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

[Anxala]

Just dipping in to give a huge to @Tortoise and @katydid23 for (a) their refusal to let lying things lie and (b) the, at this stage, awesome levels of energy that they continue, despite the draining 'everything', to pursue their commitment to the above (a).

Seriously. Heroic.

 

[Parker Knoll]

Here here !
Far more patience than me.

 

[Sweeper2000]

winter is GMT, summer (BST British Summer Time) is GMT + 01.00.

At 9pm that night, which the mother remembers as the time she went to feed the twins, the phone records would show 8pm if they were incorrectly reporting the time in GMT.

If the phone records showing 9pm were in GMT+1 (BST) it agrees with the mother's memory.

I think. I admit it is doing my head in a bit.

wouldnt this have been checked already? if the scheduled feed is 9pm but the phone records how either gmt or bst then the discrepancy would have already been noticed?

 

[Charlot123]

Just dipping in to give a huge to @Tortoise and @katydid23 for (a) their refusal to let lying things lie and (b) the, at this stage, awesome levels of energy that they continue, despite the draining 'everything', to pursue their commitment to the above (a).

Seriously. Heroic.

To point out, this case is about justice and search for truth and not subjective heroes.

Why I am trying to be careful in these situations?

I believe this is well-attainable in the UK. It is well-known.

Lucy Letby bombshell: The 10 questions casting doubt on her conviction

The case against Lucy Letby was built on an array of circumstantial evidence. Here are the main questions about the prosecution case highlighted by her supporters.

www.dailymail.co.uk

For those who have it behind paywall:

Question 4 (I quoted part and it is way less than 10% of the article)

4. How reliable was Dr Evans’s evidence?​

“…Moreover, he had retired from frontline medicine in 2009. In response to an email submitted by this newspaper, he said he had not been responsible for the care of a premature baby since 2007.

During Letby’s trial the judge was given an unprecedented warning about Dr Evans issued by Appeal Court Judge Lord Justice Jackson, who argued that in a previous case Dr Evans had decided on the outcome he wanted before ‘working out an explanation’ to achieve it.”


This case lodges on the main consultant being known for twisting the truth for money, that’s what I read…

 

[Tortoise]

wouldnt this have been checked already? if the scheduled feed is 9pm but the phone records how either gmt or bst then the discrepancy would have already been noticed?

Yes of course, it's people desperate to find anything, because they have a theory of innocence and need to find a way of proving it. Not following the evidence, because the evidence is she violently attacked baby E's throat, just like the many other babies in her charge who screamed and whose throats were bleeding, and just like baby O with a bleeding liver.

Even McDonald and his cohort haven't raised any issue with the phone records, when we know what that grapevine is like, with David Davis & co. chomping at the bit.

 

[Tortoise]

To point out, this case is about justice and search for truth and not subjective heroes.

Why I am trying to be careful in these situations?

I believe this is well-attainable in the UK. It is well-known.

Lucy Letby bombshell: The 10 questions casting doubt on her conviction

The case against Lucy Letby was built on an array of circumstantial evidence. Here are the main questions about the prosecution case highlighted by her supporters.

www.dailymail.co.uk

For those who have it behind paywall:

Question 4 (I quoted part and it is way less than 10% of the article)

4. How reliable was Dr Evans’s evidence?​

“…Moreover, he had retired from frontline medicine in 2009. In response to an email submitted by this newspaper, he said he had not been responsible for the care of a premature baby since 2007.

During Letby’s trial the judge was given an unprecedented warning about Dr Evans issued by Appeal Court Judge Lord Justice Jackson, who argued that in a previous case Dr Evans had decided on the outcome he wanted before ‘working out an explanation’ to achieve it.”


This case lodges on the main consultant being known for twisting the truth for money, that’s what I read…

You do know this was already dismissed as NOT ARGUABLE by the court of appeal.

What is the point in repeating non-issues?

 

[May72031]

wouldnt this have been checked already? if the scheduled feed is 9pm but the phone records how either gmt or bst then the discrepancy would have already been noticed?

Indeed. The defence would have checked this. And the police. And the prosecution. Plus, we have the parents confirming it.

No DeLorean needed, despite what another poster claimed.

 

[May72031]

Lucy Letby bombshell: The 10 questions casting doubt on her conviction

The case against Lucy Letby was built on an array of circumstantial evidence. Here are the main questions about the prosecution case highlighted by her supporters.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Another "bombshell"? Wasn't it only last week that there was some sort of "bombshell" about an e-mail, which, despite a lot of noise from Letbyists, actually demonstrated nothing at all?

 

[Charlot123]

You do know this was already dismissed as NOT ARGUABLE by the court of appeal.

What is the point in repeating non-issues?

All I can say is, courts make mistakes, remember Sally Clark’s case and disgraced Roy Meadow. The woman served four years in jail for the poor misfortune of having two kids die from SIDS.

Similarities: 1) Sally Clark’s trial consultant Roy Meadow provided misleading statistical evidence. Just like in LL’s case the only “statistics” was this inadequate “who was on call” sheet which, sorry, just shows lack of understanding of any statistics by Dr. Breary.

From the article: “when the University of Warwick’s Professor Jane Hutton pointed out the flaws in building a case against Letby using the shift data, she was dropped by Cheshire Police. She has since said: ‘It is beyond reasonable doubt that this conviction is not safe.’”

2) suppressed evidence of infection staph. Aureus in Sally Clark’s child.

We have similar cases in Lucy Letby’s case, at least baby D and baby G where infection was not discussed in court.

3) in Sally Clark’s case, the leading pathologist, Dr. Williams, was later found to have been incompetent in several aspects of his examinations and was found to have withheld important evidence from the court.

In Lucy Letby’s case, we have Dr. Evans who was never a neonatologist and hadn’t seen a neonate since 2007.

And mainly, another witness who is the only one who had claimed to catch Lucy red-handed, Dr. Jayaram.

From the Daily Mail:

“He testified that Letby was standing over Baby K’s cot as the girl was deteriorating and she did not call for help. But a recently unearthed email – which was not disclosed to her defence before the trials – appears to show she did call him for help. He wrote before she was investigated: ‘At time of deterioration . . . Staff nurse Letby at incubator and called Dr Jayaram to inform of low saturations [oxygen levels].’”

Non-issues, you say?

With what the public knows, it can’t be swept under the rug. Yes, they spent a ton of money on that case and their verdict raises questions. Yes, they believed the doctors who were not even present in many cases of collapses. Yes, they possibly believed flawed, if any, statistics.

But the longer the appellate court sits on the case, the less does the public believe the doctors and, by default, the NHS. As if the damning opinion of fourteen international specialists was not enough. They didn’t take Lucy’s side - they demonstrated bad care in COVH to the public. Now the public knows much more.

I don’t know what kind of nurse Lucy was. Average, I feel. But as time goes on, don’t you see what is slowly becoming obvious to everyone?

 

[Tortoise]

Just like in LL’s case the only “statistics” was this inadequate “who was on call” sheet which, sorry, just shows lack of understanding of any statistics by Dr. Breary.

I responded to your quoted section of the article "how reliable was Dr Evans?" The Court of Appeal found it was not arguable that he lacked the necessary expertise to give evidence, he had developed forensic experience and expertise since retiring from clinical practice, and "he was a highly experienced paediatric consultant with decades of clinical hands-on experience with neonates. He certainly had sufficient knowledge to render his opinion of value; he had expertise that was capable of assisting the jury and was unarguably able to provide evidence with regard to neonates..". The claim in the article has already been examined in depth and rejected by the Court of Appeal.

As regards your new post and Dr Brearey not understanding statistics, he was never called to give evidence on statistics. Once again you are demonstrating lack of knowledge about the trial evidence, and targeting a consultant who did not do what you think he did. It was the nurse in charge of the unit, Eirian Powell, who identified Letby as a common factor in all the sudden unexpected deaths. You yourself show lack of comprehension of the case, and criminal investigation in general, if you think an investigation to find out who was with a baby at the time that baby was murdered or harmed is statistics. It's no different than every other murder case ever tried - finding out who is at the crime scene is the most basic requirement of all.

This is not the Sally Clark case, it's the Lucy Letby case. There are no similarities whatsoever. In Letby's case the medical experts ruled out natural causes and proved on the medical evidence alone that these were murders and attempted murders, and the CPS proved she was at the crime scene in every case, through witness testimony and her nursing notes, many of which were provably falsified. Not statistics.

From the article: “when the University of Warwick’s Professor Jane Hutton pointed out the flaws in building a case against Letby

Jane Hutton demonstrated (when interviewed on the Mail podcast) that she had not followed any of the trial evidence, or the court of appeal judgment, and was not aware of how the police or the medical experts investigated this case. The arguments she put forward in Ben Geen's appeal were also found by the Court of Appeal to be fundamentally flawed. She has an uncanny habit of arguing without being in full possession of the facts in the same cases as Letby's new barrister.

We have similar cases in Lucy Letby’s case, at least baby D and baby G where infection was not discussed in court.

I suggest you read up on the case before making assertions that are easily verifiable to be incorrect. Infection was discussed many times in those two cases, so I'm not sure where you are getting your misinformation from.

He wrote before she was investigated: ‘At time of deterioration . . . Staff nurse Letby at incubator and called Dr Jayaram to inform of low saturations [oxygen levels].’”

As regards Dr Jayaram's email, I wonder if you could explain why Dr Jayaram would bother to detail in an email a course of events that would not appear to be suspicious on any interpretation of them. It seems very obvious that this was an error in the writing. This is also not new evidence, it was provided by the Inquiry before baby K's appeal and it made no difference.

Non-issues, you say?

Yes, all non-issues.

 

[Moll]

I responded to your quoted section of the article "how reliable was Dr Evans?" The Court of Appeal found it was not arguable that he lacked the necessary expertise to give evidence, he had developed forensic experience and expertise since retiring from clinical practice, and "he was a highly experienced paediatric consultant with decades of clinical hands-on experience with neonates. He certainly had sufficient knowledge to render his opinion of value; he had expertise that was capable of assisting the jury and was unarguably able to provide evidence with regard to neonates..". The claim in the article has already been examined in depth and rejected by the Court of Appeal.

As regards your new post and Dr Brearey not understanding statistics, he was never called to give evidence on statistics. Once again you are demonstrating lack of knowledge about the trial evidence, and targeting a consultant who did not do what you think he did. It was the nurse in charge of the unit, Eirian Powell, who identified Letby as a common factor in all the sudden unexpected deaths. You yourself show lack of comprehension of the case, and criminal investigation in general, if you think an investigation to find out who was with a baby at the time that baby was murdered or harmed is statistics. It's no different than every other murder case ever tried - finding out who is at the crime scene is the most basic requirement of all.

This is not the Sally Clark case, it's the Lucy Letby case. There are no similarities whatsoever. In Letby's case the medical experts ruled out natural causes and proved on the medical evidence alone that these were murders and attempted murders, and the CPS proved she was at the crime scene in every case, through witness testimony and her nursing notes, many of which were provably falsified. Not statistics.


Jane Hutton demonstrated (when interviewed on the Mail podcast) that she had not followed any of the trial evidence, or the court of appeal judgment, and was not aware of how the police or the medical experts investigated this case. The arguments she put forward in Ben Geen's appeal were also found by the Court of Appeal to be fundamentally flawed. She has an uncanny habit of arguing without being in full possession of the facts in the same cases as Letby's new barrister.

I suggest you read up on the case before making assertions that are easily verifiable to be incorrect. Infection was discussed many times in those two cases, so I'm not sure where you are getting your misinformation from.

As regards Dr Jayaram's email, I wonder if you could explain why Dr Jayaram would bother to detail in an email a course of events that would not appear to be suspicious on any interpretation of them. It seems very obvious that this was an error in the writing. This is also not new evidence, it was provided by the Inquiry before baby K's appeal and it made no difference.

Yes, all non-issues.

'Heroic' is the correct word for your efforts (see Anxala's post above).

 

[Parker Knoll]

They don’t all wear capes : - )

 

[katydid23]

I responded to your quoted section of the article "how reliable was Dr Evans?" The Court of Appeal found it was not arguable that he lacked the necessary expertise to give evidence, he had developed forensic experience and expertise since retiring from clinical practice, and "he was a highly experienced paediatric consultant with decades of clinical hands-on experience with neonates. He certainly had sufficient knowledge to render his opinion of value; he had expertise that was capable of assisting the jury and was unarguably able to provide evidence with regard to neonates..". The claim in the article has already been examined in depth and rejected by the Court of Appeal.

As regards your new post and Dr Brearey not understanding statistics, he was never called to give evidence on statistics. Once again you are demonstrating lack of knowledge about the trial evidence, and targeting a consultant who did not do what you think he did. It was the nurse in charge of the unit, Eirian Powell, who identified Letby as a common factor in all the sudden unexpected deaths. You yourself show lack of comprehension of the case, and criminal investigation in general, if you think an investigation to find out who was with a baby at the time that baby was murdered or harmed is statistics. It's no different than every other murder case ever tried - finding out who is at the crime scene is the most basic requirement of all.

This is not the Sally Clark case, it's the Lucy Letby case. There are no similarities whatsoever. In Letby's case the medical experts ruled out natural causes and proved on the medical evidence alone that these were murders and attempted murders, and the CPS proved she was at the crime scene in every case, through witness testimony and her nursing notes, many of which were provably falsified. Not statistics.


Jane Hutton demonstrated (when interviewed on the Mail podcast) that she had not followed any of the trial evidence, or the court of appeal judgment, and was not aware of how the police or the medical experts investigated this case. The arguments she put forward in Ben Geen's appeal were also found by the Court of Appeal to be fundamentally flawed. She has an uncanny habit of arguing without being in full possession of the facts in the same cases as Letby's new barrister.

I suggest you read up on the case before making assertions that are easily verifiable to be incorrect. Infection was discussed many times in those two cases, so I'm not sure where you are getting your misinformation from.

As regards Dr Jayaram's email, I wonder if you could explain why Dr Jayaram would bother to detail in an email a course of events that would not appear to be suspicious on any interpretation of them. It seems very obvious that this was an error in the writing. This is also not new evidence, it was provided by the Inquiry before baby K's appeal and it made no difference.

Yes, all non-issues.

THIS^^^...All of this.

 

[Ruthbullock]

Stephanie Davies who was the coroner for the police investigation throughout Operation Hummingbird has publicly called out on twitter today that she wants the words murder and murders to be removed from her last paragraph in her witness statement.

“For the avoidance of doubt, I have major concerns about Operation Hummingbird and have changed my stance since writing my Thirlwall statement”

Also of interest is that she attempted in 2022 to whistleblow about Cheshire police and try to seek external advice about a potential serial killer, that she believed had been missed. In this case she was found in the wrong- by this time she had already done the investigations for LL and subsequently despite no longer working for Cheshire Police did provide a witness statement to the Thirlwall Inquiry, but subsequently has changed her opinion.

I read the tribunal outcome on gov.uk and my initial thought was perhaps she was bitter- but then she didn’t have to support the police investigation in her witness statement years later, after she was dismissed.

It makes interesting reading as in the case of the elderly couples- she argues against the grain with the police, arguing and wanting to evidence that they have missed a serial killer.

Senior coroner's officer takes employer to employment tribunal

Stephanie Davies, who created the 179-page report is taking Cheshire Police to an Employment Tribunal after they suspended her for raising concerns over a possible serial killer.

www.dailymail.co.uk

https://thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk/wp-content/uploads/thirlwall-evidence/INQ0011616.pdf

Miss S Davies v The Chief Constable of Cheshire Police: 2409140/2021

Employment Tribunal decision.

www.gov.uk

 

[Anxala]

To point out, this case is about justice and search for truth and not subjective heroes.

To point out, you really are in no position to accuse others of subjectivity.

 

[Ruthbullock]

To point out, you really are in no position to accuse others of subjectivity.

When posters comment with links and evidence, they are encouraging discussion, when posters share with their own opinion they are encouraging discussion. When people post a low effort statement with no facts, or decide not to provide any evidence other than to disagree with people sharing their own opinions on the case or information they have found, you have to question who is being subjective.

ETA: if you have nothing nice to say, say nothing at all. The posters on here weren’t responsible for the babies deaths, and they don’t deserve the rudeness some posters are displaying. They are here to have a conversation about the case, if you don’t want to have a conversation you don’t need to post- it’s really simple.

 

[Charlot123]

I responded to your quoted section of the article "how reliable was Dr Evans?" The Court of Appeal found it was not arguable that he lacked the necessary expertise to give evidence, he had developed forensic experience and expertise since retiring from clinical practice, and "he was a highly experienced paediatric consultant with decades of clinical hands-on experience with neonates. He certainly had sufficient knowledge to render his opinion of value; he had expertise that was capable of assisting the jury and was unarguably able to provide evidence with regard to neonates..". The claim in the article has already been examined in depth and rejected by the Court of Appeal.

As regards your new post and Dr Brearey not understanding statistics, he was never called to give evidence on statistics. Once again you are demonstrating lack of knowledge about the trial evidence, and targeting a consultant who did not do what you think he did. It was the nurse in charge of the unit, Eirian Powell, who identified Letby as a common factor in all the sudden unexpected deaths. You yourself show lack of comprehension of the case, and criminal investigation in general, if you think an investigation to find out who was with a baby at the time that baby was murdered or harmed is statistics. It's no different than every other murder case ever tried - finding out who is at the crime scene is the most basic requirement of all.

This is not the Sally Clark case, it's the Lucy Letby case. There are no similarities whatsoever. In Letby's case the medical experts ruled out natural causes and proved on the medical evidence alone that these were murders and attempted murders, and the CPS proved she was at the crime scene in every case, through witness testimony and her nursing notes, many of which were provably falsified. Not statistics.


Jane Hutton demonstrated (when interviewed on the Mail podcast) that she had not followed any of the trial evidence, or the court of appeal judgment, and was not aware of how the police or the medical experts investigated this case. The arguments she put forward in Ben Geen's appeal were also found by the Court of Appeal to be fundamentally flawed. She has an uncanny habit of arguing without being in full possession of the facts in the same cases as Letby's new barrister.

I suggest you read up on the case before making assertions that are easily verifiable to be incorrect. Infection was discussed many times in those two cases, so I'm not sure where you are getting your misinformation from.

As regards Dr Jayaram's email, I wonder if you could explain why Dr Jayaram would bother to detail in an email a course of events that would not appear to be suspicious on any interpretation of them. It seems very obvious that this was an error in the writing. This is also not new evidence, it was provided by the Inquiry before baby K's appeal and it made no difference.

Yes, all non-issues.

The trial has ended. I followed it but from day one if looked unconvincing to me. We rely on facts, you see, not opinions.

The most unfounded one?

The term “attacked”.

Surely, if no one witnessed LL “attacks” and Dr. Jayaram who said that the night “etched on his memory” later stated, “I don’t know”. He is not a direct witness, and the word “attacked” is off. And btw, you state that he erred in the writing. If due to his error the person received fifteen lifetimes, who is responsible for it? Dr. Jayaram? The court. What etched on his memory and what etched on paper are two different things.

The moment I heard “attack” being used, I realized that it was such a poor choice of wording for the case that is stitched together and is based onzero direct evidence.

Yes, Dr. Breary is not using his knowledge in the right way. Erin Powell made the list, but wasn’t it per Dr. Breary’s request? So the suspicion that the kids were dying not because of subpar care but because of the murderer on the unit was his?

Sally Clark’s case is very telling. A woman who lost two kids to SIDS was accused of murder and imprisoned! She was put behind bars based on absolutely unscientific statistics provided by a “distinguished specialist” who is not a statistician. It was a travesty of justice.

Why? Because doctors are not statisticians, and yet they were viewed as such. So if a grave mistake was made in one court ruling, with one established specialist, why can’t it be repeated again? It just shows the courts’ mentalities.

About Jane Hutton. It is not what happened post trial. It is that the Cheshire police decided not to use her services while investigating. They decided to evaluate the case without any statistician. Why? This is coming back to bite them now.

 

[Charlot123]

To point out, you really are in no position to accuse others of subjectivity.

This is ad hominem attack, and this forum is dedicated to true crime and justice, not to you or me.

 

[Sweeper2000]

a bit painful to read.

 

[May72031]

They decided to evaluate the case without any statistician. Why? This is coming back to bite them now.

1. They focused on evidence, not statistics. Further, the statistics DO NOT support Lucy Letby.
2. Care to provide any examples of these "bites"? Can't see any myself.