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

Brilliant x thank you x

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

What a weird thing to say. You think the only way to see these babies as human is to believe they were murdered?

Speaking to The BMJ, Evans refuted the findings of the panel’s review. “Quite frankly, their conclusions are deeply flawed and erroneous,” he said. “I’ve not seen any reports from any doctor that offers an alternative explanation that would stand up to scientific scrutiny, which would ‘stand up in court,’ in other words. That includes the summaries from the ‘international expert panel’ regarding seven of the 14 babies Letby was found guilty of harming, which I am currently reviewing.”
During the panel’s press conference, questions were also raised regarding Evans’s background and expertise. On this, Evans said, “Neonatology was a significant part of my clinical career for 30 years. And as to my background as an expert medical witness, I’ve been giving evidence in court since 1988 on very challenging baby and child issues, which include allegations of clinical negligence . . . I have not heard any criticism from any individual whose view I respect. And I have not heard any criticism from any organisation whose view I respect.”

🤣🤣. TLDR I don’t respect anyone who challenges or criticises me. Figures.

From the man who didn't realise babies can have wind, that's quite special.

Its quite telling and worrying that evans doesn't respect the judge that vilified his findings in a previous case.
it shows just how much hubris this man has.

He doesn’t respect the Royal Statistical Society either then. Okayyyy….

Thank you

You've posted this summary without comment

Do you think it's a good summing up of the current state of play - and one which you are in general agreement with?

.

@Firefly1987 Why have you posted a laugh to this comment? What is funny about what the parents had been through over the last 10 years?

@Mirabai because your comments are ridiculous, verging on trolling and I can't take them seriously. The parents already have the truth.

Edit-mainly it's just funny you even try to claim this isn't about LL when it so clearly is.

She did the same to my comments. She's disgusting.

You do you know that MNHQ aren't happy with the laughing emoji being used like that?

It's personal 'attack' territory

The parents of Baby D have not stopped investigating Chester's culpability for their child's condition since 2015. It's possible they still believe Letby murdered her and the hospital was negligent. But even if that's the case, they may well welcome the expert views as part of the truth they are seeking.

I'm not the one saying the parents don't have the truth as if it's an undisputed fact. That's just ridiculous to me and worthy of ridicule. It's offensive to the parents. I'm not the one defending a baby killer whilst calling everyone else involved in the trial incompetent/arrogant/evil whatever other terrible things posters have said.

Well I'm sure they'll soon let me know if that's the case. How about claiming the parents don't have the truth, is that not offensive? Lets not worry about what the parents could read on here from rabid Letby fans lets worry I offended some of them with a laughing emoji instead🙄

Yeah if your personal 'attacks' get reported MNHQ will take a view

@Efacsen well it's good to see your priorities are in the right place 🙄

So the expert panel - are they just trolling?

I don’t think is primarily about LL. What has happened to her is a side effect of deaths of the babies. LL has got dragged into it, but it could have been any nurse, and she’s not central to what happened to them.

And the case is so much bigger than that - it indicates a need for institutional reform across the board and a fundamental change in the way medico-legal cases are tried.

The issue highlighted by this case is that disputed medical evidence in a court room setting is the very bluntest of tools in the judiciarys armoury, whether in the criminal or family courts. It means anyone can get caught up in a nightmare of devastating proportions. Any "unexplained" death or injury can be declared a crime based on who you want to believe.

In addition, it can mean underlying conditions, even if identified, can be dismissed as irrelevant - for every solution, there can be a problem, and this can lead to lack of care, or sub-optimal care, if a surviving "victim" is viewed primarily as having been deliberately harmed or abused.

In the family courts, it is reasonable to err on the side of caution to protect a child and put safeguarding measures in place. As a parent while one balks at a false accusation, the use of your child as leverage is compelling reason to co-operate while still defending yourself.Often even that co-operation is fruitless however - your denial is the biggest risk, even when the evidence is solely medical, and disputed, that's if you can find an expert willing to question it - see Wayney Squires and Colin Paterson for examples of what happens when you challenge an orthodoxy cemented in the courts.

In the case of Lucy Letby we have the assertion that she was considered a significant risk after three deaths, yet for months was allowed to continue working with vulnerable babies while bureaucracy impeded the heroic doctors efforts. I don't buy it. Neither did management. On that point alone, every person who "allowed" her to continue her "murderous spree" should be up on charges. Mandatory reporting is a basic. A parent would be flagged and investigated immediately, why not a nurse?

If the poor parents pursue negligence charges on these points, will there be no defence? Settlement out of court? Quiet severance packages?

This can of worms is the biggest headache possibly ever seen in judicial history. We're way past damage control at this point.

It’s not about her.
None of us on here knows her. We have no idea what she’s like as a person, or was like before this living nightmare hit her. We don’t know whether we would have liked her, found her boring, found her annoying.
All the little ‘Lucy Letby fan club’ digs are ludicrous and just show that some posters have not taken in, or understood, what we are saying.

There ARE people out there who are making it about her: a tiny, tiny minority of the posters in Facebook groups about the conviction are weird men with crushes who are putting her on a pedestal and trying to make out she’s a heroine or an angel. These posts get all but ignored and I have never seen ANYTHING like that on Mumsnet.

For people on here and almost everyone everywhere else it’s about the fact that the evidence against her is just very, very weak and what there was has been unraveling at a rate of knots, and we need an NHS and a legal system where the actual causes of death of babies in hospital are investigated and understood and problems aren’t brushed under the carpet by the simple expedient of picking on a random nurse to blame.

Excellent post.

Exactly. This case has highlighted systemic failures at every level - within the NHS, police, CPS, courts, the expert witness system, the appeal system and the media.

I’m not on FB so I’ve not seen weird crush people - but I have seen crazed burn-the-which (sic) across social media including MN.

but I have seen crazed burn-the-which (sic) across social media including MN.

exaclty. The people obsessed with LL’s person are not those who are paying attention to new evidence and analysis in this case about what actually happened to those babies; the LL obsessed are those who - no matter what comes out in terms of evidence - insist she’s an evil baby killer and keep going on about her looks and race (eg the none of this would be happening if she wasn’t white brigade!)

Just read entire disturbing thread

@JandamiHash a quick AS reveals you posted 149 posts on this, you must have spent most of the last day or so on mumsnet!

They didn't say the baby had inherited the mothers condition. They said that antibodies had crossed the placenta.