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

How do you know the tests were right? What if they were like the Letby insulin tests?

In the Typhoid Mary case, they tested her, for one specific disease. If instead they'd just tested everyone she was ever in a room with at any point during a year, for many possible diseases, and found a couple positives, that would be more like the Letby tests.

If it's shown that statistical arguments for there being a serial killer were flawed, then there's no safely convicted serial killer.

That was a tiny part of the case.

Common sense works for common things. It's less good at judging the chance of one-in-a-million events. That's why so many people buy lottery tickets.

How many would she have to kill for you to say it's not just like the chances of winning the lottery?

We don't have "all the other nurses'" numbers gathered the same way as hers, so no, I don't agree. You have to compare like with like. "Her numbers" simply aren't the same kind of "numbers" as other nurses', unless all numbers were gathered blindly the same way for all and then compared for different staff.

Lol she was a bog standard nurse. Why are you acting like her data would be completely different to everyone else's?

Yes we do. Eirian Powell wrote an email to all staff saying they'd have to undergo supervision and they'd start with whoever was there for most collapses. Any guesses as to who that was? And Powell was on Letby's side.

Please provide evidence Dr Brearey was responsible? Thought you had to have evidence before you accused someone of killing a baby?

That's not what Eirian Powell said. Rightly, she didn't suggest that they knew who had been present for the most collapses. Nobody had ever done a review allowing them to check this, as John Gibbs and others confined at Thirlwall

https://thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk/wp-content/uploads/thirlwall-evidence/INQ0002879_75_91.pdf

You stated Dr Brearey did NOT perforate a babies liver. That's been debunked

Where has it been debunked? Don’t come back with a different argument every time you can’t support the previous one. That is not posting in good faith.

Lol she was a bog standard nurse. Why are you acting like her data would be completely different to everyone else's?

Because she was the one suspected, and her accusers did the initial filtering of cases. Then some incidents got relabelled based on her presence/absence. The same process wasn't done for everyone else. That alone makes her data different. How data was gathered is very much part of what data is.

She also worked more shifts than some others, had higher certifications than some others, worked more night shifts when there's more risk. More important, you can't assume that her risk factors "would be" the same -- you have to actually check. Often there are differences in relevant factors even when there was no reason to think there would be, and here there are reasons.

Can you link to this email? I haven’t read that about starting with whoever was there for the most collapses. Another thing you just made up?

Lucy Letby was one of only two band 5 nurses with the IC qualification allowing her to nurse an intensive care baby one-to-one. All band 6 nurses had this qualification. But the unit aimed to put two band sixes and two band 5s on at night.

One band six would be head of shift. Another could nurse one IC baby. But there were three IC cots. On nights when there was more than one IC baby in the unit, they needed a qualified band 5. Lucy Letby was willing to swap her shifts around to accommodate the shifting needs of the unit. It wasn't a big intensive care unit that needed a few IC nurses every night. Needs fluctuated.

You couldn't find a better formula for ending up with one person at most deaths over a period of a year or so.

People think the arguments are about Lucy Letby being particularly senior or particularly skilled - they're not. She was adequately qualified in a low skilled ward, and particularly cheap.

It's the second page here (though that's not quite what Eirian Powell was saying)

thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk/wp-content/uploads/thirlwall-evidence/INQ0002879_75_91.pdf

Thank you yes, so the part starting with whoever was there for the most collapses was a misrepresentation of what was actually said.

Why do you think they picked Lucy first then?

I don't make things up. I'm not that creative.

Because the consultants were demanding she should be removed from the ward.

She had higher risk factors because she loved working with the higher needs babies, chose to work nights where there was less chance of being caught, worked more shifts because she loved committing her crimes. That's not a reason she's innocent.

If it was a lie that Lucy wasn't involved in many of the incidents she never would've wrote that in the email though would she. So I think we can finally all agree she was there for the majority of collapses!

Many of the incidents - yes (assuming we mean deaths and a small cross section of collapses). And I've explained above why that was always likely to be the case.

Majority of the collapses - no. All collapses were never reviewed. As I've said a few times, the hospital staff (including John Gibbs) have confirmed this.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj0y9673rjno

One indication that the needle theory might be shaky was that Dr Taylor, by his own admission, had not seen Baby O's medical notes and was relying on a report that had been written by two other experts.
Another obvious problem with the needle theory is that it had already been examined at length during Letby's trial.
The prosecution pathologist concluded that there was no evidence that a needle had pierced Baby O's liver while he was alive and the paediatric pathologist we spoke to agrees.
They told us: "These injuries weren't caused by a needle. They were in different parts of the liver and there was no sign of any needle injury on the liver."
Even if the needle had penetrated the baby's liver, it cannot explain why Baby O collapsed in the first place or why he died - the needle was inserted after the baby's final and fatal collapse towards the end of the resuscitation.
When asked if he still stood by his comments about the doctor's needle, Dr Taylor told us that while the needle may not have been the primary cause of death, his "opinion has not substantially changed".
He said the "needle probably penetrated the liver" of Baby O, and "probably accelerated his demise".

So no one reviewed it but it was that obvious she was there for so many of them she had to undergo supervision. Not sure your argument helps her case.

Dewi Evans also diagnosed an 8 year old boy with bulimia when he actually had a brain tumour and would have died if they hadn't got a second opinion so while you like to hang on Dewis every word like he's God many of the rest of us don't really place any weight on what he finds suspicious or not, considering so many experts have said his theories are nonsense.

Of course the police did and ran with it, but the investigation was not carried out properly and as I said before, blame the police and the CPS.

Now you're getting it.

They should have had evidence before they accused LL of harming babies, they should have assembled that expert panel like the NCA advised instead of just going along with Dewis opinion and calling that evidence.

At what point are they allowed to focus on their main suspect? Or is that never allowed because you've personally decided she must be innocent?

I'm just correcting your misrepresentation of my claims (and other people's too). We can't say that Lucy Letby was present for the majority of collapses because there was no review of all collapses.

I'm perfectly comfortable with the fact that Lucy Letby was on shift (if not necessarily present) for the majority of deaths during the 13 month indictment period, and at a number of collapses. I've explained above why that would be likely to happen. It's not an indication of fault or guilt.

After a multi-disciplinary panel review of all deaths and collapses, it might have been appropriate to start to identify suspects.

Not after a single individual reviewed deaths and collapses chosen by the consultants who could have been implicated in failings of care.

Do you admit it's a possibility it's because she's a seral killer? Or is that something you're completely unwilling to consider?