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

[WaneLyrical]

Though obviously what you are saying specifically regarding this part of the evidence of overfeeding is true ...the jury were award of this ...and because it was only a small part of evidence amongst other evidence of overfeeding...it didn't alter the jury's mind on it.

T

I’m aware of the outcome of the jury deliberations. The point I was making was the inconsistencies in the expert testimony during the trial. That an xray purported to be evidence of air embolism was disregarded when it was discovered Letby wasn’t there. So was that an air embolism or was it not? Because if it was, then we have a case of an embolism with no established cause, and presumably not deliberately administered. Or if it wasn’t an air embolism, but looked like one, then what does that mean for other evidence that “looks like” air embolism.

Or the idea that projectile vomiting is so uncommon it’s more likely to have been caused deliberately. Where Evans testified there were no other instances of projectile vomiting, yet Myers confirmed there was another instance, but Letby was not on duty for that, therefore it defaults back to not being suspicious.

I find these sorts of inconsistencies to be fairly shocking, they are littered throughout the testimony, and they contribute to the circular reasoning. That Letby’s presence itself makes something suspicious which would otherwise not be suspicious.

I understand there are many established crackpots slithering out their holes to defend Letby. That shouldn’t be used to deafen the legitimate questions that still linger around this case.

For the first time in a long time, I feel encouraged with what the new head of the CCRC is saying, that reports will need to be commissioned. Because whatever anyone thinks of the prosecution experts, or McDonald’s experts, one thing is for certain: there needs to be consensus here on what actually occurred, medically, in these cases. Because right now, we have a bunch of experts saying these events were unexplained and unexpected, and we have another bunch saying they can be explained and they should have been expected. And these reports need to come from people who are genuinely independent (and I’m not persuaded that anyone speaking out right now, including Evans and Lee, are truly impartial).

It’s made further complicated by the fact that the proposed mechanism of death is invisible. Literally every death in the world COULD be air embolism, it’s simply not possible to rule something like that out. Like SIDS, it’s only ruled out when a cause of death is found, otherwise it defaults back to a sudden death with no cause. We have so many babies with a cause of death listed as “prematurity”, would it even be possible to rule out air embolism as a potential cause of death. I’m not so sure it could be.

I do not think one needs to be a doctor to question these things. The jury were not doctors. The judge is not a doctor. The silks were not doctors. The evidence should be clear for a layman to understand. Being told to disregard glaring errors or inconsistencies simply because they came out the mouth of an “expert” is nothing more than an appeal to authority.

 

[joltz]

I’m aware of the outcome of the jury deliberations. The point I was making was the inconsistencies in the expert testimony during the trial. That an xray purported to be evidence of air embolism was disregarded when it was discovered Letby wasn’t there. So was that an air embolism or was it not? Because if it was, then we have a case of an embolism with no established cause, and presumably not deliberately administered. Or if it wasn’t an air embolism, but looked like one, then what does that mean for other evidence that “looks like” air embolism.

Or the idea that projectile vomiting is so uncommon it’s more likely to have been caused deliberately. Where Evans testified there were no other instances of projectile vomiting, yet Myers confirmed there was another instance, but Letby was not on duty for that, therefore it defaults back to not being suspicious.

I find these sorts of inconsistencies to be fairly shocking, they are littered throughout the testimony, and they contribute to the circular reasoning. That Letby’s presence itself makes something suspicious which would otherwise not be suspicious.

I understand there are many established crackpots slithering out their holes to defend Letby. That shouldn’t be used to deafen the legitimate questions that still linger around this case.

For the first time in a long time, I feel encouraged with what the new head of the CCRC is saying, that reports will need to be commissioned. Because whatever anyone thinks of the prosecution experts, or McDonald’s experts, one thing is for certain: there needs to be consensus here on what actually occurred, medically, in these cases. Because right now, we have a bunch of experts saying these events were unexplained and unexpected, and we have another bunch saying they can be explained and they should have been expected. And these reports need to come from people who are genuinely independent (and I’m not persuaded that anyone speaking out right now, including Evans and Lee, are truly impartial).

It’s made further complicated by the fact that the proposed mechanism of death is invisible. Literally every death in the world COULD be air embolism, it’s simply not possible to rule something like that out. Like SIDS, it’s only ruled out when a cause of death is found, otherwise it defaults back to a sudden death with no cause. We have so many babies with a cause of death listed as “prematurity”, would it even be possible to rule out air embolism as a potential cause of death. I’m not so sure it could be.

I do not think one needs to be a doctor to question these things. The jury were not doctors. The judge is not a doctor. The silks were not doctors. The evidence should be clear for a layman to understand. Being told to disregard glaring errors or inconsistencies simply because they came out the mouth of an “expert” is nothing more than an appeal to authority.

You have no problem calling out the inconsistencies, which to you are apparently shocking, although you are not medically qualified to make such an assessment. You can bring up 3 or 4 points, yet if I want to, I could probably bring up a hundred different scenarios which make Letby guilty. I'm not a Dr either, though. The jury were made aware of some of the inconsistencies and they still decided to unanimously convict Letby of murder. And when we have 5 separate medical experts giving testimony that points towards air embolism, then it is the most likely option, because I really didn't see any plausible alternatives then and I certainly don't now. Letbys defence even accepted the potential for air embolism in baby A's case, it just wasn't Letby if it was. Letby accepted it herself, it just wasn't her, it will have been her colleague Mel Taylor, definitely not her....

JMO

 

[Baileyboo]

I’m aware of the outcome of the jury deliberations. The point I was making was the inconsistencies in the expert testimony during the trial. That an xray purported to be evidence of air embolism was disregarded when it was discovered Letby wasn’t there. So was that an air embolism or was it not? Because if it was, then we have a case of an embolism with no established cause, and presumably not deliberately administered. Or if it wasn’t an air embolism, but looked like one, then what does that mean for other evidence that “looks like” air embolism.

Or the idea that projectile vomiting is so uncommon it’s more likely to have been caused deliberately. Where Evans testified there were no other instances of projectile vomiting, yet Myers confirmed there was another instance, but Letby was not on duty for that, therefore it defaults back to not being suspicious.

I find these sorts of inconsistencies to be fairly shocking, they are littered throughout the testimony, and they contribute to the circular reasoning. That Letby’s presence itself makes something suspicious which would otherwise not be suspicious.

I understand there are many established crackpots slithering out their holes to defend Letby. That shouldn’t be used to deafen the legitimate questions that still linger around this case.

For the first time in a long time, I feel encouraged with what the new head of the CCRC is saying, that reports will need to be commissioned. Because whatever anyone thinks of the prosecution experts, or McDonald’s experts, one thing is for certain: there needs to be consensus here on what actually occurred, medically, in these cases. Because right now, we have a bunch of experts saying these events were unexplained and unexpected, and we have another bunch saying they can be explained and they should have been expected. And these reports need to come from people who are genuinely independent (and I’m not persuaded that anyone speaking out right now, including Evans and Lee, are truly impartial).

It’s made further complicated by the fact that the proposed mechanism of death is invisible. Literally every death in the world COULD be air embolism, it’s simply not possible to rule something like that out. Like SIDS, it’s only ruled out when a cause of death is found, otherwise it defaults back to a sudden death with no cause. We have so many babies with a cause of death listed as “prematurity”, would it even be possible to rule out air embolism as a potential cause of death. I’m not so sure it could be.

I do not think one needs to be a doctor to question these things. The jury were not doctors. The judge is not a doctor. The silks were not doctors. The evidence should be clear for a layman to understand. Being told to disregard glaring errors or inconsistencies simply because they came out the mouth of an “expert” is nothing more than an appeal to authority.

The X Ray was for baby C, it didn't show evidence of air embolism but a lot of air in the stomach. It was thought it may have been an attack caused by an air injection but Letby was not on duty.

With baby G, it was not just the projectile vomiting that was unusual but more the fact that she had vomited way more then she'd been fed.

 

[JosieJo]

I’m aware of the outcome of the jury deliberations. The point I was making was the inconsistencies in the expert testimony during the trial. That an xray purported to be evidence of air embolism was disregarded when it was discovered Letby wasn’t there. So was that an air embolism or was it not? Because if it was, then we have a case of an embolism with no established cause, and presumably not deliberately administered. Or if it wasn’t an air embolism, but looked like one, then what does that mean for other evidence that “looks like” air embolism.

Or the idea that projectile vomiting is so uncommon it’s more likely to have been caused deliberately. Where Evans testified there were no other instances of projectile vomiting, yet Myers confirmed there was another instance, but Letby was not on duty for that, therefore it defaults back to not being suspicious.

I find these sorts of inconsistencies to be fairly shocking, they are littered throughout the testimony, and they contribute to the circular reasoning. That Letby’s presence itself makes something suspicious which would otherwise not be suspicious.

I understand there are many established crackpots slithering out their holes to defend Letby. That shouldn’t be used to deafen the legitimate questions that still linger around this case.

For the first time in a long time, I feel encouraged with what the new head of the CCRC is saying, that reports will need to be commissioned. Because whatever anyone thinks of the prosecution experts, or McDonald’s experts, one thing is for certain: there needs to be consensus here on what actually occurred, medically, in these cases. Because right now, we have a bunch of experts saying these events were unexplained and unexpected, and we have another bunch saying they can be explained and they should have been expected. And these reports need to come from people who are genuinely independent (and I’m not persuaded that anyone speaking out right now, including Evans and Lee, are truly impartial).

It’s made further complicated by the fact that the proposed mechanism of death is invisible. Literally every death in the world COULD be air embolism, it’s simply not possible to rule something like that out. Like SIDS, it’s only ruled out when a cause of death is found, otherwise it defaults back to a sudden death with no cause. We have so many babies with a cause of death listed as “prematurity”, would it even be possible to rule out air embolism as a potential cause of death. I’m not so sure it could be.

I do not think one needs to be a doctor to question these things. The jury were not doctors. The judge is not a doctor. The silks were not doctors. The evidence should be clear for a layman to understand. Being told to disregard glaring errors or inconsistencies simply because they came out the mouth of an “expert” is nothing more than an appeal to authority.

Medicine is not an exact science...every expert witness in any witness box can have another try and disagree...or have holes placed in their testimony...this is not uncommon. It is the totality of the evence especially in a case like this.

In this case ..it wasn't just projectile vomit...it was the amount and distance it covered ...from such a tiny baby..impossible to be residue milk

 

[JosieJo]

Why Medicine is Not an Exact Science:
Individual Variation:
Humans respond to treatments differently, making it difficult to predict outcomes with certainty.
Probabilistic Nature:
Medical decisions often rely on probabilities and estimations rather than absolute certainty.
Diagnostic Challenges:
Diagnosing illnesses can be complex, and test results may not always be conclusive.
The "Art" of Medicine:
The ability to interpret patient behavior, understand their individual needs, and adapt treatment plans is a crucial aspect of medical practice that goes beyond pure science.


This is why imo giving such weight to the medical evidence is not the way to go here.

https://philarchive.org/archive/MILMIN-2#:~:text=A%20diagnosis%20in%20medicine%20is,is%20not%20a%20scientific%20process.

 

[joltz]

Medicine is not an exact science...every expert witness in any witness box can have another try and disagree...or have holes placed in their testimony...this is not uncommon. It is the totality of the evence especially in a case like this.

In this case ..it wasn't just projectile vomit...it was the amount and distance it covered ...from such a tiny baby..impossible to be residue milk

Yes, there was plenty of evidence in relation to the baby G attack, it wasn't just the vomit. Once again people like to isolate single aspects of the evidence and use it to argue something for which they have no real understanding about, which begs the question where does their information to the contrary come from?

9 times out of 10 it's come from one the usual sources of misinformation, such as certain X accounts, Reddit forums and people in general who are obsessed with the idea of Letby being innocent.

JMO

 

[marynnu]

That an xray purported to be evidence of air embolism was disregarded when it was discovered Letby wasn’t there. So was that an air embolism or was it not?

Which baby was this?

 

[Ruthbullock]

Why Medicine is Not an Exact Science:
Individual Variation:
Humans respond to treatments differently, making it difficult to predict outcomes with certainty.
Probabilistic Nature:
Medical decisions often rely on probabilities and estimations rather than absolute certainty.
Diagnostic Challenges:
Diagnosing illnesses can be complex, and test results may not always be conclusive.
The "Art" of Medicine:
The ability to interpret patient behavior, understand their individual needs, and adapt treatment plans is a crucial aspect of medical practice that goes beyond pure science.


This is why imo giving such weight to the medical evidence is not the way to go here.

https://philarchive.org/archive/MILMIN-2#:~:text=A%20diagnosis%20in%20medicine%20is,is%20not%20a%20scientific%20process.

If you remove the medical evidence as it can, and currently is, being disputed by different sets of professionals- then we end up discussing the notes and the staffing documents- which come with just another different tangled web.

I still can’t weigh up whether the trail would have been more or less solid with fewer cases being initially included.

I also often reflect on how difficult it must have been on the jury to stay focused over such a long period of time. They didn’t have access when deliberating to recordings or transcripts from the trial, they were reliant on their notes and memories, from many ,many days before- but they were permitted to review the historic press coverage to refresh their memories.

You only have to scroll through this forum to see why that is problematic- people are adamant something was said at the trial, but it’s not in that days press reporting exactly how it’s being stated on here- so is it a false or tainted recollection, or the reporting , and if it’s happening on here where we have time to breath and research, imagine the difficulties that causes a jury deliberation with such a long trial.

 

[Parker Knoll]

Thanks, I knew it was mentioned at the trial.

So, circling back to the point where all this started, Mark MacDonald, - yes PK was correct in saying that he's basically a Snake Oil salesman. Whether he told the 60 Minutes reporter outright that LL wrote these as part of professional therapy, or whether he simply allowed her to think that and didn't correct it, makes little difference. Either of those scenarios makes him dishonest, imo.

I've asked this a couple of times before - how does he make his money? He seems to have a habit of taking on lost causes related to serious criminals who are serving life terms so he's not getting legal aid on their behalf. Those fourteen experts who flew in from all over the world for a pointless press conference at an expensive venue in London won't have been fronting the costs themselves (possibly a few might but certainly the majority won't have) so just who is paying the bills here, I wonder?

He will still be doing bog standard legal aid work that’s not high profile but I can’t see him raking it in ( to be fair LA is a disgrace these days for anyone at the bar especially those starting out )
People just assume that barristers are loaded and yes a fair few absolutely are but out of each cheque they receive they pay chambers rent, clerks fees, VAT, travel to court if it’s not local ( not included in a lot of instances these days )
Prep for the trial is included in the brief fee which is a set figure now but didn’t use to be which could be hours that just can’t be billed.
They pay the VAT at the time the fee note goes in but it could be years in some cases before they get paid.
It’s shocking and I don’t blame them when they strike.

 

[JosieJo]

If you remove the medical evidence as it can, and currently is, being disputed by different sets of professionals- then we end up discussing the notes and the staffing documents- which come with just another different tangled web.

I still can’t weigh up whether the trail would have been more or less solid with fewer cases being initially included.

I also often reflect on how difficult it must have been on the jury to stay focused over such a long period of time. They didn’t have access when deliberating to recordings or transcripts from the trial, they were reliant on their notes and memories, from many ,many days before- but they were permitted to review the historic press coverage to refresh their memories.

You only have to scroll through this forum to see why that is problematic- people are adamant something was said at the trial, but it’s not in that days press reporting exactly how it’s being stated on here- so is it a false or tainted recollection, or the reporting , and if it’s happening on here where we have time to breath and research, imagine the difficulties that causes a jury deliberation with such a long trial.

I really do think everything "as a whole" here in this case is key ...

Regarding the jury ...OK they didn't have transcripts of what was said but ..
The judge did a thorough job of reminding them of all the evidence from both sides in his summing up. Plus if there were queries on what was said at trial discovered during jury discussion it's there for them to be able to ask a question of the judge.

It would have been so easy..once the jury thought her guilty of a couple of murders to lock her up for all of them and throw away the key...but they didn't, they seemed to do a thorough job with a degree of understanding...hence the variation on verdicts imo

 

[Ruthbullock]

I really do think everything "as a whole" here in this case is key ...

Regarding the jury ...OK they didn't have transcripts of what was said but ..
The judge did a thorough job of reminding them of all the evidence from both sides in his summing up. Plus if there were queries on what was said at trial discovered during jury discussion it's there for them to be able to ask a question of the judge.

It would have been so easy..once the jury thought her guilty of a couple of murders to lock her up for all of them and throw away the key...but they didn't, they seemed to do a thorough job with a degree of understanding...hence the variation on verdicts imo

I completely agree with everything you have said, but it must have been really mentally tiring for the jury and a court case shouldn’t really rely on a judges summing up. JMO, but transcripts for long trials shouldn’t be made available to the jury. They type up the transcripts as they go along, I can’t really see a logical reason why we shouldn’t make them available to the jury.

 

[Sweeper2000]

I really do think everything "as a whole" here in this case is key ...

Regarding the jury ...OK they didn't have transcripts of what was said but ..
The judge did a thorough job of reminding them of all the evidence from both sides in his summing up. Plus if there were queries on what was said at trial discovered during jury discussion it's there for them to be able to ask a question of the judge.

It would have been so easy..once the jury thought her guilty of a couple of murders to lock her up for all of them and throw away the key...but they didn't, they seemed to do a thorough job with a degree of understanding...hence the variation on verdicts imo

and the time it took for them to get to conclusions. think i remember tortoise going over reasoning for the time it took and wholeheartedly agreed. something about reaching conclusions for certain cases really quickly and others needing more scrutiny. seemed spot on to me. we did hear as well they handed the conclusions of some in before others ? am i right in that?

 

[Ruthbullock]

and the time it took for them to get to conclusions. think i remember tortoise going over reasoning for the time it took and wholeheartedly agreed. something about reaching conclusions for certain cases really quickly and others needing more scrutiny. seemed spot on to me. we did hear as well they handed the conclusions of some in before others ? am i right in that?

They did, it took a couple of weeks- but let’s not forget they didn’t find her guilty for child K and this was subsequently overturned. So if you can do that with one charge, why do you believe they can’t with others?

 

[Ruthbullock]

Is there more than the one note that says “I killed them on purpose because I’m not good enough and it’s killing me/them I I am horrible evil, I don’t deserve mum and dad” because the way it’s portrayed on here suggests otherwise.

Lucy Letby trial: Nurse's notes read 'I killed them', jury told - BBC News

A note found at Lucy Letby's home stated "maybe this is all down to me", her murder trial is told.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[joltz]

Inth

If you remove the medical evidence as it can, and currently is, being disputed by different sets of professionals- then we end up discussing the notes and the staffing documents- which come with just another different tangled web.

I still can’t weigh up whether the trail would have been more or less solid with fewer cases being initially included.

I also often reflect on how difficult it must have been on the jury to stay focused over such a long period of time. They didn’t have access when deliberating to recordings or transcripts from the trial, they were reliant on their notes and memories, from many ,many days before- but they were permitted to review the historic press coverage to refresh their memories.

You only have to scroll through this forum to see why that is problematic- people are adamant something was said at the trial, but it’s not in that days press reporting exactly how it’s being stated on here- so is it a false or tainted recollection, or the reporting , and if it’s happening on here where we have time to breath and research, imagine the difficulties that causes a jury deliberation with such a long trial.

The jury were able to ask questions and take notes for the full ten month trial. They had access to iPads also from memory. What are you even suggesting? That the jury couldn't
be trusted to remember details because people are getting them wrong nearly 2 years later on websleuths? This was a full-time job for them, for the duration of the trial. They weren't just dropping in now and again to see what was happening.

We know the jury did their homework because they didn't simply come back with guilty verdicts for all changes, even when they all agreed that she was a liar and a baby murderer.

JMO

 

[WaneLyrical]

Is there more than the one note that says “I killed them on purpose because I’m not good enough and it’s killing me/them I I am horrible evil, I don’t deserve mum and dad” because the way it’s portrayed on here suggests otherwise.

Lucy Letby trial: Nurse's notes read 'I killed them', jury told - BBC News

A note found at Lucy Letby's home stated "maybe this is all down to me", her murder trial is told.

www.bbc.co.uk

Those quotes are all from the green post it note.

There were maybe 6 or so notes released to the press, plus the diary pages. Including the “draft sympathy note” as the press coined it, and one that contained something to the effect of “maybe I did do it”. Some were clearly written during phone calls or other conversations.

There were ‘hundreds’ of handwritten notes recovered from her house and work locker. It was agreed they contained many protestations of innocence.

 

[WaneLyrical]

Inth

The jury were able to ask questions and take notes for the full ten month trial. They had access to iPads also from memory. What are you even suggesting? That the jury couldn't
be trusted to remember details because people are getting them wrong nearly 2 years later on websleuths? This was a full-time job for them, for the duration of the trial. They weren't just dropping in now and again to see what was happening.

We know the jury did their homework because they didn't simply come back with guilty verdicts for all changes, even when they all agreed that she was a liar and a baby murderer.

JMO

The jury had to ask for notebooks after 40 days. The court could not supply them. They sent someone to WH Smith.

 

[marynnu]

Those quotes are all from the green post it note.

There were maybe 6 or so notes released to the press, plus the diary pages. Including the “draft sympathy note” as the press coined it, and one that contained something to the effect of “maybe I did do it”. Some were clearly written during phone calls or other conversations.

There were ‘hundreds’ of handwritten notes recovered from her house and work locker. It was agreed they contained many protestations of innocence.

Where does it state there were many protestations of innocence?

 

[WaneLyrical]

Where does it state there were many protestations of innocence?

In the opening statements.

 

[Parker Knoll]

Opening statements are not evidence.