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've been in hospital enough times to know this is an everyday occurrence!

It's not a fantasy it happened. Alarms went off seconds after she was seen standing over the baby. FACT.

Is it a fact?

Do we know the nurse was definitely LL? Has that been independently established, or are we just taking an account of an at least 5 year old memory as FACT?

Did the alarms go off seconds after? The mother’s account is not clear on the timings, so it’s difficult to see how you can know this is FACT.

Exactly, when the mother first told the story she said she went to see the baby during the night and suddenly all these nurses appeared and shouted at her to get her husband, and she explained that it was later discovered the baby had pneumonia.

On TV after they knew about LL then she said she had seen LL standing there and then she walked away and the alarms went off, and then they left out the fact the baby had pneumonia.

I certainly wouldn't take it as a FACT, but as FACTS go it's around the standard that was accepted at trial to be FACT.

I certainly wouldn't take it as a FACT, but as FACTS go it's around the standard that was accepted at trial to be FACT.

It's not only the trial which accepts flimsy "evidence" as FACT

Why would it matter if it was LL if it's not suspicious? The mum recognised her when she saw her picture. Quite questionable for anyone to be suggesting she would say it was her when not absolutely sure.

Why would it matter if it was LL if it's not suspicious?

It’s quite possible for both
a) the action of the nurse to not be suspicious (which is not what I was talking about, but for the record it’s obviously not), and

b) the nurse not to have been Letby anyway (which is what you claim to be FACT despite there being no evidence other than a 5 year old memory)

I don’t think the mother is lying - I’m just saying there’s no corroborating evidence that LL was even there. Could it not have been a completely different blonde nurse?

I think I've said this before, but several years ago someone posted on our local FB chat something about a red van, with a broken back light, that had tried to pick their dc up and had driven off recklessly.
Several people commented along the lines of "OMG! I saw that van. It was driving really badly, nearly hit the car in front..." Tbh if it had genuinely been seen in all the places people claimed then it definitely would have been driven recklessly.

A couple of hours later the original poster came back and apologised. Turned out the driver of the van had stopped and pointed out their dc had dropped something from his bag. Dc had expanded this in his mind to being talked to by a stranger in a van and panicked. Also turned out that the van was visiting one of their neighbours and had pulled into their drive, and not gone out again within a couple of hundred yards of speaking to the dc.

This was within a couple of hours of the event. These people were totally convinced they had seen the van, and that it was driven badly.
It's confirmation bias. You hear about it and your memory corrects what you actually saw to equate it with what you saw. You're very convincing because as far as you are concerned, that is correct, you're not lying. But it isn't actually what happened.

It's perfectly normal in memory, even for recent events, let alone years ago at a traumatic time.

It's almost as if memories not being infallible and false memories being common hasn't been discussed on these threads repeatedly...........

You've said previously you're interested in the psychology of it all but once again you refuse to accept the basics of psychology. Memory is a crucial topic in psychology. If you won't even accept what's normal then can you possibly understand what's abnormal?

There's nothing questionable about saying this womans memory may not be accurate, it's a fact that it may not be.

Part two just out. I haven't watched this yet but part one was very good.

Did anyone listen to the David Davis debate?

Yes. I hadn’t realised how far the police had strayed from procedure.

No I think he's pathetic and the whole things a massive insult. I only wish people who deserved it (anyone but the most evil woman in the entire country) got this much support!

Another convincing argument there.

I think the police should follow the law in all of their cases. So even if you believe Lucy Letby is guilty, you might see some benefit in Davis raising this.

I also appreciate his suggestion that other people apart from the suspect should be able to complain to the IPCO. I am sure there are lots of victims of miscarriages of justice out there who get only a fraction of the attention given to Lucy Letby, and that many of them are vulnerable and poorly educated.

Yes - it wasn't bad. Adjournment debates are odd things but he was clear and made some important points about problems with the investigation.

Here is the link, for anyone who wants it.

parliamentlive.tv/event/index/c8f7eeae-9e39-4c90-8efa-f3e1eecaccfd?in=16:56:57

I mean, they'd have to look at the medical records. There's no reason when she's in jail, it'd only be to shut the public up. But they might not want to for fear of hate and abuse. Why would they put themselves in that position?

For all we know 99% of them would agree with Evans.

If it was poor care it wouldn't centre around one nurse only.

It would if the nurse did more shifts than others, or worked with higher-risk babies. Or was unlucky: some nurse being unusually unlucky is no more remarkable than some person winning the lottery. Or if incidents were flagged based in part on her presence. Or if some combination of these factors applied.

The Royal Statistical Society report talks about these points. It is surprisingly easy to generate data that seems convincing but turns out to be meaningless because of how it was gathered, or because you didn't control for relevant confounding factors. The whole reason formal statistics was developed, is that "gut feeling" about data is so often wrong.

No because collapses didn't follow other nurses around. It's wild you can't see she did something to that baby. Do you also think people got sick around typhoid Mary over and over just by sheer coincidence?

She wasn't designated nurse for some of the babies. They collapsed when she was there covering breaks or she went in there for no reason. That's not bad luck that's someone causing something to happen.

I even read something from Thirlwill where she was taken off nights, the collapses stopped. Then she covered one night shift and the baby inexplicably collapse. But yeah some people win the lottery so...

Collapses didn't stop after she was removed from nights. In those three months, there were four collapses that Evans found suspicious. Three were removed from the list of suspicious incidents. On the fourth (baby N, second charge) the jury found Lucy Letby not guilty, presumably because the defence had demonstrated that she had not been working with the deterioration began, since she wasn't on the night shift.

I think it would be interesting for people to discuss whatever David Davis said. I'd be interested to read about it.

Otherwise the discussion gets stuck going round and round in a circle.

Which I guess could be the purpose of some of the interventions.....

Phil Hammond has had a standing offer of anonymity out for months for any neonatologist who wishes to come forward and support the prosecution medical evidence. Strangely he’s had no takers. Evans suggested someone himself and when contacted that person declined to comment. I think we can safely say that 99% of experts wouldn’t agree with Evans.

David Davis was very clear, he showed the flaws of the investigation in an easy to understand manner - firefly, you should watch it

Why would anyone care to contact Phill Hammond? And how could you trust he hasn't had anyone and he'd be honest about that when he's 100% pro-letby?

I think we can safely say that 99% of experts wouldn’t agree with Evans.

We can't safely say that at all. It's like people trying to claim other nurses would have as many red flags as Lucy if they were investigated. We just don't know. Although if they were all in disagreement I think a lot more people would be speaking out not just a few loud voices. How come everyone in the trial agreed with Evans? Even Mike Hall didn't totally disagree and he was defence!

She wasn't designated nurse for some of the babies. They collapsed when she was there covering breaks or she went in there for no reason.

To say that this happened improbably more often for her than for other nurses, you need the same data for all nurses, gathered without knowing who is suspected. You need a definition of "being there for no reason" that you could apply consistently across staff, again without knowing who is suspected. If you just gather data around one nurse, there's no baseline to compare that to, and no basis to say it's improbable by chance.