UK - Nurse Lucy Letby, murder of babies, 7 Guilty of murder verdicts; 8 Guilty of attempted murder; 2 Not Guilty of attempted; 5 hung re attempted #35

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dotta said:
I don't think experts that appeared in the trial should be called "Prosecution" or Defence" ones.

Experts don't "take sides"
they are professionals who are very knowledgeable about or skilful in a particular area.

And both Prosecution and Defence could cross examine them,
asking all kinds of "difficult" questions,
trying to convince the Jury to their view.

That is how I see this matter.

JMO
Click to expand...
Agreed, Dotta, and that was very much one of Dr Hammond's points.
 
Moll said:
I have read the article by Dr Phil Hammond (his pseudonym there is "MD") in Private Eye and seen the TV programme in which he, not Gill, is the main narrator. I think it's a mistake to dismiss them and people should at least read and watch before making dismissive comments. Phil Hammond is a respected doctor and journalist who was a consultant for many years and he has changed his mind on the LL case.

I was convinced of LL's guilt while following these threads before, but I felt uneasy after hearing some of Dr Hammond's points. He is at pains to say he doesn't know whether LL is innocent of any of the crimes of which she has been convicted, but he does not think the trial was fair. He would like to see a system in which the court appointed a range of experts, because it appeared from the programme that many medics are extremely unwilling to appear as defence witnesses in such cases as a result of previous cases where careers were ruined. He also asks why the defence did not present Hall's written reports to the jury. I had previously thought the absence of defence expert witnesses was compelling evidence against LL: now I am not so sure. And other statisticians besides Gill think the statistics were wrongly used.

I know there was other evidence that convinced many of her guilt but think it's important not to close one's mind completely. I would not take the summary given by Parker Knoll above as the last word (my impression was completely different) but watch the programme on My5 and form your own opinion.
Click to expand...
What statistics do you think were used incorrectly? Bearing in mind that they didn’t pick and choose which cases to include on that spreadsheet. The experts assisting the police identified the cases they found to be suspicious, it was only then that the spreadsheet was created and LL found to be present for every one. Why would they include any cases that weren’t deemed to be suspicious? That was as far as statistical evidence went, it was a very small part of the trial.

Richard Gill posted on these threads before the trial started and decided she was innocent before he had heard a single piece of evidence. I therefore believe he is biased.

Has Dr Phil Hammond examined every piece of medical evidence that the trial experts had access to? The answer is no. I also read the article. And once again, like the others, the information that was included was cherry picked, and so much was left out. Why?

Liz Hull wrote an excellent article on why these sudden influx of articles in support of her are inaccurate and included a lot of the additional information that none of the others did. Bearing in mind she was one of the only journalists to attend every day of the trial. Dr Hammond did not.

The court was able to appoint a range of experts. Is there evidence that suggests otherwise? Just because the majority of them agreed, doesn’t mean that the court refused to appoint any. I do not think it is common practice to give witness notes to jury members. There was an opportunity for Michael Hall to be called to give evidence and her defence barrister Myers decided not to. That is not evidence of an unfair trial, he would have had is reasons, and is one of the best KCs in the country.

Additionally, 4 appeal judges in total examined the the trial in detail during the appeal process and deemed it to be sound. Does Dr Phil Hammond have a better understanding of the legal process than they do? JMO.
 
DianaWW said:
What statistics do you think were used incorrectly? Bearing in mind that they didn’t pick and choose which cases to include on that spreadsheet. The experts assisting the police identified the cases they found to be suspicious, it was only then that the spreadsheet was created and LL found to be present for every one. Why would they include any cases that weren’t deemed to be suspicious? That was as far as statistical evidence went, it was a very small part of the trial.

Richard Gill posted on these threads before the trial started and decided she was innocent before he had heard a single piece of evidence. I therefore believe he is biased.

Has Dr Phil Hammond examined every piece of medical evidence that the trial experts had access to? The answer is no. I also read the article. And once again, like the others, the information that was included was cherry picked, and so much was left out. Why?

Liz Hull wrote an excellent article on why these sudden influx of articles in support of her are inaccurate and included a lot of the additional information that none of the others did. Bearing in mind she was one of the only journalists to attend every day of the trial. Dr Hammond did not.

The court was able to appoint a range of experts. Is there evidence that suggests otherwise? Just because the majority of them agreed, doesn’t mean that the court refused to appoint any. I do not think it is common practice to give witness notes to jury members. There was an opportunity for Michael Hall to be called to give evidence and her Myers decided not to. That is not evidence of an unfair trial, he would have had is reasons, and is one of the best KCs in the country.

Additionally, 4 appeal judges in total examined the the trial in detail during the appeal process and deemed it to be sound. Does Dr Phil Hammond have a better understanding of the legal process than they do? JMO.
Click to expand...
I'm not expressing any opinion other than that I think he's worth listening to and the programme was not wild and sensationalised as described by another member. I'm not equipped to deal with the medical or statistical evidence at all: do look at the programme and you'll see the statistics question being discussed by an academic.
Incidentally the Private Eye article, is, unusually, available online: Special Report: The Lessons of the Lucy Letby Case
 
Moll said:
I'm not expressing any opinion other than that I think he's worth listening to and the programme was not wild and sensationalised as described by another member. I'm not equipped to deal with the medical or statistical evidence at all: do look at the programme and you'll see the statistics question being discussed by an academic.
Incidentally the Private Eye article, is, unusually, available online: Special Report: The Lessons of the Lucy Letby Case
Click to expand...
As I said, I have read the article, and don't find any of the information included to give me any concern with regards to her guilt for the reasons I gave above. I do believe that she had a fair trial and that the jury reached the correct decision. If any new evidence comes to light, I will read it with an open mind, but none of the articles, TV programmes, or anything else that have come out since have provided that. They are just giving opinions that I feel are incomplete, as they have not reviewed all of the evidence. But that is JMO of course.
 
Last edited:
Tortoise said:
Linking for those who might be susbscribers to MailPlus -

It's time for this Lucy Letby is innocent madness to stop: I sat through almost every day of her two trials. Here's the evidence I believe proves her guilt, writes LIZ HULL​


It's time for this Lucy Letby is innocent madness to stop: LIZ HULL
Click to expand...
For anyone who doesn’t have mail+ but does have an iPhone, you can get past the paywall by clicking on the Aa near the web address bar and clicking show reader
 
Does seem like the same old stuff really to me. Stats in the evidence aren't really relevant to me tbh was multiple layers of damning evidence in my eyes. What I did see in he trial from my perspective was a very one sided affair with no evidence really from the defence to back up claims aside from the plumber and that still stands aside from Dr Hall saying the case med files were open to opinion on whether or not the deaths were "sudden and unexpected" and still multiple high levels of opinion said Dr Evans seemed correct. I remember clearly how often babies collapsed seemingly out if the blue which does not follow any known medical problem aside from that which is alleged and that was stated in court. Dr Hall still does not provide a alternative pathway and conclusion for the case files. I think she got a fair cop trial as a guilty person like that can say if it was one sided it might be because she's guilty.

I remain of the opinion that it is sound unless meaningful contest to the prosecutions medical experts can be found. I highly doubt it will and think she will die in prison.

To this day I still find a moment where I cannot find it believable that that person did this so I really do get it. Its only a moment though about a second.
 
DianaWW said:
As I said, I have read the article, and don't find any of the information included to give me any concern with regards to her guilt for the reasons I gave above. I do believe that she had a fair trial and that the jury reached the correct decision. If any new evidence comes to light, I will read it with an open mind, but none of the articles, TV programmes, or anything else that have come out since have provided that. They are just giving opinions that I feel are incomplete, as they have not reviewed all of the evidence. But that is JMO of course.
Click to expand...

This is pretty much it for me. Unless these 'ambiguities' are examined side by side with the evidence against Lucy Letby herself as seen/heard in court - her words, deeds, actions - then I can't see how or why it is being given the platform it's being given. That's not dismissing expert opinion, it's just asking for the whole rather than (convenient) parts of the whole to be taken into account before making potential miscarriage of justice claims.
 
Moll said:
I have read the article by Dr Phil Hammond (his pseudonym there is "MD") in Private Eye and seen the TV programme in which he, not Gill, is the main narrator. I think it's a mistake to dismiss them and people should at least read and watch before making dismissive comments. Phil Hammond is a respected doctor and journalist who was a consultant for many years and he has changed his mind on the LL case.

I was convinced of LL's guilt while following these threads before, but I felt uneasy after hearing some of Dr Hammond's points. He is at pains to say he doesn't know whether LL is innocent of any of the crimes of which she has been convicted, but he does not think the trial was fair. He would like to see a system in which the court appointed a range of experts, because it appeared from the programme that many medics are extremely unwilling to appear as defence witnesses in such cases as a result of previous cases where careers were ruined. He also asks why the defence did not present Hall's written reports to the jury. I had previously thought the absence of defence expert witnesses was compelling evidence against LL: now I am not so sure. And other statisticians besides Gill think the statistics were wrongly used.

I know there was other evidence that convinced many of her guilt but think it's important not to close one's mind completely. I would not take the summary given by Parker Knoll above as the last word (my impression was completely different) but watch the programme on My5 and form your own opinion.
Click to expand...
What do you say about the mother who walked in on Nurse Letby assaulting her newborn son? I am sure you have heard her witness testimony as well as her husbands? They both testified and it was a turning point in the trial for the jury.

It was a major turning point because it became clear and obvious that the parents were telling the truth because they had phone records proving their timeline. And all Lucy had was her own written notes which were different than what the parent's phone records showed. Lucy was caught out in front of the jury lying about the incident.

There is no way Dr Hammond can convince me, or anyone else who heard those parents speak about the gruesome death of their baby, that Nurse Letby is innocent. She falsified her records to try and cover up the fact that she waited an hour before seeking medical help for a newborn baby who was having massive internal blood loss---and she tried to call the grieving mother a LIAR for telling the truth about what time it was when she walked into the nursery and heard her baby shrieking in pain, bleeding from his mouth---and she cried What Happened to Lucy who said loudly---" You must leave, He'll be fine TRUST ME, I'm A NURSE...And the baby was dead within hours about losing 40% of his blood due to UNEXPLAINED internal injuries.

We KNOW Lucy lied about the timeline because Mom ran and called her husband crying and upset, and he consoled her and said they must trust the nurses and doctors...but phone records later shown at trial PROVED Lucy was lying when she claimed the bleeding began at 10 pm. Mom had called her husband just after 9 pm.

In front of the jury, BOTH parents, emotional and grieving testified that the mother went to the nursery at 9 pm with expressed breast milk for feeding her baby, and walked in on the results of the attack, he was screaming and bleeding from his mouth. Lucy's medical log said she first saw blood at 10 pm and called a doctor in.

THERE IS NO WAY DR HAMMOND CAN EXPLAIN AWAY THAT LIE BY LUCY. ...Once the jury saw her try and call the parents mistaken, or lying, after they saw the phone records corroborating the parents, it was hard to ever believe Lucy anymore when she tried to make more excuses about why all these Babis IN HER CARE were dying.

By the way, after their first baby died by Lucy's hand, she tried to kill his twin brother the next day by injecting him with insulin.

[See next post for details]
 
Last edited:
people.com

'Trust Me, I'm a Nurse': Mom Walked in on Nurse While She Was Allegedly Murdering Her Son

British nurse Lucy Letby, 32, accused of killing seven infants in her care and attempting to murder 10 others, and allegedly wrote notes saying, "I AM EVIL," the prosecutor said in court
people.com people.com

In August 2015, an already worried new mother of premature twin boys was shocked to see one of her five-day old sons "acutely distressed" and bleeding from the mouth in the neonatal unit of a U.K. hospital, a prosecutor told a British court.

The nurse tending to the infant allegedly told the terrified mother not to worry: a nasogastric tube had simply irritated the infant's throat, prosecutor Nick Johnson told the Manchester Crown Court, the BBC, The Guardianand The Independentreport.

"Trust me, I'm a nurse," Lucy Letby allegedly told the shaken mother, Johnson said.

The infant, who weighed less than 3 lbs. and who prosecutors are calling Baby E, died five hours later, allegedly at the hands of Letby, 32, who is accused of injecting air into his bloodstream.

Johnson told the court that on Aug. 3, 2015, the new mother, who has not been identified, had no idea that Letby was in the process of allegedly murdering the infant when she walked into the room to bring her sons milk.

The mother "interrupted Lucy Letby who was attacking [Baby E]," who was "acutely distressed" and bleeding from the mouth, Johnson told jurors.

The mother left after being "fobbed off" by the alleged baby killer, he said.

Letby allegedly told the mother that another medical professional would check on the infant — and that she needed to leave the neonatal unit, Johnson told the court, The Independent reports.

Letby also allegedly tried to kill Baby F, the infant's twin brother, by injecting him with insulin and trying to poison him, Johnson said.

Calling Letby a "malevolent presence" in the hospital, Johnson said Letby allegedly tried to hide her actions by falsifying her notes, which were "designed to cover her tracks."

While Letby has said she is innocent, on Thursday the prosecution presented several handwritten notes in which she allegedly confessed to killing the babies.



people.com

'Trust Me, I'm a Nurse': Mom Walked in on Nurse While She Was Allegedly Murdering Her Son

British nurse Lucy Letby, 32, accused of killing seven infants in her care and attempting to murder 10 others, and allegedly wrote notes saying, "I AM EVIL," the prosecutor said in court
people.com people.com
 
This case is like no other I have ever followed.

And to think
that a convicted murderer of Babies
was once a Poster Girl
smiling benevolently and looking like an Angel
in the Charity Campaign Poster asking for donations for this hospital ward.

1723544401695.png

Only her house overlooking the cemetery with children's graves
can top this :oops:

Life is stranger than Fiction.

JMO

www.dailymail.co.uk

Letby used as poster girl for hospital hours after murdering baby

EXCLUSIVE: A chilling image has been uncovered of Letby celebrating on August 6, 2015, after fundraising for a new baby unit at the Countess of Chester Hospital hit £1.5m.
www.dailymail.co.uk
 
Last edited:
The Times have done a piece which is pretty good, and seems to get to the heart of what these unnamed experts are saying are the problems with the way evidence was presented. It also includes counterbalanced arguments from the trial.

Here is a link https://archive.is/0BYgd

Essentially there's two points - the insulin test was not sufficient to prove that synthetic insulin was administered, as it was an immune assay, and ideally another test should have been done to confirm the results. IMO - Ok great, but the test that was done is highly indicative that synthetic insulin was given, and coupled with the fact that blood sugar remained very low even when the babies were being given boluses of glucose, that to me pushes it beyond doubt.

The second point is that unusual skin marks shouldn't have been use to diagnose air embolism, as resuscitation drugs could have caused this. Again, this can easily be dismissed by anyone who followed the trial, as the marks weren't used to diagnose air embolism. In fact I remember Evans saying he made the diagnosis of air embolism without knowing about any of the witness accounts of the skin colourations.

In my opinion the issues raised, when presented alongside the totality of the evidence, don't amount to much at all.
 
Jazmania said:
The Times have done a piece which is pretty good, and seems to get to the heart of what these unnamed experts are saying are the problems with the way evidence was presented. It also includes counterbalanced arguments from the trial.

Here is a link https://archive.is/0BYgd

Essentially there's two points - the insulin test was not sufficient to prove that synthetic insulin was administered, as it was an immune assay, and ideally another test should have been done to confirm the results. IMO - Ok great, but the test that was done is highly indicative that synthetic insulin was given, and coupled with the fact that blood sugar remained very low even when the babies were being given boluses of glucose, that to me pushes it beyond doubt.

The second point is that unusual skin marks shouldn't have been use to diagnose air embolism, as resuscitation drugs could have caused this. Again, this can easily be dismissed by anyone who followed the trial, as the marks weren't used to diagnose air embolism. In fact I remember Evans saying he made the diagnosis of air embolism without knowing about any of the witness accounts of the skin colourations.

In my opinion the issues raised, when presented alongside the totality of the evidence, don't amount to much at all.
Click to expand...
Do I remember correctly in thinking that teh evidence showed the babies improved after some time? Presumably when the tpn bags were changed or when the administered adrenaline had ran its course? Almost like the adrenaline wore off showing it was external In origin?

I think your right, none of that which has been said recently actually does much to provide an alternative explanation to the series of events.
 

CPS admits it made mistakes with Lucy Letby evidence: Door swipe data 'vital' to showing which nurses could have been on the ward was incorrect​


www.dailymail.co.uk

CPS admits it made mistakes with Lucy Letby evidence

Last year 'killer nurse' Lucy Letby was found guilty of the murder of seven babies and the attempted murder of six others at the Countess of Chester Hospital.
www.dailymail.co.uk www.dailymail.co.uk
 
RichardKimble said:

CPS admits it made mistakes with Lucy Letby evidence: Door swipe data 'vital' to showing which nurses could have been on the ward was incorrect​


www.dailymail.co.uk

CPS admits it made mistakes with Lucy Letby evidence

Last year 'killer nurse' Lucy Letby was found guilty of the murder of seven babies and the attempted murder of six others at the Countess of Chester Hospital.
www.dailymail.co.uk www.dailymail.co.uk
Click to expand...

I wonder for how long the data of swipe cards are kept?
So much time has passed.
 
I'm struggling to see the potentials of that bit of info, I really can't see it impacting the trial though. Difficult to think with what we heard that they got the wrong one.
 
https://twitter.com/x/status/1824746055604330659

"During the retrial,
Nick Johnson KC, prosecuting, told the court that door-swipe data, showing which nurses and doctors were entering and exiting the intensive care ward, had been 'mislabelled'.

The Crown Prosecution Service told the Telegraph that the discrepancy discovered
was related to one door in the neonatal intensive care unit
and that it had been corrected for the retrial."

www.theguardian.com

Evidence in first Lucy Letby trial was incorrect, CPS admits

Door swipe data showing which staff entered and exited baby unit was ‘mislabelled’ until retrial, CPS says
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
 
Dotta said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1824746055604330659

"During the retrial,
Nick Johnson KC, prosecuting, told the court that door-swipe data, showing which nurses and doctors were entering and exiting the intensive care ward, had been 'mislabelled'.

The Crown Prosecution Service told the Telegraph that the discrepancy discovered
was related to one door in the neonatal intensive care unit
and that it had been corrected for the retrial."

www.theguardian.com

Evidence in first Lucy Letby trial was incorrect, CPS admits

Door swipe data showing which staff entered and exited baby unit was ‘mislabelled’ until retrial, CPS says
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
Click to expand...

I don't think it's quite the bombshell they are implying. In fact, the corrected timings work far better - unsurprisingly!
As for the other cases, I'm not sure the door swipe data (even if incorrect) is significant for any of them. There may be one or two, but my recollection is that there is no doubt LL was on the unit, certainly for the majority. Obviously the insulin cases are different anyway.
All JMO.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 255 more.
Total: 609 (members: 256, guests: 353)

Online statistics

Members online
256
Guests online
353
Total visitors
609
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
607,984
Messages
18,232,613
Members
234,266
Latest member
NotSoElementary
Back
Top