GUILTY 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 #38

[May72031]

So this all seems quite clear cut. Who decided these deaths weren’t suspicious, though? And on what basis? He isn’t asked and doesn’t say. Though I think we can have a good guess - it was Dr Evans, wasn’t it? Was the police’s lead expert deciding what was and wasn’t suspicious?

Are you suggesting there were more suspicious deaths Letby should be investigated for?

 

[Marantz4250b]

More niceness from the nice guys!

It was just a simple observation: there were deaths that were deemed not suspicious, and there were incidents that were initially considered suspicious before later being deemed *not* suspicious. And, extraordinarily, no one appears to know how or why any of this was decided. Should the police’s lead expert (if it was indeed he) be deciding what is and isn’t suspicious, given his obvious conflict of interest?

It's a genuine question, asked in good faith. I will re ask, if I may?

Are you paid, or otherwise incentivised, by Letby's PR or legal team?

 

[rvlvr]

Are you suggesting there were more suspicious deaths Letby should be investigated for?

It’s very clear what I was asking.

It's a genuine question, asked in good faith. I will re ask, if I may?

Are you paid, or otherwise incentivised, by Letby's PR or legal team?

I’m not going to dignify this again, if you can’t answer the questions I asked that’s fine but let’s not waste one another’s time with whatever this is, thanks.

 

[Marantz4250b]

It’s very clear what I was asking.



I’m not going to dignify this again, if you can’t answer the questions I asked that’s fine but let’s no waste one another’s time with whatever this is, thanks.

The point I replied to wasn't a question of yours. I was responding to your claim that I was unjustly attacking Dr Lee. The good Doctor is so unprofessional that he gave an explanation for a death which 100% absolutely did not happen. Both sides agreed that at trial.

So, did he lie or did he just not know that it had already been dealt with and dismissed? Either way, it places very serious doubt as to his credibility as an "expert" witness.

Okay, I'll take it that you are in the employ or are receiving incentives from Letby's team.

 

[rvlvr]

The point I replied to wasn't a question of yours.

It was, actually. Please see the screenshot. But I understand now it was actually meant in response to another post! Glad we’ve cleared that up.

 

[Tortoise]

<RSBM>
In the Channel 4 documentary Dr Evans is asked (or rather, he asks himself): “What about the babies who died who aren’t on the spreadsheet?” And his response is quite blunt: “Well, their deaths were not suspicious. You know, or there was an explanation for the deaths.”

So this all seems quite clear cut. Who decided these deaths weren’t suspicious, though? And on what basis? He isn’t asked and doesn’t say. Though I think we can have a good guess - it was Dr Evans, wasn’t it? Was the police’s lead expert deciding what was and wasn’t suspicious?

The clue is in the word "expert".

Did you expect a police officer to determine whether deaths were natural or unnatural?

The Court of Appeal judgment deals with this, there is no mystery :

116. As to his impartiality, the focus here is on Dr Evans’ role in the investigation. It is important to put this into context however, a matter emphasised both by the judge and the single judge. As the single judge said, there was a vast quantity of technical medical material which could not possibly be understood or evaluated without the assistance and appropriate direction of a properly qualified expert with forensic and clinical experience of such cases. Within the space of a month in 2017, Dr Evans provided initial “sift” reports on some 30 babies who had died or suffered life threatening events at the hospital. He then provided follow up reports in respect of babies where there appeared to be no natural explanation for the death or adverse event. He added to or if necessary, revised his reports in the light of further information which became available. He produced some 114 witness statements plus a joint expert report dated 4 September 2022. He identified air embolus as a potential cause of death or collapse in several of the “sift” report statements. The single judge said, and we agree, that the judge was fully entitled to conclude that the approach of Dr Evans to his task was reasonable and did not amount to partiality or lack of independence, nor was it unreasonable for Dr Evans thereafter to provide some direction and structure in relation to identified cases. To the extent that he was acting as an investigator or director of the investigation, he was not doing so in a way that precluded him from being an expert witness in the case.

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/R-v-Letby-Final-Judgment-20240702.pdf

 

[rvlvr]

The clue is in the word "expert".

Did you expect a police officer to determine whether deaths were natural or unnatural?

The Court of Appeal judgment deals with this. There is no mystery.

The mystery is obvious - how was any of this decided?

The conclusion reached here is that Dr Evans was acting in good faith. And maybe he was. But we don’t know how he ‘sifted’ the cases, do we? We can’t conclude there was or wasn’t impropriety because we don’t know how this sifting occurred.

We *do* know he was being paid by police - that’s perfectly normal, of course, but would that have prevented him from pointing to any incidents or deaths that might’ve been favourable to Letby’s defence?

If he was a scrupulously honest actor then the answer would be ‘of course not’, but then we know the good doctor isn’t a scrupulously honest actor. This is why the suspicion lingers that cases were ‘sifted’ until the point that only those which coincided with Letby’s presence on the ward remained.

 

[joltz]

It almost seems like ritualistic behaviour. Prod something into the throat, and then inject with air. After death, bathe to remove the blood and take footprints and photographs to memorialise.

With baby E she even took a photograph of her shift pattern when he died.

Oh, I never thought too much about the reasons for bathing but removal of evidence of harm makes sense.

 

[joltz]

Yet you do this to Prof Lee and his ‘mob’!

Everything you guys say about people who take issue with the case is pure projection, this being another wonderful example.

I criticise the stuff that is provably untrue.

Dr Lee said with absolute certainty that one baby could have died due to an ailment contracted from the mother during birth or while in-utero. That precise matter was examined at trial and comprehensively dismissed, with even the defence accepting that it was impossible as an explanation for the death.

So, Dr Lee either did not know about that fact, or he proposed it at the press conference as a gaslighting technique for the uninitiated.

So, he's either uninformed or lying. There simply is no other explanation for what he said. If you have one, please let us hear it.

This is a standard of most of her "experts" and supporters, I fear.

Well we know for a fact he was uninformed at the appeal hearing. He said so himself. We can actually see how terribly he came across now that the full transcripts have been posted.
But basically he admitted he hadn't read any witness statements about the rash, infact he only had the defense summary of the cases.

He then admitted that to give an expert opinion on a cause you need all of the relevant information, which of course he didn't have.

We was made to look an absolute fool, imo.

 

[Sweeper2000]

Wait.

Is somebody trying to compare the rota sheet data with astrology????

WTF?

Something something darkside?

 

[May72031]

It’s very clear what I was asking.

It isn't actually.

You keep suggesting there could be a bunch of "suspicious incidents" that would be "helpful" to Letby, despite there being no evidence of such cases.

 

[rvlvr]

It isn't actually.

You keep suggesting there could be a bunch of "suspicious incidents" that would be "helpful" to Letby, despite there being no evidence of such cases.

Dr Evans initially identified ten suspicious incidents which, had they later not been deemed to be not suspicious, would obviously have been hugely helpful to Letby. The issue is, how did they go from suspicious to not suspicious?

 

[Tortoise]

The mystery is obvious - how was any of this decided?

The conclusion reached here is that Dr Evans was acting in good faith. And maybe he was. But we don’t know how he ‘sifted’ the cases, do we? We can’t conclude there was or wasn’t impropriety because we don’t know how this sifting occurred.

We *do* know he was being paid by police - that’s perfectly normal, of course, but would that have prevented him from pointing to any incidents or deaths that might’ve been favourable to Letby’s defence?

If he was a scrupulously honest actor then the answer would be ‘of course not’, but then we know the good doctor isn’t a scrupulously honest actor. This is why the suspicion lingers that cases were ‘sifted’ until the point that only those which coincided with Letby’s presence on the ward remained.

You expected Dr Evans to point the defence to non suspicious deaths?

How in the world would that help her? She wasn't charged with causing every death, despite being on shift or on the prior shift for all but one. 12 out of 13. But she was only charged with 7.

Or do you think he hid some suspicious deaths from the police?

It's simple. He identified harm events. His reports were peer reviewed. Evidence from experts in all other relevant disciplines reviewed the medical records and death reports and their independent evidence complimented his findings.

Defence had all of Dr Evans reports from early days up to trial. That is how they were able to see how he revised his opinions as further information became available from the interviews with the medical staff. And how they were able to see and challenge him in the trial about concerns he'd expressed about a few events that happened when LL wasn't on shift. Not hidden. Shows he didn't know her shifts or who was attending to the baby.

As a matter of fact, she attacked just as many babies who weren't her designated patients as those who were, and tried to hide her involvement by not initialing charts. But she was confronted with her own handwriting in the witness box. How did Dr Evans manage to find those harm events without knowing she was on shift, on your theory that he was sifting according to her presence?

By the way, are you equally suspicious of Prof Lee changing his 1989 paper after her trial, to create new evidence? And changing the diagnoses of air embolism by the reporting clinicians to suit his own purposes?

 

[Tortoise]

Dr Evans initially identified ten suspicious incidents which, had they later not been deemed to be not suspicious, would obviously have been hugely helpful to Letby. The issue is, how did they go from suspicious to not suspicious?

That's not a credible source you keep quoting. It's based on a report in Unherd which is not an approved source at WS. It's full of inaccuracies.

 

[rvlvr]

That's not a credible source you keep quoting. It's based on a report in Unherd which is not an approved source at WS.

It’s a newspaper published by the Daily Mail (who, not even half a dozen pages ago, were having their praises sung on here). If someone links to a story in the Sun that features quotes from a ‘source’ no one bats an eyelid - what’s the difference?

 

[Tortoise]

It’s a newspaper published by the Daily Mail (who, not even half a dozen pages ago, were having their praises sung on here). If someone links to a story in the Sun that features quotes from a ‘source’ no one bats an eyelid - what’s the difference?

The difference is that their source in this article Unherd is not approved source here, probably because of David Rose's dodgy reputation.

"In 2010 Rose admitted to the dissemination of incorrect information from unreliable sources in his covering of the Iraq war in 2002 and 2003.

In 2016 Rose wrote a false and defamatory article against Sasha Wass QC; the contents of which was later contested in court, with Rose and the Mail on Sunday receiving a substantive libel penalty and vituperation by the court judge.

A story by David Rose in the Mail on Sunday in May 2017 in which he falsely accused a British-born Pakistani taxi licensing officer Wajed Iqbal as participating in a child sex ring has resulted in a substantial out of court settlement by Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL).

On 17 November 2019, Rose wrote an article about Maria Carroll, then a Labour Party prospective parliamentary candidate, alleging that she assisted antisemites and Holocaust deniers. This article appeared in the Mail on Sunday. Following a complaint to IPSO that the article was factually incorrect, the article was retracted. The newspaper paid damages to Carroll and on 10 January 2021 issued a correction apologising to her.

Rose's journalism on climate has been criticised by climate scientists and environmentalists for an over-reliance on unsound and unscientific sources, cherry-picking and manufactured data.

The Mail on Sunday was criticised by Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) in September 2017 for the February publication of an article by Rose which falsely suggested information from the American National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) had been used to overstress the extent of global warming. Not all of the other points in the complaint against Rose's article were upheld."

David Rose (journalist) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[rvlvr]

If what Rose had published was incorrect I’m sure we’d have heard from Detective Sergeant Janet Moore, given her notes form the basis of his article.

In any case, WS has changed its rules recently, I believe. But still, please feel free to blur the link to the dastardly I News if it makes people feel better!

 

[marynnu]

Pleased to hear it @JosieJo !

How about you @marynnu ?

I don't think so, but I'm not 100% sure what shift pattern is referring to? I don't remember this.

 

[Tortoise]

I don't think so, but I'm not 100% sure what shift pattern is referring to? I don't remember this.

Oh lord, I was hoping you would know

I imagined it was a planner on the wall showing who was on that week, or in a book on the shift leader's desk, or on a computer screen...

She took a picture of it anyway, on the night baby E died.

 

[Sweeper2000]

Dbm