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

[mrC]

well no becouse another nurse took her place and the unit was downgraded

 

[Furore]

no the jury found her guilty on false door swipe evidence the cps admit that ill post the link agian the door swipe evdence the first jury heard was false Evidence in first Lucy Letby trial was incorrect, CPS admits

The swipe data was accurate in the re trial. And she was convicted.

 

[Tortoise]

but a certan doctors evidence was based around it

And the jury were aware. Dr Jayaram is not responsible for piecing together the evidence or making it match the door data. He was reintubating a baby who had stopped breathing, not looking at the clock, IMO.

 

[Furore]

well no becouse another nurse took her place

Did they employ someone to replace her? Where is your link to this? She was suspended/on non clinical duty not fired and still had her salary. Why was regional staffing so bad if there were plenty of out of work nurses sitting about? Why would it improve the mortality and collapses, if letby was replaced by another nurse, unless she had been involved in the other cases?

 

[mrC]

we the appeal court seemed to think he was

 

[mrC]

here the man himself I didn’t invent Lucy Letby accusation, doctor tells Thirlwall Inquiry

 

[Furore]

The issue with the dislodged tube was that letby was the child’s nurse at the time, who he witnessed as the patient’s nurse because he was also present in person, not that he traced it back to door data?

 

[Sweeper2000]

taking a guess here but i reckon dr j was honest in his account of the events and innaccurate in his timings. would be very easy to question all of it if it was found his timings were off but his timings being off is literally irrelevant to what went on in that time. its much more fair to approximate the timings but believe the account.

 

[mrC]

a bit about mr evans Lucy Letby trial facing fresh controversy

 

[Furore]

Human beings are notoriously inaccurate in their recollection of time or the passing thereof. If I asked everyone what exactly they were doing at 2pm three months ago or even what time they last went to the bathroom, I doubt 100% would be accurate!

 

[Furore]

a bit about mr evans Lucy Letby trial facing fresh controversy

Again, Dewi Evans was not the only medical expert in the trial - there were multiple other paediatricians, radiologist, endocrinologist, surgeon etc, so even if people have issues with his evidence, he was not the only one.

Lucy did not have a single defence expert. In fact the one that would have testified, and was expecting to, was specifically refused to attend trial - unclear why. God knows why. And he fell out with the defence council about it.

There is enough controversy in the LL case and some of it is legitimate dispute but some of it borders on conspiracy IMHO.

 

[Sweeper2000]

Human beings are notoriously inaccurate in their recollection of time or the passing thereof. If I asked everyone what exactly they were doing at 2pm three months ago or even what time they last went to the bathroom, I doubt 100% would be accurate!

was also true that dr j didn't follow this up with anything after. leaving a large gap in time between recollection and event. Im certain many other recollections in the trial would also have gaps in time. especially considering many notes were written up at the end of the shift in retrospect.

 

[Furore]

was also true that dr j didn't follow this up with anything after. leaving a large gap in time between recollection and event. Im certain many other recollections in the trial would also have gaps in time. especially considering many notes were written up at the end of the shift in retrospect.

Sometimes hindsight can make one recall things that wouldn’t have the same poignance in a different context. For example, when one partner I had as an adolescent cheated, a bunch of things I remembered that didn’t strike me before!

I think hospital notes can be often written retrospectively (especially in an emergency if no separate scribe) because obviously you’re not writing whilst resuscitating etc

It’s why for something like this case, the totality of complex evidence required - hence why only a trial is the appropriate forum - any why any new real evidence should be submitted to court of appeal. Trying to manipulate the public is beyond the pale really. All JMO

 

[marynnu]

Sometimes hindsight can make one recall things that wouldn’t have the same poignance in a different context. For example, when one partner I had as an adolescent cheated, a bunch of things I remembered that didn’t strike me before!

I think hospital notes can be often written retrospectively (especially in an emergency if no separate scribe) because obviously you’re not writing whilst resuscitating etc

It’s why for something like this case, the totality of complex evidence required - hence why only a trial is the appropriate forum - any why any new real evidence should be submitted to court of appeal. Trying to manipulate the public is beyond the pale really. All JMO

You always have a scribe during full resus, it's impossible to keep track of drugs etc. otherwise.

 

[Furore]

You always have a scribe during full resus, it's impossible to keep track of drugs etc. otherwise.

Not necessarily. If something happens as you walk in, you won’t always have a scribe present until the full team arrives. JMO

 

[The Ludo Theory]

I really cannot understand why still the Defence did not put forward medical experts. Her team was senior and highly regarded so why not ?

I'm new here and joined because of the Letby case. Bear with me.

I've been reading and writing about true crime for over fifty years and, like many amateur sleuths, there are certain controversial cases which are of particular interest to me. I am not necessarily interested in cut and dried cases unless perhaps they can be deemed infamous.

When I first discovered Letby had been arrested and charged with multiple murders, I wasn't really interested in the case because there didn't seem to be any controversy about it. It seemed to be an open and shut case. Wicked nurse killed multiple babies. I assumed there must be a huge amount of evidence against her and so when she was found guilty my initial reaction was "good".

Almost immediately, friends contacted me asking what I thought about the case and I reiterated my assumption that she was guilty. After all, hadn't she been caught red-handed dislodging a breathing tube? Hadn't she confessed in her diaries?

But then the first rumblings of disquiet over her guilt were heard and I felt a prickle of unease. I am now hugely invested in the case although I have not reached a conclusion yet.

So that's my background and this is my answer to JosieJo's question:

I don't think that her original Defence team ever believed she might be innocent. It doesn't matter how senior and well regarded your team is if they believe you are guilty. Your team, of course, wants to win, often at any cost so your guilt or innocence is neither here nor there to many lawyers. I've forty years experience working in the legal profession and seen first hand that it's often about the winning, not about guilt or innocence.

In the Letby case, I believe her team decided there was virtually no evidence which might have helped them win so they were really just going through the motions. Her team were a shambles so I am glad she's changed them. At least her new team are producing experts etc in the hope of overturning her conviction.

Just my two penn'orth, of course. Thank you for reading.

 

[May72031]

You've misread it. Quoted from your article -

It isn't the first time Mr C has misread an article. Just like when they misread that Lucy Letby "wasn't on duty" when Baby C died, when in fact, she was.

Then there was that claim about "sepsis". Still waiting for evidence for them making that claim...

 

[May72031]

In the Letby case, I believe her team decided there was virtually no evidence which might have helped them win so they were really just going through the motions. Her team were a shambles so I am glad she's changed them. At least her new team are producing experts etc in the hope of overturning her conviction.

From what I've seen of these "experts", there is no chance of her conviction being overturned. So far, if they were in court, they would be ripped apart by the prosecution.

 

[The Ludo Theory]

From what I've seen of these "experts", there is no chance of her conviction being overturned. So far, if they were in court, they would be ripped apart by the prosecution.

That's a fair comment. My point was that at least the Defence team have decided to produce some alternative theories.

I'm unsure why you have put the word experts in quotation marks. I don't think there is any dispute over their qualifications.

 

[Sweeper2000]

I'm new here and joined because of the Letby case. Bear with me.

I've been reading and writing about true crime for over fifty years and, like many amateur sleuths, there are certain controversial cases which are of particular interest to me. I am not necessarily interested in cut and dried cases unless perhaps they can be deemed infamous.

When I first discovered Letby had been arrested and charged with multiple murders, I wasn't really interested in the case because there didn't seem to be any controversy about it. It seemed to be an open and shut case. Wicked nurse killed multiple babies. I assumed there must be a huge amount of evidence against her and so when she was found guilty my initial reaction was "good".

Almost immediately, friends contacted me asking what I thought about the case and I reiterated my assumption that she was guilty. After all, hadn't she been caught red-handed dislodging a breathing tube? Hadn't she confessed in her diaries?

But then the first rumblings of disquiet over her guilt were heard and I felt a prickle of unease. I am now hugely invested in the case although I have not reached a conclusion yet.

So that's my background and this is my answer to JosieJo's question:

I don't think that her original Defence team ever believed she might be innocent. It doesn't matter how senior and well regarded your team is if they believe you are guilty. Your team, of course, wants to win, often at any cost so your guilt or innocence is neither here nor there to many lawyers. I've forty years experience working in the legal profession and seen first hand that it's often about the winning, not about guilt or innocence.

In the Letby case, I believe her team decided there was virtually no evidence which might have helped them win so they were really just going through the motions. Her team were a shambles so I am glad she's changed them. At least her new team are producing experts etc in the hope of overturning her conviction.

Just my two penn'orth, of course. Thank you for re

welcome, you have a few years worth of posting on here to read through. most posters followed and debated the trial from the start and there are many very knowledgeable people on the case on here.

also many people with relevant experience and expertise. to give the briefest glimpse into what follwed from reading it most nearly all gave her a guilty verdict in our own minds. If you don't know there is a journalist and poster here who has his own youtube channel who has done many particularly in depth and detailed videos on aspects of the case. here is his youtube channel. Crime Scene 2 Courtroom

hes done an amazing job with these videos, brilliant.