Lucy Letby

[kkloo]

New thread as the last one has filled up.

Or perhaps any experts who do support the prosecution evidence have got the good sense to keep their powder dry ahead of a formal process, and not risk excluding themselves by splashing all over the media with opinions completely outside of their scope. (“Ladies and gentlemen we did not find any murders”)

That might make sense if the evidence presented by the prosecution hadn’t been so thoroughly and resoundingly debunked by so many highly credentialed and respected experts in their fields who have absolutely nothing to gain from speaking out but risk serious reputational damage if they are wrong. So no, your hypothesis has no merit.

If you think that, in the context of medical murder, determining intentional harm is outside the scope of senior medics, then you haven’t really understood the case. Medics and scientists are literally the only people who can decide this.

This seems to make some lawyers uncomfortable as they believe that’s the province of law. But I tell you what makes me uncomfortable - the scientific illiteracy of some lawyers who fail to grasp that science is not a democracy whose questions can be decided by argument + vote.

I don't think it is right that she kept handover notes or that she searched for patient's families on FB. And I don't know how she responded in court to questions about these. I just don't find it that strange for a nurse to do so. Equally working extra shifts - that's just normal for a nurse especially without other responsibilities.

It's worth remembering that any truly scientific explanation will be replicable. That is to say, other scientists will be able to reproduce the results or, in the case of a critique of Dr Evans's work, see the same flaws.

That's one of the things that makes Dr Evans's utterances so alarming: "it's no good asking me how I spotted air embolism ... if you know, you know".

In the event that any of the defence witnesses aren't available by the time any hearing rolls around, their reports (and in some cases their published works) will do the job for them, and other scientists will be able to refer to them.

I've not read all of that article but one thing that stands out as odd to me is with Child C that after resusitation was stopped and Child C was left to die in the parent's arms Letby did not return to look after her allocated baby. I can understand on being upset about the death of the baby wanting to support the parents but not at the cost of the baby she was allocated to.

Why do you think it would be appropriate for medics and scientists to establish intent?

Without evidence that there were any murders, intent is irrelevant.

You keep arguing that only a jury can decide, but you never explain how a jury can be expected to understand concepts that Drs spend decades of their careers studying.

The expert witness system and/or the jury system isn't fit to handle complex medical or technical cases such as Letby and the PO scandal. It needs to change.

The waters are rather muddy there. Sophie Ellis testified that she and Lucy Letby swapped once resuscitation was underway. Child C died in very unusual circumstances which I suspect caused some confusion all round as to whether further nursing care was needed

"We found no murders" isn't a statement of intent where the finding is natural causes. What action would the intent refer to?

They’re the only ones who can evaluate the medical data to establish whether harm is intentional. That is what an autopsy is for.

Lawyers can only argue whether the harm is intentional in a court setting.

Quite.

I guess they could discuss whether Jayaram intended to fuck up Baby K’s treatment…

Your post is illogical, given my exact point is that anyone who is suitably qualified and disagrees with the panel experts’ findings will be keeping a low profile at this point if they have any sense. We have no idea who may yet debunk the debunkers.

Bear in mind we’re talking about cases of medical murder here. In other contexts medics/scientists are only relevant in certain areas. But generally key in establishing cause of death.

Yes - this is a critique of Lee's panel's findings which can be critiqued in its turn. It is very confused on the difference between, aware of what was said at the trial, and accepting as fact what was said at the trial.

It contains misconceptions about the workings of the panel: that they didn't refer to court transcripts, that they didn't have access to a pathologist, that they didn't consult other specialists, that they didn't have access to all relevant information, that Chase and Shannon were somehow unqualified to advise. It misreports the panels findings, e.g. on babies A and O. If some of the families wanted this said, it was their lawyer's responsibility to say it, but it isn't a rigorous rebuttal of the panel's findings at all.

The panel have only provided what they believe are other plausible causes of death. They are absolutely not in a position to say that there were no murders.

It's not inconceivable that there are prospective prosecution experts out there, being discreet. But that doesn't seem to account for nobody speaking out, even anonymously. Documentary teams, for example, have been able to find people who will speak in defence of the insulin testing. Why haven't they found anyone to speak in defence of Evans's findings?

You have one neonatologist who spoke to the Daily Mail about Shoo Lee, showing he hadn't read Lee's paper and having to back off online later. But neither has he claimed to find Evans's trial testimony convincing (or the contrary), and he has declared himself neutral on the safety of the convictions. It does seem remarkable that nobody has come forward, even anonymously, to say that the prosecution case works for them.

They found no murders.

They are obviously in a position to say whether they found harm (which might indicate murder, manslaughter or GBH etc) or not. If they had found such harm, they would indeed not be qualified to say whether it was murder / manslaughter/ GBH / attempted murder or not. But the question didn't arise.

Do we know that LL unilaterally chose to remain with Baby C and decided not to return to the baby she was allocated?

She was not the nurse in charge on that shift, so the allocation and re-allocation of duties would (or at least should) not have been made by LL herself. She might have asked, but ultimately the decision would not have been hers.

So on that basis if someone in hospital dies from a morphine overdose confirmed by a medic/scientist as cause of death, that medic/scientist also gets to decide whether the overdose was intentional (as per the prosecution case) or accidental (as per the defence case)?

She didn't stay with baby C. She did return repeatedly to the room where the baby was dying, which from the doctors' reports was a much longer process than they expected. The shift leader did tell her to focus on the baby she had been assigned but then didn't write up any complaint when invited to so, so there is no record of the scope of the problem.

She does seem to have been distracted by the situation and to have needed the reminder to focus on her allocated child at some point, but whether that resulted from confusion over the swap in responsibilities isn't clear. I don't think much more can be reconstructed, and of course the whole could have happened with or without any malevolent intent.

That sort of ambiguity doesn't apply to any of Lee's panel's findings. If they had said, we found something that could have been murder but concluded it was an accident, that would match your scenario

It’s not for them to find murders or not, only to give an opinion on any matters strictly within the scope of their expertise.

Does all this come from that really cruel and quite ruthless woman at the BBC and the Daily Mail Podcast ?

The media reporting was not exactly balanced even now the same people have decided they really do not fancy speaking or reporting on the subject. Even the police(that done the most dreadful investigation ever) say she is a perfectly normal young woman that loves her job helping kids, and animals.

It seems she was one of the few people at that hospital doing a very good job, id guess you could suggest anyone was a bit weird if you wanted too.

New thread at https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/5560594-lucy-letby-2