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

He is quoted a lot though and contacted for comment. I can't imagine that the press wouldn't cover his rebuttals if he came up with something substantial. Liz Hull and Caroline Cheetham have eked dozens of episodes out of "the Trial". I think it's reasonable to assume he hasn't yet addressed the international expert reports in any detail.

As far as I understand it he hasn’t yet seen the full reports to be able to address in detail. It’s perfectly plausible that he might already have identified (as has eg Dr Mike Hall) that the panel have got some of their facts wrong in the summary reports but either (i) he wants to wait to see the full reports before going into the specifics and/or (ii) the press are not particularly interested in reporting his initial thoughts on the summary information (particularly given the strong anti-DE narrative that most are pushing).

I agree.

It’s not like he hasn’t been very vociferous and been a willing interviewee - it would be strangely idd tgat all the podcasters and journalists whi have interviewed him have clubbed together to edit out any concrete rebuttals. All I’ve ever come across is generalised they don’t know what they’re doing aHd are wrong’ type statements from him.

I cannot recall whrn Mike Hall had said the panel had hits it’s fact wrong. Can you show me where he’s said that?

Because disagreeing with theoretical conclusions as to cause of death(whilst agreeing that he also found no evidence of deliberate harm) is quite different to claiming the panel has its facts wrong

Gosh, that’s verging on a straw man.

Any reasonabld rational person wouod not bd expecting Dewi to be pacing the halls of MNT or any other online general forum, surely?

I stand by mr original thoughts: the parents had no need to be telling theif child someone tried to kill him

That would certainly be a reasonable position, but he just hasn't stated it. He's just gone on about Americans and Canadians, and hired guns and making things up, and people being attracted to nurses in their uniforms.

I agree that what the documentary shows must always be selective, but there's a long-standing pattern here. He'll comment on anything - the statistics, the psychology, the personalities - except the opposing medical opinions.

In the most recent panorama Evans does talk about what he thinks the panel have got wrong on baby A, so it could be that he also talked about other babies but it didn’t make the edit.

If that's the case then he'd have a clear cause for complaint as that's a dishonest way to make documentary.

As PP have said, there's a fair amount of tea and coffee making and staring out the window on all sides, and they certainly make it look like he's given a fair share of the time and a right of reply to his critics but I don't think he was specific about what he thinks they have wrong, only that they were wrong.

John Sweeney gave him a really good hearing as well. At the time the criticism was coming from the statistics people and those neonatologists who had stuck their necks out just after the trial and he just said in that same voice “they are wrong, just wrong”. Then bluffed and blustered and made banal arguments when pressed for details. He has an extremely overinflated sense of his own importance and ability.

I've just watched part 1 of LL, Murder or Mistake. (channel 4 for those who are wondering)

One thing that struck me as I neared the end was Evans claimed he only considered some of the cases as the others had explanations but none of the 7 had clear evidence of wrong doing, only circumstantial so all of the deaths should have been considered and ruled out by all involved not by the one man who is effectively claiming the glory - confirmation bias must have been a very real possibility ( = risk) here.

The baby c alteration to the date of the attack and all that means is very worrying.

"The box" - in my opinion - is used for dramatic effect and has little to no relevance.

I don't think Evans does himself any great favours with his denigration of the experts, he would be better served by telling us why he is correct and they are wrong - but maybe he does in part 2.

My view hasn't changed after part 1 - I still don't know if LL is guilty or innocent but there's enough "dodginess" about the case to merit a retrial, at the moment I would say the program has swayed me a lot more to the innocent side.

@NorfolkandBad Totally agree about rhe box. Absolutely no relevance. Certainly not something that would be presented as evidence in any re trial.

The use of the statistics showing Letby was on duty for every death was certainly very misleading for the jury. That alone should be grounds for a re trial.

I apologise if my memory is incorrect, but if I remember correctly je simply disagreed with their findings - that’s very different to finding they had their facts wrong.

Unless of course a nurse being clumsy in thrir delivery makes them a murderer

At times Dewi didn't come across as great. Doesn't mean wrong. However Mark McDonald gives me the creeps.

I felt the whole thing lacked substance and it old stuff.

Yes, that's true. I'd forgotten that bit. But overwhelmingly, his comments in the press are ad hominem attacks or strange psychological or criminological comment on Lucy Letby. If he has more to say on the medical aspect and it's being ignored, that's unfortunate and something he might want to take up. But he would do well to curb the other commentary he offers if he thinks he is being misrepresented.

All some people have to do is watch one biased documentary or listen to Mark Mcdonald and suddenly they're convinced. You've seen the change in public opinion it's been huge. Now you'll say that's all down to the convincing evidence but I have a different opinion on that.

‘Now you’ll say it’s all didn to the convincing evidence’

Will I?

okie dokie

spoiler: I won’t because I’d expect anyone with half a brain to start paying attention, as opposed to seeing one SINGIE documentary, before forming an opinion.

Perhaps that’s what you would do….

No I don't think Dewi comes across great either but had to feel sorry for him on this doc. All the abuse he's been getting-goes to show the mentality of some on that side. No one should be getting abuse.

I think you're a good judge of character re Mark! He's absolutely loving the limelight isn't he? Would you trust that guy about anything?! I certainly wouldn't! Have to admire his grifting skills though I'll give him that.

Also hasn't the defence changed their mind re baby O and blaming Breary? So was strange the docu showed that. Old stuff.

No, the defence hasn't changed their mind.

Dr Dimitrova, who was interviewed for the C4 documentary, says that the account she and Dr Aiton wrote is perfectly compatible with the international expert panel's. The international expert panel said that the perforation of the abdomen may have led exacerbated the issue.

So the sequence of events is:

Event 1

Subcapsular liver hematoma forms, can be before or at birth, can be following difficult birth which international expert panel has stated may have been the case. We don't know Aiton and Dimitrova's suggestions on how it formed.

Event 2

Bleeding from liver hematoma on day 3 of the infant's life. Liver then ruptures either as a result of build up of blood from hematoma or as a result of perforation of liver via abdomen in medical mishap. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

Liz Hull (as well as the presenters of the BBC documentary) have caused enormous confusion and greatly exaggerated the differences in what we know of the two events by conflating events 1 and 2.

No one should be getting abuse, as you say.

I try to limit my criticisms of Dr Evans to the behaviour, not the man. I'm sure I am likely to have fallen short occasionally, but I regret that.

You seem to feel it's okay to abuse Mark McDonald though?

When Breary pulled back in yhd needle to try to address the abdominal distension the most likely source of that blood surely would havd been free blood from the ruptured hematoma. A perforated hematoma causes often abdominal distension.

Well they did have a strange interaction with LL around the same time their baby was having unexpected collapses no one could explain. Where upon he was moved to another hospital and had no further issues. And the police did get in contact with them. Why on earth wouldn't you make potential victims prominent figures-that's exactly WHO most of us want to hear from (ok well maybe not everyone on this thread clearly) it's their story to tell. It was absolutely heart-breaking hearing their story and my heart went out to them and their little boy.

If she couldn't act professionally and appropriately around worried parents she shouldn't be in that job. Or at the very least not be the one to do that aspect of it (but we know she was always putting herself forward to do the boxes) how does anyone not understand the parents emotions in that context anyway? Maybe she understands perfectly well and knew exactly what she was doing.

I think MM is a slippery character but he's probably heard much worse. I'm not contacting him personally to abuse him though-which it sounds like has happened to Dewi Evans.