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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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?

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.

Such as? 🤔

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.

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).

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

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'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.

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

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?