The news thread

[vanderark14]

2 hours ago, TDYER63 said:

Shocking reflection on the hospital. Absolutely awful for the families and also the people who showed concern but were ignored. 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66120934

saw this elsewhere

Letby found guilty of seven baby murders. That makes her the most prolific serial killer of children in the UK's history - murdered more children than the likes of Ian Brady, Myra Hindley, Fred & Rose West, Robert Black and Beverley Allitt.

[TDYER63]

1 hour ago, Ally Bongo said:

Just saw this on the news

Absolutely horrific - how could anyone do that never mind a young woman

 

35 minutes ago, vanderark14 said:

saw this elsewhere

Letby found guilty of seven baby murders. That makes her the most prolific serial killer of children in the UK's history - murdered more children than the likes of Ian Brady, Myra Hindley, Fred & Rose West, Robert Black and Beverley Allitt.

Sometimes I worry that I am becoming desensitised to news there are so many terrible things happening throughout the world , then something like this happens that is beyond comprehension. 

[scotlad]

1 hour ago, TDYER63 said:

 

Sometimes I worry that I am becoming desensitised to news there are so many terrible things happening throughout the world , then something like this happens that is beyond comprehension. 

I can't get my head around it either. Paedophiles who sexually abuse children are despicable but at least its clear what their motivations are - their own twisted sexual gratification. Why she did what she's been found guilty of is truly baffling though. My heart goes out to the poor parents and families of those vulnerable, innocent children. 

[Shaundy]

Just three weeks and a few minutes till the next step on the Scotland qualifying for next summer.

[Ally Bongo]

46 minutes ago, scotlad said:

I can't get my head around it either. Paedophiles who sexually abuse children are despicable but at least its clear what their motivations are - their own twisted sexual gratification. Why she did what she's been found guilty of is truly baffling though. My heart goes out to the poor parents and families of those vulnerable, innocent children. 

It is really weird that the Prosecution never gave a motive during the trial leading to umpteen theories that will never be proved

Surely to reduce the chances of this happening again they need some idea of "why"

[Hertsscot]

4 hours ago, TDYER63 said:

Shocking reflection on the hospital. Absolutely awful for the families and also the people who showed concern but were ignored. 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66120934

A few observations

1. It is shocking that the concerns of senior paediatricians were not acted upon. However I do wonder whether they might feel they could have done more. I have sat through hours and hours of safeguarding training at school. It is drummed into us that if senior management don't take an issue seriously and if we continue to have concerns that we have a responsibility to report them.

2. Ultimately though it is Lucy Letby, and she alone, who was responsible for these murders. I notice that the Conservatives have said there will be an inquiry into the deaths. However they have resisted calls to upgrade it to a public inquiry. Maybe there's good reason for that but I cannot help contrast that with the calls by Scots Tories for a public inquiry into the disgraced surgeon who carried out botched operations in Dundee. I do not want to minimise the continued pain and suffering of his victims but the call for a public inquiry in one case but not the other reeks of political opportunism and exploiting people's suffering just to have a pop at the Health Minister, SNP or wider independence movement. I'm sure some intrepid journalist will even now be knocking on Douglas Ross or Alistair Jacks door asking them to explain this inconsistency...or maybe not.

3. There seems to be a culture of cover up in parts of the NHS in England, and it may well exist in other parts of the UK as well. I can only think that, if reputational damage were to hurt profits and finances as well, the temptation to cover up would be even greater. Yet another reason to resist the increasing privatisation of the NHS.

[Orraloon]

8 minutes ago, Ally Bongo said:

It is really weird that the Prosecution never gave a motive during the trial leading to umpteen theories that will never be proved

Surely to reduce the chances of this happening again they need some idea of "why"

Only she will know why, and she says she didn't do it. So I doubt we will ever find out why.

[Orraloon]

1 hour ago, Hertsscot said:

A few observations

1. It is shocking that the concerns of senior paediatricians were not acted upon. However I do wonder whether they might feel they could have done more. I have sat through hours and hours of safeguarding training at school. It is drummed into us that if senior management don't take an issue seriously and if we continue to have concerns that we have a responsibility to report them.

2. Ultimately though it is Lucy Letby, and she alone, who was responsible for these murders. I notice that the Conservatives have said there will be an inquiry into the deaths. However they have resisted calls to upgrade it to a public inquiry. Maybe there's good reason for that but I cannot help contrast that with the calls by Scots Tories for a public inquiry into the disgraced surgeon who carried out botched operations in Dundee. I do not want to minimise the continued pain and suffering of his victims but the call for a public inquiry in one case but not the other reeks of political opportunism and exploiting people's suffering just to have a pop at the Health Minister, SNP or wider independence movement. I'm sure some intrepid journalist will even now be knocking on Douglas Ross or Alistair Jacks door asking them to explain this inconsistency...or maybe not.

3. There seems to be a culture of cover up in parts of the NHS in England, and it may well exist in other parts of the UK as well. I can only think that, if reputational damage were to hurt profits and finances as well, the temptation to cover up would be even greater. Yet another reason to resist the increasing privatisation of the NHS.

If the stuff that has come out in the media today is anywhere near true, then I think a lot of the folk involved are talking with a hefty does of hindsight. I find it hard to believe that the folk working with her actually fully believed she was doing this at that time. If they were confident of that, then why didn't they go to the police straight away? I also find it hard to believe that folk with that level of responsibility would be so timid that they could be bullied by their bosses into keeping quiet about it. I would have thought that if any normal person suspected one of their colleagues of murdering babies they would be straight down to the police station right away, no matter what their bosses were threatening them with.

 

[Hertsscot]

4 minutes ago, Orraloon said:

If the stuff that has come out in the media today is anywhere near true, then I think a lot of the folk involved are talking with a hefty does of hindsight. I find it hard to believe that the folk working with her actually fully believed she was doing this at that time. If they were confident of that, then why didn't they go to the police straight away? I also find it hard to believe that folk with that level of responsibility would be so timid that they could be bullied by their bosses into keeping quiet about it. I would have thought that if any normal person suspected one of their colleagues of murdering babies they would be straight down to the police station right away, no matter what their bosses were threatening them with.

 

I certainly don't want to judge anyone. I don't know what I would have done in that situation. I do know it's easy for us to say it's someone else's job further up the paygrade. All I'm reflecting on is my experience in education and how we were told that if someone in authority didn't act on safeguarding concerns and how, if we had concerns, we had a duty to contact the relevant authorities directly. I'm pretty sure that a consultant has a lot more clout than a classroom teacher.

[aaid]

10 hours ago, Orraloon said:

If the stuff that has come out in the media today is anywhere near true, then I think a lot of the folk involved are talking with a hefty does of hindsight. I find it hard to believe that the folk working with her actually fully believed she was doing this at that time. If they were confident of that, then why didn't they go to the police straight away? I also find it hard to believe that folk with that level of responsibility would be so timid that they could be bullied by their bosses into keeping quiet about it. I would have thought that if any normal person suspected one of their colleagues of murdering babies they would be straight down to the police station right away, no matter what their bosses were threatening them with.

 

There’s something that doesn’t sit well with me about this verdict.  Seems like a lot - all - of circumstantial evidence combined with a sense of “ it couldn’t have been anyone else”. 

[Orraloon]

1 hour ago, aaid said:

There’s something that doesn’t sit well with me about this verdict.  Seems like a lot - all - of circumstantial evidence combined with a sense of “ it couldn’t have been anyone else”. 

Aye, that's what I was thinking as well. It is all circumstantial evidence, but there is quite a lot of it. It seems to be a case of not being able to find ant other explanation for these deaths, so it must have been deliberate, and the only person who could have done it was Lucy Letby. I'm sure we are not the only people thinking along these lines.

Edited August 19, 2023 by Orraloon

[Ally Bongo]

You cant pick your arse these days without a CCTV camera picking it up yet in the area where these babies were kept there wasnt one ?

[Orraloon]

1 minute ago, Ally Bongo said:

You cant pick your arse these days without a CCTV camera picking it up yet in the area where these babies were kept there wasnt one ?

I'd be surprised if there are any cctv cameras in wards in any UK hospital. Entrances, exits ad corridors maybe, but not in the actual wards.

[TDYER63]

15 hours ago, Orraloon said:

If the stuff that has come out in the media today is anywhere near true, then I think a lot of the folk involved are talking with a hefty does of hindsight. I find it hard to believe that the folk working with her actually fully believed she was doing this at that time. If they were confident of that, then why didn't they go to the police straight away? I also find it hard to believe that folk with that level of responsibility would be so timid that they could be bullied by their bosses into keeping quiet about it. I would have thought that if any normal person suspected one of their colleagues of murdering babies they would be straight down to the police station right away, no matter what their bosses were threatening them with.

 

 

15 hours ago, Hertsscot said:

I certainly don't want to judge anyone. I don't know what I would have done in that situation. I do know it's easy for us to say it's someone else's job further up the paygrade. All I'm reflecting on is my experience in education and how we were told that if someone in authority didn't act on safeguarding concerns and how, if we had concerns, we had a duty to contact the relevant authorities directly. I'm pretty sure that a consultant has a lot more clout than a classroom teacher.

Its easy to say in hindsight you would have done this and that. It was probably nothing more than suspicion at the time ,  are the doctors really going to bypass the hospital chiefs based on nothing but that , despite what has happened ? Reporting it is as much as you can do, its up to those higher up to investigate further which they clearly didn’t do until further down the line. 
 

3 hours ago, Orraloon said:

Aye, that's what I was thinking as well. It is all circumstantial evidence, but there is quite a lot of it. It seems to be a case of not being able to find ant other explanation for these deaths, so it must have been deliberate, and the only person who could have done it was Lucy Letby. I'm sure we are not the only people thinking along these lines.

Some of the babies died through air being pumped into their bodies and also insulin when it was not required. These were deliberate acts whoever was responsible. If it wasn’t her then someone has gone to incredible lengths to ensure she was framed by being the common factor on all the shifts. I feel there must have been compelling evidence for a jury to find someone guilty of such a crime. She looks like butter wouldn’t melt , it would be easy to think she was innocent which makes me think the evidence was strong. 

[Diamond Scot]

17 hours ago, Ally Bongo said:

It is really weird that the Prosecution never gave a motive during the trial leading to umpteen theories that will never be proved

Surely to reduce the chances of this happening again they need some idea of "why"

Its not the prosecutions job to give a motive. All the need to show is actus reas and mens rea. Ie that the action was done and that the accused meant it.

If the prosecution start trying to provide a motive in a case like this then it muddies the waters. A jury member might disagree with the motive so find not guilty when in fact the motive doesnt matter.

You often hear abit more on motive at sentencing where the defence try to give mitigation.

[Ally Bongo]

John Sweeney who is currently reporting in Ukraine tweeted this link from a statistician suggesting Letby could be the victim of a miscarriage of justice

https://www.chimpinvestor.com/post/do-statistics-prove-accused-nurse-lucy-letby-innocent

 

[Ally Bongo]

None of us (unless you are a scientist) will have no idea about the validity of this but you have to ask why her defence never took up any of it

 https://rexvlucyletby2023.com/

 

[Orraloon]

9 hours ago, Ally Bongo said:

None of us (unless you are a scientist) will have no idea about the validity of this but you have to ask why her defence never took up any of it

 https://rexvlucyletby2023.com/

 

This is the bit I found most interesting. Maybe the insulin results aren't quite as straightforward as the prosecution has suggested?

 

Causes for discordant insulin and c-peptide levels were not revealed to the court by experts

Professor Hindmarsh fails to explain core differences between neonatal physiology and paediatric physiology. He fails to explain findings that demonstrate discordance between c-peptide and insulin concentrations in neonates, owing to increased binding of insulin to erythrocytes (Puukka et al., 1986), and the increased concentration of proinsulin relative to insulin. In addition, he makes no mention of the fact that both infants who reportedly showed increased plasma concentration of insulin were at significant risk for the production of autoantibodies to insulin. Child F was treated with insulin in the days prior which is related to the production of autoantibodies (Liu et al., 2023), and Child L was born to a mother who was seriously unwell, and had a diagnosis of gestational diabetes.  

Gestational diabetes is associated with hyperinsulinemia, and production of maternal antibodies to insulin in response to maternal insulin treatment, can result in insulin readily crossing the placenta. It was identified that 24% of umbilical vein cord blood contained non-human insulin, demonstrating the transfer of exogenous insulin from the mother to her infant in utero (Lindsay et al., 2004). A later study demonstrated that more than half of the infants of mothers with insulin-dependent diabetes have maternal insulin autoantibodies (mIAAs) at birth, and the close correlation between the mIAA levels in the newborn infant and those in the maternal circulation verifies the claim that the IAAs in cord blood represent transplacentally transferred antibodies. These mIAAs could form complexes with the infant’s endogenous insulin thereby prolonging the half-life of insulin. Pregnancy, in general, induces non-immunoglobulin transfer of maternal insulin into foetal circulation, and this tendency is increased at the time of delivery, in both diabetic and non-diabetic mothers (Ronkainen et al., 2008).

Despite that Professor Hindmarsh, is an Emeritus Professor, based at University College London Hospital (UCLH). There is nothing to suggest that he has any involvement with hypo/hyperglycaemia pathways in preterm neonates at UCLH or Great Ormond Street Hospital. Nor does he possess any advanced or specialized knowledge in the assessment of assays used to test C-peptide and insulin. It is provided that “The expert must be able to provide impartial, unbiased, objective evidence on the matters within their field of expertise. This is reinforced by Rule 19.2 of the Criminal Procedure Rules which provides that an expert has an overriding duty to give opinion evidence which is objective and unbiased.” Where a witness refers to a single blood test result and suggests that there is only one way the result can occur which is through poisoning there must be more than the expert’s simple opinion, especially in light of the significant body of evidence and empirical data demonstrating that such a claim by a witness is highly associated with wrongful conviction (Marks, 1999). It is the case that Professor Hindmarsh stated that a blood test with an insulin concentration of 4657 (units not given pmol/L or mU/L) and very low c-peptide could only occur due to exogenous administration. Remarkably, he then leaps to a conclusion that this insulin must have been administered via the dextrose/TPN solutions. This is a stunning claim to make, not least when a concentration of insulin of 4657 pmol/L or 4657 mU/L, would kill two grown men. Yet the infant, who was both very low birth weight and very preterm, recovered without any sequelae in a few hours.

Professor Hindmarsh fails to provide examples of such discordant insulin/c-peptide levels in clinical case studies, despite that such evidence exists. Villaume and colleagues (1982) detailed a case of spontaneous hypoglycaemia in which very high plasma insulin (18000 pmol/L) but low normal plasma C-peptide levels occurred. This case could not be attributed to exogenous insulin administration as it otherwise would have been. The mechanism in Villaume's case is unknown: the authors postulated that reduced removal of (endogenous) insulin by liver and peripheral tissues but normal removal of C-peptide produced the observed results. Such a finding likely occurred in the case of Child F, where he presented with increasing signs of jaundice and increasing levels or creatinine and urea, which results in shifts in the glomerular filtration rate in the kidney.  Where both liver and renal function is disturbed the concentration of insulin in the blood would be increased owing to a reduction of insulin metabolism and breakdown occurring via hepatic and renal routes.

With regard to Child L, the fact that studies demonstrate 50% of infants born to mothers with gestational diabetes have mIAAs in their circulation, at birth (Ronkainen et al., 2008), then such a scenario must be considered when the hypoglycemia was identified at birth, as was the case for Child L. The presence of mIAAs in the neonate’s circulation would explain the diminished response to dextrose infusion. The availability of insulin bound to mIAAs, would be dependent on the affinity of the antibody for insulin. Moderate to high affinity mIAA binding would result in a pool of insulin being released slowly over time resulting in persistent low blood sugar. Once all the insulin is released from the antibody complex the antibodies will be degraded and the hypoglycemia is unlikely to arise again. This phenomena has been observed in several autoimmune conditions.

 

 

[Ally Bongo]

There is something rotten about this case emphasised by the resulting enquiry to be non-statutory

I'm not qualified to pass judgement on whether Letby did it or whether she is being made a scapegoat for incompetence

I just have no trust in the UK establishment and legal system

Can you imagine if this happened to be a hospital in Scotland under the SNP ?

They would bring down the Government

[TDYER63]

10 hours ago, Ally Bongo said:

None of us (unless you are a scientist) will have no idea about the validity of this but you have to ask why her defence never took up any of it

 https://rexvlucyletby2023.com/

 

I would suggest that the author of this, or anyone else who is concerned, presents it to be challenged. I for one do not have the medical or scientific knowledge to know if any of this is correct or not.
Its hard to believe that the science in an accusation of this proportion would not be scrutinised at the highest level. Though it wouldn’t be the first time there has been a miscarriage of justice either. 

At the end they say the number of deaths in 2017 and 18 when Letby was not on the ward were higher than 2015 /16. However I read somewhere else there has only been one death since she left. Both cant be right. 

Is there a general concern out there that this verdict is wrong or is it mainly conspiracy theorists ? 

 

[phart]

Aye that's a lot of information, i'm just going to chose to remain ignorant on it.

[Ally Bongo]

8 minutes ago, TDYER63 said:

At the end they say the number of deaths in 2017 and 18 when Letby was not on the ward were higher than 2015 /16. However I read somewhere else there has only been one death since she left. Both cant be right. 

Is there a general concern out there that this verdict is wrong or is it mainly conspiracy theorists ? 

 

By the way, for those who might be tempted to think the high death rate fell in 2017 (actually it was from mid 2016) because Lucy Letby was "caught", remember that COCH's neonatal unit was downgraded in June 2016 and so no longer was allowed to care for higher risk babies.

[TDYER63]

4 minutes ago, Ally Bongo said:

By the way, for those who might be tempted to think the high death rate fell in 2017 (actually it was from mid 2016) because Lucy Letby was "caught", remember that COCH's neonatal unit was downgraded in June 2016 and so no longer was allowed to care for higher risk babies.

👍 but why does the article say this ? 
 

 

[TDYER63]

Another , earlier piece by the same guy .

https://gill1109.com/2023/05/24/the-lucy-letby-case/?fbclid=PAAaao1xOenidmy_RQsbZpMSIqbLETjitwDcTP3PPt6_i-xMFXwnFwereAqbg&amp=1

 

[Ally Bongo]

46 minutes ago, TDYER63 said:

👍 but why does the article say this ? 
 

 

I can only assume it is the Infant Mortality Rate in England & Wales

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/childhoodinfantandperinatalmortalityinenglandandwales/2018

In July 2016 , the unit at COCH stopped accepting premature infants born before 32 weeks, diverting them to other Hospitals in the North West of England, such as Alder Hay Children's Hospital.