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

[Parker Knoll]

It’s like Groundhog Day ….

 

[katydid23]

<modsnip: Quoted post was removed>

From my understanding, those other collapses did not share all of the unusual symptoms that the bulk of them did.

What most of the charged cases had in common was the highly unusual way the babies reacted to the resuscitation process. Almost always, in the past, a baby would respond quickly to one, or occasionally 2 shots of adrenaline.

Doctors were shocked to see a group of collapses where 3, 4 or 5 shots were needed to resuscitate a baby. And for a few, even that was not enough.

They all agreed they had never seen babies be totally unresponsive to one or two adrenaline shots. So that is ONE thing that the unusual, unexpected collapses had in common.

 

[rvlvr]

You are judging decisions made without knowing the why or the who. Do you know for a fact that Dr Evans made these decisions? Why jump to 'lessons should be learned' without knowing the full facts?

You’ve just made my point. I don’t know the why or the who. And neither do you. I was hoping there’d be someone on this thread who did.

What I will say is that I think you can’t blame people for asking these questions - you’d have to be a deeply incurious person to not see a list of ‘suspicious incidents’ being whittled down to the point where - conveniently, you might say - they only included incidents where Letby was on shift, and not wonder on what grounds was this done? It’s a perfectly legitimate line of inquiry and the prickly eye rolling people with no skin in the game receive whenever they dare to wade into this thread is quite off-putting, to be blunt.

 

[katydid23]

You’ve just made my point. I don’t know the why or the who. And neither do you. I was hoping there’d be someone on this thread who did.

What I will say is that I think you can’t blame people for asking these questions - you’d have to be a deeply incurious person to not see a list of ‘suspicious incidents’ being whittled down to the point where - conveniently, you might say - they only included incidents where Letby was on shift, and not wonder on what grounds was this done? It’s a perfectly legitimate line of inquiry and the prickly eye rolling people with no skin in the game receive whenever they dare to wade into this thread is quite off-putting, to be blunt.

They were not whittled down to only the ones where Lucy was on shift. The cases were whittled down before anyone checked who was on duty. Evans had no idea who was on duty.

From my understanding, the doctors were very concerned with a large group of unexpected collapses, where certain unusual things were happening. The babies had in common, an inability to be easily resuscitated, and many of them had strange 'moving' rashes on their bodies.

I think in the end they focused upon the babies that shared these unusual symptoms. It was only later that they found out that the common denominator in these unusual collapses was indeed Nurse Lucy.

After the fact, her sketchy behaviours and her fraudulent medical logs sealed the deal.

 

[rvlvr]

They were not whittled down to only the ones where Lucy was on shift. The cases were whittled down before anyone checked who was on duty. Evans had no idea who was on duty.

From my understanding, the doctors were very concerned with a large group of unexpected collapses, where certain unusual things were happening. The babies had in common, an inability to be easily resuscitated, and many of them had strange 'moving' rashes on their bodies.

I think in the end they focused upon the babies that shared these unusual symptoms. It was only later that they found out that the common denominator in these unusual collapses was indeed Nurse Lucy.

After the fact, her sketchy behaviours and her fraudulent medical logs sealed the deal.

Thanks, that’s the sort of reply I was after!

 

[Tortoise]

You’ve just made my point. I don’t know the why or the who. And neither do you. I was hoping there’d be someone on this thread who did.

What I will say is that I think you can’t blame people for asking these questions - you’d have to be a deeply incurious person to not see a list of ‘suspicious incidents’ being whittled down to the point where - conveniently, you might say - they only included incidents where Letby was on shift, and not wonder on what grounds was this done? It’s a perfectly legitimate line of inquiry and the prickly eye rolling people with no skin in the game receive whenever they dare to wade into this thread is quite off-putting, to be blunt.

Yet you are happy to spread allusions to wrongdoing by an expert, made without the full facts, by people with questionable motives.

Only the doctors and the police would have this information, otherwise Rose wouldn't have a half-baked story, designed to get him clicks and money and to fuel the conspiracies of malfeasance.

As to the responses on this thread, I think you'll find that those who are questioning the verdicts are generally ignorant about the evidence adduced at her trial, are never able to back up the claims being made, and cannot answer how the trial was faulty and resulted in convictions without a grand conspiracy involving layer upon layer of malignant involvement, to include a raft of experienced medical experts, a thorough police investigation, two high-ranking QCs, a top judge, court of appeal judges, scores of hospital witnesses and parents, medical notes which were demonstrably falsified by the defendant herself, and a jury that was painstaking and delivered a range of verdicts, showing that they did not deliver verdicts based upon her being guilty of some.

 

[rvlvr]

Yet you are happy to spread allusions to wrongdoing by an expert, made without the full facts, by people with questionable motives.

Only the doctors and the police would have this information, otherwise Rose wouldn't have a half-baked story, designed to get him clicks and money and to fuel the conspiracies of malfeasance.

Is Hammond one of these people? As a long time Private Eye subscriber I’ve always found him and the magazine to be fair and balanced, particularly on criminal and judicial matters. Perhaps it’ll turn out they’re barking up the wrong tree, but they do have a solid track record and I don’t think they’re behaving nefariously here.

 

[May72031]

Hammond and Private Eye were promotors of Andrew Wakefield's dangerous quackery. They were barking up the wrong tree with that nonsense for years.

And of course, Hammond has come in for a lot of criticism here and on other forums where people are familiar with the case and the evidence.

 

[Parker Knoll]

Hammond ?
Seriously ?

 

[Tortoise]

Is Hammond one of these people? As a long time Private Eye subscriber I’ve always found him and the magazine to be fair and balanced, particularly on criminal and judicial matters. Perhaps it’ll turn out they’re barking up the wrong tree, but they do have a solid track record and I don’t think they’re behaving nefariously here.

Yes he is one of these people. Spouting rubbish without being clued in on the facts of the case, on X. IMO

 

[Marantz4250b]

You’ve just made my point. I don’t know the why or the who. And neither do you. I was hoping there’d be someone on this thread who did.

What I will say is that I think you can’t blame people for asking these questions - you’d have to be a deeply incurious person to not see a list of ‘suspicious incidents’ being whittled down to the point where - conveniently, you might say - they only included incidents where Letby was on shift, and not wonder on what grounds was this done? It’s a perfectly legitimate line of inquiry and the prickly eye rolling people with no skin in the game receive whenever they dare to wade into this thread is quite off-putting, to be blunt.

To reiterate, this is all irrelevant. It is not at all a "...perfectly legitimate line of inquiry...". The perfectly legitimate way to inquire as to these things is via a court. That's been done. It took ten months and, if I recall correctly, the jury spent something like three weeks of that deliberating. Also, let's not forget that those ten months were only the end of a very long process which started in 2017 as far as the criminal side of things go. In fact, it's still going on!

Of course they only included the incidents when she was on shift because those were the ones she was charged with.

There was no secret society conspiracy to send her down for life for whatever ridiculous motives people dream up. As people have pointed out, if you were going to fit someone up for this kind of thing Lucy Letby is literally the very last person you'd pick for a multitude of reasons, reasons I won't go over again as they are pretty obvious to anyone who's followed the case.

There is nothing "legitimate" about the continual and relentless waffling from deluded people who think she's innocent. It's causing untold upset to her victims, their families and the wider society. I say "people who think she's innocent" but I'm not sure that most of them really and truly believe that deep down. It's the usual conspiratorial lunacy that gets dreamed up by a certain section of society comprised of people who simply cannot deal with the fact that horrible things happen sometimes and some horrible people do horrible things and there is absolutely nothing we can do to prevent it. It's just life. JFK was killed by Lee Oswald, Marilyn Monroe accidentally overdosed (or possibly killed herself) and there are dozens of other examples I could name. None of them were carried out by dark forces. Some people need to believe these things because they are unable to deal with the fact that some things happen which are beyond controlling - JFK couldn't have been killed by a lone lunatic so there had to be a huge operation by nefarious actors because it means that someone, somewhere, is ultimately in control.

Lucy Letby is guilty. 100%, gilt-edged, copper-bottomed, nailed down guilty! She's a child abusing, murdering monster and deserves every single second of her remaining miserable life to be spent incarcerated and being watched 24/7!

 

[rvlvr]

Do you believe Dr Lee and his panel of experts are ‘conspiratorial lunatics’?

 

[Marantz4250b]

Do you believe Dr Lee and his panel of experts are ‘conspiratorial lunatics’?

I believe that they've been gaslighted into their opinions by her "team".

You only need to watch/listen to/read the ridiculous speech that Lee gave explaining away the death of one baby via something which I continually forget the name of which he claims was contracted from the mother to know that none of them followed the trial or have bothered to read the transcripts or synopses. That specific issue was dealt with at trial and categorically ruled out with even her defence accepting that it did not, and could not, have happened!

If her case ever gets anywhere near an appellate court (which it won't) I'll open a book on how many of these fourteen "experts" are prepared to put their professional reputations where there mouths are - my bet will be on a number somewhere between zero and none! They will get absolutely eviscerated if they do - I'll bet my house on it*!!



*This will bring back memories for the older hands on this thread ;-)

 

[Sweeper2000]

Don't think they ever suggested LL was unfairly targeted to be convicted for someone else's hidden crimes/mistakes so no.

 

[Baileyboo]

Do you believe Dr Lee and his panel of experts are ‘conspiratorial lunatics’?

No. I think they desperately looked for any alternative reason for each baby's death however implausible. They struggled massively with babies F, L and O and what they wrote in those reports was ridiculous. I think some of these doctor's want the exposure that this high profile case brings.

 

[May72031]

If her case ever gets anywhere near an appellate court (which it won't) I'll open a book on how many of these fourteen "experts" are prepared to put their professional reputations where there mouths are - my bet will be on a number somewhere between zero and none! They will get absolutely eviscerated if they do - I'll bet my house on it*!!

Exactly. The only credible reason Ben Myers KC didn't call any medical experts to the witness box is because he must have feared they would not have been able to rule out foul play, or they would have been ripped apart by the prosecution. Even the expert the defence had lined up to possibly use - Mike Hall - stated that he couldn't rule out an air embolism caused by a member of staff deliberately injecting air to cause harm. That was for Baby A.

What do the pro-Letby crowd say to get around this problem? Well, the only theory they can come up with is that the award-winning, highly experienced, and highly-esteemed KC and his legal team, were somehow really awful and inept, or, according to some of the more extreme cranks, were somehow "in on the conspiracy to frame his own client". I'm not joking - I've heard/seen some of them state this!

Of course, Letby waving privilege could shine some light on why no medical experts were called by the defence... If it was the above, then it makes sense for Letby not to want people to know that was the reason.

 

[Tortoise]

Do you believe Dr Lee and his panel of experts are ‘conspiratorial lunatics’?

I believe that once a doctor excludes the method by which the babies died, they are left with positing natural causes, which were already ruled out by experts at trial.

I think it's a case of Dr Lee making his mind up that there were no air embolisms before he even saw the trial records or medical records, not taking no for an answer at the appeal court, and designating himself the only expert who could decide whether the babies were injected with air, so that his panel were left like the original doctors, struggling to come up with natural causes and not having the combined expertise in fields that the trial experts had. The causes of death/collapse weren't decided only by neonatologists/paediatricians, they were corroborated by expert evidence from professors in forensic pathology, haematology, paediatric radiology and paediatric endocrinology.

 

[Anxala]

Do you believe Dr Lee and his panel of experts are ‘conspiratorial lunatics’?

I honestly don't know what they are or how to try and categorise them. But I will say that 'conspiratorial lunatics' gives them a potential pass that they do not deserve, as that would suggest them not being in full control of themselves and/or that they were misguidedly led by others.

Based on what we now know of them and their grasp of and take on the trial facts and findings, I think it's fairly clear that they are, more than anything else, a bunch of cynical opportunists that saw the distorted lie of the willing media, got on board it, and remain happy to be on it, actively knowing that they're using murdered babies for their own egotistical, self-promoting ends.

What they 100% are is utterly shameless.

 

[joltz]

Is Hammond one of these people? As a long time Private Eye subscriber I’ve always found him and the magazine to be fair and balanced, particularly on criminal and judicial matters. Perhaps it’ll turn out they’re barking up the wrong tree, but they do have a solid track record and I don’t think they’re behaving nefariously here.

They don't have a solid track record, they have got it wrong on other occasions and Hammond is being paid to write a Letby serial. I basically disagree with everything he has said in relation to the case. He's wrong, I think he knows he's wrong but it doesn't really matter to him.

 

[Marantz4250b]

They don't have a solid track record, they have got it wrong on other occasions and Hammond is being paid to write a Letby serial. I basically disagree with everything he has said in relation to the case. He's wrong, I think he knows he's wrong but it doesn't really matter to him.

And that is the issue we are dealing with, I think.

The vast majority of people, in my belief, don't really, generally feel, deep down, that she's innocent. They just find it difficult to deal with the reality that there are some things in life which cannot be controlled so need to believe that they aren't true or didn't happen.

Then there are the other, far more insidious types, who are essentially exploiting situations like this for gain.

It's becoming rather seedy and unpleasant, imo. It's horrible, quite frankly. The mainstream media need to start calling these types out but I doubt they will.