Lucy Letby: have you changed your mind - thread 3

[Typicalwave]

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

“What's also painful is people thinking all this stuff wouldn't have been gone over with a fine tooth comb and not one person noticed that the mum's phone records (supposedly) didn't match to everyone else's'?”

Nobody noticed that the door swipe data was 🍑 over tit for the entire trial and that was referenced heavily throughout, so it’s completely possible that this much more subtle detail was overlooked too. In fact, it definitely was overlooked because if it wasn’t then the mother’s phone record would have been corrected to BST so that the midwife’s timings (which didn’t enter the conversation until Thirlwall btw) wouldn’t have conflicted with hers.

Rachel Aviv’s article was in The New Yorker, not the New York Times, but plenty of people do actually read both of those here. Particularly The New Yorker, because it is a highly regarded source for world class investigative journalism. It has a reputation for depth, literary quality, and intellectual rigour, especially in investigative reporting and cultural criticism.

@kkloo Even Dr Shoo Lee didn't get interested in it until afterwards.

Exactly! And how many British people are on this expert panel? Not many. I don't like the implication that our hospitals are so bad that babies are just collapsing and dying everywhere, our medical experts are useless and our court system is incompetent. There may be problems in all those areas but you'd have to believe everyone was either terrible at their job or acting maliciously to believe it's a MoJ. People who have NO idea about the case (yes even Dr Hall thinks they'll hurt her case if anything) are jumping on the bandwagon and declaring her innocent. It's a farce.

Oh hello. I can't quite put my finger on it, but there's an underlying tone here.. .. it'll come to me in a minute. It's something that contradicts accusations made against those questioning the case too.... so.ething about political leanings. I'm incredibly confused now.

“I'm arguing with a bunch of Americans, explains a lot really. British people aren't generally known for believing in conspiracy theories.”

First of all I think you know very well that most of us are as British as you are. Secondly, @kkloo didn't say they were American.

“I could bring you all the evidence of insulin poisoning and you'd put your hands over your ears and go "lalala the test was wrong".

Nobody, literally not a soul, has simply said “the test was wrong” and left it at that. You were given referenced and sourced links as to what was wrong with the insulin evidence in several different ways. You just refused to accept it, so now you mischaracterise your opponents as though they have no arguments. That’s not convincing anyone who can read, but it might help you to hold on to your faith based story a little longer. Is it worth it though?

“I asked a million times how other staff know what happened an hour before they were notified of something wrong with a baby and a million times I got back "Lucy's testimony matched with all the other staff" 😆yeah of course it bloody did if she didn't tell them until that time.”

I think it’s very clear here that you haven’t understood why the midwife’s timing not matching the mother’s really matters. Her story doesn’t involve Letby at all. She was in a completely different department. Her engagement was only with the mother, yet the mother’s timings (based on the call she received there) are also an hour earlier than the midwife’s timings. Can you really not see the issue here? Unless Letby is literally a witch she can’t have engineered that.

“Not poor in the jury's eyes.”

The jury didn’t see all the evidence. And?

“And you can't blame it on the consultants or unit if some of it happened at Liverpool.”

So far all we’ve seen from Liverpool is stats that seem to have been done on the wall in crayon by a toddler. No sign of anything else yet. But I suppose you’ll say it’s early days. They’ve just had 7 years after all.

It’s a panel of the world’s best. Why do you expect them all to be British? Neena Modi is British. There’s also the fact that not a single neonatologist in all of the UK can be found to support the evidence at trial. In fact no doctors at all can be found to support it.

“I don't like the implication that our hospitals are so bad that babies are just collapsing and dying everywhere, our medical experts are useless and our court system is incompetent.”

I’m far more concerned about whether or not this is a reality than any implication. Aren’t you?

”that babies are just collapsing and dying everywhere”

Are you totally unaware that there has been an ongoing neonatal and maternity crisis for the past ten years? Coincidentally since Letby’s killer streak? So yes, babies are collapsing and dying everywhere. It is totally useless to be prudish about it and it doesn’t help anyone. It’s a crisis, not an ill timed fart.

“our medical experts are useless”

They are though. The Law Commission literally wrote a report on this in 2011. You not liking it doesn’t fix the issue.

“our court system is incompetent”

How many miscarriages of justice do you want to see before we fix anything? We’ve already had 901 in the past year or so between the postmasters and Andrew Malkinson alone. Was that not enough? What number would be to your liking before we act?

“It's a farce.”

I actually agree with this bit.

I’m assuming you mean the investigation, trial, and continued efforts to avoid addressing any of it while more and more babies die in a crumbling NHS and the justice system creaks and bumbles along making no effort not to catch innocents in its rusty old gears? Me too.

I massively care about all of that stuff because I care about this country and how great it used to be and should be. We deserve better than this. What you’re doing is ignoring fatal wounds in these systems and acting like that is morally superior. It isn’t.

I was actually talking about the podcast's from during the trial. I've not listened to any with Mark Mcdonald in them (his voice goes straight through me tbh)

One really interesting piece of information you brought to the conversation a few pages back, @Firefly1987 , was how few working neonatologists there are in England. Less than 150 I found, looking it up. It's a specialism in crisis. Really useful context.

So we know two of those neonatologists at least are working with Mark McDonald. Then there's Neena Modi, Jim Thornton (obstetrician), Marta Cohen (pathologist). I don't know these people's nationalities, of course, but they're all at least recent employees of the NHS.

So I don't think there's any need to worry about a lack of input from British/ English healthcare systems here, or to think it's international experts ganging up on the NHS.

Obviously Shoo Lee is involved because Dewi Evans chose his paper. So Evans had no problem drawing on international expertise (and he is right there. We would have far less effective medication and treatment if we only accepted) expertise from within our borders.

Lee, as a world-leading expert, naturally had a range of international contacts. Seems that is lucky for us, because we'd be using up an awful lot of our overstretched neonatologists if we only used English experts. No wonder it was so difficult to get specialist expert witnesses.

The hospital management absolutely did support Letby and tried to silence the doctors who expressed concern about her. They were even made to apologise to Letby. There was a murderer on the loose. The police should have been called in.

@Kittybythelighthouse Nobody, literally not a soul, has simply said “the test was wrong” and left it at that. You were given referenced and sourced links as to what was wrong with the insulin evidence in several different ways. You just refused to accept it, so now you mischaracterise your opponents as though they have no arguments. That’s not convincing anyone who can read, but it might help you to hold on to your faith based story a little longer. Is it worth it though?

I must've missed where you explained why the baby was showing signs of insulin poisoning right up until the second nutrient bag was removed? Just a coincidence again no doubt. And why Lucy asked the police if they had checked the nutrient bag? It starts around 25 mins in. Is this the podcast you've listened to?

d

Fixed the link-d

You see, I fully agree with this:

“The police should have been called in.”

So why didn’t the consultants call the police in? Why did they engage in email ping pong with management for over a year instead? They were the ones who had the “drawer of doom” full of evidence they wouldn’t show to management. They were the ones who didn’t flag any deaths to the coroner, even though it was their responsibility to do so. They didn’t go to the Pan Cheshire Child Death Panel. They didn’t pick up the phone to dial 999.

Why not? Would you wait over a year for HR’s approval before calling the police if an active child serial killer was stalking your workplace? Would you be “silenced” by HR in those circumstances?

I wouldn’t. Why did the consultants?

To the rest of your point, why would the hospital “cover” for a serial killer. What’s the rationale for that part? I never get an answer to that.

Ffs. Again, literally all of that was addressed. Do you even read any of our responses?

And yes. That is the podcast I listened to. Why did you think it wasn’t? 😂 has Liz Hull presented any other Letby podcasts?

No, not exactly! The point I was making is that you seem to think that you can only have an opinion about it if you followed it from the start or that your opinion is more valid if you did, now that is arrogant!!

Why do they have to be British anyway?

And just because you don't like the implication doesn't mean it's not true.
Why is that so offensive to you anyway?

It seems you're so focused on Britishness and British is best, perhaps that's why you refuse to even entertain the idea that this is possibly a miscarriage of justice. Maybe I'll throw that out now in every response to you like you do with all your theories.

Well it's the same podcast, and 2 out of the 2 I listened to were embarrassing for the 2 journalists, they made themselves look very silly, and yet made out they knew more than the people they spoke to (when quite clearly they 100% did not). And their listeners managed to get it so wrong too and thought they made mince meat out of them, it was embarrassing.

So from that all I can assume is that the rest of the podcast is the exact same.

Have you listened to any others for balance?

Why wouldn't Lucy Letby ask whether the police had tested the feed bags? Seems a very sensible question. I'd certainly ask it.

I must've missed where you explained why the baby was showing signs of insulin poisoning right up until the second nutrient bag was removed? Just a coincidence again no doubt.

I don’t know but just hazarding a guess that maybe the nutrient bags may have some sugar content perhaps?

If the signs of insulin poisoning were hypoglycaemia, which is a very common condition in premature babies, then the sugars in the feed bag would raise the blood sugar level, so no, no coincidence.

I would hope none of us are happy about the clear, undoubted safety crisis in British maternity and neonatal care and our obvious problems with promptly identifying and fixing systemic miscarriages of justice.

If it's for some reason particularly embarrassing that a respected and widely internationally read foreign publication knows about this, all the more reason not to bury our heads in the ground about the scale of the problem.

It is ultimately quite terrifying that even if LL is guilty as sin, those structural problems exist and do so to the extent that there could be a huge MOJ in this situation. Even if there hasn't been. We need to fix that, and we won't do so by complaining about Americans.

It's beyond belief that a poster doesn't understand that all good newspapers have foreign correspondent journalists and that all have an online service catered to timelines and a diaspora. It's almost as if the UK is the centre of the universe and no other opinions are allowed.

‘I asked a million times how other staff knew….’

You are either lying here or you cannot (or Dobt bother to) read.

No one gave you an explanation that simply said ‘Lucy’s timeline jyst matched up with the ither staff’

No one.

You grossly misrepresenting the (frankly Job-like) patient and detailed explanations you were given, and the links provided to you which, using Thirlwall testimony and submissions, and trial testimony, pieced together in logical step by step detail the discrepancy between the mother’s time line and the three other CoCH staff timelines which were recorded independently.

You had it explained multiple times in lengthy paragraphs.

You are being wholly disingenuous.

‘But surely it’s better to have an in depth discussion…’

Then let’s have one.

What depth are you bringing to the discussion?

I’m afraid I wouldn’t, no.

I’d support my through the proper channels - Union, ACAS, employment solicitor, ither avenues. Emotional support. Support with the insane amount of admin this kind of thing wouod cause. But I wouldn’t call up my child’s employer. And I don’t think it’s appropriate nor helpful.

This doesn’t mean I’m buying into the narrative that there must have been something in Lucy’s background and boom! Dad was inappropriate, here‘s the explanation - ‘weird parents ’ - not at all. It was inappropriate and misguided. That’s all.

Yep. Anyone would. It’s an obvious question to ask.

…’why would the hospital cover..’

Because they’re part of a syndicate of evil medical eco-warriors who see the only way to save the planet is to decrease the human population, one killer nurse at a time.
(Do I need to add a disclaimer here, in case someone decides to take this seriously, do you think?)

Well at least that’s an answer! It’s certainly the first answer I’ve ever been given to this particular question.

When you read that part of the cross-examination too, it's clear she asked because if the bags were contaminated, the usual assumption would be that they came that way, from the pharmacy (or from outside the unit, as she put it).