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?

Yes, I know. But the general public obviously includes people who are aware of the Shoo Lee panel and have doubts because of that. We know this because there's some who've posted about that on the various Letby threats, whereas the idea that this is just because she's white and some people think she's pretty is merely a thing some of you like to claim.

So, with that in mind, what would Shoo Lee have done if Letby were a man of a different culture?

@eastegg sorry if I wasn’t clear.

You said to me that I didn’t say whether anything Evans said was appropriate or inappropriate

So if we say what Evans said (that murders took place) was inappropriate then that renders the whole trial a bit pointless.

If we say it was actually appropriate then it is just as appropriate for Shoo Lee to state no murders did take place.

I am in no way aiming this at you personally but I do find the ‘inappropriate; you can’t say that; that’s insensitive to the parents / families’ is a particular way of trying to quiet voices of dissent and I don’t believe it has anything to do with concern for the families or a sense of what is or isn’t sensitive or appropriate.

Look, it was just a fleeting comment about a stereotype agreeing with a different poster, nothing more. Highly doubt Joe public sitting in their living room are deeply studying expert panel dynamics anyway.

Thank you for being so willing to confirm that you'd given the matter no real thought before deciding the widespread doubt in the conviction was about race. That's more than most of the other people who've said similar have done, including the one you were agreeing with.

Thank you for the detailed breakdown. You're right that people who have researched the case, including the expert panels, see a lot of nuance. My original comment wasn't trying to dismiss that depth; it was a fleeting, surface-level observation about a common stereotype in reply to another poster. I think we can accept that both exist at the same time without needing to debate it further. Have a good night.

I know you’ve just said you’re not aiming it at me personally, but please don’t conflate what I’ve said about Shoo Lee’s comments being inappropriate with concern for the families, which is a whole separate thing. My comments about Shoo Lee had nothing to do with concern for the families. My last post said a bit more about why SL’s comments were wrong, it’s to do with the proper remit of an expert.

Lee was perfectly within his remit. He and his panel found (in some cases, he said very obvious) natural causes of death, exacerbated in many cases by poor care. The panel included a forensic pathologist.

Obviously, that means they did not find any murders. That's an important point to articulate and there's no reason he shouldn't have said it

I don’t know how you could get any more expert than the person who penned the paper saying ‘this has been misinterpreted.’

I haven’t heard or read anything from anyone who believes there has been a MOJ that it has anything to do with her being white, pretty and “girl next door”. On the contrary, I have seen a great deal of considered and well informed discussion about the prosecution evidence and the way the investigation and trials were conducted. The only people I’ve seen mentioning her appearance are usually using it as a means of devaluing and dismissing the concerns about the case.

Is this the general public’s perception? Or is it a lazy stereotype propagated by people looking to discredit the position of those who understand the scientific evidence, understand statistics, and are concerned that there has been a MoJ?

He can't declare no murders. Even Mike Hall said on Panorama that he's not saying she's not guilty, just that the babies were sicker than was made out. It's very suspicious (and convenient) that across the board they found "no murders" but then again it was a sensationalist PR press conference and they were giving the public what they wanted. That's what it's always been about.

Why can’t he? His professional opinion is that the causes of deaths and collapses were natural or iatrogenic, so why can’t he say that?

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.

Isn't that close to being libellous? Making out he'd be happy to see an innocent woman thrown in prison for life and have the parents think their children were murdered even if they weren't. And what about all the other experts that agreed with him?

There was no speciality for neonatology where Dr Evans studied so I'm not sure that should be held against him. He has decades of experience. Shoo Lee is also retired btw.

He can say that we (his panel) did not find any murders, since they didn't.

I agree the neonatology thing can be oversimplified. Some paediatricians become specialists in neonatology through experience over time, having some relevant training. The paediatricians at Chester didn't, but I don't think we know that for Dr Evans. The length of time he was retired is probably more relevant.

Well Colin Ferguson has been retired for at least 10 years so I guess we can safely dismiss any of his opinions too. Also wasn't a neonatologist.

Given she’s been found guilty, what reasons have you seen on Facebook to believe she’s innocent and why?

I think we all could've predicted they'd say that from the beginning with Dr Shoo Lee being introduced as the "star of the show" (to talk about baby deaths). They were never going to come to any other conclusion.

That depends what he was dealing with, but yes, it's worth addressing.

They knew what they had found out by the time they were introduced at the press conference. I did think Davis referring to the "star of a show" hit too jolly a note, in the circumstances, but I am sure he was well briefed on their findings at that point.

@Oftenaddled well yeah but they were never in a million years going to come out and say "turns out the trial was right after all"

I think if they'd found clear evidence of murder there wouldn't have been a press conference, but they did the reports on the condition that they would publish them whatever they found. I see no reason why they would go back on that. It would still have been a story - just a different one.

Yes. We certainly wouldn't have had a press conference with Mark McDonald and David Davis, but they wouldn't have struggled to place a story confirming their findings with an outlet like the Times, the BBC etc

@Oftenaddled you really think Shoo Lee was ever going to admit he got it wrong? After all the fuss he made about Dr Evans misinterpreting his paper, you think he's going to say "well he did misinterpret it but turns out they were all air embolisms after all" I mean he's just not going to admit that is he.

Isn’t that why he didn’t look at the evidence on his own, but organised a team of independent experts/specialists to look at the cases separately?