Lucy Letby: Why Air Embolism Is Statistically Impossible

Added: 2026-05-24

[00:00:00]One of the key allegations in the Lucy Leppy case is this infamous notion of air embolism.

[00:00:08]Now this has been debunked, discredited, trashed essentially in many different ways. But recently I encountered another aspect of the air embolism allegations that make them particularly unlikely.

[00:00:26]And I think it's something that hasn't been discussed to a great extent.

[00:00:32]So this all comes back to the fact that the distinctive le sign that was recognized and established by Dr. Shulie in 1980 only the distinctive lee sign is diagnostically indicative of air embolism.

[00:00:50]There can be other types of discoloration um as I discussed in a recent video, but they're not diagnostic of our embolism. It has to be this distinctive treelike pattern that I mentioned previously.

[00:01:06]Other discoloration just doesn't mean an air embolism for various medical and scientific reasons.

[00:01:15]Lee's extensive research of every previously documented case of embolism indicates that discoloration is only present in 10% of these cases. So 90% of the time you do not get discoloration.

[00:01:30]So that is very significant from a statistical perspective and we're going to examine this with regard to the cases that were used in the indictment against Lucy Leby in this video.

[00:01:42]So this percentage was in fact raised in the court case. As you can see here, Benmis is referring to the Le Tanwell study from 1989 which states that only 11% of cases involve skin discoloration. Now this has now been very much updated by this new study that goes back and looks at 34 more years of data and that figure has been updated to 10%. So this was something that was rightly pointed out in court. Uh as is common with so much um the many problems with this case, many of them were in fact pointed out.

[00:02:23]It's just that the trial process was so inadequate and so unsatisfactory that unfortunately it still arrived at the wrong conclusion.

[00:02:34]So in this video I'm going to look at collapses for child A, child B, child D, child E, child M, child N, and child O.

[00:02:44]And you can see the collapses of these infants listed on the screen. Now I've excluded all the other infants for various reasons. I could have included child C, child I, and child P because discoloration was cited in all three of those infants, but I've excluded them because their air via the nasogastric tube cases and they shouldn't actually be in this list at all. Even though the prosecution still use discoloration, still use modeling that we will see in this video. I I could have included them and the prosecution case would become even more statistically unlikely, but I'm not going to go along with with that because that shouldn't be significant in the clinical presentation of these infants. Of course, the air via the nasogastric tube is complete rubbish. We know it's complete rubbish. Even Dr. Evans has basically admitted that it's complete rubbish by changing his diagnosis.

[00:03:44]And then in the other case, you know, there's insulin, there's the milk stuff for child G.

[00:03:50]Uh, child H is absolute nonsense. Truly bizarre because it this infant clearly experienced issues due to a collapsed lung. For child J, there's barely any coherent allegations at all. Um, child K is the JRAM tube exubation case. Child L, the insulin case. And then child Q involves fluid. Again, I could have included child Q, this discoloration in child Q. That would have made the prosecution case again even more statistically unlikely than it is anyway. But I've excluded all of those cases. I've just stuck to the infants that I mentioned previously.

[00:04:28]So before we go any further, I also want to respond to the other supposed diagnostic criteria that were used by Dr. Evans. So the first one, I've done this in a previous video, but I'll do it again here. The first one is that air is present in an X-ray. So firstly, there isn't an X-ray or tangible air present for the majority of images in the case. Um, this air can still be introduced accidentally. It's impossible to rule this out and air present postmortem is not relevant anyway. Uh, as this can be present for numerous reasons. Uh, this is scientifically established. Second thing is that the collapse was sudden.

[00:05:08]uh even in the indictment infants not all the collapses are sudden. So this is poorly founded and that it's not a meaningful diagnostic criterion anyway because a sudden collapse firstly is very subjective and secondly this can occur for multiple reasons. It's not diagnostic of embolism at all. The third um criterion is that the infant failed to respond to resuscitation. Again, this can be for multiple reasons, not least poor resuscitation efforts on the unit. And again, it's not a meaningful diagnostic criterion anyway. And then the fourth one, infant was not unwell prior to collapse. I can't I don't really think you can say this is a separate criterion anyway. It's barely distinguishable from two and can't really be seen as being separate. And of course, it's provably untrue because we know that all of these infants uh there's not a single one that was actually stable, let alone were they extremely well and such like as Dr. Evans claimed in the court case.

[00:06:07]So, there are a few possible queries that you could make about the mathematics that I'm going to use in this video.

[00:06:20]So we're going to look at these instances of discoloration as if they are independent events.

[00:06:31]Now there are arguments against this and why this is significant is if the if they are deemed independent events then essentially you can multiply the probability. If they're not then you have to bring other things into play.

[00:06:43]I'm going to discuss all all the elements of this as we continue. But there there are some possible criticisms or some possible arguments against the events being independent.

[00:06:54]The first of those is that they're using the same diagnostic framework. So if the same expert applies the same theory repeatedly, the cases become linked. Example, experts believes a certain skin pattern strongly suggests their embolism. Once that framework is adopted, similar cases are more likely to be interpreted the same way. This creates classification dependence. Even if the babies themselves are separate, the dependence is in the diagnosis. So I'd simply respond to that by saying every time there is a new supposed collapse caused by embolism at the count of Chester, it's an independent event.

[00:07:30]The observer at the time doesn't matter because it is not the observer that creates the context. It is the expert who diagnoses which comes much later.

[00:07:38]Discoloration was merely noted at the time. It wasn't used diagnostically. So in my view that argument is simply redundant. Another possible um argument is this same observer description. So the expert is often not seeing the baby directly. In fact always um relying on nursing notes, retrospective witness descriptions, recollections years later.

[00:07:59]If staff use similar language repeatedly, the expert may repeatedly map those descriptions to the same diagnosis which creates correlation.

[00:08:08]So in response to this notion about staff using similar language repeatedly, the expert may map those descriptions.

[00:08:14]I've said the above is exactly what Evans has done, but this doesn't affect the observations of discoloration that occurred at the time. We are not testing the validity of the diagnosis. we are testing the likelihood of discoloration occurring in x number of cases and this being diagnostic of air being introduced.

[00:08:34]Then a third possible criticism here is a shared hospital environment. So the babies are in the same neonatal unit.

[00:08:40]That means they share staffing patterns, treatment protocols, equipment, infection, overcrowding, clinical instability and so on. This means collapses themselves may cluster for reasons unrelated to intentional harm which weakens independence.

[00:08:55]So in response to that I've said again I agree with many of these observations but they are not relevant to what is being tested. All that will be tested is the number of collapses and the statistical likelihood that these could be related to the introduction of air. I should mention that I'm not even going to introduce an element to account for the fact that a deliberately induced air embolism is less than 10% likely. So again I'm being generous towards the prosecution. I will be generous towards the prosecution in multiple ways during this video.

[00:09:24]A fourth notion here is selection bias. So you're not looking at all collapses. You're looking at the collapses selected for prosecution. That means unusual cases are chosen. Ordinary cases are excluded.

[00:09:36]Cases fitting the theory are retained.

[00:09:39]This can massively inflate apparent rarity. This is often the strongest objection to what is um referred to as binomial arguments or binomial qualification uh calculations rather.

[00:09:51]So I've written in response to that this is a fair criticism. However, we can't look at the other collapses because because we don't have the data.

[00:09:59]Furthermore, these were deemed non-suspicious for reasons that aren't clear. This means that the injection of air is not suspected in these cases. It is true that there could be discoloration in these cases, but there is no way for us to establish this. I think it's reasonable to assume that there wasn't discoloration, but unfortunately, we can't know whether or not there was. And it's it's reasonable to cite this as being a weakness of this process. Unfortunately, we just can't get that data.

[00:10:28]And then a fifth potential criticism is retrospective pattern matching. So humans are very good at seeing patterns after the fact. One suspicion exists.

[00:10:38]These all look similar becomes more likely. That creates dependency through hindsight rather than through biology.

[00:10:44]Um, and I've said in response that this is again a valid criticism of the diagnosis, but not a relevant observation about the prevalence of discoloration.

[00:10:55]So before we go any further, I'll just say this will not be a study that would stand up to academic scrutiny, not least because I'm not a mathematician or statistician. It is merely an illustrative representation of the likelihood of multiple infants displaying discoloration as a diagnostic factor in air embolism.

[00:11:14]So, as mentioned, these are the collapses um that we're going to be dealing with relate to child A, child B, child D, child E, child M, child N, and child O.

[00:11:27]Just to reiterate, I have excluded child C, child I, and child P. This is despite the fact that I could easily include them and make the prosecution case even more statistically unlikely. You can see one example on the screen here of child C having a modeled skin appearance. I'm going to discuss modeling later in this video. So that applies to child I applies to child P. I could I could have made this even stronger than is already.

[00:11:54]But I'm excluding those cases because essentially the discoloration should be irrelevant if it's airv nasogastric tube. It's not the same diagnosis as embolism where it's the le sign. It's the lean tan oil paper that's the diagnostic source and that's that's where this discoloration is critical.

[00:12:16]So there are 15 collapses in total across these infants and what we're going to do first of all is examine for how many of these collapses was discoloration cited.

[00:12:30]So, we'll begin with child A. And you see here, immediately doctors observed an odd discoloration on child A's abdominal skin, flitting patches of pink over blue skin. So, immediately the one fatal collapse discoloration was cited.

[00:12:48]So, we're on one out of one so far. Bear in mind that across these 15 total collapses, the expected prevalence would only be 1.5 cases, 10%. Very simple maths. So essentially 50% of the time you'd expect to see two and 50% of the time you'd expect to see one. And obviously just by the law of averages, sometimes you would see zero.

[00:13:10]Occasionally you'd see three. As soon as it starts getting towards four, then then you're into the realms of something unlikely. So we'll see how many times discoloration is cited across these collapses. The next one is child B. So here it stated they were told child B had suffered a similar situation to child A but stabilized blotches and mottling had been on child B. And then we see purple discoloration being cited in thea case of child B. And um there's comments here. She looked very ill. She looked very like her brother did the night before. Pale white with this purple blotchy discoloration. So they're citing discoloration again. We know for a fact they're citing completely incorrect discoloration. Um but I'll discuss that again as the video continues. Uh and then again here she deteriorated very quickly and then this discoloration again this is with regard to child B.

[00:14:07]Now what you can see on the screen now is the court transcript for child B. And this is particularly the day where Dr. Evans was cross-examined. At some point when the time is right, I'm going to go through more and more of this stuff.

[00:14:23]There's going to be a lot of videos to come on many different topics. But what you can see on the left hand side of the screen over here, this is searching for the word discoloration. So you can see it's on 22. This is pages 22, 26, 28, 75, 83, and so on. And there are many more. That's that's this is just one one day related to child B. And obviously, as you can probably see, it goes beyond the extent of this page. So undeniably, discoloration has been cited with regard to the one collapse of child B. So now we're on two out of two. So already we've exceeded the expected prevalence of cases. So let's see how things continue as we move on to child D where there are three collapses.

[00:15:05]So here you can see nursing note, discolorations to skin, observe, trunk, legs, arm, chin. And then um this is Caroline Oakley. She says she does not remember specifically the exact rash discoloration and so on. They're talking about it being dark, etc., etc. Um and then if you look at the um again the court transcript for child D and in this there's even more um references to discoloration here.

[00:15:35]they're more heavily dispersed uh within the text. And needless to say, all three collapses, discoloration is cited.

[00:15:46]Um, and you can see here there's a discussion about there being three areas of discoloration on baby D's abdomen.

[00:15:56]And then later on it stated the fact that baby D was clinically much improved that the areas of discoloration had completely disappeared. So they cite these collapses and they say there was discoloration then it went away then it came back again. Um and there's more discussion of this here. Um skin discoloration again became more prominent but not as obvious as previously. So they're saying oh it came back when there was a collapse. So needless to say discoloration was cited for all three collapses with regard to child D. So now we're on five out of five. So already this is already way more than would be expected. You usually it would be as I say one and a half. You can't have one and a half collapses. So roughly half the time it would be two and roughly half the time it would be one. Already we're on five out of five.

[00:16:45]So let's move on to child E. There's one fatal collapse for child E.

[00:16:50]So again, this is the court transcript for child E. And as you can see, multiple numerous uh references to discoloration once more.

[00:17:03]And there's another reference here. Uh, child E, the abdomen developed a striking discoloration with flitting white and purple patches. Now, frankly, we shouldn't even be discussing this because Charlie E very obviously died due to a massive gastrointestinal bleed, but Evans still bizarrely threw in the notion of embolism for this infant. And Dr. Sandy Bohan said that the bleeding was completely irrelevant in the collapse of the infant, as we've discussed previously. So again, this is another case where discoloration was cited for the one fatal collapse. So now we're looking at six out of six and there's now four times the prevalence that we would expect and we've not even looked at half of the collapses and we're still on 100% at this point.

[00:17:47]So now we move on to child M for Mike.

[00:17:51]As you can see um this is um Dr. Trevans and also the question of whether there was any discoloration that might be characteristic of an air embleis. Is that correct? Not at the time because when I prepared my first report, I was not aware of the information about his color discoloration at all. Uh blah blah blah. In other words, so I considered their emble emblems as the cause of his collapse prior to receiving the information about the discoloration. So this is just Evans talking again.

[00:18:17]Um but as you can see, he received the information about the discoloration and now he's saying that the discoloration is significant as well. It just helps firm up his diagnosis as he describes it. So that's another one where discoloration is cited. So we're now on seven out of seven. Um now the the next one is quite interesting. Child N because there are five collapses in relation to this infant. So we're on seven out of seven.

[00:18:44]Are there going to be five out of five collapses associated with discoloration in the case of child N for November?

[00:18:53]So with regard to child N they site mottling uh in in many of the collapses.

[00:19:02]So mottling in a neonate is a patchy lacy or net-like pattern of reddish purplish or pale discoloration. So it's effectively the same thing even though they've completely misinterpreted this and mottling is just a very common sign of problems with the circulatory system.

[00:19:19]Uh Dr. Jane Horden said this at the Thoral Inquiry. It's been said by many other doctors. Uh it's a complete misinterpretation. Nevertheless, we need to look at for how many collapses did they site this modeling for this infant.

[00:19:35]So you can see here childn got upset look mottled dusky sats 40%.

[00:19:43]And then it goes on here, child had become very unsettled and was pale, mottled, and veiny with slight abdominal distension.

[00:19:51]Um, and then here, this is actually Lucy recording uh modeling desaturating requiring neopouin oxygen cold to touch.

[00:20:02]Now one of the things I want to mention at this point is that Lucy is actually the person who records the discoloration modeling for most of these infants at least for one of the collapses and at least for one of the entries that are now available. Now that's more than we can say for JRM who in the case of child A which is critical for the whole court case because this discoloration is passed from one infant to another from one collapse to another as indeed you're seeing in this video and yet somehow he failed to note it down whereas Lucy's there diligently noting all these things down little not knowing that they're all going to be used against her just as her raising the alarm was used against her just as her being the first responder was used against her. It tr it truly is an extraordinary court case in which she this time she's being penalized for being the conscientious datex compiler who who puts in important details into the system. Whereas JRM who's failed to to put his supposedly important observation into the system is never punished. Hopefully one day that will come.

[00:21:09]Uh so then there's another collapse here. So, it's my duty to inform you that this collapse does not involve discoloration because this is Dr. Bohin's old the infant was screaming for 30 minutes according to the parents and that could only be due to an air embolism collapse. Um, just batshit nonsense frankly. Um, but the fact is that she didn't site discoloration. So, this is one one collapse in which discoloration doesn't apply. You can see Lucy here saying that um she does not believe child end collapsed at all and it was not accurate to say he'd screamed for 30 minutes. Of course, the validity of that assertion is extremely dubious. I've been through that in previous videos. It it's almost completely proven that the infant didn't scream for 30 minutes. And the whole notion that you can diagnose an air embolism from this is just absolute palpable Anyway, nevertheless, we can't say that the prosecution cited discoloration for this collapse, but they did site discoloration for the for other collapses. So, now we're on 11 out of 12. That the percentage has fallen to 91.67%, but it's still way over the 10% that it's supposed to be. And and at this stage, we should see, you know, one collapse out of 12 approximately. as it is we're seeing 11 out of 12 and obviously we've gone way way way beyond the expected prevalence of 1.5 cases. So let's move on to the final infant child O uh for which there are three collapses in relatively quick succession uh before the sad demise of this infant.

[00:22:53]So again, we'll start with the um court transcript here. And as you can see on the left hand side of the screen, again, there's constant perpetual reference to discoloration all the way through the court process for child O. Uh and you can see here again, this is um assisted with initial incubation, small discolored papuric rash on the right chest wall, good perusion.

[00:23:20]Um and then it goes on here discoloration to the ab abdomen after flex of blood from the nasogastric tube and child had a profound desaturation to 30s followed by braticardia mottled and abdomen red and distended.

[00:23:36]Essentially all three collapses uh discoloration was cited. So we end up with this final figure of 14 out of 15 collapses discoloration or modeling was cited which amounts to 93.33% rather than the 10% that you would expect to see on average.

[00:23:56]So this is the complicated part where we look at the mathematics. Now, I didn't want to rely on my own maths for this calculation, and of course, it can go a little bit wrong, and I'm going to try to take that into consideration and walk you through all the potential scenarios.

[00:24:11]I maintain that these in instances and incidents in the court case are independent. So if you take that scenario um the simplest way of looking at it is that if something is supposed to happen 10% of the time in 15 independent events it should occur 1.5 times on average.

[00:24:35]What are the odds of it occurring 14 times? And this would be a relatively simple multiplication of odds as is um outlined here. And the odds are about 0.09 No no no no no etc 135 or 0 no35%.

[00:24:54]Or roughly 1 in 7.4 trillion. That is for exactly 14 times. If you meant 14 or more times the probability is slightly larger but still essentially the same order of magnitude. So if you accept that these 15 observations of infants or 15 collapses of infants are independent events and 14 of them discoloration is is observed as I've just demonstrated then the chance of that happening based on the probability for a single collapse for a single air embolism there's a 10% chance of observable discoloration.

[00:25:32]We know that from looking at 40 years over 40 years of embolism cases 10% chance. So if we accept for the sake of argument that these are independent cases then the chances of there being 14 out of 15 collapses involving discoloration is 1 in 7.4 trillion. So this is above DNA.

[00:25:55]It just it just can't happen essentially.

[00:25:58]Um it's just astronomical odds. But I'm going to look at some other scenarios as well. So I've asked here, could you show how the probability would change under an independence assumption versus a clustered shared cause assumption? I personally don't think there's any need to make this clustered shared cause assumption, but I'm going to demonstrate that anyway. So the model here said, I'm going to frame it with a simple independence model, then a couple of correlated shared cause examples. So this becomes a more complex binomial qualifica uh calculation here um that I wouldn't wish to attempt myself. Um and of course as I mentioned earlier on this is if you're going to do a proper deep complex study then there's all kind of factors you should take into consideration. This is just a simple illustrative mathematical uh presentation to show you how unlikely it's going to happen. how how unlikely this is to happen. As is stated here, if there's independence, 14 out of 15 is astronomically unlikely. Under a shared cause model, you usually imagine some hidden factor that changes the chance for all 15 trials together. This can be much larger than the independent case because the hidden factor can create long runs of high probability outcomes.

[00:27:17]Now, I don't I don't really agree with this, but I'm just trying to show this to to illustrate. So you can see there's some big numbers there for independent, mild clustering, moderate clustering or strong clustering. So the same 10% on average can mean probabilities that differ by millions to billions of times depending on clustering. So then I've asked for the table above to just show the odds in a simpler way rather than these uh powers.

[00:27:45]Um so independence 1 in 7.4 trillion, mild clustering about 1 in 1.6 6 billion moderate clustering about about 1 in45,000 and strong clustering about 1 in 333.

[00:28:00]So even if you take an inc that I think I think there's no basis to say that this would apply the the one kind of weakness of this um whole thing I've acknowledged at the start is that we can't see the other collapses on the unit. We can't see the other infants. So there could have been cases there where there was a collapse and no discoloration or cases where there was a collapse and there was discoloration but of course there are no allegations of air embolism related to those infants.

[00:28:31]So I think what is done here is fair but a more sophisticated study would want to look at those infants as well. of course um whether or not they turn out to be relevant or not would be a matter for someone with greater academic qualifications than myself. But this is as I say just a simple mathematical illustrative study.

[00:28:55]So I must emphasize once again I'm being generous to the prosecution by not including child C, child I, and child P.

[00:29:04]So these numbers can all be bigger. But even if you give the prosecution every possible conceivable advantage and assume a scenario that I think is just not applicable, even then the chances of getting this result according to this, you know, rather crude study are 0.3%.

[00:29:25]And that's in an incredibly favorable scenario.

[00:29:29]This moderate clustering is pretty favorable to prosecution. I would say even very favorable to the prosecution case and immediately it's one in 145,000. So you can basically say almost practically no possibility. Obviously you'd need a big data set before you saw it happening once. It can happen. It's not completely inconceivable in in the NHS over a period of many many many years. Theoretically it could happen.

[00:29:55]But I think these two top scenarios are simply far more reasonable. And if you had a mild mild clustering then suddenly it becomes impossible.

[00:30:06]One in 1.16 billion is is DNA and one in 1.74 trillion is above the likelihood of DNA being wrong.

[00:30:17]So it would be as you would imagine for something where the probability is 10% and it happens 14 out of 15 times. And let me emphasize once again as well that the one collapse for which there isn't discoloration is just an absolute joke with with Bohin saying that oh well one of the parents said that this infant was screaming for a long time so that has to be deliberate harm which is just laughable. So you could just take that you could quite reasonably take that collapse out and just say well there just is no reasonable basis for this assertion. But I'm leaving it in to favor the prosecution. You you could say it's 14 out of 14 collapses and the other collapse. I mean Lucy said the infant didn't even collapse. That the 30 minute claim is is probably wrong 99% likely to be wrong based on evidence I prevented presented previously. And then the assertion related to this collapse is is completely stupendously ridiculous as well. That's the only thing stopping this from being even even astronomically higher than it is.

[00:31:22]So as you can see the chances of this C I mean I I just happened to see this came across this 10% figure and I'd never previously understood the significance of it and then I started to think about it and then I thought well let's look back and see how many of these cases they actually cited discoloration because it should be a couple. I wasn't sure exactly how many collapses there were. So I worked it out and of course it's off the chart in terms of likelihood. it it just should not happen that there's really no prospect that it can happen and yet we see all the way through the case them citing disclaration and the other thing is Dr. Evans used this paper diagnostically. So if he'd read it properly, he would have seen that this only happens in 11% of cases. Now it's 10% now because we've got better figures, but he would have seen the 11%.

[00:32:12]So he should know this should only happen in one in nine cases, not over and over and over and over again all the way through the court case.

[00:32:21]Now to summarize, I would argue that these are independent events for the reasons that I mentioned earlier.

[00:32:27]Essentially, you've got Lucy being accused of 15 separate attacks on infants via air embolism. And all of the observations of those events are independent. They weren't diagnostic at the time. Obviously, Dr. Evans has lumped them all together, but that's irrelevant in my view to the observations of of the discoloration and modeling. If these events are independent, then they're impossible.

[00:32:56]Each embolism would require this separate hypothetical act from Lucy Leby.

[00:33:02]It can be noted that in infant cases where there are multiple collapses, there are assertions that discoloration has appeared, disappeared, and then reappeared.

[00:33:12]The discoloration is observed separately by different people within the ward, including Lucy Leby herself.

[00:33:18]In fact, let notes discoloration or modeling for several relevant infants in the case. This is more than can be said for Dr. Jram who failed to physically record his supposed observation for child A.

[00:33:31]While there are multiple factors that impact on the the legitimacy of this diagnosis, I don't believe that they influence the observation of discoloration or modeling itself.

[00:33:42]The fact is that this should occur 10% of the time whereas in this case it is cited over 93% of the time. As I've acknowledged, we only know about the collapses that are in the indictment case. we we we can't look at collapses are outside of it and that is a weakness of the study but that's just a weakness of the data that we're able to uh gather together. I will emphasize again essentially there are no air embolism allegations in relation to the other infants because Dr. Evans has decided these infants all died naturally. So essentially whether or not there is discoloration you could argue is irrelevant but I think it's important to acknowledge that we can't see all of the collapses in the other infants of course but in what we can see it should occur 10% of the time whereas in fact is cited uh 93.3 recurring% of the time this is in my view basically impossible or if you wanted to be incredibly generous then it is phenomenally unlikely.

[00:34:42]Finally, I want to emphasize again that I could have lumped in the air via nasogastric tube cases with these because discoloration was erroneously cited in those cases. That would make this even more unlikely. This crude study is actually favorable to the prosecution. Even though we conclude it's either phenomenally unlikely what was asserted in court or literally impossible, even that is actually favorable to the prosecution compared to what I could have presented.

[00:35:10]So to conclude, I just want to show you these two extracts from the court case.

[00:35:15]The first one is the um 11% involve skin discoloration statement of meers that I cited previously. And the second is this oral submission of meers um in which he states that specific skin discoloration mentioned in the lean tan paper can properly be treated as diagnostic embleus but no other type of discoloration can be regarded as diagnostic or pathogammonic.

[00:35:43]One day I won't have to try to pronounce these type of words of embolis. Mr. Meyers submits that the prosecution expert evidence provided neither a research basis nor clinical experience sufficient to enable reliable identification of any specific cutaneous discoloration which will be diagnostic of embleis that witness he argues unjustifiably treated a wide variety of cutaneous discoloration as diagnostic.

[00:36:10]And that of course is absolutely correct. The court has heard true information that is absolutely undeniably correct. And unfortunately, due to everything that I discussed in this previous video where I went over the academic paper, good science has appeared in this court case, albeit in relatively small helpings, but it has just been overwhelmed by bad science. And now because of the way the court system works, it now has to pretend that the bad science matters because the jury decided that the bad science was correct. So now therefore that becomes correct even though in the real world is not correct at all. It's a truly incredible process that we've seen unfold in this court case. But actually, what Ben Meer said here, firstly, it was very easy for him to get this percentage figure because it's in the paper. It's a shame he couldn't get Dr. Lee to appear as an expert in this court case. Um, but at least at least he's involved now. At least he's um helped convene this panel.

[00:37:24]And this argument about a wide variety of cutaneous discolorations that are typical, they're just they're just discoloration presentations that are indicative of circulatory collapse.

[00:37:39]That's why Jane Horden is is saying at the farewell, I couldn't understand why they were going on about mottling because that's a really common sign. And it is a common sign. It's not even necessarily a sign of collapse. But that's what's happened both both in the hospital although they didn't note down all the discoloration they didn't understand the significance but when they did site the discoloration they they were just misinterpreting what were normal signs of circulatory collapse and then Dr. Evans has used these same signs diagnostically. That's been very well established. But what this video establishes as well is that even if he wasn't completely wrong about the diagnostic criteria, which he is, but even if he wasn't, what he's proposing mathematically and statistically just can't happen basically.

[00:38:31]Finally, I just wanted to remind people that the release of my book, Reasonable Doubt, Examining the Case of Lucy Letby, is just six weeks away now. It's going to be released on Thursday the 9th of July. I'm actually going to record the audio book quite soon uh in the next couple of weeks and it will be available uh paperback, hardback, ebook and audio book on the day of release.

[00:38:59]Over the next six weeks, there's going to be more content related to this book and not just on this channel, but other channels as well. And I'll keep people up to date with that as it happens.

[00:39:14]Obviously, I'm doing stuff in the background related to that while trying to keep YouTube going as well, but I really need your support with the book. I've received a lot of very kind remarks about it already. And I'll do everything possible to make people aware of it and how they can help and so forth. But I just wanted to remind people that's coming up on Thursday the 9th of July is the release date. And you'll start to see more material about this coming soon.