Lucy Letby - Specifically those who think she is guilty…

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. But apparently just him. Nobody else would be listening, even though at least one of the people who listed to him, the also not white Neena Modi already had concerns.

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

Lee's expert panel found that the same errors in ventilation settings were made with both.

Lee can say any old crap he likes, none of this has been tested so it's basically "trust me bro". The third triplet was absolutely fine?

The unit was extremely busy, and there were delays in treating both children - 40 minutes until a consultant attended resuscitation for the first; over an hour to read an X-ray and treat a pneumothorax for the second. They were vulnerable children admitted to a unit under pressure who suffered failings in care.

That explains treating them, none of that explains why they collapsed in the first place the minute LL got near them?

The next day, a child deteriorated with an infection. Lucy Letby was not found guilty of causing this. The consultant in charge was satisfied that it could be a natural collapse

You mean by the jury? Baby Q? So you discount every single charge she was found guilty on but suddenly have blind trust in the jury for the no verdicts?

Interestingly, the expert witness who examined all three cases at first found that they had had suspicious collapses at night, when Lucy Letby wasn't on shift. It is not much of a coincidence, finding she was in shift for events when you disregard the events when she wasn't on shift ...

Source for this?

Stable Period: While they were born, Letby was away on a holiday in Ibiza. During her absence, all three infants were completely stable, progressing normally, and had no health concerns. Baby O was so healthy that he was actually cleared to go home

Sudden Deteriorations: Almost immediately after Letby took over, the sudden, unexplainable, and catastrophic collapses began. Baby O collapsed and died on 23 June. Baby P suffered multiple unexplained collapses and died on 24 June

No, Baby Q did not have any suspicious collapses before Lucy Letby took over his care.
Medical records, trial evidence, and findings from the Thirlwall Inquiry confirmed that Baby Q was "initially stable" from the time of his birth up until the morning he collapsed under Letby's care

Do you have something completely different to the above?

I'm not worried about typing out details, no.

So, Lucy Letby was found guilty of causing two deaths, of triplets, one day apart. Lee's expert panel found that the same errors in ventilation settings were made with both. As triplets they were under the care of the same consultant doctor. The unit was extremely busy, and there were delays in treating both children - 40 minutes until a consultant attended resuscitation for the first; over an hour to read an X-ray and treat a pneumothorax for the second. They were vulnerable children admitted to a unit under pressure who suffered failings in care.

The next day, a child deteriorated with an infection. Lucy Letby was not found guilty of causing this. The consultant in charge was satisfied that it could be a natural collapse

Interestingly, the expert witness who examined all three cases at first found that they had had suspicious collapses at night, when Lucy Letby wasn't on shift. It is not much of a coincidence, finding she was in shift for events when you disregard the events when she wasn't on shift ...

You are drawing a false inference because of your bias.

Letby would have been present on the unit for at least 1700 hours in a year. This is calculated from the number of contracted hours (37.5 pw) minus annual leave (25 days for less than 10 years service) and bank holidays (8).

There are 8760 working hours per year in a NNU (that is to say all day, every day).

This means Letby was on the ward for a minimum of 19.4% of the time. and we know she took all the extra shifts she could, so it’s more than reasonable to round this up to 20%.

A 20% chance of something happening (i.e. being present for the 3 deaths and collapses you’re talking about) is a pretty large chance.

Well thankfully it was enough to get her off the unit, at last. I don't need a statistician to tell me this is a pattern.

That's because you keep ignoring the fact there were three babies on three consecutive days. You know how sus it sounds because you don't even want to write it out!

Seeing as neither the babies nor their parents are allowed to be identified, how can you know that these ‘statements’ are actually from the parents?

Do you think we should ignore what Shoo Lee is saying because Lucy Letby is white, in case anybody else concerned about her is racist?

Oh look, you’re appealing to (junk) statistics again.

No, all they were shown is that the tamper evident seal applied by COCH pharmacy can be removed and replaced. The bag was not in its cover and they did not look at a stock bag, which is different. I have read the transcripts involving the pharmacist, and I know first hand what these bags look and feel like, wrapped and unwrapped.

I have not seen any evidence that suggests Chua was innocent of the lab-proven insulin poisoning of medicines containers. If I had, I would be interested in that too.

She was crying after the second death but calm in a debriefing meeting. I think it's pointless to try to draw conclusions there. Do we know if the consultants were calm or crying? Does it matter?

No, I don't see any more significance in a baby dying one day after she returned from Ibiza than three days, five days or seven days, because there isn't any more significance.

You're second guessing everything that was already covered in court. You don't think the first thing her defence would've done is determine no one can possibly tamper with TPN bags? They had a demonstration of exactly how it could be done.

No I don't think everyone would be second guessing the court evidence if this was a Filipino nurse-I mean Victorino Chua is Filipino and I don't see any campaigns to have him released?

Do you think that Professor Shoo Lee, a Canadian of Chinese heritage, would not have minded his paper on air embolism being misconstrued and misused if the suspect had not been white British? Surely not.

Yes he probably would, but I doubt anyone else would be listening to him.

She's been found guilty in a court of law after a long trial where lots of evidence was presented that I cannot claim to have seen or understood. On the whole, I trust the judicial system. Obviously miscarriages of justice do happen occasionally, but, on balance, the likelihood is that she is guilty, as proven.

@DistantEarlyWarning I don't know, has she? I only listened to the trial podcasts where they literally report what happened in court. Maybe the odd article-I don't usually pay much attention to who wrote it though. Unless of course I happen to see the name Peter Hitchens or Sarah Knapton!

And yet you deny Liz Hull has ever made stuff up or twisted the truth.

@DistantEarlyWarning they must not have looked very hard then. They would say they set out to prove she's guilty wouldn't they. I mean tabloids never lie!

It’s a silly title, agreed, and I haven’t watched it yet. But the makers say that they had intended to make a documentary to put to bed the idea that this was a MoJ once and for all, but the material they collated pointed in the opposite direction.

Would I think that putting air down a NG tube was a feasible method of murder if Letby had been Indian? No.

Would I have not cared that spiking a tamper-evident PN bag sealed in its wrapper with insulin ahead of time is technically and pharmaceutically preposterous if the suspect had been Filipino? Also no.

Do you think that Professor Shoo Lee, a Canadian of Chinese heritage, would not have minded his paper on air embolism being misconstrued and misused if the suspect had not been white British? Surely not.

@Oftenaddled I don't know what you think a significant coincidence is. But I think you may be kidding yourself. It's not just no deaths whilst she's away it's them starting up again literally the minute she's back? 3 collapses in 3 days?
And then in the meeting she's completely unfazed about it all?

It's not a significant coincidence, because the unit had on average a death a month in the indictment period, so no deaths for a week while she was away means nothing one way or the other. It's the kind of thing that makes a headline to stick in people's heads, but it's meaningless.

You can't force a defendant to call witnesses if it's potentially going to harm her case...the fact she didn't should in itself, tell people something.

That baby died at another hospital and the doctor's had told the mum the baby had potentially caught the virus from her-it's no surprise she's looking for someone else to blame as that must be very hard to hear.

"Not a huge element of coincidence"-only that deaths followed her from nights to days and started back up the minute she returned from holiday. 2 thriving triplets dead and another baby collapsed within 72 hours of her return from Ibiza and you think this isn't a "coincidence"? Well I guess we agree there!

The unit was downgraded to a level 1 which meant babies that just needed precautionary additional monitoring for a few hours after birth rather than being unwell. You wouldn't expect any deaths - however other babies did die after being transferred from countess to a level 2 - they just obviously died in another hospital. one baby has contracted an infection that had been present in the contaminated sinks at the countess.

While LL was there they were taking sicker babies than they should have done due to the closure of another unit. There was a shortage of level 3 spaces & so they were often left with babies that were too sick to be there

This is interesting as I listened to the first one when the trial was going on and actually decided it raised more questions than it answered. I have no idea if she’s guilty or not but it didn’t seem as clear cut as I thought it would be.