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

[Marantz4250b]

Is that twitter P? Interesting it raises a spotlight on what this thread has been saying.

Yep, he basically points out some of the very things that people on here have been saying for years!

 

[Sweeper2000]

Yep, he basically points out some of the very things that people on here have been saying for years!

It's a famous site, you think it's mere coincidence?

I can remember saying on here during the trial that the lack of hard evidence might make the diagnosis during the trial a target after it and that there would also be plenty of differing opinions on the medical side of the evidence eventually and that's where we are at. I should have been a barrister, sweeper2000 KC has such a ring to it.

 

[Parker Knoll]

It’s certainly has sweep !

 

[SusanDonim]

Yep.
I cannot understand for the life of me why DM seems to be a "whipping boy" for some hahahaha
But maybe as a foreigner I miss something?

For info - DM is a vile hate rag that has screeched some appalling front pages at the british public from the newstand over the years.

Here's just a small taster: The Daily Mail has serious form for the worst takes in town – 12 gobsmackers

Although it tends to have good coverage online of some cases, at it's rotten, hateful core it completely deserves the disdain and revulsion it receives from many.

MOO

 

[JosieJo]

Their opinion should be confined to the Donald Trump School of Evidential Science.

My favourite was "the Brighton Duo"

 

[Dotta]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1973353880902582453

 

[Parker Knoll]

It’s a great takedown !
I’m sick of Dewi getting ridiculed HOWEVER if I were him I would not be commenting further on anything Letby related.

Just my take on things.

 

[Jules2021]

Including that family was sketchy, as hell, imo. The documentary provided absolutely zero evidence of anything at all relating to them. I'm not saying that they weren't being truthful - I'm sure they were - but it would be a relatively simple task for a journalist to check their facts and to include some details as to whether LL could, or could not have been working so as they could meet.

It also didn't include any details of the medical conditions the child had, what he specifically suffered from at CoCH, what he medical issues he currently has or whether they could be related to anything which might have taken place at the hospital.

I did find the "treasure box" thing interesting-first we've heard of that I think? I wonder why that never came up at the trial as it sounds like another potential pattern for her?

 

[Sweeper2000]

I did find the "treasure box" thing interesting-first we've heard of that I think? I wonder why that never came up at the trial as it sounds like another potential pattern for her?

Yip first of that we've heard. They are some of the parents who were told by police there wasn’t enough to go on. However I believe their case maybe a part of ongoing investigations.

Couldn't have been part of the first trial as no crime was committed or she wasn't charged with one in relation to them. Remember she got a glowing account of herself by BM and that was hiding a fair bit of stuff example her failing a placement for her lack of empathy towards parents and cold demeanour. I'd probably guess its not admissible as evidence.

 

[mummyshark]

I think it fine to discuss evidence from the trial,

I think if your baby is born weeks before it is due it is seriously ill, it needs constant full time monitoring and observation, yes most do survive and thrive, but to get to that stage they have to be provided huge amounts of medical intervention to keep them alive as they get stronger,
We shall see how strong her convictions are as she has all the time in the world to challenge them, we shall see if opinions change, experts come forward with new interpretations of the evidence,
I will be following along and I do expect all her convictions to be overturned, there are other convictions in UK courts that I don't think are sound, and I continue to follow them for years in the hope that the conviction is squashed or a new trial granted such as Michael Stone, 25 years post his convictions and he is still fighting his miscarriage of justice IMO

All three of my children were born premature - at 28 weeks, 33 weeks and 35 weeks.

My daughter who was born at 33 weeks needed no respiratory or cardiac support, only some dextrose and phototherapy for jaundice. She only spent 10 days in SCBU and came home weighing 4lb 3oz. She was born 7 weeks early but she was not seriously ill. She cried when she was born, she was able to feed in the delivery room and she was able to stay with me for around an hour before being taken to SCBU. Her discharge notes say she was born in "good condition". She was not unwell, just little. You are completely incorrect to say that a baby born premature = seriously ill/on the brink of death.

 

[Marantz4250b]

There has been mention of "memory boxes" previously which were made up after a baby had died.

I can't recall ever hearing about boxes for patients who hadn't died, though. Very strange.

 

[Charlot123]

My biggest problem with this case is that it requires a lot of special knowledge. After all, being present at the trial if one is not a neonatologist (I am not) might not be that enriching. Trying to guess “guilty or not?” looking at Lucy’s face might be the wrong approach.

This case is highly specialized. Moreover, neonatologists are a rather new specialty.

How can the case be decided by the jury consisting of people who are far remote from medicine?

After all, if planes crash, investigation goes to FAA, not to random passerbys.

Isn’t a human body an even more complex organism than a plane?

The jury is not expected to know statistics. The jurors have no idea. They have to trust the trial consultants, but I guess Dewi Evans’s reputation was not that high to start with (another judge warned Judge Goss that Dewi was useless).

Two unit doctors put their name behind the case, which is a lot. One, as we saw, totally misrepresented evidence and that was a major blow to the case. We don’t have any witnesses to Lucy’s malfeasance.

I think this question will be inevitably raised. This is not a domestic violence case. This situation occurred in the hospital that had an exclusive thing, Level II NICU.

I think that sooner or later, it will be obvious that laymen jurors system is ill fit for this case.

 

[JosieJo]

My biggest problem with this case is that it requires a lot of special knowledge. After all, being present at the trial if one is not a neonatologist (I am not) might not be that enriching. Trying to guess “guilty or not?” looking at Lucy’s face might be the wrong approach.

This case is highly specialized. Moreover, neonatologists are a rather new specialty.

How can the case be decided by the jury consisting of people who are far remote from medicine?

After all, if planes crash, investigation goes to FAA, not to random passerbys.

Isn’t a human body an even more complex organism than a plane?

The jury is not expected to know statistics. The jurors have no idea. They have to trust the trial consultants, but I guess Dewi Evans’s reputation was not that high to start with (another judge warned Judge Goss that Dewi was useless).

Two unit doctors put their name behind the case, which is a lot. One, as we saw, totally misrepresented evidence and that was a major blow to the case. We don’t have any witnesses to Lucy’s malfeasance.

I think this question will be inevitably raised. This is not a domestic violence case. This situation occurred in the hospital that had an exclusive thing, Level II NICU.

I think that sooner or later, it will be obvious that laymen jurors system is ill fit for this case.

This is why they have medical experts to look at everything then explain it to the jury .. personal I think the jury understood very well ...after all they arrived at various verdicts..not all guilty

 

[JosieJo]

On the latest 2 part "documentary" ...McDonald is seen talking to one of the "eminent panel" who claims he found a laboratory quality control result that was way out around the time of letby ...anyone heard this before? Thanks

 

[Sweeper2000]

On the latest 2 part "documentary" ...McDonald is seen talking to one of the "eminent panel" who claims he found a laboratory quality control result that was way out around the time of letby ...anyone heard this before? Thanks

Possibly teh insulin thing?

 

[Parker Knoll]

Is this it Jo ?

Insulin Test Used to Convict Lucy Letby in Babies’ Deaths Was Unreliable, Experts Say

A new report by neonatal and toxicology experts casts doubt on the test results that were pivotal to the case against the British nurse.

www.nytimes.com

 

[Tortoise]

On the latest 2 part "documentary" ...McDonald is seen talking to one of the "eminent panel" who claims he found a laboratory quality control result that was way out around the time of letby ...anyone heard this before? Thanks

It was referred to in Moritz/Coffey's book about the trial 'Unmasking Lucy Letby'. The quality control results were input manually (unlike patient tests which are not) and had been transposed in error. So the Insulin/C-Peptide results were transposed. It was known about by both parties before the trial and the quality control results table showed that this was an administrative error and the lab had passed the inspection.

More spreading of misinformation, by people with an agenda, as we've mostly come to expect.

 

[JosieJo]

It was referred to in Moritz/Coffey's book about the trial 'Unmasking Lucy Letby'. The quality control results were input manually (unlike patient tests which are not) and had been transposed in error. So the Insulin/C-Peptide results were transposed. It was known about by both parties before the trial and the quality control results table showed that this was an administrative error and the lab had passed the inspection.

More spreading of misinformation, by people with an agenda, as we've mostly come to expect.

I absolutely knew you would know ...thanks so much

 

[Marantz4250b]

It was referred to in Moritz/Coffey's book about the trial 'Unmasking Lucy Letby'. The quality control results were input manually (unlike patient tests which are not) and had been transposed in error. So the Insulin/C-Peptide results were transposed. It was known about by both parties before the trial and the quality control results table showed that this was an administrative error and the lab had passed the inspection.

More spreading of misinformation, by people with an agenda, as we've mostly come to expect.

And that point shows precisely why we do not do trial by media/television! Documentaries are, almost always, one sided and agenda or bias driven. Any even-handed documentary would have addressed that issue.