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.

What if doctors raised the alarm because they were desperately trying to deflect attention from their own medical malpractice which was being investigated?

Why do all these experts in neonatal care not see any evidence of murder but instead of poor medical treatment of very sick babies if this is beyond reasonable doubt? These people are leading world experts. They must think our legal system is a joke.

So the doctors decided to blame a nurse for murder because they were incompetent. It's just not believable, I agree with the guilty verdict.

I though initially that the court system had done its job and put away a murderer.Since then though having seen more and more experts inter field come forward and poke, what seems to be massive holes int he circumstantial evidence - im doubtful that the conviction is sound.This is worrying for the system we useful justice if its not a sound conviction

Caught in the act doing what?

Why haven't the people who allegedly "caught her in the act" been disciplined or charged with negligence? Mandatory reporting is a thing. Safeguarding is a thing. Mind you, from experience the interpretation of both those things can be quite the moveable feast (see also capacity).

What is even the point of having systems or protocols if they are so blatantly disregarded in some cases, and used over zealously in others?

Might there not be a case for those who saw her allegedly harming / killing babies being charged as accessory after the fact for not intervening there and then, allowing her to blatantly continuing her "murderous spree" ?

FFS, I swear we are currently living in the upside down.

How lucky Chris Mullin and the other journalists and documentary-makers didn’t say ‘Whoops, too late!’ after the Birmingham Six got 21 life sentences, had been in prison for over fifteen years, and had had leave to appeal denied once, and subsequently a full appeal that ruled their convictions ‘safe and secure’ before their convictions were quashed in 1991. Perhaps they were just self-aggrandising as well.

@MikeRafone

child c was not LL child to be observing

she had been moved from that nursery because she had been present for A&B and management wanted to protect her

despite this when she returned to work instead of caring for her own child she was found in that babies nursery when it collapsed- the baby had been stable despite the scans you mention

dr gibbs who was called to resus the baby thought this was a strange case because after he and the family had stopped resus the baby started faintly breathing again - suggesting that whatever had caused the death was in a type of reversal - something he had never seen before

Letby was constantly asked that evening to stick to her own nursery by Nurse W but she ignored her and Nurse W made a complaint about her the next day to the ward manager

The cause of death was initially recorded as myocardial ischemia (sic)

The baby was stable for the previous 4 days

Things just happened when she was around!

They did report it and were ignored and threatened. I watched a programme on this a while ago.

You are missing the important point that a PP brought up. If you see a colleague actively harming a baby you should intervene. Reporting it after the fact is a bit bloody late.

How can you say at this point that their analysis is remarkably thorough? They have only produced a summary report so far, and we do not even know what information they have based it on (some of the original medical evidence was 'not available' apparently).

so the xray used - why was it used to show the air pushed into the lungs when the xray wasn't relevant? as LL hadn't been with the baby before the xray was taken

They. Had. Everything. Being reputable they wouldn't do an analysis with anything less, much less divulge their findings at a press conference. They woyld have taken legal advice in every area before contemplating such a serious exercise to avoid falling foul of any law.

There is some weird presumption that there is "secret" stuff presented at trial that no-one else has been privy to. That's not how it works unless it is made explicitly clear from a legal point of view and when it happens it's usually due to witness protection or national security.

"I read it in the Daily Mail."
"They discussed everything on a podcast I listened to."
"There was an article in Glamour magazine."
"These so-called "experts" are only doing it for the attention".
"The trial's over now so it's too late anyway!"

The last one is particularly disturbing, bloody hell. Better for someone to spend the rest of their life in prison than to face the idea that a huge miscarriage of justice could have happened. With that kind of thinking the Birmingham six would still be behind bars.

Key to the case was an X-ray taken on 12 June - it was referred to repeatedly during the first trial. In pre-trial reports two prosecution witnesses said it showed the baby had a swollen stomach “most likely due to deliberate” pumping of air into his feeding tube.

Quitelikeit

its strange then the baby was stable, why did the prosecution say that it looked like air had been pushed into the baby lungs on the xray taken on 12 June - if LL wasn't therefor those 4 days - then who did this to the baby?

Also Fred West confessed and showed them where the bodies were hidden.

So you’re doing it too. The question is, how can an issue recorded on x-ray on day 3 which was a key part of the case, be attributed to LL when she wasn’t on shift between the birth and day 4. And you’re going on about her being odd, shouldn’t have been in the room and things just happened when she was around. All completely irrelevant to how exactly she could be tied to that collapse. Confirmation bias. It makes no sense. It’s bad science and bad logic and not evidence.

A lot of assumption there @MistressoftheDarkSide but none of that has actually been confirmed yet. I have no doubt that they will have analysed all the information that they were given by Mark Macdonald, but until there is a full report we cannot say for sure that includes everything.

I'm not saying that these experts have been anything other than robust and comprehensive in their analysis, but I just find it surprising that people are so quick to take these opinions at face value based on how eminent they have told us they are, when we don't actually have any real detail yet as to how they've arrived at these opinions nor has there been any opportunity to cross examine them.

No she wasn’t! The doctor who said he caught her has denied ever saying that!

Even Jayaram has said it's normal for nurses just to wait and look. But only in a letter to answer a complaint about other nurses (to baby A's parents). He fell for his own narrative around Letby's guilt. Objectively, he would not have considered Letby's actions suspicious.

We are expecting high standards of scholarship from people at the top of their profession, appointed to leadership roles by their peers, and as they have demonstrated in literally hundreds of peer reviewed papers. How very unreasonable of us.

Also, your snide little dig, ‘how eminent they have told us they are.’ No, it’s because they actually are. Their positions are a matter of public record.

I find it a damn sight more surprising that doctors / experts looked at post mortems that found death by natural causes and plucked theoretical mechanisms of death with no precedence such as over-feeding, air introduction via NG tube and liver impact trauma in the first place apparently out of thin air, completely over-looking the fact that stable is a relative term in regards to HD babies and there were multiple cases of error/infection/poor care recorded not involving Lucy Letby on that unit. As to how it made it to court, well that's another conundrum. Oh yeah. She was in the room. Sometimes. And her superpower is probably invisibility if no-one saw her.

But here we are.

Funny old world ain't it?

The thing is, they've picked out simple details which are either in the medical notes or not. Child I tested positive for a particular infection but got no treatment for it. Child O was on a ventilation setting too high for an infant with his birth injury. Child A had evidence of recent thrombosis. You can't resuscitate in particular ways if an air tube has significant leaks. Child F wasn't showing an improved glucose reading a time when the prosecution said he was.

Now either they have invented things or these things are in the medical notes.

We know Evans has invented things, telling the jury air through feeding tubes is a known murder method. We know he has incentive to invent things. He gained financially from bringing Letby to trial. He's proud of only ever "losing" one case.

Do some of the best neonatal doctors in the world have an incentive to give up their time for nothing and then invent details from the medical records? In a trial that has no importance to them or their home countries? I can't see it.

So yes, the reports will have to be checked against the medical records. But we can be pretty sure who will and who won't be found to have invented things here.

How do you think they arrived at their opinions and findings? I'd have thought medical, nursing notes, lab results, conversations with staff.

Witness statements from staff - and any records of conversations in medical notes and relevant meeting minutes. Then also the above, yes

Do some of the best neonatal doctors in the world have an incentive to give up their time for nothing and then invent details from the medical records? In a trial that has no importance to them or their home countries? I can't see it

I think this is a good point. Isn't it also the case that they said they would publish their finding which ever conclusion they came to? It seems to me their only incentive is the safety of babies, which could still be at risk if the CofC has covered things up.

Also Private Eye has been running a series on the case. The New Yorker ran an indepth piece. People from all shades of the political spectrum are expressing doubts.

I honestly don't feel able to say whether I think she is guilty or not. But the thought that there could be even the slightest chance that she has been jailed for this but is innocent is horrific. So something needs to be done.