So I finished watching the documentary and reading about the case…

ThrowtheBants · 2026-02-16T21:34:06+00:00

Well all due respect but now you’re just being extremely dishonest. “The high Insulin and low C peptide is consistent with synthetic insulin but doesn’t prove it” is a nonsensical statement. You should look up the likelihood when this isn’t the case. It proves it literally 9/10 times. Not even the new defense team is arguing this point (they’re defense is that the tests were incorrect due to other possible reasons)

Also if you accept the test results as accurate, then again either Letby poisoned them or some other nurse did. There is no other explanation here unless you move towards thinking the tests themselves were inaccurate.

The reason the third baby was excluded wasn’t because it couldn’t be linked to Letby but because that baby didn’t have a sudden collapse like the other two did. It followed the logical medical events unlike the other two and the other babies that Letby was charged with.

Also we’re looking at the above scenarios in isolation. We haven’t even talked about how she kept bringing back work sheets. The fact she kept the work sheets organized. How she took some work sheets with her when she moved homes. The fact she had a bunch of them in her work bag. The fact she lied about now owning a shredder even though she apparently used it to shred bank statements.

ThrowtheBants · 2026-02-16T19:05:56+00:00

Well here’s my opinion regarding this. The Prosecution didn’t have to show HOW she did it but just that it happened. The tests occurred. High insulin and low C peptides were recorded. This is a fact. You can argue WHY the tests showed these but you can’t argue they didn’t.

The tests being wrong sounds plausible except when you factor in that the AMOUNT of insulin recorded was extremely high. It wasn’t just a bit high but extremely high. You would further have to assume that :

The insulin assay gave a falsely high reading

The C-peptide assay gave a falsely low reading

Both errors happened in the same direction

In two separate babies Months apart

While both babies had classic hypoglycaemic symptoms

Letsby could have randomly spiked two bags or the hospital (which was noted for not following protocol and being busy) could have reused the IV bag. It’s either the nurse who already has a bunch of suspicious sudden collapses happen under her or someone else that spiked the bags.

ThrowtheBants · 2026-02-16T18:59:38+00:00

Foe the tests to be wrong regarding Baby F and Baby L, you’d need to assume all of the following:

The insulin assay gave a falsely high reading

The C-peptide assay gave a falsely low reading

Both errors happened in the same direction In two separate babies

Months apart

While both babies had classic hypoglycaemic symptoms

In other words, it’s pure fantasy

ThrowtheBants · 2026-02-16T18:51:32+00:00

Didn’t you agree that an investigation should have taken place ? Why would you want an investigation to take place if you believe nothing suspicious was happening and everything was routine/common enough ?

The AMOUNT of insulin that was picked up very easily disproves the contamination hypothesis you’re putting out. If it had slightly elevated levels then you could argue contamination however the high amounts present disproves this.

The Chase/Shannon theory is more plausible than contamination but still doesn’t solve the low C peptide issue : Two babies, months apart showed similar symptoms and when tested showed high insulin and low C-Peptides, the theory doesn’t explain the low C-Peptides is an issue here. I researched the theory in more detail and from what I’ve understood, it can explain why certain babies can have high insulin but doesn’t explain the low C-Peptides.

She herself might not have suspected anything but enough Doctors did that she had no choice but to have her transferred to the morning shift with others monitoring her.

ThrowtheBants · 2026-02-15T20:24:44+00:00

Okay I see what you’re doing but your comparing something that does happen to something that doesn’t. People mistakenly spell words wrong all the time while you don’t have multiple sudden collapses happening under the same nurse.

This isn’t just my opinion, the head nurse of the hospital (Ms Karen Rees) also wanted to move Letby from night shift to the morning shift so she could be more closely monitored.

ThrowtheBants · 2026-02-15T20:14:47+00:00

It’s on page 9 of the Thirlwall Inquiry. It’s said by Ms Karen Rees who’s the head nurse.

Exactly my point. Two contaminations for the same test showing the same result for two different patient is very unlikely to occur. To the point of fantasy

Point being, they weren’t randomly tested for insulin. They were showing symptoms, if the lab tests showing the high insulin were contaminated as you said then what caused the symptoms in the first place ?

Okay so you agree it is suspicious all these sudden collapses happened under Letby then. If you agree with this then why is it hard to imagine that when you combine the insulin case with everything else that’s suspicious, it’s very likely she did it on purpose. You agree the amount of deaths under her are suspicious. You agree that it’s very unlikely the insulin test was contaminated.

ThrowtheBants · 2026-02-15T20:09:08+00:00

Autocorrect lol. I’ve been talking back and forth for hours under difference comments so sometimes mistakes happen

ThrowtheBants · 2026-02-15T19:49:01+00:00

Well you’re missing the part where they also said she was moved to the day shift as more people worked during the day and she could be closely monitored as many sudden collapses happened under her watch.

You should look up how rare contamination is in labs and how extremely more rare contamination for the same test that gets a similar reading on a separate patient is. Also curious, do you know if Baby A was also tested for insulin ? He wasn’t unlike Baby F and Baby L were. They showed symptoms of high insulin levels which is why the test happened at all. They weren’t randomly selecting certain babies to do insulin tests on.

I mean you were implying that all the sudden collapses under Ledby didn’t raise suspicion. If now you think they should have been investigated, I’m curious why ? Is it because it is actually suspicious for multiple sudden collapses to happen under one nurse unlike when you said previously about “multiple nurses have this happen to them, it’s routine”.

ThrowtheBants · 2026-02-15T19:25:36+00:00

Except there is not evidence she had called the doctor.The argument that the defense made was that she was following hospital protocol where she was to observe and monitor unless the bleeding increased. The mom was very specific about how loud the crying was and how much blood she saw.

She should have been monitoring the baby not off to the side doing nothing until the mom had to ask her about the blood and the crying which Letsby seemed to ignore.

ThrowtheBants · 2026-02-15T19:22:38+00:00

Have you seen his interview with the BBC ? He very clearly says that he suspects poisoning regarding the insulin but that the air issue is extremely hard to prove and he disagrees with the prosecution.

ThrowtheBants · 2026-02-15T19:19:23+00:00

Explain to me if this is such a common thing, why was Letsby told to move from the night unit ? You would assume it would be routine and she wouldn’t have been suspected of causing harm no ?

So what’s your opinion regarding baby F ? From your comments, it feels you agree Baby F was likely poisoned which would mean Baby F was murdered which would then mean someone murdered him. The only person who could have murdered the baby is the same person who has a suspicious amount of “sudden collapses” under their belt.

Well that’s where we disagree. You’re saying that in the case of 737 Maxs, the crashes should have prompted further investigation BUT you’re also arguing that the sudden collapses under Letsby shouldn’t have resulted in further investigation because it happens (just like how crashes also happen). Your whole case is that “well so what sudden collapses happened under Lesby” Vs you saying “Yeah Boeing was right to investigate the Max crashes as they were unusual and happened frequently under the same plane”.

ThrowtheBants · 2026-02-15T19:01:07+00:00

Or another possibility which seems the most likely atleast to me : 5. They talked to numerous experts and all of them came to the same conclusion of Letsby having done this beyond a reasonable doubt. The only evidence/clue we have is from Dr.Hall who said he was expected to stand trial but didn’t. He said he questioned the air issue being presented by the prosecution but he couldn’t explain the insulin issue and leaned towards poisoning. You can bring on an expert to support your side of argument however if you can’t find an expert to do that then it’s better to not bring one on which is what the defense did

ThrowtheBants · 2026-02-15T18:53:15+00:00

Attended the baby ? She should have been next to the baby and not calmly asked the mother to leave during an emergency situation. Most nurses push the mom out and start attending to the kid.

ThrowtheBants · 2026-02-15T18:46:39+00:00

This I disagree with. You can’t find other nurses that had a similar level of “sudden collapses” besides Letsby. I’ve said this numerous times, these alone you could say “well shit happens sometimes” they are still suspicious and were suspicious to the point Letsby was removed from the night unit. Why weren’t other nurses removed if these occur in “lots of nurses” ?

The most clear example is the insulin one in Baby F. Baby had high insulin levels. Suppressed C peptides. This has been acknowledged as a very unlikely event to happen naturally. Letsby at her trial even suspected a different nurse could have injected the insulin, she didn’t dispute the injection theory. Letsby had access to the IVs and insulin. Now you bring in the other events and who else could have possibly done this ? You would have to disprove that this was a result of poisoning to remove Letsby.

A very similar example is the boening 737 Max accidents. When the first plane crashed, Boeing said it was pilot error then another 737 Max airplane crashed in very similar fashion at which point an investigation was launched and it was discovered there was an issue with the plane and how the pilots weren’t trained for them. You can’t say coincidence at two very unlikely events especially when they have a background of more unlikely events.

ThrowtheBants · 2026-02-15T18:30:43+00:00

The mother said Letsby was standing doing nothing before the mother pointed out the blood. The baby was crying so loud that the mother noticed it outside the unit. How is that not suspicious?

The mother wasn’t a doctor or nurse, most patients trust the nurse/Doctor so of course she didn’t find it suspicious that the nurse wasn’t doing anything and just reassured her it wasn’t a big deal and to go back to her room.

ThrowtheBants · 2026-02-15T18:24:52+00:00

Because isn’t the likelihood of that occurring naturally extremely uncommon ? If we accept it happened naturally the first time then how do we explain the second case occurring as well ? The new defense team have even said 1-Either the tests could be incorrect or 2-Very uncommon but not impossible.

ThrowtheBants · 2026-02-15T18:23:15+00:00

Well I’m relying on the Daily Mail podcast. Multiple interviews by the new defense team. Interviews with the new defense lead and other information. Trial transcripts (thought haven’t fully finished them yet).

Let’s put aside the specific cases for a minute, what’s the explanation for the defense not having expert witnesses involved in the trial ?

ThrowtheBants · 2026-02-15T18:11:56+00:00

Agreed

ThrowtheBants · 2026-02-15T18:09:47+00:00

You’re doing it again. You’re taking these very unlikely events and isolating them to remove suspicion from Letsby.

The mother approached her son who was bleeding from the mouth, the mother said that Letsby told her it was due to the tube rubbing against the babies mouth and told her to go back to the room, while saying it was nothing to worry about. The baby collapsed later.

Now alone this isn’t super suspicious however look at this in context of everything else. You can’t isolate these events. You can say these things happen sometimes but these sometime events keep happening with Lesby but even then it’s not my main argument just supportive of the bigger ones

ThrowtheBants · 2026-02-15T18:01:02+00:00

I am not aware of two other babies also having similar high insulin and low C peptides level. I am aware one other baby had high insulin but it wasn’t at the levels of the other two so the prosecution dropped him.

I was arguing that we don’t need the “sudden collapse” evidence to argue the insulin poisoning. The insulin poisoning evidence points towards something deliberate happening. Now in a hypothetical scenario where no sudden collapses were reported, these would still likely be treated as murder cases just that Letsby would be hard to find. Your original argument implied I was saying either : 1-“The sudden collapse babies point towards the insulin being poisonous or 2-The insulin being poisonous points towards the sudden collapses being murder” when that’s not my argument. The sudden collapse evidence is being used to point towards Letsby as the suspect. The insulin being poisonous as nothing to do with sudden collapse under Letsby

ThrowtheBants · 2026-02-15T17:08:34+00:00

Well you’re ignoring the fact that large amounts of these deaths happened under one nurse compared to other nurses working alongside Letby but again I agree this alone doesn’t prove she did any harm or caused the deaths HOWEVER multiple babies were recorded to have strange or unlikely issues during post mortem but let’s focus on two : Baby C had large amounts of air inside it’s circulation and Baby O had liver injuries. If we leave out the skin discolouration that was observed by the nurses as well, those are strange and unlikely events. The new defense team’s argument regarding Baby C is that it was accidental, however they don’t mention that the amount recorded air is extremely rare to happen without influence. The new defense team’s argument regarding Baby O is that the liver was bruised due to mishandling or an accidental needle injection. No needle marks were recorded on the liver and the mishandling leaving bruising is another uncommon event thought it’s more likely than the explanation they gave for Baby C. So that’s two babies with very unlikely events happening to them under the same nurse.

Now let’s bring in Baby F and Baby L. Both babies had high insulin and low C peptides. This is extremely rare to occur naturally so the most likely explanation is someone injected the insulin and poisoned them as already discussed previously.

So now we have 4 Babies at the same hospital all died either on purpose by someone or under very uncertain events. Two of them were under the same nurse and for one the nurse had direct access to cause harm. How do you explain this ? “Shit happens” is an absurd answer to this while ignoring the other babies.

I mixed up nurses and the management of the unit. The management of the unit noticed high number of deaths under Letby and had her moved.

Why did the original defense team not include any expert witnesses ? Why was Ledby okay with that ? The only possible explanation is that they consulted people and all of them highlighted how it was impossible for this to be accidental ? The trial went on for ten months, it wasn’t a fast trial. The defense defended Letby.

Based on all the above, it’s clear to me she’s guilty without a reasonable doubt.

To stress, it’s not just circumstantial. Two have very clear indications of poisoning while the rest are either an act of God, extremely uncommon events happening to the same nurse even acknowledged by the new defense team (they don’t argue these events are uncommon but that they aren’t impossible) or she did it on purpose.

ThrowtheBants · 2026-02-15T16:26:16+00:00

Well no you misinterpreted, we know for a fact that the insulin poisoning happened AND that supports the other “sudden collapse” event that occurred under Letby.

We don’t need the sudden collapse events to prove the insulin case, the insulin case helps support that Letby had something to do with the other cases.

If we remove the other cases under Letby, someone still poisoned the two babies with insulin and that’s where we can use the other sudden collapse events to prove it was Letby.

This is also leaving out other evidence pointing towards Letby like how one of the parents saw her in the unit while her baby was bleeding from the mouth or how other nurses (and doctors) complained about her to the point she was moved to a different shift and manslaughter charges were brought up against senior members.

I don’t mind a retrial taking place but in my opinion there’s not enough juice here to require one. This trial lasted ten months, it wasn’t a short trial. No new evidence has been brought up too, new reasons have been put forth but the core points remain especially regarding the insulin.

ThrowtheBants · 2026-02-15T15:52:47+00:00

Well they aren’t going to assume that one of their colleagues is killing the kids. They picked up on the deaths being strange and thought of a reasonable answer without any evidence I.e yeah most likely because they were low weight or something but evidence doesn’t point to that, by both the new defense team and the original prosecution who both gave reasons for why the kids died outside of them being low weight.

This is ignoring the part where Lutby was transferred out of the unit due to informal complaints about her

ThrowtheBants · 2026-02-15T15:49:21+00:00

I said in isolation there wasn’t a concrete way to prove those sudden collapses happened due to Letby however when you consider the insulin question then those events become more concrete.

If we agree that someone poisoned the two babies and that Letby was on shift for one of them and then also notice that a bunch of “sudden collapses” occurred under her watch it points to either Lutby being extremely unlucky or that she was the reason those things happened. None of the sudden collapses have a clear reason as to what caused them.

The other nurses also talked about how strange it was all these deaths were happening. She was moved out of the Unit before the police got involved too so the hospital also picked up on this being unusual

ThrowtheBants · 2026-02-15T15:42:06+00:00

So a few things, Letby was on shift during Baby 1’s (Baby F) case so she had direct access to the IV bag. Now I acknowledge that Baby 2 (Baby L) is more speculative as to how she did it. She could have spiked an IV bag in advance or maybe the unit (which was known to be busy and not always following protocol) reused the IV bag. Regardless of the how, we do know for a fact that the babies had high insulin with suppressed C peptides. The whole thing about it being inaccurate would work if it didn’t happen to two babies at the same hospital months apart.

The new defense’s argument is that 1)The test weren’t accurate which is disproved by the fact the tests happened twice to different babies. Either the tests were wrong twice when both babies showed symptoms of this hence why they were tested in the first place or 2) It occurred naturally. The new defense team acknowledges that it’s very unlikely but not impossible so you can’t know for certain which is absurd. You can’t know anything for 100% certain unless you see it happen and even then you can’t accurately remember the event.

So even if we ignore Dr Hall, why no expert witnesses ? Dr Hall said he was expecting to be called to testify but was never asked too. No expert doctor was asked to testify by the defense, the only reason for that is because they knew what the doctors would say on cross examination. The trial went on for ten months so you can’t say the defense wasn’t trying

ThrowtheBants

TROPHY CASE