Lucy Letby: Have you changed your mind?

[Kittybythelighthouse]

The other thread has had a lot of really interesting discussion but we are running out of pages so here’s a new one for those who are interested in continuing the conversation.

Whether you’re sure she’s guilty, sure she isn’t, or are somewhere in between, I’m interested in hearing how your opinion has evolved (or hasn’t!) since you first heard about the case,

Please try to be respectful - this is a heated topic. Its a matter of huge public interest with a lot of strong opinions, but we are all adults and can disagree with each other in a respectful manner.

Old thread is here (the poll still has a few days left):
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/_chat/5388914-lucy-letby-have-you-changed-your-mind?page=38&reply=146359313

Richard Taylor stood up in front of a press conference and said a doctor killed Baby O by piercing the liver and he could never sleep at night if he’d done it, and Neena Modhi said herself on Panorama that sheering stresses which occurred during delivery were the very likely cause. Clearly not agreed on how the liver haematoma was ruptured then, but somehow at the same time completely sure it definitely wasn’t caused deliberately by Letby?

I knew you would.

The other poster has shown on several occasions to wilfully misunderstand and mischaracterise what people are saying

No, neither Taylor nor Modi were talking about the rupturing of the hematoma there. You've misunderstood.

A hematoma can be caused by birth injury or it can be spontaneous. It is rarely detected before it ruptures. Modi wasn't saying it ruptured due to birth injury. Rupture is usually spontaneous with non-specific symptoms.

Rupture happened a couple of days later. The child was not given a blood transfusion and was put on a ventilator at inappropriately high settings, putting pressure on his heart. At some point, a treating consultant drew blood from the abdomen during a procedure that, properly applied, shouldn't have drawn blood. This may have exacerbated the problem.

Svilena Dimitrova, who co-authored the report cited by Taylor with another neonatologist, has stated that their report and the international panel's report are entirely compatible. They are compatible too with the original pathologist's report from 2016, which also noted hematoma; and with the second pathologist's review in 2017.

Dimitrova has remarked that Moritz and Coffey have attributed information to her in their book which is false, and have not given her the right of response.

I'd advise you not to trust Moritz and Coffey to report honestly on this affair. Their track record is appalling.

The cause of the haematoma and the cause of its rupture (which led to haemhorrage and death) are two sequential potentially unconnected events.

As I replied to your original post, the judgment was primarily critical of the questions that were asked of the medical expert witnesses which expected them to go beyond their scope (and which it also states they were reluctant to answer).

How do you think Letby exerted external force to create a rupture of the liver?

Abx my point stands - coearly Evans did not learn from this.

you misrepresented what I said and claimed I felt it was ‘critical’ - I don’t believe I did.

Or to create a hematoma, which is what Neena Modi was referring to.

I hope the CCRC will get the international expert panel the obstetric information they have asked for on each child. It seems absurd that nobody has looked at this.

Dimatrova’s latest SM post

https://x.com/neodoc11/status/1957783783849034150?s=46

Well put. And when we add that there are two sites of laceration / puncture/ rupture on the liver, potentially three events in all.

How very interesting. A whistleblower has already leaked some information to David Rose, showing how "suspicious" events not involving Lucy Letby were removed from the investigation.

We have seen some of the report which persuaded Cheshire Police to investigate through Thirlwall, and it is a very partial and misleading document.

I have never though she was guilty in the first place. There were too many holes in the report, too many inconsistencies. Her body language anbd profilling is not hat of a baby killer. She was scapegoated by the NHS to cover up their other failiings.

I know what Modi was referring to, yes.

Im curious to know what the other posted thinks Letby must have done to cause rupture to a liver - bevause I’m struggling to understand how a pathologist would not notice the signs of an external force being applied - bruising, broken ribs? If people believe that Letby applied an external force where was the physical evidence?

But no way that a haematoma could also be caused or ruptured as a result of trauma caused by deliberate injury?

Invisible deliberate injury? Inflicted on a child in an incubator, by day, on a busy hospital ward?

Has anyone actually suggested how this might have been done?

Of course it could. But the fact that it has other more plausible explanations, and there is no evidence at all, introduces (massive) reasonable doubt.

What a professional way to deal with a whistleblowing allegation - get straight on Twitter 🤦‍♀️

Does it not bother you at all that so much of what Moritz and Coffey write and present is inaccurate? That they have to reach so far and distort so much to make the case that Letby might be guilty? Why do you think they do this?

She says in the comments they asked her to publicise this.

One reason to publicise this sort of thing is to encourage others to come forward.

Where was the bruising? Broken ribs? If you’re believing the hematoma which subsequently ruptured was caused by an impact injury why wasn’t that obvious at PM? Why did no one in the hospital notice evidence to blunt force trauma?

No, because I don’t agree with your assertion. The airway stats at the end of the Panorama were wrong (I understand) but they have issued a correction and I’m not sure that the source data has actually been made public anyway so who knows what may yet come out. And then Jane Hutton also made a basic error in her complaint about them to the BBC, so clearly no one is infallible.

All she has told us is that the whistleblower asked her for her wishlist of confidential/official documents she would like to be leaked so I’m not sure what it is they were wanting her to publicise?

A basic error that someone happily admits and corrects is a very far cry from an expert witness calling the liver damage ‘impact trauma’ and then not offering any explanation at to how the alleged ‘impact’ left managed to leave no evidence of bruising or possibly broken ribs.

Then you’ve not read the entire thread. Because it’s there.

@Kittybythelighthouse, this thread, which has been one of the most enlightening and interesting on MN, is almost full. Would you be interested in starting a part 2?