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

[Planigale]

I can't see the point in continuously listing historical 'cases of miscarriage of justice', for example, referring to the Birmingham Six. Nobody is arguing that unsafe convictions never happen. Sally Clark is relevant insofar her case is linked to Dewi Evans (the main doctor in the Letby case) and the rogue statistics of Roy Meadows, who erroneously calculated the odds of two children dying from SIDS without taking into account the genetic factor and that the two babies being brothers might have the same genetic predisposition, unlike two random samples in the population.

Lindy Chamberlain was an Australian case, and in common with Sally Clark, it is impossible to know one way or the other what really happened other than by inference.


Both cases are different from Letby, which relates to a serial killer of children not personally related or known to her.

Just to correct some common errors re Meadows. Meadows did not present the statistic of the odds of two children dying of SIDS in his written evidence. The prosecutor asked him the question when he was giving verbal evidence / cross examined, he had no time to prepare an answer and had to respond to the question as he was a witness under oath. The prosecutor asked him the odds of two children dying of SIDS in one family, Meadows was technically correct. By definition SIDS excludes underlying genetic conditions so whether there was an underlying genetic condition was irrelevant because the question was NOT what are the odds of two children in a family dying, but what are the odds of them dying from SIDS. The defence failed to challenge this at the time. On appeal the judges said that this particular statistic was irrelevant. The successful appeal against the conviction of Sally Clark was based on errors in the post mortem evidence, nothing to do with Meadows.

The relevance to this case is that there was a sustained campaign against Meadows, the consequence is that paediatricians are very reluctant to become expert witnesses in case they become subject to the same vilification and opprobrium as Meadows. E.g. even now he is blamed for the wrongful conviction of Clark on the basis of a single comment, when the appeal were quite clear this comment was irrelevant to either the conviction nor Clark's successful appeal. So the main expert witness was a long retired paediatrician (and not neonatologist) who had become a professional witness (earning around £100,000 / year through his company that provided professional witness services -his), because most neonatologists / paediatricians don't want to become involved with the courts.

A similar witch hunt has been seen on professional advisers to the government on Covid -19. complaints to the GMC, death threats, assault.

 

[Darat]

Just to correct some common errors re Meadows. Meadows did not present the statistic of the odds of two children dying of SIDS in his written evidence. The prosecutor asked him the question when he was giving verbal evidence / cross examined, he had no time to prepare an answer and had to respond to the question as he was a witness under oath. The prosecutor asked him the odds of two children dying of SIDS in one family, Meadows was technically correct. By definition SIDS excludes underlying genetic conditions so whether there was an underlying genetic condition was irrelevant because the question was NOT what are the odds of two children in a family dying, but what are the odds of them dying from SIDS. The defence failed to challenge this at the time. On appeal the judges said that this particular statistic was irrelevant. The successful appeal against the conviction of Sally Clark was based on errors in the post mortem evidence, nothing to do with Meadows.

The relevance to this case is that there was a sustained campaign against Meadows, the consequence is that paediatricians are very reluctant to become expert witnesses in case they become subject to the same vilification and opprobrium as Meadows. E.g. even now he is blamed for the wrongful conviction of Clark on the basis of a single comment, when the appeal were quite clear this comment was irrelevant to either the conviction nor Clark's successful appeal. So the main expert witness was a long retired paediatrician (and not neonatologist) who had become a professional witness (earning around £100,000 / year through his company that provided professional witness services -his), because most neonatologists / paediatricians don't want to become involved with the courts.

A similar witch hunt has been seen on professional advisers to the government on Covid -19. complaints to the GMC, death threats, assault.

Meadows' statistics were flawed and they were part of the prosecution evidence and argument at the initial trial. From the Royal Statistical Society:

"Society does not tolerate doctors making serious clinical errors because it is widely understood that such errors could mean the difference between life and death. The case of R v. Sally Clark is one example of a medical expert witness making a serious statistical error, one which may have had a profound effect on the outcome of the case."​

That the 2nd appeal was made on different grounds doesn't change the fact that his testimony was presented as an expert's testimony and it was simply wrong. We can't know whether his claimed 1 in 73 million was influential with the jury or not.

 

[Planigale]

It is entirely possible that there was mismanagement, shortages, a superbug and Letby was killing babies. We have no idea exactly how many and who Shipman killed. It could be the same with Letby.

I agree.

I think Letby was a killer, but I don't think she killed all the children she was convicted of killing. There are a few where I think 'natural causes' were the cause of death. The baby where the evidence of Letby causing death by injecting air in to the stomach based on an x-ray taken before Letby had any involvement in the child is an example. The mere fact the evidence was put to the jury and the jury convicted does not make the conviction safe. Many people are falsely convicted on the basis of jury trials. Occasionally jury findings of guilt are so irrational the judge takes the unusual course of ignoring the jury and dismissing the case.

 

[Planigale]

Meadows' statistics were flawed and they were part of the prosecution evidence and argument at the initial trial. From the Royal Statistical Society:

"Society does not tolerate doctors making serious clinical errors because it is widely understood that such errors could mean the difference between life and death. The case of R v. Sally Clark is one example of a medical expert witness making a serious statistical error, one which may have had a profound effect on the outcome of the case."​

That the 2nd appeal was made on different grounds doesn't change the fact that his testimony was presented as an expert's testimony and it was simply wrong. We can't know whether his claimed 1 in 73 million was influential with the jury or not.

The problem with the statistical society is that they were not medical experts and failed to understand that the definition of SIDS excluded familial disorders so their prior assumptions on which they expressed their opinion was flawed. If physicians should not calculate statistics, statisticians should not misconstrue medical terminology. Primarily the criticism was that Meadows should have answered a question which he was not asked i.e. the risk of death of two children in a family. The statistical society were wrong on the basis of the question Meadows was actually asked using the strict definition of SIDS.

Further in your quote

The calculation leading to 1 in 73 million is invalid. It would only be valid if SIDS cases arose independently within families, an assumption that would need to be justified empirically. Not only was no such empirical justification provided in the case, but there are very strong reasons for supposing that the assumption is false. There may well be unknown genetic or environmental factors that predispose families to SIDS, so that a second case within the family becomes much more likely than would be a case in another, apparently similar, family.

The problem is that the statistician who wrote this did not understand that the strict medical definition of SIDS is that it excludes genetic elements, so his opinion was equally in error.

I would also say that this was an unexpected question put to Meadows when he was on the witness stand to which he had had no chance to prepare.

FWIW the correct statistic is 1: 14 million there is a fivefold increase in the risk of a second SIDS death in a family. I am not sure that a correct statistic of 1:14 million vs 1: 70 million would have made a significant difference to the jury. Two SIDS deaths in one family is unlikely. The real error is the prosecutors fallacy. The case was brought because of a prior death so the correct question to have asked is given there was one death how likely was a second in one family, which would be around 1:1,000.

The statistic is irrelevant because the prosecution did not argue deaths were due to SIDS, nor did the defence contend that the deaths were due to SIDS, the statistic was irrelevant to the case from either prosecution or defence cases. Why the prosecutor asked the question is unclear.

 

[Planigale]

Meadows' statistics were flawed and they were part of the prosecution evidence and argument at the initial trial. From the Royal Statistical Society:

"Society does not tolerate doctors making serious clinical errors because it is widely understood that such errors could mean the difference between life and death. The case of R v. Sally Clark is one example of a medical expert witness making a serious statistical error, one which may have had a profound effect on the outcome of the case."​

That the 2nd appeal was made on different grounds doesn't change the fact that his testimony was presented as an expert's testimony and it was simply wrong. We can't know whether his claimed 1 in 73 million was influential with the jury or not.

Your post actually reinforces my case about the vilification of Meadows. You remember and blame Meadows for the 'wrongful' conviction of Clark (I think she was in fact guilty, but I accept that legally was not guilty).

I bet you cannot name the pathologist who the appeal court criticised, and whose faulty evidence they said was responsible for the wrongful conviction of Clark.

 

[catsmate]

Alas, it appears to be a personality trait of many medical professionals to be adverse to the idea they are not super-human all-knowing 100% competent and generally perfect beings at all times and the medical system (and society) does not allow for anything else.

Indeed.

 

[Darat]

Your post actually reinforces my case about the vilification of Meadows. You remember and blame Meadows for the 'wrongful' conviction of Clark (I think she was in fact guilty, but I accept that legally was not guilty).

I bet you cannot name the pathologist who the appeal court criticised, and whose faulty evidence they said was responsible for the wrongful conviction of Clark.

Well you'd lose your bet, plus of course I have not blamed Meadows for the conviction.

You seem to want there to have been a different trial than what actually happened. The jury made their call on the evidence that was presented to them at the time and it is a fact that Meadows gave very misleading testimony in an area in which he was not an expert at the trial. As I said we cannot know if his evidence persuaded any of the members of the jury of her guilt, all we know is that he made incorrect statements that fell outside his area of expertise that at the trial was considered part of his expert testimony.

What you are seeming to try and do is say Meadows’ inexpert testimony shouldn’t count because someone else was withholding vital evidence at the time of the trial but since no-one was aware of this other evidence it cannot have been used by the jury to make their decisions whereas we do know Meadows inexpert testimony was not challenged at the trial and could have helped convince jury members of her guilt.

 

[Vixen]

Just to correct some common errors re Meadows. Meadows did not present the statistic of the odds of two children dying of SIDS in his written evidence. The prosecutor asked him the question when he was giving verbal evidence / cross examined, he had no time to prepare an answer and had to respond to the question as he was a witness under oath. The prosecutor asked him the odds of two children dying of SIDS in one family, Meadows was technically correct. By definition SIDS excludes underlying genetic conditions so whether there was an underlying genetic condition was irrelevant because the question was NOT what are the odds of two children in a family dying, but what are the odds of them dying from SIDS. The defence failed to challenge this at the time. On appeal the judges said that this particular statistic was irrelevant. The successful appeal against the conviction of Sally Clark was based on errors in the post mortem evidence, nothing to do with Meadows.

The relevance to this case is that there was a sustained campaign against Meadows, the consequence is that paediatricians are very reluctant to become expert witnesses in case they become subject to the same vilification and opprobrium as Meadows. E.g. even now he is blamed for the wrongful conviction of Clark on the basis of a single comment, when the appeal were quite clear this comment was irrelevant to either the conviction nor Clark's successful appeal. So the main expert witness was a long retired paediatrician (and not neonatologist) who had become a professional witness (earning around £100,000 / year through his company that provided professional witness services -his), because most neonatologists / paediatricians don't want to become involved with the courts.

A similar witch hunt has been seen on professional advisers to the government on Covid -19. complaints to the GMC, death threats, assault.

Thanks for the clarification. So it was just something Meadows said under cross-examination. (But even if SIDS was supposedly nothing to do with any identifiable cause, such as genetics, it could still be an environmental one meaning a correlation between siblings of the same family, but anyway.) It seems Meadows was reported to GMC by Sally Clark's father and that's where the vilification of his name started - forever linked to the tragic Sally Clark case.

I have noticed people are now linking Dr. Dewi Evans to Meadows and citing criticisms from an Appeal Court judge re that case. They are now saying, Evans a member of the Sherlock Holmes Society as if it's a slur.

The big heads up is Lucy Letby campaigner Dr (phd not medical) Richard Gill on Twitter X called Dr. Dewi Evans, a “nonce,” “liar” and “sociopath”.

Well it is true he is a nonce and a liar. He lied to you, too, Guy. Are you next going to do an interview with me? I can tell you where the statistics are in the case.

https://x.com/gill1109/status/1842504571723128859


He's now desperately trying to backpedal now that he realises 'nonce' might be a libellous term:

Guy Adams is implying that I called Evans a “nonce,” “liar” & “sociopath”. I didn't know what "nonce" means, never used the word before. Evans did lie to Guy and I gave Guy proof. Evans isn't a sociopath. He's not a scientist and his testimony should not have been put to a jury.

https://x.com/gill1109/status/1842504571723128859

@gill1109
When I grew up in England, "a nonce" was an idiot. Apparently the meaning shifted 10 or 20 years ago. https://reddit.com/r/britishproblems/comments/mvzw5p/when_i_was_a_kid_my_dad_taught_me_that_nonce/
@guyadams
I wonder if Guy Adams knew that?

https://x.com/gill1109/status/1842927630347374916


Nonce has been a very derogatory term since at least 'Porridge' so it's hard to believe Gill didn't know that.

 

[Vixen]

I agree.

I think Letby was a killer, but I don't think she killed all the children she was convicted of killing. There are a few where I think 'natural causes' were the cause of death. The baby where the evidence of Letby causing death by injecting air in to the stomach based on an x-ray taken before Letby had any involvement in the child is an example. The mere fact the evidence was put to the jury and the jury convicted does not make the conviction safe. Many people are falsely convicted on the basis of jury trials. Occasionally jury findings of guilt are so irrational the judge takes the unusual course of ignoring the jury and dismissing the case.

The problem with the people arguing that this baby (Baby C) is an exception because the X-Ray was taken when Letby wasn't recorded as being on duty and Dr. Dewi Evans changing his mind about possible cause of death (from looking at the X-Ray), is that they are not presenting the full picture which was presented in Court at the trial.

Baby C was born prematurely at 30 weeks on 10 June 2015, weighing 800grams. Although premature Baby C was considered to be in 'good condition' in intensive care. Letby is accused of attacking the boy just six days after attacking Twins A and B (the first murder was on 8 June 2015, Baby A). She was also at the bedside of Baby B who unexpectedly collapsed.

Letby worked the night shift on 13th June 2015 and into the next day, with another nurse looking after Baby C. Child C's nurse was at a nursing station when Baby C's monitor sounded an alarm at about 11:15pm. She went to Baby C and found Letby standing by his cot. She remarked to Baby C's nurse, 'He is going. He's going'.

KC Johnson said Letby sent a text message to a colleague saying she wanted to be in the room with Baby C as it would be quote: "'cathartic' - in other words, would help her well-being - to see a living baby in the space previously occupied by a dead baby, Baby A. but she had been put in another room." end quote.

Despite several hours of resuscitation attempts, Baby C. died at 5:58am on 14th June 2015. The independent pathologist said Baby C died because his breathing became compromised and he suffered a cardiac arrest. The X-Ray was taken 15 June 2015 and Dr. Evans - or possibly another medical expert -looking at it in retrospect for the Cheshire Police said the only 'feasible mechanism for air to get into his body to cause the collapse was someone injecting it deliberately, for example via the nasal tube.

So Letby may not have been working with Baby C on 15th June but it doesn't follow she cannot be responsible for the death.

Within hours of Baby C's death, Letby searched Baby C's parents on FaceBook.

KC Johnson said that from the timings, quote, "one of the first things Letby did on waking up", end quote, after her shift, which finished at 8:00am, was to look up Baby C's parents. KC Johnson said that Letby was the only nurse working on the night shift re Baby C who had also worked the night shift when Baby A died and his twin sister Baby B attacked.

The problem with the current crop of newspaper reports from the pro-Letby campaign is that they do not give you the full facts that came out at trial and which the jury carefully followed.

 

[angrysoba]

Thanks for the clarification. So it was just something Meadows said under cross-examination. (But even if SIDS was supposedly nothing to do with any identifiable cause, such as genetics, it could still be an environmental one meaning a correlation between siblings of the same family, but anyway.) It seems Meadows was reported to GMC by Sally Clark's father and that's where the vilification of his name started - forever linked to the tragic Sally Clark case.

I have noticed people are now linking Dr. Dewi Evans to Meadows and citing criticisms from an Appeal Court judge re that case. They are now saying, Evans a member of the Sherlock Holmes Society as if it's a slur.

The big heads up is Lucy Letby campaigner Dr (phd not medical) Richard Gill on Twitter X called Dr. Dewi Evans, a “nonce,” “liar” and “sociopath”.

https://x.com/gill1109/status/1842504571723128859


He's now desperately trying to backpedal now that he realises 'nonce' might be a libellous term:

https://x.com/gill1109/status/1842504571723128859


https://x.com/gill1109/status/1842927630347374916


Nonce has been a very derogatory term since at least 'Porridge' so it's hard to believe Gill didn't know that.

I agree with you, Vixen. No need for that kind of talk and indeed he should be ashamed of himself for it and offer an unqualified apology.

The term “nonce” has indeed always meant a child molester. That said I think people often did use the word thinking it meant idiot unaware of the more slanderous meaning.

 

[Vixen]

I agree with you, Vixen. No need for that kind of talk and indeed he should be ashamed of himself for it and offer an unqualified apology.

The term “nonce” has indeed always meant a child molester. That said I think people often did use the word thinking it meant idiot unaware of the more slanderous meaning.

I think Gill did know the meaning of the word as he went on to write, of Dewi Evans:

@gill1109
It's true he has said that pedofiles shouldn't be in jail because they can't understand that what they want is a crime. I think that is just attention seeking.

https://x.com/gill1109/status/1842884291157459337


He thinks the last sentence covers his back. Oh well seems to have a screw loose as he's also recommending people fry a very poisonous mushroom.

https://x.com/gill1109/status/1842930109977915742

 

[angrysoba]

The problem with the people arguing that this baby (Baby C) is an exception because the X-Ray was taken when Letby wasn't recorded as being on duty and Dr. Dewi Evans changing his mind about possible cause of death (from looking at the X-Ray), is that they are not presenting the full picture which was presented in Court at the trial.

Baby C was born prematurely at 30 weeks on 10 June 2015, weighing 800grams. Although premature Baby C was considered to be in 'good condition' in intensive care. Letby is accused of attacking the boy just six days after attacking Twins A and B (the first murder was on 8 June 2015, Baby A). She was also at the bedside of Baby B who unexpectedly collapsed.

Letby worked the night shift on 13th June 2015 and into the next day, with another nurse looking after Baby C. Child C's nurse was at a nursing station when Baby C's monitor sounded an alarm at about 11:15pm. She went to Baby C and found Letby standing by his cot. She remarked to Baby C's nurse, 'He is going. He's going'.

KC Johnson said Letby sent a text message to a colleague saying she wanted to be in the room with Baby C as it would be quote: "'cathartic' - in other words, would help her well-being - to see a living baby in the space previously occupied by a dead baby, Baby A. but she had been put in another room." end quote.

Despite several hours of resuscitation attempts, Baby C. died at 5:58am on 14th June 2015. The independent pathologist said Baby C died because his breathing became compromised and he suffered a cardiac arrest. The X-Ray was taken 15 June 2015 and Dr. Evans - or possibly another medical expert -looking at it in retrospect for the Cheshire Police said the only 'feasible mechanism for air to get into his body to cause the collapse was someone injecting it deliberately, for example via the nasal tube.

So Letby may not have been working with Baby C on 15th June but it doesn't follow she cannot be responsible for the death.

Within hours of Baby C's death, Letby searched Baby C's parents on FaceBook.

KC Johnson said that from the timings, quote, "one of the first things Letby did on waking up", end quote, after her shift, which finished at 8:00am, was to look up Baby C's parents. KC Johnson said that Letby was the only nurse working on the night shift re Baby C who had also worked the night shift when Baby A died and his twin sister Baby B attacked.

The problem with the current crop of newspaper reports from the pro-Letby campaign is that they do not give you the full facts that came out at trial and which the jury carefully followed.

According to the Telegraph article:

“However, it then emerged that the X-ray had been taken on June 12 2015, when Letby was not working, and had not been in the hospital for two days.”


So the air bubble which apparently the only feasible mechanism was of someone deliberately pumping air into the baby doesn’t make sense if she was responsible for it.

We need to do better than “it doesn't follow she cannot be responsible for the death.”

We are not looking for ways in which she conceivably could be responsible. Or shouldn’t be. That’s the confirmation bias we were taking about before.

 

[Vixen]

According to the Telegraph article:

“However, it then emerged that the X-ray had been taken on June 12 2015, when Letby was not working, and had not been in the hospital for two days.”


So the air bubble which apparently the only feasible mechanism was of someone deliberately pumping air into the baby doesn’t make sense if she was responsible for it.

We need to do better than “it doesn't follow she cannot be responsible for the death.”

We are not looking for ways in which she conceivably could be responsible. Or shouldn’t be. That’s the confirmation bias we were taking about before.

Baby C. died at 5:58am on 14th June 2015. So, the X-Ray was taken whilst he was still alive. But we can see from the above that Letby was on nightshift for the 13 June with her shift starting the date before*. Baby C was not her charge but the nurse whose charge it was, said the baby monitor alarm went off at 11:15pm, which would have been the 12 June. Not sure why there would have been an XRay taken earlier in the day of the 12 June as Baby C was in good condition until the incident of the alarm.

*Unless, of course, she started her shift on 13th June and into 14th June. I'll have to recheck the exact dates and times.

 

[smartcooky]

Baby C. died at 5:58am on 14th June 2015. So, the X-Ray was taken whilst he was still alive. But we can see from the above that Letby was on nightshift for the 13 June with her shift starting the date before*. Baby C was not her charge but the nurse whose charge it was, said the baby monitor alarm went off at 11:15pm, which would have been the 12 June. Not sure why there would have been an XRay taken earlier in the day of the 12 June as Baby C was in good condition until the incident of the alarm.

*Unless, of course, she started her shift on 13th June and into 14th June. I'll have to recheck the exact dates and times.

When the X-Ray was taken is not really relevant. X-Rays come with a timestamp for the date and time they were taken, NOT for the date and time any damage they may reveal, was done.

 

[Matthew Best]

When the X-Ray was taken is not really relevant. X-Rays come with a timestamp for the date and time they were taken, NOT for the date and time any damage they may reveal, was done.

The x-ray was taken before Letby had even met the baby in question. Therefore anything shown in the x-ray could not have been caused by Letby.

This doesn't prove Letby didn't kill the baby in question, but it does mean that she couldn't have been responsible for the air bubble in the stomach shown in the x-ray. If she wasn't responsible for that air bubble, who was?

 

[smartcooky]

The x-ray was taken before Letby had even met the baby in question. Therefore anything shown in the x-ray could not have been caused by Letby.

Letby started at CCH in 2012, three years before Baby C died, so we don't really know for certain if that is true.

 

[Matthew Best]

Letby started at CCH in 2012, three years before Baby C died, so we don't really know for certain if that is true.

Well we know Letby wasn’t on shift from the moment the baby was born until after the x-ray was taken, so the only way she could have caused the air bubble is if she came in when she was supposed to be at home, and somehow avoided using her pass to trigger any of the door opening and closing records.

 

[Vixen]

I have looked up Baby C's press report as of the time of the trial (circa 1 Nov 2022, Chester Standard). Letby was on shift on the evening of 13 June 2015 going into 14th June when Baby C died at 5:58am. At 11:15pm on 13 June Baby C's nurse heard the baby's monitor alarm go off and found Letby standing next to his cot.

It was Dr Bohin and Dr Evans who testified. In common with many babies born prematurely, Baby C developed pneumonia in one lung, which was the purpose of the X-Ray on 12 June 2015: standard procedure. He was on a nasal tube plus CPAP. He was given antibiotics and transferred onto Optiflow, due to improvement in his condition. Dr. Bohin said Baby C died with pneumonia but not of it.

Dr. Evans said that the babies diaphragm appeared to be split with the stomach distended in the Xray dated 12 June 2015 (bile problems also being commonplace, as according to Dr. Evans, all premature babies are slightly affected by jaundice). When the Baby collapsed and died on 14 June 2015, Evans said that he virtually suffocated because his diaphragm was collapsed due, he believe to an injection of air.

Dr Evans said the death could not be explained from the usual causes babies get. He said, taking into account all the other evidence and information from experienced medical people's reports, and reading the pathology report, the splintering of the diaphragm was now his conclusion.

He said he was functioning as a clinician. "The fact is this baby has collapsed having previously been stable, and one has to explain that."

Mr Myers suggests Dr Evans had been influenced into supporting this conclusion.

He says Dr Evans had not provided this 'splintering of the diaphragm' conclusion in his eight previous reports.

<snip>

Dr Evans says Child C had a lung infection, of pneumonia, which was "very common" in premature babies, and he was placed on antibiotics in advance of any test results.

Mr Johnson: "Did breathing issues have any direct cause for [Child C's] death?"

Dr Evans: "No."

Mr Johnson: "Did any feeding issues cause his collapse?"

Dr Evans: "No, that cannot explain his collapse either."

Mr Johnson: "Did the infection of pneumonia cause it?"

Dr Evans: "No - the infection was under control and being treated."

Dr Evans explains if the pneumonia treatment was not working, a number of markers would be shown. There would be an increase in heart rate (which did not occur, he says), an increase in respiratory rate - but that stayed the same.

Oxygen saturation levels stayed "absolutely where they should be", whereas in worsening pneumonia conditions those levels would fall.

https://www.chesterstandard.co.uk/news/23092103.recap-lucy-letby-trial-tuesday-november-1/

Police have the opinion on of Letby's favourite Modus Operandi was to dislodge babies' feeding tubes, and she was present, alone at Baby C's cot when the alarm went off, on 13 June 2015, having just six minutes earlier sent a social media message to a colleague saying she wanted to be with Baby C (because of what happened to Baby A) but had been allocated to a different room and then first thing she did on awaking after finishing her night shift at 8:00am, was to search baby C's parents on FB. The mother of Baby C said a nurse with a ponytail told her she didn't think the baby was going to make it, with the mother telling the court via a statement she thought it was a very odd thing for a nurse to say as she expected that prognosis should have come from a doctor, not a nurse.

We only have the Daily Telegraph saying she had never been at the hospital for the period 8th June 2015 to 12 June 2015, with their sources being called 'experts', so is there any firm confirmation that Letby had not been working between those dates?

 

[Vixen]

Richard Gill, Letby campaigner, is now trying to wriggle out of calling Dr. Dewi Evans 'a nonce':

Richard Gill
@gill1109
Yesterday I accidentally called Dewi Evans a nonce. I thought it meant an idiot. That was the meaning till the mid 70's [when I moved from UK to NL], then it slowly came to mean paedophile. It is possibly derived from Lincolnshire dialect word nonse, meaning a good-for-nothing.
9:12 AM · Oct 7, 2024
·
13.7K
Views

https://x.com/gill1109/status/1843172638417620999

Source: Little Britain: Sir Norman Fry

 

[angrysoba]

Richard Gill, Letby campaigner, is now trying to wriggle out of calling Dr. Dewi Evans 'a nonce':

https://x.com/gill1109/status/1843172638417620999

[qimg]https://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/70001670453d626b32.jpg[/qimg]

Source: Little Britain: Sir Norman Fry

He shouldn’t be calling Dr Evans an idiot anyway. But none of this is really that relevant. It’s just people resorting to insults and we have seen plenty of people on the other side throwing insult back.