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

[Charlot123]

In terms of Dewi’s involvement, you’ve missed a key thing. The press were already reporting unusual blotches on the babies and the royal college findings in May 2017, it was in the public domain. “I was a blank piece of paper” my backside.

The Guardian didn’t make reference to the blotches. Probably why documentaries are so determined to make everyone believe it was definitely the guardian article Dewi read, and not any of the other numerous articles published on the same day. They even gave us a spooky shot of him reading that day’s Guardian.

Police investigating baby deaths at Countess of Chester hospital

Cheshire police will look at deaths of 15 babies and six non-fatal incidents between 2015 and 2016 after trust contacted them

www.theguardian.com

But the skin discolouration was being reported:

https://www.itv.com/news/granada/story/2017-05-18/police-investigate-death-of-15-babies-at-countess-of-chester-hospital/

Furthermore, there had already been talks a couple of months earlier about the area’s NNUs requiring radical overhaul

Hospital probe report after death rate rise for high risk babies

Hospital ordered review into greater number of deaths than it would normally expect

www.cheshire-live.co.uk

I don’t believe that he read it in the Guardian. About rashes - any concerning rash should be photographed, we all know it. Cellphones had decent cameras in 2015.

But if the police wants to honestly investigate what has happened, then hiring an expert who makes money in trials as early as 2017 indicates the case will go to trial. Who wanted it so badly, we’ll find out. Dr. Evans was just a bulldozer. It is between the two doctors and the police.

 

[Dotta]

https://twitter.com/x/status/2029546381216547138

 

[May72031]

All these reports about the complaint against Hindmarsh are all very vague...

 

[Charlot123]

Nobody is perfect its true. One thing against dr evans isnt substantial. Dr bohin was pretty damn close to perfect and had the full backing and support of her practice which does mean she was doing a good job and probably thst the complaints were unsubstantiated, roy meadows is a more nuanced thing in that his work hasnt been discredited but it was new learnings in science and medicine meaning its incomplete and thus when applied to something like law and medicine all the things not known have to be learned. Its like "meadows law" its applying concrete totality to something that isnt numeric in nature in essence a totalitarian answer applied to incomplete subjects like cause and effect in orher words "meadows law" isnt a law at all,just like chaotic war and a often less clear justice system in that mistakes will happen. And come on a gt ormond street doctor? To even get there you have to be of quite a serious level of proficiency.

The Guardian has more on it.

Lucy Letby case expert witness was under fitness-to-practise investigation during trial

Exclusive: Jury was never told about inquiry into key prosecution witness Peter Hindmarsh, which looked into allegations including of harm to patients

www.theguardian.com

At the time of the trial the concern was that "Dr. Hindmarsh may pose a real risk” to members of the public. The tribunal also considered the allegations about Hindmarsh “may have the potential to impact on his ability to act as an expert witness”."

Question is, how much about Dr. Hindmarsh’s probe was disclosed to the jury members? Would they have trusted his opinion if they knew everything? Dr. Hindmarsh answered to the court that he was working at Great Ormond Street but his privileges there were suspended.

Here is how the situation looks to me “His colleagues are unsure that his judgment is sound and he has to be observed when seeing patients, but this court will consider him its star witness nonetheless.”

The true question comes down to: would Dr. Bohin and Dr. Hindmarsh agree to be the experts if they were not in their respective circumstances? One under probe, another in legal issues with own clients who asked to remove her? It all started pre-trial.
Meaning, their earning power was seriously hit and both needed the money?

Ultimately, Dr. Shoo Lee and his international panel of experts are the only medical entity that worked for free and on own time.

 

[Parker Knoll]

Why shouldn’t he have been paid ?
All experts get paid.
They don’t get a “ bonus “ for a guilty verdict.
He was doing his job.

 

[rvlvr]

Honestly the only nasty stuff I read on here is the constant attacks on anyone who is sceptical of the COCH circumstances and investigation.

It’s worse than nasty, it’s bordering on paranoia. From knights of the realm to world leading medical experts, the Guardian to the Sun, the BBC, ITV, they’re all in on a big conspiracy to undermine the British justice system, only 6 or so people in the land can see it for what it is, and they all just happen to gate-keep this thread, it’s remarkable.

I think somebody reiterating the lie that a doctor lacerated a baby's liver is pretty nasty.

An inquest into the death of baby Noah Robinson found Countess of Chester doctors had wrongly intubated his oesophagus, twice, and that no fewer than five warning signs the breathing tube was misplaced were ignored. Evidently, this was a hospital where medical negligence could occur. Thus, the idea that Dr Brearey’s needle accidentally punctured the outer layer of baby O’s liver capsule seems perfectly believable. And of course, one of the doctors involved in NR’s case was later the consultant in charge of babies O and P!

 

[Charlot123]

Sweeper I followed this trial with you. I stayed on the fence the entire time, looking at everything reported through a lens of her being guilty and her being not. I said I would respect the jury’s decision (particularly as I was so sure information was being kept under lock, and it would all come out after the trial). I literally switched to accepting, AND BELIEVING, that she was guilty when the verdicts came in. It didn’t feel right, but it must be, and at the end of it all, I was just left sobbing over the impact statements, and I hated Letby.

My other side of the fence never went away though. I probably lasted until a week or so after sentencing before enough doubt had crept in to have me questioning it all again. None of Letby’s skeletons were coming out the closet. I looked forward to thirlwall. But, every piece of information that’s come out has increased the likelihood that this was all a dreadful case of confirmation bias. It’s got to the point when one of the world leaders in the field is speaking out for free, giving public lectures on the subject matter. It’s incredible.

If what was known now was all known by everyone at the start, nobody would be accusing Letby in the first place.

The people who seem to get the angriest, are the ones who were manipulated by the original trial. For a long time you weren’t sure. I remember it. Try to remember how you felt back then, and you will know how I feel.

I am not persuaded any crimes took place on this unit. It’s not that I “think Letby is innocent”, it’s that I don’t think anyone is guilty.

There is a certain moral guilt here, and perhaps Dr. Gibbs has to pray long and hard, not for himself, but for his colleagues as well.

What they put Lucy Letby through is at the level of XVII-century witch-hunting.

What they put the parents of the deceased children is horrible. It is enough to bury a baby once. But then they had to follow the trial and go through the same, essentially, again.

And now, again they have to listen to it, but in more harrowing details. Think of it.

I was thinking about it all the time, how one could even process it.

And I was torn because I saw where the case was going, and felt that justice had to be done, but also understood what justice would imply for these parents.

Looking at it from a different standpoint: one of the doctors likely did not have the capacity to see the reality and process the data. Another one was manipulating the group. With the goal in mind. Someone was just a habitual user of the system and a grifter.

And then there was this huge court system that stepped in.

When all is said and done, the case will probably leave a broken woman and a small group who had to go through the same thrice.

So maybe everyone, Lucy's lawyer Mark McDonald, Dr. Shoo Lee, the international panel of experts, many of UK doctors and nurses, and the community asking for a retrial, all think about the future.

This future will ensure that justice is ...fair. Also, that what Lucy had to go through doesn't ever happen to any of our descendants. But I shall always think about the parents and sympathize with them.

 

[May72031]

An inquest into the death of baby Noah Robinson found Countess of Chester doctors had wrongly intubated his oesophagus, twice, and that no fewer than five warning signs the breathing tube was misplaced were ignored. Evidently, this was a hospital where medical negligence could occur. Thus, the idea that Dr Brearey’s needle accidentally punctured the outer layer of baby O’s liver capsule seems perfectly believable. And of course, one of the doctors involved in NR’s case was later the consultant in charge of babies O and P!

Here we go with the nastiness again. When you can't outright lie and say that a doctor lacerated a liver, you have to suggest it could have happened in some alternative timeline or something. Bizarre reasoning.

And medical negligence has the potential to occur in every hospital in the world. Was there any evidence medical negligence was to blame for the collapses/deaths at COCH. No, there wasn't.

So you are back to yet more conjecture and unproven theories.

 

[JosieJo]

The Sun has published a 40 minute lecture by Shoo Lee, where he clearly explains how skin discolouration in air embolism works, what’s been misrepresented, and answers all the utter nonsense raised about his work.

He explains the babies in this case were not stable, they were very clearly getting worse, it wasn’t handled properly and resulted in circulatory collapse. He’s looked at everything, and alongside the other actual experts they are unanimous.

This is a man who has witnessed so many baby deaths that he’s been present for 6 air emboli himself. It’s scandalous that people so determined to have Letby as a serial killer are calling this man a charlatan.

Remarkably his description of skin discolouration in AE is the same as some of the witness's on the stand

I also found it very condescending that very experienced nurses and Dr's don't know the difference between common discolouration due to peripheral shut down / sepsis / cyanosis etc.

Did he not read the court transcripts? Very experienced staff were very sure the rash was not those things as they deal with them regularly.

 

[katydid23]

I don’t believe that he read it in the Guardian. About rashes - any concerning rash should be photographed, we all know it. Cellphones had decent cameras in 2015.

Staff does not carry their cell phones around near critically ill newborns. Nurses were not allowed to have theirs in the nurseries. The phones are full of germs and are also distracting.

Also, there's a difference between 'rashes' and skin discolouration. Rashes stay around long enough for someone to ge fetch a camera. Skin discolouration and blotches come and go quickly and change colour and move around.

But if the police wants to honestly investigate what has happened, then hiring an expert who makes money in trials as early as 2017 indicates the case will go to trial. Who wanted it so badly, we’ll find out. Dr. Evans was just a bulldozer. It is between the two doctors and the police.

Who wouldn't want a trial if there were so many murders and attempted murders?

 

[Charlot123]

If you think this is going anywhere other than court, you’re living in cuckoo land.

The real question is whether the CPS will re-try her at all.

They probably have to. Dr. Jayaram has to explain why he lied and what was his ultimate goal. Dr. Breary has to answer too many questions. We need to understand what happened with him: was it secondary gain, untreated paranoia or did someone manipulate him? Other doctors (Gibbs, Saladi) need to explain what moral compass they used to accuse the nurse whose work they, essentially, didn't observe.

With Evans it is too clear. Except for: who informed him about the case?

These guys used a lot of taxpayers' money, too.

Lastly: you know what? UK justice system is considered fair. Someone has to show that it is fair not only for very rich people coming from the whole world specifically because of its fairness but for an average, definitely not affluent, young English nurse as well.

 

[Charlot123]

Staff does not carry their cell phones around near critically ill newborns. Nurses were not allowed to have theirs in the nurseries. The phones are full of germs and are also distracting.

Also, there's a difference between 'rashes' and skin discolouration. Rashes stay around long enough for someone to ge fetch a camera. Skin discolouration and blotches come and go quickly and change colour and move around.

Who wouldn't want a trial if there were so many murders and attempted murders?

Doctor Jayaram: "I looked at my watch..."

Apparently, they wore watches on the unit.

And Lucy, too, constantly texted. BTW. From the unit, no less.

That was not the cleanest unit, but let's be realistic...

And: if no one thought of taking the photographs of the rashes, what's there to discuss? This case is based on the clinical sign that no one saw?

 

[Parker Knoll]

They probably have to. Dr. Jayaram has to explain why he lied and what was his ultimate goal. Dr. Breary has to answer too many questions. We need to understand what happened with him: was it secondary gain, untreated paranoia or did someone manipulate him? Other doctors (Gibbs, Saladi) need to explain what moral compass they used to accuse the nurse whose work they, essentially, didn't observe.

With Evans it is too clear. Except for: who informed him about the case?

These guys used a lot of taxpayers' money, too.

Lastly: you know what? UK justice system is considered fair. Someone has to show that it is fair not only for very rich people coming from the whole world specifically because of its fairness but for an average, definitely not affluent, young English nurse as well.

That’s a remarkably confident misunderstanding

 

[katydid23]

The Sun has published a 40 minute lecture by Shoo Lee, where he clearly explains how skin discolouration in air embolism works, what’s been misrepresented, and answers all the utter nonsense raised about his work.

He explains the babies in this case were not stable, they were very clearly getting worse, it wasn’t handled properly and resulted in circulatory collapse. He’s looked at everything, and alongside the other actual experts they are unanimous.

This is a man who has witnessed so many baby deaths that he’s been present for 6 air emboli himself. It’s scandalous that people so determined to have Letby as a serial killer are calling this man a charlatan.

Not everyone would agree with all of the above. Dr Lee has a lot of critics.

I am interested in your claim that he has been present for 6 air embolisms in babies. HOW did that even happen? Do you have a link?

Google says:
There is no record of

Dr. Shoo Lee
being personally present for six air embolism deaths in newborns.
The BMJ


Dr Lee has some critics himself.
Some say that his 1989 'academic paper' was essentially a literature review—collating other researchers’ findings rather than presenting firsthand clinical experience. In fact, the key data underpinning the study belonged to Tanswell, his co-author and senior doctor.

In the attached audio Lee can be heard saying he re-wrote his paper deliberately to create new evidence.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1888617382131663358

More Info here:

https://archive.is/Y9Ez9

 

[katydid23]

Doctor Jayaram: "I looked at my watch..."

Apparently, they wore watches on the unit.

Do watches have cameras?

And Lucy, too, constantly texted. BTW. From the unit, no less.

YES and she was reprimanded for doing so and warned against it.

That was not the cleanest unit, but let's be realistic...

And: if no one thought of taking the photographs of the rashes, what's there to discuss? This case is based on the clinical sign that no one saw?

Did I say no one 'thought' of taking photos? And who said 'no one saw' the discolouration? A dozen eyewitnesses testified under oath.

 

[WaneLyrical]

Not everyone would agree with all of the above. Dr Lee has a lot of critics.

I am interested in your claim that he has been present for 6 air embolisms in babies. HOW did that even happen? Do you have a link?

Google says:
There is no record of

Dr. Shoo Lee
being personally present for six air embolism deaths in newborns.
View attachment 650467The BMJ


Dr Lee has some critics himself.
Some say that his 1989 'academic paper' was essentially a literature review—collating other researchers’ findings rather than presenting firsthand clinical experience. In fact, the key data underpinning the study belonged to Tanswell, his co-author and senior doctor.

In the attached audio Lee can be heard saying he re-wrote his paper deliberately to create new evidence.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1888617382131663358

More Info here:

https://archive.is/Y9Ez9

He discusses in the video. It was either 6 or 8 I can’t remember.

Perhaps you might watch it, it’ll answer most of your questions.

 

[WaneLyrical]

I gained a better understanding anyway. I suppose the things I took away from the Shoo Lee’s video were:

The pink has only ever been seen in venous air embolism, described as illuminating the branches of veins, extremely short lived and striking. This is not what’s been described in any of these cases.

Blue patches is what you get when it passes into the arterial system. It can theoretically pass into the arterial system through vents which bypass the heart or lungs.

But then anything in this case described as red/pink/brown and lasting more than a few seconds, would just not be indicative of air embolism at all.

The effects would be instantaneous, considering a full circuit only takes a few seconds. That’s ’hands still in the incubator’ type collapse. In some of these cases Letby somehow managed to delay the effects for 20 minutes. Or set things up in advance to ‘make it look like she wasn’t the cause’. Reasons given by the prosecution experts were things like “slow trickle of air until it gradually built up over time”. This sounded pie in the sky back then, and even more so having listened to Shoo Lee.

 

[katydid23]

He discusses in the video. It was either 6 or 8 I can’t remember.

Perhaps you might watch it, it’ll answer most of your questions.

In which video does he say he witnessed 6 or 8 babies die from air embolisms? Most doctors have never witnesses that type of death, and he has seem 8?

link please

 

[WaneLyrical]

In which video does he say he witnessed 6 or 8 babies die from air embolisms? Most doctors have never witnesses that type of death, and he has seem 8?

link please

The video we’re talking about. It’s a lecture he gave via The Sun. Went up a couple of days ago. I can’t link it here, but it can be found easily on YouTube.

 

[Sweeper2000]

I gained a better understanding anyway. I suppose the things I took away from the Shoo Lee’s video were:

The pink has only ever been seen in venous air embolism, described as illuminating the branches of VEINS, extremely short lived and striking. This is not what’s been described in any of these cases.

Blue patches is what you get when it passes into the arterial system. It can theoretically pass into the arterial system through vents which bypass the heart or lungs.

But then anything in this case described as red/pink/brown and lasting more than a few seconds, would just not be indicative of air embolism at all.

The effects would be instantaneous, considering a full circuit only takes a few seconds. That’s ’hands still in the incubator’ type collapse. In some of these cases Letby somehow managed to delay the effects for 20 minutes. Or set things up in advance to ‘make it look like she wasn’t the cause’. Reasons given by the prosecution experts were things like “slow trickle of air until it gradually built up over time”. This sounded pie in the sky back then, and even more so having listened to Shoo Lee.

Iirc at least one description given was "florid" which is exactly that. Could have sworn i remember "branching" as well.