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

Who else would pick the cases? The managers who were biased against the doctors and wanted to sweep the deaths under the rug?

It's possibly because she's a serial killer. In the same way, it's possible one of the many gods humanity has worshipped exists.

It's evidence that matters, not possibility.

As Dr Dimitrova pointed out after that BBC article was published, Coffey and Moritz chose to criticize her report (written with Dr Neil Aiton) rather than speak to her.

Dr Dimitrova's position is represented in this Private Eye article: https://www.private-eye.co.uk/pictures/special_reports/lucy-letby-24.pdf She explained why any wounds caused by the needle would not be on the expected position on the liver.

Also, you've admitted there is nothing that will shake your opinion. Yours is the opinion that is not willing to consider alternatives.

External investigators, possibly scaling down the task by subset - i.e. look at all records from ICU children first. Agree it should not have been Chester personnel

We know serial killers actually do exist already...Lucy is not special and immune to being one.

Seems to be true for both sides?

It's evidence that matters, not possibility.

@LuisCarolAgreed! Yet some on here think that because people win the lottery occasionally and buck the odds, she isn't a serial killer...it's not me that wants to use maths to prove or disprove whether she's a killer or not.

Nope, we have already considered all the 'evidence' from the trial and it has been shown to be extremely weak from every angle.

You're just repeating the same things over and over and over from the trial and thinking that people can suspend all their knowledge of everything that has come out since then and be convinced by Dewi Evans and handover sheets.

Completely illogical.

Who needs maths or common sense or critical thinking skills when you have Dewi Evans?

How ironic in that botched vid them talking about bias when they're the ones that have it. Guess it's true how you really don't know when you're actually biased just like you don't know when you're being brainwashed or in a cult until you come out. They've done a good job of demonstrating it perfectly! Totally biased for her innocence and won't even contemplate the fact she might be guilty.

We don't agree, ftr.

We do on that point. We demonstrably do NOT on everything else.

We don't agree on that point. You've completely missed mine, and you are not good at knowing what is and isn't evidence.

I don't care. I was asking oftenaddled anyway.

and you are not good at knowing what is and isn't evidence.

neither are you if you're comparing the very real reality of serial killers to the existence of gods.

She had higher risk factors because...

Doesn't matter why, if she had higher risk factors then you have to correct for that in any comparison. If she worked 30 shifts while another nurse worked 20, it doesn't matter why she worked more -- regardless of reason, more deaths on 30 shifts than on 20 would not be surprising.

At what point are they allowed to focus on their main suspect?

After finalizing the list of incidents they consider suspicious. The gathering and flagging of incidents has be done in a suspect-blind way, for claims of improbable statistical association with the suspect to be valid. Just as, when testing a new drug, the doctors giving the drug and monitoring the patients, and the patients themselves, can't know who got the new drug / the old drug / placebo.

😂

Like it or not firefly there are actually guidelines and procedures that investigators are meant to follow. In this case they did not follow them. That video is laying out the some of the many, many issues with the procedures in the case.

You know well at this point that procedures were not followed, you also know that there are huge problems with the evidence, it's gone past confirmation bias now for you, instead you are being wilfully obtuse, it's intellectual dishonesty.

You also know that those who believe this was a MOJ have many reasons to believe that, you know that it's not just 'confirmation bias'. You're just arguing in bad faith for the sake of arguing.

Mmm I'd think that's one thing everyone could agree on. Any Chester staff potentially had too much skin in the game already. The managers and doctors both did. It would've been better to get strangers.

I keep checking on this thread and then backing out as the going round in circles by a certain poster makes me dizzy 🙄

But as we've circled back to the liver injury, I ask, for the eleventy billionth time, what the proposed mechanism for said injury is, given that in a neonate of average size, the liver is generally 4.5 - 7 cm in size, and in a preemie possibly smaller, and is partially located under the ribs. What is the proposed mechanism for "force of a car crash" injury that has left no other trace or consequence, effected in a small and busy NICU and only revealed at post mortem after a procedure that was reportedly botched?

How exactly is it proposed Lucy Letby caused damage to several different areas of the tiny organ ??

This question has been avoided studiously by FF, but I suspect their faith in Judge "you don't need to know how ir what she did as long as you feel she did something" Goss prevents them from googling a diagram that immediately begs the question how??? Just how??? was this supposed to happen.

Justice isn't supposed to entirely hinge on "we think" or "we imagine" or "maybe".

If you look at images of the location of the liver, and look at the size on a ruler, it makes zero sense in terms of any feasibility. Much like air in NG tubes "splinting the diaphragm" or over-feeding through a tube so tiny it would take a long time to achieve that.

Criminal court is supposed to be weighted towards facts and evidence, not unprecedented theory. And the evidence should first and foremost physically demonstrate an intentional criminal act perpetrated on the alleged victim. Being in your place of work and being crap at disposing of paperwork do not meet that criteria.

I know prof hindmarsh. I have spent hours speaking to him. He saved my life. He saved many of my friends lives too when we all suffer from a rare endocrine disorder.

he’s always been controversial but in a good way. He’s found out much more than any other endo for our condition. What he’s put in place is epic and life saving as I can attest too

he has been amazing to me. I don’t know what’s happened but I would trust my kids lives with him if they had an endocrine condition. If nothing else he’s one of the worlds best for his subject.

it's not me that wants to use maths to prove or disprove whether she's a killer or not

When you say, "If it was poor care it wouldn't centre around one nurse only", that's statistics. You're saying that the number of incidents associated with her is improbable by chance. You may not cite exact numbers, but normal statistical rules still apply, e.g. the need to compare like with like. In the Sally Clark case, if the expert didn't cite specific numbers like "1 in 73 million" but instead simply said "extremely unlikely", the claim would still be statistical, and the statistical error of treating non-independent events (linked by genetics) as independent would still be relevant.

Of course we can’t. We have no idea how many collapses there were, so we obviously can’t say how many she was present for.

I am glad Prof Hindmarsh helped you and your friends. I am also pleased that he spoke up against irreversible medication of children who believe themselves to be of the opposite sex.

However, his skills, bravery and bedside manner are irrelevant to this case. He was bound to, but did not, disclose to the court both the fitness to practice investigation and that his honorary post at GOSH had ended. This calls his suitability to have been an expert witness into question.

Even the most brilliant clinician would be in the wrong if they had done the same.