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

Why don’t you look them up yourself?

Yup. Never going to happen. Firefly has no interest in learning about anything that may destabilise their fixed beliefs whilst merrily projecting this onto everyone else.

Shoo Lee could be endorsed by God himself and Firefly wouldn’t ge the slightest but interested.

it’s a waste of time engaging with them

Where in any of the pages does it say he's "world leading"-that's what I'm asking. No one's denying he's an expert.

If you just read down the first link there, you'll see at the end a reference to his "world-leading" research programme. Leaders of "world-leading research" are, by definition, world-leading experts.

For goodness sake, read the links. These are internationally renowned bodies recognising his expertise. He holds internationally recognised positions. He’s published 470-odd articles. The other panel members are similarly distinguished.

And I think you are being disingenuous. You’ve been referring to the panel as “so-called” and “self-professed” experts all over these threads in some weird attempt to discredit them.

Again, who is calling it world leading?

And what has everyone else been doing towards Dewi Evans this whole time?!

That would be the institution responsible for the website.

There are criteria for use of the word in the UK academic context which Shoo Lee very clearly meets. Are you familiar with them?

Ah, I see. You are making evidence-free claims about internationally recognised experts in a bizarre attempt to counter evidence-based opinions about Evans’s competence.

Do you not have anything of substance?

Actually backing up the criticisms. There'd be nothing wrong with you making an assessment of a person's level of expertise if you were right, the issue is the content.

Well it's not just "us" is it? The fact that one judge wrote to another during the trial with huge concerns about Dewi Evans credentials and ability to be impartial speaks volumes as the judiciary generally stick together like glue.

Reading Dewis credentials abx published papers - which took less than 10 minutes.

https://www.thejusticegap.com/miscarriage-of-justice-watchdog-not-there-to-tick-a-box-as-new-chair-assures-culture-will-change/

So according to you he meets the criteria? OK will take your word for it.

If he thought Lucy was innocent I bet you'd be singing his praises though. You don't have an issue with his credentials you don't like that he thinks she's guilty. He was also backed up by two other experts who agreed with his findings. It wasn't all down to Evans.

I wonder if anyone has asked Dr Evans or the two other expert witnesses who read and supported his reports whether the evidence that significant information wasn't included in the notes given to pathologists (for Baby O) changed their minds about possible causes of death for this baby.

All this talk of experts has reminded me of the "Jolly Contrarian's" ever-growing list of experts and colleagues, aligning with prosecution or defence - and overwhelmingly with the defence!

jollycontrarian.com/index.php?title=Lucy_Letby:_those_experts_in_full#cite_note-Panel-7

Was the third name ever published somewhere? I know Dewi Evans said they died.

You mean the third expert witness for the Prosecution ?

You have Evans, and then Bohin who read and endorsed his work, with some deviation on individual cases. Marnerides the pathologist, who also worked from Evans's reports, was particularly prominent on the case of child O, but we know that significant information had been withheld on this child. Marnerides hasn't commented since the trial, I believe.

Sorry, misread that. The potential expert witness who died but had allegedly agreed with Evans was Martin Ward-Platt

Good overview at https://www.reddit.com/r/LucyLetbyTrials/comments/1eh93rn/dr_martin_ward_platt_the_witness_who_wasnt/

I totally agree that they didn’t have much choice in whether or not their children should know, given the fact that the families weren’t anonymised until the trial and their names were in the press before that. Everyone local to them likely knows. They’d have to be in witness protection (which they aren’t) to be actually anonymous.

I wasn’t talking about that. I was making the point that the parents aren’t a monolith and we don’t know what they are each thinking now. It’s quite likely that there are some who are not willing to dismiss the new expert evidence out of hand, and for good reason given what has been exposed about the trial expert evidence.

Bwahaha......

Oh you do tickle me.

Your nonsensical approach to this whole thing has such an innocent and childlike quality, especially when the petulance emerges.

His credentials are sketchy and out of date. A JUDGE warned Goss that his expertise was, well, lacking expertise and any sense of impartiality.

He is an acolyte of the "think dirty" brigade led by Southall and Meadows, determined to demonise mothers who suffer multiple losses. Never father's, mind you, mothers.

His "evidence" has been shown over and over again to lack any basis in science and ge has changed his narrative several times to fit the circumstantial evidence. That's not how it's supposed to work.

The experts who "backed him up" - well, I suggest you do a bit of reading around Ms Bohin for a start. At least Marnerides has had the sense to keep it zipped, but I suspect that's from pure self preservation instincts. Whereas Evans rather fancies himself a martyr to a very dubious cause - which certainly isn't robust scientific analysis nor impartiality.

Or you could take a look for yourself.

You don’t really think this, surely?

You don’t get 400 peer reviewed papers published when you’re not world leading. You don’t get to be an Officer of the Order of Canada, Professor Emeritus at the University of Toronto and Honorary Staff Physician at Mount Sinai Hospital if you’re not world leading. Non world leading neonatologists do not serve as US-China Commissioner for Child Health, Founding President of the Canadian Neonatal Foundation, Founding Chairman of the Canadian Neonatal Network, Founding Chairman of the Chinese Neonatal Network, or Chairman of the German Center for Child & Youth and Mental Health Review Board. They also don’t act as International Advisory Panel members for the Imperial College UK Center for Pediatrics and Child Health and the National University of Singapore Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, or of the WHO Maternal, Newborn and Child Health Working Group.

What did Dewi do again? Oh yes. He co-authored one paper in the 1970’s which was published in a fringe journal and he isn’t even a neonatologist. He has achieved absolutely nothing else. Slow clap for Dewi 👏👏👏👏

My reflection on this is that the doctors who go for and then take on these sorts of additional roles (and I know a fair few) are incredibly personally ambitious and often quite status-driven, but that is really the only thing that sets them apart from other clinicians. Nothing wrong with that per se, but it doesn’t inherently make them any better or for that matter world leading (whatever that actually means).

Some of the very best doctors in the world are those who have spent their whole careers working with patients, developing their clinical knowledge and practice through deep experience.