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

@NorfolkandBad who else could be guilty?

Irrelevant, you made another one of your claims which was easily disproved, and that was the first paragraph, I stopped reading after that/

What a stupid response.

@EyeLevelStick it's not though is it when all the circumstantial evidence proves she did it yet everyone focuses on the test results only. That's such a small part of the evidence. Especially when it's "debateable" (not that I think it is in reality).

Nope.
We've also considered all the circumstantial evidence and found it very weak and not very convincing.

There is literally nothing pointing to insulin poisoning except for the test results.

And if the test results are misleading, as stated by multitudinous scientists and medics, then there is no evidence of insulin poisoning at all.

What other evidence is there?

@EyeLevelStick right yeah, nothing but the babies showing signs of insulin poisoning at the exact same time. Whilst their twin collapsed of air embolism. But of course that's irrelevant for the people that don't like to put 2+2 together.

What signs did the babies show of insulin poisoning?

The babies were hypoglycaemic. This is quite common in pre-term neonates and does not suggest insulin poisoning.

There was also no evidence of hypokalaemia, which is characteristic of insulin poisoning.

A thread full of crazy conspiracy theorists. I hope the parents of the babies Lucy Letby killed realise this.

There is a reason a lawyer/Soliciter hasn’t swooped in to save the day. She is guilty, you are not an expert regardless of the more4 and Netflix documentaries you have spent a whole 2 hours watching!

It's concerning that you could see all of this unfolding and questioned by some very prominent people and that you'd automatically jump to 'crazy conspiracy theorists'.

Yes the reason is that the trial is over, no one can swoop in to save the day, so now it's going through the CCRC and many experts have come together working pro-bono to try to help.

What would be the mechanism by which some lawyer/solicitor would "swoop in to save the day"? What are you talking about? No Lawyer or solicitor has "swooped in to save the day" because we are not in some Hollywood rendition of this.

Well I, for one, am more qualified than you are on this matter, despite having not watched one More4 or Netflix documentary.

And I do not believe this is a conspiracy - more a monumental cock-up that should concern anyone with an enquiring mind.

If they didn't need to get her on the insulin, that's even more reason why you shouldn't cherry pick your favoured expert and pretend you chose based on the science. Makes your actions here worse, not better. You asked what you could do instead, that's your answer. You can simply refrain from pretending to know.

And yes, Shoo Lee's word is gospel when it comes to explaining what was meant in the paper he wrote. Obviously. It very much does outrank some quack with no specialism in the field.

The prosecution and Dewi Evans presumably didn't think of the possibility that Lee might have biases affecting his take on the issue when they chose to use the paper, because it was written so long before any of this happened and he's not a time traveller. I will hear many things against Dewi, but him not giving consideration to something so exceptionally stupid is not one of them.

It does. It’s under review and has been for over a year now. Anything outside of that is speculation. Are you more qualified because you work for the CCRC?

Because for all the qualified experts there are still two sides to all of this.

Always best to spellcheck posts berating other people and trying to sound like you know what you're talking about before you post them.

Do you actually have a point to make or was that it? Didn’t like what I wrote so took a cheap shot! Nice! 👍

She may have thought they died because she was incompetent. Not because she deliberately killed them. Especially if everyone was pointing the finger of blame at her. I once had a patient die under my care that I was told was not my fault but that I have always blamed myself for. I really questioned whether I was good enough then.

Dear me, do you always react this way to a bit of helpful advice?

But the point you appear to be making is that you don't like some of the posts on this thread. I can't tell from the little you wrote whether that refers to the wider group who have concerns about the system and the possibility of MOJs, or whether you confine it only to those who definitely think Letby is innocent. You're 'swooping in' comment suggests you don't understand that this isn't how remedying of MOJs work in our system, that it moves extremely slowly, and you've not explained how exactly you think it could theoretically work like that. There's not a great deal in there to make points about.

So you've not given us much to work with, other than you not sounding very smart for someone who's trying to talk down.

I made my point above. But in your rush to be unkind (Not helpful 🤣) you missed it. It’s easy to be condescending on mumsnet, not so easy to be observant to everything going on.

In this situation I was pretty controlled and didn’t write what I actually thought when I read your comment!

Yes, I noted you said there was a reason a legal rep hadn't swooped in to save the day. That was about the most substantial thing in there. But you didn't explain what you think that reason was. You still haven't.

As I said, you showed no indication that you know what the remedying of MOJs often looks like in our system, that they can take a very long time. Were you aware of that?

Plus if you're going to be critical of a group of people and make up things about their level of knowledge, you should probably define them. Again, we still don't know whether you think this is everyone who considers there to be problems in the system and is worried about the potential for an MOJ, or whether it's confined only to anyone who believes Letby is innocent. All we got there was, well, condescension.

As I said, you showed no indication that you know what the remedying of MOJs often looks like in our system, that they can take a very long time. Were you aware of that?

Like this comment I made before your condescending, “helpful” comment. Is that what you mean?

Nope. I mean when you wrote:

'There is a reason a lawyer/Soliciter hasn’t swooped in to save the day'

The comment you made about the CCRC showed you know how long it's been under review for. Congrats. But it doesn't explain what you think the reason no lawyer has yet swooped in to save the day is, or why you thought that a suitable point to make.

Do you know that complex CCRC cases can take years, much longer than Letby's has been with them? If you don't, that's rather basic knowledge you were unaware of. If you do, it makes the 'swooping in' point even less sensible, and a particularly ill-advised one given that you were attempting to condescend.

You said I had shown no indication. I did and I showed you. I even highlighted it for you.

Let’s agree that I showed you I’m very aware of how the system works. I even knew Lucy Letby’s case was submitted over a year ago. Not longer, not shorter.

You have then ranted on rather than say, oh yeah. I missed that. What a fool I am.

Don’t worry. We’ve all done it at some point. Peace out and enjoy your Saturday.

So what did you mean by

'There is a reason a lawyer/Soliciter hasn’t swooped in to save the day'?

What is that reason?

Well no, that isn't an indication that you know how the system works. It merely indicates that you know how long the case has been with them. Doesn't tell us whether you think this is typical, whether it tells us anything, if you know how long they took with other eventual MOJ cases.

So yet again, what did you mean by ''There is a reason a lawyer/Soliciter hasn’t swooped in to save the day'?'

Two of us have asked you for an explanation now, so come on. Let's have it. We can start discussing agreeing and peace out-ing once you've made your position clear.