As is now known, Dr Shoo Lee deliberately updated his 1989 review paper so that the new paper would be seen as fresh evidence by the Court of Appeal to help free convicted serial killer, Lucy Letby. /1
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
I have questions about Shoo Lee’s paper, does he discuss cases of accidental air embolus or deliberate? Letby was found guilty of intentional acts, potentially meaning large enough amounts of air to result in maximum harm.
He only discusses accidental. He has also classified cases as being from mechanical ventilation when the original author said they were from accidental IV injection of air.
I’m not a researcher, but comparing accidental harm to intentional harm may explain why in his study he only found skin mottling/discolouration in a minority of cases, whereas it was evident in most of Letby’s victims.
It appears that this conflict of interest may have unduly influenced the categorisation of cases in the review paper to help create a false narrative to suggest that Ms Letby is innocent and that, instead, several clinicians are incompetent. https://pubpeer.com/publications/457C9A9DF7B389621C9FEC4CE3FE7D#1 /2
Yes so what? He did it because he wants to help what believes is an innocent person get out of prison. Why else would he even bother? He doesn't even know her. Use your brain.
I wouldn't know but I can understand if a paper I had published was incorrectly used to convince a jury in a murder conviction I'd want to highlight and rewrite so it never happened again.
Either we have 14 top expert's who don't know what they are talking about or a few lesser experienced
Possibly but that's pretty much what that last panel said, some death's could be prevented.
Didn't two consultants a year before hand put an air tube into the stomach and then ignored warnings? What do the statistics show about the way that was compiled? https://www.ft.com/content/14adf0ac-7b09-48ed-bb35-b8db5af9e516
Comments
https://youtu.be/GPaNLM80D_o?si=J_y5LJYyaqLHkHXE
The press conference was similarly weird.
Either we have 14 top expert's who don't know what they are talking about or a few lesser experienced
One way or another this needs getting to the bottom of.
Mortality on that unit was not out of line before the murder spree occurred.
Didn't two consultants a year before hand put an air tube into the stomach and then ignored warnings? What do the statistics show about the way that was compiled?
https://www.ft.com/content/14adf0ac-7b09-48ed-bb35-b8db5af9e516
There's no reason to rewrite a scientific paper to help the defence in a court case. It's outrageous behaviour.