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

Such as? 🤔

I think he'd fail one if they asked him now if he's still as confident in his theories, he'd say yes of course but I really think he know now that they are seriously flawed.

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).

I think that was the second trial. but either way, surely there must be a clear indication of how a murder happened for someone to be convisted of it?

And the point that most of us make is that the methods of murder put forwards have all been theories with no evidence of the methods being teh cause.

That’s if it gets to the realisation of the mistake. If it is a grave miscarriage of justice it’s unfathomable how she must be feeling.

What evidence is there that there were any murders? The statistics have been debunked; the insulin evidence presented at trial excluded other test results that would make insulin poisoning unlikely; air down the NG tube and overfeeding have been debunked. All the prosecution had left is AE, and now that's been debunked.

Without evidence of murder, anything else Letby did or didn't do, and that one time she looked at you funny on the bus and gave you a bad tummy feeling, is irrelevant.

The jury didn't even have to be sure of the method of murder did they? So it doesn't really matter HOW she did it. There's still more than enough proof she harmed babies even without the AE evidence.

It's going to prove to be a costly and time-consuming mistake for all involved, I think.

I'd like to see changes made to the expert witness system after this. That one case can rely on a single expert being correct is madness. I know the prosecution had other expert witnesses, but they followed Evans' lead, read his notes, and loosely agreed with him. It's fairly obvious now that they didn't do any research outside of reading Evans' work, or they would have spotted his mistakes.

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.

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.

In which case the conviction sounds unsafe and the case really needs to be looked at again. How stressful and depressing.

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?

And then he stomped off

https://www.thesun.co.uk/topic/channel-5/

There really seems to be a new push to address a potential historical miscarriage of justice here. I am glad the press are not succumbing to pompous lawyer demand to suppress stories for fear of family upset. Personally I don't think this is beyond reasonable doubt and we need at least a new trial. This continuing speculation is just undermining our faith in jusrice.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/40451301/doctor-accused-lucy-letby-uncertain-retrial/

This is looking more and more unsound as a conviction and the Sun (a typical throw away the keys or hang them) tabloid is coming out with really quite convincing stories

in support. The Thirlwall enquiry emphasised catastrophic failures of governance which adds to the increasing possibility that the ward was just incredibly unsafe generally and maybe Lucy was caught up in a political maelstrom of arse covering.

I think for every single newspaper we could scoff and exclaim ‘the sun! The mail! The Guardian - left wing hyperbole! The Torygraph!’ But what we shouldn’t ignore is how unusual and bizarre it is for the above publications to broadly agree with one another, although the way they put it across of course differs.

The guy behind the documentary was on a podcast I was listening to earlier (no idea which one. Things stream in the background while I work).

The Sun's intention when they started researching for the documentary was to silence all the concern around the conviction and find more evidence to prove Letby's guilt. The more questions they got answered, the more questions they had.

He now believes this is the biggest miscarriage of justice in modern history.

They played a short clip of Dewi's interview, and it was clear he was wholly out of his depth being face-to-face with a vascular/embolism specialist. He kept insisting he was right and the vascular specialist was wrong, but was unable to explain why or produce any studies to support his theories.

Yet you've no issue with the journalism from The Sun where the 'unnamed sources' say that Letby hangs around with other child killers in prison which is basically unsubstantiated prison gossip but you treat it as fact and evidence of Letbys character, but when it’s a documentary that has a vascular doctor discussing the medical evidence The Sun is to be ridiculed.............

I don't believe that is exactly right, but ten incidents were stopped from the roster of suspicious events early on after she was found not to be on shift, according to an alleged police leak: https://archive.ph/Z6t3c

I think people have pointed out a few times that the presenters of the Mail's podcast, the Trial, which built a profitable new platform out of the Letby case, didn't disclose payments to the company one of them owns. The other had worked for the company.

These payments came not just from Chester police but specifically from the Operation Hummingbird budget, before, during, and since the trial. I am happy to read and assess sources wherever they are, but whenever I listen to the Trial I am amazed at how little Liz Hull understands of the relevant law and science after three years covering the case.

Mark mcdonald’s quote
‘This child, this vulnerable neonate, not a baby, not a fully formed baby, but one that was still developing was seriously ill and that's why they died."
absolutely disgraceful

It’s made me even more certain she’s guilty
I had all 3 of my DC at COCH
i know quite a few very experienced, exceptional, dedicated ITU nurses who work there
i also know one of the consultants giving evidence and I think he is arrogant, misogynistic and self-absorbed

still believe she is 💯 guilty

It's reportinh to do with a new documentary.

I agree with the poster who says she displayed classic seial killer behaviour. Taking trophies, googling information on the parents. She's guilty

The Sun! To think I get criticised if I mention the daily mail...well I'm sure it'll be high quality journalism.