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 #37

[Charlot123]

Could you provide a link for your claim that anyone other than Dr Lee himself named the characteristics "Lee's Sign".



No, witnesses don't pull together trials. That is the role of the CPS.

Here is what I read about the “Lee sign”. I don’t know who was the first to name it so, but before a 1989 article with a resident being its second author was fished out by Dr. Jay, I doubt that anyone called it any way. But I shall try to find. I have only a hunch who it could be, but no knowledge at this time.

Why this retired Canadian doctor may be the last chance to prove ‘monster’ U.K. baby killer Lucy Letby’s innocence

Dr. Shoo Lee, who saw the evidence used to convict serial killer Lucy Letby, was certain “somebody had just been convicted using wrong evidence.”

www.thestar.com

 

[Tortoise]

Here is what I read about the “Lee sign”. I don’t know who was the first to name it so, but before a 1989 article with a resident being its second author was fished out by Dr. Jay, I doubt that anyone called it any way. But I shall try to find. I have only a hunch who it could be, but no knowledge at this time.

Why this retired Canadian doctor may be the last chance to prove ‘monster’ U.K. baby killer Lucy Letby’s innocence

Dr. Shoo Lee, who saw the evidence used to convict serial killer Lucy Letby, was certain “somebody had just been convicted using wrong evidence.”

www.thestar.com

Unsurprisingly, Dr Lee named it after himself, last year, in his new paper. Vascular Air Embolism in Neonates: A Literature Review

"There are few pathognomonic cutaneous signs of vascular air embolism in infants. Lee's sign[1] [4] (pink red blood vessels superimposed on the cyanosed background) is a specific skin discoloration..."

 

[May72031]

More nonsense from British newspapers...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1905322336074559940

 

[Tortoise]

Thirlwall investigating how Letby came to have her pictures in the papers (once in the same week that baby E was murdered and baby F was poisoned), and was even featured in the Trust Annual Report in 2012/13.

INQ0108677 – Fourth witness statement to the Thirlwall Inquiry of Jane Tomkinson (Chief Executive Officer, Countess of Chester NHS Foundation Trust), dated 11/12/2024. | The Thirlwall Inquiry

Examining the events at the Countess of Chester Hospital and their implications following the trial, and subsequent convictions, of former neonatal nurse Lucy Letby of murder and attempted murder of babies at the hospital.

thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk

 

[Sweeper2000]

Thirlwall investigating how Letby came to have her pictures in the papers (once in the same week that baby E was murdered and baby F was poisoned), and was even featured in the Trust Annual Report in 2012/13.

INQ0108677 – Fourth witness statement to the Thirlwall Inquiry of Jane Tomkinson (Chief Executive Officer, Countess of Chester NHS Foundation Trust), dated 11/12/2024. | The Thirlwall Inquiry

Examining the events at the Countess of Chester Hospital and their implications following the trial, and subsequent convictions, of former neonatal nurse Lucy Letby of murder and attempted murder of babies at the hospital.

thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk

Thats one of the most messed up things in the whole thing. smiling letby fresh off a kill. j h blooming

 

[mrC]

are the police still investigating the lierpool hospital haven't heard anymore about that

 

[Tortoise]

Why call two press conferences when you're clearly not ready to take action?

Who had an interest in pausing the Inquiry into everyone's role in this except Letby's?

Who had an interest in creating a circus about convictions which are not going to go away without following established legal process? Especially when reports are not even finalised. Letby??

Who's pulling strings? Who's paying the PR company?

IMO

 

[Tortoise]

are the police still investigating the lierpool hospital haven't heard anymore about that

Yes they are still investigating. I wouldn't expect police to provide us with updates.

 

[Parker Knoll]

I’m guessing the PR is pro bono ( they must be desperate that’s all I can say about that ) or it’s being bankrolled by someone with money who wants to remain anonymous for now.
The only people who would want the enquiry paused are the ones in prison or the ones who may be heading for it.
JMO

 

[Tortoise]

I’m guessing the PR is pro bono ( they must be desperate that’s all I can say about that ) or it’s being bankrolled by someone with money who wants to remain anonymous for now.
The only people who would want the enquiry paused are the ones in prison or the ones who may be heading for it.
JMO

Well the one in prison isn't going to be affected by the Inquiry's criticisms or recommendations, given that her culpability for the murders wasn't part of the Inquiry's remit. It's not going to affect her chances of appeal.

 

[Parker Knoll]

No agreed but it all helps with her overall disruption attempts.
Also if she had “ core participant “ status she would have had access to all correspondence, again a control tactic.

 

[mrC]

yes the whole life tariff what is the purpose of keeping the investigation open other than of course the fact dont have to respond foi requests

 

[Parker Knoll]

I would respond to your comment in depth but I I don’t want to chip my gorgeous new manicure.
Instead I will think of all the families who have lost their precious babies and families who are caring for the catastrophic lifelong injuries she has caused them instead who on Mother’s Day especially must be feeling bereft.

 

[mrC]

from johnthen sumpton former supreme court judge Lucy Letby is ‘probably innocent’, says former Supreme Court judge

 

[Tortoise]

from johnthen sumpton former supreme court judge Lucy Letby is ‘probably innocent’, says former Supreme Court judge

Should be called Lord ASsumption.

What is the point of the opinion -

- repeating experts' claims which have been shown to be factually wrong and are untested to our judicial standards,
- knowing that there IS a process for cases to be sent back for appeal with genuinely new evidence,
- criticising evidence and a trial he clearly didn't follow at the time, or bother subsequently to inform himself of fully,
- and knowing that the prosecution's experts are effectively gagged and unable to respond to this media circus, because they have a primary duty to the courts and to respect the ongoing police investigations?

#5 minutes of additional fame. With a serving of egg coming up.

JMO

 

[joltz]

from johnthen sumpton former supreme court judge Lucy Letby is ‘probably innocent’, says former Supreme Court judge

I like these articles because It shows that the people who are pushing the innocence fraud, are a few sandwiches short of a picnic and this Sumpton fella certainly fits the bill.

Now we know Letby is certain to be languishing inside for the next decade or so, with the bare minimum amount of hope, i think all the Letby supporters can do is wait for the next news article to drop, that they think is somehow going to blow open the case, Only nothing happens, just tumbleweeds. Rinse, repeat.

JMO

 

[mrC]

hes in the times as well Jonathan Sumption: Why I believe Lucy Letby is probably innocent

 

[Charlot123]

hes in the times as well Jonathan Sumption: Why I believe Lucy Letby is probably innocent

I am very much interested in why the two doctors started looking for a killer in the unit. First, it is hard to rule out all objective factors if you are within a closed system because some of these factors might operate outside of the system. The doctors ruled objective reasons out too fast and started looking for a killer. Usually I would ask myself, paranoia? But of course I was not there.

One obvious question that comes to one’s mind.

Say, you are suspecting someone - not of killing, of mere stealing. What do you do?

Install a hidden camera.

Here, they suspected her of being a killer. Flawed statistics , of course that sheet is stupid. However, they can’t rule out the connection.

Why did they skip a camera? Then you know, “if”, and “how”. Heck, you can fire her for taking handout sheets home if it is on camera. That alone will be a gross violation.

Why couldn’t they install hidden cameras on the unit? You are not supposed to warn everyone. You don’t even need to explain Tony Chambers why you need it. You are investigating statistics, looking at people’s practices, suspecting someone of stealing, enough reasons.

Why not install hidden cameras above every cot, plus, one above the refrigerator, above a nursing station, etc?

Or send LL for additional training to a unit with pre-existing cameras, after all.

She went to Ibiza. Good time. They had pseudomonas and could close the unit for sanitary work for a few days. They already had great hidden cameras existing in 2015.

Or they could have moved her off the unit like they did and install cameras in the meantime. And return her when she complained.

Instead, they spent a lot of time thinking how she could kill the babies (still unproven! Still - there are good podcasts and will be more. Chances are, she didn’t do it because there are alternative explanations for each case. But even if she did, they can’t prove it, that’s the issue).

The taxpayers after all had to spend an unbelievable amount of money on the jury trial.

And now everyone involved is facing this train sliding back because this is what will happen. Inevitably. It will crash them. The whole world has already heard that Dr. Jay doesn’t know a clue about ventilation or neopuff. And that Dr. Breary has lacerated someone’s liver.

They don’t know if and how she did it and the deaths were not deemed suspicious when the babies died.

 

[Moll]

hes in the times as well Jonathan Sumption: Why I believe Lucy Letby is probably innocent

He wrote an opinion piece for the Times and the Telegraph picked it up. Because he's a retired Supreme Court judge, his views are bound to attract attention and carry some weight.

He's not stupid and he doesn't need the publicity. He knows the law, obviously, so why is he doing this? He's always written for the papers on a wide range of subjects, and I can only think he can't resist weighing in on a controversy.

 

[Marantz4250b]

He wrote an opinion piece for the Times and the Telegraph picked it up. Because he's a retired Supreme Court judge, his views are bound to attract attention and carry some weight.

He's not stupid and he doesn't need the publicity. He knows the law, obviously, so why is he doing this? He's always written for the papers on a wide range of subjects, and I can only think he can't resist weighing in on a controversy.

Unless he's followed or studied the case very closely, rathether than just reading the statements from Letby's side, he's no more qualified to comment than anyone else. Being an ex-Supreme Court judge doesn't make him psychic.

He may have done, of course, but I suspect that he hasn't.