Another Drive4show 'Anything goes' thread

[JAS]

First topic message reminder :

Anyone fancy taking a sweep on when Labour are going to say "we've looked at the books, and it's worse than we thought, so we have to raise taxes"

Well...if Starmer hasn't done it by Friday 6:00pm it'll have to wait until next week :-p

[super_realist]

You work for one of the biggest companies in Europe? Yes, we know, you mention it all the time as if we're supposed to be impressed. I get get emails from the CIOs of some of the biggest companies in Europe and some of them use pronouns. I'm sure they'd be impressed by your dismissive attitude towards them.
Simply put, I'd hate to work with a jumped up jerk like you.

Ha ha. I'm a jerk because I think declared pronouns are preposterous? Go and apply to work at The Graudian.

[JuliusHMarx]

You work for one of the biggest companies in Europe? Yes, we know, you mention it all the time as if we're supposed to be impressed. I get get emails from the CIOs of some of the biggest companies in Europe and some of them use pronouns. I'm sure they'd be impressed by your dismissive attitude towards them.
Simply put, I'd hate to work with a jumped up jerk like you.

Ha ha. I'm a jerk because I think declared pronouns are preposterous? Go and apply to work at The Graudian.

You're a jerk because you lack the self-awareness to even recognize your prejudice and then declare how wonderful you are compared to everyone else.

[JAS]

Because JAS, if you are the sort of person that thinks that a pronoun declaration means anything to the operation of any company or that they give a toss about how you want to identify yourself then it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how businesses operate and it shows a certain degree of self indulgence.
Anyone who has ever worked in any organisation knows that all these "values" that companies claim to live by are just lip service and just HR tick boxes. As soon as it fits their agenda things like "Care" just disappear.
Companies care about pertinent details, not about your stance on the preposterous gender ideology group think.

What about the use of Mr, Mrs, Miss & Ms then? Does that matter or not? If not, what’s the difference? If yes will you be on a mission to eject everyone who use them??

[No name Bertie]

When did the idea first arise that individuals could chose what personal pronouns other people must use when referring to them?  

When did that idea become enacted into law such that for example teachers could be disciplined or   sacked for not using the personal pronoun of choice of one of their pupils?

Prior to this was society endemically unjust?

[McLaren]

Super

I still don't believe that you would make a deal about using the pronouns that someone in your workplace or friend group has asked to be used. Your harsh stance on pronouns only goes as far as denigrating their use on an internet forum.

[McLaren]

When did the idea first arise that individuals could chose what personal pronouns other people must use when referring to them?  

When did that idea become enacted into law such that for example teachers could be disciplined or   sacked for not using the personal pronoun of choice of one of their pupils?

It doesn't have to be law for it to be the best care a teacher could provide a student. Teachers could be disciplined for many actions that do not violate a law.

In general using the correct pronouns for someone is just seen as common decency.

[McLaren]

Also, I just have to get this out there.

Was I right on Lucy Letby?


I took a lot of stick on here for saying the scientific/medical evidence was poor and therefore there should have been bucket loads of reasonable doubt. Seems like the medical, scientific and journalistic communities are catching up to that position.

[Duty281]

Also, I just have to get this out there.

Was I right on Lucy Letby?


I took a lot of stick on here for saying the scientific/medical evidence was poor and therefore there should have been bucket loads of reasonable doubt. Seems like the medical, scientific and journalistic communities are catching up to that position.

Last time you just said you weren't aware of the prosecution evidence because you thought it wasn't public, and then when given the links to read the evidence, you said it was too much reading.

If you have specific counter arguments to her guilt, I'd be interested to see it. I think because she's white, young, female and pretty, a lot of people have trouble reconciling that with their idea of what a mass murderer of infants should look like.

For me, she's guilty and she should hang. Even another jury had a go recently and convicted her on another charge of attempted murder.

[JuliusHMarx]

Also, I just have to get this out there.

Was I right on Lucy Letby?


I took a lot of stick on here for saying the scientific/medical evidence was poor and therefore there should have been bucket loads of reasonable doubt. Seems like the medical, scientific and journalistic communities are catching up to that position.

We need to Letbygones be bygones.

[McLaren]

Critical viewing for Super_realist (our very own Qanon uncle)

[super_realist]

It's not me who is racist Mac, it's the Democrats.

Biden specifically stated he'd choose a woman of colour as VP/running mate, you can't get much more of a token VP than that can you?

[super_realist]

Super

I still don't believe that you would make a deal about using the pronouns that someone in your workplace or friend group has asked to be used. Your harsh stance on pronouns only goes as far as denigrating their use on an internet forum.

Mac, give me an example where I'd need to use a person's pronoun in their company. If I met you for a game at Trump, would you declare your pronouns to me? Do you do it when you phone up your bank, at a job interview? I sincerely doubt it.

Also, I don't think I've used the term Mr, Miss, Ms, Mrs etc since I was at primary school. It's equally as irrelevant as confected made up pronouns.

[navyblueshorts]

...When did that idea become enacted into law such that for example teachers could be disciplined or   sacked for not using the personal pronoun of choice of one of their pupils?...

When the Equality Act came into force and gender etc became protected characteristics. A grey area, perhaps, on pronouns, I'll grant you, but refusal to use them as requested is almost certainly steering extremely close to falling foul of that Act, especially if a case could be made that someone was deliberately refusing to use the requested pronouns as a form of discrimination.

[navyblueshorts]

Also, I just have to get this out there.

Was I right on Lucy Letby?


I took a lot of stick on here for saying the scientific/medical evidence was poor and therefore there should have been bucket loads of reasonable doubt. Seems like the medical, scientific and journalistic communities are catching up to that position.

No; you weren't.

[navyblueshorts]

It's not me who is racist Mac, it's the Democrats.

Biden specifically stated he'd choose a woman of colour as VP/running mate, you can't get much more of a token VP than that can you?

That doesn't mean such a person isn't also suitably qualified to act as his VP. We've been through this - suspect Biden had a load of equally suitable candidates, but decided to go for Harris because she's female and coloured, and as a positive way to make the decision. Only a problem in your head?

[navyblueshorts]

Super

I still don't believe that you would make a deal about using the pronouns that someone in your workplace or friend group has asked to be used. Your harsh stance on pronouns only goes as far as denigrating their use on an internet forum.

Mac, give me an example where I'd need to use a person's pronoun in their company. If I met you for a game at Trump, would you declare your pronouns to me? Do you do it when you phone up your bank, at a job interview? I sincerely doubt it.

Also, I don't think I've used the term Mr, Miss, Ms, Mrs etc since I was at primary school. It's equally as irrelevant as confected made up pronouns.

I admire your internet bravado. If you were in a meeting, where someone who uses pronouns that annoy you wasn't present, and you acted as you do here re. their use in referring to that individual in the third person while mentioning them in the meeting, you could easily find yourself in bother. Your target for derisory comment re. their request to use their chosen pronouns wouldn't have to be present for someone else (who was present) to raise a complaint against you.

I suspect (in fact, I'm almost 100% sure) that if you were actually in a situation where you had a choice to do as requested, or to be bloody minded and actively refuse to use someone's chosen pronouns, you'd do as they requested.

[JuliusHMarx]

Also he didn't say he would choose a woman of colour, with the implication it had to be a woman of colour regardless of anything else, he said -
"Whomever I pick, preferably it will be someone who was of color and/or a different gender, but I’m not making that commitment until I know that the person I’m dealing with I can completely and thoroughly trust as authentic and on the same page".

There is a huge hypocrisy in the lesser super saying "I want the best candidate for the job" whilst at the same time saying "I will not consider the applications of someone who uses pronouns" as if that alone somehow makes them unsuitable for the job. All it really does is show that they are unsuitable to working with s_r and his prejudices.

[super_realist]

It's not me who is racist Mac, it's the Democrats.

Biden specifically stated he'd choose a woman of colour as VP/running mate, you can't get much more of a token VP than that can you?

That doesn't mean such a person isn't also suitably qualified to act as his VP. We've been through this - suspect Biden had a load of equally suitable candidates, but decided to go for Harris because she's female and coloured, and as a positive way to make the decision. Only a problem in your head?

You really think a divisive and inept person like Harris was the best they could do? I know American politics is an even lower bar than UK, but Harris is worse than even a senile Biden is.

[super_realist]

Super

I still don't believe that you would make a deal about using the pronouns that someone in your workplace or friend group has asked to be used. Your harsh stance on pronouns only goes as far as denigrating their use on an internet forum.

Mac, give me an example where I'd need to use a person's pronoun in their company. If I met you for a game at Trump, would you declare your pronouns to me? Do you do it when you phone up your bank, at a job interview? I sincerely doubt it.

Also, I don't think I've used the term Mr, Miss, Ms, Mrs etc since I was at primary school. It's equally as irrelevant as confected made up pronouns.

I admire your internet bravado. If you were in a meeting, where someone who uses pronouns that annoy you wasn't present, and you acted as you do here re. their use in referring to that individual in the third person while mentioning them in the meeting, you could easily find yourself in bother. Your target for derisory comment re. their request to use their chosen pronouns wouldn't have to be present for someone else (who was present) to raise a complaint against you.

I suspect (in fact, I'm almost 100% sure) that if you were actually in a situation where you had a choice to do as requested, or to be bloody minded and actively refuse to use someone's chosen pronouns, you'd do as they requested.

I would use the persons name as a reference, not a stupid confected "xe/xim or something similar. This gender ideology nonsense has just gone so ridiculous to the point that even councils are putting sanitary products in male toilets.
It is not illegal by the way to not use a person's chosen made up pronouns.

[JAS]

It's not me who is racist Mac, it's the Democrats.

Biden specifically stated he'd choose a woman of colour as VP/running mate, you can't get much more of a token VP than that can you?

That doesn't mean such a person isn't also suitably qualified to act as his VP. We've been through this - suspect Biden had a load of equally suitable candidates, but decided to go for Harris because she's female and coloured, and as a positive way to make the decision. Only a problem in your head?

You really think a divisive and inept person like Harris was the best they could do? I know American politics is an even lower bar than UK, but Harris is worse than even a  senile Biden is.

Can you give specific examples of her divisiveness that can be independently verified outside the confines of your own head?

[Duty281]

It's not me who is racist Mac, it's the Democrats.

Biden specifically stated he'd choose a woman of colour as VP/running mate, you can't get much more of a token VP than that can you?

That doesn't mean such a person isn't also suitably qualified to act as his VP. We've been through this - suspect Biden had a load of equally suitable candidates, but decided to go for Harris because she's female and coloured, and as a positive way to make the decision. Only a problem in your head?

You really think a divisive and inept person like Harris was the best they could do? I know American politics is an even lower bar than UK, but Harris is worse than even a  senile Biden is.

Can you give specific examples of her divisiveness that can be independently verified outside the confines of your own head?

She's standing as the Democrat nominee (most likely) for President of the USA, and is causing a division between people who support her and people who don't support her.

[navyblueshorts]

It's not me who is racist Mac, it's the Democrats.

Biden specifically stated he'd choose a woman of colour as VP/running mate, you can't get much more of a token VP than that can you?

That doesn't mean such a person isn't also suitably qualified to act as his VP. We've been through this - suspect Biden had a load of equally suitable candidates, but decided to go for Harris because she's female and coloured, and as a positive way to make the decision. Only a problem in your head?

You really think a divisive and inept person like Harris was the best they could do? I know American politics is an even lower bar than UK, but Harris is worse than even a  senile Biden is.

In your opinion, which is fine...

[navyblueshorts]

Super

I still don't believe that you would make a deal about using the pronouns that someone in your workplace or friend group has asked to be used. Your harsh stance on pronouns only goes as far as denigrating their use on an internet forum.

Mac, give me an example where I'd need to use a person's pronoun in their company. If I met you for a game at Trump, would you declare your pronouns to me? Do you do it when you phone up your bank, at a job interview? I sincerely doubt it.

Also, I don't think I've used the term Mr, Miss, Ms, Mrs etc since I was at primary school. It's equally as irrelevant as confected made up pronouns.

I admire your internet bravado. If you were in a meeting, where someone who uses pronouns that annoy you wasn't present, and you acted as you do here re. their use in referring to that individual in the third person while mentioning them in the meeting, you could easily find yourself in bother. Your target for derisory comment re. their request to use their chosen pronouns wouldn't have to be present for someone else (who was present) to raise a complaint against you.

I suspect (in fact, I'm almost 100% sure) that if you were actually in a situation where you had a choice to do as requested, or to be bloody minded and actively refuse to use someone's chosen pronouns, you'd do as they requested.

I would use the persons name as a reference, not a stupid confected "xe/xim or something similar. This gender ideology nonsense has just gone so ridiculous to the point that even councils are putting sanitary products in male toilets.
It is not illegal by the way to not use a person's chosen made up pronouns.

If a case can be made that your wilful refusal to use someone's requested pronouns was borne of discrimination, then yes, it would be against the law, I'm afraid. Try it - see how you get on.

Re. your proposed use of names, is it just the pronouns that's a problem? What would you do if a former 'David' now wished to be known as 'Davina'?

[navyblueshorts]

It's not me who is racist Mac, it's the Democrats.

Biden specifically stated he'd choose a woman of colour as VP/running mate, you can't get much more of a token VP than that can you?

That doesn't mean such a person isn't also suitably qualified to act as his VP. We've been through this - suspect Biden had a load of equally suitable candidates, but decided to go for Harris because she's female and coloured, and as a positive way to make the decision. Only a problem in your head?

You really think a divisive and inept person like Harris was the best they could do? I know American politics is an even lower bar than UK, but Harris is worse than even a  senile Biden is.

Can you give specific examples of her divisiveness that can be independently verified outside the confines of your own head?

She's standing as the Democrat nominee (most likely) for President of the USA, and is causing a division between people who support her and people who don't support her.

Very good.

[McLaren]

Super

How many steak bakes did you loot at the weekend?

[McLaren]

Also, I just have to get this out there.

Was I right on Lucy Letby?


I took a lot of stick on here for saying the scientific/medical evidence was poor and therefore there should have been bucket loads of reasonable doubt. Seems like the medical, scientific and journalistic communities are catching up to that position.

No; you weren't.

Navy

Genuinely interested in your thoughts on the following.

https://www.private-eye.co.uk/special-reports/lucy-letby

https://www.private-eye.co.uk/pictures/special_reports/lucy-letby.pdf

http://archive.is/2024.07.03-130536/https://web.archive.org/web/20240513112618/https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2024/05/20/lucy-letby-was-found-guilty-of-killing-seven-babies-did-she-do-it

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/jul/09/lucy-letby-evidence-experts-question

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/lucy-letby-innocent-appeal-new-yorker-b2578297.html


A lot to get through, but it seems the medical and scientific community are not convinced the evidence presented from their fields was done so responsibly. And again.

[navyblueshorts]

...Navy

Genuinely interested in your thoughts on the following...

Will have a read...

[JAS]

Also, I just have to get this out there.

Was I right on Lucy Letby?


I took a lot of stick on here for saying the scientific/medical evidence was poor and therefore there should have been bucket loads of reasonable doubt. Seems like the medical, scientific and journalistic communities are catching up to that position.

No; you weren't.

Navy

Genuinely interested in your thoughts on the following.

https://www.private-eye.co.uk/special-reports/lucy-letby

https://www.private-eye.co.uk/pictures/special_reports/lucy-letby.pdf

http://archive.is/2024.07.03-130536/https://web.archive.org/web/20240513112618/https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2024/05/20/lucy-letby-was-found-guilty-of-killing-seven-babies-did-she-do-it

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/jul/09/lucy-letby-evidence-experts-question

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/lucy-letby-innocent-appeal-new-yorker-b2578297.html


A lot to get through, but it seems the medical and scientific community are not convinced the evidence presented from their fields was done so responsibly. And again.

Well to be fair, seven kids killed and no far right riots on the streets, maybe there is reasonable doubt. Something that obviously wasn’t the case in the Southport murders where the perpetrator was obviously a small boat asylum seeker (so goes right wing logic).

[navyblueshorts]

Also, I just have to get this out there.

Was I right on Lucy Letby?


I took a lot of stick on here for saying the scientific/medical evidence was poor and therefore there should have been bucket loads of reasonable doubt. Seems like the medical, scientific and journalistic communities are catching up to that position.

No; you weren't.

Navy

Genuinely interested in your thoughts on the following.

https://www.private-eye.co.uk/special-reports/lucy-letby

https://www.private-eye.co.uk/pictures/special_reports/lucy-letby.pdf

http://archive.is/2024.07.03-130536/https://web.archive.org/web/20240513112618/https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2024/05/20/lucy-letby-was-found-guilty-of-killing-seven-babies-did-she-do-it

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/jul/09/lucy-letby-evidence-experts-question

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/lucy-letby-innocent-appeal-new-yorker-b2578297.html


A lot to get through, but it seems the medical and scientific community are not convinced the evidence presented from their fields was done so responsibly. And again.

Ta for the links, Mac. Appreciated. Couldn't access the one in the Independent, but imagine it concurs with the rest of them.

Cards on the table - I didn't/haven't paid much attention to the detail of this case either when it was going on, or since. I therefore probably shouldn't rush to judgement, but you kind of assume that with something so serious, it would be treated carefully in the Courts.

Other card on the table - the wife and I have twins. Now 15 (so born in 2009, around the same time as this was going on, so therefore likely same practices in use), but born at 28 weeks, both under two pounds in weight at birth. Our son spent ~14 months (daughter only the 4 months) on a NICU unit at a new hospital with serious breathing difficulties - multiple crashes, multiple bag/mask episodes, multiple infections etc. We learnt, and saw, an awful lot that relates to the medicine involved. We were even signed off to insert NG tubes and give bag/mask resuscitation when our son was finally discharged. There were a good few deaths of newborns; some apparently out of the blue. It happens, and far more than most 'happy couples', who never even know what a NICU is, realise. We're still in touch with some of the staff that looked after our kids.

Having read your linked info, and accepting I wasn't in Court, I agree it's anywhere but clear cut and I would have expected it not meet the 'beyond reasonable doubt' criteria. The idea that putting air in a neonate's stomach would cause any sort of air embolism is nonsense, and as suggested, it's extremely commonplace in NICU units due to routine bag and mask use as a first response when a baby desaturates - there's zero control of whether the air being forced in goes down the trachea or the oesophagus.

As for Jayaram apparently attesting that (my highlight):

"The only possibility was that that tube had to have been dislodged deliberately,” he said. “She was just standing there.”

That's just bollox. It happened to our son several times during his multiple ventilation events. No-one deliberately dislodged his intubation tube; his movement or something else simply dislodged it. They also pretty much guess the correct length (and diameter) to cut the tube when it's inserted - maybe that one was never quite right? As for Letby "just standing there", she could easily have been watching the baby's chest rise/fall to see if the ventilation was doing as it should, in order to be sure whether the tube was still in place. This was exactly what the nurses, ANNPs and doctors did with our son - watched for a few moments, before getting help and going for a bag/mask. Sometimes they had to wait anyway if a SATs monitor/ventilator was alarming, as small neonates (at least, our son regularly did) sometimes desat and then recover 'by themselves' under the ventilation - her "just standing there" says nothing really.

All of the seriously ill neonates, and those under ~32 weeks, are there for a good reason and are, as one of your linked articles points out, significantly unwell and very, very fragile.

The statistical gaff re. the nursing roster is mind numbing. Ditto the fact the insulin evidence as produced was even allowed.

Interesting stuff. A real travesty if she's been wrongly convicted. Doesn't sound like she helped herself in Court, but I imagine she was a mess and barely able to think straight. Will keep an eye on this.

[McLaren]

Thanks for your thoughts navy. Sounds like you have a much better insight into this case than most. Your personal experiences are very interesting. Thank you for sharing such a personal story.

The thing that worries me with this case is that once the jury misunderstands the science, then they are primed to put more weight on the "she was just standing there" type stories or the post it notes.

I've read all the stuff above and more (the internet is full of rabbit holes) and I can't work out what the defense was doing? They just seem to have allow the prosecutions "expert" witnesses to set the scene unchallenged. Did they not know the whole scientific and medical community were lining up to offer a helping hand? So strange.

[McLaren]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cm2n8xv61x3o

Shameful, in what way is removing their citizenship the way to empathise with a victim of grooming.

[Duty281]

Just going through the notes I made at the time about the murdered children.

Murder of Child A (8th June 2015)
Just before this child's murder, Letby learns about the dangers of air embolus. Child A was doing fine, but crashed minutes after Letby started her shift. She was standing over them at the time of collapse. Child A was significantly discoloured, a discolouration that Dr Harkness only saw one other time in his medical career (with Child E). Other medical professionals noted this discolouration and how unusual it was. Medical experts reckoned air embolus was the cause of death. Letby searched up the mother on Facebook four days after this murder.

Attempted Murder of Child B (Twin of Child A; 8th-12th June 2015)
Letby signs for a reading of Child B's blood at 00:16. Child B collapses at 00:30. Similar discolouration and suddenness of collapse to Child A. Medical experts baffled for cause of collapse.

Murder of Child C (14th June 2015)
Letby was not the designated nurse, but kept going in and out of the room of Child C. Child C was doing well, attended by a doctor, then minutes later Child C collapsed. The doctor came back into the room to find Letby standing over Child C. The vocal cords of Child C were later found to be swollen, something found in the instances of four other children in this case, because something had been inserted down their throat. A medical expert says that Child C died from air injected into a tube and had a massively swollen stomach. Letby later searches the family up on Facebook.

Murder of Child D (22nd June 2015)
Child D was fine, attended by a nurse, who left for a break. When she returned, Child D had collapsed and Letby was in the room. Child D had skin discolouration, which was highlighted as very rare by those in attendance.  It was likely that Letby gave an IV infusion to the child five minutes before they collapsed. It was countersigned by the aforementioned nurse, but she was on a break at the time and couldn't recall giving a signature.  

The discolouration vanished, then reappeared just after the second collapse, before following the same pattern for the third collapse. One doctor said he had never seen such a succession of collapses and recoveries before, but Letby couldn't recall the details in interview. It was again concluded that the child died from the injection of air, with one expert saying he had 'never seen so much air [in the vessels]'.

Murder of Child E (4th August 2015)
The mother of Child E walked in on the child screaming and saw blood around the mouth. Letby, who was in the room, claimed it was just the tube becoming dislodged, but the tube had been in place for days with no issues. The mother called the father of Child E at 21:11 giving this account to him. But Letby produced no notes saying she was in there at 21:00, and lied by saying there was no bleeding before 22:00. Child E suffered from the same skin discolouration, collapsed suddenly within an hour of Letby starting work, and it was agreed by numerous doctors that air injected was the cause of death. Letby looked up the parents on Facebook shortly after the murder.  

Attempted Murder of Child F (Twin of Child E; 5th August 2015)
Child F was injected with insulin. Letby was on shift and hung up the feeding bag containing the insulin. It was agreed that the insulin was applied to the bag only after coming on to the ward.

Attempted Murder of Child G (7th September 2015)
Child G, born very premature, was stable and recovering well. Letby started her shift at 02:00. At 02:30ish, the child vomited an extraordinary amount, due to being overfed milk and also, possibly, being injected air, causing serious brain injury. Letby lied and claimed this happened at 02:15, but this is disproven by other contemporaneous medical notes. Child G also suffered bleeding to the throat, which baffled doctors.

Two weeks later, Child G was recovering and stable, but again, while Letby was on shift, vomited severely twice due to being extremely overfed.

Murder of Child I (23rd October 2015)
Child I was doing well, then involved in three separate incidents with Letby on shift. A fourth incident resulted in the child’s death. A doctor was perplexed at the sudden deterioration of the child, and noted the strange and unusual cry. Letby then falsified notes to give herself an alibi.

When the alarm went off after the fourth incident, Letby was found to be present at the child’s incubator. There were the same discoloured patches on Child I as with the previous ones.

Letby’s behaviour in the aftermath of the murder was perplexing, as she insisted on talking to the family while smiling (despite not being the designated nurse). She later searched them up on Facebook and sent them a condolence card.  

Cause of death was believed by many doctors to be, again, air embolus.  

Attempted Murder of Child L (9th April 2016)
Poisoned with insulin, by the same delivery method as Child F, although there was a higher dosage of insulin this time. Letby cosigned the bag that poisoned Child F, and she was one of only three members of staff on shift for both the incidents with Child L and Child F.

Attempted Murder of Child M (Twin of Child F; 9th April 2016)
Child M was doing perfectly fine, then suffered a collapse. Letby then administered a dextrose solution to the child, and within 10 minutes the child required CPR. There was the same, rare discolouration of the skin on the child. Letby took the resuscitation notes home with her.  

Attempted Murder of Child N (3rd June 2016)
Child N had nearly recovered and was soon to go home. They were recorded as having 100% oxygen saturation at 07:00. Letby came in at 07:12.  Child N collapsed at 07:15. Letby was again present as the child was given CPR. Letby later lied about knowing the child had haemophilia. Letby later rang the parents.

Murder of Child O (23rd June 2016)
Child O collapsed after making a good recovery, due to go home. They were murdered by the injection of air, causing death and the same discolouration of the skin. Letby also inflicted a vicious physical blow on the child, after death, to the liver, causing an internal bleed.  

Murder of Child P (24th June 2016; Triplet of Child O)
Child P was recovering well, then suddenly collapsed. Cause of death was injection of air. Letby made a comment during the child’s attempted resuscitation of ‘he’s not leaving here alive, is he?’, which shocked those present. Letby later gave the parents a memory box.

(The parents got their third child out of this hospital, and that child survived)

It all fits what you'd expect of a serial killer. The similar patterns and the increasing escalation.

Letby generally targeted children who were recovering and close to leaving hospital. The method was almost always the same, save for times she tried to inject insulin. She had a particular interest in going for twins/triplets. The violence of her attacks increased (the murder of Child O was especially vicious), which is what you expect of serial killers as they search for a bigger 'high' from murdering and because they increase in confidence the longer they go uncaught. She seemed to revel in the misery of the parents of the children she murdered, and grew in confidence in this regard as time went on. Initially she would search them out on Facebook, then she would talk to them in person or on the phone, and towards the end she helped craft memory boxes for the parents of the children she murdered. She also kept mementos of some of those she had killed. She also falsified notes in an effort to cover up her evilness (Shipman did similar, I believe) and used her seniority at work over junior staff to influence/bully them into replicating her notes.

The evidence, and the prosecution's case, is overwhelming. I followed the case from day one and I'm very sure of Letby's overall guilt.

What has happened is the 'true crime' community has exploded in popularity since Covid. There was always a small number of people curious about court trials, potential miscarriages of justice etc. but the number of people interested since Covid and the lockdowns has skyrocketed, fueled by podcasts and TikTok. And this is the result. A growing clamour for the release of someone who is pure evil.

[navyblueshorts]

Thanks for your thoughts navy. Sounds like you have a much better insight into this case than most. Your personal experiences are very interesting. Thank you for sharing such a personal story.

The thing that worries me with this case is that once the jury misunderstands the science, then they are primed to put more weight on the "she was just standing there" type stories or the post it notes.

I've read all the stuff above and more (the internet is full of rabbit holes) and I can't work out what the defense was doing? They just seem to have allow the prosecutions "expert" witnesses to set the scene unchallenged. Did they not know the whole scientific and medical community were lining up to offer a helping hand? So strange.

This, and the fact I believe it was the case that after the insulin issues were presented (notwithstanding neither were fatal and the tests used were explicitly excluded as conclusive of evidence of external insulin administration i.e. requiring additional tests that weren't performed in either case), it sounds as if the jury were advised that they could use that 'evidence' to imply that the other cases were likely true. That sounds incredibly dodgy to me.

Agree that the defence case seems odd. They didn't even call their own expert witness to refute some of the prosecution claims. Really weird.

[navyblueshorts]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cm2n8xv61x3o

Shameful, in what way is removing their citizenship the way to empathise with a victim of grooming.

Alleged grooming. She/her lawyers might argue that, but was it really? Easy excuse.

That said, she was definitely a minor and it seems overly harsh to penalise someone to this extent for a decision she made at 15(?). It's not even the case, I believe, that's she's accused of any actual terrorist violence during her time w/ IS. There ought to be a sensible route for her to return to the UK, even if it essentially means she's here on license in more or less the same way as a released convict might be.

[Duty281]

Thanks for your thoughts navy. Sounds like you have a much better insight into this case than most. Your personal experiences are very interesting. Thank you for sharing such a personal story.

The thing that worries me with this case is that once the jury misunderstands the science, then they are primed to put more weight on the "she was just standing there" type stories or the post it notes.

I've read all the stuff above and more (the internet is full of rabbit holes) and I can't work out what the defense was doing? They just seem to have allow the prosecutions "expert" witnesses to set the scene unchallenged. Did they not know the whole scientific and medical community were lining up to offer a helping hand? So strange.

This, and the fact I believe it was the case that after the insulin issues were presented (notwithstanding neither were fatal and the tests used were explicitly excluded as conclusive of evidence of external insulin administration i.e. requiring additional tests that weren't performed in either case), it sounds as if the jury were advised that they could use that 'evidence' to imply that the other cases were likely true. That sounds incredibly dodgy to me.

Agree that the defence case seems odd. They didn't even call their own expert witness to refute some of the prosecution claims. Really weird.

Not weird at all. Letby was defended by a KC. If a KC doesn't call an expert witness then it's because they know that such a witness is likely to do more damage to their interpretation of events than if they didn't call such an expert.

[navyblueshorts]

Just going through the notes I made at the time about the murdered children.

Murder of Child A (8th June 2015)
Just before this child's murder, Letby learns about the dangers of air embolus. Child A was doing fine, but crashed minutes after Letby started her shift. She was standing over them at the time of collapse. Child A was significantly discoloured, a discolouration that Dr Harkness only saw one other time in his medical career (with Child E). Other medical professionals noted this discolouration and how unusual it was. Medical experts reckoned air embolus was the cause of death. Letby searched up the mother on Facebook four days after this murder.

Discoloured could mean anything. General desaturation causes significant 'discolouration'. Embolus via the GI tract is nonsense. PM didn't confirm evidence of IV embolus. IV emboli cause more or less instant, catastrophic mortality. None of these infants, supposedly given an air embolus, did this.

Attempted Murder of Child B (Twin of Child A; 8th-12th June 2015)
Letby signs for a reading of Child B's blood at 00:16. Child B collapses at 00:30. Similar discolouration and suddenness of collapse to Child A. Medical experts baffled for cause of collapse.

PM didn't support evidence of IV embolus. 'Collapse' on a NICU unit of very small, pre-term infants isn't that unusual.

Murder of Child C (14th June 2015)
Letby was not the designated nurse, but kept going in and out of the room of Child C. Child C was doing well, attended by a doctor, then minutes later Child C collapsed. The doctor came back into the room to find Letby standing over Child C. The vocal cords of Child C were later found to be swollen, something found in the instances of four other children in this case, because something had been inserted down their throat. A medical expert says that Child C died from air injected into a tube and had a massively swollen stomach. Letby later searches the family up on Facebook.

Means absolutely zero that Letby in/out of room. Nursing staff cover each other's charges a lot of the time. You're also ignoring proven evidence of under-staffing etc. Intubation, for example, causes swollen vocal cords - that's normal - and steroids such as a dexamethasone are routinely given during extubation events to manage that swelling. X-ray 24-hours prior showed excess air in GI tract due to bag/mask. This infant was under 2 lbs at 30 weeks - have you any idea how small that is cf. the expected weight at that gestation? It also had pneumonia (i.e. a bad lung infection), presumably from a bacterial infection, the latter of which might also have led to any observed swelling/oedema in the airways. PM did NOT support your proposed cause of death.

Murder of Child D (22nd June 2015)
Child D was fine, attended by a nurse, who left for a break. When she returned, Child D had collapsed and Letby was in the room. Child D had skin discolouration, which was highlighted as very rare by those in attendance.  It was likely that Letby gave an IV infusion to the child five minutes before they collapsed. It was countersigned by the aforementioned nurse, but she was on a break at the time and couldn't recall giving a signature.

The discolouration vanished, then reappeared just after the second collapse, before following the same pattern for the third collapse. One doctor said he had never seen such a succession of collapses and recoveries before, but Letby couldn't recall the details in interview. It was again concluded that the child died from the injection of air, with one expert saying he had 'never seen so much air [in the vessels]'.   

PM didn't support any 'air in vessels'. Only one of the paediatricians on the rota was an actual neonatologist (that's just gob smacking tbh). I'm not surprised the others hadn't seen things unique to severely ill neonates if they weren't actually trained as neonatologists. It's just nonsense that a doctor "had never seen such a succession of collapses and recoveries before". It happened to my son - a lot. It usually resulted in him then getting intubated, but those cycles of collapse/apparent recovery/collapse/etc aren't unusual.

Murder of Child E (4th August 2015)
The mother of Child E walked in on the child screaming and saw blood around the mouth. Letby, who was in the room, claimed it was just the tube becoming dislodged, but the tube had been in place for days with no issues. The mother called the father of Child E at 21:11 giving this account to him. But Letby produced no notes saying she was in there at 21:00, and lied by saying there was no bleeding before 22:00. Child E suffered from the same skin discolouration, collapsed suddenly within an hour of Letby starting work, and it was agreed by numerous doctors that air injected was the cause of death. Letby looked up the parents on Facebook shortly after the murder.    

No PM evidence of air injection/embolus. It's irrelevant if this infants tube "had been in place for days with no issues". They can displace for no apparent reason. It's a fact.

Attempted Murder of Child F (Twin of Child E; 5th August 2015)
Child F was injected with insulin. Letby was on shift and hung up the feeding bag containing the insulin. It was agreed that the insulin was applied to the bag only after coming on to the ward.

No evidence, evidence shouldn't have been allowed in court, or it should have been easy to challenge. Test used to 'prove' injection of insulin were explicitly listed as not suitable to conclude that. At all. Other test that would have been required not performed.

Attempted Murder of Child G (7th September 2015)
Child G, born very premature, was stable and recovering well. Letby started her shift at 02:00. At 02:30ish, the child vomited an extraordinary amount, due to being overfed milk and also, possibly, being injected air, causing serious brain injury. Letby lied and claimed this happened at 02:15, but this is disproven by other contemporaneous medical notes. Child G also suffered bleeding to the throat, which baffled doctors.

Two weeks later, Child G was recovering and stable, but again, while Letby was on shift, vomited severely twice due to being extremely overfed.

Child this age would not have been milk-fed initially. Would have likely had something via NG called 'TPN'. Babies vomit - the idea it's down to 'over-feeding' is laughable in the absence of other causes. For example, this infant might have something called meconium ileus; might even have been 'NEC'. GI tract non-motility would cause vomiting. Don't know what PM showed, but it didn't show anything abnormal that could definitely have been sinister.

Murder of Child I (23rd October 2015)
Child I was doing well, then involved in three separate incidents with Letby on shift. A fourth incident resulted in the child’s death. A doctor was perplexed at the sudden deterioration of the child, and noted the strange and unusual cry. Letby then falsified notes to give herself an alibi.

When the alarm went off after the fourth incident, Letby was found to be present at the child’s incubator. There were the same discoloured patches on Child I as with the previous ones.

Letby’s behaviour in the aftermath of the murder was perplexing, as she insisted on talking to the family while smiling (despite not being the designated nurse). She later searched them up on Facebook and sent them a condolence card.  

Cause of death was believed by many doctors to be, again, air embolus.  

Same issue re. proposed air embolus - via GI is nonsense and no PM evidence, or observation consistent with, IV embolus.

Attempted Murder of Child L (9th April 2016)
Poisoned with insulin, by the same delivery method as Child F, although there was a higher dosage of insulin this time. Letby cosigned the bag that poisoned Child F, and she was one of only three members of staff on shift for both the incidents with Child L and Child F.

Nonsense. Assumption, and based on factually incorrect evidence. AFAIK, there was no fluid bags found that contained insulin, so your assertion re. the "bag that poisoned Child F" is unsupported.

Attempted Murder of Child M (Twin of Child F; 9th April 2016)
Child M was doing perfectly fine, then suffered a collapse. Letby then administered a dextrose solution to the child, and within 10 minutes the child required CPR. There was the same, rare discolouration of the skin on the child. Letby took the resuscitation notes home with her.  

Chance, and I'd take exception to the continued reference to these infants as, for example, "doing perfectly fine". They're severely underweight neonates, born early often for unknown reasons that are presumably severe enough to mean a pregnancy didn't run normally to full term. No evidence on PM re. any suggestion of air embolus.

Attempted Murder of Child N (3rd June 2016)
Child N had nearly recovered and was soon to go home. They were recorded as having 100% oxygen saturation at 07:00. Letby came in at 07:12.  Child N collapsed at 07:15. Letby was again present as the child was given CPR. Letby later lied about knowing the child had haemophilia. Letby later rang the parents.

What does haemophilia have to do with anything? 100% SATs in air? Or on some sort of pressurised support such as CPAP or ventilator? If the latter, what % O₂ was this infant on? If on pressure support and pO₂ more than, say, 40-50%, that's not an infant that's in any way out of the woods.

Murder of Child O (23rd June 2016)
Child O collapsed after making a good recovery, due to go home. They were murdered by the injection of air, causing death and the same discolouration of the skin. Letby also inflicted a vicious physical blow on the child, after death, to the liver, causing an internal bleed.  

No, they weren't. The was no PM evidence of IV air administration. No evidence of Letby striking corpse; just what appears to be a biased supposition.

Murder of Child P (24th June 2016; Triplet of Child O)
Child P was recovering well, then suddenly collapsed. Cause of death was injection of air. Letby made a comment during the child’s attempted resuscitation of ‘he’s not leaving here alive, is he?’, which shocked those present. Letby later gave the parents a memory box.

(The parents got their third child out of this hospital, and that child survived)

No, it wasn't. No PM evidence of IV air embolus. That comment is irrelevant. The nurses on our son's unit, whom we got to know very well, freely discussed what infants were likely to survive, and which wouldn't. Their experience was such that, to them, it was pretty obvious.

It all fits what you'd expect of a serial killer. The similar patterns and the increasing escalation.

Letby generally targeted children who were recovering and close to leaving hospital. The method was almost always the same, save for times she tried to inject insulin. She had a particular interest in going for twins/triplets. The violence of her attacks increased (the murder of Child O was especially vicious), which is what you expect of serial killers as they search for a bigger 'high' from murdering and because they increase in confidence the longer they go uncaught. She seemed to revel in the misery of the parents of the children she murdered, and grew in confidence in this regard as time went on. Initially she would search them out on Facebook, then she would talk to them in person or on the phone, and towards the end she helped craft memory boxes for the parents of the children she murdered. She also kept mementos of some of those she had killed. She also falsified notes in an effort to cover up her evilness (Shipman did similar, I believe) and used her seniority at work over junior staff to influence/bully them into replicating her notes.

The evidence, and the prosecution's case, is overwhelming. I followed the case from day one and I'm very sure of Letby's overall guilt.

What has happened is the 'true crime' community has exploded in popularity since Covid. There was always a small number of people curious about court trials, potential miscarriages of justice etc. but the number of people interested since Covid and the lockdowns has skyrocketed, fueled by podcasts and TikTok. And this is the result. A growing clamour for the release of someone who is pure evil.

No, it doesn't. It fits a pattern of people not understanding evidence, statistics, and what "beyond reasonable doubt" means. The twins/triplets red herring is daft - you do realise that the birth weights and likelihood of premature births mean that twins/triplets are more likely to be small and severely unwell on a NICU, don't you? It's simply more likely, I'm afraid, that if both twins/all three triplets are admitted to a NICU sub-32 weeks, they're all very unwell and there's an increased chance that one, or more, might not make it back out again.

All the stuff about her "seeming" to revel, etc, the Facebook stuff, her notes etc are ascribed more weight and meaning than might be the case. It's a biased approach based on her presumptive guilt for what would be a heinous crime. I won't convince, you, I know, but this is apparently so far from meeting the "beyond reasonable doubt" criteria, I'm amazed at the outcome.

[navyblueshorts]

Thanks for your thoughts navy. Sounds like you have a much better insight into this case than most. Your personal experiences are very interesting. Thank you for sharing such a personal story.

The thing that worries me with this case is that once the jury misunderstands the science, then they are primed to put more weight on the "she was just standing there" type stories or the post it notes.

I've read all the stuff above and more (the internet is full of rabbit holes) and I can't work out what the defense was doing? They just seem to have allow the prosecutions "expert" witnesses to set the scene unchallenged. Did they not know the whole scientific and medical community were lining up to offer a helping hand? So strange.

This, and the fact I believe it was the case that after the insulin issues were presented (notwithstanding neither were fatal and the tests used were explicitly excluded as conclusive of evidence of external insulin administration i.e. requiring additional tests that weren't performed in either case), it sounds as if the jury were advised that they could use that 'evidence' to imply that the other cases were likely true. That sounds incredibly dodgy to me.

Agree that the defence case seems odd. They didn't even call their own expert witness to refute some of the prosecution claims. Really weird.

Not weird at all. Letby was defended by a KC. If a KC doesn't call an expert witness then it's because they know that such a witness is likely to do more damage to their interpretation of events than if they didn't call such an expert.

I fully understand that supposition, and the case was the case as it occurred and as the jury decided. It's odd, though, that the defence expert witness freely states some of the prosecution evidence was dubious, was prepared to testify to that effect, but wasn't called. A KC is an expert in law, not in statistics, neonatal medicine or anything to do with science. Given the apparent issues surrounding the evidence, and accepting I wasn't a juror so am not privy to all that occurred and was presented in Court, I'll be interested to see if this conviction ultimately stands.

[McLaren]

Duty

Thankfully someone more qualified has gone through that for me. Thanks Navy.

I would not be able to provide a better rebuttal.

But Duty, the thing I would ask you is, how would you view the evidence if the science and medicine presented wasn't as accurate as you thought? And I think Navy has done a good job of pointing out where this is the case.

[McLaren]

https://twitter.com/JayMotty/status/1821578261593231681

Genuinely moving

[super_realist]

What a stupid conflation Mac.

[super_realist]

It's not me who is racist Mac, it's the Democrats.

Biden specifically stated he'd choose a woman of colour as VP/running mate, you can't get much more of a token VP than that can you?

That doesn't mean such a person isn't also suitably qualified to act as his VP. We've been through this - suspect Biden had a load of equally suitable candidates, but decided to go for Harris because she's female and coloured, and as a positive way to make the decision. Only a problem in your head?

You really think a divisive and inept person like Harris was the best they could do? I know American politics is an even lower bar than UK, but Harris is worse than even a  senile Biden is.

Can you give specific examples of her divisiveness that can be independently verified outside the confines of your own head?

How about flagrant support for Black Lives Matter whilst simultaneously keeping young black men in prison on trumped up charges for trivial things like Marijuana possession?
She's a truly dreadful candidate. Can't communicate, can't think on her feet. She's hopeless.
How about her atrocious record on immigration, basically her only remit as well as contradictory statements on the matter? She hasn't even visited the border.

[JAS]

Not visiting a border is divisive?? Christ ok. I never knew that, I love coming here for pearls of wisdom

[McLaren]

What a stupid conflation Mac.

What is this in relation to?

[JAS]

What a stupid conflation Mac.

What is this in relation to?

Conflation = Sounds like a mansplained Tory version of inflation, you know, Conservative policy induced inflation that wasn’t really there…until they fixed it!!

[navyblueshorts]

It's not me who is racist Mac, it's the Democrats.

Biden specifically stated he'd choose a woman of colour as VP/running mate, you can't get much more of a token VP than that can you?

That doesn't mean such a person isn't also suitably qualified to act as his VP. We've been through this - suspect Biden had a load of equally suitable candidates, but decided to go for Harris because she's female and coloured, and as a positive way to make the decision. Only a problem in your head?

You really think a divisive and inept person like Harris was the best they could do? I know American politics is an even lower bar than UK, but Harris is worse than even a  senile Biden is.

Can you give specific examples of her divisiveness that can be independently verified outside the confines of your own head?

How about flagrant support for Black Lives Matter whilst simultaneously keeping young black men in prison on trumped up charges for trivial things like Marijuana possession?
She's a truly dreadful candidate. Can't communicate, can't think on her feet. She's hopeless.
How about her atrocious record on immigration, basically her only remit as well as contradictory statements on the matter? She hasn't even visited the border.

flagrant
adjective
(of an action considered wrong or immoral) conspicuously or obviously offensive: a flagrant violation of the law.

Really? Flagrant support of BLM?

[McLaren]

Navy

I am not surprised at this point. Super went full Douglas Murray a long time ago.

[super_realist]

It's not me who is racist Mac, it's the Democrats.

Biden specifically stated he'd choose a woman of colour as VP/running mate, you can't get much more of a token VP than that can you?

That doesn't mean such a person isn't also suitably qualified to act as his VP. We've been through this - suspect Biden had a load of equally suitable candidates, but decided to go for Harris because she's female and coloured, and as a positive way to make the decision. Only a problem in your head?

You really think a divisive and inept person like Harris was the best they could do? I know American politics is an even lower bar than UK, but Harris is worse than even a  senile Biden is.

Can you give specific examples of her divisiveness that can be independently verified outside the confines of your own head?

How about flagrant support for Black Lives Matter whilst simultaneously keeping young black men in prison on trumped up charges for trivial things like Marijuana possession?
She's a truly dreadful candidate. Can't communicate, can't think on her feet. She's hopeless.
How about her atrocious record on immigration, basically her only remit as well as contradictory statements on the matter? She hasn't even visited the border.

flagrant
adjective
(of an action considered wrong or immoral) conspicuously or obviously offensive: a flagrant violation of the law.

Really? Flagrant support of BLM?

I don't find support of BLM as an organisation to be a good thing, do you?

Mac, I bet you don't even know why you dislike Douglas Murray. What is your objection, presume you prefer the diddler supporting Owen Jones?

[super_realist]

What a stupid conflation Mac.

What is this in relation to?

It's in relation to your preposterous video which completely misses the real reasons why people have an objection to poorly managed/illegal immigration.

Wouldn't be surprised if you had "open borders", "be kind" or "citizen of nowhere" on your Twitter bio along with some idiotic connected pronouns

[McLaren]

I dislike Douglas Murray because he is racist.

What are the real reasons people object to immigration?

[navyblueshorts]

It's not me who is racist Mac, it's the Democrats.

Biden specifically stated he'd choose a woman of colour as VP/running mate, you can't get much more of a token VP than that can you?

That doesn't mean such a person isn't also suitably qualified to act as his VP. We've been through this - suspect Biden had a load of equally suitable candidates, but decided to go for Harris because she's female and coloured, and as a positive way to make the decision. Only a problem in your head?

You really think a divisive and inept person like Harris was the best they could do? I know American politics is an even lower bar than UK, but Harris is worse than even a  senile Biden is.

Can you give specific examples of her divisiveness that can be independently verified outside the confines of your own head?

How about flagrant support for Black Lives Matter whilst simultaneously keeping young black men in prison on trumped up charges for trivial things like Marijuana possession?
She's a truly dreadful candidate. Can't communicate, can't think on her feet. She's hopeless.
How about her atrocious record on immigration, basically her only remit as well as contradictory statements on the matter? She hasn't even visited the border.

flagrant
adjective
(of an action considered wrong or immoral) conspicuously or obviously offensive: a flagrant violation of the law.

Really? Flagrant support of BLM?

I don't find support of BLM as an organisation to be a good thing, do you?...

I don't mind at all, and any support certainly isn't 'flagrant', especially from an American who's coloured herself. You really shouldn't believe all the right wing press commentary BLM.

[Sponsored content]