Lucy letby

[bloomingbonkerz]

Do you think she did it ? Watched the documentary and I’m not sure she should have been convicted

Actually the only way they agreed to look at the evidence was whatever the outcome either good or bad for Lucy the result was to be made public. So what you are saying is a panel of world known experts are all lying but Dr Evan’s who has been caught lying previously ( taking children off parents for abuse) is not lying? Is that what you are saying? Yes it’s about him his reputation his paper used incorrectly to imprison someone.

Really, can you give any examples, not in my career did we use a code.

The man who boasted about how much money he made from his consultancy as an expert witness to keep his children in cars and ponies? And who inserted himself into this case at the start because he said with a smirk its "my kind of case", and boasts about how many he has "won" when this is not the what the role of an expert is supposed to be for. And who is not a specialist in neonatology but dismissed a panel of the best experts in the world and doubled down after misapplying findings from a paper one of them wrote?

The experts did not get lucrative contracts with the police. They made it clear they would report findings if they thought she was guilty. They are already world experts in their field and did not need the publicity.

Its hard to believe anyone cant see the difference.

Based on his past behaviour yes absolutely.
You can’t not know that a judge who had bad experiences with him before wrote to Judge Goss warning him.
Evans isn’t a scholar (no peer reviewed papers to his name) so I wouldn’t expect academic integrity to be one of his values. I would have hoped objectivity would be one, and also rigour, as a professional expert witness, but that is precisely what he was previously found to have lacked.

He has changed his mind on a method of murder that the prosecution said was LL’s favourite way of killing. He now says it isn’t a method of murder and no babies died of it. But it doesn’t matter because she definitely did it somehow and who cares! You can’t not know this, you’re on every thread.

This might get you to see what went before with Dr Evan’s this report was dated 2015 it was a case about non accidental injury to children. It is publicly available only copied the bit I felt relevant.

By the time he came to give his oral evidence Dr Evans had been shown
photographs of the ear taken on 20 and 21 September. On that basis he shifted his
opinion and moved away from agreeing that they were non-accidental.
[15] In his judgment the trial judge was critical of Dr Evans, suggesting that his
evidence should have been more considered and structured than in fact it was. I
accept that there is some justification for that criticism but, however frustrating
changes in opinions are, this is a case in which both experts were clearly unsure
about expressing an opinion about whether the injuries were non-accidental but
both did so because they had been asked to and were expected to do so. That
approach is entirely wrong and must be avoided in future. It is definitively not the
role of expert witnesses to tell the court whether they believe injuries are accidental
or non-accidental. That is especially so in cases such as the present and lawyers
should be far more alert to avoid drafting letters of instruction to doctors inviting
them to express their opinion on that issue.

sounds familiar changing his mind, giving an opinion that is not required of an expert witness.

I'v read the code is 'pleasant lady/gentleman', means normal and easy patient to deal with, and then I believe there are words that suggest this patient might be a bit of a nightmare, such as 'informed', it might not be that exact word but I think it's along those lines.

QUICK! Report him to the Bar Standards Association! Cancel the CCRC application! Stand down Shoo Lee and the dozens of willing experts!

Someone has mixed up occupational health and occupational therapy on a Netflix documentary!!!

(Hope he's never accused of murder. Obviously he'd have no possible defence)

Yes and people have provided reasons for that, so what reasons do you have for saying Shoo Lee would never in a million years have been prepared to say they found harm if they did?

Is it because she's white and blonde 🙄 or do you have any valid reasons that have a bit of depth to them?

If you're giving that a 'well well well', then all I can say is well well well that's a fairly desperate attempt at point scoring 😅

They’ll still be talking about it months from now.

Thank you for seeing this knowledgeable lady…

Really, I didn't think doctors still used these patronising terms and I didn't ever consider them to be codes, some patients are very knowledgeable but that doesn't mean they are difficult or a nightmare.

Knowledgeable 😅

Amazing how people expect perfection from MM, on the other hand you have the police in the documentary acting like it was their first day 'She could answer some questions and not other ones.......highly suspicious' 🤓

I agree.
I had ‘pleasant’ on a referral letter and I couldn’t see why it was relevant; surely the treatment would be the same even if I was rude?
I don’t really want the doctor to judge me on my personality even if I pass with flying colours.
Codes about objective and relevant things would be fine.

If she wasn't a pretty young woman there'd be no doubt she was guilty

Shock horror women can be guilty of heinous crimes too

I was just joking really. I hope it’s only dinosaurs still doing it these days but it did used to be a thing.

Dinosaurs is just as bad

Yes, I've always assumed they would know by now how suspicious people would get!

Miscarriages of justice happen to all sorts, not just presentable young women.

RTFT

Shock horror miscarriages of justice happen to people of all sexes, ages, attractiveness levels

That's interesting because initially everyone just went with what they read in the papers etc and assumed guilt, the same pics were being shown of her.

So how does that fit into your theory then?

It's hardly expecting perfection to think he'd be able to get the basic facts right. Makes you wonder how much you can trust anything he says (but then I already knew you couldn't)

Again, it would be amazing if you held people on the other side to the same standard. But then if they been more professional I don't think there ever would have been a trial in the first place.