Lucy Letby press conference

[Viviennemary]

There is a press conference going on now trying to get Lucy Letby's conviction overturned. From what I read the guilty verdict was sound. All those ill babies dying when she was alone with them. Just a coincidence? Already been refused an appeal.

A sliver? The report has driven a coach and horses through the prosecution case, particularly as many of the deaths were originally determined to be natural causes.

A sliver of doubt??
The new findings state no murders occurred!!
The PP who still claim she's guilty can't possibly have watched yesterday's press conference. It completely exonerates her.

A gap created by a coach and horses could still more accurately be called a sliver then a slither. Anyway, this is not a light hearted thread so let's not get diverted.

If they are failing they may be failing because they don't know enough to see that they're failing.

That's what Lee suggested when journalists tried to draw him on the consultants' motives in getting Letby arrested.

As an adult If I hadn't commenced IV antibiotics within an hour of my legs Turning blue with sepsis I wouldn't be here to add this post. Thankfully between my DH rushing me to hospital & the excellent staff, I left the hospital after 3 days with no lasting effects.
Timing is crucial in many cases requiring antibiotics,especially with a premature baby where every medical procedure & drug intervention required is always extremely urgent.

A press conference has no standing in the judicial system. Letby’s guilty unless she’s found not guilty by appeal and she’s been denied leave to appeal. Even if leave was granted this press conference has put the kybosh on it being in any way fair or unprejudiced. Those 14 alleged experts have shot themselves in the foot.

How come then the first trial was allowed to continue? The coverage over that in the media was unfair and prejudicial. She was prejudged guilty how is that anymore fair then being prejudged to be innocent? As you can see from the various threads on here many people still believe she is guilty anyway and will go on believing that no matter what.

But the same may apply to the experts who produced their opinions at the press conference. They also may not see that they are failing. It arguably takes a degree of arrogance to claim with so much certainty that they know better than the doctors who were actually treating the babies at the time and who were working with the staff involved, including Letby

The coverage of both trials in the mainstream media was factual and heavily regulated.

Actually, if you look at the coverage at the time, it was simply reporting what was actually said in court. Reporters are generally very skilled in ensuing they do not breach the required standards - no journalist wants to be be accused of being the idiot who brought a trial to an end and prevented a murderer from being brought to justice.

That's one reason why they've followed the scientific gold standard - independent studies compared blind.

None of the medical evidence presented at trial met that standard.

They have also effectively invited further peer review by publishing their summaries. So any experts who find their work unconvincing can say so

Again, never happened with Evans etc

Oh well, let's not bother with all the nonsense about fair trials and spending nine months carefully presenting the evidence to a duly constituted jury. Let's just have every charge decided by press conference in future.

Her case can still be considered at the CCRC.

That’s appalling - poor parents 😢

Mr Myers says Child D was 'very unwell' at birth.

Dr Bohin says she disagrees.

Mr Myers refers to the note at 12 minutes, she was 'very unwell indeed'. Dr Bohin said she had 'an event' which required intervention, but it was not clear what her overall condition was.

Mr Myers says she had referred to the father's handling of the baby as the cause of the event.

Dr Bohin said that was one possibility, but not the only one.

She said she was "very clear" the father was not responsible for the collapse, as new fathers are nervous with holding babies, and you cannot tell whether it was an obstruction or part of a clinical condition.

Mr Myers says the mother had noted Child D 'looked lifeless' when the baby was presented to her.

Dr Bohin said Child D had just been delivered, and the cord had not been cut. If a baby was 'in extremis', the baby would not have been presented to the mother, she tells the court.

...

Mr Myers said the mother had referred to being "really worried" about Child D, being 'limp' and 'without colour - a bit grey, purple', making 'grunting noises', not 'responsive'.

"That's a really poorly baby, isn't it, Dr Bohin?"

"That's the mother's interpretation, but I can't believe [the midwifery team] would have allowed...the baby to be fed or stay on the post-natal ward in that condition."

https://www.chesterstandard.co.uk/news/23117556.recap-lucy-letby-trial-friday-november-11/

So there can't have been anything wrong, because medical staff are infallible, and we can work back from what they did or didn't do to work out the baby's condition.

I've read Professor Modi who is on the panel who gave the press conference is not a disinterested party in the Lucy Letby case. Seems there is more to all this than meets the eye.

You do know that disinterested means neither interested or not interested? If you are implying that Professor Modi has an interest in the case other than as a professional tasked with looking at the notes and giving a professional judgment, please let us know.

I am not implying it. I read it in an article in the Daily Mail. It is in her interests that Lucy Letby is found to be not responsible for the deaths. And to get the verdict overturned. Something to do with a flawed report.

Modi was president of the Royal College of Paediatric and Child Health in 2018, when Letby was arrested. One of the consultants emailed her, complaining that the RCPCH hadn't been supportive enough of them in the time before Modi's involvement. She sent a polite soothing email, told him they couldn't get involved in the police business, and ended up advising his to write to his hospital executive boards with his complaints..

It's an administrative interaction. She is no longer in that role.

In any case, the CPS is clear that there is no bar to expert witnesses having conflicts of interest so long as judges consider them irrelevant, which should be the case here.

If not? Lee's panels are scientists. They produced two independent reports on each case. Their findings should be broadly verifiable and stand up to peer review. So losing one or more as expert witness for whatever reason would be a pity, but it wouldn't disrupt the evidence

These new opinions will be weighed against the evidence produced for the trial. It the CCRC believes there should be appeal to test the new opinions against the evidence already considered, then that’s what should happen. No one here can guess what they will conclude. Just because a new set of opinions is put forward, it doesn’t mean all the evidence previously gathered, and used as a basis for judgement, is necessarily wrong.

Will the medical evidence even be that relevant if it comes to a retrial? Let’s be honest, there’s no way a single person on the original juries properly understood even a fraction of the medical evidence.

They almost certainly based their verdict on the shift chart, the “confession” notes, the handover notes, the way she came across in court, the media coverage and so on.

Given the length of time to get justice when there's been a miscarriage of it, the fact that Letby has already used her permitted 2 requests to appeal, and the huge consequences for both Chester hospital, the NHS and how scientific evidence is presented to a jury, public pressure is likely to be key to ensuring her conviction is reexamined.

This isn't unusual, and it's not trial by media either. Public pressure on governments has been key in overturning miscarriages of justice before.

What's more, it's in the public interest that Letby's conviction is safe. It isn't, so it's in the public's interest, as much as it is in Letby's and the families of the victims, that there's a retrial.

Look, I don’t know whether she is innocent or not, but this take is obviously far too simplistic. If it wasn’t murder then It’s far more likely to be a complex number of combining factors relating to, for example, understaffing, failing facilities, not being set up for the level of care needed for those babies, possible negligence or lack of necessary expertise etc, along with not wanting to believe that they might be at fault for such awful outcomes. Dramatic, simplistic statements don’t help anybody.

I agree, also probably just the huge responsibility to the parents involved and the overwhelming emotional weight of it. I can’t imagine anyone would envy the jury on that case.