Lucy Letby - Specifically those who think she is guilty…

[BEAchDays2]

I’ve just been reading massive amounts of posts of Facebook following the new doc out about LL. (Blame a long train journey!) and it got me thinking, those who still think she is guilty what are your reasons?

It does feel like the tide has turned generally. I haven’t watched the new doc yet, likewise has anyone seen it, and is it worth it?

Why wouldn’t they, if they believe a miscarriage of justice has taken place? It isn’t an inconvenience that can be impatiently brushed away as nonsense: too many people have raised concerns for that.

If she is guilty, the case will withstand questions, probing and scrutiny. If it doesn’t, then that is a problem with the case in the first place.

It is observing what happened in the courtroom that prompted alarm about this case.

I think she may be guilty but I don’t think she had a fair trial (for various reasons) and I think that’s bad for the criminal justice system. This case isn’t doing anything to help maintain confidence in the system.

Ok keep telling yourself that. Dr Jayaram didn't even get in the room quick enough after having suspicions before she'd took the tube out of the baby already. Baby was fine just before? It was always when other staff members were away.

It was never when parents were around either. The judge even pointed this out.
Baby B collapsed when the parents who were keeping vigil finally left for a short break. It's just not believable without a trajectory of illness. These babies were stable for the most part, yes I'm sure they had little setbacks but not catastrophic collapses-those only happened around one person.

Of course there were crashes when she wasn't around. Some were mentioned in the trial and at Thirlwall, for one.

I'm not sure what Dr Jayaram's speed in responding to a call for help has to do with anything.

I find it really bizarre that anyone would not be concerned that evidence presented in court, has been criticised by so many experienced clinicians.

Miscarriages of justice do happen and regardless of whether LL is innocent or guilty, I want as fair as justice system as possible, as I think this is important for everyone.

When children collapsed with their parents around, presumably focused exclusively on them, it would obviously be harder to pin that on Lucy Letby.

It is odd though. Her alleged attacks on, for examples, babies D and M are supposed to have had effect later. For her alleged attack on baby N, the prosecution worked back from a crying fit to the assumption she was there and caused it. What is the point in all these exaggerated claims about babies collapsing the minute she was alone with them when the prosecution's logic says the attacks could have been carried out by another person earlier.

That little speech by the judge (picked up from the prosecution closing speech) is of course a strong example of how the case was built on statistics. Badly.

@Oftenaddled

Of course there were crashes when she wasn't around. Some were mentioned in the trial and at Thirlwall, for one.

Minor setbacks like I said yes.

I'm not sure what Dr Jayaram's speed in responding to a call for help has to do with anything.

Oh yeah the call for help 🙄well even if you believe she called him in, she was only looking after the baby for a very short space of time. The tube was in and the baby was stable when the other nurse briefly left.

But we have trial by jury not trial by competing experts. And LL has faced two separate juries and been convicted by both of them.

Honestly I would rather worry about other miscarriages of justice like why has the murderer of Daniel Morgan never been identified despite 5 police investigations and Met Police institutional corruption.

Jayaram’s contemporaneous email says she called him. Do you think he lied in that email?

We have trial by jury, and that means the jury needs to hear reliable evidence from responsible experts when they are being asked to make a decision based on science

catastrophic collapses-those only happened around one person

How can that be known without a full list of catastrophic collapses at that unit (not just those Letby was charged for)?

What's your basis for calling these incidents minor setbacks?

@DistantEarlyWarning no I think it's a nothingburger.

One minute people are saying that no nurse should ever be suspected of harm without proof, the next Dr Jayaram was supposed to announce it in an email.

@Oftenaddled well prove they weren't?

It was an email in which the consultants were pooling accounts to pique police interest in investigating Lucy Letby. Deliberate harm is exactly what they were trying to suggest.

After you. You're the one who seems to have the medical information?

Well then you'll have to ask him why he didn't write what happened as he remembered it then. It was simply an oversight or mistake unless you think he deliberately years later decided to make up the whole scenario just to frame her.

Erm… Jayaram stated in an email at the time that he was called in by Letby.

I’ll ask you again. Was that statement a lie?

@DistantEarlyWarning yes I know. I've just said it was probably a mistake/oversight. Do you think he invented the other scenario about "almost catching her red-handed" to frame her? Because unless you do I don't see the point in calling him a liar or going over the email business ad nauseum.

An oversight? In a contemporaneous record? Either it was a lie (why would he do that?) or it’s an accurate record.

Why do you think the email was wrong, and the later statement was accurate? Ex

@DistantEarlyWarning have no idea, like I said you'd have to ask him.

Why did Letby lie to baby E's mum and then lie in court that the entire conversation never happened?

Has Lucy Letby given two different accounts of that interaction?

With Dr Jayaram, we know that one of his two contradictory accounts is false, whether through lying or misremembering. The version where Lucy Letby called him in is much more plausible than the other, when you remember that he told nobody about this incident for a year afterwards.

Where Lucy Letby's account contradicts a parent's, one (or conceivably both), is inaccurate, whether through lying or misremembering. But since we don't know which, we have no proof that Lucy Letby gave a false account. We do have this proof for Dr Jayaram.

You’re entirely unconcerned that he said two contradictory things, and the second one was used to convict Letby?

I hope he is asked to account for himself.

The only experts that count are the ones that appeared in the trial.

The ones that pontificate in the media after the trial without access to full information or being cross examined are significantly less relevant. LL’s defence didn’t call them at the time and it’s not been sufficiently persuasive to allow an appeal.