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

Vixen said:
Whoops, Dr Shoo Lee seems to have admitted way back in Feb 2024 (before the CoA Appeal in July 2024) that he fabricated, er, fiddled, um, falsified, ah, updated his paper for the purpose of 'creating fresh evidence'. :sdl:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1888617382131663358
Click to expand...

Newsflash: Scientist updates his own paper ... Pictures at 6!
Reality .. this happens all the time. Its called "science" - when scientists find out new stuff, they revise their opinions and theories. (Unlike you who will stick diggedly to your opinions in the face of any and all overwhelming evidence that contradicts you). You seem not to understand how this works.
You also seem to have this weird ability to draw the most outlandish, off-the-wall, out of left field conclusions from the most mundane things. Its like you are creating your own confirmation bias.
 
smartcooky said:
Newsflash: Scientist updates his own paper ... Pictures at 6!
Reality .. this happens all the time. Its called "science" - when scientists find out new stuff, they revise their opinions and theories. (Unlike you who will stick diggedly to your opinions in the face of any and all overwhelming evidence that contradicts you). You seem not to understand how this works.
You also seem to have this weird ability to draw the most outlandish, off-the-wall, out of left field conclusions from the most mundane things. Its like you are creating your own confirmation bias.
Click to expand...


Oh deary me. We are back to the ad hominems, one of the worst forms of logical fallacy.

I have to admire Dr Shoo Lee's chutzpah, though. I can just picture him charging up to HMP Bronzefield on his trusty steed, ready to rescue the damsel in distress. :h1::k:

Bless him.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
How would you explain all of these other guys? They were all cross-examined.

In fact, his analysis was peer-reviewed and approved by the late Dr Martin Ward Platt, who can fairly be described as an eminent neonatologist, and was tested in court by neonatologist Dr Sandie Bohin, forensic pathologist Dr Andreas Marnerides, paediatric radiologist Professor Owen Arthurs, paediatric haematologist Professor Sally Kinsey, paediatric endocrinologist Professor Peter Hindmarsh, paediatric surgeon Dr Simon Kenney and paediatric neuroradiologist Professor Stavros Stivaros, as well as other medical experts and numerous doctors at the Countess of Chester Hospital. https://www.spiked-online.com/2025/02/08/the-devils-advocates/

And in fact 200 witnesses in all. Are they all useless as well?
Click to expand...

I read the article Vixen linked to, and it didn't hugely impress me, plus I think some of the statements in it were just plain wrong. However, that quote above is the real crux of the matter. If one or more of these experts were to come up with a counter to Lee's expert panel, I'd listen to what they had to say.
 
angrysoba said:
This is a silly point to make.

He gathered together people he knew, sure. But that hardly means that just because they all know each other that they will all agree with each other.

Do you not happen to know people that you disagree with?

I have written papers with people who I disagree with on any number of things.
Click to expand...
@Vixen has no experience with academia and academic disputes.
 
Matthew Best said:
Your "reasoning" is that her solicitor tried to get another potentially innocent person freed from jail? Not very convincing to me.
Click to expand...

Look, there is absolutely nothing wrong in even the most heinous and despicable convicted prisoner having access to legal representation. That is right and proper. The issue with Mark McDonald is that he cynically takes advantage of good people's natural inclination towards sympathy and fair play. He manipulates people in the same way a person dressing up as a beggar sits on the pavement during the day, claiming to be homeless, milking money from kindhearted passers by and gets up at the end of the day to go home in his comfy car around the corner to his equally comfortable home. But McDonald's grandstanding to the public about his clients' 'innocence' is not the same as selling cheap soap powder as an expensive brand. What makes McDonald a scoundrel is that he unethically IMV tramples over the dignity and distress of his clients' victims by selling a false narrative of his client's innocence. For example, in this case, claiming that 14 experts have 'new evidence' that proves all of the babies died naturally. But when we look into it further we see it is a pure legerdemain conjuring trick pulled out of a hat, quite cynically, knowing that it is deception. The 'new evidence' is simply old wine in new bottles, which has already been tried and tasted in a criminal court of law and found lacking. This is horrible deceptive behaviour, and the mass media should know better.
 
Last edited:
Here's a summary of what comes next:

A tactical move that could backfire​

But reviewing Letby’s convictions will be far from straightforward. It is a lot easier to make your case, unchallenged, in a press conference than it is at the commission or the Court of Appeal where important legal principles apply, and any new evidence must be tested, its context understood. Issues such as why evidence wasn’t called at trial, and whether it is significant enough to have enabled the trial juries to reach a different decision will be key to the assessment. INDEPENDENT
Click to expand...
 
You can read a detailed comment of Dr. Shoo Lee's new paper here, written by Dr. Susan Oliver (PhD).

PubPeer - Vascular Air Embolism in Neonates: A Literature Review

There are comments on PubPeer for publication: Vascular Air Embolism in Neonates: A Literature Review (2025)
pubpeer.com pubpeer.com

Table 2 of Zhou and Lee shows, "Clinical presentation and outcomes of vascular air embolism in infants by causative categories." The table identifies 10 cases of “Accidental IV injection of air.” and 2 (20%) of these are classified as having “Nonspecific generalized ski discoloration,” comprising Cyanosis (1), Pallor (1), and Mottling (1). No cases were classified as having “Nonspecific localized ski discoloration,” and no cases were classified as having “Lee’s sign,” which is described as “pink red blood vessels superimposed on the cyanosed background.” Zhou and Lee identify this as a “pathognomonic cutaneous [sign] of vascular air embolism in infants.”
Click to expand...

<snip>

It is not clear why not all cases were included in table 2 of the review paper. It is also not clear why Zhou and Lee classified “Blanching bright pink vessels against a generally cyanosed cutaneous background manifested on the right shoulder, neck and scalp”[10] as “Lee’s sign” but not “The infant's skin turned blue-black with blotchy redness.”[6]

Given Dr Lee’s conflict of interest in using this paper in a campaign to help free a convicted serial killer and discredit several clinicians, further explanation of the subjective categorisations is required.
Click to expand...
 
I will read it all when I can. I have quite a lot of time for Susan Oliver because of her work during Covid and her debunking of that fraud (yes, I’m using that word, now), “Dr” John Campbell. Yes, he’s technically a doctor… or education, but he spent much of the pandemic wearing his “doctor” credentials to push for ivermectin, before going anti-vax. I think he’s currently trying to prove the shroud of Turin is real.

I saw one of Susan Oliver’s earlier videos in which she said she was initially intrigued by the Letby case but now thinks those defending her or calling the case into question are using “anti-vax techniques”.
 
angrysoba said:
As well as Dr Lee's reply.
Click to expand...


Dr. Shoo Lee writes:

The appearance of bright pink blood vessels against a cyanosed background in Lee’s sign is distinct, unique and manifestly different then “the infant’s skin turned blue-black with blotchy redness”. With the former, there is no blotchiness involved, the pink colour is confined to the blood vessels, and the blood vessels are clearly defined in contrast to the surrounding skin. This sign has never been described in any other situation and can be explained by oxygenation of the red blood cells adjacent to air bubbles in the circulation, and the appearance is transient.
Click to expand...

This is in response to Dr [PhD] Oliver who writes:

It is not clear why not all cases were included in table 2 of the review paper. It is also not clear why Zhou and Lee classified “Blanching bright pink vessels against a generally cyanosed cutaneous background manifested on the right shoulder, neck and scalp”[10] as “Lee’s sign” but not “The infant's skin turned blue-black with blotchy redness.”[6]
Click to expand...
[6] Smith J, Els I. Intracardiac air–the ‘hospital killer’ identified? Case reports and review of the literature. S Afr Med J 2003;93(12): 922–927
Click to expand...

In court Dr Jayaram testified:

In his first interview with police in July 2017 the doctor spoke of the “bright pinkness of patches against a bluey/grey background” on Child A, the court heard.
Click to expand...

<snip> as to why Dr Jayaram didn't put this in the medical notes at the time.

Asked again by Mr Myers, whether his description of skin discolouration had been influenced by the research paper, the doctor said: No, absolutely, categorically not.”
Click to expand...

Dr. Jayaram testified under cross-examination from Ben Myers, KC, for Letby:

Mr Myers went on: “Has your description of what you said to the police and what you say now been influenced by what you saw in that paper?”

Dr Jayaram said: “I would say it has not… I remember reading this paper for the very first time and feeling really quite cold and worried. It is a matter of regret for me I didn’t mention it to the coroner at the time.”
Click to expand...

There are three issues here: Dr. Jayaram noted this strange rash on Child A., which he fretted about until he saw it mentioned in Lee and Zhou's 1989 paper, and he had a moment of realisation as to what it signified.

Dr. Lee quibbles that Dr. Jayaram's description in the police station in 2017 does not match what he said in his paper.

So, Issue number 1:

Dr Jayaram identified a possible cause of the rash in Baby A in retrospect whilst perusing medical papers in respect of this issue and came across Dr. Lee Shoo's description, which he says he recognised as what he saw re Baby A.

Issue no. 2:

Dr Lee is claiming that what Dr. Jayaram saw - “bright pinkness of patches against a bluey/grey background” on Child A, - does not match what he meant by “Blanching bright pink vessels against a generally cyanosed cutaneous background" nor does "The infant's skin turned blue-black with blotchy redness,” as quoted elsewhere. HOWEVER, the Court of Appeal in July 2024 notes that that is not what Dr Lee said in his original paper of 1989 in which he said, "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.]”.
So, as we see, Dr Lee has now changed his definition to a specific one when in his original paper it was a general description. Plus we have to factor in that his [small] sample size was based on patients under very high intensity [high pressure] ventilation, which would obviously affect the levels of gases racing through the blood stream, and thus the appearance of any under-skin rash caused by the embolism.

Issue no. 3
Notwithstanding the aforesaid issues, there is the matter of the description of the rash/es witnessed. This was discussed in great detail at the trial in respect of how different people will have different descriptors and different words, not to mention varying perceptions of how it presents. So for example, what Dr. Lee insists can ONLY be described as "bright pink blood vessels against a cyanosed background" which he claims is completely different from Dr. Jayaram's “bright pinkness of patches against a bluey/grey background” or elsewhere, “The infant's skin turned blue-black with blotchy redness.” Dr Lee argues there is no blotchiness or mottling.

But cyanosis means:

Cyanosis refers to a bluish-purple color of the skin. It is most easily seen where the skin is thin, such as the lips, mouth, earlobes and fingernails. Cyanosis means there may be decreased oxygen in the bloodstream. It may suggest a problem with the lungs or heart.

Cyanosis | Symptoms, Diagnosis & Treatment​

1739280982928.png
Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center
https://www.cincinnatichildrens.org › Health Library › C
Click to expand...

So, it is arguable that some will describe this blue-ishness as 'dark', 'grey' or 'black' depending on degree. As for bright pink, that must surely depend on levels of oxygen - in Lee's early cases 1989, these were very high-ventilation cases, which would explain the brightness of the pink, whereas 'redness' may or may not be quite the same thing, nonetheless if it is moving beneath the skin, that indicates it is a factor of something in the blood circulation (= oxygenated, red in the veins). Likewise, cyanosis can be any shade of pale blueness all the way through the spectrum to black (=arterial unoxgenated blood). So, Dr. Jayaram describing it in his words differently from Dr. Lee's doesn't ipso facto mean it cannot have been 'Lee's sign', as Lee now calls it, and in any case, Dr. Lee is not the owner or namer of the condition of air embolism symptoms in the skin. Plus of course, there will be varying natural skin tones, in addition.

We could add Issue no. 4

The very small sample size in any of the papers. Lee only has a maximum sample size of 117, so any removal or modification of one or two could change the significance levels and standard deviations (in which raw data units are squared in calculations in seeing how they deviate from the mean of the sample).

All said and done, the issue of skin rash was just one factor of many in the case against Lucy Letby
 
Last edited:
Rolfe said:
I just listened to the entire thing. It's now well past my bedtime.

I enjoyed it, which sounds ghoulish, but it was stimulating to hear people talk my language after I've been retired for six years and not professionally active. I'm a vet, not a human doctor, and I know little about neonatology, but I do understand what was being said, in the technical sense. I am a biochemist, and trained alonside human-type clinical biochemists. The external scrutineer for my PhD thesis was a consultant clinical biochemist at a London teaching hospital.

These experts were talking complete sense. In fact they articulated what was a half-formed suspicion in my mind that the entire thing had its basis in a failing hospital with multiple areas of incompetency, and that circumstances acted together to result in one person being elected scapegoat. Unconsciously, doctors coalesced round the premise that this particular nurse was murdering babies, rather than face the fact that their own lack of experience and competence was leading to a very high death rate.

What always puzzled me a bit was the variety of murder methods supposedly employed by Letby. Obviously it's not impossible, but Shipman is more typical of this type of crime, with a set modus operandi repeated again and again. Shipman didn't just like killing old ladies (in particular), he liked injecting them with heroin. It seemed to me that the prosecution were reaching to try to shoehorn in some sort of murder method around the circumstances of each of the deaths, a sort of God of the gaps if you see what I mean. Insulin infusions, misplaced feeding tubes, air injection, whatever they could allege plausibly that fitted in with the pathology, without any clear evidence that had actually happened. "That's just supposition", or conjecture, or whatever Prof Lee said on a number of occasions. Quite.

I didn't come to the thread to say any of that because it was all just the impression I was picking up. I hadn't made a detailed study of the case, and didn't intend to devote the time necessary to be able to debate it in detail. I'm glad I didn't bother, because it's all been done by people eminently more qualified and expert than I am. I am convinced, with and by these experts. These are not people riding a hobby-horse, they are people looking objectively at the facts in the interests of justice.

The later parts of the conference were the interesting part, to me. What can be done, in the light of the manifest intransigence of the CCRC and the appeal court to admitting arguments that could have been made at the original trial? As was said near the end, as the law stands, the procedure is simply to say, the defence were free to call these experts at the trial. They didn't. All the primary evidence this group had in front of them was available at the time of the trial. There is no new evidence and this sort of do-over is not allowed.

This has been a problem for numerous cases before this. It was a problem with my re-analysis of the Lockerbie suitcase evidence, and I probably should go off to that thread to discuss the issue in that context. The CCRC (and the SCCRC) see it as their duty to prevent cases going to the appeal court whenever possible. It can lead, and has led in the past, to people remaining in prison despite apparently conclusive evidence of innocence being uncovered. (I have read of cases where, although the evidence wasn't actually found until after the trial, the CCRC said, but it could have been found before the trial, so no dice.) I wonder if this will be the case that finally prompts some soul-searching on that one. Following on from the Malkinson debacle, it bloody well should.

ETA: There was also a comment about the prosecution expert having rushed immediately to the police station when called in and decided it was definitely murder before he'd finished his coffee, or something like that. I recognise that approach, and it is no basis for making any decisions in a case of this complexity. One problem is that the police tend to call in the experts who've got them the result they wanted last time, not the experts who tend to say, well, I don't think you have a case here. If I remember rightly in the case of Siôn Jenkins several experts expressed the opinion that the traces of blood on Siôn's jacket didn't prove that Billie-Jo had been alive when he was holding her, but they kept asking until they found a less-well-qualified doctor who would say what they wanted to hear.) This gung-ho view-halloo attitude should cause the cops to run a mile, but of course it doesn't.
Click to expand...
The two doctors most influential in casting suspicion on Ms Letby had been severely censured for bringing malicious false complaints to her to the authorities. It always looked like a stitchup of an uppity nurse.
 
Dewi Evans has responded to the expert panel:

"I've been giving evidence in court since 1988 on very challenging baby and child issues, which include allegations of clinical negligence... I have not heard any criticism from any individual whose view I respect. And I have not heard any criticism from any organisation whose view I respect."

So that's alright then.
 
Vixen said:
Dr. Shoo Lee writes:



This is in response to Dr [PhD] Oliver who writes:




In court Dr Jayaram testified:



<snip> as to why Dr Jayaram didn't put this in the medical notes at the time.



Dr. Jayaram testified under cross-examination from Ben Myers, KC, for Letby:



There are three issues here: Dr. Jayaram noted this strange rash on Child A., which he fretted about until he saw it mentioned in Lee and Zhou's 1989 paper, and he had a moment of realisation as to what it signified.

Dr. Lee quibbles that Dr. Jayaram's description in the police station in 2017 does not match what he said in his paper.

So, Issue number 1:

Dr Jayaram identified a possible cause of the rash in Baby A in retrospect whilst perusing medical papers in respect of this issue and came across Dr. Lee Shoo's description, which he says he recognised as what he saw re Baby A.

Issue no. 2:

Dr Lee is claiming that what Dr. Jayaram saw - “bright pinkness of patches against a bluey/grey background” on Child A, - does not match what he meant by “Blanching bright pink vessels against a generally cyanosed cutaneous background" nor does "The infant's skin turned blue-black with blotchy redness,” as quoted elsewhere. HOWEVER, the Court of Appeal in July 2024 notes that that is not what Dr Lee said in his original paper of 1989 in which he said, "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.]”.
So, as we see, Dr Lee has now changed his definition to a specific one when in his original paper it was a general description. Plus we have to factor in that his [small] sample size was based on patients under very high intensity [high pressure] ventilation, which would obviously affect the levels of gases racing through the blood stream, and thus the appearance of any under-skin rash caused by the embolism.

Issue no. 3
Notwithstanding the aforesaid issues, there is the matter of the description of the rash/es witnessed. This was discussed in great detail at the trial in respect of how different people will have different descriptors and different words, not to mention varying perceptions of how it presents. So for example, what Dr. Lee insists can ONLY be described as "bright pink blood vessels against a cyanosed background" which he claims is completely different from Dr. Jayaram's “bright pinkness of patches against a bluey/grey background” or elsewhere, “The infant's skin turned blue-black with blotchy redness.” Dr Lee argues there is no blotchiness or mottling.

But cyanosis means:



So, it is arguable that some will describe this blue-ishness as 'dark', 'grey' or 'black' depending on degree. As for bright pink, that must surely depend on levels of oxygen - in Lee's early cases 1989, these were very high-ventilation cases, which would explain the brightness of the pink, whereas 'redness' may or may not be quite the same thing, nonetheless if it is moving beneath the skin, that indicates it is a factor of something in the blood circulation (= oxygenated, red in the veins). Likewise, cyanosis can be any shade of pale blueness all the way through the spectrum to black (=arterial unoxgenated blood). So, Dr. Jayaram describing it in his words differently from Dr. Lee's doesn't ipso facto mean it cannot have been 'Lee's sign', as Lee now calls it, and in any case, Dr. Lee is not the owner or namer of the condition of air embolism symptoms in the skin. Plus of course, there will be varying natural skin tones, in addition.

We could add Issue no. 4

The very small sample size in any of the papers. Lee only has a maximum sample size of 117, so any removal or modification of one or two could change the significance levels and standard deviations (in which raw data units are squared in calculations in seeing how they deviate from the mean of the sample).

All said and done, the issue of skin rash was just one factor of many in the case against Lucy Letby
Click to expand...
Doctors who frequently see cyanosis and are trained to look for it would describe cyanosis as cyanosis, it may be blue-purple but it is never black. Blood in veins is normally cyanosed, veins look blue. The important issue is what Lee described is air embolism into the arterial system not the venous system. Embolism in a vein means the air travels to fewer bigger deeper veins as veins join to gather until they reach the right side of the heart. In the arteries the arteries will divide into more smaller more superficial arterioles, so there will be a flush of oxygenation passing through the vessels in the skin. So there will be transient migratory area of red vessels in the skin against a background of cyanosis.

The problem is that Letby was accused of injecting air into the veins, so 'Lee's sign' should not have been present. If Lee's sign was present then that reflects a different site of air embolism than that, that Letby was accused of doing. One cannot argue that 'Lee's sign' was present and that means that Letby caused death by injecting air into a vein. If this sign did occur then Letby is innocent of the act she was accused of committing.

There seems little doubt Evans misinterpreted the significance and meaning of 'Lee's sign'.
 
Last edited:
Nasty goings-on behind the scenes at the CoC...

A hospital chairman has resigned after a tribunal found he had plotted to oust the trust's chief executive.
Ian Haythornthwaite quit his post at the Countess of Chester hospital after a tribunal found Dr Susan Gilby had been unfairly dismissed.
It heard Mr Haythornthwaite and others had conspired against her after she accused him of harassment and bullying.
In a statement after the judgment earlier, Mr Haythornthwaite said he had decided to resign with "immediate effect" and in "the best interests of the trust".

The tribunal described Mr Haythornthwaite as an "inaccurate historian" who "did not give credible evidence".
He was found, along with three others, to have made what was described as "an attempt to mask the behind the scenes machinations" that were being made to remove Susan Gilby "to build the appearance of performance and misconduct allegations".
Susan Gilby, a consultant in anaesthesia and intensive care, was appointed chief executive of the trust in September 2018, two months after Lucy Letby had been arrested.
Click to expand...
 
Interesting piece in the IT by Chris Fitzpatrick.

Edited by Agatha: 
Material is quoted from https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/...-but-doubts-are-growing-about-her-conviction/
Unpaywalled: https://archive.is/anhx3.

Please observe rule 4. Add no more than one or two paragraphs of material sourced from elsewhere, enclose it in quote marks and include link to original. Please do not expect the mod team to find and link the original for you.


Former nurse Lucy Letby, branded Britain’s worst child serial killer, was found guilty of the murder of seven babies and the attempted murder of seven others between June 2015 and June 2016. At the time of the babies’ deaths, she was working in the neonatal unit of the Countess of Chester hospital. Letby, whose attempt to challenge her latest conviction for the attempted murder of a baby girl was dismissed in 2024, is serving 15 whole-life sentences.

The description of her by the prosecutor in her original trial as a “cold, calculated, cruel and relentless” killer echoed the phrase used by the judge who sentenced Myra Hindley. And for many, her blank expression in the photograph used in newspapers also mirrored that of the notorious child killer. More at link above.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
More doubts:
Lucy Letby’s former boss has said “if she was acting she deserves an Oscar” as she described tearful meetings with the neonatal nurse after accusations against her first emerged.

Karen Rees, the head of nursing at the Countess of Chester hospital before her retirement in March 2018, revealed to the Sunday Times that she had always believed in Letby’s innocence. The pair developed a close relationship in the months after Letby was removed from the ward over concerns she was connected to a sharp rise in infant deaths.
Click to expand...
 
The Economist did not take an unequivocal position on Ms. Letby's factual innocence or guilt, but they did suggest that the conviction was unsafe. In addition they were critical of the criminal justice system: "But Britain seems to be adept at suppressing doubts about verdicts. It took an article in the New Yorker and international health specialists to prompt more British voices, including this newspaper, to question Ms Letby’s conviction. The ccrc is part of the problem. "
 
Last edited:
Planigale said:
Doctors who frequently see cyanosis and are trained to look for it would describe cyanosis as cyanosis, it may be blue-purple but it is never black. Blood in veins is normally cyanosed, veins look blue. The important issue is what Lee described is air embolism into the arterial system not the venous system. Embolism in a vein means the air travels to fewer bigger deeper veins as veins join to gather until they reach the right side of the heart. In the arteries the arteries will divide into more smaller more superficial arterioles, so there will be a flush of oxygenation passing through the vessels in the skin. So there will be transient migratory area of red vessels in the skin against a background of cyanosis.

The problem is that Letby was accused of injecting air into the veins, so 'Lee's sign' should not have been present. If Lee's sign was present then that reflects a different site of air embolism than that, that Letby was accused of doing. One cannot argue that 'Lee's sign' was present and that means that Letby caused death by injecting air into a vein. If this sign did occur then Letby is innocent of the act she was accused of committing.

There seems little doubt Evans misinterpreted the significance and meaning of 'Lee's sign'.
Click to expand...

It was Jayaram who mentioned the description Lee refers to. I m not aware Evans mentioned Lee by name at all.

My impression is Dr. Lee has only just started calling it, 'Lee's sign'.

In any case, as per the CoA, the rashes were not the evidence relied upon.
 
catsmate said:
More doubts:
Click to expand...

I quoted Karen Rees' appearance at the Thirlwall Inquiry. It was because of Rees' firm faith in Letby that she failed as Safeguarding Officer to pass on the concerns of the doctors to the executive management, she should have done, under whistle-blowing procedures. It wasn't her job to judge Letby as being innocent or guilty of the breach thereof.

Of course, Rees stands by Letby as she had to appear at Thirlwall under legal caution.

Another one of Letby's victims - she's now virtually a nervous wreck, as she realises she could have averted further harm had she passed on the doctors' concerns, instead of playing workplace politics and taking sides. Rees failed in her ethical duty of objectivity, which includes protecting oneself from familiarity. She let herself be manipulated by Letby into feeling sorry for her and becoming a 'best friend'.
 
Vixen said:
I quoted Karen Rees' appearance at the Thirlwall Inquiry. It was because of Rees' firm faith in Letby that she failed as Safeguarding Officer to pass on the concerns of the doctors to the executive management, she should have done, under whistle-blowing procedures. It wasn't her job to judge Letby as being innocent or guilty of the breach thereof.

Of course, Rees stands by Letby as she had to appear at Thirlwall under legal caution.

Another one of Letby's victims - she's now virtually a nervous wreck, as she realises she could have averted further harm had she passed on the doctors' concerns, instead of playing workplace politics and taking sides. Rees failed in her ethical duty of objectivity, which includes protecting oneself from familiarity. She let herself be manipulated by Letby into feeling sorry for her and becoming a 'best friend'.
Click to expand...
Or, an increasingly likely option, you're wrong again, Letby was innocent of wrongdoing, the CoC was ◊◊◊◊◊◊ up by multiple problems and Rees is right.
 
catsmate said:
Or, an increasingly likely option, you're wrong again, Letby was innocent of wrongdoing, the CoC was ◊◊◊◊◊◊ up by multiple problems and Rees is right.
Click to expand...

We were not talking about innocence or guilt, we were talking about the ethical issue of safeguarding. So, even if the seven doctors were completely mistaken in wanting Letby off the high dependency neonatal unit, Rees had a professional duty to note the complaints. Let's hypothesise the - highly improbable event - Letby 'wuz innocent, M'Lud! - it doesn't abnegate the responsibility of Rees, as chief nurse of the high intensity unit, to have made a simple report, whether or not she agrees with it, thinks it nutty, frivolous or of no concern. The fact she refused to even acknowledge the complaints for a whole four months before Brearey had it out with Eirann Powell, overall manager of the neonatal unit, and Alison Kelly, the executive head of nursing, and official Safeguarding Officer (which I previously erroneously said was Rees) meant an even longer delay in dealing with the serious claims.

Indeed, Chambers and Harvey, the executive directors, together with the inspectors from CQC and RCPCH, all testified at Thirlwall they were not told of the doctors concerns, because Rees, Powell and Kelly, failed to lodge or mention the doctors' concerns.

Given this is a public hospital for babies, safeguarding of patients is highly important, is it not? Instead we had people behaving like something out of The Office, drawing up battlelines.

I am sure Rees, Powell and Kelly were excellent nurses and good at their job. However, as managers they should not have let their professional duty to ensure safeguarding of patients be peripheral to being loyal to their perceived 'friends', i.e., literally shielding Letby from any investigation.

It is clear from Rees' letter here that she saw the whole thing as a battle of wits.

1739969350602.png

Rees cared more about protecting her dear friend, Lucy, than the welfare of the patients. Do you see that now?
 
Last edited:
So what is Dr. Lee's game in all of this? He didn't even do the original research as outlined in a paper by A K Tanswell; Lee merely did a literary review of it. Did you know, Dr. Lee has never had an experience of air embolism in his whole career, unlike Dr. Bohin, independent expert witness for the court?

He decided to update his 1989 paper. Bear in mind that it wasn't even his own research originally, or just how disrespectful it may possibly be to A K Tanswell.
Click to expand...

McDonald and Letbyists appear to believe that this makes Dr Lee the world's leading air embolism expert, even though he has done none of his own research and has never experienced air embolism himself, unlike Dr Sandie Bohin, one of the prosecution expert witnesses.
Click to expand...

He arrogantly ascribes one of the descriptions in his 1989 paper "Lee's sign", a sign he has never seen or reported.
Click to expand...

For those interested in a detailed analysis of why his contribution to the New Yorker (Rachel Aviv) was recently edited to remove a section and an insight into Dr. Lee's motives, you can read it here.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1891636383057412362


Note the mention of the two civil engineers who claim to be experts in C-Peptides, potassium levels and insulin levels. supposedly 'top world experts' (albeit, not in neonatology).
 
Last edited:
Rolfe said:
No. I see a perfectly reasonable letter from a nurse concerned that a fellow nurse is being hounded and punished on the basis of unfounded suspicions by a couple of doctors.
Click to expand...


You don't think a senior nurse in charge of a high dependency unit had a duty to record or pass on whistleblowing concerns, especially from doctors working in that unit? If she had made a simple record of the complaint, it would have covered her back. No-one was asking her to come to a judgement. She claims she was 'waiting' for 'more evidence'. Really? Waiting for the next baby to be harmed? Grossly negligent. We'll see what Thirlwall has to say about this.
 
Last edited:
So, if a bus driver reported that his or her brakes were failing, were Karen Rees the boss in charge, her attitude would be, let's wait and see whether you have an accident before I report it or make a simple note for the record.
 
Vixen said:
So what is Dr. Lee's game in all of this? He didn't even do the original research as outlined in a paper by A K Tanswell; Lee merely did a literary review of it. Did you know, Dr. Lee has never had an experience of air embolism in his whole career, unlike Dr. Bohin, independent expert witness for the court?








For those interested in a detailed analysis of why his contribution to the New Yorker (Rachel Aviv) was recently edited to remove a section and an insight into Dr. Lee's motives, you can read it here.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1891636383057412362


Note the mention of the two civil engineers who claim to be experts in C-Peptides, potassium levels and insulin levels. supposedly 'top world experts' (albeit, not in neonatology).
Click to expand...
So the largest review on neonatal air embolism published was;
Lee SK, Tanswell AK, Pulmonary vascular air embolism in the newborn. Archives of Disease in Childhood 1989;64(4 spec):507-510
Lee is the first author, which means he will have done the work. Tanswell is the senior / supervising author. They reviewed the fifty reported cases world wide to that point (1989) to which they added three of their own, so Lee had seen 3 cases by 1989.

His most recent paper;
Zhou Q, Lee SK. Vascular Air Embolism in Neonates: A Literature Review. Am J Perinatol. . 2025 doi:10.1055/a-2508-2733
Reviews features of the 115 cases reported world wide to date (2025). Note he has now shifted to being the senior / supervising author. This is now the largest review of air embolism in neonates published.

Surprisingly this is not the sort of thing one does research in, I think the ethics board would blanch at giving air embolisms to babies! It is certainly not of much interest. Air embolism is a bad thing, we must endeavour not to allow it to happen. What do we want to research?

Bohin seems to have published nothing on air embolism.
 
Vixen said:
<gibber snippage>

Rees cared more about protecting her dear friend, Lucy, than the welfare of the patients. Do you see that now?
Click to expand...
Bollocks.

I see a fairly standard letter from a supervisor complaining about a colleague being scapegoated.

But then I'm a bit more familiar with hierarchical structures and what goes on in them than you.
:rolleyes:
 
Vixen said:
So what is Dr. Lee's game in all of this? He didn't even do the original research as outlined in a paper by A K Tanswell; Lee merely did a literary review of it. Did you know, Dr. Lee has never had an experience of air embolism in his whole career, unlike Dr. Bohin, independent expert witness for the court?
Click to expand...
THESE ARE OPINIONS


Planigale said:
So the largest review on neonatal air embolism published was; Lee SK Tanswell AK, Pulmonary vascular air embolism in the newborn. Archives of Disease in Childhood 1989;64(4 spec):507-510

Lee is the first author, which means he will have done the work. Tanswell is the senior / supervising author. They reviewed the fifty reported cases world wide to that point (1989) to which they added three of their own, so Lee had seen 3 cases by 1989.
His most recent paper;
Zhou Q, Lee SK. Vascular Air Embolism in Neonates: A Literature Review. Am J Perinatol. . 2025 doi:10.1055/a-2508-2733
Reviews features of the 115 cases reported world wide to date (2025). Note he has now shifted to being the senior / supervising author. This is now the largest review of air embolism in neonates published.

Bohin seems to have published nothing on air embolism.
Click to expand...
THESE ARE FACTS


When its Facts v Opinions, Facts win... every . single . time!
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
THESE ARE OPINIONS



THESE ARE FACTS


When its Facts v Opinions, Facts win... every . single . time!
Click to expand...

The duty of the court is to establish facts. The facts have been established. The jury then considered whether the prosecution had fulfilled its burden of proof. It found Letby guilty as charged in fifteen of the cases.

As a safety net, the convicted person was allowed two attempts at the Court of Appeal, which were dismissed.

Those are the facts. All else is sentimental rot. Pure romanticism.
 
catsmate said:
Bollocks.

I see a fairly standard letter from a supervisor complaining about a colleague being scapegoated.

But then I'm a bit more familiar with hierarchical structures and what goes on in them than you.
:rolleyes:
Click to expand...


Seems odd to me you seem unfamiliar with the principles of corporate governance, the point of safeguarding or even of the rights of whistleblowers, as laid down in legislation (PDA 2014, 2022) nor even grievance procedures. To demand a nurse accused of the most serious of offences to be returned to duties before any investigations have completed seems woefully fanciful, based on your belief that Letby being Rees' friend is sufficient to ignore all of the aforesaid and, 'bollocks' - your favourite debating tool - to the parents of the distressed and dead babies.
 
Vixen said:
The duty of the court is to establish facts. The facts have been established. The jury then considered whether the prosecution had fulfilled its burden of proof. It found Letby guilty as charged in fifteen of the cases.

As a safety net, the convicted person was allowed two attempts at the Court of Appeal, which were dismissed.

Those are the facts. All else is sentimental rot. Pure romanticism.
Click to expand...
Gibberish that misses the point.... and you are wrong about courts establishing facts. Courts get facts wrong... Central Park Five, Guildford Five, Birmingham Six are all examples of courts failing to establish the facts resulting in people being wrongfully convicted.

What YOU posted in the post I quoted was nothing nore than YOUR opinion... What @Planigale posted in reply were facts - sourced and referenced... Facts that contradicted your opinions.... and in such circumstances, facts ALWAYS win.

As for me, I have changed my opinion on this case. I have gone from certain that she did it to unsure. She may well have done at least some of what she has been accused of, but facts matter, and some of the evidence used to convict her has been shown to be flawed, particularly all the statistical evidence and a good deal of the medical evidence.

I now believe the conviction was unsafe, and that a retrial is in order with some proper expert witnesses.
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
Gibberish that misses the point.... and you are wrong about courts establishing facts. Courts get facts wrong... Central Park Five, Guildford Five, Birmingham Six are all examples of courts failing to establish the facts resulting in people being wrongfully convicted.

What YOU posted in the post I quoted was nothing nore than YOUR opinion... What @Planigale posted in reply were facts - sourced and referenced... Facts that contradicted your opinions.... and in such circumstances, facts ALWAYS win.

As for me, I have changed my opinion on this case. I have gone from certain that she did it to unsure. She may well have done at least some of what she has been accused of, but facts matter, and some of the evidence used to convict her has been shown to be flawed, particularly all the statistical evidence and a good deal of the medical evidence.

I now believe the conviction was unsafe, and that a retrial is in order with some proper expert witnesses.
Click to expand...

Sorry, are you seriously claiming the police, the CPS and the courts fabricated the evidence? Pure fantasy. You are claiming seven main independent medical expert witnesses, there to provide the medical facts, all conspired together to tell lies, for [reasons] at a cost of over five million pounds of tax payer money in an OPEN court, where anyone could witness how the trial developed? The three cases you mention were all political ones. How are they at all relevant here?
 
The reason Letby's defence would not let their highly respected expert medical witness, Dr. Michael Hall, take the witness stand is because it knew a fact cannot be refuted. All Dr. Hall had was criticism of one of the resuscitations. He could not take the stand and lie claiming a different cause of death, so the defence declined to call him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom