To agree with the Guardian about the Netflix coverage of the Lucy letby case?

[justwandered]

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2026/feb/04/the-investigation-of-lucy-letby-review-netflix?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other]]

I honestly don’t think I’ve come across a show in such poor taste before and I am no stranger to stories about murder and the like.

It crosses a huge line in terms of stripping individuals of their dignity.

I don’t plan on watching it but when I turned Netflix on the other night to put a TV show on for my children there it was - horrid and completely unnecessary.

But why does it matter where she injected the air? I'm sure Dewi Evans et al who used the paper understood whether it would make any material difference or not and used it anyway. The entire picture points exactly to air embolism.

Um, because whether it's arterial or venous constitutes a material difference in diagnosis, effect, symptoms, treatment, post mortem findings, you know all those important things in both clinical and legal settings. And for the jury to fully understand for the purposes of deliberation.

Unfortunately it's really not good enough for Dewi to just go "air - baby collapsed - baby died" when full life sentences are based on it.

Frankly, your complete dismissal and disregard for the medical evidence as a whole is frightening.

One might assume if you went to the doctor with symptoms worrying you, and the doctor said I'm not sure, but I think it's a full moon tonight, you'd be happy with that. And if you were arrested, despite being innocent, you'd just roll over and say "it's a fair cop guv". And if that's the standard you believe is fair and just in this day and age, I really don't know what to say. Other than it's a sad indictment of the state of the world indeed.

There’s no way she can have injected air into an artery unless the baby had an arterial line in, and that has not been mentioned at all.

What signs do you think point to air embolism?

Unfortunately it's really not good enough for Dewi to just go "air - baby collapsed - baby died" when full life sentences are based on it.

He didn’t just do that though, did he? He wrote a report on the AE cases which cited 18 references, one of which was the Lee & Tanswell paper.

Wasn't this the whole point of the controversy in the first place?

The prosecution alleged that LL had injected air into the baby's veins (via a line already in there) causing air embolism. They noted the appearance (not always described consistently) of a rash and said that was as described in the Shoo Lee/Tanswell paper on air embolism.

Dr Shoo Lee then said that the rash is only seen on air embolism where the air goes into arteries, not veins. That's the crux of the misuse of the paper.

In some of the babies there was evidence of air post mortem, but there can be many different causes for this, including resuscitation.

There are plenty of experts who believe it was an unsafe conviction.
If I were a parent, I wouldn't rejoice if I believed a blameless woman had her freedom curtailed for ever, because of unsafe conviction

I believe under cross examination in court, there was an exchange that rather mirrors my comment.

And it doesn't matter how many things he referenced if one of them lead to a fundamental misunderstanding of air embolism in court.

Dr Shoo Lee then said that the rash is only seen on air embolism where the air goes into arteries, not veins. That's the crux of the misuse of the paper.

So it's just this one small detail that can't prove AE? Yet everything else points exactly to that...and I believe they already dismissed this at the court of appeal?

Here are the details of the ruling and subsequent developments:

• The 2024 Appeal: In April/May 2024, the Court of Appeal rejected an application to overturn Letby's convictions, which included a challenge regarding the interpretation of a 1989 academic paper on air embolisms co-authored by Dr. Shoo Lee.
• Reason for Denial: The appeal judges ruled that the evidence from Dr. Lee did not meet the standards for "fresh evidence" and that the prosecution had not relied solely on his paper to argue their case.

Do you know if Evans’s report is in the public domain?

...and that would be the point people have been making about the appeal court judges also not understanding Dr Shoo Lee when he said you don't get rashes in the case of venous air embolism.

You keep saying that everything else points to intravenous air embolism. What points to air embolism?

So it's just this one small detail that can't prove AE? Yet everything else points exactly to that...and I believe they already dismissed this at the court of appeal?

It's not just a small detail though, it's a major mistake.

I thought I already answered this? You could take AE out of the whole case and she'd still be sitting in jail on multiple life orders.

Please explain.

Evans diagnosed AE for Baby A without knowing about the skin discolouration though, as it wasn’t noted in the medical records but mentioned in a witness statement which wasn’t shared with him. So he clearly didn’t rely on it for that diagnosis at least.

After abandoning the air-in-the-stomach fantasy, Dr Evans told the press that all seven deaths must be due to air embolism, so without the air embolism argument the whole case would fall apart pretty fast

The recent alleged police investigation leaks suggest that this witness statement was in fact shared with Dr Evans - they note that they gave him Dr Jayaram's description of baby A.

Evans's own emails, reproduced in Private Eye last week, say that the diagnosis was obvious "once the Chester medics thought of air embolism".

https://www.private-eye.co.uk/pictures/specialreports/lucy-letby-33.pdf

So the claim that he came up with this independently, while probably impossible to prove definitely either way, is looking quite shaky these days.

https://substack.com/@lawhealthandtech/note/c-17828025

Whatever was going on with Baby A, what is remarked upon in this post is troubling and probably didn't help.

I’ve not seen the full report, just the list of references.

Found it I think - baby C testimony...

Q. What is the evidence you -- I am not asking you to repeat Dr Marnerides' opinion. What's the evidence you rely upon when you tell the jury that the diaphragm was splinted on the 13th? What's the evidence?
A. Baby collapsed, died.
Q. A baby may collapse for any number of reasons. What's the evidence that supports your assertion made today that it's because of air going down the NGT?
A. The baby collapsed and died.
Q. Do you rely upon one image of that?
A. This baby collapsed and died.

Thank you 😊 I tried to find it but came up short. It's one of the most toe curling and arrogant things I've seen from a professional, and had I been the judge, I think I might have intervened at that point.

“alleged police investigation leaks” - that sounds conclusive. And I’m getting a 404 Not Found message for that link.

DE didn't come over well in the YouTube " Botched investigation of LL" recommended up thread, not did the police to be fair. Has anyone else watched it?

https://www.private-eye.co.uk/pictures/special_reports/lucy-letby-33.pdf

try it with the underscore

@Iamateadrinker yes it was very interesting. DE has never come across well in any of the documentaries or interviews he has done in my opinion. It's clear that Brearey and Jayaram had a vendetta against Lucy. Very interesting that they're not in the netflix documentary now they've both been shown to have lied. They're bullies. The sad thing is had Lucy not raised a grievance against them and just left that trust, she wouldn't be in prison now.