Lucy Letby case expert witness was under fitness to practise investigation

[ITMA2000]

Wow! Pot, kettle, black? Need a new investigation?
Lucy Letby case expert witness was under fitness to practise investigation during trial | Lucy Letby | The Guardian

I don't think it would have been possible for anyone to cause a child's lung to collapse. You'll notice that for the two children who had lung collapses on the conviction sheet, Evans and Bohin considered them naturally occurring even though they happened at the time when they were hypothesising other harm by Lucy Letby.

That interview is a good example of judging by appearances (blank expression) and confirmation bias (the male host says the interaction described was the same as the interaction with - presumably - the mother of baby E, but what he described wasn't the same as what that mother described). As has happened in other cases, the father thinks, rather than knowing, that the nurse who advised him to go home and get some rest was Lucy Letby.

This case will have been examined since the trial. With the parents willing to come forward as witnesses I'm sure it was considered closely. But if the collapse was clearly from natural causes, it could not be pursued.

That's right, but Lucy Letby also referred to Dr B being anxious and going out and smoking during baby P's resuscitation. She and the registrar also took 40 minutes to get to cotside when baby O collapsed instead of the 5 minutes they were supposed to respond in during the day.

Yes I just looked. There was definitely something about a doctor who kept going outside to smoke; I remember reading it and being really shocked

ETA cross posted with @Oftenaddled

I find it fascinating that that’s your take on people who are discussing the factual - with an emphasis on the statistical elements - evidence presented in a legal trial.

We keep reverting back to this when you’re making emotionally based statements such as statisticians being ‘big mad’ and talking about ‘fans’ and ‘armies.’

None of us know whether she’s guilty or not. I actually lean more to hoping she is, given what the families have been through already and what she will have been through if she’s not. This discussion is about the evidence presented at trial and where issues might lie.

The police seem to have dismissed them too.
I am guessing that this wasn't one of the babies in the second file the police sent to the CPS or these parents might have done another interview.
Perhaps it was the same staff looking after their baby who had been involved in the care of Baby Noah in early 2014 following a catalogue of blunders, staff shortages meaning blood tests and xrays weren't assessed for 7 hours, one doctor splitting his time between the neonatal ward and the childrens ward and who died after a breathing tube was put into his gullet when it should have gone into his trachea. They also ignored warning signs from xrays and other equipment thinking it was faulty.

@kkloo is any of that relevant to the incident this mum said happened with Lucy Letby? Can people not focus on that without going off about hospital neglect and what some other nurse or doctor did (by accident) just to avoid talking about the very concerning circumstantial evidence. Caught in the act (as much as a nurse can be) and the pro-letby side claim there were no witnesses...and to be fair it'd look exactly the same on CCTV which people claim would've solved this case. No one would be able to tell what she did and there will always be some who claim it was a mere coincidence alarms started sounding right after LL was hovering over a baby-and then she took off 🙄because that's not sus at all!

Caught in what act?

Yes it's extremely relevant.
The hospital had a history and pattern of ignoring obvious issues with the babies.

You want to ignore the fact that even the coroner in that case was stunned by this, and yet in the couple of years that followed they hadn't learned from it and were still ignoring the obvious when things were going wrong.

And you think instead that we should just focus on the fact that LL was there?

Well when you can't respond with a rational or logical argument the only option is just go for emotive, low blows, such as trying to make out people love a baby killer.

It's so lazy and childish.

I think also there’s an element of some of us being aware of our own knowledge boundaries and limitations and some of us not…

All they focus on is facts. They ignore all witness testimony and anything else that paints her in a bad light (such as her hovering over a babies cot, sees mum then takes off and moments later alarms are blaring) it must be the hospital or some other mystery persons fault not the person hovering over the babies cot moments before🙄it's just insane to me that they can't see it. Assuming they watched the video, which they probably didn't.

The pro-letby camp did the same with baby E's mum, the only thing they could contest was the time zone so that's what they focus on. It's almost considered fact it was the wrong time zone now. And ignored the mum's testimony completely. I swear it's just an exercise in how well they can argue science or stats for some. Which I have no issue with, but they should just admit they ignore all the rest of the evidence and therefore have no idea if she's guilty or not.

I think also there’s an element of some of us being aware of our own knowledge boundaries and limitations and some of us not…

I'm actually very aware I'm not the brightest person in the room when it comes to science, stats, medical evidence etc. though it does give me a bit of a boost knowing I'm more switched on than all these geniuses when it comes to recognising her guilt. I think you should direct your limitations theory to the self-professed experts that think they know more than the doctors who lived this.

How on earth are you saying 'all they focus on is facts' as if that's a bad thing?
That's literally how the justice system is supposed to work, it's not meant to be just based off hunches and weak evidence that doesn't actually prove anything.

As for baby E's mums testimony, the testimony from the other staff members show that baby Es mum couldn't have been right about the time, unless everyone else there independently got the time wrong. I believe the hospital notes also show that baby E's mum got the time wrong, but someone else may remember all the details exactly.

You'll enjoy this one @Firefly1987

Shaun Edwards, current Head of Investigations at the CCRC, publicly praised Paul Hughes and Hummingbird in November 2024

https://www.reddit.com/r/LucyLetbyTrials/comments/1s1s7i3/shaun_edwards_current_head_of_investigations_at/

Is Lucy Letby hovering over a babies crib who then goes on to collapse moments later with alarms blaring suspicious or not? Whilst Lucy says nothing at all to mum, just scarpers never to return? Just a yes or no will do.

No. And as I said the police don't seem to think it was either.

The baby had pneumonia and COCH was a terrible hospital providing substandard care.

I believe this type of testimony was used by the prosecution to argue timing and opportunity rather than being suspicious behaviour in itself.

There are arguments for and against whether it supports the case against her. I can see both sides of it. But for those that believe she’s guilty (personally, I’m unsure), it’s unfortunate that the case wasn’t more robust from a scientific perspective.

Also @Firefly1987 here's the mums version of events from before she heard about Lucy Letby.

https://www.cheshire-live.co.uk/news/miracle-chester-baby-comes-back-8137115

What a coincidence, a video just came out today about Doctor B's incompetence.

I’m ok with what I attribute stuff to - you don’t need to police that

i can manage myself thank you!

It's rich to accuse anyone else of policing when you felt yourself entitled to make a demand in response to caveated suggestions. You'll note that I made a point of using the terms 'perhaps' and 'I think' whereas you issued an order and are now telling other people what they should and shouldn't be doing.

What do you think LL did to cause the pneumothorax?

All they focus on is facts.

Well, yes. Facts are facts, so you can’t just ignore them because you don’t like them.

If you were wrongly accused of a crime you wouldn’t want supposition and inference, most of it non-contemporaneously recorded, to supersede actual facts, would you?

Why are you so convinced the Chester doctors are beyond reproach?

I don't find it suspicious that some parents (out of many who intersected with Letby), at some point, saw something that would be consistent with her inflicting harm (but also consistent with normal care). Given the many ways for that to happen, the fact that some of them came to pass is not surprising. Per prosecution, her simply being on shift during a deterioration is consistent with her inflicting harm, so, really, what isn't?

This interview happened after Letby was convicted, and long after she was accused. The parents specifically say they did not, at the time of the event, feel suspicions. That's the definition of the event not being inherently suspicious.

Not at all

just letting you know I don’t need you policing my posts - perfectly reasonable

move onto someone else

More orders. You're on quite a roll!

The way internet forums work is that you post something, other people get to reply to it. If you're going to express yourself in a way that doesn't make it clear that not all the parents who believe Letby is guilty have said anything about their experience of ongoing appeals, that's your choice, but it is not for you to decide either whether others comment on it or how they do.