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 #36

[saoirselouise]

i think it is POSSIBLE that some deaths that didn’t involve lucy got lumped in with lucy’s deaths. i think it is EXCEPTIONALLY UNLIKELY that she was totally innocent and has been scapegoated. like, this would be an incredible statistical anomaly.

 

[saoirselouise]

double post

 

[saoirselouise]

triple post actually

 

[saoirselouise]

What evidence does he have any of these "failures" contributed to the deaths of babies?

Absolutely none. if he had any, he’d have presented it ages ago.

 

[mrC]

Lucy Letby and the medical experts who believe she is innocent – podcast

She was called the worst child serial killer in Britain in modern times. So why are medical experts saying her conviction is unsafe? Josh Halliday and Felicity Lawrence report

www.theguardian.com

 

[notsure]

It will certainly be interesting to see what new developments take place in the coming months.

 

[mrC]

if the allegations made against the doctors at the hospital are untrue they would highly libelous it will be interesting to see if they sue for damages at the moment none of them have

 

[May72031]

Lucy Letby and the medical experts who believe she is innocent – podcast

She was called the worst child serial killer in Britain in modern times. So why are medical experts saying her conviction is unsafe? Josh Halliday and Felicity Lawrence report

www.theguardian.com

"Then, last week, came a bombshell press conference in which a panel of renowned neonatal experts said they believed not just that Letby’s conviction was unsafe"

Are they really "renowned neonatal experts"?

"but that there was no murder or deliberate harm. Instead they said the deaths had been caused by a series of factors including understaffing and a lack of skills on the ward to treat the babies they were caring for."

That is a laughable statement. I would really look forward to seeing these "renowned neonatal experts" in court. They'd be torn apart.

I feel really sorry for all the families that this circus is going on. Shame on all the "journalists" who are gullible enough to parrot what these people are saying, without scrutinising their claims.

 

[May72031]

if the allegations made against the doctors at the hospital are untrue they would highly libelous it will be interesting to see if they sue for damages at the moment none of them have

Especially as these "experts" put forward one particularly nasty allegation about a doctor in one press conference, and then backtracked on that and put forth a separate, different reason for the same injury in the next press conference.

If they don't get sued, they should at least suffer reputational damage. Alex Jones style.

 

[mrC]

well if there not renound experts then dr lees paper should not of been used by the proscution you cant have it both ways dr lee is ethere an expert orhe isnt

 

[May72031]

well if there not renound experts then dr lees paper should not of been used by the proscution you cant have it both ways dr lee is ethere an expert orhe isnt

He's the fella who has gone back and re-written a 30-year-old paper and tried to present it as "new evidence", isn't it?

 

[mrC]

medical experts are allways rewriting papers as new evidence is discoverd as new evdence is discoverd its called updating it happens in medicine all the time

 

[JosieJo]

I suppose, for me ..I'd be wary of any papers updated purely for the purpose of attempting to provide new evidence

 

[mrC]

well if dr lee isnt trust worthy then hes paper cant be trusted ethere as i said you cant have it both ways

 

[CatsnChickens]

Especially one that is as has been pointed out a paid for publication that has not been peer reviewed. If you pay these dodgy journals enough they would publish the musings of next doors dog.

 

[JosieJo]

well if dr lee isnt trust worthy then hes paper cant be trusted ethere as i said you cant have it both ways

I've no idea if trustworthy or not but he just seems overly interested since being given short shrift by the court.

His initial paper was many years ago ..he'd never heard of lucy letby.
To rewrite a paper with the purpose of trying to influence an appeal is something totally different imo.
Plus his original paper was tested in court and subject to cross examination.. of course this "potential" new evidence hasn't

 

[mrC]

i think the best person to to interpret a medical paper be the person who wrote in the first place

 

[JosieJo]

i think the best person to to interpret a medical paper be the person who wrote in the first place

Maybe so but that doesn't change the fact that he purposely updated it whilst working with the defence which is a little "uncomfortable"

 

[Moll]

I think someone must have posted this information previously, so apologies if everyone else knows about this, but I'd be grateful to know how Lucy Letby's new defence team and PR specialists (Maltin PR) are funded.

Lucy Letby Press Conference - New Medical Evidence - Maltin PR

Maltin PR has today hosted a press conference announcing new medical evidence relating to the conviction of Lucy Letby.

www.maltinpr.com

 

[Highlandspring]

Lucy Letby and the medical experts who believe she is innocent – podcast

She was called the worst child serial killer in Britain in modern times. So why are medical experts saying her conviction is unsafe? Josh Halliday and Felicity Lawrence report

www.theguardian.com

Felicity Lawrence is one of the most biased journo on this case. Last year she put up a whatsapp number for anti conviction readers (people like you) to send her tips. Yeah hreat independent journalism (!!!!!) Nothing she writes can be considered to hold any value.

I advised you to avoid MSM. You're so not doing.

The more you, and similars, post, the more confirmation I have that Letby's staying incarcerated forever.