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

 

[Marantz4250b]

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

Seriously, this is getting beyond disgusting now!

I will ask again - where were these "experts" during the ten month very high profile trial, the retrial on one count and the appeal? Did a single one of them offer their assistance to to the defence - or for that matter offer to advise the prosecution that they might be wrong?

The defence did have their own expert lined up but chose not to call him. There is really only one logical reason as to why they made that decision.

 

[shesfixingherhair]

I will ask again - where were these "experts" during the ten month very high profile trial, the retrial on one count and the appeal? Did a single one of them offer their assistance to to the defence - or for that matter offer to advise the prosecution that they might be wrong?

Could you imagine Ben Myers having all these massively well-informed experts on this case and then ignoring all of them during the trial in favor of one (1) plumber? It’s actually insulting if you really think about it!

 

[ColourPurple]

Could you imagine Ben Myers having all these massively well-informed experts on this case and then ignoring all of them during the trial in favor of one (1) plumber? It’s actually insulting if you really think about it!

Myers is probably wondering how the hell the bad actors, who tried to disrupt the live trial, have managed to convince anybody of anything, let alone convince people that he was incompetent!

 

[Observant-ADHD-ENFP-BSc]

Maybe Prime or another streaming company could secure the rights to the voices of the experts who DID testify and ARE experts and throw in the defence's guy for good measure.

 

[Sweeper2000]

Myers is probably wondering how the hell the bad actors, who tried to disrupt the live trial, have managed to convince anybody of anything, let alone convince people that he was incompetent!

I think he is probably wondering why the hell they think she is innocent.

 

[Sweeper2000]

The times radio.

More of the same. Statistics and the graph which was unimportant. Just new high level academics saying the same. I believe this kind of thing can happen without evil or naturally but not what I believe I'm this case. Would really like to see what the statisticians would calculate the chance of all that happening including all the evidence especially the false datix forms without someone being responsible. Probably very very very low.

 

[Marantz4250b]

The times radio.

More of the same. Statistics and the graph which was unimportant. Just new high level academics saying the same. I believe this kind of thing can happen without evil or naturally but not what I believe I'm this case. Would really like to see what the statisticians would calculate the chance of all that happening including all the evidence especially the false datix forms without someone being responsible. Probably very very very low.

This is just ridiculous! I can't help thinking that there is some sort of weird collective insanity going on, tbh.

David Davis (the MP who used Parliamentary Privilege to make the Commons statement on the New Yorker article) I used to have a decent amount of respect for but he's falling for the same s***. Moreover, what he said in Parliament was untrue; he said quite specifically and deliberately that the statistical evidence was "central" to her conviction. Anyone who actually followed the trial knows that that is absolutely and 100% not true! So, he's used Parliamentary Privilege so subvert a Court Order and in doing so has provided false "facts" to Parliament. This is precisely the the reason for court orders like this - so that the case is not affected!!!

All of this focusing on "statistics" is a red herring and completely bogus! The statistics were mentioned as part of the mix in the evidence but the case was in no way founded on them or really needed them to get a conviction.

The video below, although not pleading for her innocence is also wrong; Dr Raj when discussing her potential motivations mentions the part in her notes where she writes that she feared she'd never marry and have kids. He said something along the lines of ...she was a woman in her mid 30's and may have resented those who were having children as she may have felt that her time was running out.... NO SHE WASN'T! She was 25 in 2015! If you can't even get this really basic stuff right and are basing your opinions of someone on "facts" which are a decade out of date, then should anyone have any respect for your opinions?

The "facts" which keep being repeated about Lucy Letby, her trials, appeals and the evidence in general are often nothing of the sort. People need to stop behaving like idiots, in my humble opinion.

 

[Sweeper2000]

All this has actually sparked an interesting question in my mind. A different angle from the prosecutions argument and a different presentation. If we excluded that graph and any assumption by anyone as to who is responsible yet are presented the same evidence due to the police noticing she was always on shift do we arrive at the same conclusion? My answer is yes. That graph means nothing really, excluding it would not make a difference.

 

[Tortoise]

All this has actually sparked an interesting question in my mind. A different angle from the prosecutions argument and a different presentation. If we excluded that graph and any assumption by anyone as to who is responsible yet are presented the same evidence due to the police noticing she was always on shift do we arrive at the same conclusion? My answer is yes. That graph means nothing really, excluding it would not make a difference.

Yes, except that then the doubters would say 'well there could have been other staff members present on all of those shifts!!' So the prosecution would be slated for NOT producing a schedule proving that she was the only one there for all of them.

 

[ColourPurple]

This is just ridiculous! I can't help thinking that there is some sort of weird collective insanity going on, tbh.

David Davis (the MP who used Parliamentary Privilege to make the Commons statement on the New Yorker article) I used to have a decent amount of respect for but he's falling for the same s***. Moreover, what he said in Parliament was untrue; he said quite specifically and deliberately that the statistical evidence was "central" to her conviction. Anyone who actually followed the trial knows that that is absolutely and 100% not true! So, he's used Parliamentary Privilege so subvert a Court Order and in doing so has provided false "facts" to Parliament. This is precisely the the reason for court orders like this - so that the case is not affected!!!

All of this focusing on "statistics" is a red herring and completely bogus! The statistics were mentioned as part of the mix in the evidence but the case was in no way founded on them or really needed them to get a conviction.

The video below, although not pleading for her innocence is also wrong; Dr Raj when discussing her potential motivations mentions the part in her notes where she writes that she feared she'd never marry and have kids. He said something along the lines of ...she was a woman in her mid 30's and may have resented those who were having children as she may have felt that her time was running out.... NO SHE WASN'T! She was 25 in 2015! If you can't even get this really basic stuff right and are basing your opinions of someone on "facts" which are a decade out of date, then should anyone have any respect for your opinions?

The "facts" which keep being repeated about Lucy Letby, her trials, appeals and the evidence in general are often nothing of the sort. People need to stop behaving like idiots, in my humble opinion.

It’s like an alternate universe isn’t it . The insanity of all these people coming out of the woodwork to basically say “Oh you know that 10 month trial that I never attended, never followed the live reporting of, never read or listened to any of the trial transcripts, in fact never even thought twice about till now … well I’m not convinced beyond reasonable doubt that she’s guilty you know.”

 

[Dotta]

I guess all these people/Media were restricted by SubJudice of the latest retrial.

Because all this uproar started immediately after it and also latest Appellate denial.

New Yorker article was prohibited by SubJudice as well, no?

Well,
as I mentioned before
this case is like no other I have ever followed.

JMO

 

[katydid23]

I think all of those 'LucyIsInnocent' twitter accounts and FB profiles and TikTok's finally grew viral. It caught on and those who never followed the trial could read the cherry picked 'facts' and could then believe this poor young nurse was railroaded by the NHS.