Lucy Letby: have you changed your mind - thread 3

[Typicalwave]

New thread for those following or wishing to comment - originally started by @kittybythelighthouse.

Cool story.

If you ever want to he led through the coverage in the Chester standard and the Thirlwall enquiry that coearly shows where the discrepancy is you know where to come.

i just admit I fibd it idd you’ve not read this stuff yourself / to paraphrase your own words: YIU wee here way before the people who question the safety of the verdict - none of us ever followed along and you were there from the start…

Because she fobbed the mother off. Couldn't wait to get rid of her. Told her a registrar was on the way. Mother wouldn't have left her baby if this convo hadn't happened. It's very significant.

He didn't need to explain all the deaths, in principle - he only needed to explain that the prosecution's mad and sloppy guesswork about murder was a less likely explanation than natural death.

Unfortunately, as you are showing, some people assume that the fact that some deaths and collapses couldn't be explained makes Lucy Letby guilty.

In practice, not all deaths and collapses can be explained, and the deaths are certified, and no murder investigations are opened. If you have to explain them, it probably helps to call on a panel of leading international neonatologists, but that's not normally done. Hall wasn't able to explain it all, by his own admission, and that does not make murder the cause.

As to Hall and the new expert witnesses, I find that very interesting.

Because he didn't believe he could explain everything, he stuck with reports showing that the events could not have happened as described by Evans and the prosecution. That might have worked, but they were allowed to change their story on the fly, so it became ineffective.

Now the new experts are called in. Hall is worried for them, as he was for himself, that they may not have proof of every cause of death. But absolute proof so long after the deaths, without bodies to examine, is a hopeless request. (Absolute proof even with bodies to examine would usually be a hopeless request). Their job is to show the strongest possibilities. It would be lovely to think that would be enough and justice will prevail, but Hall knows the legal system up close, and he knows there are complications around presenting things already discussed in court, even if the court reached the wrong conclusions.

That's a comment on the justice system, primarily. But that's why McDonald's strategy is to cite world-leading neonatologists, and to seek formally to discredit Dewi Evans (as stated by Letby's solicitors). It's all - thanks to a conviction based on pseudo-science - much more complicated than it needs to be.

There were no murders - and there was never any evidence to say there were murders.

But why, if Lucy Letby had already attacked the baby, did it matter whether the mother left?

Who knows, maybe she had to "clean up evidence" that everyone keeps insisting she'd need to have done. Maybe because it'd be obvious Lucy attacked the baby. She can fob the mother off with crap about the tube irritating the throat but she can't fob medical professionals off. She leaves it an hour and she's not as close to the incident as she was if it happened around 9p.m.

Are you calling the midwife a liar too? Because her testimoney on when the NNU called up to ask someone to let mim know she was needed is also an hour out to mums records. And when she spoke due tou to dad too?
Did the midwife lie as well as Lucy? I’d be interested in your thoughts.

She was the baby's assigned one-to-one nurse, so she was as close to the scene of the crime an hour later as she was then. And when I talk about clearing up evidence, I'm referring to immediate collapses and alarms after air embolism. Hard to see what she'd be doing to cover up in this instance.

The mum's testimony as presented in court still stands as of this moment in time. In any case Lucy attacked the baby whether it happened at 9 or 10. The parents were delighted by how well the twins were doing prior to all this.
Baby F was poisoned with insulin which you can't explain naturally either-which adds far more weight to the possibility of baby E being attacked. Then you add in the obsessive facebook stalking of the mother, and you'd really have to do some delusional mental gymnastics to convince yourself Lucy didn't do anything.

In fact, can you even name the midwife @Firefly1987? Who testified what time she was alerted abx what time she went to mim and what time she spoke to dad on the phone?

She wouldn't need to fob the medics off though, would she? Because the child was still bleeding when the doctor arrived, and the child continued to bleed for the next few hours until he died, and the consultant's response was, no mystery here, no need for a postmortem.

Why would the child bleeding at 9pm be suspicious, and not 10pm, 11pm, 12am, 1am?

Because it was never suspicious.

She had to wipe away the blood all over the babies mouth for a start 😢and if she used some sort of implement to harm him she'd have to make sure that couldn't be found. God it's horrific whatever she did, evil evil piece of shit.

No. You've been saying the "lie" about the time shows that Lucy Letby attacked the child. Now you're saying the attack means we don't need to worry about the lie.

Not surprising the family stuck in Letby's mind given her care for the two babies, with one death. So not surprising she'd look them up on Facebook.

As for the insulin, I think we have already covered all the problems with tests, lab errors, timings, alleged delivery mechanism, random selection of feed bags, different norms for babies in this cohort.

Lots of weak evidence does not make even a small amount of strong evidence.

You wouldn't wipe the blood away before the doctor came. You would want him to see its colour and volume - a child of baby E's size would have not much more than 100ml of blood in their body. You also would not move or touch a child of this weight and gestation more than absolutely necessary, especially if there was a sign of something going wrong. "Care needs" like cleaning them would wait.

I'm sure it would not take long to pocket or bin an instrument with blood on it, if that's where your imagination is taking you. And let's be clear on that - this is an event from Dr Evans's imagination, no more. Nobody who inspected the child, dead or alive, saw anything sinister. The bleeding was not a suspicious symptom. No post-mortem was requested.

Let’s just go use on one thing at a time.

You claim mim is right and she first visited the nursery at 21:00 with a phone call shortly to dad at 21:11.

mum returned to maternity ward.

modwife (do you know her name yet?) testified that a call was receivers around 11:30 asking gif mim to come down in next 30 mins.

Midwife knocked on mums door, spoke to mum, said mum to come to NNU on 30 mind, mim knew it was bad instinctively (it’s in her testimoney to Thirlwall) and she protested, and then called dad (all given by mim in Thirlwall) Mum
capked dad, midwife spoke to dad.

Can you explain how mim says this was at 10:52 (as per times she was provided with by mobile phone provider 20 months later) abx midwife recording phone call was shortly before midnight? Can you explain the NNU records where okie call was made approx 11:30?

why are mums phone records again 1 hour oug for the second time that evening?

Also, what was the band of that midwife, and yhd registrar? Because I know - Midwife initials SB, registrar, Dr H

I’ve got a couple of questions. Is it known what nurseries each baby was in prior to their collapse? I know they were described as being well and almost ready to go home in some cases?

Secondly, has anyone (professional I mean) asked mother e’s phone provider how they classify calls? UTC? BST?

Yes - most of the babies were in nursery 1. One was moved there and then deteriorated further. One was in nursery 2. That's the deaths. Collapses would take a bit longer to dig through but if they would help you with a particular question I can do that tomorrow? Off the top of my head I think at least a solid majority nursery 1, but off to bed now.

I think the only baby who could be described as ready to go home was baby N, whose parents were due to bring him home later that day. The jury actually found Lucy Letby not guilty in this case, probably because the defence were able to show his deterioration began before she came on shift. Most of the deaths and collapses were very much in the first week of life, consistent with natural processes from that point of view.

No, the only people who could verify timings with mother E's provider would be mother E herself or legal agencies, so this is simply the only hypothesis which works with the different sets of notes.

I see you mean has anyone asked the provider more generally - interesting question. Not that I know of.

More made up BS.

You have no idea if she did this at all. You could at least claim that it was a theory.

Oftenaddled

One of the things with the expert witnesses, is that the defense seems to have wanted to put hall on the stand, as they requested that the witness testimony was done at the same time.
The judge didn't allow this.
This would have been a factor in putting the expert on the stand.

You say “who knows” and “maybe this” or “maybe that”. You clearly do not understand the concept of Beyond Reasonable Doubt.

There is so much doubt in this case, it’s a making a mockery of the British Justice System.

Consider this - if you were so convinced of her guilt, would you donate £25,000 to charity (taking out a loan if necessary) if she is subsequently released because her conviction is found to be unsafe? If you would not commit now - you too have that seed of doubt.

Thanks for taking the time to reply. I lean towards not guilty but there are the few doubts over ‘they were ready to go home / well but shall bsbies’ and the mother e testimony. So thanks for explaining!

It would be very useful for the defence team to ask that question, Maybe someone on the Reddit forum knows more about that.

Anyone who has faith in the justice system should read Ann Ming’s story. Twenty nine police officers went into her daughter’s house over a three month period. When Ann went in to clean it, the overwhelming stench of her beloved daughter’s decomposing body hit her. She found her herself wrapped in a blanket behind the bath panel. Her daughter’s keys were found under the floorboards of where Dunlop was living, plus traces of his semen on the blanket - and yet he was acquitted.