Lucy Letby - programme on ITV now

[Viviennemary]

I think this must be a new programme and not a repeat. Experts are being wheeled out to try and say Letby is innocent. I'm not convinced at all. None of them were even at the trial or worked with Letby. It's all theories and opinions..

@Firefly1987 your barrels are well and truly scraped. Stop embarrassing yourself.

The Thirlwall Inquiry has published several documents showing Letby wasn't there for all baby collapses (and deaths). And she would have had to work 24 hours in a row to manage that, in some cases, so I don't think Moritz will even try!

I didn’t mention witch trials in that post though? But yeah, witch trials come to mind regularly regarding this case, because that’s exactly what it is and if you’ve ever wondered what side you’d have been on, well now you know.

As for me not being in good faith? All I have done is bring actual evidence and facts. All you have done is sidestep and go “yeah but she’s weird” if one of us is not in good faith it’s not me.

1. You have no idea why the experts weren’t called and it’s almost certainly not got the reason you state.
2. the pp you’re supposed to be agreeing with wasn’t even talking about the defence experts in the first trial. They’re talking about Dr Lee’s panel.

@Frequency infection didn't cause overfeeding, liver and other injuries, insulin overdoses etc. even if you take air embolism out of the equation.

@placemats you actually think she's going to be riding off into the sunset any day now don't you? And you think I'm embarrassing myself 😆

@Oftenaddled you're leaving out the word "suspicious" there-I mean if babies collapse as often as you try to claim of course she wouldn't be there for the odd natural expected collapse. Especially on such a supposedly terrible unit. I'd be very surprised if they could find any suspicious collapses she wasn't there for-they had a chance to do that at trial and couldn't seem to find even one to use as an example?!! Think that tells me everything.

@Kittybythelighthouse
You definitely don't need to explain yourself, I think everyone on here knows who is capable of engaging in things in good faith and who isn't 👀

The liver injury was caused by the consultant blindly inserting a needle into the baby's abdomen.

The evidence does not support the overfeeding theory. Experts who have spent decades studying the effect of insulin on pre-term babies (as opposed to Evans, who has spent 0 years studying this) have stated there is no evidence that the babies were overdosed with insulin. Most of the symptoms of insulin overdose were caused by the consultants missing the vein and injecting medicine into the baby's flesh, something they did not pick up on in time.

There’s a lot that the defence weren’t allowed to mention in the trial - other collapses being one of them.

Regarding the liver injuries, insulin etc. you really need to actually watch the expert panel report if you want to argue about this case. All of that is covered.

As regards “riding off into the sunset” well who knows. But apropos of nothing, a new expert paper calling for urgent review of the Letby case has just been released.

Signatories include John Ashton CBE, who was awarded the Crown Prince medal for medical excellence

Mike Bewick - the principal investigator into mortality concerns at Leeds Teaching Hospital’s paediatric cardiac surgery unit.

David Colin-Thome OBE, the national Clinical Director of Primary Care from the Department of Health until 2010

Cambridge statistician Philip Dawid, the defence witness at Sally Clark’s appeal.

Link to full paper:

postimg.cc/gallery/tW4bnzZ/

Conclusions concerning the Letby trials:

1. The first and principal conclusion is that the legal process of all the Letby counts was profoundly flawed, leading to unsafe verdicts, and that this raises serious concerns about the scientific, statistical, and judicial procedures involved. The Police and CPS investigative process was predicated on unsuitable expert advice, junk science and fake statistics.

2. The international panel of 14 experts, plus two insulin experts, each member acting pro-bono responding to a British murder case, is unprecedented in terms of scale and professional expertise. The panel has found no evidence of malfeasance; infant deaths or harm were universally from natural causes or bad medical care. This information could readily have been acquired during the police investigation and subsequent CPS evaluation.

3. Police investigative process in the Letby case failed to test adequately the fundamental assumption of malfeasance and should be held to account. Other compelling root causes of infant mortality were not given due weight. What remains benchmarks alarmingly-closely to a medieval witch-hunt.

4. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) would appear to carry the principal responsibility for launching the Letby trials without due scientific or statistical foundation. It did not establish or apply due statistical criteria in the Letby case. No identifiable mechanisms were applied to remove confirmation bias. As a detail, on what basis the decision was made to direct the Cheshire Constabulary to terminate contracted expert statistical advice needs to be established.

5. The standards criteria for expert witnesses are sound. The Letby case reveals weaknesses in the ability of the legal system to apply these standards and to deal with complex medical, scientific and statistical evidence in criminal cases The Legal and Judicial systems of England and Wales have been demonstrated to be unequal to complex medical science

6. The Letby case is founded on scientific abuse and misapplication in an exceedingly complex and rapidly-developing field of medicine. It involves contributions from a wide range of scientific, medical and bioengineering specialisms. The whole process from investigation through to rejection of the right to appeal, failed to engage robust, reproduceable science. The effort required by numerous world-leading experts in unpicking the evidential fallacies of the Letby case demonstrates that this could never have been achieved by a lay jury faced with 'junk science'" and fake statistics.

7. Given that the judge may be seen to have conducted the trial in line with current guidance, the case for a review of how trials based upon such complex medical, scientific and bioengineering issues are founded and conducted would appear compelling. The judicial system should test critically whether opportunities were missed by the judge to identify evidential failings either ahead of or during the trial. A number of issues on admissibility of evidence would appear to have steered court proceedings away from examining the shortcomings of CoCH.

8. The learned deliberations by the three CACD judges in the judgement that refused permission to appeal the verdicts of the main trial do not stand up well in terms of scientific, statistical and medical standards. Independent guidance for the Appellate Court on scientific and medical principles could have avoided serious embarrassment.

9. Is it safe that a majority of highly-intelligent lawyers, judges and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), be ill-equipped to be 'Intelligent Customers' of medical and scientific matter of any complexity? That legal proceedings, not least criminal trials, should go awry on account of this deficiency is surely unacceptable. The way ahead

10. The Letby case demonstrates the fragility of the UK justice system in handling cases of scientific complexity, but in doing so it offers a rare opportunity for reform.

11. Letby's case's merits 'exceptional circumstances' treatment by the CCRC. It should be referred to the CACD, and urgently.

12. The Court of Appeal (CACD), in deliberating freshly upon the case, should look beyond current constrained definitions of 'new evidence' and exercise its intellect constructively in a complex medical, scientific and mathematical environment.

13. In addressing complex medical, scientific and mathematical cases, the Justice Department needs to have ready access to high-grade professional advice across the spectrum of professional issues; and it must know when to engage it. This 'due diligence', appropriately referenced, will be much less costly than a trial such as Letby's and the ongoing derivative proceedings.

14. There is a need to rebalance the effort and costs between (1) scientific rigour in preparation and (2) the need for 'finality' of judgement and the currently exceedingly-rigorous criteria to qualify for appeal.

15. injustice is proven, release of Letby cannot be delayed; nor can final closure for the parents of the children subject of this case, they have already suffered excessively. A seven-year delay, of the order endured in the similar cases of Lucy de Berk and Daniella Poggiali (Enclosure 7), would not be acceptable In sum, 'The case has not only revealed horrors in the way hospitals care for babies. It has exposed deep flaws in the criminal-justice system, and risks further undermining faith in the law'.

Okay, so I was referring to all deaths and to all collapsed identified as unexplained and unexpected (reviews by John Gibbs), or as suspicious (reviews by Dewi Evans).

And with that clarification, my statement stands as before.

Fair warning: they use the words “witch hunt” 😱

Well done for managing one post without screeching about witch trials. I have a feeling you'll need all your energy to defend her after tomorrow's doc.

I realise they weren't talking about those experts because they were nowhere to be seen during the actual trial! But now you seem to think they are going to come and save the day. It's laughable. They've not even had any of their ideas tested in court. No barrister is going to risk any expert agreeing even ONE baby was harmed because that'd be enough to put her away for life. And if they ever agreed one baby was harmed it's a fair bet the others were too. You see how her defence were in an impossible situation. If she was innocent they'd be able to prove it SO easily. The fact they couldn't really should tell you something. She didn't have a bad defence you just can't defend the indefensible.

Those so-called "experts" - how dare they!

The dribs and drabs I've heard about tomorrow's documentary suggest to me that @Kittybythelighthouse will be able to respond to it without breaking a sweat.

The rest of your post doesn't make sense. Why do you keep insisting there are defence experts who think Letby harmed babies? Where are you getting that from?

@Oftenaddled the fact that mysteriously none were called, obviously...

I did actually mention witch trials in the post you’re replying to though? That’s one post where you said I did and I didn’t, another where you said I didn’t but I did. It’s giving visions and confusion. Perhaps you’ve been bewitched?! 🧙😱

“I realise they weren't talking about those experts because they were nowhere to be seen during the actual trial!”

Yes, because as has been explained in detail: they are genuine experts based in Tokyo and Sweden and Canada. They are in demand at the front line of practice and research in some of the world’s highest regarded research hospitals. Not sitting around dreaming up murders over a coffee like dodgy Dewi Evans waiting for a chance to volunteer themselves in a witch hunt (oops! I did it again!) you cannot just hire experts like that. Only retirees and low ranking experts bother with court work, as it takes them away from their vitally important work. The Law Commission flagged this issue in 2011 but were not listened to by the courts. This makes their coming together PRO BONO to intervene in the case post verdicts even more striking.

“But now you seem to think they are going to come and save the day. It's laughable”

Did you miss that the paper I posted is from an entirely different set of experts? Oh dear. Best re read.

“They've not even had any of their ideas tested in court.”

Getting the case back to court was the point of compiling the reports.

“No barrister is going to risk any expert agreeing even ONE baby was harmed because that'd be enough to put her away for life”

Thats not going to happen if it gets back to court, which is somewhat doubtful anyway given the fact that the prosecution will struggle to find experts to back up their evidence from the trial.

“If she was innocent they'd be able to prove it SO easily.”

And they will. In fact, they already have. You just haven’t had the penny drop yet, but you will.

There are lots of alternative explanations for that! We've covered this. You don't have to believe in any other possibility, but just stating your guess as a fact isn't viable.

That’s the modus operandi here, darkly point to a biased reading of something and end with an ellipsis…

As if that’ll make all alternative (often far more likely) possibilities magically disappear.

Very mysterious.

I’m starting to think that Goody Firefly is the witch.

The liver injury was caused by the consultant blindly inserting a needle into the baby's abdomen.

@FrequencyIsn’t this what McDonald’s experts said at the first press conference however by the second press conference it had become birth injury?

Most of the symptoms of insulin overdose were caused by the consultants missing the vein and injecting medicine into the baby's flesh, something they did not pick up on in time.

Is this the conclusion of the expert panel? Can you give a bit more info as I have completely missed this.

Wow you really are invested in the Panorama documentary, due to air tomorrow night. Do you have an invested interest in it? Because it's not available to air until after broadcast and yet you say wait until after the documentary tomorrow night.

Am I troubling you for some reason? Can you not have a reasonable discussion? I've got a gut feeling that all is not well with you @Firefly1987

First was mentioned in the December press conference and recognised as a possible contributing factor in Shoo Lee's conference in February.

Second - have a look at the reference to the line tissuing in the expert report. That's what it means.

Just to add: the line tissuing also came up at the trial and at Thirlwall if I recall correctly.

Yes, it is a well known agreed fact.

It's why they had to change the baby's TPN (feed) bag.

And that's why the prosecution had to hypothesise that Lucy Letby poisoned just one other bag which was then randomly selected from a batch to continue the poisoning while she was off shift.

What alternatives? If it'd helped her they would've called them. Obviously couldn't find any experts that agreed that no baby was harmed. It's the ONLY possible conclusion you can come to.

I know you don't need an answer, since you have these links already on the thread, but I'll post them for anyone joining late who might be misled by that statement.

https://davidallengreen.com/2024/07/the-lucy-letby-case-some-thoughts-and-observations-what-should-happen-when-a-defence-does-not-put-in-their-own-expert-evidence-for-good-reason-or-bad/

jollycontrarian.com/index.php?title=Lucy_Letby:_the_missing_defence_evidence

Even if you were right (and you’re not) it wouldn’t matter, because again 14 experts, far superior to any the prosecution or the defence could have hoped for, have dismantled every sliver of the medical evidence presented in court.

@Kittybythelighthouse I just seen you made another thread about this, oh my days was this one not enough.