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

Do you think Dewi Evans was the only expert witness? He used the research as it was published which apparently not conveniently the original researcher has decided he was wrong about

But you haven’t read ALL the evidence. So how can you know?

I don't see any challenge to what the panel said. She summarises what they said. She summarises what the prosecution said. End of article.

What's her point? I don't get it

I feel like this excellent post should be pinned.

Because the babies Letby killed were all improving. Babies improving on health don’t tend to die in droves

Evans was the only expert witness for the prosecution to write his reports independently. The others worked with him or based on his.

It doesn't speak volumes seeing as now plenty of experts are getting involved and willing to be part of the legal procedures.

I’ve read it. I don’t know what’s so good about it? There’s barely any detail, no attempt to weigh up the evidence, and she hasn’t made any attempt to explain why the challenges to the prosecution’s claim about insulin overdoses should be disregarded.

Well. Poor care of babies is a good starting point. Ward rounds by consultants as little as twice a week. Repeated failures at intubation in one case at least. An attempt at aspiration that punctured a liver. Plenty of other examples of poor care.

Doctors pointing the finger at a nurse. Doctors giving interviews and changing their minds to suit the Lucy Letby is guilty narrative.

I could go on. Police aren't Doctors, they have to trust doctors. They were influenced by doctors.

I deliberately avoided the trial as it happens, due to carefully controlled personal bias and "projection". It was the furore after the verdict that pulled me in. The emotive bullshit , such as the violent liver injury. Resonant as hell to be sure.

You see, you really have to have been in Lucy Letbys shoes to get it. Not that there was death or a criminal trial in my case, but close enough, thanks.

So, take your "projection" and patronise someone else.

This case is unsafe because the medical evidence is easily disputed, and without that, the rest falls apart.

Substandard care misjudges whether or not babies are improving. That's the point

So, what is likely to happen next?

Because if someone's asked you to name the evidence, you're obviously going to name the strongest bits of evidence.

I didn't actually think I had read all the evidence but seeing as I only ever see the same things being said, maybe I have. And I just can't see how that's strong!?

They said they were improving, because they seemed to miss so many obvious signs of deterioration.

@JandamiHash mottled skin is found in sepsis. Tubes do get dislodged. The consultants were poor at putting them in for a start. You've been misled.

the whole point of this is that it could do.
which would point the blame in a whole different direction.

You don't win by saying your experts are better.

You win, when a case has been messed up like this, by having better experts.

These experts then conduct the studies and experiments and investigations you need to prove your case.

I didn’t follow the case too closely, just read some of the court reports in the papers and assumed she was guilty. However, after I watched the 2 hour conference the other day I was absolutely shocked! Shocked that the ‘exoert witnesses’ used to prosecute her were anything but experts. Shocked that the statistical
evidence was so flawed and shocked what a poor representation she had.

The new experts weren’t brought together by her defence - it all started when the doctor who wrote the paper that essentially convicted her heard that his paper had been used in a trial and was interested to find out how. He was horrified when he found out it was a 20 year old paper and how completely wrong and out of date it was. This made him look into it deeper and then, so horrified was he with all the errors he found, he asked other experts to have a look. None of these people had heard of LL before. They had no agenda and they really are the top of their field! Have a look at their credentials.

These doctors then spent months of their own time reviewing every death and each concluded, independently, that every death was either of natural causes or by poor care given by a failing hospital. In fact, one doctor said that if such a hospital existed in Canada it would have been closed down. Even more damning, is that they believe that many of the injuries were caused by consultants’ bad practice. These were babies that needed a lot of care. In Canada, they would be checked on by a consultant three times a day. Here, they were checked on twice a week! Even the machine that they used to measure a chemical produced by natural insulin was a machine that wouldn’t actually read the level in neonates! And that was something that helped convict her.

None of these experts have any agenda. They owe nothing to LL. Do you seriously think that 14 WORLD RENOWNED doctors would put their reputations on the line if what they were saying wasn’t true?

If any of you have spent any time with a baby in UK hospitals you will know how bloody dangerous they are. There aren’t enough staff, there’s poorly qualified staff who don’t speak good English, consultants who think they are god and a culture of covering up mistakes. In fact, since the press conference, 11 nurses have come forward to say that there was bad practice in the unit but they were too scared to speak up.

I gave birth in Shrewsbury hospital during the baby scandal there. That was covered up for many years. It was only one parent of a baby who died who wouldn’t be fobbed off that brought that scandal into the open otherwise we would never have known about that. There were a lot of doctors there who covered their own arses and threw other people under the bus. Have you seen how many babies died here because of substandard care? They weren’t murdered but might as well have been.

I have no idea if she is or isn’t guilty (but I suspect not now) but we should all be horrified at this conviction and how unsafe it is. It makes an absolute mockery of our legal system and changes need to be made.

All this.

There's no comparison between the experts at trial and the experts on that review panel. Different class.

So just add my own theory in to the mix… the trial mentioned a few times that Lucy had a serious crush on the doctor that would come in when the babies would crash… I kind of felt like maybe she was doing things to the babies so that she could see him as she knew he would come if there was a problem with one of the babies and her obsession with him somehow spiralled in to all of this… just my thoughts but I don’t know why this option wasn’t considered more as people can do bat sh*t crazy things when they are obsessed with someone

It's actually not true that any explanation would need to be entirely new and unavailable to the original defence team.

You’ll know then, that in this case the doctors accusing her were threatened with the GMC and dismissal for raising concerns. That at every turn, the hospital had her back, allowed her parents into meetings, forced consultants to apologise, authorised her going to Alder Hey children’s hospital once she was already under investigation and protected her steadfastly, resisting a police investigation for as long as possible. Hardly the actions of an institution trying to throw her to the wolves

I won’t refer to you as a half wit, but I’m assuming in the scenario you’re discussing you hadn’t also written “I killed them on purpose” in relation to dead babies, or kept hundreds of handover notes on said dead babies under your bed or in your garage in boxes marked “keep”, despite multiple house moves and opportunities to get rid of them.
That a pattern of unexplained deaths hadn’t followed you from night shifts to day shifts, stopped whilst you were on holidays.
That you hadn’t looked up families of dead babies (in some cases of which you weren’t even the designated nurse for and had limited involvement in) for years after the events, linking them together in a way nobody else had grouped them yet, as if only you knew what linked those specific babies.
That you didn’t have 40% tube dislodgments on your shift, when the average is less than 1%.
That you weren’t the only nurse on duty for every unexplained death (not every death, but every unexplained death).

Where this panel falls down is the suggestion that only the medical evidence is relevant in this case - this was a jigsaw of evidence, some circumstantial, some medical, which when two seperate juries looked at in the whole, were satisfied beyond reasonable doubt showed she had murdered and intended to murder multiple babies.

That was gossip about one doctor who didn't start working on the ward until the last two babies died. Letby could just have met him for coffee or asked him to come and help her if she wanted to.

No - she’s down to the CCRC, the evidence needs to be entirely new, not just a different interpretation by someone else.

The crush seemed mutual between them.

There was something very off about that whole story because when he got anonymity he said that he was the subject of unrequited affection (which did not appear to be true in any way going by their text messages etc, the fact he'd leave her chocolate, I believe they also went on days out). He also said that his wife had been targeted by her on social media.

Yet none of that was mentioned at the trial which made it seem like he was full of shit. If his wife genuinely had been targeted by Letby on social media then the prosecution would definitely have used that.