Cheshire Police are an incompetent bunch of useless bastards

[GossIsAGit]

After Sally Clark

They should have remembered that If a doctor of medicine tells you that a coincidence is so unlikely it must mean a woman has been killing babies then maybe you should consult a statistician and actually listen.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/oct/10/lucy-letby-police-cps-handling-case-raises-new-concerns-about-convictions?CMP=ShareiOSAppOther

The usual rate is pretty high, especially in neonatal units.

In NICUs, ME [medication error] rates ranged from 4 to 35.1 per 1000 patient-days and from 5.5 to 77.9 per 100 medication orders

https://research.manchester.ac.uk/en/studentTheses/medication-safety-in-neonatal-and-childrens-intensive-care

Don't read the following overview for England if you suffer from health anxiety

https://bmjgroup.com/237-million-medication-errors-made-every-year-in-england/

Obviously Letby's hospital took this seriously, but there's no sense that it was an astonishing or incomprehensible event.

From the telegraph articles and the bbc articles about baby c it seems she was on shift the day he died and was desperate to be in his room and was stood over his cot when he collapsed. See wasn't in work when the X-rays of baby c used in the evidence were taken.

This calls into question the evidence though. The x-ray allegedly showed proof of air in the baby's system - the questionable idea of air administered through an NG tube causing "splinting". As this was in a period when she hadn't met the child, the opinion was revised to fit the new facts. So it shows a flaw in the theory as she could not have caused this as she was not there.

This severely undermines the proposed mechanism of death and therefore whether similar findings can be attributed to her in other cases.

The issue of being with the baby when it collapsed (and alleged "desperation" to be which might indicate concerns about him rather than murderous intent depending on interpretation) comes across as desperation to pin another case on her. It's the "she must have done something" attitude that has permeated this case from the beginning.

I have seen speculation that she was sneaking onto the ward in her downtime to harm infants. Without evidence to support that, it shouldn't be a consideration. If she was so desperate to be there, all the time, feeding the "compulsion" to kill (for which there is zero in the way of forensic psychological evidence - indeed no psychological evaluation was provided at trial on either side, so if it was done at all, it cannot have supported either side) then having a nice holiday abroad must have been torture for her. Of course you may say "but as soon as she got near that baby it died" but given the prematurity and fragility of that particular baby who had issues before her return, there is a strong case for unfortunate coincidence here.

That just shows how the prosecution used perfectly innocent actions to underpin their case.
Have a look at this article
jameswphillips.substack.com/p/letby-trials-2-new-strong-evidence?utm_source=post-banner&utm_medium=web&utm_campaign=posts-open-in-app&triedRedirect=true

From Thirlwall

“Being absolutely open and honest, I never, ever considered that this death could have been from deliberate harm.
“From my perspective when I saw the postmortem result and the immaturity of the baby’s lungs I presumed that this was a death entirely consistent with prematurity.”
Dr McCormack added: “I knew that this baby was very sick. The baby was very small and that is a baby for me that when I see that postmortem, I would have said to myself, that is typical with my experience with that sort of outcome.
“In Baby C’s case there was a postmortem report that actually had a cause of death, and I know there is some debate about the interpretation. It’s not as if the pathology is saying this was unexplained.”

Dr McCormack – Consultant Obstetrician and Gynaecologist, Thirlwall Enquiry

Some people just refuse to believe a pretty lady could be bad

She did it.

The statistical evidence alone is incontestable.

If it were failings within the nhs then all the nurses who worked on her ward and shared her conditions would also have higher than national average death rates.

There are so many worth causes you could throw your energy behind better funding of nhs, financing investment in environmentally sustainable technologies, human rights abuses within our police and court system/cafcass

Stop wasting your energy on that sick fuck just because she’s too angelic (ie blonde and pretty) to be a murderer

She did it and she knew what she was doing

The statistical evidence alone is incontestable.

Honestly, it’s really not. That’s why the Royal Statistical Society have expressed concerns.

No I fully believe white blond haired women can kill. - just look at another murder case this week. She's blond, white and female 🙄

The statistical evidence is exactly what is being called into question! It's far far from being conclusive.

There is not forensic evidence linking her to any of the cases.

There's no proof that at least one of the supposed murder methods would actually kill.

Nobody witnessed her actually provably doing anything wrong. Despite numerous other people being present.

Oh and actually death rates across both maternity care and neonatal care were both high during that period.

More babies died that could not be pinned in anyway back to Letby so we're not included in the trial.

The 'evidence' has been used to fit the verdict not the evidence proving the verdict. The doctors handed the police their suspect and they have used the information they could to support that narrative.

I am in no way saying she is definitely innocent! She may well be guilty. But as this stands this is a very unsafe conviction.

A lot of us including Philip Hammond MD of Private Eye and David David MP had no difficulty believing the verdicts until we were alerted by neonatalogists, statisticians and biochemists specialising in insulin.
We are not concerned with inessentials.

The unit was chaotic, filthy, and should have been downgraded to level one (the least sick babies) long before the management team eventually took that action, having finally been left no alternative.

Care was substandard and the babies she was convicted of killing were not flagged as having died ‘suspiciously’ until Dr Evans got involved. Multiple highly experienced and senior consultants, pathologists and coroners all ‘missed’ the signs that Dr Evans declared were “obvious” (to him).

Evans didn’t even examine the bodies / carry out the autopsies himself - his loudly declared ‘certainty’ came from reading notes and observations recorded by others (who hadn’t reached the conclusion he had).

Evans didn’t even examine the bodies / carry out the autopsies himself - his loudly declared ‘certainty’ came from reading notes and observations recorded by others (who hadn’t reached the conclusion he had).

Evans' certainty came from his belief that "babies don't just die".

https://www.spiked-online.com/2024/08/30/the-case-against-lucy-letby/

Interesting @BlushingBrightly but it completely ignores the fact that the case was brought to the police purely on the basis of statistical evidence and that the accusers were involved in the investigation.
It also exaggerates how unlikely a spike in deaths was. The one at CoCH was only twelfth highest in the country.
It claims the babies weren’t expected to die when six of the seven had specific natural causes, one had multiple problems but was unexplained and one was so unremarkable the parents were told a post mortem was unnecessary. If the deaths were unexpected the consultants had a duty to inform the coroner.
There are enormous questions over the medical evidence with Dewi Evans backtracking over his batshit air down the nasogastric tube method.
The evidence that Baby C was murdered came from the day before Letby came on duty. The fact that the judge didn’t highlight this or throw out the case suggests Letby didn’t get a fair trial.
It seems to me, it was the prosecution who were gaslighting us with their repeated claims that the babies were stable and healthy when they clearly weren’t.
See above for the obstetrician’s comments on Baby C’s death.

I think the most interesting thing about the Spiked article (which is quite superficial and doesn’t say anything that hasn’t been said hundreds of times before- it’s already been discussed on here at least once) is that it’s in Spiked, which prides itself on being heterodox and bravely standing up against received opinion. If they consider it worth publishing an article arguing that the conviction is safe it must now be seen as a very mainstream view that the conviction is NOT safe.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-14039969/NADINE-DORRIES-grave-concerns-main-witness-Lucy-Letby-case-fear-one-worst-miscarriages-justice-history.html

Good article.

https://archive.ph/53NWq

As it's behind a pay wall. Good summary of the concerns.

It’s been interesting how the political right have led the charge on this.
Where are today’s Paul Foot and Chris Mullin?

I’ve seen a further suggestion on X that Cheshire police not only got door swipe data wrong but also phone records by failing to note they were in GMT and needed to be translated into British Summer Time.
If this is true then it destroys the discrepancy between Mother E seeing blood around Baby E’s mouth and Letby calling a registrar an hour later.
Sources: JabesAllowed and TimMJoslin

Give it a rest and get a hobby honestly

Thanks for your concern, but I enjoy posting here.

its looking at the evidence and realising all the dots do not add up in this case and it has more holes than plant pot

https://archive.ph/2Fyuw

Most recent Telegraph article.

The problem we have, and why it's important to hold the justice system to account, and to scrutinise it, is because it's starting to look as though even if Lucy Letby did do some terrible things (which I have grave doubts about), it seems as though extra charges were piled up on her, even without coherent evidence. That needs robust and impartial investigation.

Thanks @MistressoftheDarkSide. It’s incredible how many things went wrong at every stage.

The latest episode of John Sweeney’s podcast has some interesting remarks by Steve Watts “[who] was, before he retired, the lead detective in England and Wales advising how police should investigate deaths in hospitals.”

“What I think has happened in this case is that at a very early stage, a decision has been made that the babies have been unknowingly killed and injured, and this particular individual, Lucy Letby, was responsible. And the evidence has been gathered in order to confirm the hypothesis without testing other hypotheses, for example, insanitary conditions.”

From Was There Ever A Crime? The Trials of Lucy Letby with John Sweeney: Episode 3: Enter Sherlock Holmes. Not., 11 Nov 2024
podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/was-there-ever-a-crime-the-trials-of-lucy/id1616634411?i=1000676479331

Getting back to the Telegraph article you linked to, I keep wondering about the judge’s various decisions to exclude and not exclude evidence. There must be some good judges out there because one of them sent his criticisms of Evans to Justice Goss before the trial.
I wonder what conclusions Justice Thirlwall will come up with next year.

Jayaram is up tomorrow.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/nov/12/expert-claims-she-was-misled-over-lucy-letby-analysis

And another perspective....