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

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.

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.

@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)

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.

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 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.

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

Feel free to go and read them.