Lucy Letby - Specifically those who think she is guilty…

It doesnt really work like that, if she was found NOT gulity, there would be no programs on tele or lawers trying to build a case taking a loom at the evidence for that scenario which the president evidence could also be flawed but you would never see that happen. Why did her defense not call a singal expert witness to preset evidence in her favour. The important thing is that if it is a stitch up, then the families are being lied to about why their babies died and they deserve the truth, however damaging that may be to COCH reputation. One line that I found curious was "Nobody actually saw her murder a baby". Inst thatbthe case with most murders were people are just found in the woods, there house etc. Nobody saw the murder happen, therefore that should be part of the defence

I think what's clear to anyone involved on either side is that is has laid bare the inadequacies & weaknesses in our justice system.

The CCRC are certainly going to have to refer at least some of the cases with that evidence.

It's just very weird to me how you deliberately omit babies she was charged with harming just because the jury found her not guilty on those. I mean the jury found her not guilty of killing baby K and then another jury found her guilty so...she was still there and involved, it's still three separate collapses over three days since her return from Ibiza. That's what we were talking about. If three deaths in three days on her shifts back doesn't mean anything then what does it matter if I make it clear she was there or not? It's not statistically significant right...

The jury did the right thing and didn't find her guilty on that baby but that simply means not enough evidence not innocence.

The case for Lucy Letby having caused Baby Q's deterioration was particularly weak.

So you admit there was evidence against her for the other babies then.

Here https://t.co/9iJ0vn5eLY is the account of Evans's original findings re baby O, baby P and other incidents with Lucy Letby not present which were not brought to court.

That's a truther article. I'll find a less biased source on babies O, P, Q and see what that has to say.

Neither of these children collapsed "the minute Lucy Letby got near them". Both had also deteriorated the night before.

Not to anywhere near the same extent. You're really grasping at straws-yes babies in a NICU need care and get the odd issue. That's not the same as catastrophically collapsing and I think that's the difference between suspicious and non-suspicious incidents (and why the former involves one staff member) rather than they were cherry-picked that way.

@Oftenaddled why is that supposed to be a huge gotcha though? I don't suppose he wanted to admit his fears over email so he just said she called him in. It's such a minor point.

This where the rest of you think 3 collapsed/dying babies on consecutive days after she came back from Ibiza means nothing. That overdosing a baby with morphine that could've killed them is just a mistake and something every nurse does. But you'll latch onto a nothingburger in an email. Did you notice where it also said "no obvious reason for the tube to dislodge"?

But you are leaving out the bit where he said she had called him in in an email, then denied that she had in court. That's where people accuse him of lying / misremembering

No I don't think he has to be lying to be an unreliable witness. According to some on here baby E's mum is an unreliable witness-not only did she get her timing wrong but she completely hallucinated the entire Letby conversation about the tube rubbing her baby's throat. I assume no one here is accusing her of trying to scapegoat Lucy.

I believe he went in and saw her not doing anything and she'd pulled the tube out. Which just goes to show how hard it was to catch her in the act. He was already suspicious and went in and by the time he did she'd already taken the tube out and was watching the baby deteriorate. Maybe he questioned himself over and over and didn't believe his eyes so he decided against dropping Lucy in it. Later on when it became clear (long after baby K) she was definitely harming babies did he believe it had happened like he remembered. No one has to be lying.

Think you might have left some information out of the Neena Modi 'admission' so I'll pop it here for everyone so it isn't taken out of context as it appears you've done.

Professor Neena Modi made this statement during a BBC Panorama investigation to explain that while post-mortem imaging showed air in the blood vessels of some infants, this air was likely introduced during medical resuscitation rather than through deliberate harm.

You thought wrong, then. Because obviously we all know that the Shoo Lee panel was a big story in the UK and got a lot of coverage. It's part of the reason some people doubt her guilt or at least the conviction.

And you, admittedly with plenty of company, have felt comfortable claiming that people would respond differently if Letby weren't white. You wrote that people wouldn't be second guessing the court evidence if she were Filipino. So that means thinking about what would happen in response to particular expert evidence.

If you've no idea what would've happened when Shoo Lee contacted other experts, it's going to make backing up your comments about the Filipino hypothetical more difficult. Anyone would think you'd just pulled them out of your arse.

Only in the same way as the prosecution was 'conspiracy theories'

Dewi Evans must have magical powers if he can get all the other experts onboard with his theories-and some of them came to their own conclusions of deliberate harm based on their speciality-insulin poisoning being one, the liver injury being another. And not only that but make sure Ben Myers/Lucy Letby decides not to call a single expert in her defence.

But yeah lets not care about what's tested in court lets just believe any old expert that comes out with theories she might be innocent (and he actually can't rule out deliberate harm) no matter what biases or axes they have to grind. That sounds much better than the court system!

Therefore, when he contacts the other experts asking for their input on the Filipino Letby case, Modi included, what do they say?

I have no idea because no one knows how many he contacted before he got all his panel together-at least one neonatologist did turn him down.

I thought we were talking about the British public reaction and disbelief to her guilt not some doctor from Canada and a disgruntled ex RCPCH doctor.

Only in the same way as the prosecution was 'conspiracy theories'

There was no clear cut evidence at all that found her guilty only expert witness theories.

There's now a vast amount of far more experienced experts giving different theories with arguably more 'evidence'

This is no longer TV conspiracy theories.

With all due respect to your clearly substantial medical expertise, whether or not you think Shoo Lee is misunderstanding is immaterial. He thinks Dewi Evans got his research wrong. You've already admitted that Shoo Lee would still care about this even if Letby wasn't white.

So, back to this alternative timeline. Shoo Lee is very concerned. He contacts the other experts. Again, what you think of these experts doesn't matter. Shoo Lee is the one choosing, unless you think that Letby not being white would mean he'd be phoning you up instead.

Therefore, when he contacts the other experts asking for their input on the Filipino Letby case, Modi included, what do they say?

Let's get granular with this chain of events. So you've admitted that Shoo Lee would likely be concerned when he found out Filipino/a Letby had been convicted based on a misunderstanding of his research, which is progress.

No I think Shoo Lee is the one misunderstanding. And everyone has ignored these never before seen rashes, if they're not AE then what are they? A cluster of rashes on all these sudden collapses, babies dying inexplicably with symptoms consistent with air embolism and people think "nothing to see here"? She also wasn't convicted on just the air embolism evidence...

Neena Modi, the only UK based doctor who just so happens to have a grudge against the COCH! Although she did say the babies suffered air embolisms by the way-isn't that in direct contrast to Shoo Lee?

Her Admission: Modi stated, "We know these babies suffered air embolism because of the post-mortem imaging in some of them."

So what would've happened in this scenario when he, in all his expertise and repute in the field, approached the other experts?

Letby's PR team organised that press conference. Had most of the public even heard of him before that?

I don’t see how questioning actual evidence by experts is a conspiracy theory especially when the evidence is challenged by reasonable explanations or presenting other evidence, not some vague explanation of a shadowy group pulling the strings.

What we have to remember is that what you are seeing on TV now is conspiracy theories, regardless of how many experts are on these programs.

If you absolutely believe him 100% about her “not doing anything”, do you believe he was lying in his earlier note that directly contradicts this?

If you mean the baby which Ravi Jayaram said in court he caught her virtually red handed cotside doing nothing, his own contemporaneous notes state that she called him when the baby started desaturating. He also said that deliberate tube dislodgement was the only possible explanation, but it’s since been revealed that the tube that he used to intubate the baby was the wrong size and that 94% of the air going down the tube was leaking out rather than going into the lungs, so clearly that was another more likely explanation for the collapse than attempted murder. He needs to stand trial for perjury.

There's a growing number of very highly regarded experts, often with more expertise than the 'expert witnesses' presenting the evidence who have gone through all the evidence that the jury had (and even more) and have come to a very different conclusion.

It exposes the weaknesses in our judicial system very clearly, if nothing else

The only thing it tells us is just how poor her defence team were.

But that wasn’t a defence mistake. Insulin poisoning wasn’t suspected at the time of the immunoassay testing that showed an inverted insulin to c-peptide ratio. The results were not acted upon at all, and certainly not sent for confirmatory testing. Poisoning was only suspected years afterwards.

Synthetic Insulin has a different molecular make up to natrually produced insulin and behaves slightly differently in the body. From the testing done on the baby's blood it was inferred that the insulin was exogenous from the level of another preotein called C-peptide. But they never sent the bloods off at this point for moelcualr anaysis to confirm if it was actually a ssytetic Insulin, so this is potentially a hole that the defense could poke and make a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. On the flip side if the molecular analysis confirmed tat it was a sythetic Insulin it would have given her less legs to stand on in court. Just one example.

By anyone who believes that the science presented at a trial should meet the standards for use in any other setting. This would mean it should match published findings where the experts at court have claimed it does so.

If they are wrong to assert that, which is very obviously the case in Lucy Letby's case and has been admitted on some points by the lead medical expert himself, then the conviction based on this pseudoscience is obviously unsafe.

We know what the jury decided based on pseudoscience, but not what they would have decided based on verified science

Do you think the public enquiry was examining whether the safety of the conviction stood up to scrutiny?

“Doesn’t stand up to scrutiny”? By who?

The people who make Channel 5 documentaries? Or podcasts? Opportunistic experts who get some nice publicity? A whole load of bored mumsnetters who’ve been “doing a lot of research”?

I’d rather believe two whole jury trials, the appeal refusal and a public enquiry than that TBH.

I don't think it is arrogant to doubt the safety of a verdict when the science used at the trial doesn't stand up to scrutiny.. Unfortunately, miscarriages of justice happen and experts have misled courts before.