Lucy Letby. Why do some people only read headlines?

[skyfirechesnut]

I was at work today and someone says so Lucy letby is innocent now. They have just gone with the media headlines. Instead of researching.

Sorry for the fail link but this is quite a good article below on the current state of things. The author has attended all trials and listened to appeals and conferences.

I also don't understand people who say she was scapegoated. If people follow the Thirwall enquiry this is far from the case. She was totally protected, her parents calling up, being in meetings, dictating apologies. It beggars belief.

I can somewhat understand people saying she is innocent based on medical evidence after the press conference but even that is nothing new.

You can't say my expert is better than yours.

Also people seem to think it was all Dewi Evans for the prosecution it wasn't. There was Dr Bohin, Prof Arthurs , Prof Hindnarsh and Dr Mar etc.

That is without the Doctor colleagues if you want to dispute them.

Then they new defence have changed ideas from the conference they had in December.

They are also not totally impartial.
It isn't as simple as the headlines.

Here is the article.

archive.ph/NYg7U

I’ve never heard that she targetted his wife. I’d take that with a pinch of salt.

Can't be arsed to go over your nonsensical regurgitation of the circumstantial evidence, but yes, I had similar, and if you search me on here, you'll find details.

The main point is that there were no murders according to pathologists, then doctors said there were murders, then an expert said there were murders, and now we're back to square one because more experts are saying there were no murders, and there are indeed plausible alternative explanations for the deaths and collapses, more plausible than the theories proposed by the prosecution at trial, and firmly rooted in the poor care described all over the unit.

This alone is reasonable doubt, and was at the trial. And a judge telling a jury that if they thought she did one murder, it didn't matter if they weren't sure how she did the others is utterly wrong.

The medical evidence does not support murders.

She kept hundreds of handover notes of healthy babies too, put of over 200 only 21 related to the cases brought to trial. She also searched hundreds of people on FB...again including parents of healthy babies in amongst hundreds of other people. So you're framing those things as something they're not. If she had ONLY searched the families of the deceased or injured babies or kept the notes only from those babies then you might have a point.

She also wasn't the only one on duty for every unexplained event.

Qualification, experience, specialism, markers of esteem, positions of trust and responsibility held, relevant peer-reviewed publications, ability to understand and refer to scientific evidence, capacity to build an objective, falsifiable case and expose it to proper scrutiny, understanding of scientific and legal requirements for impartiality

Then there's Dewi Evans

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/dec/20/my-kind-of-case-intense-focus-falls-on-lucy-letby-trial-expert-witness

“Well without being too blase about it, it’s only difficult if you don’t know the answer, OK. Once you know, you know … It’s not very good asking me why I diagnosed air embolus. I think you should be asking other people why didn’t they make the diagnosis.”
...

“Something must have happened,” he said. “I know that’s not a very scientific term.”

What a joke.

Has she been diagnosed a psychopath??

by a forensic psychiatrist who has actually assessed her?

or do you mean by randomers on YouTube?
coz im pretty sure she’s not been diagnosed with anything like that at all, just axis 1 depression/anxiety/PTSD.

It's a disgrace that the judge didn't scratch his evidence from the record and throw him out of court.

What about the other expert witnesses?

No, she hasn't been diagnosed a psychopath. Moritz who is hardly a fan of Letby's acknowledges this in her book on the case

Why would they?

So If you did you should be able to explain why babies who were not looked after by LL died and she was responsible? I don’t think you have looked at the trial at all. I did look at the notes and came to a different conclusion

Didn't work independently of Evans.
Do you really think Evans is in the same league as the new panel?

A psychological evaluation was done but never presented to court. I have no idea why but including this guff about her being a diagnosed psychopath there’s SO much misinformation floating around about the case now

What do you mean “didn’t work independently of Evans”? Who? And how?

The judge was utterly wrong and yet not one of the eminent lawyers representing her have appealed on that basis?

I’m sorry for what you went through, but the circumstantial evidence is not nonsensical. A jury listened to it in its entirety and found that, and the medical evidence sufficient.

Interested to know why none of these plausible explanations that everyone keeps referring to were presented at trial in her defence though. Sadly they had the opportunity then to put these forward and they’ve missed the boat now. As I have said before, there is nothing new in the medical evidence (ie no new scientific developments or major developments to the babies medical history) that will justify the CCRC sending this to the COA. New experts coming up with different explanations from the existing evidence isn’t of itself new evidence!

Somewhere in this mess there is a vial of insulin that wasn't signed out it was never proved who took it, or if it was ever used, but the prosecution put forward that it must have been letby.

So the second most prominent expert for the prosecution was Sandie Bohin. The police didn't ask her to start from the notes and work from scratch. They sent her the reports Evans had already written and asked her to check them. This is covered by Judith Moritz in Unmasking Lucy Letby.

Exactly.

Also worth pointing out it wasn’t a vendetta or the jury wanting her to be guilty - she was found not guilty on a few counts too. Meaning the evidence was carefully considered

Then Marnerides and Arthurs worked with Evans to work out timings and how their care hung together. This wouldn't be abnormal - radiologist and pathologist etc wouldn't be expected to work out causes in isolation from lead expert. But you can't call them independent any more than Bohin.

My memory isn’t what it used to be but I don’t remember this accusation at all from the trial and Google is throwing up nothing. Do you have any specifics?

Id have to look into that but what about the many other expert witnesses? Or did you think there was only 2?

I'm sure the jury considered carefully. That doesn't mean they reached the right verdict, unfortunately.

Remember for example that they were never told about the external reports showing failings in the unit and failings in care contributing to deaths. They didn't have full information.

That doesn't mean they reached the right verdict, unfortunately.

Iu could say this of ANY jury! You could say it of the crimes she was found not guilty on. But that’s how our legal system works - it’s robust a governed to the nth degree and the jurors were equipped with 9 months of evidence

Remember for example that they were never told about the external reports showing failings in the unit and failings in care contributing to deaths. They didn't have full information.

This absolutely was discussed at the trial. It’s what the defence pinned their narrative on!

Where this panel falls down is the suggestion that only the medical evidence is relevant in this case

If there’s no evidence of murder, the circumstantial “evidence” is “evidence” of precisely nothing.

When will this stop? When every single statistician who looked at the case pointed out that the use of statistical evidence at the trial was wrong, everyone said, “she wasn’t convicted based on statistical evidence, it’s the medical evidence that’s important”. Now the top neonatologists in the world are rubbishing the medical evidence and it’s “oh the medical evidence wasn’t important…”

There is no evidence of murder, let alone evidence of murder committed by Letby. There, never, was. The whole thing is a nonsense and a devastating national embarrassment.

See my further post - Evans met with the other specialists to prepare for the trial and get evidence in sync.

That's what led to the notorious moment when Evans got a date wrong and Marnerides pointed to signs of harm on an x-ray for that date, but it was the day before Letby met the baby for the first time.

Evans ended up making a fool if himself explaining he hadn't appreciated that air in babies stomachs could be ... wind.

Marnerides didn't comment. He had initially had no concerns about that image.