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

Such a stupid strategy though- how could it possibly be better to put no one at all?!

Yes I’ve heard it. They did a previous Letby related one that was night and day different. It’s clear that they take the expert panel very seriously, as they should. Ken MacDonald was the head of the DPP previously.

Just thought it was interesting from a legal point of view.

Well I agree but this is what legal experts have suggested, so it must make some sense to them. Apparently there’s some issue where it is difficult, if not impossible, to have expert evidence thrown out if you have presented opposing evidence yourself. It may be that Myers intended to simply have it thrown out (which he did try to do). I have to say that my regard and faith in the legal system across the board has been massively undermined by this case though, so who knows. Given that we know for a fact that the medical evidence wasn’t just flawed, it was total trash - fantasies and lies - what other reason besides a tactical mistake could there be?

Imagine if they tied Hall up in knots on the stand and could quote him saying, yes, I agree that Lucy Letby may have killed baby A by injecting air ... yes, I agree that somebody must have poisoned those children with insulin and it would have been possible for Letby to do it ... no, I can't explain why baby D had that rash and it is possible there was air embolism ... no, I can't explain why baby I got better at other hospitals ...

His statements would have been evidence. Myers did use his expertise, but he used it himself to try and poke holes in the prosecution case.

They really know their stuff in terms of the letter of the law and the somewhat arcane minutiae of that, but they make a lot of mistakes with the facts of the case outside of that. I appreciate that they aren’t trying to deny the status of Dr Lee’s expert panel though. It’s just ridiculous that anyone tries to do that. It’s straight up misinformation. Luckily no one serious does - including MacDonald and Rozenberg.

I’m pretty sure Christopher Snowden (legitimately an idiot) and Liz Hull (a sinister daily mail hack) are the only two left with any sort of platform still attempting to make that argument. Susan Oliver (a rather pathetic unemployed PhD holder/youtuber who tries to present herself as a Dr/medical expert when she isn’t) is another one, but nobody with any sense listens to her.

The latest one I guess. Their forte is the legal aspects and their comments on that are instructive. However, McDonald and his mate overestimate the strength of the prosecution position imo - still taking dubious aspects of prosecution case at face value (rather odd for experienced lawyers) and unfortunately still rather misunderstanding key flaws with the statistical and scientific evidence.

And a certain Dewi Evans, of course:

"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

... 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."

He has still to point out any errors in their analysis, though - he just knows they are wrong already.

Apparently there’s some issue where it is difficult, if not impossible, to have expert evidence thrown out if you have presented opposing evidence yourself. It may be that Myers intended to simply have it thrown out (which he did try to do).

I've heard this suggestion too. That one I suppose makes a little more sense. Either way, agree, it was a terrible error.

Yes - Myers was arguing that there wasn't sufficient knowledge of how premature neonates react to air embolism to have the discussion. Until Lee's second cohort was studied, he was correct - arguably still is. I don't know if he tried to make the same argument for air in NG tubes but he certainly could have. He could also have pointed out that unexpected deaths and collapses aren't analysed, statistically, for cohorts under 34 weeks.

In other words, Evans & co were just winging it.

This episode of DJ is much better than the previous for obvious reasons, but Rozenberg still takes as fact a bunch of prosecution assertions that were no more solid than the medical evidence and manages to get actual facts wrong. To his credit MacDonald understands that if there is no evidence of murder nothing else matters. MacDonald doesn’t appear to share Rozenberg’s confidence that the prosecution will fight all the way. I’m sure the lawyers will do what they can, as engaged and instructed. Cheshire Police appear to be headed by a maniacal (and narcissistic) tinpot dictator who is also clearly not a smart man, so who knows how far they’d go, but I can’t see the CPS going all the way down with a ship that is as obviously sinking as this one.

Yes, I mean “independent” commentators. Dewi Evans is legitimately unhinged imo. He’s a very very odd man. I’ve genuinely wondered whether he might have dementia or something. There’s something extremely off about him and he cannot seem to keep his mouth shut no matter how many times he says “I’m not talking to the press anymore” he always, always has to sound off again. Massive hubris and a total lack of self awareness.

Dewi Evans is legitimately unhinged imo

Whatever the rest of the facts are, this is completely spot on.

One of the many pieces of poor judgement by the police and legal profession in this case is when Lord Justice Jackson wrote to Mr Justice Goss to warn him about Evans’ unreliability and tendency to go beyond his expertise, and Goss chose to ignore him.

My assumption is that he knows perfectly well his murder methods don't stand up but is convinced by those statistics and the opinions of his respected peers the Chester consultants that Letby is a murderer.

So he feels justified in blustering his way through, especially since Goss did nothing to rebuke him even when this was obvious.

I wonder what sort of trail of tears he has left from his work in the Family Courts?

Cheshire Police appear to be headed by a maniacal (and narcissistic) tinpot dictator who is also clearly not a smart man

Just wondering why you say this? I haven't heard much about it so I'm curious.

Have a look on Google using the search terms Dewi Evans, Linda Lewis and Bonnie. One particular eye opening case from the Family Courts.

Of course the Family Courts are secret, so official sources are scant but some documents have been publicised.

The Family Courts are a real No Mans Land for cases with contentious medical evidence. Very few people will believe parents who claim they have been falsely accused of child abuse by doctors, and of course the fear is that child abusers won't be stopped and it's better to err on the side of caution. The lesser of two evils as it were.

Even if such a case makes it to criminal court and the parents are judged not to have done whatever they've been accused of, the family court can disagree on the balance of probabilities and may still lose their children.

The Webster case is a good example of what can happen when medical dogma is entrenched - one child had metaphyseal fractures, all their children were removed and adopted. By the time they were exonerated, the courts ruled it was not in their best interests to be returned.

Losing your children like that is as much a life sentence as prison IMHO.

So as someone who has met previous LL could be innocent threads with scepticism I did watch the whole press conference and it is very compelling. They conducted their investigation in a very fair and thorough manner and it absolutely undermines the expert witness of the prosecution. One of the most compelling pieces of evidence for me was the chart showing that LL was on shift for all suspicious deaths. However, it now seems that the suspicious deaths were determined to coincide with LL's shifts. Including one death Dewi Evans initially deemed suspicious but later switched. LL was not on shift for that death.

Also completely flabbergasted by the amount of malpractice that was not mentioned in papers. At least two of the babies had IVs put into their muscles rather than their veins, delaying vital medication. I had never read this anywhere before. The consultants on the ward have been absolutely eviscerated and it seems their incompetence may have contributed to the deaths. LL's behavior and actions were defitniely odd but if the experts are correct her strangeness is irrelevant.

For anyone who hasn't watched it yet, it's definitely an eye opener.

At least two of the babies had IVs put into their muscles rather than their veins, delaying vital medication

Is this a nursing error or do doctors do the ivs for premature babies?

Either way it's not a deliberate attempt to harm.

Doctors it seems from reading about baby A

When you dismiss all the facts and tie yourselves in knots to explain away all the evidence it really does look like you're sticking up for her. You have outlandish answers to everything. The only thing that isn't disputed is the morphine overdose and that's because there was a senior nurse you can blame that on! Even though it was Lucy's mistake. Are we not seeing a pattern of every single person involved in this case from the doctors to the police being incompetent but Lucy? That's four methods of killing at least now-air, overfeeding, insulin, morphine-but they're all wrong apparently.

And you're not morally superior with your apparent quest for "the truth" acting like the families don't know a whole hell of a lot more than any mumsnetter about what happened to their babies. Conspiracy theorists will never believe the truth.

But the air embolisms are now demonstrably false.and the author of the scientific paper used to deem them deaths via air embolisms has stated this. The babies were believed to have been injected with air into their veins however there is no link between intravenous air embolisms and skin discolouration.

Also the insulin in the systems is explained by the medication being administered incorrectly the IV was inserted into soft tissue rather than a vein. In one case it was unnoticed for 10 hours!

I am not a conspiracy theorist in anyway and until a few days ago was firmly in the LL is guilty camp. But these medical experts are basically the worlds leading experts in neonatal care they have hundreds published hundreds of peer reviewed papers between them. The sole medical expert from the prosecution hasn't got one.

If you are not even prepared to listen to their findings, you are in no position to criticise others for dismissing facts.

The medical evidence has never been plausible.

The statistical evidence has never been persuasive.

There has never been any eyewitness evidence of Letby harming a child.

The remaining "evidence" is irrelevant to the charges.

The fact that people dismiss all of this evidence is not evidence that they are sticking up for her. It's the reason they are sticking up for her!

Are we not seeing a pattern of every single person involved in this case from the doctors to the police being incompetent but Lucy? That's four methods of killing at least now-air, overfeeding, insulin, morphine-but they're all wrong apparently.

Air - no evidence. Overfeeding - unknown to science, no evidence. Insulin - flawed evidence which never pointed to Letby, now discredited. Morphine - no claim she killed anyone with morphine.

Incompetence - that's a bit unfair to the doctors Letby worked with. The evidence is that some, not necessarily all, were working outside their specialism and above their level of competence. Police - hard to know how much to blame them for relying on Evans.

Plenty of competent people involved as far as I can see but moderate voices are sometimes drowned out.

I’ve not followed this case particularly closely but listen to the redhanded podcast religiously and the latest episode covered this. I’d previously thought all the talk about possible innocence was definitely a load of rubbish, that she’d had a long and thorough trial etc etc but now I’m not so certain after hearing the press conference details all laid out like that. I honestly don’t know what to think now.