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..

I don't think anyone has said that, but I do think the unavoidable suppression of expert opinion 2022-24 and the avoidable stealth PR offensive by the police mean that the media now has legitimate role in providing a counter-balance; and that Letby's barrister is not acting disproportionately in courting publicity. I wouldn't see his actions, ITV's etc as a media circus though anyway.

Well we will need to agree to disagree on this one, I find the handling of this case very inappropriate and two wrongs don't make it right.

I understand why you'd ask that. The new barrister and all of the expert witnesses are working unpaid because of their concern about the case

It really is an unusual phenomenon, that people so senior and with no reason to get involved in the case are crying out to be heard and to help get justice.

I do understand why you would think of the families in all this, but I just don't see how we avoid publicity when our justice and medical systems seem to have got things so badly wrong. I'd like to see this handled quickly and professionally on all sides. I don't think the new defence team has handled things perfectly with the publicity, but I can see why they feel they have to go for it all the same

Because why would they want to get themselves caught up in something that is already settled in the eyes of the law? It would seem attention seeking at best.

Ironically, your final sentence sums up exactly why most sensible people would not want to get involved. The professional and personal reputations of some of the prosecution witnesses (expert and otherwise) have been completely trashed via the court of social media and in the press, without any actual evidence to back the accusations up. I would not be at all surprised if there are libel actions down the line.

I agree with this.

There is currently a lot of talk about this case on medical forums - and it is often stated that it is very difficult to get medical experts. Most doctors do not have the time or do not want to be involved in legal work. The ones that do, are often retired and a bit of a strange lot

This sort of case is probably not ideal for a jury, as the medical information is complex (even for doctors)

There was an interesting moment in the documentary, when Josh Halliday spoke about the impact of Shoo Lee's press conference. He said it was like two worlds colliding.

He had sat through the whole trial, heard the experts give the medical evidence, and believed Letby was guilty, until that point. Now, he heard new medical explanations that seemed to have come from a totally different place.

And that's the telling part. Letby has been found guilty of murder. As the court of appeal document you leaked earlier shows, this includes three cases of death by injecting air in the stomach through a nasogastric tube.

And yet, in the world outside the courtroom, babies get far more air in their stomachs through ventilation than you could hope to pump through a nasogastric tube - every day.

Have medics and health authorities reacted by flagging the terrible danger these children are in? Have Evans and Bohin made any attempts to publicise this risk, to research it, to advise? No, because their medical expertise in winning cases in the courtroom doesn't seem to carry through to the real world - why would it? Conviction landed. Job done.

So you may be right, and the qualified medical practitioners agreeing with Evans may just be publicity shy and not see the need for their input. (Though you'd think Evans - and Jayaram too - might have colleagues generous enough to support them in the press). But if that were the only problem, wouldn't they at least be taking Evans's warning to heart, asking questions, conducting urgent research, publishing safety precautions?

I would say a much clearer explanation of the lack of experts coming forward to support Evans in word, or, more importantly, in deed, is that it's clear to practitioners that his claims are a fantasy. There aren't two evenly matched sides here. There are experts, who are deeply concerned about the conviction, and there's a hired gun without the support of his peers.

I would also add that Evans and Jayaram don't speak because Cheshire Police are looking into other cases in Liverpool. Will there be expert witnesses at a possibly next trial? How long is a piece of string?

Plus more families plunged into uncertainty regarding these fresh investigations. All historical and pre CoCH.

For all we know the lack of experts coming forward to publicly support the prosecution case could be because they are keeping their powder dry so they can assist the prosecution in the case of a retrial. Clearly the CoA judges did not believe Dr Evans’s claims were fantasy (and not sure why you’re saying I “leaked” the judgment, it is in the public domain and intended to be so) and nor did the various eminent prosecution expert witnesses who also gave evidence.

And we don’t know how evenly matched the sides are, because as yet the expert panel’s opinions have not had any formal scrutiny and are completely untested.

But something we do know already is that the panel have made some errors in their report (eg in the timeline of one of the baby’s final days) and have raised some issues that were already dealt with during the trial (eg suggesting that antiphospholipid syndrome had been passed from mother to baby when a haematologist from GOSH confirmed during the trial that blood tests proved that neither of the twins in question were affected by the syndrome). So I guess we will have to wait and see.

Sorry - leaked is just a typo for linked! Too late to edit.

The antiphospholipid syndrome issue has been widely cited and misunderstood. Lee didn't say the syndrome was passed to the children. He said maternal antibodies would be passed to the children.

There's one error in a date in the expert report. It has no bearing at all on the substance. So nothing significant there.

I totally agree they would have good reason not to want their names in the public sphere. The abuse I have seen directed to Jayaram, Brearey and Evans, some of it racist, is unacceptable.

Nothing to stop them speaking out anonymously though, as some of the doctors, neonatologists and other NHS employees who support Letby have done.

What evidence is there that any of these poor babies were actually murdered

That's a completely different issue. No one is saying there can't be neglect or poor maternity services that need investigating. It doesn't negate what Letby was doing. There wasn't just air embolism there was overfeeding, insulin and physical harm. Not to mention overdosing a baby with morphine that came out after the trial. Plus the huge number of tube dislodgements. How many "mistakes" can one nurse make?! Do people not think when they have to come up with wild excuses about every single thing she was involved in that just maybe she's guilty? And that's the problem-looking at every incident separately and not as a whole picture. No one's that unlucky.

Neo natal care is very different to paediatric care because the physiology of a child changes rapidly in the years following birth - prime example being bone formation such as the kneecap. All to term babies have antibodies in their system and get more from colostrum. Very pre term babies usually pre 30 weeks, have a higher number of antibodies.

The ITV documentary in the original post deals with this and the rise in insulin. Crucially the samples sent to Liverpool were specified as not being a full test. The tests were not sent elsewhere for a full assessment because the babies recovered.

Fair enough, but it still seems a bit odd that an expert of her standing would not have included the maternal antibody potential as part of her consideration when she said that no blood disorder could account for baby A’s sudden deterioration? But I have precisely zero expertise in this area so will leave it at that https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-63798909?app-referrer=deep-link

The dating error that I have seen in the summary report puts one of the babies dying a week before they did, and during which time they were actually transferred to another hospital. It remains to be seen whether or not this is material but it’s definitely sloppy, not to mention disrespectful to the baby’s family (who, as an aside, I’m also pretty sure did not consent to their baby’s private medical information being discussed in a televised press conference. Same goes for all the other families).

It was not the case the tests weren't complete, it was the case there was a caveat in relation to insulin results, please cease misrepresenting.

Professor Kinsey did make sure to tell the court that she was not an expert in antiphospholipid syndrome herself, to be fair.

Yes, it is very hard on the families to have this information discussed at press conferences, but this isn't a situation we can fix in every way for everyone concerned, unfortunately. It's not reasonable to expect that the courts version should become the only version of events to be discussed in public, when experts have raised such concerns. I don't think the defence team have managed the tone of every interaction perfectly, and they're not incapable of error as you say, but I'm in sympathy with their general approach.

So say you can never find enough evidence to believe she's guilty (despite the mountains of it) do you just want her out again working on a neonatal unit?! She's a serial killer and people are feeling sorry for her being in prison! World's gone mad.

The reason the barrister has sensationalised this is because he is cognisant of the fact that this is sometimes the only way to get justice. A clear example of thus is the Post Office scandal.

In my opinion the press conferences have been absolutely disgraceful and the fact that any of the experts have been prepared to take part in them tells me everything I need to know about their motivations and credibility (however ‘eminent’ they may be).

@Oftenaddled "To be fair, there isn't a single qualified specialist not involved in the first trial who disagrees that the accusations were unfounded"

this triple negative has confused me. Is Hammond asking people to step forward if they think anything was incorrect during the trial? I can imagine most people wouldn't want to say anything.

I was puzzled by her conviction. I was ill at the time of the trial so initially thought I must have missed a lot. Then the medical experts spoke out, I looked as much as I had the time to, and could not see anything other than flimsy circumstantial evidence.

It's a terrible sentence - I'm sorry.

Apart from those involved in the original trial, no qualified experts seem willing to speak or act to support the hypotheses the prosecution presented there. Not even anonymously.

To be clear, what do you think Shoo Lee’s motivations are?

Well since you ask - general hubris, with a dash of irritation that his evidence was knocked back by the court of appeal.

Lee's work was used by expert witness Evans for the prosecution in the first trial.