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

[Parker Knoll]

It’s really starting to grind on my nerves now.
BBC NW actually had a special report on this tonight interviewing “ experts “ for their opinions.
David Davis needs to stay in his own lane.

 

[DianaWW]

This article is excellent, and it's a real shame it's behind a paywall and in an obscure publication.

'Ignore the armchair detectives – there is overwhelming evidence that she murdered babies in her care.'
'The Poundshop Poirots who unwittingly regurgitate Letby’s talking points have been no more able than she was to explain how dodgy plumbing and occasional understaffing caused the events of 2015 and 2016, let alone how it caused two babies to be poisoned by insulin. They blithely claim that the hospital was ‘badly run’ and talk vaguely about a ‘spike’ in deaths that could have happened in any hospital. They talk about babies dying in neonatal wards as if it were a regular occurrence and that Letby was, in effect, simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.'
About Baby O:

'Letby is incriminated not only by her presence at the crime scene, but also by various actions that were characteristic of how she went about her killing. She falsified a medical note, writing that Baby O had been on breathing support when he was not, thereby making it look as if he was sicker than he was. After he died, she told another nurse that Baby O ‘had a big tummy overnight but just ballooned after lunch and went from there’, as if his full abdomen the night before Letby started her shift was somehow responsible for his collapse. A week after the death, she wrote ‘Peripheral access lost’ on a Datix form (used by staff to report clinical incidents), but this was immediately contradicted by Dr Stephen Brearey, the neonatal lead who had tried to resuscitate Baby O, who insists that intravenous access was not lost at any point. Why would Letby lie about this? Because if intravenous access was lost, the child could not have been injected with air. She was covering her tracks.'
.On the first anniversary of Baby O’s death, she looked up the family on Facebook and drafted a strange note, saying: ‘Today is your birthday but you are not here and I am so sorry for that.’ This could be interpreted as the outpourings of a sensitive nurse, except that it was addressed to all three triplets, despite one of them being alive and well. Did she get confused or was she fantasising about having killed them all? It is idle to speculate, and her personal jottings and offhand comments were not central to the prosecution, but her peculiar behaviour is worth noting since part of the disbelief about her guilt stems from her supposed normality.'
Why the defence didn't call any other experts:

'Letby’s fanclub complains that the defence called no expert witnesses to counter the evidence from the prosecution, although at least one expert had made himself available. They suggest that this alone is enough to deem the trial unfair and the convictions unsafe. Her lawyer, Ben Myers KC, is one of the best silks in the land. He represented Letby as well as he could and she was happy enough with him to have kept him on for her appeal. There is only one rational reason why he would choose not to call an expert to discuss the science: it would have damaged her defence. If a medical expert had been called, the cross-examination from the prosecution would likely have gone something like this:
‘Could the death of Child A have been air embolism?’

‘Yes.’

‘What else could it have been?’

‘I don’t know.’

The case against Lucy Letby

Ignore the armchair detectives – there is overwhelming evidence that she murdered babies in her care.

www.spiked-online.com

 

[JosieJo]

I really am now fed up of reading articles from so called experts who only know half a story and were not present at the trial

 

[Sweeper2000]

Yip how many reviews does the med files need? Just like the evidence that got her was numerous layers of high spec med pro's all saying the same, "something happened here". It went from hospital general staff then to hospital senior staff all the way to the governing body and then we had the prosecutions pro's saying the same and oh even the defences pro's saying they can't contest the prosecutions points aside from the way the evidence was presented. Its very damning imo but I can totally understand why some staff would seek to make sure they won't get scapegoated because that wouldn't be a first. I bet they have been wearing the "LL is innocent" badges since the start.

 

[Sweeper2000]

@Parker Knoll this the piece you mentioned?

 

[Marantz4250b]

It’s really starting to grind on my nerves now.
BBC NW actually had a special report on this tonight interviewing “ experts “ for their opinions.
David Davis needs to stay in his own lane.

Agreed!

I am thoroughly sick and tired of hearing the word "statistics" and hearing from "statisticians" who want to shove their oar where it should not be shoved! Where tf were they at the original trial if they had such great reservations about how it was being conducted?

This case and, so it follows, her convictions were not grounded in "statistics". The media are largely to blame for this for badly reporting it (with a few notable exceptions such as the DM) which gave a false impression that someone reviewing statistics months or years later noticed a spike and notified management who then identified LL on investigating matters.

Anyone who followed the trial knows that this was never the case and that Lucy Letby was suspected by staff, including consultants, for a long time simply because she was always around when collapses happened and always seemed to be alone. She was categorically not identified due to statistical anomalies!

The court didn't spend 10 months looking at a graph of a spike in deaths and a chart of names with varying amounts of "X"'s next to them!

These people really need to be put back in their boxes, quite frankly!

 

[Tortoise]

Agreed!

I am thoroughly sick and tired of hearing the word "statistics" and hearing from "statisticians" who want to shove their oar where it should not be shoved! Where tf were they at the original trial if they had such great reservations about how it was being conducted?

This case and, so it follows, her convictions were not grounded in "statistics". The media are largely to blame for this for badly reporting it (with a few notable exceptions such as the DM) which gave a false impression that someone reviewing statistics months or years later noticed a spike and notified management who then identified LL on investigating matters.

Anyone who followed the trial knows that this was never the case and that Lucy Letby was suspected by staff, including consultants, for a long time simply because she was always around when collapses happened and always seemed to be alone. She was categorically not identified due to statistical anomalies!

The court didn't spend 10 months looking at a graph of a spike in deaths and a chart of names with varying amounts of "X"'s next to them!

These people really need to be put back in their boxes, quite frankly!

well said

 

[Dotta]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1830190161793032543