Lucy Letby - have you changed your mind pt. 5

[Typicalwave]

New thread

Part 4 here - https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/_chat/5400564-lucy-letby-have-you-changed-your-mind-thread-4?utm_campaign=thread&utm_medium=app_share

Originally started by @kittybythelighthouse

So how did she do it?

Lots of disorders and events are rare: a small proportion of these rare occurrences will be seen in any setting. What are the other rarities you're concerned about?

The international expert panel commented that it was very likely that the subcapsular hematoma (and not its rupture - a point many commentators miss) was caused by birth injury. They won't be able to prove that one way or the other without the obstetrics records, which they've requested but not received. But a subcapsular hematoma of the liver can be the result of prematurity too.

So if there was no birth injury, the panel's theory on the death of Baby O still stands. Still, it's right that they should examine that new evidence, isn't it, and a pity the prosecution were willing to exclude natural causes without doing so.

The pathologist who examined both children's bodies in 2016 found that both of them had subcapsular hematomas of the liver, by the way. So the international expert panel is not exactly clutching at straws here.

Dr Marnerides, who practises at London’s St Thomas’ Hospital, said: “The distribution, the pattern and the appearance of the bruising indicates towards impact-type injury. I’m fairly confident this is impact-type injury.”
He explained the photograph showed “extensive haemorrhaging into the liver”, which he had only seen previously in a road traffic collision and in non-accidental assaults from parents or carers.
Mr Johnson said: “Looking at this sequence of photographs, can you rule out the possibility that these injuries were caused by CPR?”
Dr Marnerides said: “I cannot convince myself that in the setting of a neonatal unit this would be a reasonable proposition to explain this. I don’t think CPR can produce this extensive injury to a liver.”
Mr Johnson said: “In so far as you have spoken about an impact-type scenario for causing that internal injury, would you necessarily expect to see any outside sign on the skin itself?”
The consultant replied: “You can have the most devastating injury internally and nothing can be observed externally. That is very common.”
Mr Johnson went on: “What in your view was the cause of death of (Child O)?”
Dr Marnerides said: “In my view, the cause of death was inflicted traumatic injury to the liver, profound gastric and intestinal distension following acute excessive injection/infusion of air via a naso-gastric tube and air embolism due to administration into a venous line.”

https://www.itv.com/news/granada/2023-03-29/baby-suffered-liver-injury-akin-to-road-traffic-collision-lucy-letby-trial-told

So how did she do it?

How do abusive parents do it? I'd rather not think about it. The evidence speaks for itself. he had only seen previously in a road traffic collision and in non-accidental assaults from parents or carers.

I bet you'd want to think about it if you were the one being accused. No room for being squeamish if you're fighting for your child or your freedom. I'd put alot of money on it in fact. Been there, done that, got the T shirt (and the CPTSD from institutional gas-lighting for nearly three years).

Dr Marnerides either didn't know or didn't disclose that he knew that the ventilator settings were too high, pushing the liver out of position and presumably making CPR a more traumatic experience as the liver was pushed beyond the ribs.

Certainly you can have internal injuries that don't show externally. But does this apply to blunt force trauma?

And in those cases where parents are accused of harming their children they always look at the injuries and say what they think would have caused the injuries, they don't just put them on trial and say they caused these injuries and leave it at that.

Yes I think even with blunt force trauma there may not be external injuries.
If you read about baby Star Hobson they said the final blow was a punch/kick or stamp delivered at the force of a car crash, I know she had a lot of external injuries but I didn't see any mentions of any external sign of the fatal injury.

Is the info on the lucy letby innocence page the most complete account of Dr Marnerides testimony does anyone know?

I'm curious about if he was asked how likely it would be that someone could deliver an injury with the force of a car crash and for there not to be any other injuries

The pathologists account of Star Hobsons injuries are very upsetting to read, because we know that she was murdered and there is so much evidence of it so in case you don't want to read it she suffered several internal injuries from the blow.

You are wasting your time on someone who is never getting out of the place she belongs and will be until she dies. I don't care if people think my arguments are bad because they're "all about the science" and nothing else. There will be people much better placed than me to argue it they just have better things to do. What I care about is if someone is so dogmatic in their belief she is innocent that nothing at this point will convince them otherwise. That's what I want to know, if they are just going to continue to double down.

If your interest is genuine you’d be much better doing some actual research, perhaps give some of the links you’ve been given a try and try to think about why people don’t agree with you.

It's not me people aren't agreeing with it's doctors, nurses and parents who were THERE. It's amazing how convinced you are that you actually have the moral high ground arguing for the innocence of the most sadistic woman in Britain. Absolutely staggering.

I hope if you get burgled they get off on a technicality because the "science" doesn't back up them being in your house even though you saw them, pointed them out in a line-up and all the circumstantial evidence points to their guilt. Nothing but science matters! Let all the killers out.

Dogmatic 😂😂😂 My God I know I've said it before but the projection is unbelievable. Do you have no self awareness?

No doctors, nurses or parents saw Lucy Letby harm a child though, did they? They were THERE but what they saw was that the children were unwell, or dying.

The parents of children she was found guilty of harming all described their experiences at Thirlwall, and none of them suspected Lucy Letby of doing anything until the police contacted them.

Not one of Lucy Letby's nursing colleagues has said they had any suspicions she was harming babies, and we've seen or heard from all of them. Dr Jayaram was keen to assure the Inquiry that the media had exaggerated and he hadn't seen anything, Drs Brearey and Gibbs was clear that they saw only the statistical association with Lucy Letby. The other consultants denied suspecting anything until these three shared their suspicions.

So, being THERE really didn't give these people evidence that Lucy Letby did anything. Even they don't claim that. I don't see why you insist it's offensive that people don't go along with your, or the media's, inventions.

I don't have the full account from Marnerides but I know that both he (elsewhere in his testimony) and the pathologist consulted by Moritz and Coffey stated that a violent blunt force injury to the liver in a baby would normally go beyond that organ to the bowel. As @MistressoftheDarkSide says, it's tiny surface in a neonate.

Thanks, so the chances of a blunt force injury causing that damage to the liver only and nowhere else is 'possible but not probable', but I thought Marnerides said we weren't discussing possibilities...just probabilities!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c30616ev66eo

No one saw this woman do anything for months either. Only CCTV showed what she was doing when no other adult was around-if there was no CCTV and parents were saying their children were harmed by her you'd be saying "no one saw her do anything" too. Is that the level of proof you need before you believe it?

When you committed these acts of cruelty you would look at the other members of staff to make sure that they were not watching you.

Do you not think maybe Lucy did that too. Did anyone see Harold Shipman do anything?

It’s rare in full term neonates, but more common in pre-term babies. Again, you would know this if you bothered to engage in facts. And in any case, rare diseases happen.

Has @Firefly1987explained how an alleged blunt force trauma managed to create no external signs and no damage to any other organs/structures yet?

I also wonder if this poster will ever really think about how they would think, behave or feel if someone accused them of a crime that they knew they hadn't committed, prosecuted them, convicted them, sentenced them to life in prison (or permanently removed their child) because basically they "were there", the accusers thought they were "weird" in some way, and they couldn't prove they didn't because experts "theories" about dubious "evidence" were magically turned into "fact" by the court process.

Then, when they found people willing to look at the evidence again, and it turned out there were multiple alternatives to the prosecution "theories" and the court process had been manipulated and failed, a number of people continued the witch hunt mentality with a very odd sense of glee.

Big difference with this appalling case - she has admitted it and there is evidence of addiction. There may also be other psychological factors at play.

Of course there are alot of questions about how she wasn't detected and why the nurseries didn't act sooner when parents brought concerns to their attention.

What I care about is if someone is so dogmatic in their belief she is innocent that nothing at this point will convince them otherwise. That's what I want to know, if they are just going to continue to double down.

Switch the word innocent to the word guilty and you have a really good description of Firefly there...............

My point isn't that no-one saw Lucy Letby do anything and therefore she's innocent.

My point is that no-one saw Lucy Letby do anything, or believed she was doing anything. The three doctors who had concerns about her developed them based on a statistical analysis only, and of course they were no more qualified to conduct this analysis than anyone outside the hospital.

So, when people doubt Lucy Letby's guilt, they are in no way doubting the experience of the parents and fellow employees who were there at the time. Because the people who were there at the time had no suspicions based on their interactions with Lucy Letby.

So how was the injury allegedly inflicted? Blunt force trauma with impact equivalent to a car crash, without so much as a bruise? Neonates bruise so easily.

A pp mentioned injuries inflicted on poor Starr Hobson. She was very unfortunate in many ways, including the fact that her carers had unsupervised access to her, where stamping/kicking her was an actual possibility. There's no way Letby had the opportunity to do similar. Pop a baby out of their cot, place them on the floor of the NICU, kick/stamp on them, place them back in their cot and carry on with her day? And nobody heard so much as a whimper? Or perhaps all her salsa dancing made her so fit and strong that she had the strength in her hands alone to squeeze a baby and cause the injury with impact the equivalent of a car crash?? Again, without any bruising...

good friend of mine is a criminal lawyer and we had a long discussion- me (ex NHS clinical) and them with 30 plus years of experience- we both agreed there has very likely bedn been a serious miscarriage of justice and significant failings of her initial defence team. The expert witness and his theories held too much weight. The evidence and stats wrongly and selectively applied, and too much credibility given to the two most vocal consultants who had a lot to lose of their unit / their own medical competence was seen to be at fault. The NHS hierarchy is problematic- service managers are often not clinical and get easily intimidated and swayed by consultants in my experience. Staff are often too scared to whistle blow or speak out too. I’m not saying she’s an amazing nurse nor faultless but something feels very off with it all.

Group think is a real issue I have found in my experience of all levels in NHS

Can someone explain the view on here about the waving privilege as it has me confused.
I understand people aren't threads of the mail and Hull I get that. On here it was said that Hull had misinterpreted this.
However the double jepordy podcast agrees with Hull. Ken Macdonald and Tim owen and you would think they would know what they are talking about. They are fans of the jolly contraian and Hull as an aside. They state something about a mccook judgement.

a defendant must waive legal privilege to allow the court to examine discussions with the former counsel to determine if their representation was indeed poor, according to the rules originating from the case R v McCook. This waiver is necessary to provide a "reasonable explanation" for failing to present crucial evidence at trial, a requirement for admitting fresh evidence on appeal. The McCook protocol outlines the mandatory procedure where new counsel confers with the previous legal team and obtains a signed waiver of privilege.

Apparenty as it stands she had nt waved that privilege according to Mm. However she may have done since.

@H202too Just about to listen to the podcast, but my understanding is that they wait for the CRCC to request her to waive privilege if it's deemed necessary.

Indeed