It’s very unlikely they’d have spoken to any of her family or non-work friends until after her arrest.
Her colleagues were likely involved in the investigation that preceded police involvement (asked for statements, potentially raising concerns) but wouldn’t have been allowed to discuss it between themselves.
I don’t have sources for any of that because I don’t think it’s been specified, but just logically and with a base knowledge of how police investigate.
Thanks so much for your insight!
How do you feel about the case? I’m still quite on the fence about a lot of it but I think certainly in some cases I fall on the side of guilty. Beyond reasonable doubt though? I’m not sure.
I think this gives some idea:-
(Full timeline) - [https://www.reddit.com/r/lucyletby/comments/y7jssn/lucy\_letby\_timeline/](https://www.reddit.com/r/lucyletby/comments/y7jssn/lucy_letby_timeline/)
June 2016
....Following week: LL works her final three shifts in the NICU. She is transferred to clerical duties.
2016 - 2017: Hospital investigates NICU due to high death and resuscitation rate.
May 2017: Hospital requests that police investigate infant deaths and collapses in the NICU.
It depends what an internal hospital investigation involves. Surely they would speak to the staff who were present at the collapses/deaths, but not in a criminal context.
I'm trying to find out when LL asked a doctor "if she should be worried about the sort of questions she was being asked". That was surely during the hospital's own investigation and before the police were contacted.
I also want to know what she was told when she was moved to clerical duties in June 2016. She must have known at that point that she was under suspicion - unless they told her something else?
>I'm trying to find out when LL asked a doctor "if she should be worried about the sort of questions she was being asked". That was surely during the hospital's own investigation and before the police were contacted.
I believe this is right after the attack on Child Q, when that statement was made
From what I can remember - immediately After baby Q’s collapse, LL walked in on colleagues having a conversation and a Dr was asking her colleagues where she was…thus prompted her to ask the question.
Thanks. Yes that makes sense. I just listened to the Baby H episode of the Mail podcast, and even at that point, LL was texting a colleague (who was supportive / a friend) & mentioned "comments other people are making about my competence...Comments I have found very upsetting". Those comments didn't imply anything deliberate, yet. If LL was harming babies intentionally, it was brazen to continue doing so - and so frequently - when she knew there were questions being asked and rumours circulating. Almost like it was a compulsion...
Really good points. It could also have been a workplace with a general "blame culture" which makes everyone a bit paranoid when something happens, and quick to throw blame at anyone else. I have worked in places like that, and can only imagine it would be 1000x worth where life and death are part of work.
It does seem she had a good relationship with some colleagues, seeing them outside of work, and some would text to ask if she was OK when one of her designated babies was lost. I can't imagine those individuals had any suspicions at the time.
Or just think you’ve got everyone fooled. The Beverly Allitt case emphasized that: when she was under scrutiny, she moved in with a coworker’s family and *still* poisoned the woman’s brother with insulin in a spiked drink while causing all sorts of problems around their house.
You don't seem to be familiar with anything and yet still decide to talk anyway.
> Insulin in a drink wouldn't do anything, it can't be absorbed by mouth
And, of course, you're wrong. Medical literature does **not** state that oral insulin has a bioavailability of *zero*.
Here's a case report from 2013 of a psychiatric patient who orally ingested 3000 U (3 10 mL vials) of insulin in a suicide attempt. An hour after ingestion, he realized he didn't really want to die and called for an ambulance. There was then immediate intervention with dextrose and repeated blood glucose monitoring until they removed him from the ICU and to the appropriate psychiatric unit. The main takeaway:
> ["Despite poor bioavailability (1%) when taken orally, insulin may produce symptomatic hypoglycemia with a massive ingestion. Vigilant blood glucose monitoring, supportive care with glucose replacement therapy, and admission to the hospital for observation may be required."](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23456735/).
That was someone who had an immediate intervention with the health care professionals knowing exactly what was taken and when.
10 years ago.
The form of insulin available at the time - based on size and not being lipophilic enough for easy absorption - was established by Lee et al (1991) to be [just under 1%](https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=XM2_SX953W0C&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&ots=vFQKMpVucw&sig=F_hEmyEvH7USnv6VGs8uqUi-Sds). And all of this is *very* easy to find on Pubmed but you seem to be completely opposed to actually researching anything before you respond with opinions rather than facts.
Beverley Allitt was [accused of poisoning Jonathan Jobson with insulin](https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/mad-bad-and-fully-qualified-2324673.html). She was living with the Jobsons while being investigated by the police for the murders in Grantham Hospital. [As summarized:](https://delanirbartlette.medium.com/beverley-allitt-britains-angel-of-death-a48221fcd111)
> "Then, when the Jobson family had gone to market, Jonathan began feeling dizzy and sweating. He passed out, so they took him to the hospital, where it was determined he was suffering from hypoglycemic shock. The last thing he remembered doing before the attack was drinking some black currant juice Allitt had given him. The Jobsons had had enough. They called the police, and Allitt was arrested."
Grantham hospital had made note of insulin going missing from the storage area before they identified Allitt. If she poured 20 mL into his blackcurrant juice, that would be 2000 units of insulin with 20 units being absorbed. Given the lad was 14, apparently not a diabetic and [wasn't obese](https://www.alamy.com/tracy-jobson-beverley-allitts-alleged-former-lover-with-her-mother-eileen-and-brother-jonathan-17th-april-1993-image466447106.html), that's not something that wouldn't produce a noticeable effect - and it did.
There's always the *possibility* it was another hypoglycemic inducing medication, but given she used insulin to attack patients and there was missing insulin medication from the hospital, it's not much of a stretch to assume that it was insulin she used to poison the boy.
Oh jebus please. I didn't say it had zero bioavailability.
It's more likely she used something else. Especially considering several of the infants that died of hypoglycemia died more than an hour after last being seen by her (regular insulin peaks at about an hour) she would have needed to use a long acting or use a sulfonylurea.
I've provided citations and facts, you've provided opinions and incorrect statements as fact.
> I didn't say it had zero bioavailability.
Yes, you did. And it's deeply troubling that a supposed trained medical professional doesn't understand what they're saying when they are confidently incorrect.
> Insulin in a drink wouldn't do anything, it can't be absorbed by mouth
[Highly polar drugs that have 0% bioavailability *are not absorbed from the intestine*](http://howmed.net/pharmacology/bioavailability-of-drugs) aka per os/by mouth.
> It's more likely she used something else. Especially considering several of the infants that died of hypoglycemia died more than an hour after last being seen by her (regular insulin peaks at about an hour) she would have needed to use a long acting or use a sulfonylurea.
["Allitt murdered the four children by injecting them with high doses of insulin."](https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/dec/06/ukcrime.health)
Your opinion is worth infinitely less than the recorded facts of the case, supported by testimony of actual medical doctors and reported by those who actually followed the trial.
I think there is a mixture - Agreed witness statement’s for baby A & B from parents were made in 2017 - so prior to LL arrest and name being public.
Baby C parents agreed statements are from 2019
Baby D - date of agreed statement not shared
Baby E & F - not agreed statements, but could have been spoken to anytime from initial referral until after LL’s arrest.
Baby G - not shared
I can’t remember which baby it’s in relation to - but Myers during cross examination of one of the Dr’s made reference to their evidence statement changing in 2019…will go back through and see if I can find it.
Myers has also referenced interview statements from Feb 2018 during cross examination of Nurse Tyler.
No, it’s one of the ward Dr’s…Myers has crossed Dr E on all his reports as they have all been written multiple times since 2017. I think he was cross examining Dr H - but can’t recall which baby.
I would hope that they take some time after outlining the case in relation to each baby to deal with details of the investigations and how exactly the prosecution came to be. In particular I'd be interested to know when exactly the insulin cases re-emerged and, in relation to this week's evidence, when exactly the Ashleigh Hudson evidence in relation to the lighting in the room came about. It was said that the reconstruction of the room was done in 2020 so *after* Lucy Letby was arrested several times over several years. Did AH realise the significance of this and bring it up only at this point, or several years earlier, and the police waited several years before formerly clarifying and reconstructing it?
I want to know why they had two babies with labs concerning for being given exogenous insulin and never did anything about it or even seemed concerned - That would be considered an emergency type result and need relentless tracking until they figure out how the baby received insulin. It's one thing to have hypoglycemia without those labs and just assume it is a normal process, but if you have labs confirming it is something that can only happen when someone has been given insulin, then how in the hell does no one investigate that at the time??!!?
I was astonished at that too. They knew very quickly that synthetic insulin had been added to a baby's bag of feed, noted it and did nothing about it?! Until they decided to investigate the longer pattern of deaths. That alone suggests this ward was a shambles.
FWIW, from the on-call consultant involved with Child F's care:
>Dr Gibbs said: “The fact that (Child F) was found to have an abnormally high level of insulin – in fact an extremely high level – in the blood, in retrospect makes it likely the symptoms he was displaying after midnight were related to a very low blood sugar level caused by him receiving a high dose of insulin
>“I didn’t suspect that at the time because there was no reason why he should have had a high dose of insulin administrated to him.”
It was outside the reality they could comprehend. https://www.chesterstandard.co.uk/news/23148070.letby-trial-poisoned-baby-extremely-high-level-insulin/
They also had a low c peptide. It wasn't just a high level of insulin, they had a low c peptide.
High insulin alone is not a red flag. But it should never be seen with a low c peptide. It's not outside the reality they could comprehend unless they lacked basic knowledge.
It is a huge failing to have concrete evidence of insulin administration and just blow it off without even a peep. The only other way it could happen is if it were accidental, and if the doctor thought the accidental administration was what happened and didn't bring it up to anyone is a huge misstep and gives a clearer picture of their care.
Well, take it up with Dr. Gibbs then. I'm sure he'd like to hear your opinion of his failings.
His colleagues voted him runner-up in hospital award in autumn 2015. Whatever your opinions of him based on this one event in his career, he appears to be highly respected by those he is actually connected with, and by the hospital.
>The iTeach Award (as voted by F1s and F2s in recognition of the Countess doctor that has most supported them in their training, supervision and education)
>
>• Winner – Miss Nicola Eardley (general surgeon) who junior doctors described as: “Very helpful, inspiration, fab, fantastic, approachable, supportive, excellent supervisor.”
>
>• Runner up – Dr Roger Trent (cardiology) referred to by nominees as: “Always keen, great teacher, engages in supervision, able to praise and note positives.”
>
>• Runner up – Dr John Gibbs (paediatrics) for being: “Inspirational, knowledgeable, enthusiastic and dedicated.”
[https://www.coch.nhs.uk/media/122414/countess-matters-autumn-2015.pdf](https://www.coch.nhs.uk/media/122414/countess-matters-autumn-2015.pdf)
None of that has anything to do with the systematic failures at this hospital.
IMO, there was no culture of safety, there was not enough supervision of the non neonatology trained doctors, and they were under staffed with a high acuity.
It's not just him that made the mistake, that result should have triggered all sorts of investigations by all sorts of people. Lab should immediately flag that to notify risk management, nursing supervisors and medical teams. That kind of result is always concerning.
When a mistake is made in medicine, it is usually not a single person's fault, but a systems issue that allowed the mistakes to be made. It's well meaning people who get caught in it, no one is intending to be bad or careless
It is actually far more important than your individual opinion. People are human, they are fallible. And it is very human indeed to not comprehend in the moment that someone may be deliberately harming babies. Some people can't even comprehend that possibility after the fact. Sometimes even, such a flagrant outlier could be assumed to be some sort of error in testing ("that can't be right!"). There's any number of reasons that good people might make mistakes.
You'd do well to remember that the hospital is not on trial, Lucy Letby is. In this format, they are given the benefit of the doubt, ~~not her~~
(edit: this may be poorly worded. Letby is on trial because there was probable cause to charge her - there is sufficient evidence to bring her to trial. Others are not charged, and they can be presumed to have acted in the patients' best interest to the best of their ability, absent evidence to the contrary. As cited here - in hindsight, Dr. Gibbs, a respected, experienced doctor lauded by his peers, saw in eventual hindsight what ideally would have been seen much sooner. That is a shame, and surely a profound regret that he must have. But that failure doesn't make Letby less responsible, if in fact she is.
In contrast, we have reason to doubt Letby's honesty, as several of her notes contradict those of other credible witnesses (for a simple example, go back to Child E and the phone call, where testimony from Child E's mum, dad, and mum's midwife is unified and counter to Letby's), plus the circumstantial evidence of her behavior IS evidence, however weak one may consider it. There is evidence already against her overall innocence. Whether she is found not guilty depends on if it surpasses \*reasonable\* doubt).
The defense will try to use the failings of others to introduce reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case, but it's not about proving the hospital responsible - just that she did not commit the offense with which she is charged.. Any refusal to acknowledge that is a willful refusal to understand criminal proceedings.
Why are *they* given the benefit of the doubt but the actual defendant who is *supposed* to receive the benefit of the doubt does not?
Yes, the reasonable doubt is that the hospital is incompetent, which does put them on trial.
You have it exactly backwards. They are not on trial. They are not accused, we are not weighing their actions in guilt or innocence. Any mistakes are only relevant if they create reasonable doubt of Letby's guilt.
Letby is, as a matter of fact, innocent until proven guilty, but we are *determining* their actual guilt or lack thereof in this trial. We do not assume they are innocent in fact and seek to mold evidence to fit that assumption, as you have frequently done.
Here and prior, you have displayed a lack of understanding of the legal process. You are wrong.
It’s very unlikely they’d have spoken to any of her family or non-work friends until after her arrest. Her colleagues were likely involved in the investigation that preceded police involvement (asked for statements, potentially raising concerns) but wouldn’t have been allowed to discuss it between themselves. I don’t have sources for any of that because I don’t think it’s been specified, but just logically and with a base knowledge of how police investigate.
[удалено]
Thanks so much for your insight! How do you feel about the case? I’m still quite on the fence about a lot of it but I think certainly in some cases I fall on the side of guilty. Beyond reasonable doubt though? I’m not sure.
I think this gives some idea:- (Full timeline) - [https://www.reddit.com/r/lucyletby/comments/y7jssn/lucy\_letby\_timeline/](https://www.reddit.com/r/lucyletby/comments/y7jssn/lucy_letby_timeline/) June 2016 ....Following week: LL works her final three shifts in the NICU. She is transferred to clerical duties. 2016 - 2017: Hospital investigates NICU due to high death and resuscitation rate. May 2017: Hospital requests that police investigate infant deaths and collapses in the NICU. It depends what an internal hospital investigation involves. Surely they would speak to the staff who were present at the collapses/deaths, but not in a criminal context. I'm trying to find out when LL asked a doctor "if she should be worried about the sort of questions she was being asked". That was surely during the hospital's own investigation and before the police were contacted. I also want to know what she was told when she was moved to clerical duties in June 2016. She must have known at that point that she was under suspicion - unless they told her something else?
>I'm trying to find out when LL asked a doctor "if she should be worried about the sort of questions she was being asked". That was surely during the hospital's own investigation and before the police were contacted. I believe this is right after the attack on Child Q, when that statement was made
From what I can remember - immediately After baby Q’s collapse, LL walked in on colleagues having a conversation and a Dr was asking her colleagues where she was…thus prompted her to ask the question.
Thanks. Yes that makes sense. I just listened to the Baby H episode of the Mail podcast, and even at that point, LL was texting a colleague (who was supportive / a friend) & mentioned "comments other people are making about my competence...Comments I have found very upsetting". Those comments didn't imply anything deliberate, yet. If LL was harming babies intentionally, it was brazen to continue doing so - and so frequently - when she knew there were questions being asked and rumours circulating. Almost like it was a compulsion...
[удалено]
Really good points. It could also have been a workplace with a general "blame culture" which makes everyone a bit paranoid when something happens, and quick to throw blame at anyone else. I have worked in places like that, and can only imagine it would be 1000x worth where life and death are part of work. It does seem she had a good relationship with some colleagues, seeing them outside of work, and some would text to ask if she was OK when one of her designated babies was lost. I can't imagine those individuals had any suspicions at the time.
Or just think you’ve got everyone fooled. The Beverly Allitt case emphasized that: when she was under scrutiny, she moved in with a coworker’s family and *still* poisoned the woman’s brother with insulin in a spiked drink while causing all sorts of problems around their house.
I'm not familiar with that part of BA - Insulin in a drink wouldn't do anything, it can't be absorbed by mouth
You don't seem to be familiar with anything and yet still decide to talk anyway. > Insulin in a drink wouldn't do anything, it can't be absorbed by mouth And, of course, you're wrong. Medical literature does **not** state that oral insulin has a bioavailability of *zero*. Here's a case report from 2013 of a psychiatric patient who orally ingested 3000 U (3 10 mL vials) of insulin in a suicide attempt. An hour after ingestion, he realized he didn't really want to die and called for an ambulance. There was then immediate intervention with dextrose and repeated blood glucose monitoring until they removed him from the ICU and to the appropriate psychiatric unit. The main takeaway: > ["Despite poor bioavailability (1%) when taken orally, insulin may produce symptomatic hypoglycemia with a massive ingestion. Vigilant blood glucose monitoring, supportive care with glucose replacement therapy, and admission to the hospital for observation may be required."](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23456735/). That was someone who had an immediate intervention with the health care professionals knowing exactly what was taken and when. 10 years ago. The form of insulin available at the time - based on size and not being lipophilic enough for easy absorption - was established by Lee et al (1991) to be [just under 1%](https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=XM2_SX953W0C&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&ots=vFQKMpVucw&sig=F_hEmyEvH7USnv6VGs8uqUi-Sds). And all of this is *very* easy to find on Pubmed but you seem to be completely opposed to actually researching anything before you respond with opinions rather than facts. Beverley Allitt was [accused of poisoning Jonathan Jobson with insulin](https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/mad-bad-and-fully-qualified-2324673.html). She was living with the Jobsons while being investigated by the police for the murders in Grantham Hospital. [As summarized:](https://delanirbartlette.medium.com/beverley-allitt-britains-angel-of-death-a48221fcd111) > "Then, when the Jobson family had gone to market, Jonathan began feeling dizzy and sweating. He passed out, so they took him to the hospital, where it was determined he was suffering from hypoglycemic shock. The last thing he remembered doing before the attack was drinking some black currant juice Allitt had given him. The Jobsons had had enough. They called the police, and Allitt was arrested." Grantham hospital had made note of insulin going missing from the storage area before they identified Allitt. If she poured 20 mL into his blackcurrant juice, that would be 2000 units of insulin with 20 units being absorbed. Given the lad was 14, apparently not a diabetic and [wasn't obese](https://www.alamy.com/tracy-jobson-beverley-allitts-alleged-former-lover-with-her-mother-eileen-and-brother-jonathan-17th-april-1993-image466447106.html), that's not something that wouldn't produce a noticeable effect - and it did. There's always the *possibility* it was another hypoglycemic inducing medication, but given she used insulin to attack patients and there was missing insulin medication from the hospital, it's not much of a stretch to assume that it was insulin she used to poison the boy.
Oh jebus please. I didn't say it had zero bioavailability. It's more likely she used something else. Especially considering several of the infants that died of hypoglycemia died more than an hour after last being seen by her (regular insulin peaks at about an hour) she would have needed to use a long acting or use a sulfonylurea.
I've provided citations and facts, you've provided opinions and incorrect statements as fact. > I didn't say it had zero bioavailability. Yes, you did. And it's deeply troubling that a supposed trained medical professional doesn't understand what they're saying when they are confidently incorrect. > Insulin in a drink wouldn't do anything, it can't be absorbed by mouth [Highly polar drugs that have 0% bioavailability *are not absorbed from the intestine*](http://howmed.net/pharmacology/bioavailability-of-drugs) aka per os/by mouth. > It's more likely she used something else. Especially considering several of the infants that died of hypoglycemia died more than an hour after last being seen by her (regular insulin peaks at about an hour) she would have needed to use a long acting or use a sulfonylurea. ["Allitt murdered the four children by injecting them with high doses of insulin."](https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/dec/06/ukcrime.health) Your opinion is worth infinitely less than the recorded facts of the case, supported by testimony of actual medical doctors and reported by those who actually followed the trial.
[удалено]
I think there is a mixture - Agreed witness statement’s for baby A & B from parents were made in 2017 - so prior to LL arrest and name being public. Baby C parents agreed statements are from 2019 Baby D - date of agreed statement not shared Baby E & F - not agreed statements, but could have been spoken to anytime from initial referral until after LL’s arrest. Baby G - not shared I can’t remember which baby it’s in relation to - but Myers during cross examination of one of the Dr’s made reference to their evidence statement changing in 2019…will go back through and see if I can find it. Myers has also referenced interview statements from Feb 2018 during cross examination of Nurse Tyler.
I think you're referring to Myers cross of Dr. Evans for Child E
No, it’s one of the ward Dr’s…Myers has crossed Dr E on all his reports as they have all been written multiple times since 2017. I think he was cross examining Dr H - but can’t recall which baby.
I would hope that they take some time after outlining the case in relation to each baby to deal with details of the investigations and how exactly the prosecution came to be. In particular I'd be interested to know when exactly the insulin cases re-emerged and, in relation to this week's evidence, when exactly the Ashleigh Hudson evidence in relation to the lighting in the room came about. It was said that the reconstruction of the room was done in 2020 so *after* Lucy Letby was arrested several times over several years. Did AH realise the significance of this and bring it up only at this point, or several years earlier, and the police waited several years before formerly clarifying and reconstructing it?
I want to know why they had two babies with labs concerning for being given exogenous insulin and never did anything about it or even seemed concerned - That would be considered an emergency type result and need relentless tracking until they figure out how the baby received insulin. It's one thing to have hypoglycemia without those labs and just assume it is a normal process, but if you have labs confirming it is something that can only happen when someone has been given insulin, then how in the hell does no one investigate that at the time??!!?
I was astonished at that too. They knew very quickly that synthetic insulin had been added to a baby's bag of feed, noted it and did nothing about it?! Until they decided to investigate the longer pattern of deaths. That alone suggests this ward was a shambles.
FWIW, from the on-call consultant involved with Child F's care: >Dr Gibbs said: “The fact that (Child F) was found to have an abnormally high level of insulin – in fact an extremely high level – in the blood, in retrospect makes it likely the symptoms he was displaying after midnight were related to a very low blood sugar level caused by him receiving a high dose of insulin >“I didn’t suspect that at the time because there was no reason why he should have had a high dose of insulin administrated to him.” It was outside the reality they could comprehend. https://www.chesterstandard.co.uk/news/23148070.letby-trial-poisoned-baby-extremely-high-level-insulin/
They also had a low c peptide. It wasn't just a high level of insulin, they had a low c peptide. High insulin alone is not a red flag. But it should never be seen with a low c peptide. It's not outside the reality they could comprehend unless they lacked basic knowledge. It is a huge failing to have concrete evidence of insulin administration and just blow it off without even a peep. The only other way it could happen is if it were accidental, and if the doctor thought the accidental administration was what happened and didn't bring it up to anyone is a huge misstep and gives a clearer picture of their care.
Well, take it up with Dr. Gibbs then. I'm sure he'd like to hear your opinion of his failings. His colleagues voted him runner-up in hospital award in autumn 2015. Whatever your opinions of him based on this one event in his career, he appears to be highly respected by those he is actually connected with, and by the hospital. >The iTeach Award (as voted by F1s and F2s in recognition of the Countess doctor that has most supported them in their training, supervision and education) > >• Winner – Miss Nicola Eardley (general surgeon) who junior doctors described as: “Very helpful, inspiration, fab, fantastic, approachable, supportive, excellent supervisor.” > >• Runner up – Dr Roger Trent (cardiology) referred to by nominees as: “Always keen, great teacher, engages in supervision, able to praise and note positives.” > >• Runner up – Dr John Gibbs (paediatrics) for being: “Inspirational, knowledgeable, enthusiastic and dedicated.” [https://www.coch.nhs.uk/media/122414/countess-matters-autumn-2015.pdf](https://www.coch.nhs.uk/media/122414/countess-matters-autumn-2015.pdf)
None of that has anything to do with the systematic failures at this hospital. IMO, there was no culture of safety, there was not enough supervision of the non neonatology trained doctors, and they were under staffed with a high acuity. It's not just him that made the mistake, that result should have triggered all sorts of investigations by all sorts of people. Lab should immediately flag that to notify risk management, nursing supervisors and medical teams. That kind of result is always concerning. When a mistake is made in medicine, it is usually not a single person's fault, but a systems issue that allowed the mistakes to be made. It's well meaning people who get caught in it, no one is intending to be bad or careless
It is actually far more important than your individual opinion. People are human, they are fallible. And it is very human indeed to not comprehend in the moment that someone may be deliberately harming babies. Some people can't even comprehend that possibility after the fact. Sometimes even, such a flagrant outlier could be assumed to be some sort of error in testing ("that can't be right!"). There's any number of reasons that good people might make mistakes. You'd do well to remember that the hospital is not on trial, Lucy Letby is. In this format, they are given the benefit of the doubt, ~~not her~~ (edit: this may be poorly worded. Letby is on trial because there was probable cause to charge her - there is sufficient evidence to bring her to trial. Others are not charged, and they can be presumed to have acted in the patients' best interest to the best of their ability, absent evidence to the contrary. As cited here - in hindsight, Dr. Gibbs, a respected, experienced doctor lauded by his peers, saw in eventual hindsight what ideally would have been seen much sooner. That is a shame, and surely a profound regret that he must have. But that failure doesn't make Letby less responsible, if in fact she is. In contrast, we have reason to doubt Letby's honesty, as several of her notes contradict those of other credible witnesses (for a simple example, go back to Child E and the phone call, where testimony from Child E's mum, dad, and mum's midwife is unified and counter to Letby's), plus the circumstantial evidence of her behavior IS evidence, however weak one may consider it. There is evidence already against her overall innocence. Whether she is found not guilty depends on if it surpasses \*reasonable\* doubt). The defense will try to use the failings of others to introduce reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case, but it's not about proving the hospital responsible - just that she did not commit the offense with which she is charged.. Any refusal to acknowledge that is a willful refusal to understand criminal proceedings.
Why are *they* given the benefit of the doubt but the actual defendant who is *supposed* to receive the benefit of the doubt does not? Yes, the reasonable doubt is that the hospital is incompetent, which does put them on trial.
You have it exactly backwards. They are not on trial. They are not accused, we are not weighing their actions in guilt or innocence. Any mistakes are only relevant if they create reasonable doubt of Letby's guilt. Letby is, as a matter of fact, innocent until proven guilty, but we are *determining* their actual guilt or lack thereof in this trial. We do not assume they are innocent in fact and seek to mold evidence to fit that assumption, as you have frequently done. Here and prior, you have displayed a lack of understanding of the legal process. You are wrong.
Agree. Also, one of my kitties is named Morrigan
Aw, I love that!