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 think the CCRC could be tactful and say that the CoA did not have sufficient material to judge the significance of the embolism research. After all, they were looking at proving a negative, that air embolism didn't happen.

They didn't have all of the copious material now supplied to demonstrate alternative and more likely causes of death.

In order for it to be published in the journal it went through a double blind peer review process.
It’s a new article, updating the 1989 literature review with more recent evidence/ cases.

You can’t tell it’s air from an X-ray - it could be any gas.

Other causes of bubbles: sepsis, resus, trauma, uvc, post mortem gas.

Impossible to tell source of gas/air, Lee’s 1989 study warns that post mortem gas can appear as early as 20 mins after death.

It was an active investigation back when they were peacocking all over the place too. Liz Hull is a hack. Plain and simple. Unfortunately she’s the only one you have left 🥲

Neonatology is a specialism within paediatrics. Anyway the pathology reports agreed with Lee’s panel.

It’s silly to keep referring to the court transcripts (where have you read them btw?) given that the whole point is that the trial contained misrepresented evidence and withheld important evidence.

I won’t engage further with you. You are closed minded and entrenched in your view. It beggars belief that any reasonable person would not be open to revisiting the evidence when so much is at stake. You may be happier remaining in your Tattle echo chamber.

Exactly this. The sheer amount of misinformation that is being posted on this thread is crazy.

Have just watched the Redhanded podcast, and fair play to them for accepting that all the new information does demand a review of the case at the very least.

Re the foramen ovale, people who get excited about this online miss the point of Lee's research and remarks.

It is typically closed but not sealed in newborns. Could an air embolism travel from the venous to the arterial system in these circumstances?

The only research we have (Zhou and Lee) says that it has never been seen to do so in any case report. The symptoms of arterial air embolism haven't occurred in their case reports after venous air embolism.

Let's assume it could, however, since that's what people seem to want. What positive symptoms could it produce that would mean we could say, that baby has an arterial air embolism which may have started out as a venous air embolism?

The options are:

Ante-mortem imaging, that is, images taken while the babies were still alive. None of the babies had this.

"Lee's sign": "(pink red blood vessels superimposed on the cyanosed background) is a specific skin discoloration that has only been reported in infants with vascular air embolism and is attributed to direct oxygenation of erythrocytes adjacent to free air in the vascular system, while the tissues continue to be poorly perfused and oxygenated". None of the babies had this either.

It is an astounding example of confirmation bias that people see things like, brownish-purple patches, unusual purpuric mottling, moving pink patches on a blue-grey background and say, that's Lee's sign.

There is just no basis on which to argue that any of these children suffered any type of air embolism, and any theoretical possibility that a venous embolism may have become an arterial air embolism makes not the slightest difference.

People digging away at air embolism possibilities are wasting their time. It was a useful junk diagnosis for Evans. There was very little research on it so he could pretend it had any characterisric he liked. Now there are plausible alternative diagnoses (again). Evans' inability either to understand or to be truthful about the paper has been exposed - I won't judge which. Venous, arterial - whatever. It's dead in the water.

Or to put it more briefly:

Lee is not saying, those children had a rash associated with arterial air embolism but I've proved they don't have arterial air embolism so we must find another cause of death.

He is saying, those children did not have a rash associated with arterial air embolism, which is hardly surprising since there's no evidence they suffered any form of air embolism, so can we please move on from this (his word) distraction.

@PinkTonic

That is what I have literally been doing hence the questions you on the other hand......

I have no doubt whatsoever that Paul Hughes is telling his ride or die “journalist” Liz Hull all sorts, which she repeats mindlessly like a good little PR robot. Paul Hughes is clinging on for dear life, but he will need the CPS to approve any new charges and if you think they are as hell bent on total career annihilation as he seems to be I want to know what you’re smoking. It is clear as day which way this is going now and it’s not the way Cheshire Police would like it to go.

@Oftenaddled not just that, but also the fact that this would have to have happened not just once but in every single baby they allege died via air embolism. It’s absolutely insane.

I really do respect that because there are precious few people willing to admit having got it so wrong. I anticipate the vast majority of those screeching about “baby killer lovers” will just quietly stop talking about it and then, once this is firmly embedded as a UK miscarriage of justice of seismic proportions, they’ll act like they always thought so.

It’s entirely predictable.

That just exposes how desperate they were for "evidence". Every child with an unusual(1) or transient rash was filed under "venous air embolism". The others got the now debunked air through the NG tube.

(1) Unusual meaning, at least one person attending hadn't seen it before: not that it was clinically unusual.

They couldn't even be bothered to work out which baby was which from letters to numbers let alone their sex. Hardly super informed . The swearing, the misinformation, the waffle.

Also find it weird people poo poo Hull and Morutz who has followed all of tbe trail. But not these two.

I do agree with one thing they said. Open justice shouldn't cost 100k gor court transcripts. I know crime scene 2 courtroom boughy some but it should be free.

For those who asked where I read court reporting for baby A.

Read the days around these.

www.chesterstandard.co.uk/news/23063189.recap-lucy-letby-trial-thursday-october-20/

Question for legal people. If Ll was to have a retrial. Could they use evidence from previous trials? For example if she didn't take the stand.

I'm not keen on those two either - agree with you there.

The answer to your question about a retrial is complex. People would normally be expected to take the stand again but there can be exceptions (like if a key witness at the first trial is dead). For the most part, it's conducted like a completely new trial - nobody has to spell out which evidence is new and which was presented before.

I don't think it's that likely Letby would have a retrial. I think it's more likely to be fully settled at Court of Appeal. But it's possible, and here are some details linked with your question. You have to scroll a good way down, so I have pasted the section.

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/retrial-serious-offences

Conduct of the retrial

Section 84(6) provides that evidence which was given orally at the original trial must be given orally at the retrial unless (Archbold 7-270):

• All parties agree; or
• Section 116 of the 2003 Act applies (which provides for permitting hearsay where the witness is unavailable) This is not yet in force but is likely to implemented in April 05; or
• The witness is unavailable to give evidence for a reason othe than that he or she is dead, unfit, unavailable because they are outside the UK, untraceable, or in fear (i.e. otherwise than as mentioned in section 116(2)) and it is in the interests of justice for it to be admissible section 114(1)(d) applies).

Use of depositions: If a deposition was read as evidence at the original trial where the accused was sent for trial under section 51 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 it may not be read as evidence at the retrial in reliance on paragraph 5 of Schedule 3 to the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 section 84(7).

The retrial will hear all the evidence, and the "new and compelling" evidence will not be introduced as such, (although it is clearly likely to stand out as new and compelling evidence in the context of the trial).

A witness may be cross-examined on evidence given by that witness at the original trial, for example if it amounts to a previous inconsistent statement. (Note that the new rules on inconsistent statements mean that the earlier statement will go to the truth of the matter, and not just to the credibility of the witness).

I have already read everything that’s available thanks. More than most. I’m not missing any info. The Chester standard reporting was pretty good. CS2C displays bias. Barely anyone has seen ALL of the transcripts but the truth is that there was misrepresented and faulty evidence presented in the trial and important evidence kept out of it. That fact is central to many of the critics of the prosecution, so it’s pointless to keep referring back to the trial as though it is sacrosanct. It isn’t.

I agree on Red handed. They were never admired by those sceptical of the case though, because they have been virulently pro prosecution from day 1. I’ve always “poo pood” them. However, I do respect the fact that they have the intellectual honesty to admit they were wrong and not to double down into ever more fantastical attempts to avoid facing the obvious.

Judith Moritz is being very very quiet recently. John Sweeney is an old friend of her producer and co-writer John Coffey and word is that Coffey has completely changed his mind post press conference. Moritz will inevitably do the same eventually. Anything less would be an act of self harm. She’s supposed to be a real journalist. Liz Hull is the worst kind of Daily Mail hack. She’ll probably never admit she’s wrong. She will never be a good source on this or anything else.

Moritz and Coffey allegedly revised their book on Letby just before it came out a few months ago, as the visible cracks in the prosecution case widened. I felt that it still followed her biases and misrepresented some points to a degree that was irresponsible.

But I think that they've dodged a bullet. Both their recent Panorama episode and the book stopped short of certainty about Letby's conviction. There was a lot of handwringing about experts disagreeing and not a lot of rigour. But they will certainly be in a position to follow up with a, gosh, our doubts have been justified, sequel.

Moritz does seem to have got very close to the consultants though, and that must be daunting for her now. Still, career wise she'd do well with a long form analysis of how the story grew - and fell apart.

I think Liz Hull is a more straightforward case. The Mail has had Hitchens in Letby's corner for a long time now, with occasion salvos from Nadine Dorries. Hull can stick to the other side. Full market coverage. Hitchens seems to feel strongly on the issue. Hull isn't embracing it outside her role as columnist. Mail gets best of both worlds - burn the witch and expose the scandal.

Question for you @skyfirechesnut did the cross examination of Lucy Letby convince you of anything? If so, what? No judgement, I’m genuinely just interested because you mention it.

The detail of the cross examination in Liz Hull’s podcast had me pulling my hair out before I even decided whether or not I thought she was guilty. It only got worse the closer I looked. I am interested in what people find compelling about it because I am genuinely baffled. I thought it was horrendous. The fact that some found it to be thrilling entertainment (not saying you did) is so sinister to me. The “go commando” thing had absolutely nothing to do with anything. It was straightforward sexual harassment that should not have been allowed. It was literally like a witch trial imo. Only thing missing was the ducking stool.

“Full market coverage. Hitchens seems to feel strongly on the issue. Hull isn't embracing it outside her role as columnist. Mail gets best of both worlds - burn the witch and expose the scandal.”

@Oftenaddled you’re exactly on the money here. It’s a classic DM approach.

I read the Moritz/Coffey book too. I got the feeling that Moritz and Coffey didn’t agree. Both in the panorama and the revised book. Both were a compromise that fell between two stools.

When Moritz and Coffey appeared on (I think) Loose Women after the book came out it seemed clear that Coffey had serious doubts while Moritz was quadrupling down on having “looked in the whites of her eyes” and found her guilty based on behaviour in the stand. That was so foolish of her. Letby had already been in prison for two years on remand as the worst child serial killer in British history in Britain’s worst women’s prison by the time of the trial. She wasn’t convicted yet, but I’ve no doubt the women in there didn’t care about that. It must have been absolute hell. She had been diagnosed with PTSD and was heavily medicated. Moritz expecting her to melodramatically weep and wring her hands and plead her innocence like a heroine in a bad soap opera was pathetic. Of course she was blank and confused. It’s just horrendous. Moritz should be ashamed of herself. She got sucked into the salacious “nurse baby killer” story like a grubby little true crime fan. Coffey wouldn’t even return her eye contact in that interview.

Also find it weird people poo poo Hull and Morutz who has followed all of tbe trail.

Followed the trial, didn’t understand any of the stats or science and fixated on text messages and diary entries (Hull), demeanour in court (Moritz). Result.

Hull’s response to Lee’s conference, in conversation with Ken McDonald, was “it was very technical”. 🥴 In actual fact, it was very straightforward and if she’d got her head around the trial medical data, the conference data should have been easy to follow.

Not personally interested in redhanded.

Same