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

Shoo Lee has a clear motivation. He has had a motivation since his work was rejected and his recent comments show his agenda. This is not independent, nor is it anything more than expert shopping.

what motivation? Rejected from what? This is really scraping the barrel.

No, it kind of doesn’t.

They are still top class experts even if an anonymous poster on an unspecified forum who doesn’t seem to know very much about it says they’re not.

You are going to have to be more specific here. What precisely did they get wrong, that was “answered” by a more qualified person with more relevant expertise please? Not generalisms,a specific example of an error in statement that has been refuted by a more qualified expert with more relevant experience (also with a justification of the latter).

I think this is an excellent question. I'm genuinely interested to know the answer if anyone has that information because as far as I can see the expert panel -
a) are simply more qualified than previous experts used in the trial (I'll leave it at that)
b) used better methodology, two experts working independently per case and only then sharing findings
c) broadly agreed with the conclusions of the original pathologists.

It's very difficult to dismiss all of that, IMO. And ok the medical evidence wasn't the only evidence used, but clearly it was the foundation of the case from the point when Evans identified these instances of deliberate harm.

No. Im not interested in being ordered to do things by baby killer fans.None of you listen anyway.

Define “top class”.

Where were they when the trial was happening then? Not being expert witnesses that’s for sure

Because you have precisely no qualifications!!! too funny.

The bioengineers aren't among the 14 panel members. They are experts who have lent their support and expertise around insulin delivery and testing mechanisms to the panel members, because this is their specialist field. This is spelt out, no ambiguity, in the report.

It is absolutely appropriate to have a leading neonatal nurse on the panel. Evidence around babies N and G in particular would draw very obviously on nursing expertise. Consultants do not spend much time nursing crying babies, changing their nappies or cleaning up their vomit and are likely to be less aware of danger signs and norms in this area than nurses; though I'd expect a nurse also to comment on pallor, agitation and other possible signs of deterioration.

You don't rise to the top in academia without hundreds of rejections and learning when that means you need to change or correct course - and when it doesn't.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25625572.amp

Worth a read. IMHO, thick as I am. Oh, and as a fan of baby killers.

I notice @JandamiHash that your refusal to engage is a clear sign you lack reasoned argument. You ignore my lived experience and will not accept that some people have direct knowledge of medically complex cases in the legal arena.

At least I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is.

Hmm I don’t know, maybe on a beach somewhere?
Or maybe mostly at work, writing research papers, attending conferences, chairing meetings of professional bodies, looking after sick babies and all the other things high ranking academics and clinicians do.
Either way, they weren’t called as experts because they don’t typically work as expert witnesses and they mostly didn’t even know about the case because the UK isn’t actually the centre of the universe and someone running a department in, say, Tokyo is going to have more to do than keeping up with legal news in every other country in the world. I don’t know why you think their not having given evidence at the original trial would be any kind of a gotcha.

Only qualified neonatologists should have an opinion. Meaning you won’t have one 😹

Baby killer fans? Would that be the people that claimed to have been glued to the internet and daily mail podcasts throughout the trial for their own entertainment? The ones that want to ignore evidence that could save other babies from the same fate? Or the ones that want to get to the bottom of what happened and know that the NHS and the courts are a safe place for our children?

I’m still confused as to what point is being made here?

👏🏻 👏🏻

You do realise that the uk isn’t the centre of the universe don’t you?
Most of them barely knew about this case- why would they?
They only became involved because of the misuse of Dr Lee’s paper (of which he was only informed after the conviction) , his subsequent decision to compile an international panel and then his invitation for them to review the evidence.

OP said Lees work was rejected. Obviously it wasn’t and she’s misunderstood that the fact that it wasn’t admissible as evidence in the second trial is not meaningful in terms of it’s veracity

Oh right, I see. How silly. They think he’s doing all this - at significant expense to himself (both time and financial) because he’s butt hurt about the specificities of British legal rules?

So inaccurate.

First, the RCPCH report was confidential to the reviewers and the hospital. Modi was not party to it.

Secondly, Prof Chase, who was not on the panel itself, was sought out for his expertise in modelling premature neonate insulin dynamics which he has been involved in research for 15 years.

Thirdly, Prof Lee’s work has never been “rejected”. His study was misused at the trial. He tried to alert the CoA but the judges didn’t understand the science nor did they grasp quite how poor quality Evans was as an expert witness. (They can’t say they weren’t warned though because they were).

The calibre and combined expertise of the panel blows the prosecution “expert witnesses” out of the water.

And remember - other than Evans the other prosecution “experts” did not have all the case notes to do full case reviews - they simply commented to Evans’ opinions. The panel had all the medical data for each case.

Oh I thought she meant rejected by the CoA.

Perhaps she’s unaware that the majority of scientific papers don't get published by the first journal they’re submitted to. For reasons including - whether the subject is a significant issue; whether the study relates to current debate and other recent studies; whether it’s relevant to the journal or better suited to a more specialised one.

While Lee’s paper is important to the LL case, it’s an update that is not that significant medically. Which does not mean it’s not important, thorough, rigorous, well-evidenced etc.

I think that’s an accurate assessment

I think they are incapable of imagining that some people are motivated by truth, so they assume it must be the desire for money, publicity, status….

I also think the babies have been dehumanised which is why people are so vocal in convico.

They rightly have anonymity but people then can't relate to real life people.

There's another very comprehensive article in the BMJ. Unfortunately my phone isn't allowing me to copy the link. If anyone else is able to share it, it's worth a read.

This isn’t actually about LL. It’s about getting the truth of what actually happened to the babies and understanding what has gone wrong in this case. The parents do not currently have the truth.

Here you are:

https://www.bmj.com/content/388/bmj.r300