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.

I don't want to overstate things, @rubbishatballet . An alleged police link is what we have. If it's a fake it has captured even the minor voices in this debacle beautifully, while giving troubling if not conclusive indications around the police investigation. So I wouldn't like to overstate things, but it is online for anyone who wants to look at it

https://nitter.net/JabesAllowed/status/2003923238909542521

As I said, I doubt that the question of who thought of what when is something you could prove either way - but I certainly wouldn't take Dr Evans's assertion as gospel

Evans released this section at one point to back up his claim that he didn't rely solely on Lee, but of course that is not to say that his claim about the distinctive rash didn't rely on Lee. But that's why Zhou and Lee have reviewed all reported cases since, to ensure that they can stand by the claim that "Lee's sign" has been noted only in cases of arterial embolism in infants.

I realise that you are just supplying the available material, but a list of references really doesn't alter the situation as Evans must know

Ha so true. And that poster dismisses anything that isn't "proven" in their eyes yet is giving out dodgy links as long as they make the police or anyone involved in bringing LL to justice look bad.

You're objecting to my stating that the source is alleged but not proven? Why?

Maybe read this article. Not Dewi Evans this time.

A line of gas in front of the spine was a "striking" finding on a post-mortem X-ray of a baby allegedly murdered by nurse Lucy Letby, her trial has heard.

Paediatric radiologist Dr Owen Arthurs told Manchester Crown Court that its appearance was "consistent with, but not diagnostic of, air administration".
It is alleged Ms Letby injected air into the bloodstream of the baby at the Countess of Chester Hospital in 2015.

Jurors were told that Dr Arthurs, professor of radiology at London's Great Ormond Street Hospital, had been instructed to review X-rays taken of the baby, known as Child D, when alive and after death, as well as other babies in the investigation.
Dr Arthurs said the amount of gas present in Child D's X-rays was consistent with babies that had died of sepsis, complications with a breathing support system, a severe trauma such as a road traffic collision or the direct administration of air into the body.
Dr Arthurs said he had never come across a child dying in such circumstances where there was no such explanation.

He told jurors the most plausible conclusion was, in the absence of any other explanation, "external intravenous air administration".
Dr Arthurs added that he knew of only two other babies dying in similar circumstances, both of whom also form part of this case.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-63599076

The panel explains this as air embolism during resuscitation:

"We know these babies suffered air embolism because of the post-mortem imaging in some of them," says Neena Modi, a professor of neonatal medicine.

She believes this is highly likely to have occurred during resuscitation, and that there are much more plausible explanations for the collapses and deaths of the babies in the Letby case than air embolism.

You can't demonstrate that air embolism happened during life from a postmortem image.

https://lawhealthandtech.substack.com/p/ll-part-8-the-death-of-child-d

Worth a read.

You know more than a radiologist do you?

I think Neena Modi probably does.

I know what "consistent with, not diagnostic of" means, just like he does.

Well she said the babies had air embolism, so she's almost got it!

People might find this account and discussion of Dr Arthur's evidence on air at post mortem interesting. It was condensed to the point of over-simplification in media reports. His testimony was (as befits an expert witness) quite neutral.

https://www.reddit.com/r/LucyLetbyTrials/comments/1ny68z5/how_flawed_medical_logic_from_owen_arthurs/

Have you actually read and understood what you quoted?

Arthurs said He told jurors the most plausible conclusion was, in the absence of any other explanation, "external intravenous air administration".

He also said …the amount of gas present in Child D's X-rays was consistent with babies that had died of sepsis, complications with a breathing support system… which is consistent with other observations and Neena Modi’s statement.

@EyeLevelStick yes. If they had any other explanations for the deaths/collapses they would likely not have had someone on trial for multiple murders in the first place would they 🙄what has happened to these babies on this one unit that a very experienced radiologist is saying 'he knew of only two other babies dying in similar circumstances, both of whom also form part of this case.'
They didn't have sepsis or complications with breathing support, so that only leaves AE doesn't it.

They did have breathing complications.

Arthurs isn't saying these are the only reasons for air at postmortem though. He explained that these were the reasons for air found in a sample of babies from his hospital alone. Reporting on his evidence is oversimplified.

Were there complications with their breathing support system? Lots of premature babies need a bit of breathing help-do they all collapse with symptoms consistent with AE?

Yes, collapsing with respiratory difficulties followed by attempted resuscitation could certainly give the collection of symptoms consistent with AE that Evans identified. Which of the symptoms you have listed would you not expect to see in this case?

Copied from the blog I linked to earlier:

Dr Rylance on cross examination admitted that it was clear Child D had begun to deteriorate when she was taken off CPAP, which suggests that had Child D either been left on CPAP, or had staff reacted swiftly and appropriately to resume CPAP, Child D might still be alive. Nurse Oakley admitted under cross examination that there were very clear signs that Child D was unwell, even as she disputed whether Child D was really an ‘intensive care baby’ or not.

Somewhat suggests this baby had unresolved breathing difficulties, no?

Why was it only happening in this one unit in the entire country then?

Maybe other units were better run, cleaner, had consultants doing rounds every day who weren't obsessed with a serial killer nurse being at large and arse covering at every turn? Just a thought.

If you looked at the children's original natural causes of death as noted at postmortem or by hospital report, was anything happening that wasn't happening at other hospitals?

Chester had a spike in deaths, but this wasn't unique - it fell into the category of ordinary poor performing unit rather than outlier: https://archive.is/S13QQ (and also David Spiegelhalter's evidence at Thirlwall)

Chester's problems weren't universal, though. Dr Neil Aiton, one of the first experts to speak about this case in the media after the trial, hypothesised that the team at Chester performed badly at resuscitations, without realising they had this key weakness, and the information that has emerged since the trial has tended to back this up.

Have you forgotten the RAW SEWAGE dripping through the ceiling at CoC ? the lack of rounds by DRs ? The lack of any evidence ?

Sherwood Forest had a higher spike than CoC - actually look at the link provided by Oftenaddled.

Writing in The Telegraph, Prof O’Quigley said: “There was in fact no evidence of anything extraordinary having taken place and that the belief in an inexplicable spike is based on an elementary, and very common statistical misconception.
“The inexplicable spike is in fact perfectly explicable.”

You'll never accept it was deliberate air embolism by Lucy Letby, which is fine. But everyone else knows the evidence points directly to that-and she's never getting out.

An awful lot of people don't seem to be with you in that "everyone else" category