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

Another highly intelligent, reasoned response there 😂

if this conviction is overturned and LL is released, it’s people like you, who are so blinkered and unable to understand valid arguments, that will mean that she is unable to ever live a normal life.

Honestly, I would prefer her to be guilty as well because the alternative is a huge miscarriage of justice that has destroyed her life, and her families, has seen an innocent woman locked up for years and has caused extra pain to the families of the babies. It would also mean that our NHS is so poor and underfunded that it caused the deaths of so many of the most vulnerable in our society. And that we don’t have a legal system robust enough to uncover this. That is more terrifying than having a serial killer on the wards.

However, I fear the worst.

Not sure why people are so quick to disregard what 14 neonatal world experts are saying. If her conviction was sound, it will stand up to the scrutiny of a review. If it wasn’t , that absolutely needs to be recognised. Miscarriages of justice do happen.

Absolutely. It's just a medical opinion and a few experts disagreeing with each each other. This is nothing new in medicine. The evidence was looked at as a whole in a very lengthy and thorough trial.

New data, new experiments, new scientific reports, leaks from hospital, leaks from police investigation, evidence made public via Thirlwall but excluded from trial, evidence of expert witness change of mind - lots more than you claim here.

When the exterior of LL's house was subjected to an extensive police search - press noted that they examined all the guttering - it was then speculated on SM that they were looking for discarded syringes/vials of medication, as in a previous case

It was just a standard thorough search not a targetted search for a specific 'missing vial of insulin'

There was no insulin bottle missing from the locked fridge on the NICU

She is guilty as sin. Nobody would be defending her this hard if she weren't a white woman.

The new opinions have to be weighted against the existing opinions from the trial. They are not just viewed in isolation. So it’s not a clear case of a wrong conviction. These are opinions.

Exactly. This is my issue with all those who have listened to the recent press conference and are suddenly proclaiming her innocence.

I am not certain of her guilt and as a clinician who has worked alongside nurses on NICU, just cannot comprehend how anyone could harm defenceless babies let alone a nurse who is trained to care for them. Every bone in my body struggles to believe someone in her position is capable of this level of harm. However I fully acknowledge that a jury sat through 9 long months of intricate evidence, complexities and were presented a full picture that we just can't match without having physically been there. They did not find her guilty on all counts which is a clear picture that they carefully considered each charge individually, not just decide she is unanimously guilty. Her legal team had the opportunity (and budget) to call far more witnesses for her defence and they did not - there must be a reason for this which remains unknown to us. Her legal team were also advised of some inconsistencies which arose after the trial (such as door swipe data being incorrect) and they chose not to proceed with any action and one can reasonably assume this is because it would not change the verdict.

All those sitting in their armchairs saying they are 'certain' she is innocent may as well be spitting in the face of the families at the centre of this case and should be ashamed of themselves. It is one thing to want the legal system to hold up to scrutiny and state you are unsure for specific reasons but to declare they have it absolutely wrong with just a fraction of the full picture just demonstrates complete ignorance.

This only demonstrates a deep naivety about the realities of the legal system and, indeed, simple market forces.

To coin a phrase, he would, wouldn't he? I'm not denying that many of them are highly reputed, but that doesn't make them the top as claimed. The fact remains that these people were predominantly neonatologists, and it is a fairly massive gap in their case that they don't include endocrinologists, radiologists etc.

Yes, it's a fact that experts witnesses are paid because, guess what, they have to make a living. The conclusions that people are drawing as a result are clearly not facts.

No, I'm not going to play that game. You will need to do your own research. I've pointed you to their evidence, which was accepted by the juries. Where does what the panel said counter their evidence?

No, they aren't. They're highly reputed, but not the best in the world. Plus they lack expertise in a number of the disciplines involved. Most crucially, their evidence hasn't been tested in court and accepted by a jury.

Look love, I don't expect you to hang on my every word, but I have explained elsewhere that my case did not go to criminal court, therefore, no, I wasn't acquitted. In order to prevent my child from being adopted after 18 months of family court wrangling, my solicitor, who went on to become a circuit judge in the family courts, crafted a statement by which I "accepted responsibility" for my child's multiple metaphyseal fractures without incriminating myself. Officially I will forever be a baby batterer, based on medical opinion alone.

Experts. Had about 7. Radiologist instructed by us from GOSH only needed to see x-rays to determine abuse. We instructed them. Metaphyseal fractures are a dogma in child abuse "diagnosis". It was irrelevant that my child was born five weeks premature and small due to my pre-eclampsia. She threw in a compressed vertebrae, done, allegedly, by violently bending him, or slamming him down on a hard surface, despite him having passed his six weeks check with flying colours days before his lower leg swelled up and I sought, appropriately, medical attention.

The blood man, six months down the line, noted an odd sort of anaemia with potential significance in bone fragility, but as it was six months down the line, and child was no longer EBF if there had been a nutritional deficiency, it was pointless to re-test. On the balance of probabilities he had to concur with their opinion of abuse, ergo, three other experts said abuse, it must be abuse. I actually went to see him after that report. He was horrified that adoption was an option, but his hands were tied. He's dead now, but I felt a bit sorry for him.

There's alot more, but I can hear your eyes rolling in exasperation because "it's not the same", but actually it is, broadly.

Funnily enough in another post I think you or another poster dismissed the new opinions in Lucy Letbys case as being opinions, not fact. And isn't this the crux of the matter at hand? In court opinions become fact, and if they are wrong, that's terrifying in terms of consequence.

So, unless you have a commensurate experience to measure against, or you can achieve some semblance if objectivity, I suggest you dial down the righteous rhetoric and accept perhaps you don't know it all, and some of us know a great deal about how this particular three ring circus operates.

I look forward to better qualified experts coming forward to challenge the findings of Shoo Lee and his team.
Realistically, though, it is very telling that the new experts who have come forward since the trial are doing so overwhelmingly (even uniformly) in one direction.

The fact that these babies were neonates is highly relevant because they don't react or behave like older children. The experts in the trial were pediatric experts, not neonatal experts.

But it hasn't been discredited. Where?

But how can you trust these world leading experts over the doctors at trial? When the new experts didn't even get the fact that the baby didn't have the genetic condition.

This is what I mean.

That wasn't my point. It was to highlight how everyone thought this press conference was brilliant but actually had a lot of errors and people with bias.

If you had read the thread you would know that.

@FrippEnos

She was on shift for 12/13 deaths.

But the point is the press conference wasn't the gotcha you think it is.

Research!

Come on catch up.

The team of neonatal specialists put forward plausible explanations for deaths by natural causes and discredited the findings that were put before the jury. They had the full medical notes. Some of the alleged causes were ridiculous e.g. air down the ng tube, excess milk down the ng tube. Evans himself recanted this “evidence” after she was convicted, brushing it aside saying well she’s a murderer so she must have used a different method. That is not scientific. It is quackery. The exposure of the truth is the best outcome for everyone so I don’t understand the fury that these issues are being examined.

https://archive.ph/GjXHl

A Telegraph article about numbers of deaths.

I have googled how many baby deaths was Lucy Letby present for and there appears to be no definitive answer.

As far as i can remember there wee other deaths that have not been investigated.

Yet the expert for the prosecution has been vilified by another judge for poor practice. how can this make him trust worthy?