To be clear, the prosecution’s expert witness volunteered under cross examination that clotting is a risk associated with having the line in with no infusion. This is perfectly true and not in the least controversial. The jury still finding her guilty doesn’t invalidate that fact, however they chose to believe the air embolism theory. I offered up this point in the context of the video, which presents a somewhat creative interpretation of the available information.
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
And how serious would the president of the RCPCH at the time the organisation failed in their responsibilities and had direct discussions with the lead consultant for the whole thing be in wanting to see a not guilty verdict? These experts are far more biased and involved than the accusations Cheshire police and Dewi Evans get regularly accused of.
The people failing to be open to possibilities are not the ones questioning conflicts of interests and lack of impartiality and raising points that have already been heard in the original trial. It’s those that have swallowed the publicity stunt of a questionable barrister that hires a PR firm for a convicted serial killer of babies.
What do you think their agenda is?
I haven’t actually seen the video and maybe he made a mistake but I find it interesting, or telling, that picking up on this would be your first post on this thread. Nothing to say about the conflicts or questionable things the new experts have said? Or other media commentators like Hitchens and Dorries? Or is it only when it’s something that goes against the new defence experts you feel the need to correct people?
We can only guess at this stage for most of them. But Professor Modi was trying to insert herself into the trial defence before she had seen any of the medical records necessary to for her to reach an expert opinion. This together with her piece in the Guardian since shows that she has always held a belief that Letby is innocent - rather than being an independent expert.
I should add if I was a genuinely independent expert and I knew my work was possibly going to be used to challenge a potential miscarriage of justice I would want it to be used in the appropriate channels - not paraded in a press conference.
I’m not correcting anyone. I’ve read or listened to a variety of material lately and was struck by the dishonesty in this video. I have typed posts before and haven’t bothered to post as it’s basically always the same here, you all play the player not the ball. I’m not interested in personal insults but am very open to a rational discussion. On the new panel and conflicts, I don’t know what kind of malign intent you imagine. There is no advantage to them in putting their professional reputations on the line or to society at large in freeing a serial killer. I don’t understand this accusation, it isn’t rational.
I'm not sure many are accusing them of being malign.
If you cast your mind back to the now long-forgotten December press conference the presenting physician Dr Taylor said that he had concerns about the conviction as soon as he saw first reports in the media because he didn't believe a nurse could do this (or words to that effect). The report presented was from 2 doctors who had reported the prosecution expert witnesses to the GMC on the basis of what they'd seen in the media.
Malign? Who knows. But they clearly formed biases before they had the full information.
You can’t see how it would be preferable to Modi’s professional reputation for there to be no murders at all?
Yes most likely not intentional but they are not immune to confirmation bias / group think / conflicts of interests - all the things the police investigation, CPS, Dewi Evans have all been accused of. Yet this panel are arguably starting from the point they have already decided there are other explanations before even seeing any evidence for themselves. They are easily the least impartial out of any of the experts involved in this case.
Their agenda is as per the remit they were given and which we have seen. They were to find a cause of death, anything at all, that would mean the death was not a deliberate act. Now if that's impartial I'm the Pope
“I have typed posts before and haven’t bothered to post as it’s basically always the same here, you all play the player not the ball.”
Funny isn’t it, how people dislike it here yet they still hang around to see what we have to say
and then only chip in when they want to correct someone for being “dishonest”. Interesting choice of words given the behaviours of the new defence and panel.
We can see what the intention is here from a mile off which is probably why you aren’t getting the ‘open and rational discussion’ you claim you want.
Funny isn’t it, how people dislike it here yet they still hang around to see what we have to say
and then only chip in when they want to correct someone for being “dishonest”. Interesting choice of words given the behaviours of the new defence and panel.We can see what the intention is here from a mile off which is probably why you aren’t getting the ‘open and rational discussion’ you claim you want.
There was evidence for the air embolism, air was seen on the X Ray. Globules of air could be seen on postmortem in the baby's brain. There was no evidence of a blood clot causing death.
I think it’s fairly malign to say that you looked at the case and had to go out and find other causes of death which is a terrible starting position for anybody claiming to be independent or objective.
I think it’s fairly malign to, after 30+ years, change your paper to fit your new theories.
It could be that, much like the endocrinologist they conned earlier on (can’t remember his name begins with W) these eminent experts were given half the picture. The endocrinologist changed his mind once he was actually made aware of the whole story.
It’s not just this mistake about mother A&B’s condition, there are several more. Including getting the date a baby died wrong, stating it happened when the baby was being treated at a different hospital.
There is no way thatLee’s mates the M&S experts could have performed a thorough review of all medical evidence in the time frame they had even if they had it, which I think is unlikely. Again, I’d say that’s fairly malign considering the seriousness of the crimes committed.
It’s also obvious to anyone with the slightest bit of knowledge about the case that almost everything they have said was heard in the original trial so what on earth was the purpose of courting the media and why call it new evidence when it simply isn’t. There is due process they can go through and to conduct a press conference in this manner was grotesque. They seemed to have a laugh and some fun too so that’s cute I guess.
Nobody has any obligation to give any of this any time of day at all until it’s heard in the courts. Which is highly unlikely because none of it is new or it relies so heavily on baseless hypothesis (like birth injuries without any evidence) that it is worthless.
I’ve always said there are a few camps of people that are attracted to The Truther cause and the faux intellectual ‘oh you wouldn’t understand and don’t have the critical thinking’ yadayadayada camp is the most nauseating of all really. At least you know where you are with the perverts and thickos
I think it’s fairly malign to, after 30+ years, change your paper to fit your new theories.
It could be that, much like the endocrinologist they conned earlier on (can’t remember his name begins with W) these eminent experts were given half the picture. The endocrinologist changed his mind once he was actually made aware of the whole story.
It’s not just this mistake about mother A&B’s condition, there are several more. Including getting the date a baby died wrong, stating it happened when the baby was being treated at a different hospital.
There is no way that
It’s also obvious to anyone with the slightest bit of knowledge about the case that almost everything they have said was heard in the original trial so what on earth was the purpose of courting the media and why call it new evidence when it simply isn’t. There is due process they can go through and to conduct a press conference in this manner was grotesque. They seemed to have a laugh and some fun too so that’s cute I guess.
Nobody has any obligation to give any of this any time of day at all until it’s heard in the courts. Which is highly unlikely because none of it is new or it relies so heavily on baseless hypothesis (like birth injuries without any evidence) that it is worthless.
I’ve always said there are a few camps of people that are attracted to The Truther cause and the faux intellectual ‘oh you wouldn’t understand and don’t have the critical thinking’ yadayadayada camp is the most nauseating of all really. At least you know where you are with the perverts and thickos
The trials (yes both of them) proved her guilt imo. There’s no more discussion to be had as to whether or not she’s guilty as everything that has come out since has been a load of rubbish. If some new substantial evidence came to light (and it would have to be pretty big considering how many babies she’s been convicted of killing and the different methods she used for each) then sure, I’ll be all ears. Unfortunately it’s the same tripe being repeated over and over again and frankly it’s boring. The majority here feel the same way, so perhaps it’s best to go argue the toss with likeminded folk elsewhere.
Personally I think the whole thing is a complete shitshow and a disgrace to the poor parents, who must feel like there will never be an end to this nightmare. Also to the witnesses, police, barristers, judge and jurors and anyone else involved in the whole case/investigation, who’ve spent so much of their time going over everything in detail.
Personally I think the whole thing is a complete shitshow and a disgrace to the poor parents, who must feel like there will never be an end to this nightmare. Also to the witnesses, police, barristers, judge and jurors and anyone else involved in the whole case/investigation, who’ve spent so much of their time going over everything in detail.
But if there are alternative explanations for each of the air embolism babies, then why are they linked by the same unusual rash which the medics had never seen before in their careers.
Well people can read and make up their own minds about who is a thicko I guess. And honestly I don’t think the combative responses are justified, but you know guys, you do you.I think it’s fairly malign to say that you looked at the case and had to go out and find other causes of death which is a terrible starting position for anybody claiming to be independent or objective.
I think it’s fairly malign to, after 30+ years, change your paper to fit your new theories.
It could be that, much like the endocrinologist they conned earlier on (can’t remember his name begins with W) these eminent experts were given half the picture. The endocrinologist changed his mind once he was actually made aware of the whole story.
It’s not just this mistake about mother A&B’s condition, there are several more. Including getting the date a baby died wrong, stating it happened when the baby was being treated at a different hospital.
There is no way thatLee’s matesthe M&S experts could have performed a thorough review of all medical evidence in the time frame they had even if they had it, which I think is unlikely. Again, I’d say that’s fairly malign considering the seriousness of the crimes committed.
It’s also obvious to anyone with the slightest bit of knowledge about the case that almost everything they have said was heard in the original trial so what on earth was the purpose of courting the media and why call it new evidence when it simply isn’t. There is due process they can go through and to conduct a press conference in this manner was grotesque. They seemed to have a laugh and some fun too so that’s cute I guess.
Nobody has any obligation to give any of this any time of day at all until it’s heard in the courts. Which is highly unlikely because none of it is new or it relies so heavily on baseless hypothesis (like birth injuries without any evidence) that it is worthless.
I’ve always said there are a few camps of people that are attracted to The Truther cause and the faux intellectual ‘oh you wouldn’t understand and don’t have the critical thinking’ yadayadayada camp is the most nauseating of all really. At least you know where you are with the perverts and thickos
Well people can read and make up their own minds about who is a thicko I guess. And honestly I don’t think the combative responses are justified, but you know guys, you do you.
The Daily Fail comments section is calling your name
If it weren’t for the unnecessary distress it would cause the parents, I would love love love for the Tesco finest eminent little year 7 project to go up against BNE in a courtroom it would be
it would be - Status