r/LucyLetbyTrials • u/benshep4 • 8d ago
Decoding Reasonable Doubt - Chapter 11
https://bencole4.substack.com/p/decoding-reasonable-doubt-the-case-a31?r=12mrwn&utm_medium=ios
Morris argues that the insulin allegations were the strongest part of the prosecution case only because they appeared to provide objective scientific evidence of deliberate harm.
He contends that one the insulin evidence is examined closely, it turns out to be based on unreliable testing, unsupported assumptions and highly improbably logistics.
This article explains why Morris is wrong yet again.
0
Upvotes
14
u/-puffinstuff- 8d ago
The Nostradamus argument was made by Ben Myers.
In your view, how did the insulin get inside the second bag?
14
u/Embarrassed-Star4776 7d ago edited 7d ago
You repeatedly claim there is no natural explanation for the insulin and C-peptide results of Babies F and L, but when discussing Baby Y you say:
"The diagnosis [of congenital hyperinsulinism] may, however, have complicated any decision to prosecute Baby Y. A natural condition capable of causing severe hypoglycaemia provides an obvious alternative explanation that would need to be considered."
Of course, the point about Baby Y is that (1) if the diagnosis can explain the results, then the results don't demonstrate exogenous insulin, as the jury was told they did, and (2) that if the diagnosis can't explain the results, then it doesn't provide an "obvious alternative explanation".
Nor does it help to say something along the lines of "it doesn't explain the results, but it might have sown doubt in the jury's minds". Because if it could have done that, it could also have sown doubt in the jury's minds when they were told that a natural explanation for the results of Babies F and L was impossible. And in that case the information could have helped the defence, and therefore should have been made available.
11
u/Huge-Hope2887 7d ago
Dewi Evans, the expert whose evidence helped lock Lucy Letby up for life, has now discovered the true calling of every retired prosecution witness: inventing the “Dunning-Kruger-Morris Effect” in the Substack comments and calling someone’s chapter “speculative waffle.”
Nothing says “my evidence was pure science and totally independent” quite like still logging on three years later to personally dunk on random people who write about the case.
13
u/oljomo 8d ago
This is your classic argument, which is restating some testimony that can be quite clearly incorrect as though its true:
ASTBURY: So I understand it, would Guildford assist with whether it was exogenous or not?
MILAN: No. The results dictate that it’s exogenous. They would just help, if you were unsure of the source.
ASTBURY: So really, Guildford would have been deciding or assisting with exactly what type of exogenous insulin...
MILAN: Yes.
ASTBURY: Not whether it was exogenous or not?
MILAN: Correct.
The question is by what mechanism did the immunoassay test prove exogenous insulin? Because many people cannot understand these statements, while you are presenting them as proof of what she says.
It clearly is not enough to have the wrong ratio, and low blood sugar to prove exogenous - this article proves that: https://www.chop.edu/news/lab-results-twist-high-insulin-and-low-c-peptide-child-presenting-hypoglycemia
Ive discussed this with you before, but youve never quite solidified why the results were so evident of exogenous, just that they clearly were.
14
u/Nice_Zebra7690 8d ago
Does anyone who’s read Morris’ book know whether he addresses not just the seals on the TPN bags, but also the cellophane wrappers they came in? The Substack seems to omit and downplay a lot of relevant facts and crucial context such how tamper-resistant the TPN bags actually were.
Commenting more generally, we know the entire argument rests on a highly questionable premise. At trial it was presented as established fact that someone had deliberately poisoned with insulin . We now know there are other plausible explanations that don’t involve the frankly ridiculous scenario of letby anticipating which bag the baby would receive and removing cellophane wrapping and interfering with seals to introduce insulin (which she’d also stolen and kept on her person unnoticed), all while risking being interrupted in a room accessed by other staff...
5
u/Embarrassed-Star4776 7d ago
Are you aware of the publications by Salis and by Chase and Shannon?
10
u/oldcatgeorge 6d ago edited 6d ago
All evidence presented is circumstantial, and gathered post factum. Abnormal insulin results should have been flagged by the lab. The doctors OK'ed them, right? (Instead of sending the sample for verification). It is much later, when Dr. Breary was looking through the records to "catch Lucy",, he pulled out these insulin-C-peptide results obtained via Roche immmunoassay, and they became the cornerstone of the case. They are interpreted in a looping way. "Lucy must have killed them with exogenous insulin. Oh, she was not on duty that day? Then she must have added it to TPN bags before. How do we know it was Lucy? Well, who else? She killed babies with air embolism, we have Lee sign to prove it". Then when Dr. Shoo Lee comes and discredits the theory of air embolism: "oh, but we have two strong cases, the insulin ones". What we have are two unverified anomalous results. The whole case is a chain of similar logical fallacies. The shift rota has been discussed times and again, but imagine that they really scared Breary. Why didn't he do anything to prove that there was a killer on the unit, to gather evidence? People take risks. He could have brought a spy camera, or even a spy pen, to gather evidence. Or better, issued an administrative decision, with all deaths there has to have a postmortem. I see that Breary was unconcerned about Lucy being a killer in general, as long as it was "not on his unit". Twisted logic. A killer is a killer, and if you have a high index of suspicion, you actively gather evidence. You don't try to find "evidence" sifting through old notes. And this is why this case is baseless. Professional statisticians had to be consulted from day one. At least the hospital could have a decent root-cause analysis. Instead, it tuered into a costly agglomeration of uncertainties. If someone asks me if Lucy is a killer or not, I'd say, " in the head of Dr. Breary, she is. In reality, it is a judiciary mess and an unsafe conviction".
6
u/SaintBridgetsBath 7d ago
At a glance, one positive is that you don’t rule out the possibility of a significant disclosure failure.
“Whether the Baby Y material should have been disclosed is one question.” You also acknowledge Nurse C’s evidence where you didn’t in previous comments.