UK - Nurse Lucy Letby, murder of babies, 7 Guilty of murder verdicts; 8 Guilty of attempted murder; 2 Not Guilty of attempted; 5 hung re attempted #37

[Tortoise]

But as we all know, the tissue samples were destroyed.

RSBM

Do you have a source for this please? It's the first I've heard of it.

 

[Marantz4250b]

I do not subscribe to this attitude of rubbishing the claims made by Shoo et al. They are clearly accomplished and respected individuals, willing to put their reputations on the line.

Marantz to address your point about the antiphospholipid syndrome (known as sticky blood syndrome) it’s well documented a baby born to a mother with this syndrome will retain the antibodies for the first six months of life and is at increased risk of clotting. It’s irrelevant whether the baby inherited the condition. So both things can be true: the baby did not inherit the condition, and the baby was still at increased risk of clots. The fact clotting was found at all at post mortem should be ringing some alarm bells for people, and it’s worrying that people can simply dismiss this so easily because “air embolism”. Based on the low prevalence of this syndrome, it’s possible the staff may only encounter this once in a lifetime. But as we all know, the tissue samples were destroyed.

I’ve said it many times before and will say it again. Look at this case through a lens of guilt and you will see guilt, look at it through a lens of innocence and you’ll see innocence.

The middle paragraph - this is simply not true. The expert haematologist at the trial stated quite definitively that the baby did not have the syndrome and it in no way contributed to that child's death.

Dr Lee claims the exact opposite so either he isn't appraised of the full facts or he has other reasons for repeating something which was comprehensively dismissed as a factor at the trial. Something which even LL's defence team agreed with. From what I recall of how he worded his statement he did not present the matter as having been addressed at the trial; if he has said ...antiphospholipid syndrome was incorrectly dismissed at the trial because, wyz... then he might have some credibility left but he didn't, as far as I'm aware. This being the case, it seems that he had no idea it was addressed at trial which means he hasn't been very thorough at all in his investigations.

Moreover, David Davis claims to have read every word of the trial transcripts and so allowed Dr Lee to make a fool of himself, imo. In reality, just like Dr Lee, I don't think he really has read it all.

As to looking at it through the lens of guilt resulting in a view of guilt; I cannot speak for anyone else but that is categorically not what I have ever done and my early posts on here prove quite categorically what my initial feelings were. I was pretty convinced that she was going to walk - but here I am saying quite emphatically that I agree with the verdicts. Don't get me wrong, I still have trouble getting my head round it, but we are where we are and she's clearly guilty.

 

[Tortoise]

The fact clotting was found at all at post mortem should be ringing some alarm bells for people, and it’s worrying that people can simply dismiss this so easily because “air embolism”.

Baby A's case was examined by a pathologist, a forensic pathologist, a professor of haematology and a professor of radiology. Doctors with relevant specialisms actively looking at his death forearmed with the knowledge of his mother's condition and knowledge of the tiny clot on the end of his line, in his liver. The experts already discounted the thrombus conclusion reached by Lee & co, so it is not new evidence.

Why do you say it's worrying that we, on a forum, dismiss a neonatologist's determination from reviewing the medical records that these experts were wrong?

Lee himself wrote "a thrombus likely migrated to an artery supplying the brain stem" without any evidence for that at post mortem, yet he claims his process was "based on the medical evidence".

Dr Marnerides found air in the baby's brain which got there during life, evidenced by associated bleeding found with it, yet Lee doesn't explain either this, or Prof Arthurs radiological findings of air.

 

[WaneLyrical]

This is incorrect.

This point was addressed by Dr. Kinsey. She said that only one type of antibody crossed in the case of Babies A and B, and that the antibody that had crossed "was not significant" - ie that it would not have caused the issue of clotting. (RSBM)

Is there a transcript out there of Kinsey’s evidence that perhaps I’ve not seen? I have not been able to find this level of detail in what was reported, and it’s clearly very important information. And if there is indeed evidence in the medical histories that both babies A and B passively received APS antibodies (even if it was the ‘best’ of the three types), I would expect Shoo’s panel would have received this information as part of the medical records.

 

[WaneLyrical]

RSBM

Do you have a source for this please? It's the first I've heard of it.

No I don’t, it was from memory and I’m probably mistaken. Although I don’t imagine it’s commonplace to retain anything aside from the slides.

 

[WaneLyrical]

RSBM

Why do you say it's worrying that we, on a forum, dismiss a neonatologist's determination from reviewing the medical records that these experts were wrong?

I find it worrying that experts can come forward and say it was an error to dismiss this cause, and it gets waved away as them looking for 15 minutes of fame. We’ve not seen the full report so nobody has any idea what they said regarding Marnerides’ air findings.

 

[Marantz4250b]

RSBM

I find it worrying that experts can come forward and say it was an error to dismiss this cause, and it gets waved away as them looking for 15 minutes of fame. We’ve not seen the full report so nobody has any idea what they said regarding Marnerides’ air findings.

Who says they are "experts", though? Only LL's defence.

They are expressing their "expert" views in relation to a criminal case, a case which has already been concluded only very recently and without providing any evidence that they meet the criteria of experts in regards a criminal case.

Dr Lee is promoting a theory which has already been comprehensively dismissed at trial and one which everyone accepts is untrue.

It is perfectly rational to dismiss the panel's opinion on this subject as it is clearly and obviously erroneous. It isn't something which is in debate or which could be seen in an alternative way. That being the case, it is safe to conclude that this panel simply has no idea what it is talking about. That is in no way a controversial opinion.

 

[WaneLyrical]

Who says they are "experts", though? Only LL's defence.

They are expressing their "expert" views in relation to a criminal case, a case which has already been concluded only very recently and without providing any evidence that they meet the criteria of experts in regards a criminal case.

Dr Lee is promoting a theory which has already been comprehensively dismissed at trial and one which everyone accepts is untrue.

It is perfectly rational to dismiss the panel's opinion on this subject as it is clearly and obviously erroneous. It isn't something which is in debate or which could be seen in an alternative way. That being the case, it is safe to conclude that this panel simply has no idea what it is talking about. That is in no way a controversial opinion.

A professor of neonatal medicine at UCL? A scientific advisor to the Canadian neonatal network? The head of neonatology at Tokyo’s national centre for child health and development?

How are they not experts?

 

[Tortoise]

A professor of neonatal medicine at UCL? A scientific advisor to the Canadian neonatal network? The head of neonatology at Tokyo’s national centre for child health and development?

How are they not experts?

Professor Neena Modi (Imperial College)


An expert lobbying for Lucy Letby’s release was in charge of the professional body that carried out a flawed review into the neo-natal unit where the nurse murdered babies. [...]

Yesterday a source claimed Professor Modi was not a ‘disinterested party’ in the Letby case.

It is alleged she has a ‘personal interest’ in suggesting poor medical care, and not the convicted killer nurse, was responsible for the baby deaths because ‘she was in charge of the RCPCH when it conducted the discredited review’.

'Free Lucy Letby' expert linked to flawed review of hospital baby unit


From her witness statement to the Inquiry, dated July 2024, before Dr Lee obtained the babies' medical records and trial expert witness statements, and convened his panel:

It is my opinion, based on my experience of having worked in neonatal intensive care in tertiary referral centres for almost 40 years that plausible alternative explanations exist for certain of the deaths and sudden deteriorations of the babies at the Countess of Chester, but the cases were not investigated adequately at the time and subsequently, and this may have had an impact on the exploration of causality during the trial.

INQ0102753 – Witness statement of Professor Neena Modi, dated 08/07/2024 | The Thirlwall Inquiry


It's not an impartial, unbiased stance, is it?

Neither is this -

Dr Shoo Lee:

After Letby’s appeal was rejected, Lee spoke to her legal team ...

“What they said to me was that you have literally got to find a different person or thing that caused the death,” said Lee. “And I asked ‘So what’s the chances?’ They said ‘none’, because it’s going to be very hard to prove anything now. ‘We’ve had our chance, and unless you can come up with something that is totally different, she’ll be in jail for the rest of her life’. And I said, ‘Well, this is not fair, because the evidence that was used to convict her, in my opinion, wasn’t quite right.’”

He asked if he could examine the 35,000 pages of medical evidence to assess whether it was “faulty or good”.

My research was misused to convict Lucy Letby — so I did my own inquiry

 

[magikarpmagikarp]

Is there a transcript out there of Kinsey’s evidence that perhaps I’ve not seen? I have not been able to find this level of detail in what was reported, and it’s clearly very important information. And if there is indeed evidence in the medical histories that both babies A and B passively received APS antibodies (even if it was the ‘best’ of the three types), I would expect Shoo’s panel would have received this information as part of the medical records.

So the specific detail of the type of antibody that passed is in the transcript read by CS2C. I'll provide the link in my next post. I don't have any reason to believe that CS2C has falsified this detail as it is much too obscure and also makes too much sense in the context.

With that said, when doctors speak of APS passing onto the baby or not passing on, they would generally be speaking of the antibodies passing on rather than genetic inheritance. This is understood because of shared medical education and is one of the things they can sometimes get lost in translation between doctors and lay people. In the trial Dr. Kinsey offered to go into more detail but Justice Goss declined, accepting her opinion.

This question - of APS being a contributing factor - was raised at the time of the collapses.

All just my opinion.

Due to my phone I'm going to have to provide links in the next post.

 

[magikarpmagikarp]

"Send lawyers guns and money - the s**t has hit the fan": Warren Zevon.

Listen at 16:11 and 16:50. This is where Dr. Kinsey give the details about how she arrived at her conclusion.

10:57am

The consultant tells the court discussions had been ongoing since the evening of June 9, in light of Child B's twin brother dying, on whether Child A and/or Child B had been affected by the mum's blood condition.
Consultants at Great Ormond Street Hospital had said they "DID NOT FEEL" the mother's condition would affect the baby "IN ANY WAY", while consultants at Alder Hey Hospital suggested further blood tests being carried.
Following Child B's collapse, "THE BLOOD OBSERVATIONS TAKEN WERE GOOD", the court heard, and meant the requested extra tests were "held off".

10:58am

Child B was restarted on antibiotics "as a precaution".
There was still concern her circulation had to return to normal, so the consultant noted more fluid was administered to help with that.

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Tuesday, October 25

THE trial of Lucy Letby, who denies murdering seven babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital neonatal unit and attempting to murder 10 more,…

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

This is where in the trial it was discussed that maternal APS was considered as a contributing factor at the time of the collapses. It would have been considered as a factor because of the reasons described by Dr. Lee, however it appears that that hypothesis was refuted by the lab testing at the time.

 

[magikarpmagikarp]

Double post dbm

 

[Sweeper2000]

The more i learn about this panel the less I like it. Someone said something about dotting the I's and crossing the T's and according to tortoises post they did neither, highly qualified or not. I'm kinda dubious about its admissibility as evidence legally let alone its medical integrity now.

I cant believe that the thrombus occlusion wasn't ruled out, such thorough investigations at the time are at least a lead on it. the pathologist would have known and was aware of the liver thrombus so presumably were more than capable of realising the potentials.

 

[WaneLyrical]

Professor Neena Modi (Imperial College)


An expert lobbying for Lucy Letby’s release was in charge of the professional body that carried out a flawed review into the neo-natal unit where the nurse murdered babies. [...]

Yesterday a source claimed Professor Modi was not a ‘disinterested party’ in the Letby case.

It is alleged she has a ‘personal interest’ in suggesting poor medical care, and not the convicted killer nurse, was responsible for the baby deaths because ‘she was in charge of the RCPCH when it conducted the discredited review’.

'Free Lucy Letby' expert linked to flawed review of hospital baby unit


From her witness statement to the Inquiry, dated July 2024, before Dr Lee obtained the babies' medical records and trial expert witness statements, and convened his panel:

It is my opinion, based on my experience of having worked in neonatal intensive care in tertiary referral centres for almost 40 years that plausible alternative explanations exist for certain of the deaths and sudden deteriorations of the babies at the Countess of Chester, but the cases were not investigated adequately at the time and subsequently, and this may have had an impact on the exploration of causality during the trial.

INQ0102753 – Witness statement of Professor Neena Modi, dated 08/07/2024 | The Thirlwall Inquiry


It's not an impartial, unbiased stance, is it?

Neither is this -

Dr Shoo Lee:

After Letby’s appeal was rejected, Lee spoke to her legal team ...

“What they said to me was that you have literally got to find a different person or thing that caused the death,” said Lee. “And I asked ‘So what’s the chances?’ They said ‘none’, because it’s going to be very hard to prove anything now. ‘We’ve had our chance, and unless you can come up with something that is totally different, she’ll be in jail for the rest of her life’. And I said, ‘Well, this is not fair, because the evidence that was used to convict her, in my opinion, wasn’t quite right.’”

He asked if he could examine the 35,000 pages of medical evidence to assess whether it was “faulty or good”.

My research was misused to convict Lucy Letby — so I did my own inquiry

I never asked if there was any bias on the part of Lee or Modi. I asked if they were experts or not? Do you disagree that they are experts in their fields?

In any event, they set out to test the prosecution’s case that no plausible and realistic alternative causes of death existed. And that’s what they did.

 

[magikarpmagikarp]

I just want to add that in my experience, when questions similar to the question of whether maternal APS antibodies have passed to the baby, the neonatologists that I know consult with and defer to the pediatric hematologists in the diagnosis and treatment (or lack of treatment) of such conditions. Again JME and JMO. Maybe different in the UK (edit - or Canada!)

 

[WaneLyrical]

Listen at 16:11 and 16:50. This is where Dr. Kinsey give the details about how she arrived at her conclusion.

Thank you for providing this. Although it’s a bit more wishy washy than I was hoping for and very unhelpful that Goss didn’t allow her to continue.

Was Sally Kinsey asked about the clot Baby A did have, and whether this was consistent with her opinion that the baby did not have clotting issues as a result of the mum’s condition?

 

[Tortoise]

I never asked if there was any bias on the part of Lee or Modi. I asked if they were experts or not? Do you disagree that they are experts in their fields?

In any event, they set out to test the prosecution’s case that no plausible and realistic alternative causes of death existed. And that’s what they did.

Bias is very relevant to an expert's credibility in court proceedings. It stinks, IMO, and with these unnecessary and disrespectful press conferences as well, I can't see them genuinely thinking they are going to testify at a retrial.

They appear to be qualified in their respective fields, but it's not a very diverse or relevant panel of specialties, IMO.

 

[magikarpmagikarp]

Thank you for providing this. Although it’s a bit more wishy washy than I was hoping for and very unhelpful that Goss didn’t allow her to continue.

Was Sally Kinsey asked about the clot Baby A did have, and whether this was consistent with her opinion that the baby did not have clotting issues as a result of the mum’s condition?

I also would have liked to hear her full explanation and was disappointed that Justice Goss declined it, however the testimony that was summarized may have made it unnecessary.

I cannot remember if she addressed the liver clot, however the presence of the liver clot, while potentially consistent with clotting problems, would not be diagnostic of those clotting problems and would not override the lab work in significance (with regard to APS). Other members may know more details. I believe CS2C has purchased the transcript of her testimony and I think it will be very useful to hear all that she had to say.

 

[WaneLyrical]

Bias is very relevant to an expert's credibility in court proceedings. It stinks, IMO, and with these unnecessary and disrespectful press conferences as well, I can't see them genuinely thinking they are going to testify at a retrial.

They appear to be qualified in their respective fields, but it's not a very diverse or relevant panel of specialties, IMO.

But it’s not about the court or whether they could testify. It’s about a group of experts coming together and putting their necks on the line to say “yes, there were other reasonable explanations” contrary to what was asserted at the trial.

If that’s true, then it’s not going to be difficult to find another expert who’s unconnected to it all who’s also willing to state the same. Obviously we all know the defence didn’t call its only medical expert, for reasons unknown. BUT, if they had have, if they’d called three of their own experts who said what Lee et al have said, how would that have influenced the outcome in this case? That’s the point, right?

I feel the same as all of you about the press conference. For me, it was in poor taste, I’m not a huge fan of mark mcdonald, and I personally can’t stand Davis or Dorries. But I’m just looking at the facts. To me, these people from various countries with decent credentials seem legit.

I can’t for the life of me understand why any of them would speak out like this if they thought they might be assisting in freeing a serial killer of babies. These people have dedicated their lives to saving babies and improving outcomes for them.

The same old accusations of bias can be thrown at Evans. But there’s not point. Everyone is speaking what they personally believe to be true. And at the end of the day the truth is all that matters.

 

[Sweeper2000]

I never asked if there was any bias on the part of Lee or Modi. I asked if they were experts or not? Do you disagree that they are experts in their fields?

In any event, they set out to test the prosecution’s case that no plausible and realistic alternative causes of death existed. And that’s what they did.

definitely experts but its a panel of ten top neonatologists, one top specialist in infectious disease and one bioengineering top guy with some experience in pediatric diabetes. I myself don't see why they would need so many neonatologists more like ten is for clout. thats for the defence.

the prosecution have dedicated top level specialists in relevant and very specific fields who have all testified in depth in accordance with their specific field. which also includes top level neonatologists. the prosecution have the better hand here.

I also don't think that other plausible explanations for the events neccesarily change the whole thing or have much of an impact. was known throughout the trial that there was little in the way of hard evidence. we also have yet to see any strength to the claims of hospital failings.

"I can’t for the life of me understand why any of them would speak out like this if they thought they might be assisting in freeing a serial killer of babies. These people have dedicated their lives to saving babies and improving outcomes for them."

they didn't read the trial proceedings so presumably have no idea of the circumstances that surround the events.