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 many times does it have to be explained that part if the problem with allowing incorrectly interpreted medical / scientific "evidence" / "opinion" stand unchallenged in a legal setting is that it can become a precedent / dogma. It opens the way for rubber stamping in cases and allows the creep of the balance of probabilities into criminal proceedings which should be beyond reasonable doubt.

I'm not well versed enough in air embolism to pick it apart, however, I am on the subject of metaphyseal fractures in terms of having done enough research to debunk the digma that they only ever occur in child abuse. Not true. They can occur in collagen disorders, rickets, and are often only picked up on x-ray, which isn't even the best imaging tool for the job, especially in neonates. Hence 3 different experts being unable to assert with confidence whether my childs actual number of fractures was 21, 15 or 12. Now, these experts, and the courts, think that's nit picking. I rather think that when decisions about a childs future, and possible adoption are being made, nit picking is absolutely required, not just because accurate medical information is important but because the consequences could lead to a child growing up believing that they were violently abused by actually loving parents. In addition, it informs their future medical care, likely to their detriment. And if down the line it's discovered there was another explanation, you can't undo the consequences of poor decision making in the legal / medical arena. See the Webster case, where one family lost all four of their children because one had these fractures, and it was later discovered to be caused by nutritional issues and poor advice from HVs. The adoption couldn't be undone, and the family had to endure uncertainty about being allowed to keep a fifth child born a few years later.

It is this sort of thing that is fuelling the demand for re-examination of Lucy Letby's case. Medical evidence, if relied upon in court must be of the highest standard. It's simpky not good enough to leave someone in prison for whole life orders, and have bereaved parents in a shitstorm created by multiple factors, to "be on the safe side" or because "jury said so" when patently the presentation of the evidence was such that the jury didn't stand a chance and was instead steered down salacious speculation and character assassination routes and faulty "statistics", by experts and judges with axes to grind in the moment. Shoo Lee is at least in the bracket of a true scientist, willing to re-examine his own work, and look at everything in context. If he was really considered "wrong" in his activities or conclusions, why is he not facing legal challenges for his disparaging assessments of the care provided, the state of the hospital etc etc? He has not been officially challenged despite all the publicity, which suggests to me there's enough meat on the bones of his arguments to give "the establishment" some cause for concern.

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'.

Yes if people are going to say Shoo Lee's word is gospel no matter what!

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.

Because it's patently obvious she did it and I can't believe anyone could seriously think otherwise without having some sort of agenda. It simply makes no sense.

It is not patently obvious she did it.

That’s fascinating, it’s a psychological study in a way, do you believe that only people that disagree with you might have an agenda?

That's a you issue.

It's your brain that struggles to comprehend why other other peoples might not share your opinion despite it being explained it to you over and over again on all of these threads so that you can understand but you just can't understand or refuse to accept it.

People have even tried to spoon feed it to you but even hearing it stated in basic common sense explanations doesn't sink in.

You clearly have an extreme us versus them mentality where anyone with a different opinion than you is othered.

Again that's a you issue.

On something as obvious as this yes. Either an agenda or a bias clouding their judgment. They need to do a psychological study on why so many people believe she didn't do it despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

It wouldn't be a very interesting study 😂😂
It's easily explained by the fact that the evidence is weak and that there was clear issues with the investigation and evidence.

Remember when we had that discussion about Michael Jackson and you couldn't believe anyone could be so gullible as to believe he was innocent? This is like that for me but a complete role reversal where we're on the opposite side. Anyway, might help you understand why I struggle to believe anyone could think LL innocent just like you struggled to believe anyone could think MJ innocent. Must just be your brain struggling to understand! Oh and no spoon feeding necessary.

Fairly sure I never said that

I actually just looked up what I said, you mentioned everything they found at LLs home, I said what about everything they found at MJs home.

I also said in response to you that there was less glaring flags about LL than there was about MJ

but if I missed a post and ever said I couldn't believe people would be so gullible it would have been said in a flippant way where people just say 'I can't believe x o y'. because my brain doesn't have any issues understanding that other people can look at things and see things differently so you wouldn't find me on a thread going on and on and on about how I just couldn't understand how people could hold these views and assigning all sorts of labels to the people when loads of them kept trying to explain their feelings to me plainly.

I accepted that people don't think MJ sexually abused anyone and made the points several times that even if he didn't touch them sexually that what he did was still harmful to the children because grooming behaviour is still harmful even if it doesn't lead to sexual abuse.

I've asked you this before, but is there anything that could make you doubt your position? Not change your mind, just make you doubt that it's so "patently obvious" ?

Is your position falsifiable, basically?

@LuisCarol there's nothing no. Her being guilty is the only possible explanation. This case is exactly as it appears to be, unfortunately.

Interesting. So you're fine with people saying Leaving Neverland didn't convince them and the victims are basically liars then? Because most people get pretty upset about that and don't just accept a difference of opinion.

In which case, I will, with as much gentleness as I can, suggest that the bias you are seeing but struggling to identify is your own, and it is referred to as "What you see is all there is" (WYSIATI)

You: 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

Me, previously in the comments: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?

Which part of my comment is incorrect and does not indicate I understand how a MOJ is reviewed. And how long it takes?

@CommonlyKnownAs

I didn't get upset about it or start making personal attacks like you do.

I said that many who defend him are extremely harsh about the accusers. You said people are perfectly entitled to not believe the documentary. I said I never said everyone had to believe it.

So yes some of us can accept differences of opinion without going on like you do.

How do you determine a bias and just being right about something? 😆

By it being falsifiable.

Sorry.

If it isn't falsifiable, it's a bias.

What personal attacks though? The only post that got deleted recently by MN was not one of mine!

OK I can't find the thread now as it was ages ago I just remember you being prominent on it and A LOT of accusations flying about (maybe from others then) and anyone who had slight doubts to his guilt being called pedo sympathisers etc. not a nice thread at all.

I admit I had a bias there. I'm definitely less sure now of his innocence. But seriously, what bias would I have about Letby? Unless you count following the trial at the time. Although I've already said multiple times I thought she was not guilty before it started. AND I know how dire the NHS is. I was saying that 10 years ago when it was almost blasphemy to criticise the NHS! And don't even get me started on the police. Seems I should have a bias FOR her if anything.

You make personal attacks all the time, they probably don't get deleted because no one bothers to report them. I saw the one that got deleted towards you and unless I got that post wrong what you say is often similar to and often worse than that.

No that wasn't me but you did reference that thread in the Lucy Letby one and I said I wasn't on it and hadn't seen it.

But seriously, what bias would I have about Letby?Unless you count following the trial at the time. Although I've already said multiple times I thought she was not guilty before it started. AND I know how dire the NHS is. I was saying that 10 years ago when it was almost blasphemy to criticise the NHS! And don't even get me started on the police. Seems I should have a bias FOR her if anything.

Doesn't matter where the bias came from in the first place, You said yourself you can't believe that anyone could think otherwise (about it being patently obvious she did it) unless they had an agenda. It simply does not stand up to scrutiny to make out it's so obvious she did it that you would have to have an agenda to think otherwise, because the evidence that PROVES crimes were committed is not there, and the evidence that proves PROVES she harmed babies isn't there either, so there are obviously extremely valid reasons why people would doubt the convictions and if you're completely blind to that then you are showing extreme bias.

Do you not get that something showing zero indication you understand a topic isn't the same thing as that thing being incorrect? Because that's a really important distinction here.

Your comment about Letby's case being under review for a year isn't wrong, it's just completely insufficient to prove that you know anything other than that one fact. Because you could know that and still be completely wrong in your assessment of the topic. Like,oooh, hypothetically if you thought the reason it had been outstanding for over a year was something to do with the case not being strong enough for a hot shot lawyer to swoop in and fix it.

I'll repeat a paragraph in one of my posts from yesterday that deals with this point, since apparently once wasn't enough:

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.

Because it's patently obvious she did it and I can't believe anyone could seriously think otherwise without having some sort of agenda. It simply makes no sense

You do know why people seriously think otherwise though, they’ve patiently told you why over and over again. You don’t provide a rational counter position, you just persist in repeating the same things ad infinitum with the occasional insult thrown in for good measure. You are the one who appears to have an agenda. You spend so much time on these threads it’s tantamount to an obsession, yet you don’t bring anything at all to the discussion which is capable of changing anyone’s mind. So what’s your objective other than to disrupt the discussion?

What personal attacks though? The only post that got deleted recently by MN was not one of mine!

Not sure if you missed it but you got deleted yesterday @Firefly1987. I assume because HQ tend to get twitchy about things that could lead them to get sued for defamation.

The vast majority of these threads are posts from people explaining to her over and over. This has gone on now for well over a year.

And in that time more and more stuff has came out which has thrown even more doubt on the convictions but yet that poster continues to persist with how there's no possible explanation whatsoever for this except for they have some kind of agenda or hidden motive.

It's just weird.

I went looking for that thread actually, which I wasn't on @Firefly1987 and your last post on that thread was gold...in reference to someone mentioning Joseph Jackson, you said and I quote

I can have my own opinion just like you can-and if you told me you thought he was innocent I wouldn't go on a huge rant about why I was right and you were wrong and why you shouldn't be around children because you have a different opinion to me.

which is funny because you've had many rants about why you're right and we're wrong and how we all love a baby killer.

You also mentioned you had a very high bar to declare someone as something as disgusting as a paedophile, but yet your bar is so low for declaring someone as a serial killer of babies.

All of your posts are gold on it in fact...

Someone said you were unintelligent, they did throw the first jab tbf but your comeback was 'that's how you browbeat people into submission isn't it'.

Literally exactly what you try to do!

You also said There's no point even having a rational discussion about this when people have made up their minds and want to call anyone who merely has doubts victim blaming, or worse. You and OP are coming at this from a place of emotion, which is fine but don't expect people to not defend themselves after being called all sorts just for not being 100% on someone's guilt like you obviously are. I desperately want him to be not guilty for the simple fact it means no kids got abused.

The last line there is probably the only thing that is somewhat in line with the things you throw at people on this thread, but the rest of it is as I said, gold.

Thanks for the laugh, I'm in pain and I've been on hold to an out of hours doctors for the last hour and needed that, and I wouldn't have gone looking except for you tried to make out I was like you. Turns out you were actually a bit more like the people on here you always try to browbeat into submission back then instead 😂😂 but bizarrely, somewhere over the past couple of years you've apparently lost all ability to understand that different people can look at the same thing and reach different conclusions 🤔🤔

Can you not just stop and actually just engage in the discussion in a mature way, we only got to page 3 of this thread before you started again with the Why are people always trying to make so many excuses for this evil sadistic woman who murdered and harmed the most defenceless vulnerable babies? I genuinely can't wrap my head around it.

You're constantly goading everyone.

Or maybe the reason she wrote it is simply because it’s true.