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

The consultants were hardly ever on the unit. Other doctors - FY1 to registrar - were on the unit.

Well two appeals said no

Did they? Where was the chart with doctors on?

And aside from that, the evidence supporting murder or attempted murder is now being disputed by many, many experts. Far more experts than were involved with the trial.

There have been no appeals.

Leave to appeal was refused by judges who clearly did not understand the medical evidence.

Yes after the trial which has already happened - they weren’t at the trial

They don't need to have been at the trial in order to give their opinion on their area of expertise.

Ahaha. Yeah everyone who knows she's guilty just isn't as smart as those convinced of her innocence. No one involved in the trial knows anything 🙄

Oh right so the judges are wrong now - and probably two sets eh

oh ok

and you’re even denying that she has had two appeals denied - appeals trying to say expert witnesses flawed

i think that makes it three times a court has said she had fair trial and upheld conviction

So?

🤣🤣🤣

She has not had any appeals. This is a fact. She has been denied leave to appeal. This is also a fact.

You can read the appeal judgments for yourself to see that the judges don’t understand Shoo Lee’s air embolism paper and are still conflating rashes and discolouration (indicative of hypoxia, with many causes) with Lee’s sign indicating arterial embolism.

The whole point of all of these threads is to explore whether there has been a miscarriage of justice.

The fact that she has has two trials and leave to appeal denied does not mean there hasn’t been a MoJ. Ask Sally Clarke, Andrew Malkinson, the victims of the Horizon scandal…

I’m serious. What is your point?

What's funny about this?
Why do you think they need to have been at the trial?

No, that’s not what I am saying.

The judges did not understand the evidence. This much is obvious from reading their judgment.

However, this does not mean they are stupid. No-one can possibly understand everything, and why would judges with no science qualifications above GCSE understand complex medical evidence?

It is quite interesting how often people default to this as a question of intelligence. But of course it isn't. Not understanding something you haven't got specialist knowledge of doesn't make you stupid. In most situations you want the person who knows what they're doing, regardless of whether there's an objectively smarter but uninformed individual also in the vicinity.

a) The test performed did not show this. They are not capable of showing this.

The c-peptide levels showed this.

Proving the presence of exogenous (injected) insulin in the body is primarily achieved by measuring low or absent levels of C-peptide in the blood, despite high levels of total insulin. Because pharmaceutical insulin does not contain C-peptide, which is only produced when the body makes its own insulin, this discrepancy confirms that the insulin is from an external source.

Only happened in one twin each time, the other was attacked with air embolism. Just these cases alone are all way beyond reasonable doubt.

I understand perfectly well the relationship between insulin and c-peptide.

What you seem incapable of understanding is that the Liverpool immunoassay is subject to interferences because of the nature of the assay and is not reliable enough to use as a test for exogenous insulin.

There are many, many explanations of this online - including those about how neonates have different expected ratios because of insulin binding - but I know you are not interested in the science.

I think it's because there were some unqualified people who were at the trial all or most days, press and otherwise, who think Letby is guilty. So others who agree with them try and present that as a form of important and specialist knowledge in itself, because obviously the likes of Shoo Lee aren't going to be out-experted in their field so they need another approach.

Never mind the laugh reaction, we need an “exploding head” one.

Yeah the only things that really matter in the insulin cases is whether she had opportunity, whether the bag was tampered with (obviously we don't know as it wasn't kept) and whether the tests were accurate or not.

Some other things matter too. A big one is the size of the overall data trawl within which the test results were found. The police have by now examined ~4000 cases; each case has many tests of different types. What's the chance of finding some odd test results that could support accusations of harm, in a dataset of that size? It must be shown that the chance is small, much smaller than the 1-in-a-million chance that a nurse is a killer. Is it? We know the police brought a number of charges that didn't hold up. Experts also flagged "suspicious" results that were reclassified as non-suspicious when it turned out Letby wasn't there. So we know that such broad open-ended trawling for anything arguably suspicious does flag some results that actually arose innocently. There are many ways such results can arise: inaccurate tests, incompletely understood physiology, missing data that could explain the results but wasn't gathered, medical errors, and causes no one thought of. The more records were reviewed/searched, the more chances for these things to happen.

Well when the experts can't even agree on the science what am I supposed to do? I believe what was put forward at the trial, which you don't! I swear she could've been seen injecting insulin into a bag and people would still claim the test results don't back it up so she's not guilty.

You're supposed to not cherry pick the ones that happen to agree with your belief and pretend favouring them had anything to do with science. It's ok to not know, to say the evidence we have is inconclusive.

You could just accept that it hasn't been proven factually, even though you agree with the verdict.

And if there was concrete proof that she did it then this thread wouldn't even exist

I mean everything about the case has been described as cherry picked rather than just accepting that's how investigations work and they eliminate everyone else but the suspect. They didn't even need to get her on the insulin, they suspected her long before that. You're cherry picking evidence that suits your own agenda. I mean the fact Shoo Lee could have biases doesn't matter to you, it's just oh he wrote the paper his word must be gospel! I'm sure he's revelling in the power too.

You could just accept that it hasn't been proven factually, even though you agree with the verdict.

It's been proven well beyond reasonable doubt. I suppose nothing is really proven factually. Any test could be wrong. We usually are able to discern that the test combined with the symptoms are correct in the vast majority of situations though.

And if there was concrete proof that she did it then this thread wouldn't even exist

It probably still would. People just love to play devil's advocate.

I mean everything about the case has been described as cherry picked rather than just accepting that's how investigations work and they eliminate everyone else but the suspect.

That's not cherry picking, that's using evidence to eliminate people who couldn't be guilty, not ignoring evidence as it doesn't suit.