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.
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.
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
You are right. In a well-known case of MA, a young pregnant woman’s death was first deemed “a suicide”. It is only when the police later looked at the camera, they saw her BF leaving.
So in LL’s case, there was no camera to watch her or anyone else. There was no way to trace insulin in that unit. All that existed in terms of technology were card swipes data, and even here LE made a mistake.
And Dr. Jay, who a year ago absolutely remembered when he loooked at his watch, suddenly claims memory loss a year later. Which is scary because all this case is based on subjective opinion of two doctors, and a “professional” trial consultant that was openly proud on how many colleagues he put behind bars. Plus, the information provided by the hospital.
So, fourteen people, neonatologists, consulted by Europe, China, Singapore, Canada, US, WHO…wouldn’t you trust them? This is what “experts” are for. They earned their bread and butter by studying and working hard. They go to COCH. They look through the papers, the information, look at the sanitary state of the unit, they can assess the quality of the work of the doctors and nurses of NICU. And they say, substandard care. They pull out the case when Dr. Jay chose the wrong size of the endotracheal tube. Guess what, they are neonatologists, I trust them. They find out that Dr. Breary lacerated the baby’s liver. Somehow we’ve never heard about it before, have we? They say, colleagues, have you thought of antiphospholipid sybdrome? (No, the colleagues have not, they were chasing Lee’s sign…)
BTW, i don’t feel good at pointing out Dr. Jay’s and Dr. Breary’s mistakes. Every human is error-prone. And the more people work, the more mistakes they make. Statistics.
But why do they deny the same statistic factors in case of Lucy? She was picking up shifts, young, unmarried, eager to buy a house. And if we can wonder if drs. Breary and Jay are “klutzy”, maybe Lucy didn’t have good dexterity. It happens. Perhaps she wasn’t the best nurse, even.
But between saying that she might have not been the best nurse and accusing her of being a killer, there is a huge step.
And here is where my issue lies. The two doctors relied on their feelings. Not on data. It was way post factum. Mostly, Dr. Jay trusts his emotions. Maybe he has sixth sense. Or maybe he erroneously believes he has it. I can’t tell. Personally I suspect that he misinterprets LL’s body language, but… I wasn’t there.
My feeling: the situation was unclear but the public’s opinion had been primed by the media calling Lucy “the killer nurse” before the second trial. That was beyond the pale. This in itself invalidates the case.
Not my place to advise the barristers what to do, but …Dewi Evans is a huge liability. JMO.
Perhaps Dr. Breary and Dr. Jay have to be separated, professionally. It might be the case of a “shared belief” where one follows the other.
As to Lucy. Trace back all the statements, all the witnesses, all changes in depositions, all memory lapses, plus, the relationships in the unit. It is not enough to say that something was thrown out of PCA. If it was, one can’ use it now.
