Luciftian

I respect the families and their views immensely. It's unimaginable for me to understand what they have, and will continue to go through. But I genuinely believe my views to be true, an outline of which I'll provide to you. If I'm right, it does them no good to jail an innocent woman for the deaths of their children. They ought to know the truth, whatever that may be. The police had this same mindset when they began to investigate Letby - it certainly didn't do the parents any emotional favours to have their wounds reopened by a murder investigation relating to their babies, yet nobody will criticise them for doing so. 1) No 'conspiracy theory' is needed to criticise the way this trial was handled. I do not believe there was a deliberate attempt to conspire against Lucy Letby. I instead believe that the consultants had legitimate suspicions, initially, then were locked into their views via the sunk cost fallacy - especially when Letby was forthright in seeking reprisals for her removal from the unit. 2) The medical evidence in the trial is incorrect, often wildly so, and was delivered by those not qualified to do so. Consultant paediatricians are not fit to diagnose causes of death to children after the fact - that is the job of forensic pathologists. Drs. Evans and Bohin (prosecution) and Hall (defence) should not have been called. Evans' air embolism reports cited 18 sources, only two of which relate to venous air embolism. The others referred to different kinds of air embolism, which have different symptoms, clinical signs, and post mortem findings. The result is that the symptoms for all of these were lumped together, giving way to incorrect diagnoses. This has been written about extensively by @Forensic_Sci_. The diagnosis of 'air down the nasogastric tube' has been widely ridiculed, and Evans has recently shifted his diagnosis on at least one of the babies said to have been harmed by this method. The concept was said to be 'ridiculous' and 'fantastical' by neonatologists who spoke to the Guardian, and Evans admitted this was a concept that he had not encountered before. The liver injury sustained by Child 'O' has also come under scrutiny, with suggestions that the injury could have been caused naturally (subcapsular haematoma related to low platelet count). The 'insulin poisonings' failed to take account of a concurrent reading in the lab tests, high blood glucose due to continuous administration of dextrose and glucose boluses to the children - which produces insulin. The lab stated the immunoassay tests should not be used for criminal investigation, likely because of the potential for the 'hook effect' in c-peptide. When insulin is high enough, c-pep can increase beyond the bounds of the testing equipment (>60,000). The hook effect can lead to results such as those seen in Babies 'F' and 'L', where c-pep is undetectable or extremely low. The tests can also cross-react with proinsulin, which can be produced in high amounts by premature babies. Prof Stephen O'Rahilly noted a case where parents fell under suspicion of insulin poisoning, until further testing showed the insulin assay cross-reacted with the proinsulin, but the c-pep assay didn't - leading to the erroneous results. Samples from the babies in the Letby trial were not analysed by mass spectrometry, which is crucial to conclusively determine exogenous administration. 3) The tunnel vision experienced by the consultants did not stop during the police investigation. In a highly irregular step, Dr. Brearey continued his involvement with the police investigation until at least 2018 - despite many on the unit presumably being under suspicion (if this is to be a properly managed murder investigation). Brearey trawled back through cases, looking specifically for babies showing unusual insulin results - only during the indictment period. This is again not how fair murder investigations are to be conducted, and the risks of tunnel vision on this point alone are glaring. 4) The '2 juries' argument is null and void. Jurors were dictated medical evidence by those not qualified to give it. How were the lay jury ought to know who to trust, or how to analyse the evidence beyond the interpretations given to them by the 'expert' witnesses? The second jury presided over a case that didn't even employ expert witnesses. This is the case where Letby is accused of dislodging a breathing tube, the only evidence being a doctor's testimony that morphed considerably over the two trials - only caught in its inconsistency by the mistake surrounding the swipe data. This jury were also told they could take Letby's previous convictions into account while making their judgement. This is not an acceptable state of affairs for a retrial. The case was based on nothing of value, and galling examples of substandard care came out in the retrial (delays in lung surfactant administration, repeated failed intubations of a 25-week baby, failure to diagnose a 'severe lung disease', undiagnosed kidney problems, and more.) The substandard care was so bad that Child 'K' died 3 days later, yet Letby is not accused of causing her death. That's because the prosecution would have to contend with the fact that the care given at the Countess, not by Letby, may have contributed substantially to her eventual demise. Sorry for the long post, but I want you to know that I have justification for my beliefs and wouldn't disrespect the parents by not conducting my research properly. I'm also open to the possibility of being wrong, but if you believe something to be true you must argue for it. The truth is a good in and of itself, and I don't believe the truth is what the verdicts reflect.