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

Just to clear one consultant clamed to have a draw of evidence against letby which he did nothing with for a year, and the other one was proved by his own emails to have lied that letby didn't call him.

But at least you calim to hacve read all of transcripts in less than a day so well done.

And yes the email came out either between the trials or after the second one.

But at least you have started to do some research so there is hope for you yet.

The report had to presuppose guilt. It doesn’t make it useful on the question of the safety of the conviction.

And some of what has been posted about it, ie focusing on her character seems off.

Just to be clear, the allegations you have made about the two consultants are really not backed up by anything that’s in the court transcripts (or anywhere else).

@Viviennemary
Why do you think experts are speaking out now and going to all the time and effort of doing reports etc?

There have been several options put forward as to why the defence didn't put their experts on the stand. (The defence expert was willing to take the stand)

Some of the posibilities that I remember are

The judge wouldn't allow the defence to defend each theory separately.

The expert couldn't refute all of the theories put forward in that they would have to say that some were feasible.

The defence didn't have any experts suitable.

LL wouldn't agree to the defence putting any experts forward.

These are all rumours and no-one other than the defence and LL really know what went on.

Why didn't the the defence bring in some of those experts who have recently crawled out of the woodwork. It just all seems a bit odd. Those experts at the trial were all wrong apparently so where were all the other experts defending her. I think it was obvious she was guilty and they didn't call any defence witnesses except a plumber because shd'd look even worse under scrutiny.

We knew the gist of what the report was going to say since the convictions, the inquiry was held from the perspective that she was guilty.

What does it take for some people to accept the truth in front of their noses?

Exactly, what does it take for people to see the blindingly obvious truth about the substandard care at this hospital?

I’m amazed at the “she’s innocent” brigade still wanging on when the report is clear that she was very far from set up and scapegoated, she was actually protected and facilitated to keep murdering. What does it take for some people to accept the truth in front of their noses?

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?