Lucy Letby thread

So, Shoo Lee is the only expert who has spoken out about his concerns? We haven't just had pages and pages discussing Chase, Shannon, Hall, and Hutton? There weren't 13 other experts on Lee's panel?

https://jollycontrarian.com/index.php/Lucy_Letby:_those_experts_in_full

Absolutely nothing about that posters posts suggest anything cult like.

You just choose to say it's a cult or bandwagon knowing full well it's not, simply because you want an argument.

A bit like blaming Evans for solely getting her sent down when there were multiple experts that testified. That's on top of 7 consultants who all believed she was guilty too. Funny how that's practically everyone involved in the first trial who saw all the evidence.

https://www.reddit.com/r/lucyletby/comments/1syxaum/chase_and_shannon_publish_their_research_as_a/?sort=new

Here's a good thread about why Geoff's theories are irrelevant to the Letby case. Not that I think you'll read it.

Why do I HAVE to believe Shoo Lee then?

Anyone listened to Dr Dimitrova on YouTube - she clearly pointed a finger at Dr Breary, whose needle puncture, she says, caused 'catastrophic liver injury'. Dr Svilena Dimitrova, peds consultant.

If you can find actual medical studies or research that disprove or question Chase's study, I will read it and consider it, but the opinion of a random redditor from a reddit whose own rules state the below does not need to be read to know it's bollocks.

Rule 3: Verdicts in Lucy Letby's trial are fact and are law unless and until an appeal is granted

And no, you don't have to believe Lee, read the studies and papers they reference, and decide for yourself if you want to. What you don't get to do is decide no one should believe any of them until they all agree with each other. Most of us are capable of making an assessment of who is speaking and what they are saying, and deciding the veracity of their claims for ourselves.

@Frequency there are many different opinions on that thread and some of them can explain the science better than me. I thought that was what you wanted.

@Frequency Most of us are capable of making an assessment of who is speaking and what they are saying, and deciding the veracity of their claims for ourselves.

Why even bother with witnesses being cross-examined at this point we'll just believe any old expert who comes out with an absurd theory long after the trial is over. God what a slippery slope! Can't believe that's what people want.

I've scrolled through some of it. From what I can tell, they think what they have screenshot is Chase's study; it's not; it is a letter outlining some of the findings of his full study, and yes, it references a model he created to predict I/C ratios in neonates but this model was based on his own study of 300 or so neonates iirc, which is covered in his full (paid for so I cannot link it) study. The thread I linked yesterday included screenshots of the results from his study. Chase also linked other studies and observations from babies showing similar results to those in Letby's case.

Their other issue with it appears to be that he is a medical engineer, not an endocrinologist. The man literally designs insulin tests and treatments for a living. What is it they think an endocrinologist could know about insulin testing that the man who designs the tests doesn't know?

@Firefly1987 If you want to understand the science a little better yourself, so you're not relying on others to decipher them for you, and having to trust that they understand them enough to explain them in layman's terms, PubMed publishes free summaries of most medical studies. They can be hard to follow at times, but if you read them twice (first to work out all the acronyms and then again to work out what it is saying), you will get an idea of what the study showed and why.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/

The full studies are mostly paid for, but the summaries have just enough information that you can fathom what experts are chatting on about when they talk about the flaws in the evidence presented at Letby's trial.

I believe she's reported that case to the police for potential gross negligence manslaughter

But then it's Chesire police, can they really be trusted to assess the allegations honestly? They certainly didn't seem to care too much about investigating substandard care at the start of the investigation so I doubt they will now that Letby is already convicted of killing this baby.

@kkloo did she really? Ha, no wonder she's a figure of ridicule in the guilty circles.

Oh no, a figure of ridicule in the guilty circles....she really must be a very silly sausage

I don't know - I stumbled on her YouTube interview and was amazed at her sticking her neck above the parapet, she is Bulgarian, the courage it took her to speak - I am amazed. The risks she took are beyond anything I have seen. She is a well-paid, respected consultant, she amazed me with her courage. Private Eye ran a short piece on the 'Silent Breary', who damaged the kid's liver - saying Breary is wise to keep quiet for the time being, because he does not know what will be disclosed.

I am amazed how doctors are never facing consequences - remember that moronic-looking (clearly not well in the head) Bawa-Garba - who stopped resuscitation attempts on a child!!!! She was reinstated - but the poor Portuguese nurse, nobody cared about her, discarded like a piece of garbage. The discrepancy between doctors and nurses is immoral - in everything - pinning the blame on them, their salaries and lack of support. Shameful.

What I mean by circumstantial evidence is a stable baby is left in her care, other staff or parents have just left, no concerns. Then minutes later baby is suddenly dying out of NOWHERE and one nurse is there-over and over again.

But that's not inconsistent with innocence. Being where babies might collapse was literally her job. The only part that could be inconsistent with innocence is "over and over again", if it was hugely unlikely by chance. That's a testable statistical claim, which was never properly tested.

If it was the closest to her getting caught why didn’t she put a complaint in? I just think parents are going to look at any incident where she was there and something went wrong and think she was to blame. I don’t blame them, as you would if there was a supposed killer nurse.

Also, the father believes it was Lucy Letby who told him the previous evening to go home and get some rest - obviously that’s given a sinister meaning, to get rid of him from the ward, but then nothing presumably happened to the baby that night. So it most likely was just a nurse telling him a pretty common thing nurses say.

Yes, that sounds right

The child had a pneumothorax - we discussed this case before and that was in another news report. Nobody has suggested even for the children on the indictment who had pneumothorax (children H and P) that Lucy Letby had a way of invisibly causing them. Looking blank at 3am and stepping away leaving the mother with her child seem to be her only crimes here.

Yes she has said she doesn't know what the consequences will be for her long term but she doesn't regret speaking up.

Also how accurate is the claim that they collapsed out of NOWHERE, It's just not accurate at all.

I honestly think the pro guilty thinkers at the time of the trial were acting on the information available.
I am so glad I wasn't on the jury and I don't doubt for a minute they acted with consideration and totally did the best they could.
My point of view is that information has come to light since then which actually contradicts the evidence they were presented with.
I really hope for all our sakes that the conviction is found to be safe in light of this new information
Or an innocent woman is released
Lessons will be learnt as they say

It is if it's the minute other parents and staff members left a perfectly stable baby. One or maybe two times it might happen that she got unlucky and a baby collapsed in that very short time frame she happened to be there. But more than that and over and over again? Not believable.

Have you seen the new book on the case, Reasonable Doubt by Christopher Morris? It's out this week and I just bought it today https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/B0GSKLM8D6/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0

One really good early chapter is on the babies' condition, and how misleading the claim was that they collapsed out of nowhere. Part of that is just about whether there were people around qualified to notice problems. One of Morris's interviewees pointed out that it wasn't just neonatalogists missing at Chester - they lacked experienced specialist nurses too:

'“The health of these babies was not accurately portrayed at all”, Dr Roger Norwich commented. “That was probably because they didn’t have a neonatologist, they didn’t have neonatal nursing practitioners, they had diminished nursing at the hospital generally, and they were very reliant on junior doctors, who were mainly completely unsupervised. They probably didn’t know enough about neonates to be able to recognise a sick one, as that sickness was developing”.'

And Michael Hall, the defence expert witness, gives a really good example of that for the first child to die, Baby A, but also explains that he learned some of the problems only at the Thirlwall Inquiry:

'"Dr Michael Hall was critical of evidence provided in court for Child A. Born at 31 weeks, Child A faced increased morbidity and mortality risk and was receiving CPAP. His breathing rate was abnormal throughout the 24 hours before collapse; the increased rate suggested possible respiratory distress syndrome. This requires surfactant therapy but he never received it. Dr Hall told me: “Although his respiratory rate was high, the heart rate was in the low-normal range. Usually you would expect the heart rate to be relatively high if there was a significantly high respiratory rate. One explanation of the incongruously low heart rate is that his mother had been treated with a beta-blocker medication, labetalol, during the three weeks prior to his birth. It is known that this can cross the placenta and affect babies in the newborn period, both in terms of heart function and in causing the blood sugar to be abnormally low.”

'... Dr Hall explained that “the high breathing rate seems to have been missed by the doctors involved in the care of Child A”, based on accounts submitted to the Thirlwall Inquiry. ... Furthermore, Dr Hall informed me that the respiratory rate of Child A was elevated above a normal and stable level in 19 of the 22 observations made (86%). Nevertheless, prosecution witnesses claimed that Child A was “stable” and “doing so well” that feeds were given, a claim repeated by the Court of Appeal in paragraph 52 of its judgment ...'.

But how many times did that actually happen, anyway? It seems like a bit of a myth to me

That's all in hindsight. At the time the parents had no idea she was going round attacking babies. It would've just seemed like a coincidence to the mum. What would she complain about? Alarms happened to go off the minute one nurse left and I think she harmed her? She'd sound crazy! No one would even think that would they. But all of these collapses around Lucy Letby remain unexplained-even the ones with the couple who came out in defence of her!

The fact that the couple doesn't know what caused the collapses doesn't mean the collapses were unexplained in the medical sense.

But premature babies - most of the babies in these cases - do often suffer from apnoea of prematurity. The cause is prematurity. Nobody is launching investigations whenever these events happen, in neonatal units around the country. We have information on the indictment babies that helps us consider why they may have collapsed, but there really is no good reason to assume that collapses among non indictment babies were sinister.