If you were previously on the fence about Lucy Letby’s guilt, have the Thirlwall findings swayed you either way?

These things are backed up by their trestimony in the court transcripts.

Feel free to go and read them.

I really hope he is taking legal advice and at some point comes out all guns blazing. It is absolutely appalling what he has had to put up with.

No, we cannot know what is lying and what is misremembering (or perhaps even just a quickly worded email that doesn’t accurately articulate the true position - we’ve all written them). There’s a big difference between the former and the latter though.

And I don’t think it’s fair to say that the information about the medical procedure was deliberately withheld - it was all submitted to the coroner for the inquest bundle, but it didn’t form part of the initial rapid high-level instruction to the pathologist as the doctors didn’t consider the resuscitation attempts were related to cause of death.

I think it's shameful that these consultants along with the others are going along with the serial killer narrative despite now knowing that the theories have major flaws and instead they are all continuing to ignore the elephant in the room and act like substandard care couldn't have caused this.

And there really are no words to describe how awful it is that they held an inquiry apparently to ensure that this doesn't ever happen again, with the thing that must not happen again being not letting a serial killer run riot in the hospital, when that's almost certainly not what happened, and instead by going down this route and ignoring the elephant in the room and having this performative nonsense what they're actually doing is going to mean that more babies are harmed due to substandard care

I can understand why initially they said after the convictions that they were going to have an inquiry, but to carry on even when significant medical disagreement about what happened continued to emerge (and emerge, and emerge....) is appalling.

The consultants are continuing to carry on with the serial killer narrative so of course they can be criticised for how they chose to handle what they said happened at the time.

If they want to insist on a particular narrative and voluntarily put forward that position then people can of course judge and criticise them for what they said they did and how they handled the situation.

@Oftenaddled A lot of people on the LL subreddit think Dr Brearey should sue The Sun and documentary makers. Funny how there's never enough proof Lucy Letby killed babies but conspiracy theorists will jump on the idea one of the doctors caused an injury quick enough (with zero proof)

The whole trial transcript is online. Unfortunately, it confirms how unscientific the prosecution expert witnesses were. Without a proper scientific analysis of causes of death, the convictions are unsafe.

I don't think we can know what is lying and what is misremembering, but there is no doubt that Dr Jayaram's testimony in court contradicted his earlier statements.

It is also an established fact, via coroner's documents published by Thirlwall that Dr Brearey undertook a medical procedure and that the pathologist was not informed of it in the form supplied by the hospital.

While other claims depend on police or hospital leaks or defence team claims, these points seem well established whether you find the other sources reliable or not.

I know exactly what Letby’s supporters say about it, but you clearly still don’t have any actual evidence to back up your claims that Stephen Brearley withheld evidence or that Ravi Jayaram lied (because there isn’t any).

Why do you think it’s okay to just say these things?

Exactly! It's like blaming Letby for the nurses being (supposedly) short-staffed. I mean she could've resigned couldn't she as well in protest if she cared about the welfare of her patients. But then she wouldn't get to be around all those dying babies would she.

They didn't do nothing, they flagged it numerous times, and were thwarted and lied to by those who were rightly lynched in the enquiry.

Did any of you who are on the fence actually listen to the trial? If not, there are plenty of podcasts about it which might make you more informed.

I feel for the babies families. Who have had to grieve and are facing reading such a lot of ill informed twaddle.

My point is that if they truly believed that there was an incident and that they had proof tehn they could have gone to the police.

This isn't being "obtuse" it is pointing out that they had nothing.
Just a feeling, and they did nothing.

They are just covering their own backs.

I have already told you about the drawer of evidence that was claimed and the email that contradicted the testimony, feel free to look it up.

I honestly can’t decide if you’re being deliberately obtuse about this or if you genuinely don’t get it.

This wasn’t an ‘incident’ like someone kicking off in ED on a Saturday night. It was something far more complex and nuanced, that the consultants themselves didn’t even know was a thing or not. To call in the police without the backing of the exec would have risked any proper external investigation ever getting off the ground, and would have essentially shut down any further avenues for stopping someone who they suspected was harming patients.

I don’t know the answer - I’m not aware that any proof exists of either of those two assertions so would be grateful if you could point me towards it.

They don't need the backing of the board to report an inciodent to the police.

If you already know the answer why are you pushing for the details?

You’re going to need to be more specific. Exactly what evidence did Stephen Brearley withhold? And what proof do you have that Ravi Jayaram lied?

Of course they could have - I think we all know the number!

Whether they should have in that set of circumstances (ie without the backing of the trust’s exec, and preferably the whole board) is a completely different matter though.

So you are saying that the consultants could have gone directly to the police.

Sure, and when the police speak to the CEO or Medical Director and they say there’s some beef around a grievance, we’ve done our own investigations and we’re happy there’s nothing to see here?

I’m really not convinced the police wouldn’t have left it there, and I imagine that was in the consultants’ minds too.

I will say again, the enquiry was about how to prevent this from happening again.

Part of that would have been a greater presense of consultants on the ward.

As for the consultants lying.
In court one said that LL did nothing yet in his emails he said that she did.

Another soid that they had a drawer of evidence that they sat on for a year and did nothing.

If you had been following the case you would know this.

They could realistically have gone to the police.
It would have cost them.
But they could have gone if they truly believed that LL was murdering babies.

Also, anyone who thinks the consultants could realistically have gone to the police without the backing of the trust’s executive leadership is being quite naive, and has clearly never worked at that level in that sort of environment.

I’ll say again, the lack of consultant presence on the ward was the trust’s issue, not the consultants’.

And what proof do you have that any of the consultants either sat on evidence or lied?