GUILTY 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 #38

[katydid23]

We need it be either published or somehow reflected in the documents.

There is documented evidence, seen during the trial, in witness testimony and in medical reports and observation logs documenting the various rashes and discolouration.

The emails between the COCH doctors are present in Thirdwall report.

This is not the case of “I believe” or “I do not”, nor is it a “trust” in guilt of innocence. It can be the case of “facts or allegations”.

We can ill afford to allow criminal cases to be subjective.

There was nothing subjective in Letby's trial. Have you even read any of the transcripts?

ETA: just read one more headline, “new Lucy Letby evidence shows she is innocent”.

This case is not about public sticking to “guilt” or “innocence”. It is about the safety of the conviction and reliability of criminal proceedings.

This trial was reliable and well run and was fair towards the defendant. The jury was given a lot of evidence and heard a lot of testimony from experts and witnesses and many days of testimony from Letby herself. The convictions will stand.

Also, about the role of experts. And if they are needed, perhaps there should be a safety board for medicine as there is one for aviation or other specialties? Outsourcing it to rogue professional trial witnesses like Evans of Bohin obviously didn’t work.

There is nothing wrong with the medical experts in this trial. Shoo Lee has disproven nothing. imo

 

[katydid23]

So can anyone post the list of evidence except for the shift schedule?

We are going in circles. We know it. It needs to go back to court.

Are you serious about wanting to see the evidence?

You can start here:

Thread 'UK - Lucy Letby Trial - Media, Maps & Timeline *NO DISCUSSION*'

Oct 12, 2022

Lucy Letby is on trial in the UK, charged with the murders of 7 infants and the attempted murder of 15 other infants.

Media, Maps & Timelines can be posted here.

*NO DISCUSSION* in this thread or your post will be removed.

• Sillybilly
• Replies: 754
• Forum: Trials: Media & Documents *NO DISCUSSION*

• 

Those are notes from day one, opening statements of the trial.

Notes and articles from the entire trial are available right there , at your finger tips.

 

[Charlot123]

There is documented evidence, seen during the trial, in witness testimony and in medical reports and observation logs documenting the various rashes and discolouration.

There was nothing subjective in Letby's trial. Have you even read any of the transcripts?


This trial was reliable and well run and was fair towards the defendant. The jury was given a lot of evidence and heard a lot of testimony from experts and witnesses and many days of testimony from Letby herself. The convictions will stand.

There is nothing wrong with the medical experts in this trial. Shoo Lee has disproven nothing. imo

Here is the copy of the article from South Wales Evening post.

In the 90es. Dr. Evans: on arguments for decriminalization of pedophilia.

File:Dewi Evans child sex offenses paedophile.jpg - Wikimedia Commons

commons.wikimedia.org

Never mind what he meant. Again, there are studies on the subject that he never bothered to cite.

But US, UK and other countries these days are shaken by Epstein scandal. Maybe in 2018 it was forgotten, or rather, not everything was known, but at the time of the trial, some names were floating in the press.

Surely a figure as controversial as Dr. Evans should not have been part of Lucy Letby's trial? How does it look today?

 

[katydid23]

Here is the copy of the article from South Wales Evening post.

In the 90es. Dr. Evans: on arguments for decriminalization of pedophilia.

File:Dewi Evans child sex offenses paedophile.jpg - Wikimedia Commons

commons.wikimedia.org

Never mind what he meant. Again, there are studies on the subject that he never bothered to cite.

But US, UK and other countries these days are shaken by Epstein scandal. Maybe in 2018 it was forgotten, or rather, not everything was known, but at the time of the trial, some names were floating in the press.

Surely a figure as controversial as Dr. Evans should not have been part of Lucy Letby's trial? How does it look today?

This does not look real or credible...not a reliable source, imo.

ETA:
I just checked out that accusation--It was from a statement he made in 1990, nearly 40 years ago, when he was in a counselling role for child abuse victims. He was asked about the contentious proposal for the decriminalisation of sexual abusers of children, and he did compare it to the similarities of decriminalising alcohol or drug abuse, and seeing it as an illness, etc.

There was an ongoing debate about it because someone made a proposal to seek decriminalisation. He did not seem to be choosing sides, he explained it was highly charged and contentious.


I don't see how that has anything to do with his expert medical testimony 35 years later.

 

[joltz]

So, the answer is no.

There is no rash to look at or discuss. Nothing registered.

Basically, everything is based on reminiscence of Dr. Jayaram and the diagnosis of Dr. Evans who never attended PMs.

There is nothing Dr. Shoo Lee and the Taiwanese doctor could look at or discuss as two practicing, treating doctors. Nothing to enter medical field as evidence.

There are no medical facts.

Do people see why clinically, the case doesn’t hold water?

On a side note: for many reasons, specifically, the ease of getting education in IT, there has been a glaring lack of nurses or medical doctors in the world. I would like to know how this case affected the ease of hiring in COCH, specifically of the nursing staff.

What about the numerous people willing to testify in court about said rash. I think you will find that it does hold water.

 

[WaneLyrical]

Do we have a single photo of that rash? So that specialists could look at it and say, "i saw it here or there"? All dermatology atlases are pictures.

There was one photograph taken of Baby B. It was taken by the mother of A&B, the day after the collapse, as the discolouration was still visible. It was shown at court but we know no more than that.

 

[WaneLyrical]

So can anyone post the list of evidence except for the shift schedule?

We are going in circles. We know it. It needs to go back to court.

It will be back in court.

There were rashes/discolourations, but not of uniform presentation, it was all different colours, different placement, different durations etc, and everyone’s memories seemed to conflict with one another. And, of course, a very distinct lack of properly recording anything.

Dr B (Dr V at thirlwall) who was the consultant on call for Baby B’s collapse, said she didn’t know about Baby A’s rash until… the thirlwall inquiry!! Despite her being involved in the mortality reviews including Baby A. Despite her being part of the cohort who referred this to the police. Despite her being a witness at the trial. Her testimony is that nobody told her about the rash.

Couldn’t even make it up, but nothing surprises me in this Mickey Mouse hospital.

 

[JimmyDurham]

The trial experts are not rogue, tarnished or disgraced! There has been a campaign to bully and demean the main witnesses but that doesn't make them incompetent.

This isn't true at all. What you're stating, i.e. bully and demean, is hyperbole.

There certainly has been the question: did she receive a fair trial? That's very much valid considering that's her whole life behind the door. If that was your Sister, you would want to see a fair trial and beyond reasonable doubt.

It's well documented that no "expert" stood up for her during the trial, and that the prosecution relied on a study that the author of the study claimed was misrepresented by the prosecution. It is well documented that the shift statistics weren't actually as clear cut and meaningful as that which were presented in court; and it is well documented that hospitals around the country were receiving an usual number of very poorly babies at that time.

She needs to be back in front of a court of law for a fair trial. She didn't get it first time 'round.

 

[Parker Knoll]

Seriously ?
She had one of the best British silks representing her fgs !
Do you HONESTLY not think if he could have put an expert up on the stand to refute the prosecutions experts he would have done ?
He must have been asleep at the wheel eh ?

 

[Sweeper2000]

If the shift chart is the only thing that means she didnt get a fair trail in anyone's opinion then it would be a huge waste to have another. It wouldn't make a meaningful difference in terms of her being convicted if it wasnt present originally. I would find her guilty without it.

 

[Skigh]

Seriously ?
She had one of the best British silks representing her fgs !
Do you HONESTLY not think if he could have put an expert up on the stand to refute the prosecutions experts he would have done ?
He must have been asleep at the wheel eh ?

Well said .

 

[JimmyDurham]

If the shift chart is the only thing that means she didnt get a fair trail

It's not. There is plenty of information in the public domain besides the shift pattern.

 

[Sweeper2000]

It's not. There is plenty of information in the public domain besides the shift pattern.

Aside from Dr Lee and co feel free to present it.

We are grantedly waiting on that.

 

[katydid23]

It will be back in court.

Maybe, maybe not.
If the defense does not find any NEW and credible evidence, she won't be back in court.
IMO, so far they haven't.

There were rashes/discolourations, but not of uniform presentation, it was all different colours, different placement, different durations etc,

YES, and during the trial, it was understood why some discolouration and rashes presented differently. Each assault was done differently. Sometimes air was injected into the bloodstream. Other times straight into the stomach. Sometimes there were additional things done, like severely overfeeding with milk plus air injected ...And each child had different conditions to begin with. So the discolouration is not going to be totally identical.

But there was some uniformity.

• Specific Locations: Unlike general mottling (which usually affects the whole body), these marks often appeared in specific, "patchy" locations like the abdomen or chest.
  BBC +7

and everyone’s memories seemed to conflict with one another. And, of course, a very distinct lack of properly recording anything.

No, they didn't conflict. The cases did not all have the exact same discolourations or rashes---the main similarities were location of discolouration and the victim's highly unusual responses to treatment. They did not respond to just one or two shots of adrenaline but needed 4 or 5---which is highly unusual for a preemie newborn

Dr B (Dr V at thirlwall) who was the consultant on call for Baby B’s collapse, said she didn’t know about Baby A’s rash until… the thirlwall inquiry!! Despite her being involved in the mortality reviews including Baby A. Despite her being part of the cohort who referred this to the police. Despite her being a witness at the trial. Her testimony is that nobody told her about the rash.

So? Baby A was the FIRST victim. And they had no reason to believe it was that mysterious or unusual at that point. It was not until Baby C, the 3rd death in 2 weeks, that they began to realise something was very wrong.

Couldn’t even make it up, but nothing surprises me in this Mickey Mouse hospital.

No one is saying that the hospital was perfect. But the understaffing played a key role in making Letby feel confident to continue her attacks.

 

[WaneLyrical]

So? Baby A was the FIRST victim. And they had no reason to believe it was that mysterious or unusual at that point. It was not until Baby C, the 3rd death in 2 weeks, that they began to realise something was very wrong.

RSBM.

What do you mean, “So?”. Did you read what I wrote? I’m not talking about 2015. She says she didn’t learn of Baby A’s rash until 2024. Even though she was at work treating the surviving twin the following day, who also had skin discolouration. And she was involved in the subsequent reviews. And saw the royal college report. And had involvement in the ‘piquing the police’s interest’ email. And received an email from Gibbs specifically talking about the similarities in the rashes of both siblings (an email she doesn’t remember reading).

Are we to really believe that Dr B/V was the only person in this country unaware of the circumstances of Baby A’s collapse? Really? Even though she was party to the consultants’ meetings where Jayaram’s spine was shivering and they ‘connected all the dots’?

Because that is what she testified to.

Either she’s not telling the truth, or she’s staggeringly incompetent. Or both.

 

[JosieJo]

It will be back in court.

There were rashes/discolourations, but not of uniform presentation, it was all different colours, different placement, different durations etc, and everyone’s memories seemed to conflict with one another. And, of course, a very distinct lack of properly recording anything.

Dr B (Dr V at thirlwall) who was the consultant on call for Baby B’s collapse, said she didn’t know about Baby A’s rash until… the thirlwall inquiry!! Despite her being involved in the mortality reviews including Baby A. Despite her being part of the cohort who referred this to the police. Despite her being a witness at the trial. Her testimony is that nobody told her about the rash.

Couldn’t even make it up, but nothing surprises me in this Mickey Mouse hospital.

I feel because all the discolourations were described with some variation is very telling of air embolism. The discolouration will vary as it can move and come and go.
I can also understand why it may not be recorded at times because if it wasn't something easily recognisable or constant it would get lost in the resuscitation and collapse situation.

The Dr's and nurses were as they should be very experienced in seeing general cyanosis , mottling and childhood rashes. It's damning that staff described rashes as moving or coming and going or something they had never seen before.

These were not normal rashes ...accompanied by sudden collapse difficult resuscitation , heart rates coming and going and lack of any sign of infection or disease it becomes obvious what's happening over time.

If the babies had a post mortem they were hospital post mortems not Forensic post mortems that accompanied by how rare AI is it's no wonder this only becomes clear with hindsight

 

[Marantz4250b]

This isn't true at all. What you're stating, i.e. bully and demean, is hyperbole.

There certainly has been the question: did she receive a fair trial? That's very much valid considering that's her whole life behind the door. If that was your Sister, you would want to see a fair trial and beyond reasonable doubt.

It's well documented that no "expert" stood up for her during the trial, and that the prosecution relied on a study that the author of the study claimed was misrepresented by the prosecution. It is well documented that the shift statistics weren't actually as clear cut and meaningful as that which were presented in court; and it is well documented that hospitals around the country were receiving an usual number of very poorly babies at that time.

She needs to be back in front of a court of law for a fair trial. She didn't get it first time 'round.

This is totally incorrect; witnesses have most certainly been demeaned online and one "expert" has publicly flatly accused one of the doctors of negligently killing one of the babies through incompetence. If I were that doctor then he'd be in court and I'd be having his house off him! Anyone who doesn't realise this has either been living under a rock for years, is wilfully engaging in ignorance or is outright lying.

No "statistics" were ever used in the prosecution of her. None. Ever. The shift chart was not a "statistic" nor was it presented as statistical evidence. It was a chart with nurses shifts on one axis and medical incidents on the other. The jury was allowed to place as much significance on it as they saw fit, or none at all. It is a myth that statistics were ever used against her, and her supporters use that as a gaslighting technique to push their agenda.

Could you provide evidence for the claim in bold, please?

She got an entirely fair trial! She had one of the best KC's in the country. She had free reign to present any evidence or call any expert. She chose to call the plumber. And be in no doubt that it was HER choice. Not the choice her counsel. She had an expert briefed and ready to testify. She chose not to call him.

 

[Marantz4250b]

If the shift chart is the only thing that means she didnt get a fair trail in anyone's opinion then it would be a huge waste to have another. It wouldn't make a meaningful difference in terms of her being convicted if it wasnt present originally. I would find her guilty without it.

Quite!

It was mentioned precisely twice over the course of a nine month trial!

 

[Marantz4250b]

It's not. There is plenty of information in the public domain besides the shift pattern.

Please present it. I'll guess it's already been done to death, though.

 

[katydid23]

RSBM.

What do you mean, “So?”. Did you read what I wrote? I’m not talking about 2015. She says she didn’t learn of Baby A’s rash until 2024. Even though she was at work treating the surviving twin the following day, who also had skin discolouration. And she was involved in the subsequent reviews. And saw the royal college report. And had involvement in the ‘piquing the police’s interest’ email. And received an email from Gibbs specifically talking about the similarities in the rashes of both siblings (an email she doesn’t remember reading).

Are we to really believe that Dr B/V was the only person in this country unaware of the circumstances of Baby A’s collapse? Really? Even though she was party to the consultants’ meetings where Jayaram’s spine was shivering and they ‘connected all the dots’?

Because that is what she testified to.

Either she’s not telling the truth, or she’s staggeringly incompetent. Or both.

There were TWENTY SEVEN incidents that the doctors were studying and reviewing. And the interview you are discussing was NINE YEARS after Baby A's death.

I wouldn't label it as 'staggering incompetence' if she forgot about an email about the first of 27 incidents that happened 9 years ago. And I don't see how it is that relevant to Nurse Letby's guilt or innocence.

Whether or not Baby A had a rash is not a crucial piece of information. Most of the suspicion is based upon how the babies responded to the emergency treatment to revive them. Not responding to shots of adrenaline, or to defibrillators, or oxygen masks is very unusual reaction.