Sep 13, 2023Liked by Mr Law, Health and Technology
I repeat a previous comment. These people were meant to there - if anyone was not meant to be there that's where suspicion might fall. I could argue that the higher the score, the more caring that person was. That's what is so ridiculous about the prosecution chart, it most likely shows Lucy was one of the most concerned nurses. My own concern now is competence of the team. I am over two decades from being in charge of anything except my own small world but know how crucial joined up effort and communication of a common plan is. I have always found that the person at the top sets the tone.
That is my point with the charts... to show the ridiculousness of the proseuction's use of an X/Y Corelation plot to 'identify a murderer' - Especially when you have one nurse working 1-2 extra shifts per week because the unit was several staff members short most days and the extra shifts would help her meet her new mortgage payments.
Sep 13, 2023Liked by Mr Law, Health and Technology
Excellent analysis. Yes, access to the staff attendance records would be so useful. It is so puzzling to me why the Defence did not present such an analysis given that that table detailing LL's presence on shifts where suspicious events ocurred was a major part of the Prosecutions case.
Sep 13, 2023Liked by Mr Law, Health and Technology
Brilliant work, Thank you Scott. It's making us all think beyond what's been presented as 'evidence' and is shining a bright light on the bigger picture. Anyone who has spent a short while on a intensive care unit of any type, will know how the most skilled nurses help and support their colleagues, cover for breaks and generally work for the better good of the patients and team. They don't work glued to one bedspace, unless they're in isolation for infection control reasons.
Radioimmunoassays ( or thier variants) as used in nearly all hospital labs do not measure insulin, they indirectly measure antibodies to insulin. Therefore it is factually incorrect to state that the insulin measurements were 4000+ and 1000+ ( S.I. Units not provided). After antibodies are added the the serum under examination they are separated from the serum and the quantity of antibody (not insulin) is calculated. Therefore, if the neonate's serum already contains antibodies to insulin ( as typically occurs in the case of diabetic mothers, or neonates given insulin after birth) the assay will also measure these antibodies too and assign a mistakenly higher level of insulin in the result. Both of the neonates with high insulin in this trial fall into one or other such cagtegory. In order overcome this potential flaw in the testing method one must subject the serum to a second test (usually Gas Chromatography) which directly measures insulin. This test was offered to the consultants of these neonates, but was declined. Therefore we cannot say that these insulin measurements were accurate for insulin, but rather only for insulin antibodies. Insulin antibodies are not active in the physiology of glucose metabolism.
So few cases and so many potential variables that no statistical model could ever be fit. So, just let witch hunt base emotions take over & play to the impression telegraphed by the carefully constructed simple spreadsheet, that lies by omission, at the very least. This simplicity seems to be the maximum complexity that even the Defense could understand. So tragic.
Did Lucy do more shifts than some of the others? If some colleagues were absent for holiday and sickness and helpful Lucy did extra shifts during a period when infection was a problem then her coincidental presence would look comparatively high. I cannot believe this was a fair trial.
That is exactly the issue. She not only bought a house near the hospital, but she was accepting extra (bank) shifts presumably because she needed the money for her mortgage and the hospital were often so ridiculously understaffed as to not meet even the bare minimum of safe guidlines. This is the issue for people like Lucy, Ben Geen, Lucia De Berk and others who end up accused of these things - they simply correlate with the deaths by virtue of working extra shifts and being in the building more than anyone else
Prove baby C not murder & Female Paedeatric Dr now in the frame. Prove baby D not murder and Nurse Taylor now in the frame. That damn frame is very flexible, fits whoever it is constructed to fit.
what are the odds in real terms of any one in the chart being culpable of the alleged crimes, Simcock has 1 appearance, yet the prosecution emphasised her presence in questioning LL.
She was likely present for one or more of the other babies, yet because the prosecution didn't highlight her involvement on those occassions, it makes it appear as if she rarely works. In order to be one of the shift leaders she will be regularly present and possibly on staff as a Band 7
Giving evidence for an 11th day, Letby accepted someone must have laced the boys’ feeding bags with insulin, but denied it was her.
Prosecutor Nick Johnson KC told the jury on Monday that only two nurses worked both shifts when the infants were allegedly poisoned, Letby and a colleague named Belinda Simcock.
“Isn’t the reality that unless there’s more than one poisoner, it has to be either you or Belinda Simcock?” Johnson asked.
Letby replied: “I can only answer for myself and say that I’ve never put insulin into any bags.”
Johnson said: “It was never suggested to be her [Simcock] though, was it?”
The defendant responded: “I can’t answer that.”
In my many years, I doubt I have seen a more blatant case of witness leading, that Judge Goss did not intervene and sanction Prosecutor Nick Johnson KC, beggars belief.
However, we are at the eleventh hour for an appeal, if one is not forthcoming, all of our opinions on the fairness of matters here, will come to naught.
As many of we observers have said, we know not whither she is guilty or innocent, BARD is questionable, which is why at least think the trial was and is flawed.
The ball is in LL’s solicitors court, he will either instruct for appeal or he won’t, all others are bystanders.
Exactly - this prosecution evidence was flawed and deceptive - there were 5 nurses on staff during that shift. Simcock was the shift lead and therefore would have 'floated' from room to room. Letby and the 'unnamed nurse' were in room 2, and two other nurses cared for the babies in the three other rooms.
How did the defence barrister not pick up on and correct this absolute deception by the prosecutor.
This is why I keep saying the evidence raises significant concerns for an honest prosecution. An honest prosecution would lead such deceptive and misleading evidence.
For me the odds of any of those on the list being culpable for all these crimes are negligible, and I include LL. I think this staff involvement list demonstrates just how unsafe it is to base any finding of guilt or otherwise on such evidence. And that is its great worth. It’s such a good job, thank you.
One of the big factors missing in everything I've read is Basal Metabolic Rate ( proxy- body temperature). The effeciency and efficacy of all physiological processes are dependent on this fundemental measurement. How long did the < 32 week neonates spend in ambient termpersatures below 25C? How many body temperature measurements do we have on each neonate plotted over time. Failure to maintain the BMR is sufficent alone to cause death in a very preterm neonate.
Sep 13, 2023Liked by Mr Law, Health and Technology
It is the part where he states in relation to child L "I was not thinking at the time that someone might have administered insulin. The results showed that, but unfortunately the junior doctors who read them didn't realise the significance" that says it all in my opinion. Absolute nonsense. How can it be attempted murder now but not then? It seems very much like a mistake he made and tried to push aside at the time.
'Refreshed memory' in court years later is always questionable. There have been entire textbooks written on the unreliability of memory - especially 'refreshed memory'.
Just wondering if there’s any significance to the red scores in the column for the unnamed nurse(s) is?
And are unnamed individuals the ones who had their names legally withheld, or could they also be amongst the regularly named individuals but who just weren’t identified in that part of the narrative?
I have tried to separate each 'unnamed' person out as and when it was obvious or easy to identify that this 'unnamed' individual was different to that 'unnamed' individual. In the case of the 'unnamed nurse' as best as I can tell from the testimony it is the same nurse in all six instances - the red ones simply indicate to/remind myself that I have definite evidence that proves beyond any doubt that in those instances I am certain it was the same nurse. In the other thre instances I am mostly sure, but not absolutely certain.
In the NHS, cover-up is a “win-win” for those in charge: top management continues unaffected while the cover-up is taking place and, if the cover-up is about to be exposed, the top managers quickly retire just before any investigation or legal proceedings begin on full contractual redundancy terms, multi million pensions, bonuses and honours. When the top management are found out, or retire, or are promoted elsewhere, their subordinates, trained in the cover-up culture, step into their shoes. Covering up is seen as “normal”.
Having the NHS investigate their own institutional cover-ups makes no sense, it simply feeds the cover-up, but that is what happens.
Lucy Letby was framed by NHS executives covering up their own failings and negligence. The evidence was tailored against Lucy by NHS management to preserve their own reputations. Executive Director of Countess of Chester NHS Trust Ian Harvey, for example, retired moments after Lucy was arrested, he immediately removed himself from the GMC registrar to avoid any professional investigation, and fled to France to retire on his multi million pound pension pot. While Letby is now behind bars for life, Harvey can be found sipping wine in his sprawling luxury country villa in SW France.
The truth is, the NHS is evil in the lengths it will go to to cover up and protect itself, no matter the cost to the individual, and the system closes ranks to protect it and maintain status quo, as I too found out:
I repeat a previous comment. These people were meant to there - if anyone was not meant to be there that's where suspicion might fall. I could argue that the higher the score, the more caring that person was. That's what is so ridiculous about the prosecution chart, it most likely shows Lucy was one of the most concerned nurses. My own concern now is competence of the team. I am over two decades from being in charge of anything except my own small world but know how crucial joined up effort and communication of a common plan is. I have always found that the person at the top sets the tone.
That is my point with the charts... to show the ridiculousness of the proseuction's use of an X/Y Corelation plot to 'identify a murderer' - Especially when you have one nurse working 1-2 extra shifts per week because the unit was several staff members short most days and the extra shifts would help her meet her new mortgage payments.
Excellent research I would add that there was a swipe card system of access which would have shown dates and times of access and by whom.
The entirety of those shown to access the ward would have been the pool of suspects, the data would have been stored on the hospital IT system.
This should have even downloaded and card numbers would have ID’d names persons.
I wonder if this was ever done?
Excellent analysis. Yes, access to the staff attendance records would be so useful. It is so puzzling to me why the Defence did not present such an analysis given that that table detailing LL's presence on shifts where suspicious events ocurred was a major part of the Prosecutions case.
Brilliant work, Thank you Scott. It's making us all think beyond what's been presented as 'evidence' and is shining a bright light on the bigger picture. Anyone who has spent a short while on a intensive care unit of any type, will know how the most skilled nurses help and support their colleagues, cover for breaks and generally work for the better good of the patients and team. They don't work glued to one bedspace, unless they're in isolation for infection control reasons.
What amazingly diligent work you do...
What about the unpopular locum mentioned in the RCPCH report?
Radioimmunoassays ( or thier variants) as used in nearly all hospital labs do not measure insulin, they indirectly measure antibodies to insulin. Therefore it is factually incorrect to state that the insulin measurements were 4000+ and 1000+ ( S.I. Units not provided). After antibodies are added the the serum under examination they are separated from the serum and the quantity of antibody (not insulin) is calculated. Therefore, if the neonate's serum already contains antibodies to insulin ( as typically occurs in the case of diabetic mothers, or neonates given insulin after birth) the assay will also measure these antibodies too and assign a mistakenly higher level of insulin in the result. Both of the neonates with high insulin in this trial fall into one or other such cagtegory. In order overcome this potential flaw in the testing method one must subject the serum to a second test (usually Gas Chromatography) which directly measures insulin. This test was offered to the consultants of these neonates, but was declined. Therefore we cannot say that these insulin measurements were accurate for insulin, but rather only for insulin antibodies. Insulin antibodies are not active in the physiology of glucose metabolism.
So few cases and so many potential variables that no statistical model could ever be fit. So, just let witch hunt base emotions take over & play to the impression telegraphed by the carefully constructed simple spreadsheet, that lies by omission, at the very least. This simplicity seems to be the maximum complexity that even the Defense could understand. So tragic.
Did Lucy do more shifts than some of the others? If some colleagues were absent for holiday and sickness and helpful Lucy did extra shifts during a period when infection was a problem then her coincidental presence would look comparatively high. I cannot believe this was a fair trial.
That is exactly the issue. She not only bought a house near the hospital, but she was accepting extra (bank) shifts presumably because she needed the money for her mortgage and the hospital were often so ridiculously understaffed as to not meet even the bare minimum of safe guidlines. This is the issue for people like Lucy, Ben Geen, Lucia De Berk and others who end up accused of these things - they simply correlate with the deaths by virtue of working extra shifts and being in the building more than anyone else
Prove baby C not murder & Female Paedeatric Dr now in the frame. Prove baby D not murder and Nurse Taylor now in the frame. That damn frame is very flexible, fits whoever it is constructed to fit.
what are the odds in real terms of any one in the chart being culpable of the alleged crimes, Simcock has 1 appearance, yet the prosecution emphasised her presence in questioning LL.
She was likely present for one or more of the other babies, yet because the prosecution didn't highlight her involvement on those occassions, it makes it appear as if she rarely works. In order to be one of the shift leaders she will be regularly present and possibly on staff as a Band 7
What tweaked my curiosity was...
Giving evidence for an 11th day, Letby accepted someone must have laced the boys’ feeding bags with insulin, but denied it was her.
Prosecutor Nick Johnson KC told the jury on Monday that only two nurses worked both shifts when the infants were allegedly poisoned, Letby and a colleague named Belinda Simcock.
“Isn’t the reality that unless there’s more than one poisoner, it has to be either you or Belinda Simcock?” Johnson asked.
Letby replied: “I can only answer for myself and say that I’ve never put insulin into any bags.”
Johnson said: “It was never suggested to be her [Simcock] though, was it?”
The defendant responded: “I can’t answer that.”
In my many years, I doubt I have seen a more blatant case of witness leading, that Judge Goss did not intervene and sanction Prosecutor Nick Johnson KC, beggars belief.
However, we are at the eleventh hour for an appeal, if one is not forthcoming, all of our opinions on the fairness of matters here, will come to naught.
As many of we observers have said, we know not whither she is guilty or innocent, BARD is questionable, which is why at least think the trial was and is flawed.
The ball is in LL’s solicitors court, he will either instruct for appeal or he won’t, all others are bystanders.
Exactly - this prosecution evidence was flawed and deceptive - there were 5 nurses on staff during that shift. Simcock was the shift lead and therefore would have 'floated' from room to room. Letby and the 'unnamed nurse' were in room 2, and two other nurses cared for the babies in the three other rooms.
How did the defence barrister not pick up on and correct this absolute deception by the prosecutor.
This is why I keep saying the evidence raises significant concerns for an honest prosecution. An honest prosecution would lead such deceptive and misleading evidence.
For me the odds of any of those on the list being culpable for all these crimes are negligible, and I include LL. I think this staff involvement list demonstrates just how unsafe it is to base any finding of guilt or otherwise on such evidence. And that is its great worth. It’s such a good job, thank you.
One of the big factors missing in everything I've read is Basal Metabolic Rate ( proxy- body temperature). The effeciency and efficacy of all physiological processes are dependent on this fundemental measurement. How long did the < 32 week neonates spend in ambient termpersatures below 25C? How many body temperature measurements do we have on each neonate plotted over time. Failure to maintain the BMR is sufficent alone to cause death in a very preterm neonate.
Also if baby hypothermic & then crib opened during resuscitation then baby would lose heat quickly perhaps resulting in skin discoloration.
Dr Bohin.... https://guernseypress.com/news/2022/04/28/familes-with-sick-children-let-down-by-health-care-system/
🤷♂️https://citizenscybercourt.wordpress.com/nameless-stories/child-snatching/the-estranged-daughter/
Meant to say, Dr Dewi Evans mentioned in this sordid tale...
I'm convinced John Gibbs administered the insulin in error.
Well that carries about as much weight as anything I have heard against LL, so why not !
It is the part where he states in relation to child L "I was not thinking at the time that someone might have administered insulin. The results showed that, but unfortunately the junior doctors who read them didn't realise the significance" that says it all in my opinion. Absolute nonsense. How can it be attempted murder now but not then? It seems very much like a mistake he made and tried to push aside at the time.
'Refreshed memory' in court years later is always questionable. There have been entire textbooks written on the unreliability of memory - especially 'refreshed memory'.
For brief reading on these issues see:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4409058/
http://criminalnotebook.ca/index.php/Refreshing_Memory
https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu
https://knowablemagazine.org/article/society/2017/making-case-against-memories-evidence
Just wondering if there’s any significance to the red scores in the column for the unnamed nurse(s) is?
And are unnamed individuals the ones who had their names legally withheld, or could they also be amongst the regularly named individuals but who just weren’t identified in that part of the narrative?
Thanks
I have tried to separate each 'unnamed' person out as and when it was obvious or easy to identify that this 'unnamed' individual was different to that 'unnamed' individual. In the case of the 'unnamed nurse' as best as I can tell from the testimony it is the same nurse in all six instances - the red ones simply indicate to/remind myself that I have definite evidence that proves beyond any doubt that in those instances I am certain it was the same nurse. In the other thre instances I am mostly sure, but not absolutely certain.
Thanks a lot, that’s very helpful. Great work!
In the NHS, cover-up is a “win-win” for those in charge: top management continues unaffected while the cover-up is taking place and, if the cover-up is about to be exposed, the top managers quickly retire just before any investigation or legal proceedings begin on full contractual redundancy terms, multi million pensions, bonuses and honours. When the top management are found out, or retire, or are promoted elsewhere, their subordinates, trained in the cover-up culture, step into their shoes. Covering up is seen as “normal”.
Having the NHS investigate their own institutional cover-ups makes no sense, it simply feeds the cover-up, but that is what happens.
Lucy Letby was framed by NHS executives covering up their own failings and negligence. The evidence was tailored against Lucy by NHS management to preserve their own reputations. Executive Director of Countess of Chester NHS Trust Ian Harvey, for example, retired moments after Lucy was arrested, he immediately removed himself from the GMC registrar to avoid any professional investigation, and fled to France to retire on his multi million pound pension pot. While Letby is now behind bars for life, Harvey can be found sipping wine in his sprawling luxury country villa in SW France.
The truth is, the NHS is evil in the lengths it will go to to cover up and protect itself, no matter the cost to the individual, and the system closes ranks to protect it and maintain status quo, as I too found out:
https://wordpress.com/stats/day/patientcomplaintdhcftdotcom.wordpress.com
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-merseyside-66823777