single occasion to rule out human error. But not once was it done. - And yes you could then say, "but what are the odds that there was human error or an issue with the sample on every test?" - I'd respond "What are the chances that on every occasion the tests indicated erogenous insulin administration, not once was standard procedure followed and not once was the high insulin considered a cause of death at the time of testing. So if they can get that wrong on every child then yes I can see why they could get the blood tests wrong too. There's a reason they're recommended to go to a lab, to remove this doubt." Please correct me if my line of thought or questioning is wrong there. You know the case much better than me. I'm making a few assumptions above. Two cases. The babies didn’t die, the guilty verdicts were for attempted murder. The babies recovered quickly when Letby wasn’t on shift and didn’t have the opportunity to poison them. The staff identified the low blood sugar and treated them accordingly. The insulin wasn’t supposed to be in the medication they were receiving so the administration of insulin wouldn’t have been suspected by the hospital staff at the time. It’s only been identified by Dr Evans when he’s reviewed the cases for the investigation. |
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Sept 15, 2024 16:56:03 GMT
If we accepted that Letby is not guilty, what is the alternative? That a hospital was really THAT bad that it caused the deaths of a high number of babies over a certain period? If, since Letby was arrested, those death rates have decreased it would surely still have to point towards her? Or is it just a massive coincidence that the hospital happened to get its shit together and resolve all the issues it had, after Letby got arrested? I think you may have hit the nail on the head Gary and it wouldn't be the first time a Miscarriage of Justice was at the heart of unaccepting a more obvious answer you state in your second sentence Many Statisticians are suggesting that the number of babies deaths which would have been expected of 4 and jumped to 13 was not necessarily a spike. The Countess of Chester originally asked the RCPCH to conduct an inquiry and they found chronic understaffing and dysfunctional operations. The Police Inquiry which followed directed by Dr Evans found evidence of foul play so a suspect needed to be found. The rest is history. In 1980 in the Court of Appeal Lord Denning made his infamous comments regarding the Birmingham Six His view was that If the six men win, it will mean that the police are guilty of perjury, that they are guilty of violence and threats, that the confessions were invented and improperly admitted in evidence and the convictions were erroneous... This is such an Appalling Vista that every sensible person in the land would say that it cannot be right that these actions should go any further. In other words if he were to even consider the six evidence truthful it would lead to breakdown within Society because they would no longer be able to trust the Police and Judiciary He went on to that "We shouldn't have all these campaigns to get the Birmingham Six released if they'd been hanged. They'd have been forgotten and the whole community would have been satisfied." Which meant that if the Birmingham Six had hung there wouldn't have been any fuss about their conviction and Society would be better off. The convictions were finally overturned 11 years later after it was shown that the police had indeed done all the things Denning described, and he admitted that the West Midlands Police force had "let us all down” I have no confidence that the current Thirwell Inquiry will be of any benefit other than a cover up. |
|
|
|
Post by Biblical on Sept 15, 2024 16:57:56 GMT
I’ve addressed the insulin poisonings and Alan Wayne Jones in my previous response to gawa, you should check it out. Every expert objection that I have seen to the Letby verdict comes from people who have basic misunderstandings of the trial and what the case was and haven’t even bothered to try and look at the whole prosecution case. Your guy Richard Gill falls firmly into that category as I’ve also quite clearly been able to demonstrate. Did you also know that the New Yorker have had to redact what they said about Dr Lee’s evidence in that infamous article after concerns were raised to them by the Court of Appeal. I wonder why? (It’s rhetorical btw) You are being disingenuous regarding Professor Alan Wayne Jones area of expertise and the field in which he works Jones received a PhD in chemistry in 1974 he recently retired from his position as Senior Scientist at the Division of Forensic Genetics and Forensic Chemistry at the Swedish National Board of Forensic Medicine Jones is also a guest professor in Forensic Toxicology at the University of Health Sciences (Department of Clinical Pharmacology) of the University of Linköping This is PRECISELY the field that would have analysed the Insulin Test Results What on Earth other Field of Science would be involved in the Insulin Testing other than Forensic Toxicology Professor Jones pointed out that the test used measures the body’s reaction to insulin rather than the substance itself. "The problem is that the method of analysis used [in these two babies cases] was probably perfectly good from a clinical point of view, but not a forensic toxicology point of view," he said. "That test cannot differentiate between synthetic insulin and insulin produced by the pancreas." The testing lab’s own website states that if synthetic insulin is suspected, the results should be verified externally by a specialist centre.
Professor Jones said he has no doubt they suffered sharp drops in blood sugar levels, but that there could be another natural explanation for why that had happened. I know from my own knowledge that Sepsis causes high levels of Insulin. Many if not all of the babies at Countess of Chester during that period whether attended to or not by Letby suffered from Sepsis which would have shown the same signs and tests results. We know the two babies Letby was convicted of attempted Murder recovered, we do not know if the other Babies with Sepsis that Letby wasn't assigned recovered or not and it's curious none were considered suspicious although they presented with the same symptoms I have no idea what New Yorker Magazine may or may not have redacted in it's Article. It doesn't change anything what Dr Lee said in his Oral Evidence to the Court of Appeal I’ve dealt the points you’re raising already, you either haven’t read the post properly or you’re not capable of basic comprehension. The ratio of c-peptide to insulin determines if it is exogenous or not. High insulin and low c-peptide means the insulin was exogenous. The specialist centre you think it should have been sent to confirmed that it didn’t need to be. Also when you say ‘Professor Jones pointed out that the test used measures the body’s reaction to insulin rather than the substance itself’ That doesn’t even make sense, it doesn’t measure the body’s reaction to it. I can tell that’s just the way you’ve interpreted it because you’re not very bright. You won’t be able to quote him saying that ‘it measures the body’s reaction to insulin’ because that’s not what he said. What the test does do is identify the level of insulin and c-peptide and from those readings you can calculate the ratio of insulin to c-peptide and therefore determine whether it’s exogenous or not. You really are humiliating yourself time after time at this point. |
|
|
|
Post by mickeythemaestro on Sept 15, 2024 17:05:01 GMT
You are being disingenuous regarding Professor Alan Wayne Jones area of expertise and the field in which he works Jones received a PhD in chemistry in 1974 he recently retired from his position as Senior Scientist at the Division of Forensic Genetics and Forensic Chemistry at the Swedish National Board of Forensic Medicine Jones is also a guest professor in Forensic Toxicology at the University of Health Sciences (Department of Clinical Pharmacology) of the University of Linköping This is PRECISELY the field that would have analysed the Insulin Test Results What on Earth other Field of Science would be involved in the Insulin Testing other than Forensic Toxicology Professor Jones pointed out that the test used measures the body’s reaction to insulin rather than the substance itself. "The problem is that the method of analysis used [in these two babies cases] was probably perfectly good from a clinical point of view, but not a forensic toxicology point of view," he said. "That test cannot differentiate between synthetic insulin and insulin produced by the pancreas." The testing lab’s own website states that if synthetic insulin is suspected, the results should be verified externally by a specialist centre.
Professor Jones said he has no doubt they suffered sharp drops in blood sugar levels, but that there could be another natural explanation for why that had happened. I know from my own knowledge that Sepsis causes high levels of Insulin. Many if not all of the babies at Countess of Chester during that period whether attended to or not by Letby suffered from Sepsis which would have shown the same signs and tests results. We know the two babies Letby was convicted of attempted Murder recovered, we do not know if the other Babies with Sepsis that Letby wasn't assigned recovered or not and it's curious none were considered suspicious although they presented with the same symptoms I have no idea what New Yorker Magazine may or may not have redacted in it's Article. It doesn't change anything what Dr Lee said in his Oral Evidence to the Court of Appeal I’ve dealt the points you’re raising already, you either haven’t read the post properly or you’re not capable of basic comprehension. The ratio of c-peptide to insulin determines if it is exogenous or not. High insulin and low c-peptide means the insulin was exogenous. The specialist centre you think it should have been sent to confirmed that it didn’t need to be. Also when you say ‘Professor Jones pointed out that the test used measures the body’s reaction to insulin rather than the substance itself’ That doesn’t even make sense, it doesn’t measure the body’s reaction to it. I can tell that’s just the way you’ve interpreted it because you’re not very bright. You won’t be able to quote him saying that ‘it measures the body’s reaction to insulin’ because that’s not what he said. What the test does do is identify the level of insulin and c-peptide and from those readings you can calculate the ratio of insulin to c-peptide and therefore determine whether it’s exogenous or not. You really are humiliating yourself time after time at this point. Bit rude you are 😆 |
|
|
|
Post by Biblical on Sept 15, 2024 17:10:59 GMT
I’ve dealt the points you’re raising already, you either haven’t read the post properly or you’re not capable of basic comprehension. The ratio of c-peptide to insulin determines if it is exogenous or not. High insulin and low c-peptide means the insulin was exogenous. The specialist centre you think it should have been sent to confirmed that it didn’t need to be. Also when you say ‘Professor Jones pointed out that the test used measures the body’s reaction to insulin rather than the substance itself’ That doesn’t even make sense, it doesn’t measure the body’s reaction to it. I can tell that’s just the way you’ve interpreted it because you’re not very bright. You won’t be able to quote him saying that ‘it measures the body’s reaction to insulin’ because that’s not what he said. What the test does do is identify the level of insulin and c-peptide and from those readings you can calculate the ratio of insulin to c-peptide and therefore determine whether it’s exogenous or not. You really are humiliating yourself time after time at this point. Bit rude you are 😆 Rude maybe, but I’m right. How dense do you have to be think that a test for insulin doesn’t actually determine if it’s there or not. How could they possibly do the calculations to determine if it’s exogenous if it doesn’t even detect that insulin is there. |
|
|
|
Post by redstriper on Sept 15, 2024 17:22:21 GMT
I'm following this exchange with interest.
Rick - Wannabee says that "Many if not all of the babies at Countess of Chester during that period whether attended to or not by Letby suffered from Sepsis".
Is that a fact ?? and is it normal for most babies in hospital to have it ?
|
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Sept 15, 2024 17:24:13 GMT
You are being disingenuous regarding Professor Alan Wayne Jones area of expertise and the field in which he works Jones received a PhD in chemistry in 1974 he recently retired from his position as Senior Scientist at the Division of Forensic Genetics and Forensic Chemistry at the Swedish National Board of Forensic Medicine Jones is also a guest professor in Forensic Toxicology at the University of Health Sciences (Department of Clinical Pharmacology) of the University of Linköping This is PRECISELY the field that would have analysed the Insulin Test Results What on Earth other Field of Science would be involved in the Insulin Testing other than Forensic Toxicology Professor Jones pointed out that the test used measures the body’s reaction to insulin rather than the substance itself. "The problem is that the method of analysis used [in these two babies cases] was probably perfectly good from a clinical point of view, but not a forensic toxicology point of view," he said "That test cannot differentiate between synthetic insulin and insulin produced by the pancreas." The testing lab’s own website states that if synthetic insulin is suspected, the results should be verified externally by a specialist centre.
Professor Jones said he has no doubt they suffered sharp drops in blood sugar levels, but that there could be another natural explanation for why that had happened. I know from my own knowledge that Sepsis causes high levels of Insulin. Many if not all of the babies at Countess of Chester during that period whether attended to or not by Letby suffered from Sepsis which would have shown the same signs and tests results. We know the two babies Letby was convicted of attempted Murder recovered, we do not know if the other Babies with Sepsis that Letby wasn't assigned recovered or not and it's curious none were considered suspicious although they presented with the same symptoms I have no idea what New Yorker Magazine may or may not have redacted in it's Article. It doesn't change anything what Dr Lee said in his Oral Evidence to the Court of Appeal I’ve dealt the points you’re raising already, you either haven’t read the post properly or you’re not capable of basic comprehension. The ratio of c-peptide to insulin determines if it is exogenous or not. High insulin and low c-peptide means the insulin was exogenous. The specialist centre you think it should have been sent to confirmed that it didn’t need to be. Also when you say ‘Professor Jones pointed out that the test used measures the body’s reaction to insulin rather than the substance itself’ That doesn’t even make sense, it doesn’t measure the body’s reaction to it. I can tell that’s just the way you’ve interpreted it because you’re not very bright. You won’t be able to quote him saying that ‘it measures the body’s reaction to insulin’ because that’s not what he said. What the test does do is identify the level of insulin and c-peptide and from those readings you can calculate the ratio of insulin to c-peptide and therefore determine whether it’s exogenous or not. You really are humiliating yourself time after time at this point. It is you my friend who is displaying Gross Stupidity by not understanding basic facts I'll repeat again what Professor Alan Wayne Jones has said and I underline it above, AGAIN "The problem is that the method of analysis used [in these two cases] was probably perfectly good from a clinical point of view, but not a forensic toxicology point of view," he said. " That test cannot differentiate between synthetic insulin and insulin produced by the pancreas."
The Lab Results detected High Levels of Insulin but that Lab was unable to detect THE SOURCE whether it was Exogenous (Administered Externally) or Endogenous (Naturally occurring e.g. via Sepsis) because the Lab where it was Tested are unable to perform this Test. Their Website says so. Please do catch up. |
|
|
|
Post by Biblical on Sept 15, 2024 17:31:23 GMT
I'm following this exchange with interest. Rick - Wannabee says that "Many if not all of the babies at Countess of Chester during that period whether attended to or not by Letby suffered from Sepsis". Is that a fact ?? and is it normal for most babies in hospital to have it ? None of the babies that Letby is accused of harming had sepsis. Fact. From memory one of the babies had an infection but it wasn’t sepsis. |
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Sept 15, 2024 17:59:47 GMT
I'm following this exchange with interest. Rick - Wannabee says that "Many if not all of the babies at Countess of Chester during that period whether attended to or not by Letby suffered from Sepsis". Is that a fact ?? and is it normal for most babies in hospital to have it ? None of the babies had sepsis that Letby is accused of harming had sepsis. Fact. From memory one of the babies had an infection but it wasn’t sepsis. A BBC Panorama program in 2017 found Countess of Chester in several areas including controlling Sepsis The RCPCH Report found inadequacies in CoC before Police Inquiry www.cheshire-live.co.uk/news/chester-cheshire-news/countess-chester-hospital-misses-sepsis-13602750In 2020 CoC discharged a 15 month old Toddler who died from Sepsis who was sent home without being tested. Fact. www.chesterstandard.co.uk/news/24038787.inquest-countess-staff-tested-cheshire-toddler-sepsis/CoC is not a good performing Hospital Somehow I doubt Thirwell will reached this conclusion I'm pretty sure I read most if not all of the babies around the time of the spike had Sepsis I'll try and dig it out It will be tomorrow as I'm going out this evening, I have a life. Night All |
|
|
|
Post by redstriper on Sept 15, 2024 18:32:05 GMT
Without getting into the Letby case specifically (I'm not as well read on it as Rick clearly is - so I'll leave that to him) - I queried this because I'm seeing quoted figures of the incidents of sepsis in newborns as being 1 in a 1000. So I'll be awaiting with interest to see what you can "dig out" The way I see it - If "most but not all" of babies at CofC contracted sepsis back then in the hospital as you intimated, that would have been massive news in its own right, and surely led to ward closures. Therefore i'm currently thinking you've made that up, which would be disingenuous at best, and would seriously hurt your credibility on this. Spouting unsubstantiated or completely made up "facts" like Trump does - just to eke out your argument and to heap unjustified additional criticism on the hospital would be piss poor, wouldn't it ? |
|
|
|
Post by mickeythemaestro on Sept 15, 2024 18:44:30 GMT
Rude maybe, but I’m right. How dense do you have to be think that a test for insulin doesn’t actually determine if it’s there or not. How could they possibly do the calculations to determine if it’s exogenous if it doesn’t even detect that insulin is there. Fair enough. He's called you a thicko now so I guess its game on. I can't wait to find out who the thicko is. And to be fair I'm a thicko as I've not really got much of a clue what either of you keep wittering on about. Enthralling all the same though 😆 |
|
|
|
Post by Gawa on Sept 15, 2024 19:56:25 GMT
Without getting into the Letby case specifically (I'm not as well read on it as Rick clearly is - so I'll leave that to him) - I queried this because I'm seeing quoted figures of the incidents of sepsis in newborns as being 1 in a 1000. So I'll be awaiting with interest to see what you can "dig out" The way I see it - If "most but not all" of babies at CofC contracted sepsis back then in the hospital as you intimated, that would have been massive news in its own right, and surely led to ward closures. Therefore i'm currently thinking you've made that up, which would be disingenuous at best, and would seriously hurt your credibility on this. Spouting unsubstantiated or completely made up "facts" like Trump does - just to eke out your argument and to heap unjustified additional criticism on the hospital would be piss poor, wouldn't it ? He may be referring to a certain type of bacteria found in plumbing which can result in premature death of babies. A hospital in Belfast had an outbreak were 3 babies died from it in one month. This bacteria was detected multiple times in the unit - archive.is/phBnKA plumber also testified to raw sewage draining out of the taps and having to come to the site pretty much every week for plumbing issues - www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-merseyside-65904884 |
|
|
|
Post by phileetin on Sept 16, 2024 8:13:09 GMT
having read all these interesting arguments , we , the jury , pronounce the bitch ...... guilty.
|
|
