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?

Did you know there's a pending application to the CCRC which includes material from some of these experts? As it remains unresolved, it's premature to say the submissions of these experts don't count. You don't know whether they count or not. It isn't yet possible to say.

That is such a bizarre view to have, if you want a fair justice system. It is hard to understand why you really don’t care if evidence presented at court turns out to be inaccurate?

I imagine most people on the thread know there’s a pending application to the CCRC. I’d be surprised if @Comtesse doesn’t. It’s also common knowledge the defence are relying on experts in that application. And yet still there’s nothing really much wrong with what @Comtesse has said here; they’re reflecting the legal state of play a darn sight more accurately than a lot of posters.

You’re quite right that the experts now relied on by the defence only count as much as the CCRC, and ultimately the appeal courts, say they do. So let’s wait and see. But in the meantime, why only remind @Comtesse of that? It would seem much more appropriate to remind those who are setting rather a lot of store by these experts.

What an odd post.

You've acknowledged yourself that her statement the only experts that count are the trial ones is incorrect. Which means actually, there's something very much wrong with what she wrote- the fundamental claim underpinning the post is inaccurate. With that in mind, either she doesn't know about the CCRC review or she does but has misunderstood something about it. I'm interested to know which of those it is. Obviously, you're not able to answer that on her behalf.

Meantime, if you think any reminders need to be issued to other board members, it would be appropriate for you to do that yourself rather than trying to tell others what they should be posting. And this would be so even if your assessment about her accuracy was right, which it can't be because Comtesse's post was based on a totally incorrect premise.

Ok @eastegg the question in OP was if you think LL is guilty tell me your reasons. I shared my reasons. I couldn’t care less if you agree or disagree with me. I am not interested trying to persuade you or anyone else. I was literally answering the question raised in the OP. The court judgement x 2 is good enough for me - finito.

Maybe CCRC might form a different view and allow an appeal? Maybe, maybe not. No one on this thread knows for sure. And even if she is given a chance to appeal then it doesn’t imply she would win the appeal. These other experts might have generated a lot of column inches (and MN posts) but that’s about the only impact so far….. the proof is in the pudding.

Eh? Have you tagged me by mistake? I won’t bother sticking up for you if that’s the response 😁 have a lovely day.

As much as I disagree with everything else, that was clearly a mistake!

I've seen the documentary and the main question I still have is - is it usual for the police to simply accept and pay an expert that puts himself forward?

Surely the police should take care to get the best and most appropriate medical expert not the one who's been retired for years and says 'hey, I'll do it'. This seems like a red flag. I can see how a jury could be convinced by Dr Evans. He's very very confident and expects people to believe him. Without anyone challenging him, I'd believe him.

The bit in the documentary with Dr Ferguson and Dr Evans was really interesting. Dr Evans is not used to people challenging him. He doesn't seem to have a good answer for why there is no evidence of air seen in the babies given supposedly the cause of death he's advocated is via air embolism.

AI summary of the issue: Dr Colin Ferguson and other specialists stated that it is physically impossible for fatal air embolisms to leave no visible air in the heart or for such volumes of air to completely absorb after death.
Post-Mortem Findings: Real-world medical data shows air remains present in the heart during autopsies of air embolism, but none of the indicator babies in the indictment had air recorded in the heart at post-mortem.

You can't go around just making up supposed murder methods that aren't scientifically feasible because of a statistical correlation, that's insane.

Evans appears to have changed his mind about the murder method since the trial too in the case of baby C. So he can just keep on changing theories with no additional evidence and that's fine?!! He exposes himself in doing this.

Whether or not she's guilty, this level of ridiculousness can't be allowed to stand. The entire case was poorly run, and Letby's defence was woeful. We won't have any nurses left if this isn't dealt with properly, because why would you risk being in that position?

@Ginnyweasleyswand this is one of my major issues. He’s been retired for so long, he was never a neonatologist I don’t believe. He has a vested interest in saying stuff to make her seem guilty because he’s getting paid by that side. Of course you say what the person writing your pay check wants. More so when you’re setting up/have set up your own business as an expert witness and are hoping for future cases to come your way. Other police forces will employ someone with a proven track record of securing a guilty verdict but less likely to employ him again if she’d been found not guilty!

Im a health care professional, twenty years at a senior level working clinically in the nhs. I’m now a senior lecturer in my subject. I consider myself up to date in my subject, I have to be in order to teach. However solicitor firms make it clear in order to be employed by them as an expert witness you still have to be working clinically. I ve looked into it. Doesn’t make sense how he was able to present himself and be taken up on his offer.

Ha oops mis-tagged!

Yes, his employment in this role reeks of an 'old boys club' or something like that. It made no sense he was their expert. None at all. He's convincing, of course, so I can see why they found that appealing but that's not what's called for. If he hadn't misrepresented Dr Lee's paper to the extent that Dr Lee felt morally obliged to speak up, he'd probably have had no scrutiny at all.

I do not like the idea that the police will just accept anyone putting themselves forward, that's completely open to abuse.

Given how Dewi Evans responds to scientifically informed questioning I do find it ironic when people dismiss the evidence of genuine experts like Shoo Lee because they haven’t been cross examined in court.
I think some people have no conception of the difference in rigorous thinking and intellectual honesty between two bit ‘experts’ like Evans and the people at the top of the international neonatology scientific community, and have a vastly over inflated idea of the ability of barristers (even successful ones) to carry out cross examination on subjects they have no scientific grasp of.

Right thanks.

This particular baby death was on the unit after lucy letby left. She appears on the documentary to say that she believes that Lucy was a scapegoat for the poor standard of care on the unit, as her baby collapsed in a similar way and it couldn't have been lucy. There were also several deaths on the unit that happened when lucy wasn't on shift, but the police conveniently omitted those deaths and focused on the ones she was on shift for. Cutting off the spreadsheet to show only the crosses for the shifts she was present. I dont know whether she is guilty or innocent but having looked at all the evidence, the trial and police investigation are definitely shambolic and there should be a retrial

Genuine experts like Shoo Lee

I’m sorry but I can’t let this pass without comment.

I can’t necessarily fault his expertise, and I’m sure he’s a decent man at least I assume so, but this is the same Shoo Lee who sat in front of a press conference and said ‘We found no murders’ (I think that’s verbatim what he said). A wholly inappropriate thing for an expert to say. He never would be allowed to say that in court. It illustrates the care needed in listening to and evaluating all the myriad things said about this case in the media. It was very wrong of him to make that statement, an abuse of his position I’d go as far as saying. His intentions may have been good but he got that very wrong.

Why is it inappropriate for him to say ‘we found no murders’ but not inappropriate for Dewi Evans to say ‘we found murders’ and change the method when it suits him ?

I couldn’t disagree more, and I am not sure why you believe it is right to censor the reasoned and evidence based scholarly opinions of people who have viewed the evidence and brought a better understanding of the subject to the material than anyone who gave evidence in court.
He was describing what the panel found (hence ‘we found no murders’ not ‘there were no murders) and unlike Evans was speaking within the limits of his expertise.

Seconded. We seem to be hearing various claims about what's inappropriate without any explanation as to why.

Well if you can’t fault the actual content of what he says it’s an easy way to throw shade….

I didn’t say whether anything Evans said was appropriate or inappropriate.

110%, I bet if it was a man and from a different culture, it would be yesterday's news.

But the whole premise of the trial took place on the basis that murders DID take place. So if we say that is inappropriate then the whole trial was. If it wasn’t; it if was appropriate, then so was Shoo Lee’s statement.

I’m talking about the remit of an expert, who answers particular questions (how did a baby die, clinically speaking? What are the symptoms of X?) using their expertise, and the remit of the jury, which is to decide if there were murders and if LL committed them. It wasn’t a ‘premise’ of the trial that there were murders, it was a fundamental question for the jury.

I didn’t fully follow your post tbh, I think something went wrong with the punctuation, but I’ve answered it as best I can.

I've asked a few people this now, and most of them haven't engaged.

One of the commonest points made by people who have doubts relates to the involvement of Dr Shoo Lee, a man from a different culture. He learned that Dr Dewi Evans, a prosecution expert and white British just like Lucy Letby, had misinterpreted his research. Most likely you know that the expert panel he then convened received a lot of coverage.

What do you think Dr Shoo Lee would've done when he learned this, if Letby had been, say, a man of the same culture as him?

I am referring to the general public perception eg "She is white and pretty girl next door couldn't have done it" brigade.