Alex Cutter

Something Mark McDonald said that has stayed with me. He said that the pictures we see of Lucy in happier times, enjoying life, he said "I'm not sure I've ever met that person, I'm not sure if she still exists." @ccrcupdate this woman has suffered long enough. #FreeLucyLetbyNow

@markjurgenmayes No steps were taken. Lee has stated he knew nothing about the case until he was contacted after the convictions. Why Myers didn't have the foresight to contact him I suppose we'll never know. But it does appear on the surface to be a bit of a whopper from the defence.

What step or steps did the 'defence' - headed by Myers take to contact Dr Shoo Lee ahead of the 2022 trial - regarding his paper, relied on by the prosecution? If the answer is: none, then this is more than 'incompetence' - it is something else. #FreeLucyLetby

@Jabbey20 @SusieQ7038 Dewi Evans insinuated himself into the police investigation. Helped them nail the target handed to them by Brearey and Jayaram. The CPS should have put a stop to that. The case should never have gone to trial.

Every key piece of evidence against Lucy Letby has now been comprehensively dismantled. Main witnesses, Police, and the CPS have all been discredited, with no credible rebuttal offered. Yet she remains in prison. @ccrcupdate Why hasn't Lucy's case been referred? #LucyLetby

@jackieb12902590 I love how she can say the grievance was farcical because "trust me, bro". But she thinks a witch trial full of circular reasoning, baseless assertions and irrelevant character assassination is fine.

@JabesAllowed Superb

1/3 Baby L And The Flawed Case of Alleged Insulin Poisoning Following on from my previous post, here I will debunk the "sticky insulin" theory proposed by Professor Hindmarsh, which was endorsed by Nick Johnson KC as the sole explanation for Baby L’s persistent hypoglycaemia after Lucy Letby had gone off shift. I will also argue that this undermines the allegation of insulin poisoning at any point in the case of Baby L. See the attached chart for a visual representation of Baby L’s blood glucose readings over the relevant period, set against the timing of dextrose bag changes and other key events. The prosecution alleged that Lucy Letby injected insulin into multiple bags of dextrose solution on 9th April, resulting in a 53-hour hypoglycaemic episode. But there was a major problem with this allegation. The hypoglycaemic episode, which Professor Hindmarsh attributed to exogenous insulin, continued for nearly two days after Lucy Letby had gone off duty. During that period, two new dextrose bags were hung which she could not have poisoned. The only insulin blood test done was on 9th April. How, then, could the prosecution attribute the continuing hypoglycaemia to alleged insulin poisoning by Lucy Letby? Nick Johnson KC relied on Professor Hindmarsh’s sticky insulin theory. According to Hindmarsh, insulin from a spiked dextrose bag, which had stuck to the plastic inner surface of the giving set, could later be released into the dextrose infusion after a new, uncontaminated bag was connected. (A giving set is the sterile tubing that connects an infusion bag to a cannula or long line; trial testimony indicated that it isn't necessarily changed when a dextrose bag is replaced.) No calculations — in fact, no figures of any kind — were provided to support this suggested mechanism. Aside from the obvious flaws in the theory itself, it also depended on the giving set not being changed through two bag changes - something that was never established. Here, I will show that not only is the sticky insulin theory scientifically invalid, it’s also inapplicable, because the giving set definitely was changed when a new dextrose bag was hung after Lucy Letby had gone home. Firstly, a quick run-through of the key events: 9th April 2016 (See chart for the timings of the dextrose bags and blood glucose readings.) Lucy Letby was accused of spiking 3 bags with insulin on 9th April, though she was not Baby L’s designated nurse; there was no evidence that she actually did so. Baby L (and his twin Baby M) had been born on the morning of the previous day, 8th April, and he was receiving dextrose to bring his blood glucose levels up. By midnight, a normal reading of 3.6 was recorded. The allegation was that Lucy Letby spiked this dextrose bag the next day, 9th April, at some point between starting shift at 7.30am and 9.30am. This would have been while it was hanging, which is implausible in itself, especially as Letby wasn't his designated nurse on that day. This was Bag #1. At 10am Baby L’s blood glucose reading was low at 1.9, and this is where the 53-hour hypoglycaemic episode identified by Professor Hindmarsh began. Bag #1 was replaced at midday on 9th April, after having been in use for the standard 24 hours. The replacement bag was hung by Lucy Letby and Mary Griffith, Baby L's designated nurse. This was Bag #2. The prosecution alleged that Lucy Letby also poisoned this bag, though no explanation was given as to how or when. At some point before 3.45pm (the exact timing was uncertain), a blood sample was taken and sent to Liverpool for insulin testing. Several days later, the results came back showing a high insulin level alongside low C-peptide — findings associated with the presence of exogenous insulin. This formed the basis of the allegation that Lucy Letby had poisoned Baby L with artificial insulin. At 4.30pm that same day, the dextrose bag was changed again, this time to a more concentrated 12.5% dextrose solution. This bag was hung by Belinda Williamson (Simcock) and Ashleigh Hudson. This was Bag #3. The prosecution alleged that Lucy Letby also poisoned this bag with insulin after it had been hung, though again no explanation was provided as to how or when. Throughout this period, Baby L continued to record abnormally low blood glucose readings. Lucy Letby finished her shift on 9th April at 8pm, remaining for another hour or so to complete her nursing notes. This was her fourth consecutive day of work following which she was then off duty for several days. 10th – 11th April 2016 In the early hours of 10th April, at around 2.30am, the dextrose bag was changed again, this time to a 15% dextrose solution. This was Bag #4. The prosecution did not allege that Lucy Letby poisoned this bag as she had already been off shift for several hours by then. Nevertheless, low blood glucose levels continued at roughly the same level throughout the night and into the following morning. From this point onwards the only explanation given for the continuing hypoglycaemia was the sticky insulin theory: that insulin from the previous bag, Bag #3, had stuck to the inner surface of the giving set and was now being released into the infusion. There was a further bag – Bag #5 – hung up 24 hours later on 11th April; the low blood glucose readings persisted but later in the day spontaneously returned to a normal level. To summarise: 1.We have a 53-hour hypoglycaemic episode, identified by Professor Hindmarsh, running from 10am on 9th April 2016 until 3pm on 11th April. 2.Professor Hindmarsh had no explanation for this episode other than the presence of exogenous insulin throughout the entire period. 3.Lucy Letby was only on shift during the first day, 9th April, until 8pm. 4.On 9th April there were three different dextrose bags in use, all of which the prosecution alleged Lucy Letby had poisoned. 5.Two further bags were hung in the early hours of 10th and 11th April, producing no marked change in glucose levels until the afternoon of 11th April. 6.Since Lucy Letby could not physically have poisoned those last two bags, Professor Hindmarsh relied on the sticky insulin theory to explain the continuing hypoglycaemia. Evidence that the giving Set WAS changed If it could be proven that the giving set was changed with Bag #4 then that would nullify the sticky insulin theory, wouldn't it? Well, it can be proven, because prior to Bag #4 being hung there was a long line put in by Dr A specifically to be used with the next dextrose bag. And when a long line is connected up a new, sterile giving set is always used to prevent infection! This is well known and there's no doubt about it. There was even trial testimony confirming this practice from two nurses, in relation to the stock bag used for Baby F. Dr Sandie Bohin also confirmed it. Dr A’s reason for inserting the long line was that he was intending to increase the dextrose concentration to 15%, which is above the maximum level of 12.5% which can be infused through a catheter, which is what had been used up to then. The long line was put in at around 1am on 10th April, and following this Bag #4 was hung at 2.30am. (See chart – the timing of the long line insertion is shown as blue line.) Therefore, the sticky insulin theory — that "stuck" insulin was being released from the giving set after Bag #4 was hung — cannot possibly account for the continuation of hypoglycaemia after this bag-change event, because the giving set previously used was no longer in place! The prosecution’s case that this mechanism explained the continuing hypoglycaemia is completely invalid. References: Dr A’s medical notes from that night which refer to the long line can be seen here at page 2 (he was cyphered as Dr U at Thirlwall): thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk/wp-content/upl… The long line insertion was also brought up in his Thirlwall Inquiry oral testimony (see pages 223–226): thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk/wp-content/upl… And it was also reported by the Chester Standard’s live trial reporting at the time (see entry at 12.13pm): chesterstandard.co.uk/news/23322508.…

@MySweetLandlord @markjurgenmayes @MartynPitman @cheshirepolice "Medical staff should be given chance to view files before statement taken" Lucy, according to CP wasn't yet a suspect at this point. So was she afforded the same luxury? And if everyone is a suspect, why is Evans even suggesting this? Another example of Cheshire Police's lies.

@markjurgenmayes @MartynPitman @cheshirepolice Evans was asking about Letby's shift 11/12 October 2017.

On what date did @cheshirepolice supply Evans with #LucyLetby's rota data? Who, precisely, supplied it? Why did they do so? Had Evans asked for it? If so, why? Evans subsequently shared this data. #FreeLucyLetby

@JabesAllowed @ContrarianJolly Furthermore, it adds to the assertion that the police blindly took Brearey & Jayaram's lead. What possible reasoning can one have to take somebody's account of something they supposedly saw 2 years ago yet make absolutely no mention of it in any of the previous medical records.

@JabesAllowed @ContrarianJolly Jayaram never mentioned a rash on Baby A either, not in his contemporaneous notes, his coroner's statement or his inquest evidence. He first mentioned it to the police more than 2 years later. If you were Evans or anybody reviewing this case, would this not ring alarm bells?

Ok, the famous skin rashes. I have steered clear till now: I have no medical expertise. Who knows, technically, how probative well-documented skin rashes are of air embolus? BUT. I can comment as well as anyone about how well evidenced and documented they were. So let’s do that.

Drs. Evans & Bohin had no images, descriptions nor, in most cases, even a contemporary written record: yet from descriptions recalled years—not days, weeks or even months—later they categorically diagnosed a condition neither had ever encountered in practice. This is just nuts.

@gill1109 @Paul31463933143 @DebRoberts22249 x.com/PeterElston1/s… I've blocked pretty much all of them. Read Peter's tweet above. It's a sound policy.

@Paul31463933143 @DebRoberts22249 I'm so glad that @DebRoberts22249 has blocked me and I hardly ever get to see any of her ravings! It helps to have also blocked the usual idiots who follow her and try to spread her pitchforker gospel further.

Chief idiot pitchforker @DebRoberts22249 thinks she is taken seriously 🤣

@AlexCutter86 No. It is just that in all of the other NHS Trusts, with equivalent or worse Neonatal outcomes, no-one scapegoated a single Nurse to avoid departmental responsibility, yelled 'MURDERER' and proceeded to kick off a 21st century witch-hunt.

Furthermore, Child A died in June 2015. Jayaram made no mention of any rash, blotches or discolouration in his coroner’s statement or his 2016 inquest evidence. His first formal record: July 2017 Police interview. @Thirlwall_Inq @ccrcupdate Are you not slightly incredulous?

Also, a passage from Thirlwall's closing submissions, "Further, the ‘strange’ rash observed on Child A, Child B and Child D was not apparent from the entries in the medical records" Convenient that these were "remembered" retroactively by the consultants. (2/2)

A passage from Jayaram's testimony to Thirlwall in regard to Child A. Does anybody know if it is normal practice to NOT mention "blotches & discolouration" on a deceased patient? I imagine that would be something rather pertinent you would need to log, no? (1/2)

@wirdy1 @JabesAllowed With the evidence and expert testimonies that are now out in the public domain, a trial would be a waste of time and money, SHE IS INNOCENT, THERE WAS NEVER A CRIME. LET HER GO HOME.

@guyrowlanduk Bluffing. And that bluff has been well and truly called.

Stephen Brearey, the lead doctor at Lucy Letby's neonatal unit, did refer to his "drawer of doom". No-one ever saw the contents. Not the hospital managers, police or court. Why? Perhaps the "doom" was not evidence of deliberate harm by Lucy, but of their own disastrous care.

Loathe to rewatch the Netflix Lucy Letby doc but thought I would for parity. It's a piece of shit made by pieces of shit featuring in @cheshirepolice case pieces of shit. The pensive looks of Paul Hughes Et al supposedly analytically watching interview footage... Do me a favour.

COCH 2015-2016 wasn’t an unexplained spike & it wasn't an outlier. It was comparable to other similar mid-sized units (2k-4k births/yr) Other mid-sized units saw similar or worse death rates in 2015-16, some as high as 4.06 per 1,000. So do we have more serial killers?

@cheshirepolice @johnsweeneyroar made the best comment I've heard on @cheshirepolice in regard to the Netflix doc "It made me want to start robbing banks in Cheshire because even in my orange Sweeney beeny, I'd get away with it. I thought they were thick!" Well said, John.

Netflix’s use of the arrest footage was abhorrent, but I’m actually glad they used it. It reveals @cheshirepolice moral bankruptcy and shows Lucy was nothing like the cold, emotionless killer they painted her to be. It humanises her in a way that destroys their narrative. Fools.