Lucy Letby (2)

Thanks @Oftenaddled

Very disturbing case and unsettling in the extreme.

I really hope it’s a miscarriage of justice and she’s innocent. Happy to be proved wrong. And if she is innocent, the poor woman, not forgetting the families of the babies who died.

Been thinking alot overnight about things said on the last thread about relevance of adjacent experiences and the way people get very opposed to discussion of uncomfortable aspects of systemic failure.

If I hadn't had my own experience of "the system" which I have acknowledged is different in some aspects but nevertheless is resonant in terms of the complexity of medical evidence and its use and application via the legal system to determine the outcome of people's lives, I might not have been so invested, that's true.

I have always acknowledged I am at risk of bias, which is why I never felt qualified to campaign for people caught up in the child protevtion system. Childrens lives are at stake, and child abuse / murder is a reality.

Where I do feel qualified to comment is when people speculate about how being accused of a heinous crime against a child can impact a person and how their behaviour is then solely interpreted to demonstrate guilt.

I also feel qualified to comment on the Catch 22 nature of some investigations due to medical dogma and an unwillingness to examine cases from an individual perspective once they stray into the legal arena.

In this case, there is a real danger of medical dogma being pretty much invented (air down NG tube causing death for example). For someone to be convicted on that premise, yet it not be re-examined legally when the expert in question rows back on it undermines the justice system in an embarrassing and potentially devastating way for any future cases.

I think the majority of people questioning the safety of the convictions here have valid reasons to do so. If one or two experts had come out after the trial raising questions, and those questions had been answered scientifically with research evidence and precedent, that would be one thing. The sheer numbers of dissenting voices and lack of concurrence with the original experts opinions speaks to the gravity of the situation.

Nobody wants to see a child abuser / baby killer "get away with it". Ironically, the way this case has been handled may contribute to exactly that. It could also lead to a doubling down on prosecutions and further reluctance of decent expert witnesses wanting to get involved. And we have been here before.

The biggest takeaway for those interested for whatever reason should be that cases that depend on medical evidence to such a huge degree require a more sophisticated process than seems to be currently in operation. And that starting from a premise that a person must be guilty and pursuing an outcome to reflect that by fair means or foul causes more issues than it solves, not just for defendants but for the victims too.

If one truly believes in the "innocent until proven guilty" principle of our justice system, then it is in the public interest to scrutinise high profile cases. The voices of people who have similar experiences are, in my opinion, an important part of that process to try and establish patterns of bad practise and failures. Telling them it's all in their head allows valuable opportunities to improve the systems involved to slip by.

Professor Roy Meadows again, this time his work on non-accidental salt poisoning. He certainly had a strong interest in work that supported accusing mothers of harming their children didn’t he.

A previous poster made a point I missed on the previous thread and really resonated. (Sorry I’ve tried to tag and can’t, think the username was Frieda86).

She said that when her child was ill and hospitalised at 4 months the paediatricians were very keen to hear the history of pregnancy and birth as it could have been highly relevant to the illness and I had the same experience.

DS was hospitalised with suspected sepsis at 9 weeks and viral meningitis at 5 months and I can not recall the number of times I was asked to talk through my pregnancy with him and his delivery- possibly 10-15 times across the two admissions (one required a transfer to a specialist hospital so three sets of multiple doctors). They deemed it extremely important to determining his diagnosis each time. And so many follow up questions- did I ever test positive for group A strep, was I given antibiotics in labour, did membranes rupture prematurely, was he a full term baby, how was my previous pregnancy and delivery etc etc.

So I do find it astounding that Dewi Evan’s felt these details were entirely unnecessary for him to provide his expert opinion on cause of death of these babies.

@DailyEnergyCrisis I feel like if Dewi Evans needed the birth notes to rule out natural causes people would say "it must not be obvious it's murder then so she should get off"-can't really win. People just won't accept she did it and are constantly looking for natural explanations. He could obviously see perfectly well it's murder without looking at the birth notes.

He incorrectly diagnosed air embolism "by exclusion" (his words). How can he rule out all other diagnoses without the maternity notes?

@Oftenaddled it's the first I've heard she swapped with someone for baby C. Anyway, it was the family room she kept going into after he'd died-with absolutely no reason to be in there and having been told multiple times to go look after her own designated baby (who actually was the only baby her supervisor was worried about at the beginning of that shift not baby C who ended up dying!) but she was obsessed with baby C and his family.

You’re still failing to look at this from the “innocent until proven guilty” perspective, which is the law in this country, much as you seem to wish it wasn’t.

Understanding the cause of death is essential in understanding whether the underlying cause was murder. So, for example, the medical cause of death might be exanguination caused by a knife wound, or asphyxiation caused by strangulation, i.e. not natural causes. It’s then for the police and the courts to determine whether the stabbing or strangulation was murder, manslaughter or misadventure.

In the cases of these babies the medical cause of death was identified (in most cases) at PM, and was attributed to natural causes, not misadventure or worse.

Then Dr Evans comes along and decides that the cause of death was respiratory problems caused by splinting of the diaphragm with air, whatever it is he thinks excess milk does (never been clear), and arterial air embolism caused by IV injection of air, contrary to what the PM concluded.

Then the expert panel looks at exactly the same information Dr Evans had, and concludes the cause of death to be a variety of other natural causes.

So, the obvious thing is now to really understand the medical causes of the babies’ deaths, and the condition of the babies when they were admitted to the NNU. The maternal notes are relevant. Looking at them would have been seen as thorough, not undermining.

And Evans didn’t see perfectly well it was murder, because he hadn’t even identified the cause of death. Witness his change of mind since the trial about the causes of death of some of the babies.

I think he entirely compromises his credibility by saying “no medical notes please, looks like murder to me” when anyone who has done a healthcare degree or masters understands the importance of gathering all evidence possible, weighting relevance, considering other possibilities/views.

His methodology is dangerous and driven by ego in my view. He somehow thinks he’s above evidencing his opinion which is why he doesn’t bother actually considering the evidence in its fullest form.

Thanks

I maintain that Lucy is innocent.

I wish her well. Her parents well. But above all, the parents of the babies who died due to hospital mismanagement and neglect.

No, no they would not.

This is just another fireflyism where you make up things about what other people would say and think.

Obviously no one would have said that.

You’re still failing to look at this from the “innocent until proven guilty” perspective, which is the law in this country, much as you seem to wish it wasn’t.

She was proven guilty, much as you seem to wish that wasn't the case. And the first step was identifying harm in the babies-which is what Dewi Evans did. At some point you have to start investigating it from that angle if that's what it's all pointing towards. And I'm very confident he got it right regardless.

It’s then for the police and the courts to determine whether the stabbing or strangulation was murder, manslaughter or misadventure.

Yes and the police and courts did that, not sure why you're so up in arms about it in this case.

In the cases of these babies the medical cause of death was identified (in most cases) at PM, and was attributed to natural causes, not misadventure or worse.

Except for the cases they couldn't find a reason for. If you don't have intentional harm on your radar you might not find it in a case like this (just ask Shoo Lee)

Then Dr Evans comes along and decides that the cause of death was respiratory problems caused by splinting of the diaphragm with air, whatever it is he thinks excess milk does (never been clear), and arterial air embolism caused by IV injection of air, contrary to what the PM concluded.

So did Dr Bohin. And the radiographer noted air on x-rays. So yes it does all point towards air embolism. And yes baby G was force fed excess milk, this was proven. And it all happened on her 100th day of life in nursery two where she was doing well when another nurse went on her break.

Then the expert panel looks at exactly the same information Dr Evans had, and concludes the cause of death to be a variety of other natural causes.

No because they were going off wrong info-using Letby's notes for baby E so didn't have an accurate picture of what happened-it's like using Harold Shipman's medical notes! And everything else they got wrong that was ruled out at trial-like an expert testified baby A never got the mum's Antiphospholipid syndrome but of course Shoo Lee would focus in on that desperate to use it as a reason even though it's literally been ruled out. People just lap it up and think his word is gospel and wouldn't even think to fact check. Like oftenaddled who can point out mistakes in absolutely anything related to the trial won't say a word against Shoo Lee! And I'm sure she knows very well baby A didn't have APS.

Neither Shoo Lee nor Oftenaddled has said Baby A had antiphospholipid syndrome.

Well the fact is they weren't passed on! APS had nothing to do with it.

OK well I'm just saying from my perspective, if being able to tell whether it's deliberate harm or not hinges on the maternity notes, it doesn't sound like a very clear cut case.

she will never ever be released thank god.

@Oftenaddled said it right there in that Thirlwall document.

Who said that they weren't passed on?

The document from the lawyers?

They said the baby didn't inherit the disorder, not that the antibodies hadn't been passed on.

It is my understanding that the baby may have the mothers antibodies for about 6 months, and may or may not go on to develop the disorder. The antibodies can increase the risk for blood clots etc.

Can anyone confirm if my understanding is correct?

You are correct. The antibodies can cross the placenta and cause clots.