Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Legal matters

Mumsnet has not checked the qualifications of anyone posting here. If you have any legal concerns we suggest you consult a solicitor.

Original poster

Is Ravi Jayaram Shady? (Lucy Letby)

97 replies

ConcernedCitizen0502 · 26/07/2024 10:34

It seems the police made an error with key card swipe timings that was discovered between the first and second Letby trial's.

At the first Letby trial and in the media Dr Ravi Jayaram made a lot of melodramatic statements about having a "precise memory" of looking at his watch "emblazoned" in his mind and "etched in my memories and nightmares forever".

Yet when the keycard error was discovered at the second trial, the altered timings put him against the witness statements of two independent nurses (plus Lucy Letby) and also a note he made to the transport team.

Do you think Dr Ravi Jayaram is trustworthy? He was reprimanded for bullying Lucy Letby before the police became involved in the case. He also guided the direction of the police investigation.

Breakdown of the timings with reference to the court reports here;

OP posts:
Thread gallery
7
prh47bridge · 02/10/2024 12:55

WhatWouldJeevesDo · 02/10/2024 12:43

Thanks @Kittybythelighthouse. I think it might be rather cringe to say the least so I haven’t registered for the Telegraph.
This article on Baby C seems to have helped his change of mind.
https://medium.com/@triedbystats/lucy-letby-was-convicted-of-murdering-baby-c-based-on-evidence-from-a-day-when-she-wasnt-on-shift-8fb2bb93e0ef

Indeed. The evidence of air being injected into baby C's stomach came from an x-ray. At the time it was taken, Letby had not been on duty since baby C was born. During her appeal, the prosecution suggested she must have visited the unit when off duty in order to attack baby C, but there is no evidence to support this.

Unfortunately for Letby, Evans continues to insist that she was responsible for all the deaths. If she manages to get the case back to the Court of Appeal, they are likely to use this to argue that the convictions are safe. The Court of Appeal is better than it used to be but it is still resistant to overturning convictions, particularly in high profile cases like this, for fear that doing so will undermine public confidence in the justice system.

Another problem she faces was seen in the appeal that has been heard, where the defence sought to introduce evidence from one of the world's leading experts on air embolism in infants contradicting Evans' conclusions. The court rejected this as not new evidence on the grounds that the defence could have contacted this expert prior to the trial and called him as a witness. They could use the same argument to exclude all of the medical and statistics experts who are raising concerns about the case.

Note that I am not saying Letby is innocent. I have no way of knowing. But there do appear to be serious concerns about the evidence on which she was convicted, and it raises genuine questions about how judges (who are not experts in anything other than the law) and juries (who are unlikely to have relevant expertise) deal with complex expert evidence in cases like this.

buffyajp · 02/10/2024 13:27

gruffaloapplecrumble · 04/09/2024 18:13

I think this has been an appalling miscarriage of justice, but I’m sure I’ll be told it’s just because she’s blonde and white.

It’s because she’s as guilty as sin and thankfully the people that matter agree. As I keep saying, the ONLY victims in this are the babies and their families.

Alectoishome · 02/10/2024 14:00

I think her relationship with her parents was telling, they knew she wasn't quite right mentally. Obviously they couldn't have known what she was doing. But things like her dad attending her disciplinary meeting (was it a disciplinary? It was something like that) at work. I mean, wtf? Who would bring thier dad at her age? Her parents treated her like a little girl, that could have been their own issues, or it could be because they knew she was not the full ticket.

Mirabai · 02/10/2024 14:21

prh47bridge · 02/10/2024 12:55

Indeed. The evidence of air being injected into baby C's stomach came from an x-ray. At the time it was taken, Letby had not been on duty since baby C was born. During her appeal, the prosecution suggested she must have visited the unit when off duty in order to attack baby C, but there is no evidence to support this.

Unfortunately for Letby, Evans continues to insist that she was responsible for all the deaths. If she manages to get the case back to the Court of Appeal, they are likely to use this to argue that the convictions are safe. The Court of Appeal is better than it used to be but it is still resistant to overturning convictions, particularly in high profile cases like this, for fear that doing so will undermine public confidence in the justice system.

Another problem she faces was seen in the appeal that has been heard, where the defence sought to introduce evidence from one of the world's leading experts on air embolism in infants contradicting Evans' conclusions. The court rejected this as not new evidence on the grounds that the defence could have contacted this expert prior to the trial and called him as a witness. They could use the same argument to exclude all of the medical and statistics experts who are raising concerns about the case.

Note that I am not saying Letby is innocent. I have no way of knowing. But there do appear to be serious concerns about the evidence on which she was convicted, and it raises genuine questions about how judges (who are not experts in anything other than the law) and juries (who are unlikely to have relevant expertise) deal with complex expert evidence in cases like this.

Show quote history

Interesting article on Le Monde today on this point. “From bad science to judicial error”:

It describes […] “our tendency to let emotion or the argument from authority numb our critical thinking. Simplistic theories with a scientific appearance, mistakenly perceived as sources of absolute truth, lead us to blame scapegoats for tragedies with complex, multifactorial causes, or drive us to worse. Our scientific education must better teach us to distinguish between observations, hypotheses, evidence, and beliefs. Otherwise, our doctors, judges, and decision-makers will continue to make catastrophic mistakes”.

https://x.com/carovinuesa/status/1841462269185523779?s=61&t=r2_R2aezWDfDdIttDPUAug

WhatWouldJeevesDo · 02/10/2024 17:05

prh47bridge · 02/10/2024 12:55

Indeed. The evidence of air being injected into baby C's stomach came from an x-ray. At the time it was taken, Letby had not been on duty since baby C was born. During her appeal, the prosecution suggested she must have visited the unit when off duty in order to attack baby C, but there is no evidence to support this.

Unfortunately for Letby, Evans continues to insist that she was responsible for all the deaths. If she manages to get the case back to the Court of Appeal, they are likely to use this to argue that the convictions are safe. The Court of Appeal is better than it used to be but it is still resistant to overturning convictions, particularly in high profile cases like this, for fear that doing so will undermine public confidence in the justice system.

Another problem she faces was seen in the appeal that has been heard, where the defence sought to introduce evidence from one of the world's leading experts on air embolism in infants contradicting Evans' conclusions. The court rejected this as not new evidence on the grounds that the defence could have contacted this expert prior to the trial and called him as a witness. They could use the same argument to exclude all of the medical and statistics experts who are raising concerns about the case.

Note that I am not saying Letby is innocent. I have no way of knowing. But there do appear to be serious concerns about the evidence on which she was convicted, and it raises genuine questions about how judges (who are not experts in anything other than the law) and juries (who are unlikely to have relevant expertise) deal with complex expert evidence in cases like this.

Show quote history

Thanks. I can’t see much hope of her ever being cleared on all counts either. Dodgy, overly certain experts really are a menace but then simple accusations like tube twisting are probably even more difficult to disprove once you’re convicted.

The judge’s summing up on Baby C, and on the insulin cases, where Letby wasn’t there to contaminate at least one bag seem to be questionable but I suppose that’s where judges close ranks.

Kittybythelighthouse · 02/10/2024 22:13

prh47bridge · 02/10/2024 12:55

Indeed. The evidence of air being injected into baby C's stomach came from an x-ray. At the time it was taken, Letby had not been on duty since baby C was born. During her appeal, the prosecution suggested she must have visited the unit when off duty in order to attack baby C, but there is no evidence to support this.

Unfortunately for Letby, Evans continues to insist that she was responsible for all the deaths. If she manages to get the case back to the Court of Appeal, they are likely to use this to argue that the convictions are safe. The Court of Appeal is better than it used to be but it is still resistant to overturning convictions, particularly in high profile cases like this, for fear that doing so will undermine public confidence in the justice system.

Another problem she faces was seen in the appeal that has been heard, where the defence sought to introduce evidence from one of the world's leading experts on air embolism in infants contradicting Evans' conclusions. The court rejected this as not new evidence on the grounds that the defence could have contacted this expert prior to the trial and called him as a witness. They could use the same argument to exclude all of the medical and statistics experts who are raising concerns about the case.

Note that I am not saying Letby is innocent. I have no way of knowing. But there do appear to be serious concerns about the evidence on which she was convicted, and it raises genuine questions about how judges (who are not experts in anything other than the law) and juries (who are unlikely to have relevant expertise) deal with complex expert evidence in cases like this.

Show quote history

“The Court of Appeal is better than it used to be but it is still resistant to overturning convictions, particularly in high profile cases like this, for fear that doing so will undermine public confidence in the justice system.”

As if this absolute farce isn’t undermining public confidence in the justice system!

The “new evidence” stipulation in the Court of Appeal is not a hard rule, I believe. They do have leeway with that.

I fully agree with the rest of your comment. None of us can KNOW that she’s guilty or innocent, but it is clear that the investigation and trial were not fair or just. All of us should care very much about that because it could be any one of us next and there may not be as much public attention to bring forward a cavalry if that happens.

AmateurDad · 05/10/2024 00:10

urbanbuddha · 05/09/2024 07:44

I know he’s an unreliable witness.
Is he shady? I don’t know.
I have the most difficulty in understanding why LL’s defence was so poor.

Oh hang on, so you're a hugely experienced and highly rated criminal barrister who's had sight of all of the papers...?

AmateurDad · 05/10/2024 01:08

buffyajp · 02/10/2024 13:27

It’s because she’s as guilty as sin and thankfully the people that matter agree. As I keep saying, the ONLY victims in this are the babies and their families.

Show quote history

No, you've completely missing the point. If LL is in fact innocent - and I know only what I have read online - her conviction and sentencing is itself a tragedy, and a scandal

AbraAbraCadabra · 05/10/2024 03:24

Kittybythelighthouse · 02/10/2024 12:02

Did you see Evans’s interview in the telegraph last night? He’s now no longer sure that three of the babies were killed by the air in the stomach method (never before seen in medicine) that he insisted on during the trial. Of course this has nothing to do with the fact that a multitude of eminent neonatologists and pathologists have come out to say that this method is “absurd”, “ridiculous” and “fantastical”. This is not the first time he’s shifted the goalposts either. He’s a charlatan and a disgrace.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/10/01/lucy-letby-witness-changed-mind/

Has anyone got a share token they are happy to share for this article?

kkloo · 05/10/2024 04:43

AbraAbraCadabra · 05/10/2024 03:24

Has anyone got a share token they are happy to share for this article?

Show quote history

Copy the link and post it into archive.ph and you can get past most paywall articles.

AbraAbraCadabra · 05/10/2024 06:37

kkloo · 05/10/2024 04:43

Copy the link and post it into archive.ph and you can get past most paywall articles.

Show quote history

Thanks. Wow. He seems to be just making it up as he goes along?!?

WhatWouldJeevesDo · 05/10/2024 07:39

urbanbuddha · 05/09/2024 07:44

I know he’s an unreliable witness.
Is he shady? I don’t know.
I have the most difficulty in understanding why LL’s defence was so poor.

I struggle with this as well.
The best explanation I’ve seen for why the defence didn’t call Dr Hall is in the comments here
https://www.reddit.com/r/LucyLetbyTrials/comments/1esvi4s/important_new_comments_from_dr_philip_hammond_on/

In the case of the Birmingham six the defence expert was right but tentative and the prosecution expert wrong but certain and juries usually like certainty. The judge also in the Birmingham six case rubbished the defence witness and gave credence to the prosecution expert.
I suppose her defence’s decisions were some sort of gamble. I can’t help thinking that had she had an expert defence witness, Letby would not have been browbeaten into saying something like someone did it but ‘it wasn’t me’ on some of the counts.
Interestingly eleven of the original verdicts were by a majority. The unanimous ones seem to be the ones where Letby said ok they’re the experts there was harm but it wasn’t me.

WhatWouldJeevesDo · 05/10/2024 07:41

Looking forward to Jayaram’s testimony to Thirlwall coming soon.

TheYearOfSmallThings · 05/10/2024 07:50

I don't think he's shady. I do think doctors need to have an almost arrogant level of confidence in their own abilities (including the accuracy of their recall) to hold people's lives in their hands without being tortured by anxiety and self doubt. I also think he genuinely believes she is guilty, which is reinforcing his recollections. I don't think he's wrong about her guilt either, but none of us has perfect recall.

WhatWouldJeevesDo · 05/10/2024 11:52

TheYearOfSmallThings · 05/10/2024 07:50

I don't think he's shady. I do think doctors need to have an almost arrogant level of confidence in their own abilities (including the accuracy of their recall) to hold people's lives in their hands without being tortured by anxiety and self doubt. I also think he genuinely believes she is guilty, which is reinforcing his recollections. I don't think he's wrong about her guilt either, but none of us has perfect recall.

I agree to some extent about doctors needing to be confident.
Perhaps we’re singling Jayaram out unfairly. One thing about the paediatricians, if one accepts there were murders done, is that they are being massively unreasonable in blaming management including the head of nursing for their own failure to go to the police. They had a professional and possibly legal duty to do so if they had suspicions. It actually would have been very easy to raise suspicions with the child death overview panel, which included a senior police officer if they believed any deaths were suspicious.
They kept saying to managers we don’t have any objective evidence but expected management to behave as though they did.
If Lucy Letby had gone off to work somewhere else instead of raising a grievance, would they have ever gone to the police?

Trishsenior · 07/10/2024 12:12

Mirabai · 26/07/2024 13:59

No in a nutshell. I hope he really believes she’s guilty and his campaign is sincere rather than a cynical attempt to save his career. However his testimony is too inconsistent and subject to too much alteration over time for him to be a trustworthy witness.

In a case that hinged entirely on his personal testimony - the fact that it changed from one trial to the next is highly problematic.

I think he sounds dodgy the way he's mistakes lucy letby for another nurse. His 'memory' seems 'selective' for his own benefits perhaps???

Trishsenior · 07/10/2024 12:13

WhatWouldJeevesDo · 05/10/2024 07:41

Looking forward to Jayaram’s testimony to Thirlwall coming soon.

His 'selective' memory perhaps to possibly 'save' his career??.............

AthenaBasil · 10/10/2024 15:37

Alectoishome · 02/10/2024 14:00

I think her relationship with her parents was telling, they knew she wasn't quite right mentally. Obviously they couldn't have known what she was doing. But things like her dad attending her disciplinary meeting (was it a disciplinary? It was something like that) at work. I mean, wtf? Who would bring thier dad at her age? Her parents treated her like a little girl, that could have been their own issues, or it could be because they knew she was not the full ticket.

That proves nothing. There are so many stories brought up about her that are completely innocent but because she was convicted people look for something in them. I wouldn’t want my parents at something like that but a disciplinary meeting is obviously a stressful situation and some people would want their parents, especially if their parents would be good at helping in things like that. Just googled to see her dad is/was a manager so might have dealt with disciplinaries before.

WhatWouldJeevesDo · 10/10/2024 17:50

AthenaBasil · 10/10/2024 15:37

That proves nothing. There are so many stories brought up about her that are completely innocent but because she was convicted people look for something in them. I wouldn’t want my parents at something like that but a disciplinary meeting is obviously a stressful situation and some people would want their parents, especially if their parents would be good at helping in things like that. Just googled to see her dad is/was a manager so might have dealt with disciplinaries before.

Show quote history

He probably was useful. It was a grievance and she won it.

kkloo · 10/10/2024 18:31

Alectoishome · 02/10/2024 14:00

I think her relationship with her parents was telling, they knew she wasn't quite right mentally. Obviously they couldn't have known what she was doing. But things like her dad attending her disciplinary meeting (was it a disciplinary? It was something like that) at work. I mean, wtf? Who would bring thier dad at her age? Her parents treated her like a little girl, that could have been their own issues, or it could be because they knew she was not the full ticket.

I don't think it was telling at all.
It was a very abnormal situation.
It would be weird if you brought your dad in if you had a grievance over something more normal or less serious.

WhatWouldJeevesDo · 11/10/2024 06:41

I’ve been thinking about Dr Brearey doing a trawl of past cases in order to pin something on LL. I wonder how many times he’d seen similar insulin readings. He knew the test wasn’t suitable for detecting exogenous insulin, He’s just as shady as Jayaram, but it’s Cheshire police I feel angry with.

WhatWouldJeevesDo · 26/10/2024 11:23

Even the Court of Appeal think Jayaram unreliable, which might encourage the CCRC to judge that the case passes its test on the likelihood of a new appeal succeeding
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/R-v-LETBY-202402750-B4-FINAL-_.pdf

Is Ravi Jayaram Shady? (Lucy Letby)