Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

News
Thread gallery
7
Thedevilhasfinallycaughtupwithhim · 03/07/2025 11:02

But none of that negates the fact that there are MANY top medical experts who are refuting the prosecutions assertions of medical evidence.
It doesn’t matter what she did or didn’t do during the trail.

JustASmallBear · 03/07/2025 11:02

rubbishatballet · 03/07/2025 10:56

But she was okay with the plumber giving evidence? And was up to taking the stand herself for 14 days of questioning?

If you’re in absolute pieces surely better to let some experts take some of the strain in defending you?

I agree. It makes no sense.

User14March · 03/07/2025 11:06

JustASmallBear · 03/07/2025 11:02

I agree. It makes no sense.

If she’d had a breakdown is it possible she misdirected her team? Not in any fit rational state to make sensible decisions?

JustASmallBear · 03/07/2025 11:11

User14March · 03/07/2025 11:06

If she’d had a breakdown is it possible she misdirected her team? Not in any fit rational state to make sensible decisions?

I don't know, and I hesitate to start making any suggestions about her mental state, or what she may have suggested as a result.

If she wasn't deemed fit to stand trial she wouldn't have been there.

rubbishatballet · 03/07/2025 11:15

Thedevilhasfinallycaughtupwithhim · 03/07/2025 11:02

But none of that negates the fact that there are MANY top medical experts who are refuting the prosecutions assertions of medical evidence.
It doesn’t matter what she did or didn’t do during the trail.

We do not know yet whether they have seen all the evidence that was available to the trial experts. Plus it doesn’t appear that they have seen all the trial transcripts as they have raised some issues that were actually dealt with at trial.

User14March · 03/07/2025 11:17

JustASmallBear · 03/07/2025 11:11

I don't know, and I hesitate to start making any suggestions about her mental state, or what she may have suggested as a result.

If she wasn't deemed fit to stand trial she wouldn't have been there.

That’s a fair point. It seems to me that more discrepancies & errors came to light quite late on.

BanditLamp · 03/07/2025 11:19

Look she was a nurse, not a legal expert and almost certainly very upset and stressed as anyone would be under the circumstances. She will have just done whatever her legal team suggested was the best idea. Her new barrister seems a lot more switched on.

rubbishatballet · 03/07/2025 11:20

JustASmallBear · 03/07/2025 11:02

I agree. It makes no sense.

It makes no sense if you believe she is innocent. But if you believe that she did it then it makes total sense.

JustASmallBear · 03/07/2025 11:27

rubbishatballet · 03/07/2025 11:15

We do not know yet whether they have seen all the evidence that was available to the trial experts. Plus it doesn’t appear that they have seen all the trial transcripts as they have raised some issues that were actually dealt with at trial.

This article seems to suggest they have seen and used the medical evidence.

Fourteen senior clinicians from around the world have analysed the medical evidence against Letby, including British doctor Neena Modi, a former president of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health.

Lucy Letby: Why are medical experts disputing evidence? - BBC News https://share.google/ARWr4UpWz6dKmLEqf

Thedevilhasfinallycaughtupwithhim · 03/07/2025 11:46

rubbishatballet · 03/07/2025 11:15

We do not know yet whether they have seen all the evidence that was available to the trial experts. Plus it doesn’t appear that they have seen all the trial transcripts as they have raised some issues that were actually dealt with at trial.

We do know that.

rubbishatballet · 03/07/2025 12:09

Thedevilhasfinallycaughtupwithhim · 03/07/2025 11:46

We do know that.

If they have seen all the trial transcripts then why have they made such glaring errors?

Thedevilhasfinallycaughtupwithhim · 03/07/2025 12:16

rubbishatballet · 03/07/2025 12:09

If they have seen all the trial transcripts then why have they made such glaring errors?

We know they have looked through all the evidence presented. As medical experts, they are offering their expertise on the medical evidence.

JustASmallBear · 03/07/2025 12:26

This seems quite rigorous.

Case notes for each baby were examined by two experts independently, who then passed their reports to the chair. If their opinions differed, a third member of the panel reviewed the case and a consensus view was reached. The panel worked under the agreement that their findings would be released whether they favoured Letby or not.

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/feb/04/lucy-letby-convictions-what-did-the-expert-panel-find

Lucy Letby murder convictions: what did the expert panel find?

Group concludes babies died due to natural causes or errors in medical care, saying there was no evidence of deliberate harm

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/feb/04/lucy-letby-convictions-what-did-the-expert-panel-find

rubbishatballet · 03/07/2025 12:37

Thedevilhasfinallycaughtupwithhim · 03/07/2025 12:16

We know they have looked through all the evidence presented. As medical experts, they are offering their expertise on the medical evidence.

But what is the point if the CCRC or CoA will just say about specific findings that this was already dealt with at trial? What a waste of everyone’s time, and I do not believe Mark McDonald has served them well in clearly not fully briefing them on the detail of what was covered at the trials with the original experts.

LSTMS30555 · 03/07/2025 12:50

@3678194b brilliant article

Thedevilhasfinallycaughtupwithhim · 03/07/2025 12:57

rubbishatballet · 03/07/2025 12:37

But what is the point if the CCRC or CoA will just say about specific findings that this was already dealt with at trial? What a waste of everyone’s time, and I do not believe Mark McDonald has served them well in clearly not fully briefing them on the detail of what was covered at the trials with the original experts.

The point is there is reasonable doubt.

PrettyDamnCosmic · 03/07/2025 12:58

LSTMS30555 · 03/07/2025 12:50

@3678194b brilliant article

Agreed. Here are the closing paragraphs

The Court of Appeal will make light work of McDonald’s submission if it ever reaches them. Letby will probably ensure it does not. The big question about her case is why she did not call any medical experts of her own. The only plausible answer is that she feared they would be tripped up under cross-examination and make her look even more guilty.

Her appeal now rests on the idea that she was poorly advised by her lawyer, Ben Myers KC and should have called the likes of Shoo Lee, but to do this she will have to waive privilege and allow the court to see the notes of her meetings with Myers. No innocent person would hesitate to waive privilege in this situation. Letby has not done so, presumably because she knows it would blow up in her face. So why fight for an appeal at all?

rubbishatballet · 03/07/2025 13:46

Thedevilhasfinallycaughtupwithhim · 03/07/2025 12:57

The point is there is reasonable doubt.

But clearly there wasn’t for the juries (for the offences they convicted her of) who heard all the evidence, which included dealing with some of the issues that have since been raised by the panel. From the article linked to above:

The “international panel” includes some high-flying neonatologists, and their opinions deserve to be taken seriously. Yet it is difficult to do so when they float ideas that have already been raised and refuted in court. They claim that the mother of Baby A passed her antiphospholipid syndrome (a rare blood disorder) on to the child, and he died of thrombosis as a result.

Aside from there being no physical evidence of thrombosis, Professor Sally Kinsey, a haematologist at Great Ormond Street Hospital, testified in court that blood tests proved that neither of the twins had antiphospholipid syndrome. The panel further asserts there is “no evidence” that Baby G was overfed, but the evidence shows she was being given 45ml of milk every three hours, each time on an empty stomach.

After projectile vomiting three times, she still managed to aspirate 45ml of milk through the nasogastric tube — and a further 100ml was aspirated later. As the neonatologist Dr Sandie Bohin explained in court, “basic arithmetic” shows that she was overfed.

3678194b · 03/07/2025 15:30

Thanks @LSTMS30555 and @PrettyDamnCosmic

The truth is the matter is that any such appeal will prove fruitless.

LSTMS30555 · 03/07/2025 16:02

@3678194b Good! Like the article states staying safely behind bars in HMP Bronzefield where it belongs 😃

Firefly1987 · 03/07/2025 19:06

PutThe · 03/07/2025 07:41

This is still not answering the question. You've still not told us how we can acknowledge the environment this is happening without 'going on' and have spilled quite a lot of virtual ink doing so. Whether or not you find this offensive and your level of faith in the police are matters for you. Anyone would think you find the institutional environment this is taking place in to be inconvenient to your beliefs...

Eh? I don't have any particular "beliefs" sometimes the police fuck up and deserve derision and sometimes they get it right and deserve the credit for that. I'm just saying I don't automatically believe the police do a good job as I'm no fan of them. But credit where credit's due. Same for the courts and the doctors etc. I just find all this "everyone must've failed in their jobs to make Lucy innocent" in poor taste-I'm sure I'm far from the only one there. By all means point out where they failed but you can't just assume they did because it happened a minority of times before.

Firefly1987 · 03/07/2025 19:11

Thedevilhasfinallycaughtupwithhim · 03/07/2025 10:01

And that’s how you get robust trials and safe convictions.
If we only allow one side to present their interpretation of the evidence, we can’t secure that.

Edited

What if all sides point to guilt when actually tested in court? You wouldn't be satisfied with that either. Maybe throw them out and get some other "experts" until you find some who agree with what you think happened? You have to realise that with such an infamous case as this, there were always going to be chancers that came out and disputed the evidence. None of that has been tested in court and I'm pretty sure their theories would completely fall apart if they were. Meanwhile the evidence still stands that HAS been tested-like the insulin being deliberate harm. For some reason people have completely dismissed that evidence, wonder why?

Firefly1987 · 03/07/2025 19:20

rubbishatballet · 03/07/2025 11:20

It makes no sense if you believe she is innocent. But if you believe that she did it then it makes total sense.

Exactly! She's guilty and she knew no expert would be able to point to anything other than deliberate harm so they got a plumber who has zero idea about medical things to say he had to fix the sinks a few times. And ofc LL herself lied her way through the stand. She had NO other options. You'd think that'd be a big clue on her guilt but no it must be because her extremely experienced barrister just dropped the ball 🙄

allofusare · 03/07/2025 19:55

she knew no expert would be able to point to anything other than deliberate harm apart from the twelve experts who stated that no deliberate harm took place.

Letby’s defence is a mystery and I’m not going to pretend otherwise. But one of the big problems with the trial was that the established fact at the time was that these babies had been murdered and therefore Letby was the culprit. It’s that which has since been called into doubt, and I think that’s why such extreme opposing camps have taken root: one side will not hear that murders didn’t happen (and therefore only Letby could reasonably be responsible) and the other side either don’t know if murders took place or believe that they did not.

Catpuss66 · 03/07/2025 22:25

Firefly1987 · 03/07/2025 19:11

What if all sides point to guilt when actually tested in court? You wouldn't be satisfied with that either. Maybe throw them out and get some other "experts" until you find some who agree with what you think happened? You have to realise that with such an infamous case as this, there were always going to be chancers that came out and disputed the evidence. None of that has been tested in court and I'm pretty sure their theories would completely fall apart if they were. Meanwhile the evidence still stands that HAS been tested-like the insulin being deliberate harm. For some reason people have completely dismissed that evidence, wonder why?

I thought the evidence was not accurate, the test was only the first part it was meant to be tested again the first part of the test was not diagnostic of insulin being present, other factors could give the positive result. It was not conclusive was my understanding.

Swipe left for the next trending thread