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

It comes from the parents themselves, surprised you don't know.

All of her testimony, that Lucy disagrees with.

Oh, she’s guilty as sin. Aside from the evidence presented at the trial, I always thought her behaviour in the dock absolutely confirmed it. If I was being tried for a crime I didn’t commit (particularly one as heinous as this) I’d be shouting my innocence from the rooftops. Not acting cold, detached, cocky and trying to outsmart the lawyer.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66104004

Oh yes of course and I'm not saying this was a brilliantly ran hospital. A lot of people seem to assume a subpar unit means she can't also be a serial killer though. When you look at each individual baby and the circumstances around their death or collapse, a failing hospital just doesn't explain it. The only thing that explains it is Letby being guilty.

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that is the truth. I'm continuously amazed when other people can't see it. But then I don't think they followed the trial and her PR team have put out positive stories about her constantly for 2 years so I guess I can see how some of the public have been fooled.

Again show where this can be verified.

I agree, immunoassays can give false positives due to error/interference but it’s extremely rare and the manufacturer would consider it a major problem especially in an insulin assay.
When you factor in the same result from two unrelated babies months apart it becomes even less likely that it was an issue with the assay. This also makes a clerical error or contamination unlikely.
The NHS categorically do not use shoddy error prone immunoassays, they will be using high quality ones from a reputable manufacturer.
They should have followed up on that result asap with repeat testing and forensic analysis for exogenous v endogenous insulin. It should always be a red flag when you get that kind of insulin/c-peptide result and it’s shocking that it wasn’t followed up.

It sounds like this is what the experts are saying too, there could be rare biological reasons causing high insulin in premature babies (and if I read something convincing enough I would accept that), an error with the tests I just cannot believe.

It was 2018 but if you read into it her boyfriend got her further work

Except that this isn’t what actually happened. Perhaps if you take the time to listen to the podcasts that play recordings via transcripts of the enquiry you will understand better what actually happened. For example, the reference to some babies could have been saved isn’t about medics not being able to save them, but to the fact that if the people concerned had acted sooner and investigated the concerns being brought to them, Letby would not have gone on to kill or injure some babies.

@Oftenaddled Read the report - The baby was still alive when she brought the cold cot in and plugged it in. Still alive. Your comment about autopsy is totally missing the point. If a nurse brought a cold cot in while I’m trying to spend the last hours of my baby’s life holding them close and saying goodbye, I can’t imagine the psychological damage that would do to a parent.

The father had to forcibly order Letby to get out of the family room as she was making a nuisance of herself trying to get to the baby. She wasn’t the nurse allocated to the baby at any time, and the allocated nurse was horrified at Letby’s behaviour. There is nothing that can excuse this behaviour, nothing.

Letby should have been removed from her job simply for her behaviour towards the babies parents - one of the babies was being held by the parents in their final hours, and Letby pushed in a cold cot, telling the parents to put the baby down in it before the baby had passed away.

Paragraphs 3.68 and 3.69 of the Report are terrible reading. She is a monster.

Which part are you referring to?

YANBU because she is guilty and was found guilty by 2 different jury’s in 2 separate trials and also her right to appeal denied. I hope the horrible piece of filth suffers daily forever until she’s carried out in a box!

Right so you don't believe baby E's mum then. What happened to always believing the victims?

I don't see much point having the enquiry report when the case is still with the CCRC.

I believe she’s been scapegoated for the deaths, caused by a poor neonatal unit.

I find it strange that there been several investigations into maternity units, such as Nottingham, etc. Some of those babies’ deaths must be down to neglect by clearly identifiable HCPs, involved in the care of the mother and baby, but I cannot recall one individual being named in the press, never mind being charged with neglect, manslaughter or murder? Why haven’t the CEOs of those hospitals been charged, when imo, the buck stops at the top?

You might believe those things but that's not the same as 'proof'.

He'll have made an absolute fortune off of this case. Catching a serial killer of babies and gaining a conviction would encourage other prosecutors to use him. If, like his friend Dr Roy Meadows, he turns out to be wrong his whole reputation will go up in smoke. He has every reason to stand his ground here. His future as an expert witness depends on him not having fucked this up.

I do wonder if "messing up" this vital diagnosis in such a high profile case will have any further ramifications for other cases he's been involved in. I know he's mainly worked in the family courts, so whether it would cast doubt on other cases he's "won" in that arena might be an issue.

I've seen coverage of criminal cases where people like pathologists, or forensic professionals have got things wrong, and then other cases have grounds for appeal based on that.

I think he shot himself in the foot due to his dogged certainty. He may well have truly believed he was right, but that hubris in a legal setting might have offered up quite the can of worms.

I too feel ever so slightly sorry for him, just a tiny bit. This could be the mother of all fuck ups and cast huge doubt on his suitability to be an expert witnesd going back years. Unfortunately "he meant well" really doesn't cut it in this situation.

He knew about these eight casea. They were from his own report. (Unless he didn't read his own references I suppose).

Well apparently you can prosecute people for theft when there's no evidence that they stole the money or what happened to it, only that the computer says it's missing (Post Office cases).

So I assume you can prosecute people for murder without needing to know the method or a motive.

I don't think Letby's conviction is safe. I don't know if she's innocent. I suspect that even if she were released and her convictions quashed, the vindictive NHS and potentially Royal College of Nursing would then go after her for negligence/strike her off (assuming she's not already been struck off as a nurse).

Is there any point listing them when you're taking it as fact they've all been debunked? Like Dr Gibbs said, lets not take all the new experts claims at face value.

I still believe the insulin results, overfeeding and liver injury plus baby E's mum's testimony (none of which requires Dr Evans) believe it or not I believe Dr Jayaram too.

Such as? 🤔

Vibes only, but Evans has always given me the impression he'd pass a lie detector test. Of course being honest doesn't make him correct. He didn't come off well in that programme.

I have to admit I felt a tiny bit sorry for Evans after watching the full interview last night. It was like watching a toddler try to win a debate with Einstein.

In fairness to Evans' though, he did look genuinely shocked/afraid when he was informed there were 8 documented cases of babies who died with venous air embolism, and all of them had air present in the heart at autopsy, which has made me wonder if he believed what he testified to and genuinely made a mistake. I previously thought he'd just fabricated the whole lot and hoped he wouldn't get called out.

Other than his ego, is there anything preventing Evans' from admitting he was wrong? Are expert witnesses allowed to go public and admit their evidence was flawed, or would there be legal complications for him?

Well apparently you can prosecute people for theft when there's no evidence that they stole the money or what happened to it, only that the computer says it's missing (Post Office cases).

So I assume you can prosecute people for murder without needing to know the method or a motive.

I don't think Letby's conviction is safe. I don't know if she's innocent. I suspect that even if she were released and her convictions quashed, the vindictive NHS and potentially Royal College of Nursing would then go after her for negligence/strike her off (assuming she's not already been struck off as a nurse).