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

She wasn’t though, no one was intentionally.

I started out on the fence. I didn’t know whether she was innocent or guilty but it was clear there was no evidence of murder or anything to link the deaths to LL. I knew the stats were bogus and the air embolism and insulin theories were junk science but I didn’t know what was behind it.

But then I read through the transcripts of the trial medical data available online and i realised how poor the care was and how many mistakes were made, and all the information from the RCPCH report became available.

More information has come out from the Thirlwall, which although a massive waste of public money, has been useful in that regard.

So now I am as certain as a lay person can be that there were no murders. Just sick babies and suboptimal care.

It’s a testament to how little acquaintance you have with the case that you think “more” will come out to suddenly prove LL to be a murderer. The tide is going the other way…

Uhm, no.

@Mirabai I assume you're familiar with the police investigation into all of the babies she came into contact with which is what I was referring to. That'll wrap up in a year or two and then there will be no more denying it. Because I'm sure what we already know about her is just the tip of the iceberg. Plenty came out even during the Thirlwall inquiry like the tube dislodgements and morphine overdose, and giving a baby antibiotics that didn't need them. Probably more that I've forgotten. I'll bet no other nurse has those sorts of "mistakes" to that extent on their records. Once your "experts" have had their 15 mins of fame sanity will prevail.

@Firefly1987Sorry, I can’t be bothered to continue with discussion at this level, you’ll find out soon enough.

@Mirabai fair enough, at the end of the day this is about those babies and their families and I'd love nothing more than for it to come out there were no murders. Because what she is alleged to have done doesn't even bear thinking about. I just don't see it happening so we'll have to agree to disagree and time will tell.

That shows the risk of generalising from such limited data.

It's estimated that there are 237 million medication errors on the NHS in England every year. Two errors in a six year career for Lucy Letby is not suspicious at all.

Did you read my explanation for why that claim about tubes is nonsensical and seems to have been dropped from the Thirlwall Enquiry last time you posted on it further upthread?

Not typing all that out again!

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/5273184-lucy-letby-why-do-some-people-only-read-headlines?reply=142122531&utm_campaign=reply&utm_medium=share

Fixed link:

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/5273184-lucy-letby-why-do-some-people-only-read-headlines?reply=142122531

Yes I’m sure. On AIBU or anywhere else. What’s your point?

www.barcouncilethics.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Media-Comment.pdf

What’s your point in posting this?

It could be against standards and if another trial it could be seen to prejudice it.
It could also be an ethical breach.

We can't undermine the legal system.

It could also set a presidence for others to claim they didn't have expert witnesses. Have two different strategies. One where no expert witnesses were called ( can only speculate as to why) and another where they do. See which is best. It leaves it open to exploitation.

What could be against standards?

You cannot get a better set of doctors that are internationally recognised and most importantly reserch based and peer reviewed that have come together and said there is no evidence of any murders - who have not been paid or commissioned by either side. If you guys don’t believe them, there is NOTHING on this planet that can persuade you. The odd add hoc doctor from the prosecution fails into insignificance plus so much of the medical testimony in the enquiry is from doctors and medical staff who are completely bias because if she didn’t do it, it comes down to medical malpractice. Putting the very same medical team giving evidence, in the hot seat for their own malpractice. Mmmm sounds fair and unbiased to me….

watch the judgment get overturned. it will, and it will go down as one of the greatest injustices of modern times.

I followed the trials closely. There was zero evidence of murder and for whatever reason her legal team didn’t use the contrary evidence that existed. I’m not a criminal barrister but even I was shouting cross-exam questions to the sky that could have and should have been asked og witnesses. Her new lawyer is putting forward contrary medical evidence from highly respected doctors and medical experts to show that those poor babies died of natural causes or poor care.

The judgment will be overturned. And rightly so.

And all the issues at that hospital - understaffing, poor hygiene, poor care (two ward rounds a week on a preemie ward?!), caring for babies they weren’t qualified to look after, toxic management - will then be properly scrutinised.

It’s not the staff’s fault, it’s the system. But it wasn’t Lucy letby’s.

I do not think there isno convincing medical evidence of murder, is there albeit circumstantial evidence of guilt? It is very unusual for a health professional to be accused of murder by colleagues.

I think some of it was the consultants fault. Whatever happens they should be held accountable.

watch the judgment get overturned. it will, and it will go down as one of the greatest injustices of modern times.
I followed the trials closely. There was zero evidence of murder and for whatever reason her legal team didn’t use the contrary evidence that existed.

exactly this. I was another one who could clearly see from the start that this case made zero sense.

Agree

If it did go to appeal and these experts were cross examined and it was decided that she was innocent of course I would accept it.

It is like people forgot the trial happened with a wealth of info and with at least six experts that didn't work there.

They could find more experts that agree with the prosecution. This is why it needs cross examination and a full report. Not just a flashy PowerPoint.

I am completely speculating here, but I’d bet that the desperation of the consultants in this case might well be due to the hospital’s unrealistic expectations of them/their departments and general difficulties in the NHS going beyond their control- ie which patients are admitted, maintenance and cleanliness etc.

they scapegoated Lucy letby, but I don’t think scapegoating them in turn will right that wrong. who is responsible must be properly investigated and judgement reserved til then.

The defence put on no expert to challenge the prosecution’s experts. They did not cross examine the medical evidence effectively or convincingly.
Evidence of the systemic failings of the hospital were withheld from the jury by the judge.
Why is it that you seem to think that the justice system is infallible? It isn’t! It’s particularly inept at dealing with cases that involve complex scientific evidence/ expert testimony. The jury are essentially reliant on the testimony of the experts put before them. That was only done by one side.

Actually they might not be able to find more experts for the prosecution. It remains to be seen, but there certainly aren’t hordes of new experts popping up to chip in about how Evans was right. Everything I have seen that has been published criticising the press conference has been at the non expert level saying it might not prove to be right, not at expert level saying exactly how it’s not. Phil Hammond who was covering the case for Private Eye has also noted that he’s put out a call for experts to come forward and tell him why he’s wrong, and so far nobody has.

One barrister I have seen commenting on the case has said he thinks the most likely thing is that the prosecution will offer no evidence at a new trial.

I don’t think it’s unreasonable to want to see a cross examination and picking apart of the expert report, but if the case collapses without it I wonder if people will be more or less likely to have their minds changed.

Yes.
I mean I very much doubt they only did two weekly ward rounds because they were playing golf the rest of the time, it will be because there was quite simply more being asked of them than they could do in the time.
What to do in that situation is a difficult moral and professional conundrum, and they made the wrong call. It’s easy to say in retrospect the hospital should have stopped taking sick babies sooner, but they might have had good reasons for thinking the community was better served by having the facility there than not.

I am up for scapegoating Dewi Evans though, I think he is a disgrace.

But the literal whole prosecution was on the failings at the hospital hence the plumber. So what you are saying is simply not true.

However can't also blindly believe a PowerPoint without seeing the report and it being peer reviewed.

Then I may agree with you. As it stands I don't.