so interesting and I can't help but notice the degree of confidence necessary to make such a statement. He called it wayyy before the trial and was correct. so interesting. I'm wondering who the two ped consultants are though? M Hall and?
Its an interesting comment. Their reports must have been no benefit to the defence and Dr Evans knew it. I find it almost amusing, the degree of hate he gets off the Letby superfans. They have turned him into a pantomime villain because he has helped send down their beloved baby killer, Letby. The same goes for Dr Jayaram and Dr Breary.
Its an interesting comment. Their reports must have been no benefit to the defence and Dr Evans knew it. I find it almost amusing, the degree of hate he gets off the Letby superfans. They have turned him into a pantomime villain because he has helped send down their beloved baby killer, Letby. The same goes for Dr Jayaram and Dr Breary.
totally with you. par for the course maybe. I kinda put it down to the fact that there are ltos of people with a generally anti nature and just take opposition to whatever narrative is put in front of them. conspiracy nuts as well and plenty of those. fear those with power kinda thing. I think its kind of self affirming maybe that you can look at something and think you have the brains to pick it apart or to say I know better and then look to confirm it. reality is completely different though.
’too many times for coincidence’ - how many times do you need it explained to you that the original chart which completely tilted the whole trial against Letby from the start, is complete rubbish. The statistically-illiterate prosecution speculated on the basis of the chart that the probability was somewhere on the order of a million to one. But then after the professor of statistics whose help the police originally invited to give guidance explained that it was a statistical fake and entirely invalid and misleading, well, at that point the prosecution disinvited her.
So no, it was not too many times for coincidence. The odds might have been 50/1 or 30/1.
The odds of a serial baby killer whose MO is an elaborate series of mediums from the mundane to the arcane, all of which completely escaped detection by pathologists at the time and a worldwide team of the best experts in the treatment of newborns who pored over the case notes for weeks and months, the odds of that are absolutely astronomical. Not 50/1.
She used air embolism, because it’s easy to find air in a dead body and would be, she presumably thought, impossible to detect. Even although it was such a rare event in the entirety of medical history, she thought of it as way of doing harm to kids. Never mind that when Dr Jayaram read about this technique in an obscure paper and a shiver went down his spine, the author of said paper has come out to explain that the prosecution witnesses have badly misinterpreted it.
So even although the original chart showing her present at all the deaths was an abomination, and a bunch of the greatest experts in the world have concluded that her alleged victims were victims of a badly run hospital and medical errors, taking apart the supposed smoking gun evidence of her alleged use of insulin to poison the babies, the people who continue to defend the verdict simply aren’t able to answer the grave doubts that have been cast on her guilt.
The idea that anyone is still defending her ‘confession’ notes is laughable. No one who hasnt completely invested their ego in the outcome here who has any common sense thinks they have any evidentiary weight.
‘I don’t know if i killed then. Maybe I did, Maybe this is all down to me’.
I mean, that must go so hard if you’re caught up in a witch hunt.
She literally says in court this was how she was feeling at the time, and crossing it out is ‘just something she would do - a way of me processing and dealing with things’.
‘We tried our best but it wasn’t enough’.
‘I can’t do it any more’.
‘Kill myself right now’.
The name on one of the notes is Kathryn de Berger who was the woman in occupational health supposed to have been like a counsellor to her. So we can see that her name is on the notes and mentioned in trial.
You can rely on fine distinctions (just like how the prosecution had to claim the babies Letby allegedly attacked by force feeding with milk exhibited not mere vomiting but projectile vomiting despite the fact that at least one other baby had shown the same symptoms while Letby was not present) by saying she wasn’t a counsellor but the gist of the point remains.
‘Did you get any support from work?’ ‘Yeah they referred me to occupational health and things’.
As top criminologists and forensic psychologists point out these notes are far from a gotcha moment, they’re meaningless given the circumstances.
Could you please link to a source in the trial documents or media reports which states the prosecution said this in relation to the shift chart?
As far as I recall such a statement was never given.
If you cannot then please do the decent think withdraw the statement.
The issue of the probability relating to any piece of evidence was never mentioned throughout the whole ten months of her first trial nor during her second trial, as far as I recall.
The whole discussion around the probability of things occurring or not occurring is due to her supporters simply not knowing much at all about the case (and not being bothered to find out), or because it's been made up to intentionally obfuscate the situation so that anyone new to the case thinks that that is what the prosecution was founded on. Everyone then accepts it as gospel and never bothers to fact check it.
Funny that you mention Nicola Bulley because The Letby TrUtHeRs are the exact same category of people that would not accept her death for what it was: a tragic accident.
i still wonder at what exactly happened to her that poor woman, thoughts to her poor family as well. hope they are alright. can only think she must have passed out and then the inevitable when in water and unconscious. still find it hard to believe they didnt find her quicker, the water was not deep.
Could you please link to a source in the trial documents or media reports which states the prosecution said this in relation to the shift chart?
As far as I recall such a statement was never given.
If you cannot then please do the decent think withdraw the statement.
The issue of the probability relating to any piece of evidence was never mentioned throughout the whole ten months of her first trial nor during her second trial, as far as I recall.
The whole discussion around the probability of things occurring or not occurring is due to her supporters simply not knowing much at all about the case (and not being bothered to find out), or because it's been made up to intentionally obfuscate the situation so that anyone new to the case thinks that that is what the prosecution was founded on. Everyone then accepts it as gospel and never bothers to fact check it.
U know what? if stats had never been involved in this trial and the shift chart it would have been the same result imo. to me they were so insignificant as to not really warrant attention. the amount of noise thats been made about them as well by msm and the public alike has just been ridiculous. I wouldn't even argue they were fundamentals at all what they were a part of was the chain of events that led to lucy being noticed and thats it.
the fact that you cite the ‘go commando’ comment as evidence of lying is very telling. Women who were suspected of supernatural activity were similarly investigated for signs of bad character or a naughty manner of living. Letby’s innocuous life was fitted in court to the required template of drinking dancing gambling and sex. It’s ludicrous to view her answers to a lowly attempt to humiliate her as evidence of her being a liar and a manipulator. The prosecution used circumstantial evidence of her ‘bad character’ her to frame her as a and a liar. The idea that this line of questioning somehow contributes to her guilt is shared by many people online in various forums, but it was simply an example of completely innocuous behaviour that proves to be red meat for lynch mob morality.
If you have her pretermined guilt in mind then I’m sure you can see a lot of lying and manipulation. The point is we have the luxury of being able to view all this evidence and expert opinion in the round and after the fact, a luxury that was denied to the jury who were very much badly mislead on a whole litany of vital points.
Ah, right, so now Letby's supporters are resorting to the tired and well-worn ...they had to -shame the poor girl to get a conviction argument. I was wondering when that was going to be introduced - I'm amazed it's taken quite so long, tbh. It's yet more total rubbish, of course.
The whole issue of her socialising was mentioned at trial simply to make the point that she was a liar, that she repeatedly lied about being barred from seeing her friends or socialising with her work colleagues when she was obviously out with them regularly doing various different things.
There was never the slightest suggestion that she ever behaved in the manner you are implying here; there is no evidence that she was a heavy drinker - indeed, if you've seen the video of her out with her rather drunk mates it was plainly obvious that she was, if not stone cold sober, then something very close to it. She was the one helping her drunk friend and making sure she didn't get injured or run over. That fits precisely with what we know about her past life and her taking a first aid kit with her everywhere and suchlike.
Neither has there ever been the slightest suggestion that she slept around; we've never heard the merest whisper of anything to do with previous boyfriends (or girlfriends) and no hint as to her sex life - if any, and I have my thoughts on that, see below - was ever made at trial or by anyone in the media anywhere. Not even trawling the seedy underbelly of the internet gives the slightest indication of anything like that. The sole exception was her "affair" with Dr Choc. The only reason that that was brought up was because it was the defence's suggestion that that might have been her motivation for causing some of the deaths and collapses - in order to impress him or to get him to be called to help.
For what it's worth, I've never believed that there was anything sexual going on between them. There isn't the slightest evidence for that. Personally, I think that she probably has some deep rooted hang-up's about sex and intimacy. We'll likely never know but it's my opinion that she's never had sex.
Take it from someone who knows - Lucy Letby is about as far away from the "party girl" type that you are suggesting has been implied by the prosecution as one could ever get. I've met too many to count and can spot them a mile off. Lucy Letby isn't one of them and if the prosecution was trying to suggest otherwise it would only harm their case as it would be a blatantly obvious lie on their part!
i still wonder at what exactly happened to her that poor woman, thoughts to her poor family as well. hope they are alright. can only think she must have passed out and then the inevitable when in water and unconscious. still find it hard to believe they didnt find her quicker, the water was not deep.
I think people underestimate how dangerous it is to fall into very cold water, with a muddy surface underfoot, even shallow water. She was also wearing a very large winter jacket, boots etc. The body goes into shock, then the panic. Recipe for disaster really
JMO
I think people underestimate how dangerous it is to fall into very cold water, with a muddy surface underfoot, even shallow water. She was also wearing a very large winter jacket, boots etc. The body goes into shock, then the panic. Recipe for disaster really
JMO
did think panic probably played a role at the time. on her own and in a bad and unexpected situation. really orribal to think. hope the littluns are geting enough love.
did have a not too dissimilar experience myself. was wading in a very shallow river fishing with a friend, had chest high waders on and there was a tree fallen into the river which i though would be interesting to inspect. so got real close and there was a branch overhanging shading the underneath. I didn't realise at the time that the water pushing through carves a huge hole under the tree, i went straight down into a hole that was probably over ten feet in depth. all i remember was darkness and panic. i was very lucky though, the water flow was gentle as no rains. i managed to turn around and get a foot on the step and pull myself up. more flow and i would have gone under without a doubt. and as a matter ofc my friend was about twenty feet away, totally oblivious and when i saw him was just fishing with a happy look on his face. i saw the face of god.
did think panic probably played a role at the time. on her own and in a bad and unexpected situation. really orribal to think. hope the littluns are geting enough love.
did have a not too dissimilar experience myself. was wading in a very shallow river fishing with a friend, had chest high waders on and there was a tree fallen into the river which i though would be interesting to inspect. so got real close and there was a branch overhanging shading the underneath. I didn't realise at the time that the water pushing through carves a huge hole under the tree, i went straight down into a hole that was probably over ten feet in depth. all i remember was darkness and panic. i was very lucky though, the water flow was gentle as no rains. i managed to turn around and get a foot on the step and pull myself up. more flow and i would have gone under without a doubt. and as a matter ofc my friend was about twenty feet away, totally oblivious and when i saw him was just fishing with a happy look on his face. i saw the face of god.
’too many times for coincidence’ - how many times do you need it explained to you that the original chart which completely tilted the whole trial against Letby from the start, is complete rubbish. The statistically-illiterate prosecution speculated on the basis of the chart that the probability was somewhere on the order of a million to one. But then after the professor of statistics whose help the police originally invited to give guidance explained that it was a statistical fake and entirely invalid and misleading, well, at that point the prosecution disinvited her.
So no, it was not too many times for coincidence. The odds might have been 50/1 or 30/1.
The odds of a serial baby killer whose MO is an elaborate series of mediums from the mundane to the arcane, all of which completely escaped detection by pathologists at the time and a worldwide team of the best experts in the treatment of newborns who pored over the case notes for weeks and months, the odds of that are absolutely astronomical. Not 50/1.
She used air embolism, because it’s easy to find air in a dead body and would be, she presumably thought, impossible to detect. Even although it was such a rare event in the entirety of medical history, she thought of it as way of doing harm to kids. Never mind that when Dr Jayaram read about this technique in an obscure paper and a shiver went down his spine, the author of said paper has come out to explain that the prosecution witnesses have badly misinterpreted it.
So even although the original chart showing her present at all the deaths was an abomination, and a bunch of the greatest experts in the world have concluded that her alleged victims were victims of a badly run hospital and medical errors, taking apart the supposed smoking gun evidence of her alleged use of insulin to poison the babies, the people who continue to defend the verdict simply aren’t able to answer the grave doubts that have been cast on her guilt.
The idea that anyone is still defending her ‘confession’ notes is laughable. No one who hasnt completely invested their ego in the outcome here who has any common sense thinks they have any evidentiary weight.
‘I don’t know if i killed then. Maybe I did, Maybe this is all down to me’.
I mean, that must go so hard if you’re caught up in a witch hunt.
She literally says in court this was how she was feeling at the time, and crossing it out is ‘just something she would do - a way of me processing and dealing with things’.
‘We tried our best but it wasn’t enough’.
‘I can’t do it any more’.
‘Kill myself right now’.
The name on one of the notes is Kathryn de Berger who was the woman in occupational health supposed to have been like a counsellor to her. So we can see that her name is on the notes and mentioned in trial.
You can rely on fine distinctions (just like how the prosecution had to claim the babies Letby allegedly attacked by force feeding with milk exhibited not mere vomiting but projectile vomiting despite the fact that at least one other baby had shown the same symptoms while Letby was not present) by saying she wasn’t a counsellor but the gist of the point remains.
‘Did you get any support from work?’ ‘Yeah they referred me to occupational health and things’.
As top criminologists and forensic psychologists point out these notes are far from a gotcha moment, they’re meaningless given the circumstances.
<modsnip - make your point without resorting to insults>
The dubious 'experts' aren't experts on these cases and have absolutely nothing. As the CCRC wont take long to determine. The families' lawyers have dismantled their untruths point by point. She's never getting out.
And she got caught in lies during her trial. … She was caught in some damning lies that she could not explain. …
The mother of Baby E walked on the assault of her baby, found him screaming and bleeding from the mouth, but Letby was able to lie her way out of it at first. She claimed she'd called for the doctor---which was a LIE.
But during the trial, the ugly truth came out. The jury saw 2 grieving parents, sincerely describing what happened to their baby boy. Letby denied their claims and called them mistaken, if not deceitful. She said there was no blood and the mother didnt come with milk at 9 pm. She said the 9 pm feed was cancelled by the doctor.
In the inquiry we discovered that wasn’t a lie, the doctor had said he didn’t arrive until after 10 in the trial, but accepts now he was there at 9.30, if not before, after being quizzed in the inquiry about other notes that he had made. The mum left the unit and made a phone call at 9.25- Those timings suggest he was called when LL said and not as was testified at trial. He really got quizzed about it and I shared his testimony to the inquiry a while back, he admitted his error.
It comes back to how people’s recollections change- the timeline of this whole process has left too much room and space for people to doubt their own recollection of the experiences anymore, add to that incredibly poor paper trails- it’s not surprising we are in the situation we are now.
One thing that must be tightened up is the doctors and nurses responsibility for either writing up or reading through other people’s notes. I believe it was someone experienced on here who explained that there is always a note taking doctor during resuscitation- but the only notes we seem to hear about are the ones LL completed. You would think the doctors notes would be shared around at this point to highlight the inaccuracies in LL’s but there doesn’t seem to be many, if any, at all that contradict what happened, they seem to have either left LL to write them or solidified hers with their own simplified notes. Is there a childs evidence whose case was based on different write ups- that to me would be strong evidence of her covering up and lying.
Just had an interesting thought, I would not be surprised if one fo the results of this trial was that a deeper more thorough understanding of air embolism was achieved. What this would need is for it to become medically certified though. Before this its depth seemed more or less just that it was obviously something to be avoided.
In the inquiry we discovered that wasn’t a lie, the doctor had said he didn’t arrive until after 10 in the trial, but accepts now he was there at 9.30, if not before, after being quizzed in the inquiry about other notes that he had made. The mum left the unit and made a phone call at 9.25- Those timings suggest he was called when LL said and not as was testified at trial. He really got quizzed about it and I shared his testimony to the inquiry a while back, he admitted his error.
It comes back to how people’s recollections change- the timeline of this whole process has left too much room and space for people to doubt their own recollection of the experiences anymore, add to that incredibly poor paper trails- it’s not surprising we are in the situation we are now.
One thing that must be tightened up is the doctors and nurses responsibility for either writing up or reading through other people’s notes. I believe it was someone experienced on here who explained that there is always a note taking doctor during resuscitation- but the only notes we seem to hear about are the ones LL completed. You would think the doctors notes would be shared around at this point to highlight the inaccuracies in LL’s but there doesn’t seem to be many, if any, at all that contradict what happened, they seem to have either left LL to write them or solidified hers with their own simplified notes. Is there a childs evidence whose case was based on different write ups- that to me would be strong evidence of her covering up and lying.
can you quote that pls? this is the first I have heard of the mum makiung a call at 9.25. the phone records show two calls one at around 9.10 and another later on when calling dad to come to the hospital. as fr as i know there has been no contest on lucy lying about the feeding times either with no mention by any doc of havind indeed advised to omit the feed.
In the inquiry we discovered that wasn’t a lie, the doctor had said he didn’t arrive until after 10 in the trial, but accepts now he was there at 9.30, if not before, after being quizzed in the inquiry about other notes that he had made. The mum left the unit and made a phone call at 9.25- Those timings suggest he was called when LL said and not as was testified at trial. He really got quizzed about it and I shared his testimony to the inquiry a while back, he admitted his error.
It comes back to how people’s recollections change- the timeline of this whole process has left too much room and space for people to doubt their own recollection of the experiences anymore, add to that incredibly poor paper trails- it’s not surprising we are in the situation we are now.
One thing that must be tightened up is the doctors and nurses responsibility for either writing up or reading through other people’s notes. I believe it was someone experienced on here who explained that there is always a note taking doctor during resuscitation- but the only notes we seem to hear about are the ones LL completed. You would think the doctors notes would be shared around at this point to highlight the inaccuracies in LL’s but there doesn’t seem to be many, if any, at all that contradict what happened, they seem to have either left LL to write them or solidified hers with their own simplified notes. Is there a childs evidence whose case was based on different write ups- that to me would be strong evidence of her covering up and lying.
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
66. I have no other evidence to support the Inquiry. I have reviewed the various statements and documents provided to me by the Inquiry and consider my prior evidence to be accurate and have not made any public comment concerning the actions of Letby or the 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
43. I believe that my police statements, which I have previously exhibited as Exhibit CW/01 and CW/02 and I also exhibit my police statements dated 2 April 2019 [IN00013883], 30 July 2021 [IN00000061] and 20 November 2022 [INQ0000893] as Exhibits CW/03, CW/04 and CW/05, remain accurate to the best of my knowledge at the time given the lengthy timescales involved between the events, the statements and the present day.
We always knew that reg Harkness was on duty from 8.30-9pm from the trial.
"Dr Harkness, a paediatric registrar at the Countess of Chester Hospital in summer 2015, is being asked about Child E on the night shift of August 3.
He says they started that shift at about 8.30-9pm."
"He says the handover period would have lasted about 30 minutes."
The trial of Lucy Letby, who denies murdering seven babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital neonatal unit and attempting to murder 10 more,…
www.chesterstandard.co.uk
Mother E said to the Inquiry:
Q. What did you make of those notes in relation to Child E?
A. I was absolutely furious when this arrived. It was --it's just not meaningful at all. And, you know, I felt the times were wrong on this document. I now know that the times were falsified. [...]
Q. Tell us why you challenged the timings and why you say at the time you thought it was sloppy?
A. So I challenged the timings because it stated that on 03/08, Child E had a gastro bleed at 2210 when in fact I know that that was an hour earlier.
Q. You knew he was bleeding an hour earlier?
A. I knew he was bleeding just before 9 o'clock and I pointed that out, and that was the time that I was that furious I contacted my mobile phone provider because I knew that I'd had a conversation with my husband as soon as I'd come back up, and I almost thought that I was losing my mind and I was wrong. So I wanted that proof that I was right, and I got that proof. I was right, and I knew what time it was.
Q. So the time here had been incorrectly stated in the records?
They don't actually outrank the prosecutions witnesses. The prosecutions witnesses are professors in dedicated specialties which outrank the maccie d's panel. they are also top league guys such as Dr marnerides who is mroe or less the head of his class. have no doubt they are top top guys as well.
Dr Evans was different to the people who medically examined the cases of the babies who went before more or less totally as he was the first to actually be open tot he possibility of deliebrate intent being the cause of the babies declines. he was the first, the original patholigists were not because they had not been informed of that potential so looked for natural causes of decline. had they been properly informed of the docs suspicions the result would have been very different no doubt. in essence it was limitations that defined the initial explorations of what exactly happened had they been open to all possibilites the result would ahve been very different.
ETA.
Even the defences silent expert Dr Michael Hall a "world class expert" himself did not disagree with the prosecution, he just said the health of the babies was overstated. he even has expertise in air embolism believe it or not. We afetr the trial heard nothing from him to actually contest the prosecutions case.
here is his own research and contributions on air embolism, it makes sense he was chosen as a defence expert due to this paper but remember he did not contest that it did indeed seem like air embolism. . is paylocked though.
Dr Marnerides is the doctor who stated liver lacerations or damage could not happen during CPR- I quote
“I have never seen this type of injury in the context of CPR," he said.
From the following article
Nurse Lucy Letby is accused of killing the boy before also allegedly murdering his triplet brother.
www.bbc.co.uk
Yet numerous neonatal and medical journals state it is quite possible- I’m not a fan of just googling- but in this case you literally get pages and pages from medical journals from all over the world stating it can easily happen- so whilst he was very clever in his wording to strengthen the argument he personally had never seen it, it shouldn’t have been accepted as it being medically not plausible- the stats vary but go up as high as it happening with CPR between 3% and 7% with neonatal babies and this was a baby who had CPR several times- potentially each time aggravating an initial injury, that could even have been caused during birth.
As others have said they aren’t standing up and debunking the other experts and you could argue they don’t need to as it got the outcome of incarcerating a murderous nurse. Professionally however there will be parents questioning his judgement in future.
To balance this out though 10 years of medical knowledge is a lot and things change, research changes, knowledge changes and it all is constantly evolving- this may be a relatively new discovery that CPR can cause liver lacerations and damage. This again makes it hard to reflect and make comparisons about what was said at trial as fact and what has since been discovered and declared by others.
can you quote that pls? this is the first I have heard of the mum makiung a call at 9.25. the phone records show two calls one at around 9.10 and another later on when calling dad to come to the hospital. as fr as i know there has been no contest on lucy lying about the feeding times either with no mention by any doc of havind indeed advised to omit the feed.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
and a liar. The idea that this line of questioning somehow contributes to her guilt is shared by many people online in various forums, but it was simply an example of completely innocuous behaviour that proves to be red meat for lynch mob morality.
thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
www.bbc.co.uk
