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

No, I have no legal qualifications or experience. I do have science and medical qualifications and experience, so am in a better position than you to understand the scientific evidence.

Sneering at people like me on the assumption that we’re not informed and qualified makes you look very foolish.

You were rude about my spelling. You’re lucky you got a peace out!

You were rude before I even posted. You're lucky I only ripped the piss once.

Does anyone else have a feeling we're not going to be told what @Sometimeswinning meant by '''There is a reason a lawyer/Soliciter hasn’t swooped in to save the day'?' because she can't come up with an explanation that doesn't make it sound like she's got no idea what she's on about?

I totally agree!

Apart from the bit about the parents and their feelings. I stand by that.

I see this is important to you though.

What do you totally agree with? That you have no idea what you’re talking about?

Seems my powers of perception remain undimmed. But you should do some research before wading in, particularly when you go straight to invoking the parents.

Fine. No swooping in because the facts aren’t Netflix and more4.

The swooping in was just a throw away comment. My point was Netflix and more4 armchair experts.

Remember when you said I had zero knowledge on MOJ and the process? I pointed it out to you where I obviously knew about it and you then changed your question?

Again, Im sure you will not be satisfied but another poster above who is desperate for some attention will enjoy chatting to you about it.

It was quite unwise of you to slag anyone else off for being an armchair expert given the content of your first post. I'm a solicitor, incidentally. Perhaps you might tell us your qualifications to decide people are 'crazy' based on a Mumsnet thread, and illustrate the diagnostic process you went through?

And actually, I didn't say you had zero knowledge. I said you'd shown no indication that you knew, which doesn't mean the same thing. My words were chosen carefully there! Perhaps your misunderstanding is the reason you wrongly think my question changed. I was open to the possibility that you did know something about MOJs but hadn't been able to restrain yourself from making a ridiculous comment regardless.

I think if she hadn't wrote, I killed them on purpose I could put it down to that easier

I really think that was the instance that broke the last straw in her defence

But doesn't "because I am not good enough", in the same sentence, contradict this? Why would a purposed murderer write that, or even care if she (and her team) are "good enough" at preventing deaths?

Because maybe she really did just influence her care towards making these babies not survive: because she couldn't cope with the pressure of trying to keep those little souls alive

Lots of reasons. Spite, jealousy, payback? A lot of these babies she wasn't even designated nurse for. Despite what people here will have you think, she wasn't the most experienced super nurse on the unit. How do we know she wasn't furious to not be given the sickest babies all the time and took that as a personal affront? "They must think I'm not good enough if they won't let me work in room 1 all the time like I want to." In that context the note makes sense.

I think we can all agree that killing on purpose can never be just incompetence.

You're seriously suggesting that we should consider that a retired, internationally known neonatologist would assembly a panel of 14 experts to work pro bono for several months in order to "get revenge" somehow because a paper he wrote 40 years ago was misinterpreted?

Well you don't know either in that case. They found the insulin cases much later and as if by magic, Lucy had the opportunity to do it both times. What astronomical odds!

Yes, that's why I haven't said that I do. You ought to be doing the same. Don't ask questions you don't want answering!

Right so even if for arguments sake he knows she's a murderer and wants to support her because he's mad they used his paper without giving him sufficient credit you're ok with that? He shouldn't get any scrutiny at all to make sure he's not doing this out of anger or revenge or whatever else? I didn't know someone who writes a paper on something can just invent whatever evidence they like afterwards and they're immune from anyone questioning that!

Did I claim he had biases back then? I'm saying he does NOW because of the aforementioned reasons. Namely, his ego was bruised and he set out on a revenge mission.

You go on and back that incredibly significant and not at all potentially defamatory accusation up. I'm sure everyone is on tenterhooks.

Anyone who can see all of this unfolding and just jump to 'conspiracy theorist' seems to be one themselves.

A conspiracy theory is an explanation of an event or situation that alleges the secret, sinister actions of powerful groups, rather than accepting more probable, mainstream explanations. These narratives are often driven by distrust, paranoia, or political, social, and psychological motives, and are frequently designed to be immune to contrary evidence.

It's no more crazy than claiming Dewi Evans fitted Lucy up is it?!

Wow you just explained everyone on the LL side perfectly!

You're the one on here arguing that maybe Shoo Lee knows she's a murderer but because he didn't get sufficient credit he assembled a whole expert panel for revenge 😂😂😂

@kkloo I said for arguments sake would the PP be willing to accept his word as gospel just because he wrote the paper.

He assembled the panel to look for natural reasons. Doesn't mean he actually thinks she's a murderer just that he may have significant bias. So does Neena Modi if reddit is to be believed! And no one on here wants them scrutinised. Terrifying.

Terrifying you say?
Yet you ignore what the other judge said about Dewi Evans and everything else terrifying about just how amateur this investigation was.

also @Firefly1987
You were saying yesterday that people just love to play devils advocate so even if there was concrete evidence they'd still say she didn't do it.
Yet you're the one here making ridiculous arguments apparently 'for arguments sake'.

And I don't believe it's 'for arguments sake', on all of these threads you have accused any expert who doesn't agree with you as having nefarious motivations, it could never just be because they believe what they say, they always have some hidden agenda or motivation in your book.

I think the idea that Evans actually fit her up must be a pretty fringe perspective. It's right up there, with, say, the sort of weirdo who thinks the feverish ramblings of their batshit imagination amounts to actual scrutiny.

The commonest view I've seen expressed is that Dewi Evans was wrong about Shoo Lee's paper in good faith. He gave evidence to the court to the best of his ability, and his frequent statements thereafter were, whatever else might be said of them, his own honest truth. And this is plausible because not only has he been corrected by someone who knows better than him, but because people overestimate their own understanding and abilities all the time. It's incredibly typical human behaviour, in a way that maliciously fitting someone up for mass murder or assembling global expert revenge panels (for what?) is not.