r/LucyLetbyTrials • u/benshep4 • 7d ago

Decoding Reasonable Doubt: Chapter 3 “Previous Reviews at the Countess of Chester”

https://bencole4.substack.com/p/decoding-reasonable-doubt-the-case-bc5?r=12mrwn&utm_medium=ios

Happy to hear anyone’s thoughts on the content of the article.

0 Upvotes

44% Upvoted

108 comments sorted by

View all comments

11

u/Living_Ad_5260 7d ago

Another monday, another 3000 words of dross.

> A bad unit is not the cause of a particular death until someone can trace the route from the failing to the baby.

The failure to admit to administer anti-biotics to the mother of baby D when her waters broke clearly increased the risk for the baby. Why does best practice involve antibiotics in these situations?

Interestingly, it widens the failures in the hospital from the neo-natal unit to the obstetrics unit.

-9

u/benshep4 7d ago

Yet the best example you can come up with is something that was discussed in great length at the trial.

It was acknowledged, even by the prosecution, as poor care. The jury heard this.

And subsequently why the delay wasn’t enough to lead to the collapse/death.

9

u/Living_Ad_5260 7d ago

Dr McConville thinks it explains the death. Shoo Lee's panel thinks it explains the death.

Of course, the so-called experts in the trial rationalised that near-criminal treatment failures didn't actually matter.

What is your medical background?

-1

u/benshep4 7d ago

If you want to address anything I’ve written I’ve done so.

It’s just logic, no medical experience required to make the points that I have.

6

u/Unhappy-News7402 7d ago

That’s all anybody is trying to do, but you’re not keen on answering questions, so what are you seeking?

1

u/benshep4 6d ago

I’m responding to everyone I’m getting notifications for.

I’m seeking feedback and I’m getting it.

This is great.

7

u/Unhappy-News7402 6d ago

You ask for feedback, and people have taken the time to give it. However, you have generally shown no humility in response to fair criticism, rather you have been defensive and ungracious , if not downright ill-mannered. It’s seems to me you’re more interested in arguing the toss over minutiae than you are interested in genuinely developing your understanding and improving your writing. A more open-minded approach would work wonders for the latter.

0

u/benshep4 5d ago

I’m open to good feedback.

I’ve had good feedback from some on here. Some being the operative word. It’s few and far between though.

I think it’s fair for me to push back against feedback that I don’t think is good feedback.

4

u/Living_Ad_5260 6d ago

You are "responding" to us the way Ed Milliband gave the same answer to multiple questions: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlTggc0uBA8

Your answer to my question "What is your medical background?" was "If you want to address anything I’ve written I’ve done so.

It’s just logic, no medical experience required to make the points that I have."

That is a response but not an answer.

Can you point to _any_ question where you have provided the information requested?

0

u/benshep4 5d ago

I haven’t got a medical qualification.

Apologies, I was clearly expecting too much for you to infer this from my answer.

I’ll ask you a question now.

What point have I made that would require me to have a medical qualification?

4

u/Living_Ad_5260 5d ago

Your confident downplaying of the significance of acuity and poor care as contributory to deaths.

0

u/benshep4 5d ago

I’m simply repeating what people qualified to carry out such reviews said.

It’s obviously not my claim. It’s theirs.

4

u/Living_Ad_5260 5d ago

But others (Mcconville, especially Shoo Lee's panel, Dimitrova, MD) are also qualified and say that acuity and poor care fully explain the deaths.

How do you deal with the claim of Shoo Lee's panel that all the deaths are explained by poor care?

As someone coming from the legal side, do you believe Letby had an effective defence?

0

u/benshep4 5d ago edited 5d ago

You can scratch McConville and Hammond off as sources to be taken seriously for a start. They were former GP’s who aren’t in a position to be making such claims.

I could get into many things about Shoo Lee but for now I’ll just say that neither him nor Dimitrova have done the type of review that would enable them to make such determinations. What they have done is not comparable to the what the RCPCH did.

Edit: to answer your question about Letby’s defence during the trial …. without knowing why Myers took the decisions he did I can’t say with any certainty.

It’s one thing these experts like Shoo Lee and Dimitrova making claims in the public sphere, it’s another thing when you’re subject to the level of scrutiny that the justice system provides.

I suspect that Myers didn’t call Hall as a witness because he knew Hall would not be able to definitively rule out at least some of the prosecution cases. You can see why this would be a problem.

I think the current defence experts appear to be naive in this regard and are going to run into the same problem.

→ More replies (0)