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

[Vixen]

From the BBC


Certainly if there is 'new evidence' that the police/prosecution have that has not been shared with the defence this is an issue that would justify an appeal.

Expert witness 'changed mind' over deaths, say Lucy Letby lawyers

The nurse was convicted of the murders of seven babies and the attempted murder of seven more.

www.bbc.co.uk

Dr Evans already explained that as with all scientists he revises his opinons when new information comes to light.

What he changed his mind about was how Baby C's diaphragm came to be splinted. It doesn't change the fact of the air embolism. Even Dr. Taylor [...?] for Mark McDonald said he had never seen an embolism himself (because it would of course be unethical to experiment on a live person). However, Dr Sho's paper on air embolism and its characteristic symptoms, which is the authoritative paper, is also what Drs Evans and Bohin refer to as the authority (it wasn't just these two expert doctors who reviewed the evidence, there was another, who died before the trial, plus a radiographer and pathologist). Dr Sandy Bohin said she did her own research and didn't just take Dr. Evans word for anything. On the issue of air embolism, this was already dealt with at the Court of Appeal. Dr. Sho appeared via videolink and concurred that his symptoms of bright blue veins against a vivid pink rash came from patients which had had very high pressure ventilation and that the way observers describe a rash can vary from observer to observer. The father of one of the babies observed his child with a vivid blue colour that seemed to race around the babies body - as via arteries and veins - against such a vivid pink rash. D. Jayaram described a similar rash in Child K. So the Court of Appeal already dealt with that issue and aren't likely to go back to it.

It was also already argued at the Court of Appeal that Dr Evans had 'put himself forward' to NCA (not CPS, as claimed by Mr. McDonald at the press conference) because he had experience in that field, having pioneered the neonatal unit at Swansea. The CoA ruled it was irrelevant that Cheshire Police took him on. It also threw out the application that the verdict was unsafe because Justice Goss refused to strike out Dr Evans' evidence on the grounds that a Family Law Court judge once rejected an expert report Dr Evans wrote on behalf of a client who wanted to bring an appeal. (Appeals get won or lost every day, in itself it doesn't render the expert witness involved in the losing side as defective.). Justice Goss rejected the defence's attempt to get the evidence thrown out on the grounds that Dr Evans was acting independently for the court and not on behalf of one side or the other (as wrongly claimed today by McDonald) and that the jury was free to take or leave Dr Evans testimony as he was put under cross-examination by both sides. The CoA rejected that 'grounds for appeal' and upheld that Justice Goss acted perfectly correctly. So I can't see how Mark McDonald expects the CCRC to now throw out Dr Evans' evidence. He needs more than a stream of personal insults.

 

[Matthew Best]

Weirdly, neither the Guardian nor the BBC mention any cars crashing during the press conference, which you'd think they would have noticed. What the Guardian seems to have spotted is this:

"Two consultant neonatologists – specialists in the medical care of premature babies – Dr Neil Aiton and Dr Svilena Dimitrova, have produced reports on babies O and C.

The reports are based on “full access” to the hospital notes, postmortem reports, Evans’ reports, other expert witness statements, and statements from the investigation. In a statement they said they had found medical causes for the deaths and no evidence that the two babies were deliberately harmed."

Lucy Letby lawyer seeks fresh appeal over reliability of expert witness

Ex-nurse’s lawyer announces move after witness ‘changed his mind’ on some key evidence about baby deaths

www.theguardian.com

 

[Vixen]

Weirdly, neither the Guardian nor the BBC mention any cars crashing during the press conference, which you'd think they would have noticed. What the Guardian seems to have spotted is this:

"Two consultant neonatologists – specialists in the medical care of premature babies – Dr Neil Aiton and Dr Svilena Dimitrova, have produced reports on babies O and C.

The reports are based on “full access” to the hospital notes, postmortem reports, Evans’ reports, other expert witness statements, and statements from the investigation. In a statement they said they had found medical causes for the deaths and no evidence that the two babies were deliberately harmed."

Lucy Letby lawyer seeks fresh appeal over reliability of expert witness

Ex-nurse’s lawyer announces move after witness ‘changed his mind’ on some key evidence about baby deaths

www.theguardian.com

You can see Dr Richard Taylor directly accusing Dr Brearey of killing Baby O.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1868686181933707602

It is worth recalling why Letby's team declined to bring Dr Mike Hall to the witness box for cross-exam. His view was similar insofar that he thought one of the baby's symptoms was due to the resuscitation efforts of the doctors. The defence seems to have realised that that doesn't cancel out the attempted murder that led to the resuscitation attempt, and came before it. If the defence were so sure of their case here, why did they not call Dr Hall and why did they not bring this into their original appeal? As you might know, 'new evidence' is only new evidence if not known of as of the time of the trial or ought to have been known of.

Of course, if you are a defence lawyer your main course of attack will be to discredit the evidence and the prosecution witnesses. What is desperate and car-crash about this is that Letby's new defence team has irresponsibly IMV publicly announced on live tv that Dr Brearey killed Baby O.

Getting a couple of doctors to suggest alternative causes of death is again not 'new evidence' as these alternative theories should have been done in time for the trial.

 

[Vixen]

And now the Royal Society of Medicine who hired out the room for the PR stunt press conference has rapidly disassociated itself from it. "We would like to make it clear that neither the event nor its contents are linked to or endorsed by the RSM".

https://twitter.com/x/status/1868710477636731049

 

[angrysoba]

You are missing the point. Letby said she wrote those notes BECAUSE she was 'completely isolated' and only allowed to speak to two nurses and Dr. A. In court under oath, she repeated this. The prosecution produced clear photographic evidence that it was completely untrue as she was out with her nursing friends - many of them - several times a week. Plus, when she was deployed to office work it was presented as 'a secondment' with no hint she was under any investigation.

When you say you do not agree that courts should be able to hold what a person says in a police station under caution against them, are you saying that there should be a new Act of Parliament passed to change the College of Policing standards, or are you saying only Letby should be treated differently from other suspects? In effect, the police should vary protocol depending on the subjective opinion of the arresting officer?

I’m saying they should not have changed the right to remain silent at all. Not just for Letby obviously, but for anyone.

 

[Vixen]

Following on from the McDonald/Taylor press conference, interesting article here, archived from the Independent by David James Smith, a former Commissioner of the Criminal Cases Review Commission.

One key paragraph states:

A telling question at the press conference was why Letby’s original defence team had failed to call any expert witnesses at the two trials, to challenge the witnesses for the Crown who claimed that babies had died or been harmed by injections of air, or insulin, or more.
McDonald, perhaps surprisingly, said he didn’t know why, and had not yet asked Letby’s trial lawyers. He was not going to criticise them, he said.
Any future appeal will depend on a satisfactory answer to that very question – far more so, almost, than anything else. It is the platform for fresh evidence. It is there in the 1968 statute, the Criminal Appeal Act, that sets out the grounds for allowing fresh evidence at appeal, which require a “reasonable explanation” for why the evidence was not called at the trial.

In other words, you had your chance, why didn’t you take it? If you were playing tactics, it’s too late now, you should have thought of that the first time around.

 

[angrysoba]

Following on from the McDonald/Taylor press conference, interesting article here, archived from the Independent by David James Smith, a former Commissioner of the Criminal Cases Review Commission.

One key paragraph states:

It’s definitely an important question. It’s weird that they don’t have a good answer to it.

It’s also weird to respond with “too late now, you should have thought of that” as if this is a game.

 

[Vixen]

It’s definitely an important question. It’s weird that they don’t have a good answer to it.

It’s also weird to respond with “too late now, you should have thought of that” as if this is a game.

Your trial is your one chance. Letby was given £1.5m in Legal Aid, her number of counsel was uplifted to four, to match that of the prosecution's. The trial went on for over eight months and then another couple more for jurors deliberations. Then there were two detailed appeals. A trial is supposed to be final, with recourse to appeal as a safety net. Had Letby been found not guilty, that would also be the end of it, as was the case for a couple of the babies.

 

[Matthew Best]

Lucy Letby retrial needed after ‘clear miscarriage of justice’, says David Davis

MP tells parliament he believes justice has not been done after hearing experts’ concerns over former nurse’s murder convictions

www.theguardian.com

 

[Vixen]

Lucy Letby retrial needed after ‘clear miscarriage of justice’, says David Davis

MP tells parliament he believes justice has not been done after hearing experts’ concerns over former nurse’s murder convictions

www.theguardian.com

Looks like poor old David Davis is talking to himself.

 

[Matthew Best]

Latest news & breaking headlines

The latest breaking UK, US, world, business and sport news from The Times and The Sunday Times. Go beyond today's headlines with in-depth analysis and comment.

www.thetimes.com

My research was misused to convict Lucy Letby — so I did my own inquiry​

Dr Shoo Lee, a neonatalist whose 30-year-old paper was pivotal in the nurse’s trial, and an expert panel have re-examined the case and reached ‘explosive’ conclusions.​

Press conference to follow on Tuesday where these explosive conclusions will apparently be revealed.

“What I can say is that we looked at the cases in great detail and we came to very definite conclusions about what happened in every case.

“I think they will be of interest because there’s been a lot of press about this and many different opinions. What we have done is to remove all the emotion and conjecture to basically just look at the evidence.”

 

[catsmate]

At least this case is progressing faster than previous potential miscarriages of justice.

 

[Matthew Best]

A major whistleblowing charity refused to engage with the doctors who blamed Lucy Letby for a spike in baby deaths because of ‘red flags’ over their conduct, it has emerged.
Compassion in Care, which was founded to support informers who speak out, said Letby’s accusers did not exhibit any of the usual behaviour displayed by those blowing the whistle on malpractice or criminal activity.

Charity refused to engage with Lucy Letby whistleblowers over ‘red fl…

archived 1 Feb 2025 12:28:01 UTC

archive.ph

 

[Vixen]

A major whistleblowing charity refused to engage with the doctors who blamed Lucy Letby for a spike in baby deaths because of ‘red flags’ over their conduct, it has emerged.
Compassion in Care, which was founded to support informers who speak out, said Letby’s accusers did not exhibit any of the usual behaviour displayed by those blowing the whistle on malpractice or criminal activity.

Charity refused to engage with Lucy Letby whistleblowers over ‘red fl…

archived 1 Feb 2025 12:28:01 UTC

archive.ph

Heh, deflecting blame away from themselves for failing to immediately ...do nothing.

 

[Vixen]

Latest news & breaking headlines

The latest breaking UK, US, world, business and sport news from The Times and The Sunday Times. Go beyond today's headlines with in-depth analysis and comment.

www.thetimes.com

My research was misused to convict Lucy Letby — so I did my own inquiry​

Dr Shoo Lee, a neonatalist whose 30-year-old paper was pivotal in the nurse’s trial, and an expert panel have re-examined the case and reached ‘explosive’ conclusions.​

Press conference to follow on Tuesday where these explosive conclusions will apparently be revealed.

“What I can say is that we looked at the cases in great detail and we came to very definite conclusions about what happened in every case.

“I think they will be of interest because there’s been a lot of press about this and many different opinions. What we have done is to remove all the emotion and conjecture to basically just look at the evidence.”

The circus comes to town. Not satisfied with justice in a court of law, why not try courting public opinion instead?

You know, Daily Mail level of critical thinking skill.

"Stands to reason, do'nit?"

.

 

[angrysoba]

The circus comes to town. Not satisfied with justice in a court of law, why not try courting public opinion instead?

You know, Daily Mail level of critical thinking skill.

"Stands to reason, do'nit?"

.

Maybe, but I think it will nonetheless be interesting to hear the findings of the panel of experts.

I get that things like this often throw up a group of "experts" who disagree with official findings, but I think the methodology that they went through was interesting enough.

I'm in two minds about this. On the one hand I recognize that some of the tactics employed by the Innocenters are similar to stuff often seen in conspiracy theories (anomaly hunting, character assassination, maverick experts, etc...), but on the other hand, if some of the evidence used in the conviction is genuinely disputed by people who say their own work is being misrepresented then I'm happy to hear them out. I also think that some of the evidence is genuinely ambiguous and relies on a particular interpretation that could fall prey to confirmation bias.

Ultimately, I am surprised by how strongly many people are in their certainty about what is true in this case.

 

[Rolfe]

I genuinely don't know what to think. I just keep seeing oodles of what looks like reasonable doubt.

 

[angrysoba]

I haven't watched the press conference, but it looks like it has just finished and those interested can watch it here...

 

[Vixen]

Maybe, but I think it will nonetheless be interesting to hear the findings of the panel of experts.

I get that things like this often throw up a group of "experts" who disagree with official findings, but I think the methodology that they went through was interesting enough.

I'm in two minds about this. On the one hand I recognize that some of the tactics employed by the Innocenters are similar to stuff often seen in conspiracy theories (anomaly hunting, character assassination, maverick experts, etc...), but on the other hand, if some of the evidence used in the conviction is genuinely disputed by people who say their own work is being misrepresented then I'm happy to hear them out. I also think that some of the evidence is genuinely ambiguous and relies on a particular interpretation that could fall prey to confirmation bias.

Ultimately, I am surprised by how strongly many people are in their certainty about what is true in this case.

A good place to start regarding the evidence and the trial is the book by Jonathan Coffey and Judith Moritz, Lucy Letby Unmasked. Moritz attended every day of the trial. The book is in plain English, so no turgid details to plow through. Coffey is uncertain of guilt, Moritz is certain, so there is a good dialectic going on over the salient issues.

The McDonald/Davies/Hammond brigade concentrate on the same one or two topics. For example, criticising Dr Dewi Evans and the issue of Dr Shoo Lee and his embolism rashes.

Dr. Shoo Lee argues that the symptoms of air embolism can only be a vivid pink rash. What he fails to mention is that his subjects were patients on extremely high ventilation. This case involves neonates on CPAP and lesser ventilation. The issue was thoroughly cross-examined in the trial. The father of one of the babies actually saw with his own eyes a vivid rash racing around his baby's stomach under the skin (as carried by blood). It is established that different eye witnesses have different ways of describing a rash. Rashes are often various shades of different colours, hence the term, 'mottled'. The mottled appearance depends on what stage and the cause.

But the rash wasn't the only evidence and Dr Evans not the only expert witness to the court, who do not represent either the prosecution nor the defence. Dr. Arthurs {_sp? name check?] was a quite independent radiologist who saw air bubbles along the spine of one of the babies by X-Ray which he said was quite exceptional in his career.

There is also the issue of Letby's behaviour. She covered her tracks. She got fellow nurses to fill in false details. She herself filled in false notes. She told police she had no idea babies could be affect by embolism from intravenous air injection, yet records show that just two weeks before such a case, Letby had been on a course which specifically included a module in the importance of preventing same when intravenously inserting a ventilation tube.

So what was heard in court was ALL of the evidence.

Dr Shoo Lee already appeared by zoom at the Court of Appeal hearing and it was determined that it did not represent 'new evidence' as it was thoroughly dealt with in court by defence silk Ben Myers.

As forthe person who wrote the WASHINGTON POST article, she claimed that the Insulin-C-Peptide test was faulty because she misunderstood a youtube warning that immunassary [_sp] testing had to be carried out at two different facilities, failing to realise that instruction was for lay persons buying over the counter. The tests carried out by Liverpool Hospital was bonafide, thorough - the full works carried out correctly - and complete.

Dr. Richard Taylor an unregistered doctor in the UK claimed that one of the insulin test results showed a staggering level of 9999 units in glycaemia, not realising that the '9999' designation was the laboratory default for when hyperglycaemia was NOT being tested. It did not mean there was that much sugar in the blood stream! LOL That would be an abjectly astonishing level indeed!!! He also claimed Dr Brearey lacerated one of the baby's liver (IIRC Baby O). But that was done during the post mortem. Dr. Taylor fails to explain why Dr Brearey was compelled to resuscitate Baby O in the first place. _DOH!

I am afraid Mr MacDonald is simply a mountebanke lawyer who, unable to present a coherent argument in the correct place, i.e., before a court, has to resort to PR Press Conferences with a 'panel of experts', most of them retired and from overseas. Last time, it was at a Medical body, to seem as though they were some how endorsed, but which had to put out a statement that it had no connection whatever to MacDonald's campaign.

Only hacks from 'news' outlets such as GB News and the DAILY MAIL are invited, so none of the questions are too perspicacious and cutting but simply ones supportive of MacDonald's crackpot trickery of pretending that '50 experts' equals proof of a miscarriage of justice.

One of the writers of the Washington post's reports can't find a regular medical post so I daresay she has feelings of antiestablishment that fuels her campaign.

 

[Matthew Best]

Lucy Letby did not murder babies, claim medical experts

Former nurse Lucy Letby was convicted of murdering seven babies and trying to murder seven others.

www.bbc.co.uk

A panel of international medical experts have outlined what they claim is "significant new evidence" that casts doubt on the convictions of serial killer Lucy Letby.

"We did not find any murders. In all cases, death or injury were due to natural causes or just bad medical care."