Astrea Science in Justice

@FleurPoynter @triedbystats @drpaulclarke @maggiem67582865 By "alleged rashes" do you mean rashes (superficial/skin surface) or mottling (essentially blood flow related)?

@triedbystats @drpaulclarke @maggiem67582865 I know you’ve done incredibly detailed research on the Lucy Letby case, which directly led to this BBC report on Baby C x.com/stephhegarty/s… So tell me, are the attached facts I’ve summarised (on the lack of documentation re the alleged rashes), correct? Startling if true

Wondering what other neonatologists make of this? Can we really ignore facts that this baby with definitive venous air embolism also rapidly ended up with secondary arterial air embolism with “almost immediate” evidence in skin & to kidneys and lumbar nerve damage within 24h?

While I overall agree with your statement, after reviewing the timeline published by Dame Baird - which, in an unusual but brilliant move, was made available on the CCRC website - it would be extremely difficult for the CCRC to sift through and meaningfully analyse such a massive amount of information and decide what constitutes genuinely new evidence. We also don’t know how this material has been summarised for the CCRC. Thousands of pages of expert reports alone would take an enormous amount of time to review. One could argue that if we had functional systems genuinely interested in uncovering the truth above all else, one such obvious truth would be as simple as this - Operation Hummingbird never investigated whether corporate manslaughter or medical negligence contributed to - or caused - these poor patient outcomes. That's a statement of fact. Add to this another statement of fact that Dr Evans decided in 10 minutes over a cup of coffee (as he proudly announced) that baby O was a case of purposeful harm, his expert reports then only focused on purposeful harm potential methods for the rest of the babies, with other experts merely peer-reviewing his reports and adding other hypothesised deeply flawed proposed methods of purposeful harm (in the insulin cases) and no defence experts were called to the stand - if we had a functional legal system interested in justice, this case would be overturned just based on these widely documented and evidence based facts. Perhaps then at least Letby could be released and then we will spend a decade or two doing inquiry after inquiry over who did what in the Neonatal unit, trust management, the police, the NCA, the CPS and in court and who should or shouldn’t be held accountable, when and how. But do we have such a justice system? Or do we have one in which it will take years for the CCRC to sift through thousands of pages, with this overwhelming flood of information cited as a reasonable justification for the delays (when in reality, we will all know that it’s just a convenient excuse), allowing all those responsible for this MoJ to quietly step aside without facing any consequences? Only time is to tell. One should never lose hope. There are many good people out there in the world, and I suspect that @VeraBaird may well be one of them. @drphilhammond @ccrcupdate @cheshirepolice @C4Faye @Channel4News @LucyLetbyTrials @DailyMail @NadineDorries @JamesTitcombe @wesstreeting @cheshirepolice @Michelehal7344 @DavidDavisMP @PeterElston1 @MartynPitman @ShaunLintern @guardiannews @ClarkeMicah @hannahsbee @CaitlinSpeaksUp @NetflixUK @netflix @channel5_tv @Voice4theDead @PrivateEyeNews

@DebRoberts22249 @KarrinNorth12 Alrighty then, if you say so

@AstreaScience @KarrinNorth12 How does that work? She's a consultant, was a superpower conferred on her when she got the job? Expert is pushing it, she has 4 or 5 years clinical experience. She is less expert than Dr Brearey and Dr Jayaram.

And there we have it. Dimitrova categorically stating that she has reviewed over 50,000 documents from the trial and read 9 months of trial transcripts. An impossibility in 6 months, particularly when the medical records for one baby alone ran into over 8,000 pages. Where on earth would she find time to actually work? Or eat and sleep? Dimitrova had better hope and pray that it never comes to light that McDonald never did actually have the evidence in his possession, as she has thrown herself right under the bus, if it does. Even McDonald is cagey about what he has or hasn't got. And he won't care about saving Dimitrova's neck. Neither will anyone else. #lucyletby @legalmarkmc @AnEmergentI @drphilhammond @johnsweeneyroar @DavidDavisMP @NadineDorries @jontay44 @evenhanded909 @danwootton @thecarolemalone @LeeShoo @NeenaModi1 @thejeremyvine @Mephitisblog @adamhpking @DavidRoseUK @rosiew5 @Jeremy_Hunt @Nigel_Farage @david_conn @NeoDoc11

@DebRoberts22249 @KarrinNorth12 Because she's a medical expert?

@AstreaScience @KarrinNorth12 She didn't say she read what she needed to read, how would she know what she needed to read without reading it?

@DebRoberts22249 @KarrinNorth12 Finally we agree! Apart from the disingenuous bit.

@AstreaScience @KarrinNorth12 "...I've reviewed every single..." You are being disingenuous.

@DebRoberts22249 @KarrinNorth12 I am not trying to split hairs. You wrote that she had said she had read 50,000 documents when she had not said that. Your assertion that she should have read them all in order to write medical reports is ridiculous. She read what she needed to read, as per her post.

@AstreaScience @KarrinNorth12 You're trying to split hairs. She has either seen all documents or she hasn't, in which case she lied. Over 50,000 documents RELATED to the case.

@KarrinNorth12 @DebRoberts22249 Why do you think all the 50,000 documents Goss referred to comprised medical records, witness statements, and the transcripts?

@AstreaScience @DebRoberts22249 Then she hasn’t read every medical document or witness statement like she is claiming then?

@DebRoberts22249 But Dr Dimitrova did not say she had read 50,000 documents as you said she had.

@AstreaScience x.com/DebRoberts2224…

@DebRoberts22249 There is no mention of "50,000". Why do you say she has written that when she hasn't?

@AstreaScience In blue.

@DebRoberts22249 Perhaps she can read faster than you. Much faster. You may just agree that is a valid possibility?

@DebRoberts22249 @david_conn @Channel4 May be of interest #howtolieeffectively archive.is/Qars4

It is very interesting that no other publication picked up on @david_conn and @Channel4's articles with ex-Coroners Officer, Stephanie Davies and her ridiculous claims on Monday. A quick Google search would have shown her motivation, and it is certainly not Lucy Letby - it's her grudge with Cheshire Police, and their action against her for disgracefully breaking data protection in such a self-serving manner, and proving herself totally unsuitable for the role. She should actually be grateful to Cheshire Police for allowing her to resign instead of sacking her. But it is a measure that other publications have not bought into her lies, and that is very much a positive. Perhaps going forward, due to the very sensitive nature of the case, and the distress caused to the victims, these publications will at least do cursory checks before giving a platform to obviously dubious people.

@cjsnowdon @Michelehal7344 @simon170528 @triedbystats @NeoDoc11 Dr Dimitrova, you may wish to screen shot this, Christopher Snowdon just called you “raving mad” on a public platform

@Michelehal7344 @AstreaScience @simon170528 @triedbystats Evans and Bohin aren't raving mad. This gives them that extra bit of credibility.

Testimony of Dr A, I’m not going to sift through all the references but there are multiple references to the baby being in a ventilator. This whole approach of “well Dr Marnerides says it so it must be true” is incredibly naive. Defence experts are allowed to disagree with Dr Marnerides. The defence have a vice president of the royal college of pathologists on their panel. Why don’t we ask her?

@cjsnowdon @simon170528 @triedbystats Well at least you are conceding you didn't answer my questions about Dr Aiton and you not having seen his and Dr Dimitrova's report. Are you going to now? P.S. I'm sorry you cannot handle more than one question at a time. I will try to accommodate.

@AstreaScience @simon170528 @triedbystats It addresses the question of Shoo Lee's panels knowledge of the case. Little tip for you as you are new to X, try to ask one question at a time.

@cjsnowdon @Michelehal7344 @simon170528 @triedbystats Chris I think your account has been hacked

@cjsnowdon @simon170528 @triedbystats Sorry, Chris, I don't see anything in that article which addresses the questions I asked, particularly why you dismiss Dr Aiton's experience (and BTW Dr Dimitrova has two decades of experience) and why you can say their report is half baked if you haven't seen it. Care to answer?

@AstreaScience @simon170528 @triedbystats It's quite obvious. thecritic.co.uk/issues/july-20…

@cjsnowdon @simon170528 @triedbystats What about Dr Aiton? And how can you say Dr Dimitrova and Dr Aiton's written report is half-baked if you haven't seen it? And how do you know the members of Shoo Lee's panel didn't know what evidence was presented in Court? That last assertion of yours is particularly ridiculous.

@AstreaScience @simon170528 @triedbystats Because I said "in this instance", i.e. Dimitrova's half-baked theory. The problem with Shoo Lee's people is not that they are unqualified but they don't know what evidence was presented in court.

@cjsnowdon @simon170528 @triedbystats Do you not want to consider the quality (rather than quantity) of Dr Dimitrova's experience, namely that she is a practicing Level 3 consultant i.e. better quality than either Evans or Bohin? Regardless, what about the 15 others mentioned in my post? Why did you ignore that?

@AstreaScience @simon170528 @triedbystats Evans and Bohin have got decades of experience and Dmitrova doesn't.

@cjsnowdon @simon170528 @triedbystats @cjsnowdon on what basis are Evans and Bohin "far better qualified" than Drs Aiton, Dimitrova, and the neonatologists among the 14 medical experts on Prof Shoo Lee's panel?

@simon170528 @triedbystats You lot always defer to medical experts so long as they think Letby's innocent. You have no respect for all the people (in this instance, far better qualified) who testified in court, using facts, to show that she's guilty.