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.
Yeh the private eye have opened up a article about this just reading it. Same thing for pages now, they don't mention any of the other incriminating evidence we heard just go on about the med details and again sff the "on duty chart". I have yet to see anything that has enough weight to challenge the convictions. they only go on about potential "hospital failings" which I think have to be discounted as the coch had the highest level of reviews and at this point multiple levels of it and nothing was found. Yep short staffed but these and the other babies didn't apparently suffer for it did they? Not a single thing to say any baby suffered due to short staffing. Potential other medical problems may have happened as well but nothing to say what? In fact when asked what else could it be not one doctor and many have presumably tried has been able to provide a viable alternative from a medical angle to the prosecutions and then you pile on the evidence we did hear that wasn't to do with other staff or the hospital and you 100% get the same result. It's a sound result and popping in for tea and biscuits with a baby murderer is not going to help anyone but the person who "did this".

www.private-eye.co.uk

Special Report: The Lessons of the Lucy Letby Case

After Lucy Letby was convicted in August 2023 of murdering seven babies, a number of experts contacted Eye columnist MD because they
www.private-eye.co.uk
 
ColourPurple said:
One thing that seems to have been forgotten by those LL apologists who claim that the babies’ deaths weren’t unexpected ( or worse still flippantly say that they were “going to die anyway”) is that after Baby D’s death LL herself referred to them as unexpected. This text message wouldn’t make sense if the deaths had been expected!

“On a day-to-day basis it's an incredible job with so many positives. But sometimes I think, how do such sick babies get through & others just die so suddenly and unexpectedly? Guess it's how it's meant to be... I think there is an element of fate involved. There is a reason for everything.”

And her colleague also points out that Baby D was improving and you can tell by her reaction she’s shocked at the death… because it’s … unexpected!

“The 32-year-old…sent WhatsApp messages to another nurse on June 22 2015 following a shift where a baby, referred to as child D died…Letby sent the following message to a colleague: ‘We had such a rubbish night. Our job is just far too sad sometimes.’
She went on to say: ‘We lost (child D).’

Her colleague replied: ‘What!!!! But she was improving. What happened? Wanna chat? I can’t believe you were on again. You’re having such a tough time.’”


Lucy Letby 'told colleague there was element of fate' to baby deaths

Manchester Crown Court was told Letby sent the following message to a colleague: 'Our job is just far too sad sometimes.'
metro.co.uk
www.standard.co.uk

Messages sent by killer nurse Lucy Letby during murder spree

The nurse has been found guilty of murdering seven babies in her care.
www.standard.co.uk www.standard.co.uk
Click to expand...

Bolded and underlined by me.

“I can’t believe you [LL] were on again.”

Yes, she was. Again and again and again and again.

That statement by LL’s colleague made me extremely sad. The colleague didn’t realize what she knew about what was happening.
 
flowershop said:
I am unfamiliar with a lot about this case but came across this article today.

www.telegraph.co.uk

Hospital where Lucy Letby worked suffered bacteria outbreak ‘lethal’ to babies

Leaked risk report shows Pseudomonas aeruginosa colonised taps in nurseries of neonatal unit
www.telegraph.co.uk www.telegraph.co.uk
Click to expand...
Her murder victims did not die from a bacterial outbreak. Sadly, her victims were tested for bacterial infections during their autopsies. So whatever the tests in this article referred to, it was not relevant to this case and to Letby's victims.
 
Last night after I shared the article about the lethal bacteria found at the hospital I read many of the older posts. Was video allowed in the court room? What resource is best to read about the testimony in this case?
 
No cameras in UK courts.
Have a look at Crimescene to Courtroom on YT as it’s an excellent resource as the court transcripts have been obtained and narrated word for word.
That’s literally as close as you could get without going to court yourself.
 
Parker Knoll said:
No cameras in UK courts.
Have a look at Crimescene to Courtroom on YT as it’s an excellent resource as the court transcripts have been obtained and narrated word for word.
That’s literally as close as you could get without going to court yourself.
Click to expand...
I wonder how long it would take to read without skipping formalities.
 
To be fair her best bet is the lack of a past that indicates "abhorrence of mind" that don't mean nothing though, it's not the med files at all or the shift chart. I can't help but think the med files are very damning tbh especially with so many docs saying it's right.
 
Anyone watch the documentary? Didn't get a chance myself. A brief rundown would be very much appreciated unless it's that which we already know ie the shift chart and doubts about the proof of air embolus.
 
I watched it sweep and it made me really angry.
Full of wild accusations ( Gill makes an appearance so that tells you all you need to know really )
One went on camera but refused to show her face unsurprisingly and they are still running the narrative that the blocked sinks could have caused it.
If these so called “ experts “ could explain what they considered were the reason for the deaths then why were they not called by the defence ?
Five minutes of fame springs to mind.
 
Parker Knoll said:
I watched it sweep and it made me really angry.
Full of wild accusations ( Gill makes an appearance so that tells you all you need to know really )
One went on camera but refused to show her face unsurprisingly and they are still running the narrative that the blocked sinks could have caused it.
If these so called “ experts “ could explain what they considered were the reason for the deaths then why were they not called by the defence ?
Five minutes of fame springs to mind.
Click to expand...
Sounds more like a sensationalised showpiece than a proper piece. The masses will like it and Gill has appealing credentials for a piece like that due to his appearance in the de berk fiasco.

It's really a standout point to me, there has been no contest to the prosecutions narrative and we now know if Mr myers had put Dr Hall on the stand he would have had to agree that it looks like air embolus. He can say the prosecution over emphasised the babies health but can still not provide an alternative explanation. That would have been the whole thing over with there and then. You know Mr Johnson would have said "do you agree that it looks like air embolus?"
 
Hey Everyone,
Remember the days when I used to come on and whine and ask for money? Remember how annoying all those ads were on the forum? The good news is that thanks to our partnership with Othram, we are free of my whining and those obnoxious ads.
If you like the fact that we are ad-free then please consider making a monthly donation to DNA Solves.com CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP FOR A MONTHLY DONATION TO DNA SOLVES
By subscribing and making a monthly donation, you will be helping the families finally get the answers they deserve.
The amazing people at DNA Solves/Othram care deeply about finding the families of the unidentified.
Even 5 dollars a month would go a long way to finding the families of the unidentified.
Please do not discuss this on this thread. CLICK HERE if you would like to discuss further or have any questions.
Thank you,
Tricia Griffith
Manager/Websleuths.com
 
Sweeper2000 said:
Sounds more like a sensationalised showpiece than a proper piece. The masses will like it and Gill has appealing credentials for a piece like that due to his appearance in the de berk fiasco.

It's really a standout point to me, there has been no contest to the prosecutions narrative and we now know if Mr myers had put Dr Hall on the stand he would have had to agree that it looks like air embolus. He can say the prosecution over emphasised the babies health but can still not provide an alternative explanation. That would have been the whole thing over with there and then. You know Mr Johnson would have said "do you agree that it looks like air embolus?"
Click to expand...
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.
 
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...

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
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 119 more.
Total: 436 (members: 120, guests: 316)

Online statistics

Members online
120
Guests online
316
Total visitors
436
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
609,476
Messages
18,254,691
Members
234,663
Latest member
caroline88
Back
Top