4 ms·

I'd like to add another point that struck me as odd when going down the same rabbit hole: The C-peptide level in Child F's discharge letter have been called "t

I'd like to add another point that struck me as odd when going down the same rabbit hole: The C-peptide level in Child F's discharge letter have been called "the golden thread" of the case by the leading Detective Sergeant of the investigation Paul Hughes. The deputy senior investigating officer DCI Nicola Evans called it a "real milestone" in the investigation. The Guardian called it "a smoking gun in this medically complex case". Dr Stephen Breary, the hospital's neonatal unit head consultant, said about its discovery: "If there was a iota of doubt, it was removed then." I think it is fair to say that if this letter would not have been found, after already a year of rather fruitless investigation, there would quite likely not have been a case. Yet, the very same Dr Breary, who was also under pressure because of the apparent rise of deaths in his department, came up with this document more than two and a half years after the child was released and just a couple of days before Letby was about to return to his department against his will. I'm not saying Dr Breary is under suspicion or Letby is innocent, but think the discharge letter should have seen more scrutiny. My point is that I don't think there is anything in this case that really holds water if you seriously probe it and if you pile up flawed arguments - no matter how many - it will not bring you any closer to the truth. If I can wagger a prediction, and I already said this when Letby was convicted: I see a successful appeal and this verdict be shredded. Not because I think Letby is innocent, but because a working legal system should not put anyone behind bars for life with such a weak case.

notahacker 3y ago
Apart from the general ridiculousness of insinuating that of all records someone might adulterate or invent, he would pick a digital copy of a discharge letter sent to an third party whose other baby had died, your timelines are all wrong. Breary got the police involved in April 2017. Nobody thinks it's a coincidence that it was a few days before Letby was due to return to the ward; stopping her from returning to the ward was his stated reason for going to the police. The "smoking gun" turned up inconveniently late, in February of the following year, when he'd been asked to go through the records of the kids who survived.
- weinzierl 3y ago
  "Apart from the general ridiculousness of insinuating that of all records someone might adulterate or invent, he would pick a digital copy of a discharge letter sent to an third party whose other baby had died, [..]" That's what you say. I neither said nor insinuated any of that. The case is supported by two main pillars. One is the idea that the stats support suspicions clusters of deaths. I expected that to be challenged back in August and we see it happen now. The second pillar is the "smoking gun" of Child F's raised peptide levels. In my opinion this pillar is far from being strong enough to support this case alone. If we don't see any additional props appear, I expect it to crumble in the appeal. "your timelines are all wrong." - August 2015: Child F blood sample [2] - February 2017: Police investigation launched "On the night before Valentine’s Day in February 2018, nearly a year after police launched their investigation" [1] - July 2016: Letby removed from frontline care [1] - February 2018: Smoking gun found [1] - May 2017: Letby scheduled to return [1] [1] https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/aug/19/trust-me-im-a-nurse-why-wasnt-lucy-letby-stopped-as-months-of-went-by https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/aug/19/trust-me-im-... [2] https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/ng-interactive/2023/aug/18/lucy-letby-timeline-attacks-babies-when-alarm-raised https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/ng-interactive/2023/aug/...
  - notahacker 3y ago
    Thank you for posting the timeline So unless you're going to insist on a special calendar in which February 2018 occured two days before March 2017, you're basically confirming that I was correct to point out that your original statement that "Dr Breary, who was also under pressure because of the apparent rise of deaths in his department, came up with this document more than two and a half years after the child was released and just a couple of days before Letby was about to return to his department against his will." got the timeline all wrong.
    - weinzierl 3y ago
      Oh, this is so embarrassing and I only see it now. What I initially misread was "Letby had been just six days from returning to work on the neonatal unit at this point." from [1]. This sentence refers to the 27 April 2017 two paragraphs before and not to the smoking gun discovery in the following paragraph. When I compiled the timeline I totally focussed on the months. 27 April plus six days would be May. But 2017, not 2018. I stand corrected and thank you for pointing it out.

notahacker 3y ago

Apart from the general ridiculousness of insinuating that of all records someone might adulterate or invent, he would pick a digital copy of a discharge letter sent to an third party whose other baby had died, your timelines are all wrong. Breary got the police involved in April 2017. Nobody thinks it's a coincidence that it was a few days before Letby was due to return to the ward; stopping her from returning to the ward was his stated reason for going to the police. The "smoking gun" turned up inconveniently late, in February of the following year, when he'd been asked to go through the records of the kids who survived.

weinzierl 3y ago
"Apart from the general ridiculousness of insinuating that of all records someone might adulterate or invent, he would pick a digital copy of a discharge letter sent to an third party whose other baby had died, [..]" That's what you say. I neither said nor insinuated any of that. The case is supported by two main pillars. One is the idea that the stats support suspicions clusters of deaths. I expected that to be challenged back in August and we see it happen now. The second pillar is the "smoking gun" of Child F's raised peptide levels. In my opinion this pillar is far from being strong enough to support this case alone. If we don't see any additional props appear, I expect it to crumble in the appeal. "your timelines are all wrong." - August 2015: Child F blood sample [2] - February 2017: Police investigation launched "On the night before Valentine’s Day in February 2018, nearly a year after police launched their investigation" [1] - July 2016: Letby removed from frontline care [1] - February 2018: Smoking gun found [1] - May 2017: Letby scheduled to return [1] [1] https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/aug/19/trust-me-im-a-nurse-why-wasnt-lucy-letby-stopped-as-months-of-went-by https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/aug/19/trust-me-im-... [2] https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/ng-interactive/2023/aug/18/lucy-letby-timeline-attacks-babies-when-alarm-raised https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/ng-interactive/2023/aug/...
- notahacker 3y ago
  Thank you for posting the timeline So unless you're going to insist on a special calendar in which February 2018 occured two days before March 2017, you're basically confirming that I was correct to point out that your original statement that "Dr Breary, who was also under pressure because of the apparent rise of deaths in his department, came up with this document more than two and a half years after the child was released and just a couple of days before Letby was about to return to his department against his will." got the timeline all wrong.
  - weinzierl 3y ago
    Oh, this is so embarrassing and I only see it now. What I initially misread was "Letby had been just six days from returning to work on the neonatal unit at this point." from [1]. This sentence refers to the 27 April 2017 two paragraphs before and not to the smoking gun discovery in the following paragraph. When I compiled the timeline I totally focussed on the months. 27 April plus six days would be May. But 2017, not 2018. I stand corrected and thank you for pointing it out.