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

The panel's report says that for baby 9 (baby I) the allegation was that on 15 October 2015 air was injected into her intravenous tubing causing air and embolism and death, but the medical records give date of death as 23 October 2015. And in fact this baby was transferred back from Arrowe Park hospital to COCH on 17 Oct.

I can't post a screenshot for some reason, but it's under CONVICTION on baby 9/I's summary in the panel report.

If you want to discuss errors maybe look at Dewi Evans changing the cause of death of a baby during the trial when he realised that the X-ray he was using as evidence was taken while LL was not even present nor had been present since the baby’s birth.

Please could you post the link? I don’t want to listen to the press conference again. Thank you.

By the way, I don’t think the tinfoil hat wearing accusation was or should be levelled at you. You appear to be dealing with actual evidence and we can have a proper discussion!

@rubbishatballet **

“I also do not believe that the prosecution expert witnesses (including shock horror Dewi Evans!) are stupid people either.”

Who said they were? I don’t think Evans is stupid at all. I think he is quite clever, actually. I just don’t think he is principled, honest, or decent. I think this is so plain and well evidenced now that I feel embarrassed for anyone that still tries to defend him. As to the others, as I’ve said previously they did not do their own full reports, certainly not like Dr Lee’s panel did. Their reports were based on Evans reports, not the evidence itself. They also qualified everything by saying “consistent with” which covers a multitude of possibilities rather than “diagnostic of”. They were not nearly as dogmatic or certain as Evans claimed to be. Why? Exactly because they aren’t stupid.

”I also do not believe that Ben Meyers is stupid, nor are other members of LL’s original defence team”

Again, who said they were?

“I think that there will be a very good reason why they chose the strategy that they did and that it wasn’t just that they miscalculated.”

Of course there’s a reason. Why is your theory, whatever it is, more likely than the everyday banality of a tactical error, as suggested by every serious legal commentator? Beyond the fact, of course, that your theory, based on nothing but vibes, happens to allow you to cling to a guilty narrative in your head, now that you have so little left to cling to.

“I think it is a huge mistake to underestimate all these people”

Again, who is doing this? The only underestimating I see is you trying to poo poo a panel of the best experts in the field.

“however hubris (and in relation to Evans in particular a degree of snobbery) seems to be driving some to do this.”

Snobbery?! I do hope that you are not implying that I, a working class woman, raised in a council estate, the first in my entire family to go to university, a former teenage lone parent, is exhibiting “snobbery” to that extremely middle class imperious Witchfinder? What on earth is it about this man that says “ordinary, down to earth man” to you? Are you quite well? As to Hubris, Evans exhibits it every time he opens his mouth.

“In this thread alone we have a number of armchair neonatologists (not to mention various other specialties) confidently making clinical arguments that I do not believe they are qualified to make, and blithely trashing the opinions of people who do actually have expertise and just perhaps might know things that we don’t.”

Are you talking to yourself in the mirror again?

“This is where the knots are getting tangled, not by those who are standing by the convictions until a proper process might determine they are unsafe.”

If you’re holding off on an opinion and waiting to see, which is a reasonable thing to do, why are you so hell bent on shouting anyone down if they attempt to discuss the case at all? Every thread on this subject has you in there haranguing anyone who expresses doubt. A “proper process” towards overturning miscarriages of justice has always involved public discussion from interested citizens. No one is suggesting we go to Bronzefield today and break her out. Us, British citizens, taking an interest in a matter of justice that deeply affects all of our lives, IS part of the “proper process”. I expect you’re well aware of that, which is exactly why you want to shut it down once it isn’t going your way.

As to the “the three ring media circus” as you call it, I can see why you find it uncomfortable to have so much light and attention on what you’d prefer to not have questioned at all. It has been effective though, at keeping up public pressure, which again is crucial to holding British justice to account. They simply do not act without it. History shows us this. Funny, you had no issue with the three ring media circus of the several preceding years where all we had was headlines screaming EVIL WITCH BABY KILLER!!. Interesting that.

“So in summary, without proper test and challenge of what they are saying nor an opportunity yet for the original experts to respond to their criticism, I am not just going to accept what they say as some sort of slam dunk.”

Nobody is asking you to accept anything. When/if you attempt to dismiss this panel as if they are a bunch of charlatans you are going to meet resistance though.

“And if that makes me a tin foil hat wearer (wtf?) then I guess so be it.”

No. What makes you a tin foil hat wearer is your insistence upon clinging to an increasingly bizarre position against all of the best evidence available to us. It’s the endless twisting, reframing and grasping for arguments of ever diminishing returns and ever decreasing quality no matter what. Just to be clear. That’s exactly what tin foil hatter wearers do.

Thanks @SnakesAndArrows , much appreciated. Although as it turns out it does appear that the accusations of tin foil hat wearing were definitely being levelled at me personally 😂

Here's a link to the report - https://drive.google.com/file/d/1aV4zwwdBYw8ZE-Tpe99-iPR7n8cZdFk/view?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR1Cx1CYNWi9UXPbOgRWY6kT2DUL3Qi5iCznWlT9FOLBT9r4SOaUvLHeb5EaemmqBI7YXtCk0OxnEfxeinq0A

Thanks very much for the source. Yes, looks like a typo. I wouldn't conclude anything else from it, and of course there will be much fuller detail of convictions in the full reports.

I think typo is many many times more likely than McDonald concealing the records for the next eight days!

Sorry, I didn’t think that would particularly hurt your feelings, given that you’ve been more than happy to dismiss others as “conspiracy theorists” for the past 10 months or so.

In case anyone wants a closer look at the clever Dr Evans, transcripts for his testimony on babies A, B, C and N have been uploaded at https://t.co/BNMZGCbK81 (Google drive link)

At the same link you have the statements from two of the prosecution expert witnesses, Kenney and Stavros, who were simply commenting on limited specific features of a small number of cases. They weren't supporting or arguing Evans's case. They were doing their duties as expert witnesses and explaining some technicalities which neither the prosecution nor the defence argued with. They have nothing to be embarrassed about here. They aren't in any way associated with Evans's interpretations of wider evidence.

Ah well, those of us sceptical of the security of Letby’s conviction are not a hive mind🙂. I clearly don’t have the history of these threads and have not formed opinions about everyone.

This is the case with a lot of the experts who testified at the trial. They didn’t explicitly corroborate Evans conjectures at all when you actually look at what they said. They tend to be very diplomatic and equivocal. Stavros Stivaros wasn’t even called to testify. He submitted three short statements and was sure to specify that the clinical opinions weren’t his. Nothing he actually said contradicted the defence either.

FYI anyone trying to read the Thirlwall documents from last night, they’ve been taken down this morning. I noticed that some of the names were not redacted, so it’s probably for that reason. They will likely put them back up again soon.

I totally agree.

It is also strange how McDonald changed his experts from the experts also eminent in December. How many methods and crack at the whip is he going to have.

It does beg the question on juries and medical evidence though as so many experts disagree.

However, on a quick read through last night I noticed that every single one of the other nurses stated that they themselves had no suspicions or concerns about Letby or her practice. This should put to bed to constant claims that “everyone who worked with her had suspicions” but it probably won’t.

Remember that the nurses were there, working very closely together, all day and all night. If anyone was to spot something odd it would be the nurses, by my measure. Not the consultants who were barely present and only showed up for a ward round x2 times per week (something several of the nurses point out also). See this thread for screenshots of every answer to “did you have concerns or suspicions about Lucy Letby”: x.com/mysweetlandlord/status/1891780982199460259?s=46

What you’re missing here is that these are not MacDonald’s experts. He didn’t “change his experts” at all. The international panel recently was assembled, independently, by Dr Lee specifically for the purpose of compiling these reports. This doesn’t mean that there aren’t other experts also taking an interest, or working with the defence.

*Thanks very much for the source. Yes, looks like a typo. I wouldn't conclude anything else from it, and of course there will be much fuller detail of convictions in the full reports.

I think typo is many many times more likely than McDonald concealing the records for the next eight days!*

@Oftenaddled I agree it could quite possibly be a typo, but even if so that's still quite sloppy not to have checked and double-checked all these details given the high stakes and that the aim of the press conference was clearly to generate as much interest and coverage as possible. Not to mention also incredibly important to get all these details right out of basic respect to the babies' families. It was only a summary report so not even that much of a word count to be checked.

But either way this still goes back to my point that until all of this is properly tested then we can't know for sure that it's just a typo, or whether their finding for baby 9/I might have been based on incomplete information about what happened during the last few days of her life.

@rubbishatballet

I agree that a typo isn’t ideal. Does this admirable meticulousness extend to the prosecution, who conducted a many years investigation but still managed to get the door swipe data totally back to front for the entire ten month trial, and to submit into evidence an X-ray that was taken when the suspect had yet to even meet the baby in question, let alone to have assaulted him with a “dollop of air”? To name two of the more egregious errors made there.

But this is not true.

For one example Ailsa Simpson

I don't think she's missing that at all. Just mud flinging.

What I am saying is the other experts disagree with the experts. So that's a problem.

Now who is correct?

It is true though. The answer to the question ”did you have concerns or suspicions about Lucy Letby?” is a big fat no every time. The comment you post is in answer to a different question. I can’t tell you which one now, as they’ve taken the docs down, but below is an link to screenshots of every answer to that question. In addition there are many other revelations about the state of the ward. What you’ve posted here is the closest thing to criticism anyone makes as far as I recall.

And here is the nurse whose texts were used against Letby reclaiming her words. “I did not feel that it was odd that Lucy wanted to go back into Nursery 1…I did not mean to say that Lucy was odd for wanting to go back”

x.com/mysweetlandlord/status/1891780982199460259?s=46

I think the panel of experts would have noticed if the murder case they were examining didn't actually feature a death.

Sometimes a typo is just a typo.

The two press conferences didn't actually disagree on anything. You can think they did if you only read the summary report, but not if you listen to Lee's conference in full.

What you said was this: “It is also strange how McDonald changed his experts from the experts also eminent in December. How many methods and crack at the whip is he going to have.”

It is this that I objected to. He hasn’t “changed his experts”.

I agree that one should take pause if some experts disagree with other experts. That’s what we see between all the experts in the entire world who have commented on this case post reporting ban, vs those in the trial.

We do not see disagreement between Dr Taylor et al and Dr Lee and his panel. They are in agreement from what we have seen. I know you’ll say they aren’t, because Taylor underlined one specific factor in one case more than Dr Lee did, but that’s splitting hairs. They are not in disagreement about anything that happened in the run up to that baby’s death, and the cause of that baby’s death, or any other as far as we are aware.

And this after all the nurses have been told there was evidence Letby was a murderer.