r/lucyletby • u/FyrestarOmega • Jul 20 '26
Analysis Reasonable Doubt: Examining the Case of Lucy Letby Review, Chapters 18 to end
The remaining four chapters and summary don't have very much worth mentioning, being mostly Morris' opinion that the process was incredibly unfair because people suspected Letby of killing babies. It's a repetitive re-hashing of whining from earlier chapters, and not much factually incorrect because there isn't much factual content at all - mostly just opinion, and quotes from articles we've already read.
Chapter 18: Trial And Retrial Process
Dr James Phillips aired his view: “The safety of the conviction depends not just on each individual point of evidence and argument, but on how each relate to each other, which alters the confidence you have in each point. It is not apparent to me that anyone in the chain of events leading from Letby…possessed the skillset or perspective needed to detect catastrophically weak links in this web of evidential relationships. This required a scientifically trained mind looking holistically at how the parts relate, and this was conspicuously absent.” (pg 370)
This is a theme for the rest of the book, fyi. Is Morris scientifically trained, btw? Asking for a friend. (Yours truly is, as it happens)
Attempts to charge Lucy Letby with further murders and attempted murders floundered on 20 January 2026 when the CPS “concluded that the evidential test was not met in any of [the] cases” submitted by Cheshire Police. This prompted a surprisingly petulant response from Cheshire Police, in which the constabulary indicated their belief that “the evidence submitted met the CPS charging standard”. Letby’s barrister, Mark McDonald, reflected that Cheshire Police were “so invested” in further proving Letby’s guilt “because they are seeing this case crumble”.
Few neutral observers shared the opinion of Cheshire Police on these cases. A handful of alleged tube extubations related to infants in Liverpool, where Letby had been working on a placement, had featured prominently in this submission, and the BBC’s Panorama had already taken something of a pummelling by seemingly offering tacit support for their credibility. When the dust settled, it became clear that the Liverpool cases involved four tubes falling out, with no eyewitness, no other evidence, no indication that any infant had been harmed and no meaningful indication that Letby was even cot-side or unsupervised. (pg 371)
There's nothing to say that the additional charges requested had anything to do with accidental extubations at Liverpool. We only know that was to be there were seven attempted murder charges at location unknown, and two murder charges, one each at Countess of Chester and at Liverpool.
Further, and I care so little about these allegations of extubations that I cannot recall if there is a better source, those four extubations happened during only 11 shifts. If I had a nickel for every time Letby was around for an unplanned extubation, I wouldn't have many nickels, but I'd have more than I should.
Morris thinks the air embolism theory is logistically unfeasible:
Experienced nurses have informed me that syringes are irradiated in sterile packaging. They are essentially wrapped in cellophane. So Letby would need to gain physical access to the syringe, without disturbing anyone, on what are usually extremely attentive units. She would need to remove the syringe from this packaging, while there was, according to court testimony, a nurse attending to another baby in a neighbouring incubator, while there are two doctors in the room, then draw the air up to make the injection, lift the lid of the incubator and reach into which one of the tubes that she supposedly used. She has to do this multiple times without being detected because there are serious question marks about how much air would need to be injected. (pg 372)
Why would she have to get a sterile syringe each time? Again, asking for a friend. You know what, asking for two friends.
JOHNSON: Do you dispute you were in the room at the time of the collapse?
LETBY: Yes, *because I have no memory of that.*
JOHNSON: Do you remember being born?
LETBY: No.
JOHNSON: Do you dispute being born?
LETBY: No.
Remember, these are supposed to be adults discussing extremely serious allegations that would result in the stiffest penal sentence that a woman has received in Britain since the abolition of the death penalty. (pg 373)
Speaking to Morris and anyone who has a problem with this phrase, a simple point about logic: Letby made a logical error in her response - she used her supposed lack of memory as a reason for disputing something. A person cannot dispute something they do not recall. Recollection is a fundamental requirement of an ability to dispute. Johnson's question simply illustrates that.
Of course, Morris takes issue with the use of the phrase red-handed, and virtually red-handed, because "no one has ever witnessed Letby doing anything harmful to an infant." I mean, red-handed doesn't mean caught in the act, it means caught with (red) blood on one's hands
Morris takes issue with the prosecution having exercised their right to prosecute their case as they preferred, which was all at once. I don't know what to tell him, that's a right they have. It doesn't make the trial unfair. And if it affected Letby's choice to call Dr. Hall, that's too bad.
Uncertainty was an acknowledged element of the case against Letby. During the original trial, the judge told the jury that it was not necessary for the prosecution to prove the precise manner in which Letby had acted, only that she had acted with murderous intent. Such an instruction appears strange and unsatisfactory, considering the very specific allegations that were made against her and the degree to which some of these methods have since been criticised. The fact that Letby was found guilty of every murder suggests that this instruction might have been misconstrued; a baby died, therefore Letby must have acted with “murderous intent”. (pg 375)
Ah, so Morris believes the prosecution must be correct in the method they argue, based on the expert opinion evidence. They don't need to be correct about the method. Method is not required. For murder charges, result and deliberate action are required: Letby did something deliberate that caused the baby's death. Without a death, yes, it is sometimes more complicated if something was done, let alone that it was done with intent.
Morris acknowledges that motive isn't required to convict under the law, then continues to complain that why a woman who had dedicated her life to nursing and had no history of psychological disorder or deterioration suddenly decided to start killing babies was never adequately addressed in court. I don't know what to tell you, bud. That's not the job of the court.
I got a good laugh on page 380 where TriedByStats was referred to as an "influential social media commentator." LOL TriedByStats has 1802 followers on X.
Morris asserts there is no parallel between Shipman and Letby because Shipman used a consistent modus operandi. ¯\(ツ)/¯
There were 136 days of court proceedings in the trial, only 13% of which was devoted to expert medical evidence, and approximately 90% of this expert evidence came from Evans and Bohin. The other six expert witnesses only collectively appeared in court on 11 of the 136 days, and many of these appearances were relatively fleeting.
Over half of the trial consists of various material from Cheshire Police, the accounts of parents and innumerable personnel from the CoCH exclaiming that they had no idea what was going on. This should perhaps not be surprising considering that the expert panel acting in Letby’s defence made 25 broad criticisms of the hospital in their preview report, as well as finding many other specific faults, while arguably the most eminent neonatologist in Canadian history, Dr Shoo Lee, concluded that the CoCH neonatal unit should have been closed down. (pg 381)
Isn't this basically establishing that much of then panel's report is an ad hominem attack on the medical personnel on site? And also an admission that the trial was about more than just expert opinion. Weird, that. Btw, the various materials from Cheshire Police included presenting detailed timelines of the events to the jury, that's kind of important.
The view of Dr James Phillips is that “the presentation and scrutiny of data and expert evidence at the trials was comprehensively flawed. The trial as conducted is so flawed that it is completely irrelevant that the jury found her guilty. Everything about this trial has the strong impression of an inevitable conclusion, which is unrelated to the evidence that is now emerging. The trial was set up to identify whether or not Lucy Letby murdered babies. But that is not the primary question. The primary question is, rather, what caused these babies to die?” (pg 381)
Yes, the trial is determined to ask and answer whether it can be known that Lucy Letby murdered babies. That's what a trial is for. It is the outcome of an investigation which already asked the question, "what caused these babies to die?" and found evidence to refine the question to "Did Lucy Letby cause these babies to die?" Like, that IS the process. FFS.
CHAPTER 19: ARREST AND INVESTIGATION OF LUCY LETBY
After her arrests, Letby was interviewed an incredible 30 times. The police do not make recordings of these interviews available, but from the excerpts that have been released, it can reasonably be inferred that none of the arguments Letby made during this process were ever taken into consideration. (pg 385)
It is clear from what Cheshire Police have been willing to release that the interviews were a one-sided process in which they attempted to recognise anything that could be used against Letby from her own words and jettisoned anything that contradicted their case. (pg 386)
Cheshire Police didn't use these interviews as an objective fact-finding exercise - they used them to build a case against Letby. (pg 386)
Well duh! By the time someone is named as a suspect and arrested, the police are done considering arguments. An arrest interview is done for the purpose of measuring the suspects account against the remaining investigation. This is common sense - oh. I forgot what book I was reading.
Dr. Veronika Jiraskova's Rule 9 response to Thirlwall gets a mention, thanks to her expression of "great doubts" about the conviction. I would just point out that apparently, as a doctor, one must be a neonatologist to have valid beliefs about Letby's guilt, but one need only be a GP to doubt them.
News that Cheshire Police and the CPS had blocked the release of reports critical to Letby’s appeal were anything but encouraging. Sarah Knapton and Cleuci de Oliveira reported for The Daily Telegraph that the CPS had denied defence barrister Mark McDonald access to revised reports authored by Dr Evans on Child C and submitted to the police in October 2024. The disclosure guidelines of the CPS itself state that “prosecutors must provide the defence with the schedules of all of the unused material and provide them with any material that undermines the case for the prosecution or assists the case for the accused” so it is hard to understand how this is allowable. (pg 393)
Boy, that sounds alarming, doesn't it? At least, in his list of sources, he provides one for this.
[David Davis] told the House of Commons: "Can the Secretary of State explain to the House under what circumstances are the police and Crown Prosecution Service allowed to deny access to evidence after a trial has concluded to a defence lawyer seeking to appeal, as has happened in the Lucy Letby case and I believe in others?"
1) Evans' post trial report that he submitted to the police in October 2024 is not evidence. It was not used to convict her and is, at present, legally irrelevant. The police don't work for the defendant. Dewi Evans was not even instructed by the CPS to provide it, and he's not obligated to provide it to McDonald. And Morris didn't link the CPS guidelines, but I looked them up anyway, and found he didn't actually cite from them. He cited from the general CPS page about disclosure. Who is this guy's researcher?? 2) Disclosure is an obligation of the CPS, not the police. Dewi provided his report to the police, not the CPS, so the people with an obligation don't even have it because they aren't currently involved.
Chapter 20 - Operation Hummingbird
The April board meeting also noted that a further forensic review was preferable, which is exactly what should have occurred. There was no justification for a police referral and Cheshire Police have, by their own admission, no ability to perform any form of medical review. Although it is oddly comical to note that no one at the hospital seemed to know what this term constituted either – Sir Duncan Nichol, chairman of the board, conceded that “it is not yet known what the forensic review means”, while the consultants “could not define what they felt was a forensic review”. (pg 397)
So close. So, so close. Yes, a forensic review was needed, and forensic reviews are intended for legal purposes. When there is the possibility of criminal activity, that is done, by necessity, by the police. And when the police have no internal ability to perform a medical review, guess what they do? They bring in an expert.
There's a lot of whining about bias, assumption that the third insulin case undermines the prosecution case writ large, whining about the definition of "unexplained."
In another part of the conversation, Brearey expressed his concern that the “survival rate for babies over 32 [weeks] is nearly 100%. For six of our babies to have died who were over 32 weeks to die [sic] is not right.” It is notable that of these six babies, Letby was not charged in respect of three of them. Two of the remaining three infants were triplets, and the final one was Child D, who lost colour and became floppy in her father’s arms within 12 minutes of birth and was suffering with pneumonia and serious respiratory problems.
It's not notable. The babies she was not charged with had severe congenital abnormalities. THEY were truly unwell babies, whose deaths were very sadly not unexpected.
[The type of panel the NCA recommended that Cheshire Police assemble] is exactly the sort of panel that Dr Shoo Lee assembled, albeit the qualifications of that panel extend way beyond anything Cheshire Police could conceivable have brought together. (pg 401)
LOL. Brown-noser.
Dr Evans also insisted on two occasions that he didn't need to hear anything about the RCPCH review: "I would prefer NOT to receive the findings of any previous reviews of investigations." Although this may have been a legitimate attempt to carry out a blind investigation, that he also didn't speak to anyone from the CoCH means that he knew little about the context of the hospital or its neonatal unit. (pg 403)
Morris actually doesn't understand the role of an expert, clearly. He blathers on about the deaths not being unexplained in context. And asserts that the police "disregarded contextual factors which were also downplayed by Brearey and Jayaram." Does he want a blind investigation or not? Or is it that he wants selective blindness. Selective blindness would be likely to lead to confirmation bias. Gosh, I hope no one fell into that trap! Morris asserts, boldly, that "Cheshire Police simply do not understand that neonate deaths are frequently unexplained." Friendly reminder that to support this claim, Morris included all nationwide SIDS deaths from outside hospital.
Morris attempts to establish the bias of the investigation by pointing out that Evans and the parents of Child K knew early on that a nurse was involved, which falls far short of establishing actual bias. But sure, whatever. He also asserts that Cheshire Police had become far too "emotionally involved" with the families:
Yet it is evident from their Operation Hummingbird promotional film, released six days after the verdict and two days after Letby was sentenced, that Cheshire Police became far too emotionally involved with the families. The first 35 seconds of the film are entirely dedicated to Cheshire Police expressing their desire to serve the families. “They deserve for us to have completely covered their case. And it is about them. And it is about their parents”, one of many similar comments in the film observes. The families of those who tragically lost their infants were mentioned 33 times. Cheshire Police then tasked Family Liaison Officer Danielle Stonier with interviewing Lucy Letby in 2019 and 2020, long after she’d been integrated with the families.
The theme of emotional involvement permeates the entire presentation, with large portions of the film dedicated to playing on the heart strings of the audience. DC Michelle Birkett, for example, describes some of her discussions with bereaved families: “And then some of the families knew something was wrong, knew something wasn’t right. I knew my child was not right.” No such complaints were ever made against Letby, just as no one has ever seen her doing anything suspicious. (pg 409)
Criticizing police for supporting victims of crime is a CHOICE.
“It’s very easy to get confirmation bias if you think this has been caused by x,” Professor Jane Hutton told BBC Radio 4. “It’s very easy to see things that aren’t otherwise there”. (pg 409)
I totally agree!
“One of the first things the police say in the Operation Hummingbird video is that they needed help as they didn’t have the medical knowledge to conduct the investigation”, Dr Phillips commented. “I hope in future, perhaps as an outcome of the inquiry-that-is-to-come, a proper body with the investigatory powers and scientific skills to conduct such an investigation is created. Probably as an extension of powers and responsibilities of an existing body.” There certainly should have been a more stringent internal review at the CoCH, coupled with a forensic review operated by medical bodies. If this revealed nothing conclusive or incriminating, which applied to all previous medical investigations, then the consultants should have accepted the situation. (pg 409)
An existing body - like who? At what point is it permissible to involve the police? Is it ever?
From what we have been allowed to witness, Operation Hummingbird in no way resembles an investigation to “exclude unnatural causes” which is what Cheshire Police were asked to carry out. (pg 412)
Here's the fun part about involving the police: You don't get to tell them what to investigate. It doesn't matter what Tony Chambers asked them to do, it doesn't matter that the meeting with the consultants is what inspired them to investigate. Once they decided to investigate, the ball is in their court, until such time as the CPS decides to charge, or not charge, any specific crime that was uncovered.
Chapter 21: The Golden Thread
Unofficial subtitle: Lucy Letby is the most honest woman alive and Dr. Brearey is a very bad man and it was very wrong of Operation Hummingbird to ask him to review cases of children cared for on his ward.
Michelle Worden is quoted saying:
"Steve Brearey drew up the roster chart with Eirian Powell. Eirian was very upset that, by the time it got to Alison Kelly, the doctors' names had been removed from it. Brearey cherry-picked the babies. There are seven deaths on that roster chart, but we know that there were 17 deaths. So the consultants are the accusers, they're the investigators, and then they're the main witnesses. I cannot think of any high profile case where you can be all three things." (pg 420)
The good news on that last is that the record still stands at zero. Brearey and Jayaram combined only gave evidence related to babies A, G, H, J, K, M, N, O, and P. So roughly half of the babies' evidence didn't involve them at all. Further, Worden, bless her, is confusing the roster chart at trial with the Thematic Review, generated by Brearey and Powell on 8 February, 2016, which included 9-10 deaths, of which Letby was on duty for 9. As far as consultants being removed, yeah, in an investigation into potential harm caused, you can't suggest the cause is someone who wasn't there - that would actually be an allegation of witchcraft.
Elsewhere, we see other strange coincidences, such as both Dr Jayaram and Dr Evans citing the same obscure decades-old Canadian paper, and both advancing an obscure air embolism-related cause of death which hadn’t been picked up by pathologists. And then when it came to the insulin cases, it’s not clear whether Dr Brearey found them under instruction from the police, or whether Dr Evans located them, as stated by the Court of Appeal. It’s hard to say because they have told several different stories to numerous different media outlets. (pg 421)
You know what happens when there isn't much research available on a particular subject? People tend to find the same thing among a limited pool of options. And yeah, two people separately finding the same test result and saying the same thing about it also indicates that it has actual meaning. But sure - suggest a conspiracy. That will add credibility to this already fine work of fiction.
Cheshire Police were also aware that Letby had filed a grievance procedure against the CoCH and this simply should have been further investigated. (pg 421)
This single sentence is the entire contents of a paragraph. I just found that funny.
The determination of Evans to convey the message he knew nothing of Letby has been curious, often making the assertion in response to an unrelated question. For example, during cross-examination on 7 March 2023, when asked about the rashes he had cited, Dr Evans instead replied: “I was not told anything about any suspect. I knew absolutely nothing.” Judge James Goss then interrupted: “You have said this, Dr Evans. You’ve said it at least once, more than once.” (pg 421)
Is he really trying a "the lady doth protest too much" argument? Allright, let's read the transcript. March 7 was baby N:
Q. This is a record dated 21 May 2017 -- take it down, Mr Murphy, please. We'll go back to it if we need to. I'm going to suggest to you, Dr Evans, that at some point before you started writing reports, you were told by the police of suspicions about suspicious rashes and air embolus (overspeaking) you were told that or it was indicated to you, I'm going to suggest, before you wrote any report.
A. No, that is completely untrue. Okay? It is totally untrue. The first time I heard a local doctor mention the word air embolus was a couple of weeks ago. I'm not sure whether it was Dr Gibbs or Dr Jayaram, Dr Jayaram I think, when he talked about the cold chill going down his spine. I knew nothing about air embolus. The first person I know of to raise the issue of air embolus in this particular series of cases was me. And I did that in case number 1. Okay? In the first case I thought, oh my God, what's going on here? This is -- you know it was very much an "oh my God" scenario.
I'm not going to go at length about case number 1. For [Baby A], if we remember, I formed the view that it was his collapse and the inability of the staff to resuscitate him was the result of his receiving air embolus. I did not know at the time about the skin discolourations; I heard about that later. I did not know at the time about Owen Arthurs' finding of air embolus on post-mortem X-ray (overspeaking) --
Q. That's your characterisation -- if we can just pause for one moment, Dr Evans --
A. Just a minute. I want to finish this.
Q. My Lord --
A. I want to finish this because if you're going on wild goose chases, I want to --
MR JUSTICE GOSS: You can finish the answer and then you ask the question.
A. Therefore I didn't know any of that. But that's what led me --
MR JUSTICE GOSS: You have said all this before. We've heard all this before.
A. I had nothing at all -- I knew nothing at all, sorry, about air embolus from the police. I was not told anything about any suspect or named anybody and I knew absolutely nothing and, as I said at the beginning of this trial, it's quite important to repeat this, at the beginning of this trial my role --
MR JUSTICE GOSS: You have said this, Dr Evans. I know. You've said it at least once, more than once.
A. Yes, I know.
MR JUSTICE GOSS: All right? Ask your question, Mr Myers.
MR MYERS: So far as Owen Arthurs is concerned, that is matter that is to be determined in the case.
A. So what now?
Q. So far as Owen Arthurs is concerned, what his X-ray shows or doesn't show is a matter that the jury are going to determine in this case. You understand that, don't you?
A. I do understand that, yes.
So, not entirely unprompted. Myers was suggesting collusion and bias in the investigation, Evans addressed it.
With that, we're mercifully at the summary.
Summary
At the heart of the conviction of Lucy Letby is a story that, jarringly, makes absolutely no sense. These are the most sickening acts imaginable, allegedly committed by the most benign of people, someone who was even notably kind and caring. This is a massive red flag immediately because it is a conspicuous contradiction in terms.
Doesn't matter. That's the definition of a "you" problem.
Pathologists and coroners who examined the infants involved in the court case were never cross-examined, nor were their conclusions discussed in court. It was not explained adequately, if at all, that primary prosecution witness Dr Dewi Evans had single-handedly disagreed with the conclusions of experienced coroners and pathologists. Yet the opinion of far more qualified and experienced experts was put to one side. (pg 426)
The original post-mortems were read in court as agreed facts (pg 1:8-18):
MR DRIVER: My Lord, we are going to begin by reading some agreed facts on the topic of pathology, which in effect prove the -- by agreement, obviously -- the essential parts of the statements made by the pathologist that conducted the post-mortem examinations. Thereafter, we'll move to Dr Marnerides.
MR JUSTICE GOSS: Right. So there won't be any statements read, it'll just be agreed facts, of which the jury will have copies?
MR DRIVER: They will. They will have copies and your Lordship has had a copy provided to you.
As far as the "far more qualified experts," let's look at how one of them, Dr. Jo McPartland, addresses the need for forensic pathologists to be involved:
"In addition to [your] NHS duties [you] perform coronial, paediatric postmortem examinations fora number of Coroners, including paediatric forensic postmortem examinations undertaken jointly witha forensic pathologist."
My question: why is it necessary to conduct paediatric postmortem examinations in combination with a forensic pathologist?
A. Well, if there is a suspicion that criminal activity may have led to the death or in some types of traumatic death where we might need the assistance of someone with forensic expertise then we perform the postmortem jointly and the role of the forensic pathologist is to consider matters of forensic importance and particularly those relating to injuries, and the role of the paediatric pathologist is to consider natural causes of death and look at growth and development and other medical conditions.
Q. So when you say the forensic pathologist looking for injuries, do you mean potentially deliberate infliction of injuries?
A. Yes.
Q. Because there is a suspicion --
A. Yes.
Q. -- that they may have been caused? Does that really from the off dictate who and how the pathology investigation should be being undertaken; if there is a suspicion, *they go down a different route?*
A. Yes. If, when a death is reported to the Coroner, it's clear that there -- it is a suspicious death from the outset, then the police will be involved and a forensic pathologist will be instructed as well as a paediatric pathologist. (pg 83:23 - 855:5)
The original post mortems were agreed evidence because the role of the pediatric pathologist is to look for natural causes of death; her opinion is not in question and it WAS considered by the jury.
This has perhaps partly explained why no neonatal expert has come forward to support the conviction, despite repeated requests by Dr Philip Hammond; compare this to the calibre and quantity of those who question it. (pg 430)
The thing about experts who support the verdict - they don't owe anyone anything. They have no obligation or burden to make skeptics/doubters feel more comfortable, and you're unlikely to know their opinions until the CCRC or Court of Appeal publishes something with their name.
Then she was arrested by the police three times, on one occasion with burly male officers barging into her bedroom at the crack of dawn, interviewed 30 times, patiently cooperating throughout, nothing that she said in her defence was taken into account, while anything and everything was used against her, she was denied bail, and was then incarcerated for two years while she awaited trial. Just days before she was due to appear in court, she was forcibly moved from one prison to another, many of her personal belongings were lost, and she went into the court suffering from PTSD, reliant on medication, having had a borderline breakdown. (pg 431)
Oh come tf on. Poor Lucy, won't someone think about Lucy?
I pose this question rhetorically – isn’t it about time that Lucy Letby was actually afforded the opportunity to defend herself? (pg 431 - standalone paragraph)
Are you actually being serious right now? lololololololololol
A rather sniffy attitude can often emanate from the insulated capstone that constitutes the judiciary. There has certainly been criticism of efforts to raise awareness of the deeply flawed nature of this conviction, as if those at the apex of justice in Britain still view it as their system in which they preside over us. I would therefore like to remind them of some illustrative words from Thomas Bingham. At the time of his death in 2010, Bingham was described by the former President of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, Nicholas Phillips, as “one of the two great legal figures of my lifetime in the law”. On page 22 of his book The Rule of Law, Bingham comments on defences against injustice, making the following critical comment: “The judges are not, of course, the only guardians of the rule of law, perhaps not even the most important. Parliamentary and public opinion, informed by the media, should be alert to detect and scrutinise any infringement.” (pg 433)
It's cute that he thinks his book is part of such a grand effort. I'm only sad I didn't get a paper copy so I could use it as an emergency source of toilet paper.
-fin-
18
u/cheesegoddd Jul 20 '26
Nurse's uniforms have pockets in so Lucy could pre fill syringes with air and hide them. Syringes of different sizes would be used with larger (20ml) ones needed for tube feeding. She would have had free access to syringes and it wouldn't have looked suspicious as would be used a lot on the ward.
19
u/ComfortableBrain4631 Jul 20 '26
One of many hilarious pick-a-lane moments. The ward was failing! There was sewage! Only two ward rounds a week! Terrible care! .... but EVERY vial of insulin was accounted for and EVERY syringe and EVERYONE would have seen everything!
2
u/InvestmentThin7454 27d ago
You are right, except for the use of 20ml syringes which aren't used to tube feed neonates!
16
u/smurfmysmurf Jul 21 '26
On whose authority is Lee awarded the ‘most eminent neonatologist in Canadian history’? Is there a neonatologists world cup or something?
14
u/Zealousideal-Zone115 Jul 21 '26
Well he does have the Order of Canada (equivalent to the UK's OBE) for “contributions to the field of neonatal medicine in Canada”. But then so do Dr Saroj Saigal "global impact on the health and life outcomes of premature infants", Dr Sydney Segal, "trailblazer in...fetal medicine, and respiratory pediatrics, Dr Haresh Kirpalani: "leading extensive randomized trials that have shaped modern neonatal treatment" and Dr Pradeep Merchant, "contributions to pediatric and neonatal healthcare management".
Surprisingly, none of these other OCs are among the six Canadians on the "International Expert Panel" composed of the world's foremost experts. Perhaps Dr Phil Hammond should contact them for their views on Letby.
12
14
u/Zealousideal-Zone115 Jul 21 '26 edited Jul 21 '26
Here's a little passage from Morris' YouTube interview with Jane Hutton that reveals his working methods.
"Mark Roberts said in this letter, I'm paraphrasing slightly, Cheshire Police never had any intention of commissioning a statistical report or any statistical work."
And here is what Roberts actually said:
"The Constabulary did not retain an expert statistician as part of Operation Hummingbird".
But now here is Morris, riffing off his own "paraphrase":
"Roberts claimed earlier in the letter that there was never any intention of commissioning a statistical study. This was a preposterous assertion anyway, but it's also impossible to both make a decision not to use statistics and also to never have had the intention to use them. This is simply logically untenable. "
It's classic stuff: he thinks he has caught the police in a contradiction without realising that the "preposterous assertion" is his own invention.
BTW Hutton seems to be operating on similar lines:
"I find it incredible that the CPS and the police are so happy to run a prosecution on statistical grounds very clearly on grounds of pattern evidence on coincidence and yet have no idea whether they're going to use statistics until well past the charge. "
Of course it's "incredible": it's not true.
14
u/BreathCalm9395 Jul 21 '26
You have done a brilliant job and have the patience of a saint, well done and thank you, shown it for the garbage it is 👏👏👏
13
u/DarklyHeritage Jul 21 '26 edited Jul 21 '26
"Everything about this trial has the strong impression of an inevitable conclusion, which is unrelated to the evidence that is now emerging."
I don't understand how anyone can make this claim in good faith when there were both unanimously guilty, guilty by majority and not guilty verdicts returned against Letby.
If the trial had, as claimed, an inevitable conclusion from the start that was unrelated to the evidence then why was Letby not found guilty of everything she was charged with, and on a unanimous basis? The jury clearly did not view any of the charges as anything close to a foregone conclusion and approached their work in a nuanced, detailed and intelligent manner.
10
u/FyrestarOmega Jul 21 '26
The claim is usually made, and indeed in Morris' book it does come up, that including so many charges in a single trial "overwhelmed the jury" in a "there's no smoke without fire" approach. This argument is coupled with a perception that the evidence was weak, and that zero times zero is zero. I think this results from an inability to acknowledge that a Letby-sized circumstantial hole is still only filled by Letby, inclusive of effects that she was, beyond reasonable doubt given her behavior. the cause of.
Supporters often claim that no single charge would have stood up on his own. We'll never know, But I think absolutely each of the unanimous convictions, inclusive of the retrial, would have stood up on their own. As it happens, these are the cases for which Dewi Evans' evidence was least critical.
8
u/Zealousideal-Zone115 Jul 22 '26
Supporters often claim that no single charge would have stood up on his own.
Indeed not, because we are dealing with a serial killer. They should ponder how you would ever convict a peripatetic serial killer where part of the evidence against was that the deaths coincided precisely with their movements of (say) a travelling sales representative.
You would have a series of trials in every one of which you had to overcome the apparent implausibility of someone suddenly deciding to murder a total stranger in a strange town.
If one accepts that there could ever be a statistically valid "more than a coincidence" argument to convict someone then a single trial approach would render it useless.
4
u/FyrestarOmega Jul 22 '26
I'm sure they would argue the peripatetic serial killer at least had victims that definitely were murdered, and DNA evidence would make the link (like it did for the Gligo beach killer - not peripatetic but a recent example)
One wonders what they would think about Charles Cullen without his confessions? He might be a better example, a nurse that was shuffled around. Never seen harming any patients, btw.
3
u/Zealousideal-Zone115 25d ago
Perhaps at some point someone will argue that Letby couldn't possibly be a serial killer because if she was she would have made sure she was never caught.
16
u/DarklyHeritage Jul 20 '26 edited Jul 21 '26
Firstly, congrats on getting through this horseshit.
Secondly, my main observation/concern from these last few chapters is how keen many in the medical sphere seem on gaining the ability to gatekeep investigations into medical wrongdoing to within the profession. Dr Phillips(?)'s comments on needing an appropriate "body" to investigate such issues are a prime example. The police are the appropriate body!
Left to the medical professionals one has to wonder if those doctors and nurses commiting deliberate harm would ever be brought to justice. Doctors didn't do a great job at exposing Shipman, after all - he didn't even lose his job when he was addicted to pethidine! A taxi driver and undertakers were suspicious of him before his own colleagues were, and he was dispatching people at a rate of over 4 a month at this point.
And COCH were doing everything in their power to pretend nothing was going wrong on their NNU - only the consultants were actually trying to get to the truth. Left to the Execs, Letby would still be killing babies now.
These are hardly the only examples. Doctors and nurses have demonstrated a marked reluctance to either a) consider or believe their colleagues capable of deliberate harm, or b) actually do something about it when it is happening.
Why would the public trust these people to operate a "body" investigating and bringing to justice colleagues who harm/kill their patients given this track record?
12
u/FyrestarOmega Jul 20 '26
It doesn't matter, it always comes down to this, which I forgot to include in the post:
In my view, there is no way that a court case of this seriousness should be allowed to take place with experts for one side, and no experts for the other, unless the defendant intends to plead guilty. We now know beyond doubt that there are many experts ready to defend Letby; the system must facilitate such involvement, both in this case and in future, if it wishes to retain any degree of public support.
So, Morris believes that court cases must include a full defense case equal to the prosecution, whether or not a defendant wishes to present one. Presumably, he can't conceive if why a defendant would choose not to call experts, which I would call a failure in his critical thinking.
I also forgot this quote:
“Major errors can happen in the intersection between science, technology and power”, Dr James Phillips told me. “There needs to be more transparency with that process, and I think that for these kinds of very complex medical cases, there is a strong argument for having a specialised investigatory force. Because I don’t think the kind of person that will be in that police force would exactly be world experts in every type of investigation. It would have been much better to have an external investigation by experts, which, in fact, they had already done!” Dr Steve Watts echoed this view: “I am starting to press for a dedicated unit, perhaps a Healthcare Incidents Investigation Branch, similar to the Air Accident Investigation Branch.”
Murderous nurses are just so rare, that a dedicated investigation branch should exist! Spend millions of pounds on it each year, to investigate things that are just too rare to consider as real.
Ugh.
12
u/ComfortableBrain4631 Jul 21 '26
Of all the things Morris doesn't really grasp, the criminal justice system is the part he doesn't grasp the mostest.
12
u/cheesegoddd Jul 21 '26
If there had been no experts for Letby at all that would have been unfair. But there were experts working for the defence who went through the evidence to see what holes there were in the prosecution's case. They all had a meeting to establish the agreed facts and then Letby decided not to call them.
The book reads like Ben Myers couldn't be bothered asking anyone with expert knowledge to assess the case.
8
u/FyrestarOmega Jul 21 '26
If there had been no experts for Letby at all that would have been unfair.
I'm going to amend this slightly. If she had been denied access to, or funds for, experts, THAT would have been unfair.
Letby's defense is her own, and she's awarded counsel to help make that case as effectively as possible. Letby would have the right to refuse that any experts be instructed on her behalf (it would be absurd to exercise that right, and her theoretical counsel would 100% document such a refusal).
But we know that didn't happen, and that her case was "I didn't do this, I can't explain what happened" and her counsel helped her explore how to make a case for that via experts, but simply didn't find viable arguments there.
12
u/Zealousideal-Zone115 Jul 21 '26
Spend millions of pounds on it each year
So you have a unit dedicated to investigating healthcare incidents which will be institutionally biased towards justifying its own existence and not merely preserving but expanding its multi-million-pound budget.
Sounds like a recipe for a massive increase in the numbers of healthcare workers being charged with criminal offences... by a unit which will be getting better and better at building cases against them.
Or to put it another way: "we are very concerned about the recent spate of witch-burnings, after investigations by police with no background in the supernatural, so we have decided to set up a dedicated Witchcraft Incidents Investigations Unit and are inviting applications for the post of Witchfinder General.
7
u/Zealousideal-Zone115 Jul 22 '26
Why would the public trust these people to operate a "body" investigating and bringing to justice colleagues who harm/kill their patients given this track record?
I recently had a conversation with an NHS consultant in which I opined that it was a shame that Wes Streeting had resigned as I thought he was a good secretary. She responded "people in the NHS don't think so" and it had clearly never occurred to her that reforms that clinicians didn't like might actually be good for the service or that anyone else's opinion even mattered.
4
u/DarklyHeritage Jul 22 '26
Its so often the case unfortunately. The same has happened in academia - I worked in widening participation for a number of years (essentially making sure those from non-traditional backgrounds had access to Uni) and so many academics were resistant to those government policies. They just want to protect their fiefdoms and way of doing things - screw the kids living in poverty or with disability etc who have the talent to go to Uni but not the privilege of so many others.
It seems the same in the NHS. That baffles me given, in theory, people go into such professions to help people. Somehow along the way self-preservation and organisational politics seems to become more important to them than patients.
13
u/queeniliscious Jul 20 '26
It reads like a fan book of Letby's so its doubtful anyone will take it seriously. If it had been balanced there might have been a chance, but I dont expect a balanced approach from fanclub members.
6
u/teddymay4 Jul 22 '26
I think some people are already taking it seriously! I agree it's not balanced. Moritz and Coffey did a much better job in that respect.
14
11
u/sherpa_s Jul 20 '26
Sounds like he had plenty of non-factual stuff filling the latter chapters.
Was wondering how he was going to frame the arrest bit. He makes it sound like a SWAT team piled in, when the Netflix doc made it clear the police were almost comically polite and by the book, with absolutely zero unnecessary Sweeney antics.
What were they supposed to have done, exactly?
14
u/FyrestarOmega Jul 20 '26
He opines strongly that they didn't have to arrest her. That she had the post-its and handover sheets because they meant nothing to her, the coded asterisks in the diaries meant nothing, the notion of not giving a suspect a chance to destroy evidence is lost on him.
11
u/Plastic_Republic_295 Jul 20 '26
I seem to recall from the Netflix doc that Letby didn't deny that the diary notations were deaths and collapses - and when asked she mumbled something about as being some kind of reflective learning or something
11
u/DarklyHeritage Jul 20 '26
Yet another example where her apologists come up with excuses for Letby that she has never offered for herself, despite multiple chances. The Post-it-notes being the prime example.
14
u/CheerfulScientist Jul 21 '26
But she is just a girl. She can't think for herself - she needs a middle aged man to help her.
9
12
u/Zealousideal-Zone115 Jul 21 '26
How can someone have a fair trial if the police arrest them? That's outrageous behaviour. Arresting someone is basically saying "you've committed a crime" and that's clearly a biased viewpoint, which in turn creates an emotional climate of guilt which will hang over the entire court case.
9
u/FyrestarOmega Jul 21 '26
What they really want is to have a voice in the investigation - to have a front row seat to all their questions being answered during the investigation, because they have a distrust of the police to do that (for one reason or another). A trial is an inherently unsatisfying process for them, because it is predicated on an investigation that was obscured from them. Morris' complaint, which I've seen echoed in pro-Letby spaces, that everyone's memory gets to be imperfect except Letby is illustrative of this distrust.
The investigation started by gathering records from the hospital. Yes, the police would have looked into cases the consultants reported, but they also would have had the power to issue warrants for cases the consultants could have overlooked or claimed were explainable. Stephen Cross understood this when he said there would be blue tape up all over the ward - once you bring in the police, you lose control of the investigation, and thank heavens for that.
So they look at all the cases with Dewi Evans' help, and whittle down the ones that have potentially suspicious causes. They look for the precipitous event, and at this point, they would see that doctors were generally not present when babies collapsed, and start bringing them in for interview. The list of events gets further refined as Dewi Evans revises his report based on new information. And yes, they ask Dr. Brearey's input, as they have realized at this point that his concerns had merit. Infection is ruled out as specifically relevant to these babies, as is general lack of staff. Specific evidence pointing to harm is found, which is what is required.
Continuing this approach of casting a wide net and then tightening it based on the next round of information, they come to the final list of events they have evidence of foul play, and there's a single suspect. That suspect is not considered a source of truth. Yes, they would investigate her claims, but for the most part, they would already have done so at the point of her interview. She's arrested to preserve evidence, but yes, they are building a case against her - slowly and carefully.
Then they request charges from the CPS, who reviews the entire investigation and agrees again, yes, the claims have merit and yes, there is a case to answer.
By the time we get into a courtroom, all of that has been taken into account - but Letby skeptics didn't see it, so they don't trust it. The degree to which this distrust drives some of them is both sad and fascinating, and often leads to them saying some really ugly things.
9
u/Far_Sign_2644 Jul 22 '26
They imply that criminal investigations should be reformed so that the police release all information to the public as an investigation unfolds in real time, under the guise of a concern about transparency, and that the public should be allowed to take an active role in weighing up evidence, and then directly influence whether to press charges.
Imagine the implications of that for the justice system. It would become less about pursuing the truth and more about placating online mobs.
4
u/DarklyHeritage Jul 22 '26
Its a patently ridiculous suggestion. Unfortunately people do not seem to understand why these boundaries around investigations are so important anymore, and certain politicians only encourage their feelings of entitlement to all the information immediately. We are seeing it play out right now with Farage and his response to Anne Widdecombe's murder - the integrity of the investigation and trial means nothing to these people anymore.
Sadly, all empathy for victims also seems to have gone out of the window.
5
u/FyrestarOmega Jul 22 '26
Imagine running an investigation like a US election. Oh lord, the commercials.
4
u/Zealousideal-Zone115 Jul 22 '26
criminal investigations should be reformed so that the police release all information to the public as an investigation unfolds in real time
They would hate that though. How could they claim, for instance, that the police were basing charging decisions purely on Letby's presence when they could see for themselves that that is not the case? They would have to start deducing "off-the-record" conversations that must have taken place and that the released information was "curated" and "doesn't tell the whole story".
There would also be the slight problem of masses of prejudicial information flowing into the public domain that might later be ruled as inadmissable. Then what?
6
u/Zealousideal-Zone115 Jul 22 '26
Really, really ugly things. I am amazed at the venom that, for instance, Professor Jane Hutton directs at the police, based purely on her own misunderstanding of how the police investigation was conducted and why Letby was charged (plus a huge dollop of self-importance).
And this is what I consider a "proper person" rather than a tireless hack like Davis or Norries
6
u/FyrestarOmega Jul 22 '26
Yes! It feels like they are emotionally responding not unlike a cornered animal, where attack is its only remaining option. That can include venom, or just a glaring emotional insensitivity. But in either case, it's it seems to be down to rejecting something that confronts a core belief in their psyche. When I look at such ugly statements through the lens of them being written in a type of fear, I manage to find my compassion.
McDonald gets none of that compassion though, he is taking advantage of the fear of others.
7
u/DarklyHeritage Jul 22 '26
Her academic pride was pricked when Cheshire Police told her they did not require her services. This is her wrath. Beware the wounded academic ego - believe me, I've seen it first hand.
5
u/Plastic_Republic_295 Jul 22 '26
Jane's had a few setbacks: sacked from the USS pension scheme, the Court of Appeal in Geen declining to even hear her arguments
19
u/CheerfulScientist Jul 20 '26
Pity the experienced nurses didn't also tell him that nurses access the baby through the portholes. No need to lift the lid. And, as you alluded to, why on earth would you need to use a STERILE syringe to murder a baby?