Lucy letby

[bloomingbonkerz]

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

@kkloo trying to ascertain how Lucy harmed and murdered babies isn't a clear cut concrete thing. Mark Mcdonald wanging on about her therapy and getting it wrong is him just bullshitting constantly.

Nowhere near as bad as Dewi Evans wanging on about the causes of death and then changing his mind, now that's constant bullshit.

Are you talking about baby C again. It was literally covered in court and he said he wouldn't be able to rule out any three scenarios and that he'd prefer to defer the matter to the radiologist and pathologist. Doesn't sound like someone desperate to fit her up, just being honest.

That Dewi Evans bloke is truly awful. Creepy, arrogant and with a chip on his shoulder.

It's funny how nobody noticed Mark McDonald's minor slip until the poor old Royal College of Occupational Therapy sent out their statement - but now it is a terrible egregious error. So terrible nobody following the case noticed it - because of course it has no bearing whatsoever on the case.

The problem being that the Court of Appeal then listed a cause of death Evans had championed; Evans responded to the disbelief from neonatologists by telling Channel 5 that he now did not believe in this cause of death; and he then wrote and delivered his new report to Chester Police, explaining to the press that he hadn't realised the child's wind might explain things.

You have to admit he can be his own worst enemy

@Oftenaddled People have been saying for days he got it wrong, but most know to just ignore anything he's spouting anyway.

Funny how you're so quick to point out others mistakes but don't like anyone doing it to MM. Every other post from you is "they made a mistake there, what actually happened was..." anytime it's something that makes LL look bad.

I don't mind admitting Mark McDonald made a mistake here. In the same way, I don't mind that Nick Johnson for the prosecution sometimes got names wrong, or Steven Brearey sometimes got dates wrong etc etc. it just doesn't matter. People (whether I agree with them or not on the big facts about the case) will always make the odd mistake.

You are quite right that I can't be sure nobody else noticed, so thank you for telling me about that. My mistake, I suppose!

@Oftenaddled depends if you believe it was a mistake I suppose...or that he was trying to pull the wool over people, is incompetent, or just doesn't care.

I don't think it's a mistake he or Lucy Letby could benefit from, so I don't think he was pulling the wool over anyone's eyes. I don't think it's incompetent to mix up occupational health and occupational therapy on a single occasion either. So I would say it was a pure mistake.

I think we all knew. Thats why Katherine D B didn't give evidence to say she told her to write the notes. Why LL didn't say this over the 4 years and then all of a sudden it came out afterwards or is that because Ben Myers KC gave a bad defence? I think not.

What possible reason could he, or anyone else, have for “pulling the wool over” and wanting people to think Letby had received OT rather than OH advice? It’s a slip, with no consequence for the case.

That has nothing to do with whether de Berger's role was occupational therapy or occupational health, though. It's not disputed that she offered Lucy Letby counselling sessions.

I don’t think the witch burning crew have ever been very good at telling the difference between material and immaterial things in this case and I am watching their glee over this with amusement.

They aren’t good at sorting the wheat from the chaff, but also it doesn’t matter how clearly, rationally and patiently it’s pointed out that X piece of information isn’t relevant or adds nothing to the picture, they ignore it.
My interest here is based purely on the fact that I live in the UK and am potentially directly impacted by failures in the NHS or justice system. I can clearly see the gaping holes in this case, whilst also accepting that the alternative hypotheses have not yet been legally tested.
What I can’t understand is the motivation to ignore any concerns however valid, and rigorously engage in shouting down and discrediting the people raising them. It beggars belief to me that any sane person still holds a sincere belief that justice has been seen to be done here.

Could not agree more. And to think this is happening against a background of a major review into maternity care in the uk because it is so poor comparatively is in itself astonishing. A poorly performing hospital in a field known to be poorly managed in the uk - and yet the pro-guilty lobby here seem incapable of taking a bigger view.

interestingly I was listening to a podcast about Trupti Patel and her trial for killing her own children which was a terrible injustice - one of the points made was that certain doctors will always go straight to believing murder when a baby dies, usually by the mother. LL seems to be an extension of that.

Is this definitely correct? I thought de Berger was asked by the execs to provide support to Letby through the process but that it was never a therapeutic relationship (and it would have been wholly inappropriate if it was as de Berger was a member of senior management).

And if so, that does make Mark M’s reference to therapy somewhat material as he is keen that we believe she was advised to write down her thoughts on the post-its as part of a therapeutic process. I’m not aware that there is actually any evidence to support this (other than ‘sources close to the case say’ as per the Guardian), and I suspect this is why the Royal College of OTs were so keen to distance themselves.

For one, the post-its mention de Berger by name, more than once I believe.

Yes, it's definitely correct

De Berger described the type of session she had with Lucy Letby as "a meeting that was just about her managing her feelings, her symptoms and talking about coping strategies".

Occupational therapy is a protected term, but most counselling and therapy don't come from occupational therapists, as we see in the UK generally, where counsellors and therapists proliferate and aren't protected designations.

There is really nothing sinister in the use of occupational therapy here, since nobody would expect it to be an occupational therapist offering counselling in this situation. It's an obvious slip of the tongue.

It seems that Lucy Letby waived privilege over defence files back in December, at the request of the CCRC. Perhaps this will reassure people who worried that Mark McDonald might not know enough about her case. Good to see them being transparent (I presume with her permission)

https://ccrc.gov.uk/news/chairs-statement-on-lucy-letby-application-review/

What de Berger describes there is support (which we know she was assigned by the exec team to offer), not therapy. She would not be giving therapy to a member of staff going through a process like this. The trust’s OH or staff welfare providers could have referred Letby to an independent therapist or counsellor, but I’ve not seen any evidence that this happened.

So it’s the use of the word therapy by MM that is dishonest here - the occupational bit is irrelevant. He really wants us to believe that the post-its were part of a therapeutic process, but there was no therapeutic process. And as far as I’m aware de Berger has never said that she advised Letby to write down her feelings as part of her support offer.

Therapy / support / counselling aren't protected terms. Occupational Therapy (which is) isn't relevant. It's an obvious slip of the tongue.

”no way they'd both be wrong just those times” — if you only do two tests, it’s unlikely both are wrong. If you do many tests, it’s not unlikely that a couple are wrong. Same if you retrospectively review many tests.

Have already said that protected terms have nothing to do with her new defence wanting us to believe she was undergoing a therapeutic process and that this explains the notes.

Not everything with clear meaning is a protected term and it is entirely obvious to anyone who is not being wilfully obtuse that management support and therapy/counselling mean very different things.

If the RCoOT want to clarify re their protected term that is their prerogative, but it doesn’t change anything in relation to MM’s dishonesty here. Although It has served to highlight it I guess.

I really can't see someone deciding to say occupational therapy in order to suggest a therapeutic process. Surely people know that's not what occupational therapy is. Sorry, but it seems like an extraordinary stretch for an obvious slip of the tongue.