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

[Sweeper2000]

Your point being? How does it correlate to the trial and the inquiry? I’m asking how it matches the trial or inquiry information. The daily mail is notorious gutter press and you want me to accept it as evidence without being able to say why.

In reality its nothing to do with the DM. That's how the findings of that med case apply to the trials medical files and Dr Lee's opinion on the matters.
The relevancy in as simple terms as possible.

Dr lee says Dr Evans is wrong as AE can't happen the way it was alleged, that med file says it can proving Dr lee wrong.

That med file also uses the same language used to describe the skin presentation on babies in the case files thus having a documented medical case proving as fact that the clinical description of babies with AE match those seen at the coch.

The daily sport could say the same and be correct.

Eta for hour convenience.

https://www.pediatr-neonatol.com/article/S1875-9572%2825%2900162-7/fulltext?utm_source=chatgpt.com

 

[Ruthbullock]

In reality its nothing to do with the DM. That's how the findings of that med case apply to the trials medical files and Dr Lee's opinion on the matters.
The relevancy in as simple terms as possible.

Dr lee says Dr Evans is wrong as AE can't happen the way it was alleged, that med file says it can proving Dr lee wrong.

That med file also uses the same language used to describe the skin presentation on babies in the case files thus having a documented medical case proving as fact that the clinical description of babies with AE match those seen at the coch.

The daily sport could say the same and be correct.

Eta for hour convenience.

https://www.pediatr-neonatol.com/article/S1875-9572%2825%2900162-7/fulltext?utm_source=chatgpt.com

So 3 professionals disagree- (grouping all the professionals in the press conference as one)- so the fact is debated and no longer certain.

Unless there is a direct evidential disagreement- which I can’t see and you are struggling to provide. We just have several academics who disagree- we can all pick a random academic we agree with, but realistically there is a whole shade of grey.

 

[Sweeper2000]

So 3 professionals disagree- (grouping all the professionals in the press conference as one)- so the fact is debated and no longer certain.

That's the point the article and the doctor in the article are making. The quoted medical case proves that AE can happen as alleged in the trial proving Dr Lee wrong. It is beyond dispute as it is now accepted within known medical cases ie that medical file.

 

[Ruthbullock]

That's the point the article and the doctor in the article are making. The quoted medical case proves that AE can happen as alleged in the trial proving Dr Lee wrong. It is beyond dispute as it is now accepted within known medical cases ie that medical file.

Proving something may happen and something did happen are 2 different things- and proving it on the basis of a rash that was described differently by the parents who are the victims here is questionable.

 

[Sweeper2000]

Proving something may happen and something did happen are 2 different things- and proving it on the basis of a rash that was described differently by the parents who are the victims here is questionable.

These are actually fair and valid points Ruth. Refreshing. There are some points of relevance though ie the application to the ccrc containing Dr lees opinion on it not being possible is disproved, it is also not just the rash/skin presentation that was used to prove AE, it was a range of things.