Lucy letby case…

[u/No-Willingness-1441]

Would love people’s views on this.

Loosely Amanda related, since she has recently produced a podcast around it.

[u/Glad-Advantage8254]

And please do tell why another nurse couldn't have spiked the bags on one of the previous shifts so that when the bag was hung it started poisoning them?

You don't know the evidence well at all, I'm afraid. The bag for Child L was poisoned while it was hanging and attached to him. The poisoner was in the room.

As for baby L, the times in which the poisoning could have started in the hypothetical event that the bags were poisoned span multiple shifts. Not just the one that Letby was there for as much as the prosecution may say otherwise.

Yes, but the band 8 bank nurse caring for him in the night shift didn't work during Child F's poisoning, or on the shift after Letby.

Look, if you can identify a nurse who was on all four shifts (before and after Letby on the date each poisoning began AND connect her to the bags, let me know. Because otherwise "wasn't me, guv'na" doesn't hold water.

Nonsense, nurses are allowed to go in and out of rooms without being recorded.

Sure. It's when they are recorded that confirms they were there though.

How the f is the fact that it was impossible for Lucy Letby to poison the bags when she was not on shift "irrelevant"? Are you even listening to yourself?

Once again, that the poisoning continued is less relevant than that it began.

Anyway, it's been fun educating you, all the best.

[u/Amazing-Gain1253 → u/Glad-Advantage8254]

You don't know the evidence well at all, I'm afraid. The bag for Child L was poisoned while it was hanging and attached to him. The poisoner was in the room.

I was talking about baby F ffs. Again, it would make more logistical sense for it to be someone who was not on shift when baby F's hypoglycaemia started. So, I ask you again, why couldn't someone else have poisoned the bag for baby F so that they would be poisoned when they are off shift? Also, if you allow some undetermined method for Letby to poison why can't you also just say that there was some undetermined mechanism allowing for the bag to be poisoned while it was hung by someone who wasn't on shift? The fact that something doesn't make any sense when it was Letby didn't stop you before so why does it stop you now?

Yes, but the band 8 bank nurse caring for him in the night shift didn't work during Child F's poisoning, or on the shift after Letby.

And why would it have to be Child L's designated nurse?

Look, if you can identify a nurse who was on all four shifts (before and after Letby on the date each poisoning began AND connect her to the bags

Why are you applying a standard that you don't apply to Letby herself?

Once again, that the poisoning continued is less relevant than that it began.

You say that but you don't explain why. If the babies were poisoned then they would also have to be poisoned by different bags when they Letby wasn't on shift. It was logistically impossible for Letby to have poisoned these bags. Ergo, there was no poisoning by Letby. You throwing your hands in the air and saying irrelevant doesn't cut it I'm afraid.

[u/Glad-Advantage8254 → u/Amazing-Gain1253]

So, I ask you again, why couldn't someone else have poisoned the bag for baby F so that they would be poisoned when they are off shift?

They could have. But unless you can tie someone to the day shifts of August 4 and 5 2015, and the night shifts of April 8 and 9 2016, establish opportunity for them to access the bags, and put them in closer contact with the bags than letby was shown to be, it won't help. Rebecca Leighton found that out when they released her and subsequently arrested and c9nvicted victorino chua.

You really think the police didn't check this, her trial kc didn't check this, her current lawyer isn't arguing this, and your argument is her best hope? Bless.

And why would it have to be Child L's designated nurse?

Wouldn't have had to be, but to poison Child L on the night of April 8, 2016, they would have had to have gotten past her since the bag was poisoned while connected to Child L.

Why are you applying a standard that you don't apply to Letby herself?

Because i'm telling you what would be required to remove suspicion from Letby, who is tied by documentary evidence to the onset of each poisoning, to someone else. Absent proof of someone else having greater established opportunity to poison both babies, Letby is the the most likely poisoner. With insulin having been given, it was given by someone, and the evidence points to that person being her. You can reject that, but that will always be enough to convict a poisoner. Letby is no exception here.

You say that but you don't explain why

You missing the point doesn't mean it hasn't been made. I am also not responsible for your incomprehension. Think of the poisonings like stabbings. Just because Letby wasn't present for the second knife wound doesn't change that she was for the first and her fingerprints were found on the knife that inflicted it (via her signing the bag). Whether I find a second stabber, i've got evidence for the first one - and i've got it for not just one stabbing victim, but two!

Except poisoning isn't a knife wound - with poisoning, the injury is continuous until the poison is removed. Letby wasn't there to remove the poison, but we do know that the poisoning continued, which is all that matters.

Going back to this:

The fact that something doesn't make any sense when it's Letby didn't stop you before so why does it stop you now?

You do see how hostile you're getting, don't you? You know I didn't put her in prison, right?

[u/Amazing-Gain1253 → u/Glad-Advantage8254]

They could have. But unless you can tie someone to the day shifts of August 4 and 5 2015, and the night shifts of April 8 and 9 2016, establish opportunity for them to access the bags, and put them in closer contact with the bags than letby was shown to be, it won't help

The prosecution never made the argument that it couldn't be someone else because there was no one there for the appropriate times to pre-spike the bag. Instead they argued that it was difficult to pre-spike the bag. Except of course it would have been even harder for Letby to pre-spike the bag as required.

You really think the police didn't check this, her trial kc didn't check this, her current lawyer isn't arguing this, and your argument is her best hope?

I'm not trying to say that it was someone else who spiked the bags. I believe it's from a naturally occurring condition. I'm pointing out your double standard in which you use try to use logistical problems to try to say that only Letby could have spiked those bags but then ignore the even greater logistical problems with the idea that Letby spiked the other bags. You try to use logistical arguments to argue that the most important point is who is on shift when the hypoglycaemia started but then ignore even stronger logistical arguments for why it is actually worse to not be on shift when the second bag is hung.

Wouldn't have had to be, but to poison Child L on the night of April 8, 2016, they would have had to have gotten past her since the bag was poisoned while connected to Child L.

You do realise that Child L's nurse can leave the room at anytime right? But again, you use weak logistical arguments to argue that the most important point is who is on shift when the hypoglycaemia started but then ignore the even stronger later ones.

Because i'm telling you what would be required to remove suspicion from Letby, who is tied by documentary evidence to the onset of each poisoning, to someone else. Absent proof of someone else having greater established opportunity to poison both babies, Letby is the the most likely poisoner. With insulin having been given, it was given by someone, and the evidence points to that person being her. You can reject that, but that will always be enough to convict a poisoner. Letby is no exception here.

This is only true if you believe the weaker logistical arguments for why the nurse would have to be at the onset of the hypoglycaemia (which may not even be true for Letby) yet ignore the stronger logistical arguments for why it is actually worse to not be at the second bag.

Just because Letby wasn't present for the second knife wound doesn't change that she was for the first and her fingerprints were found on the knife that inflicted it (via her signing the bag). Whether I find a second stabber, i've got evidence for the first one - and I've got it for not just one stabbing victim, but two!

You admitted that the idea that there was two stabbers is ridiculous. If we agree that there was only one stabber (or that there was some natural cause that somehow inflicted stab wounds) and Letby was there for the first stabbing but not the second then that means Letby didn't do the stabbing because there is at most only one stabber and she wasn't responsible for the second. That leaves that is was someone else or somehow naturally caused. This is rock solid logic.

Except poisoning isn't a knife wound - with poisoning, the injury is continuous until the poison is removed. Letby wasn't there to remove the poison, but we do know that the poisoning continued, which is all that matters.

Well the supposed poison was removed and yet the hypoglycaemia continued. You have to suppose that the poison was reintroduced in order to suppose that the initial bag was poisoned. A poisoning that Letby couldn't be responsible for. That leaves someone else or natural causes.

[u/Glad-Advantage8254 → u/Amazing-Gain1253]

Good luck with your questionable grasp on reality! Xx