Cheshire Police are an incompetent bunch of useless bastards

Yesterday:

Dr Jayaram told the inquiry that he had not seen Letby harming the baby and if the incident happened in isolation he would have “probably thought nothing more of it”.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/11/13/i-didnt-invent-lucy-letby-accusation-doctor-tells-inquiry/

On BBC Panorama:

Dr. Jayaram: She was just standing there. Now, tubes can become dislodged, but this was a 25-week gestation baby who wasn’t kicking around, who wasn’t vigorous. The only possibility was that the tube had been dislodged deliberately

So which is true? Premature babies frequently dislodge their tubes, as a starting point.

And he added yesterday that the baby could have dislodged the tube directly, which is also what he noted in medical records at the time (and is not unusual).

He also said that if it had not been Letby, he would not have been concerned about the incident.

Between the trials, he changed his account of when this incident happened. He also claimed initially that the baby was sedated but changed that in the face of other evidence.

He has contradicted himself directly on this story, in media appearances and in court.

@GossIsAGit can you point me to where in the CoA Judgment there is criticism of Ravi Jayaram?

I'm not criticizing him for voicing suspicions or for accusing Letby of murder.

I'm criticizing him for waiting a year to produce his story and then, repeatedly, changing it, including in media appearances which of course were entirely his choice.

I can't for a minute see how that could be simply a way to try to avoid the process or the publicity. But I am not concerned with him in particular and certainly wish him well.

It's reasonable to point out when the evidence on a charge like this is so shaky, and unfortunately he is responsible for this.

*I can usually assume people were acting in good faith, in this debacle, but the best I could say of Jayaram is that he lets his imagination run away with him.

He has changed his story too many times, and the part where he sees a nurse attempting murder and does nothing about it for a year is not plausible.*

Well given that his name and reputation are now being dragged through the mud by armchair detectives all over the internet (as well as some in the main stream media), I think I can understand why he might have been hesitant about lighting the blue touch paper in the first place.

And if there are other clinicians currently suspicious of intentional harm being carried out in their own settings, then I really can't think that any of this is going to be encouraging them to voice their concerns either...

I can usually assume people were acting in good faith, in this debacle, but the best I could say of Jayaram is that he lets his imagination run away with him.

He has changed his story too many times, and the part where he sees a nurse attempting murder and does nothing about it for a year is not plausible.

1. If they'd spoken out during her trial they'd have been interfering with the course of justice and liable for charges of contempt of court.

1. Not everyone follows cases like this live. Why should they

1. If they were following live, they were possibly waiting as I was for the actual evidence to emerge at a later stage in the trial.

1. Some experts now have access to case files and data which they certainly did not have before the trial.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/nov/13/consultant-tells-inquiry-he-wishes-he-had-voiced-concerns-about-lucy-letby-sooner

Hmmmm.

I think because the Lucy Letby association had been established and reported first, rather than evidence or post mortems that confirmed unnatural deaths, then yes the police were under pressure to build that case rather than throughly explore an alternative. And unfortunately, due to the complicated nature of a case reliant on specialist medical knowledge, they were never going to be apt at examining an alternative case.

I'm no fan of the police but you don't think in this case they'd much rather there had been an innocent explanation or at the worst negligence, rather than a nurse was an actual serial killer?

I've only recently become interested in the Lucy Letby saga. I have to say .. while claiming a belief in innocence might be a step too far (for me, at the moment). I would hesitate to say it is anywhere near obvious that she is guilty.

This case doesn't have any solid evidence to it at all and was entirely built on the presumption of suspicion, rather than an investigation where all possibilities were treated equally. The death of each baby has not been analysed as 'these are the findings of death – what happened on the ward that day and prior?', they have been treated as 'if Lucy Letby was responsible, how might we show that?'

Police just want a conviction. They don't care if the right person is convicted. And that's tale as old as time.

I wouldn’t know, I don’t read it.

And your username is ridiculous as well OP. Goss didn’t convict Letby. Neither did Cheshire Police. Are we now just calling people gits for doing their job?

Yeah sure thing

I didn’t say it can’t be wrong, did I?

However the opinions of pound shop Columbos with no medical or legal expertise and of “experts” who were nowhere to be seen during the actual judicial process mean absolutely fuck all.

She’s been through due process. She’s getting a referral to the CCRC. If there’s been a miscarriage of justice (and I don’t think there has been) then it can and should be dealt with through these proper channels. Same as how the MC of justice cases you mentioned were ultimately resolved. Not via the uninformed opinions of idiots gobbing off on SM.

Why are you so determined to believe that our notoriously poor ‘Justice’ system can’t be wrong in this instance?

Were you equally sure (and many were!) that the Birmingham Six were guilty? How about the Satanic Panic, or the shaken baby syndrome cases?

So many miscarriages of justice over the years, and we have a system in place that actively throws hurdles in the way of appellants getting back into a court.

The Thirlwall Inquiry is busy making sure that it ONLY reflects on how they could have stopped Letby from killing babies on the unit.

Justice Thirlwall has stated that they won’t be retrying the case. Witnesses (contemporary nursing colleagues of Letby) that have written in saying they don’t believe she could have done it have been excluded from giving oral evidence at the Inquiry. Thirwall really is not interested in exposing the shocking state of the unit, nor in examining why all the other babies (that Letby couldn’t possibly be responsible for killing) ended up dying.

Which will make any conclusions it reaches, when Letby eventually gets a fair shot at a trial, look nonsensical.