First, while Dr. Shoo K. Lee had training in behavioral sciences, please note, he did not comment on deceitful actions or lying or whatever. He commented on medical facts. In fact, that some of the ways the doctors accused LL of using to kill the babies made no sense.
RIGHT, and that is my point. He tried to base the entire verdict upon his interpretation of the medical reports. But everyone agrees that it is not cut and dry. No one can 100% determine if it was natural or malicious in most of these cases.
So we must look at the circumstantial evidence as well. And if the medical doctors cannot say with 100% certainty because they disagree with each other, then what other facts do we have?
If these were ALL natural deaths, why do all of them happen when one particular employee is present? Why do they not happen when she is away?
And if they are all natural deaths, why is one particular employee falsifying her medical logs and trying to create false timelines surrounding some of these deaths?
Why did she call the parents of one of the victims dishonest when they claim their baby was screaming and bleeding at 9 pm? They had evidence to corroborate those claims but Letby doubled down and continued to call them 'either lying or mistaken.' But they were being truthful and that is a big problem for Lucy.
It's a problem because Shoo-Lee says it is a natural death, but 4 other well respected medical experts say it appears to be a malicious death. And if the jury has to decide if it is malicious or natural, and they look at the nurse who was caring for the victims, and they see that she was deceitful and was lying about the circumstances of the deaths, then that is very suspicious.
Especially if there were 27 incidents, and the nurse behaved suspiciously and dishonestly in many of those 27 incidents.
Only interesting that "error" was in case of "baby K", wasn't it? That's where there was Dr. Jay with his amazing memory and looking at the watch, and a year later, showed memory gaps.
But you know what's most interesting? They said that LL killed the baby by dislodging the tube. Dr. Shoo Lee said the tube wasn't dislodged, but the caliber used for the tube was too small. Guess on whose watch was the intubation performed? Surprise...
That is Shoo-Lee's opinion about the tube but it is not a proven fact.
And yet it does not really matter because the jury looked at 27 charged incidents and only decided guilt upon the ones that seemed beyond a reasonable doubt.
It might be, or it might be an observation bias. Humans err.
I think it is not up to us. A year ago, i was just reading and observing the language. But I am not a neonatologist. It was a bothersome case. And now fourteen neonatologists came to UK, on own time and money, to question the validity of the conclusions. Kudos to them. They don't stand for their colleague. I truly doubt they ever saw LL. They studied the medical facts of the case. And they stand for truth and justice. I deeply respect Mr. Shoo Lee.
But that is exactly the problem. They didn't study the whole case. They don't know all of the circumstances.
Just looking at medical reports do not tell the whole truth of the matter. No one can 100% agree by looking at the reports.
Just like in a suicide case. A medical examiner can lean one way or another. But they cannot always know for sure if it was suicide or homicide. That's why they also investigate the surrounding circumstances---any notes left behind?---a troubled life? ---depression or terminal illness maybe?
It's the same thing here with the medical reports. Shoo-Lee cannot with 100% certainty prove that none were malicious actions. And the prosecution cannot 100% prove, just by the medical reports, that none were natural deaths.
So they need to take the investigation into the other circumstances into account as well. If you realise that there was a spike in unexplained, unexpected collapses, that all had odd things in common, that were highly unusual.
And the usual things they tested for in natural deaths did not show up as a common denominator here. But there was one common denominator in one specific employee that was always ever present. AND that employee left some very incriminating notes which seemed to be emotional confessions. And that same employee was found to have falsified some of her medical logs in order to distance herself from some of the incidents. And even lied about some of the logs and timelines, and was sometimes saying things that were in direct conflict with other witness testimonies.
When you look at the whole big picture, and stack up each brick, brick by brick, a wall of guilt is formed, imo.
In the trial we heard hundreds of her texts and DMS to friends and family and coworkers. They were very revealing. We read some of her journal writings, which were also very revealing. If you add it all together, you can see sh has much in common with other Munchausen by Proxy suffers. IMO
