Merged Concerns over baby killer ignored? / Nurse Lucy Letby killed babies in her care

[Vixen]

Oh look, you're lying again. You fail to have mention the actual experts whom you've also slandered.

What 'slander'? A critical comment in a debate re a thread about the topic of Letby's trial, hardly counts as 'slander'.

Dr Shoo Lee, having been represented at the Court of Appeal by zoom to explain to a panel of senior judges - including one who overturned the subpostmasters' convictions in the Horizon scandal - and having his appeal that the evidence was all wrong dismissed, has simply gone away and at the request of Mark McDonald - an ambulance chaser type of lawyer who would ring up your old gran and ask if she has suffered a personal injury lately - has 'updated' <rolling on the floor laughing my arse off>* his report to re-categorise Letby-style embolism rashes as entirely innocent and all of the deaths 'natural causes'.

McDonald's '14 experts' are mostly retired people from overseas and includes 'a nurse from Canada' and an ex-president of the RCPHC (likely disgruntled).

The Crown Court called 200 witnesses which included expert radiologists, haematologists, neonatalists, pathologists, &c.

Pointing this out is not slander.




*... <and busting a gut>.

 

[catsmate]

What 'slander'? A critical comment in a debate re a thread about the topic of Letby's trial, hardly counts as 'slander'.

Accusing a distinguished scientist of altering a paper to support an opinion is slanderous.

Grow up.

 

[Vixen]

Accusing a distinguished scientist of altering a paper to support an opinion is slanderous.

Grow up.

My opinion hasn't changed. It is a shame you have so far not provided any reasoning for your opinion.

 

[Vixen]

So it seems Ms Modi, former head of RCPCH, one of the '14 experts' is not impartial at all. She was head of RCPCH up to 2018 during the time the hospital regulators into hospital paediatricians failed to spot anything wrong at COCH at all - albeit they were not informed by Ian Harvey, Tony Chambers or Alison Kelly of the consultants' concerns. The RCPCH and CQC are likely to be rapped by Thirlwall as regards to safe-guarding issues and I think we can now see why Ms Modi has failed to declare a conflict of interest in her Letby support and why she would be anxious that 'there weren't any murders or harmings', as it reflects on her personally.

Dr Shoo Lee was excoriated and called a liar by the Court of Appeal, albeit in polite gentlemanly terms, which remained unconvinced of his arguments. It said, even if what he said was correct, he missed the right target and even without the issue of skin discoloration there were plenty of other medical factors, not just the rash colour alone.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Can you show me where he was 'excoriated and called a liar'?

 

[Vixen]

Re Bar Standards:

The role of advocate is not to act as a mouthpiece, or to identify with the client’s cause. ‘Managing the media’ as a litigation tactic should not be perceived as part of the service offered: nor should ‘trial by media’ be encouraged. Opinions expressed on social media create even greater dangers. An impression of ‘self- promotion’ may violate Core Duty 2.

 

[Vixen]

Can you show me where he was 'excoriated and called a liar'?

From the CoA:

It is a striking feature of this application that the Lee and Tanswell paper did not in itself say anything about the diagnostic status of an observation of “bright pink vessels against a generally cyanosed cutaneous background.” Rather, it referred to a variety of cutaneous discolouration; attributed the striking discolouration noted in one case to “direct oxygenation of erythrocytes adjacent to free air in the vascular system, while the tissues continued to be poorly perfused and oxygenated”; and said that the “most distinctive sign” of pulmonary vascular embolism, present in half of the cases, was the finding of free air when blood was withdrawn from the umbilical arterial catheter. It is only in the proposed fresh evidence that Dr Lee explicitly makes the point which is relied upon.

It is not clear to us why a discolouration which was previously treated as consistent with air embolus is now said to be specifically diagnostic of air embolus.

Even accepting for present purposes that Dr Lee is correct in his opinion that only one form of discolouration is sufficient in itself to diagnose air embolus in a neonate, the proposed fresh evidence cannot assist the applicant because it is aimed at a mistaken target.

In short, the prosecution witnesses did not fall into the error which the proposed fresh evidence seeks to assert they made. The proposed evidence is therefore irrelevant and inadmissible.

 

[Andy_Ross]

So where is he called a liar and 'excoriated'?

I don't see it.

 

[Vixen]

Modi was directly involved in RCPCH's investigation at COCH.

Professor Neena Modi was present on Tuesday when it was claimed ‘new’ evidence proved no infants were killed and that Letby had been the victim of a miscarriage of justice.
But yesterday it emerged Professor Modi was president of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health (RCPCH) from 2015 to 2018 during which time hospital bosses at the Countess of Chester Hospital asked the organisation for help instead of calling in police. https://archive.is/zs6gV#selection-1253.0-1257.264

She should have recused herself, especially given Dr. Brearey was in direct contact with her about COCH issues. Most unethical to be involved in a free Letby campaign, given Thirlwall has not issued the report yet.

 

[Vixen]

So where is he called a liar and 'excoriated'?

I don't see it.

Read my post carefully for comprehension.

 

[Andy_Ross]

I did. I don't see what you are seeing in there obviously.

 

[angrysoba]

According to this article, a new study has come out calling into question the insulin theory of murder. I don’t know if these two scientists were part of Dr Shoo Lee’s expert panel or if this is separate….

‘Strong reasonable doubt’ over Lucy Letby insulin convictions, experts say

Exclusive: ‘No scientific justification’ to say former nurse definitely poisoned babies with insulin, according to study authors

www.theguardian.com

The fact that there are ambiguous interpretations around the medical evidence (which I have no way to evaluate) also mirrors the ambiguous interpretations of the non-medical evidence just makes this case look even more suspect.

You will recall that posters on here were making heavy insinuations about Letby searching for families of victims on Facebook, or recollections long after the fact of how Letby’s demeanour was, even though they never suspected anything at the time. Then of course there were the notes she wrote, which could either have been a personal confession note or written from the perspective of someone feeling guilty. Then there were the statistical claims which look like classic Texas sharpshooter tactics when other neonatal deaths were removed. There was a reluctance to look at each part and a claim that you have to take all of it in at once to give a stronger impression of guilt. This was an extremely unskeptical way of looking at the case, yet probably what got her convicted.

What is the best single piece of evidence at this point that strongly suggests guilt?

Can we go back and look at the things that Vixen and smartcooky were so adamant made her a murderer?

 

[Rolfe]

My impression is that this is a different group who have come to the same conclusion.

 

[angrysoba]

My impression is that this is a different group who have come to the same conclusion.

Pretty extraordinary then.

Vixen, what sayeth unto these blackguards?

 

[Planigale]

According to this article, a new study has come out calling into question the insulin theory of murder. I don’t know if these two scientists were part of Dr Shoo Lee’s expert panel or if this is separate….

‘Strong reasonable doubt’ over Lucy Letby insulin convictions, experts say

Exclusive: ‘No scientific justification’ to say former nurse definitely poisoned babies with insulin, according to study authors

www.theguardian.com

The fact that there are ambiguous interpretations around the medical evidence (which I have no way to evaluate) also mirrors the ambiguous interpretations of the non-medical evidence just makes this case look even more suspect.

You will recall that posters on here were making heavy insinuations about Letby searching for families of victims on Facebook, or recollections long after the fact of how Letby’s demeanour was, even though they never suspected anything at the time. Then of course there were the notes she wrote, which could either have been a personal confession note or written from the perspective of someone feeling guilty. Then there were the statistical claims which look like classic Texas sharpshooter tactics when other neonatal deaths were removed. There was a reluctance to look at each part and a claim that you have to take all of it in at once to give a stronger impression of guilt. This was an extremely unskeptical way of looking at the case, yet probably what got her convicted.

What is the best single piece of evidence at this point that strongly suggests guilt?

Can we go back and look at the things that Vixen and smartcooky were so adamant made her a murderer?

Certainly like others the insulin cases were the most convincing of murder to me. If there are problems with the assays used to measure insulin and c-peptide levels that is important. The comment about potassium is important. A significant dose of insulin should cause a drop in potassium levels, if potassium levels remained steady that is certainly evidence against significant exogenous insulin administration.

The other thing of note is despite suspicions being present and presumably therefore Letby being carefully observed no one saw Letby actually do anything criminal. Every case is based on a post hoc identification of a possible unnatural cause of death, although natural causes were attributed at the time. Then a hypothesis on how Letby could have caused that mechanism of death without anyone observing her doing so. Other than the insulin cases where there was laboratory evidence of insulin poisoning, there is no physical evidence of unnatural deaths in the others. Even in this case there is no physical evidence as it appears the original samples tested were disposed of and could not be retested. The air embolism cases are based on the memory of a rash which apparently raised no concerns at the times and now appears to be an erroneous interpretation of a paper, which described the rash in arterial injection and would not occur in venous injection of air as proposed by the prosecution. (leaving aside the fact that it now appears that the act must have occurred when Letby was not present. There is a disputed x-ray regarding air embolism.

 

[Matthew Best]

Let's face it - everybody knows there's reasonable doubt in this conviction (apart from stubborn flagitious posters who will never change their mind about anyone and who have never been known to admit to any error), the only question is how long the British justice system will take to correct this error. It could take years - if it happens at all.

 

[Vixen]

According to this article, a new study has come out calling into question the insulin theory of murder. I don’t know if these two scientists were part of Dr Shoo Lee’s expert panel or if this is separate….

‘Strong reasonable doubt’ over Lucy Letby insulin convictions, experts say

Exclusive: ‘No scientific justification’ to say former nurse definitely poisoned babies with insulin, according to study authors

www.theguardian.com

The fact that there are ambiguous interpretations around the medical evidence (which I have no way to evaluate) also mirrors the ambiguous interpretations of the non-medical evidence just makes this case look even more suspect.

You will recall that posters on here were making heavy insinuations about Letby searching for families of victims on Facebook, or recollections long after the fact of how Letby’s demeanour was, even though they never suspected anything at the time. Then of course there were the notes she wrote, which could either have been a personal confession note or written from the perspective of someone feeling guilty. Then there were the statistical claims which look like classic Texas sharpshooter tactics when other neonatal deaths were removed. There was a reluctance to look at each part and a claim that you have to take all of it in at once to give a stronger impression of guilt. This was an extremely unskeptical way of looking at the case, yet probably what got her convicted.

What is the best single piece of evidence at this point that strongly suggests guilt?

Can we go back and look at the things that Vixen and smartcooky were so adamant made her a murderer?

No, it wasn't Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. The suspicious baby case notes were completely anonymised when the police handed them over to independent expert witnesses. They had no way of knowing whether they related to one, two, three or even four different sets of staff or hospitals. Thoroughly cross-examined in court.

The 'new' insulin report is from an expert at University of Canterbury in New Zealand. Unfortunately he seems to have been given incorrect information as he errs in claiming the relevant babies received their condition from their mother. The mother did NOT have any condition that would cause her babies to have the same. In addition, he seems to have been misinformed about intubation times. The most serious wrong information appears to be his claim that insulin level 'must be tested twice'. The specialist haematologist who took the readings at the time did indeed note in medical detail the astonishing results indicating an application of synthetic insulin. She said she was shocked but on the other hand did not believe it could be possible that it was deliberate so failed to take any further action. She testified anonymously at the Thirlwall Inquiry. The idea that Liverpool Hospital somehow don't know how to carry out accurate tests is laughable as these specialist doctors are highly qualified.

 

[Vixen]

Certainly like others the insulin cases were the most convincing of murder to me. If there are problems with the assays used to measure insulin and c-peptide levels that is important. The comment about potassium is important. A significant dose of insulin should cause a drop in potassium levels, if potassium levels remained steady that is certainly evidence against significant exogenous insulin administration.

The other thing of note is despite suspicions being present and presumably therefore Letby being carefully observed no one saw Letby actually do anything criminal. Every case is based on a post hoc identification of a possible unnatural cause of death, although natural causes were attributed at the time. Then a hypothesis on how Letby could have caused that mechanism of death without anyone observing her doing so. Other than the insulin cases where there was laboratory evidence of insulin poisoning, there is no physical evidence of unnatural deaths in the others. Even in this case there is no physical evidence as it appears the original samples tested were disposed of and could not be retested. The air embolism cases are based on the memory of a rash which apparently raised no concerns at the times and now appears to be an erroneous interpretation of a paper, which described the rash in arterial injection and would not occur in venous injection of air as proposed by the prosecution. (leaving aside the fact that it now appears that the act must have occurred when Letby was not present. There is a disputed x-ray regarding air embolism.

One small correction, Dr Jayaram did note the rash at the time on Baby K and did see Letby at the cot side watching the baby desaturate without doing anything to help. Two separate parents also witnessed Letby in action, one came into the unit and saw her baby's mouth covered in blood. Letby pretended to be busy elsewhere and told the mother to go back to her ward and lied that the blood was just a normal result of the plastic naso-gastric tube (this was because the tubes are made of the type of flexible plastic that would not cut). In addition, she told the mother a consultant was on his or her way, and this was a lie, too. Also the mother heard her baby screaming from outside in the corridor. Neonatal experts who testified in court and were cross-examined averred it is not normal for neonates to scream (it's only later babies turn into all-night long screamers, LOL). Then there was Baby C, who was under another nurse but Letby was desperate to be with it (she wrote in a text to a colleague) to get over the death of Baby B, she claimed (who she had just killed a couple of days before). The proper nurse came back from the nursing station to find Letby standing at the door of this unit claiming that Baby C 'looked pale', even though it was in semi-darkness, On approaching the cot, Baby C was in the process of great distress (Letby had just popped in to see it, whilst the other nurse was away for a short period). The baby died later on in the morning despite intense efforts of doctors to resuscitate it. The first thing Letby did next day was search the parent on Facebook.

There were records of unnatural deaths, they were recorded as 'sudden and unexpected' because the pathologists or doctors concerned could find no natural cause to explain it. Given that Letby was free to harm babies for two years with only the consultants suspicious of her, it is a syllogism for the latest experts to claim, 'Ah but murder wasn't given as the cause of death'.

 

[Vixen]

Pretty extraordinary then.

Vixen, what sayeth unto these blackguards?

Forsooth, dear fellow, this is known as 'witness shopping' and is usually frowned upon by courts. Anyone can present 'alternative explanations'. But expert witnesses aren't supposed to be advocates for one side or the other. Dr Shoo Lee in a SUN interview says he felt he had to act because he couldn't bear the thought of Letby languishing in prison. In effect, he has made himself an advocate rather than an independent expert witness.

 

[Matthew Best]

You seem able to discern meaning in writing that nobody else can see, even the people who wrote it.