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

[joltz]

I liked Hall in the documentary he seemed fair and grounded ...can fully understand why he's not part of McDonald's team despite having a huge insight into the case

McDonald won't have him because
he won't say that Letby is innocent. He has always maintained that he doesn't know if she is innocent or not. Thats not what McDonald wants to hear. He wants people that are 100% convinced that Letby is innocent and want to shout it from the rooftops

 

[Rohmer]

From a brief read of the comments on the YT video, yet again we see the false narrative of "statistics" being continually aired.

This 3rd BBC Panorama Documentary didn't cover the Stats evidence at all. Why?It was this evidence that first pointed the finger of suspicion at LL and was a key piece of the circumstantial evidence used in court.

Completely and utterly false. It was nothing of the sort.

She came to the attention of consultants because they began to notice that she always seemed to be around when all hell broke loose. The "stats" (they obviously mean the shift rota chart) were nothing of the sort. Suspicions were not aroused because some doctors read a statistical report where an increase in deaths and collapses were highlighted. It was their own day-to-day experience which caused them to notice.

Nor was it a "key" piece of evidence - to say it was is nothing more than opinion. It was one small piece of the overall evidence. Something which I believe was mentioned something like twice during a ten month trial! The jury could place as much or as little weight on it as they saw fit.

This is what happens when you have very lengthy, complicated trials where media outlets publish misleading headlines as click-bait and repeatedly fail to get facts right, or attribute incorrect meanings to them in their articles.

you don’t understand statistics

 

[Rohmer]

McDonald won't have him because
he won't say that Letby is innocent. He has always maintained that he doesn't know if she is innocent or not. Thats not what McDonald wants to hear. He wants people that are 100% convinced that Letby is innocent and want to shout it from the rooftops

you’re changing the goalposts. Hall thinks there’s been a miscarriage of justice in so far as she hasn’t been proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, as far as I’m aware.

This is the view of anyone who looks at this objectively and isn’t emotionally invested, either in her guilt or in being ‘right’ themselves.

I don’t want to have be that guy, but ask one of the AI’s to go through the entirety of the available evidence and commentary and ask them what they think.

People on here keep implying that there’s some level of coherence and strength to the circumstantial evidence that those who didn’t follow the trial in real time aren’t privy too. But this is nonsense. Most of the people saying that don’t understand basic parts of the case such as the terribly misleading statistical evidence — misleading to this day. And now everything has been unearthed and pored over as infinitum and the new verdict is in, this case is a catastrophic miscarriage of justice.

 

[iamshadow21]

you’re changing the goalposts. Hall thinks there’s been a miscarriage of justice in so far as she hasn’t been proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, as far as I’m aware.

This is the view of anyone who looks at this objectively and isn’t emotionally invested, either in her guilt or in being ‘right’ themselves.

I don’t want to have be that guy, but ask one of the AI’s to go through the entirety of the available evidence and commentary and ask them what they think.

People on here keep implying that there’s some level of coherence and strength to the circumstantial evidence that those who didn’t follow the trial in real time aren’t privy too. But this is nonsense. Most of the people saying that don’t understand basic parts of the case such as the terribly misleading statistical evidence — misleading to this day. And now everything has been unearthed and pored over as infinitum and the new verdict is in, this case is a catastrophic miscarriage of justice.

What is nonsense is AI. It's always garbage, what it spews out at the top of Google. It's never accurate. I never use it. It's not an accepted source on WS, per Tricia. Source: MA - Professor Karen Read, 43, charged with murdering police officer boyfriend John O'Keefe by hitting him with car, Canton, 14 Apr 2023 #24 Retrial



MOO

 

[Tortoise]

Most of the people saying that don’t understand basic parts of the case such as the terribly misleading statistical evidence

RSBM

Please back up this statement with a link to that trial evidence, and name the witness who gave that evidence.

 

[Jw192]

Just popping back here to say this after skimming a few threads, in which some comments shocked me here.

Letby ain't ever getting out. She is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and has been found so multiple times. The CCRC (who are very good at what they do) are not going to buy into conspiracy bulls#£& and Letby is rightfully going to die behind bars for her abohrant crimes.

Toodles

MOO

 

[marynnu]

you’re changing the goalposts. Hall thinks there’s been a miscarriage of justice in so far as she hasn’t been proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, as far as I’m aware.

This is the view of anyone who looks at this objectively and isn’t emotionally invested, either in her guilt or in being ‘right’ themselves.

I don’t want to have be that guy, but ask one of the AI’s to go through the entirety of the available evidence and commentary and ask them what they think.

People on here keep implying that there’s some level of coherence and strength to the circumstantial evidence that those who didn’t follow the trial in real time aren’t privy too. But this is nonsense. Most of the people saying that don’t understand basic parts of the case such as the terribly misleading statistical evidence — misleading to this day. And now everything has been unearthed and pored over as infinitum and the new verdict is in, this case is a catastrophic miscarriage of justice.

What statistical evidence?

 

[katydid23]

.

So what evidence to we have to have to conclude that:
1) anyone intentionally harmed these babies?
2) Lucy Letby intentionally harmed these babies?

That's been answered here many times.

 

[katydid23]

.

I remember. I wish they did PM in all cases. Nowadays, reading about NICU infections, one wonders if gas could be called by bacteria’s on the unit. Too bad that at the time of the babies dying no one, obviously, suspected anything, as otherwise they’d perform PM in all babies. I hope they kept X-rays.

But, the air was in a specific place, along the vertebral column, if I can remember. Would it be there in air embolism? Maybe it is the only case where there is something to talk about.

Dr. Breary’s thinking might have started this whole LL disaster. Now it is bringing down NHS as day by day we are reading about abysmal condition of the COCH NICU under his care, and about horrible state of COCH itself. If LL is innocent and Breary started the process that will end up in crushing himself as well, what utter foolishness.

Breary lacerated the baby’s liver, question is whether it caused death. But this is exactly what I am pointing at. Doctor Breary’s fine motor skills might be abysmal and his hands, too huge for young preemies, “tiny body” as you put it, and whatnot. But one thing Dr. Breary didn’t do, he didn’t intentionally kill anyone.

So if Lucy took many shifts and maybe she was not the best nurse for NICU, this I can accept. (I once allowed a nurse trainee to use my veins for IV line. And half an hour later, the IV was not there, my arm hurt, I yelled at her and at the anesthesiologist too. That young nurse had poor dexterity, obviously. But not for a second did I suspect her of harboring murderous plans.)

So how did we end up with a serial killer from “not too good of a nurse”?

So how did we end up with a serial killer from “not too good of a nurse”?

Twenty Seven unexplained collapses, in which multiple shots of adrenalin were needed, and the babies did not respond in any usual fashion, brought us to 'a serial killer' on the unit, dressed up as a nurse.

 

[katydid23]

you’re changing the goalposts. Hall thinks there’s been a miscarriage of justice in so far as she hasn’t been proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, as far as I’m aware.

This is the view of anyone who looks at this objectively and isn’t emotionally invested, either in her guilt or in being ‘right’ themselves.

I don’t want to have be that guy, but ask one of the AI’s to go through the entirety of the available evidence and commentary and ask them what they think.

Is that^^^ a joke? You are claiming that AI will 'prove' innocence over and above the juror's verdict?

AI is nothing more than a collection of current 'articles' , opinions, rumours and discussion points, synthesised and regurgitated.

Do you have any idea of how many totally incorrect, laughable 'conclusions' are set forth by AI ?

And your opinion is that AI should be relied upon to decide if the jurors, who sat and watched and listened to ALL of the evidence from both sides, should be believed? In your opinion, AI should just vomit forth their AI induced conclusion, and that is enough to release a cold blooded bAby killer out into the streets---bcause AI 'said so.'

Last week AI said that the pop star Angelina Mango was once married to Brad Pitt. THAT WAS RIDICULOUSLY INCORRECT. lol. For real, AI told me that last week.

People on here keep implying that there’s some level of coherence and strength to the circumstantial evidence that those who didn’t follow the trial in real time aren’t privy too. But this is nonsense. Most of the people saying that don’t understand basic parts of the case such as the terribly misleading statistical evidence — misleading to this day. And now everything has been unearthed and pored over as infinitum and the new verdict is in, this case is a catastrophic miscarriage of justice.

What misleading statistical evidence? I don't remember the prosecution setting forth any statistical evidence. What was it about?

 

[Parker Knoll]

Amen Katy.

 

[Sweeper2000]

sometimes i wonder if after hearing so often about the role of statistics in this case if people are conflating the numerous cases with statistics, as in "that they could represent a statistical anomaly which ahs been taken as nefarious rather than innocent" in other words that the babs died due to natural reasons but for otherwise unknown reasons. its really not the case, there is tons of medical evidence in this case suggesting otherwise. im surprised they missed it if that is the case.

 

[Parker Knoll]

More claptrap and misinformation from the Times tonight.

Loading…

archive.is

 

[May72031]

More claptrap and misinformation from the Times tonight.

Loading…

archive.is

The "paper of record", apparently...

 

[Marantz4250b]

sometimes i wonder if after hearing so often about the role of statistics in this case if people are conflating the numerous cases with statistics, as in "that they could represent a statistical anomaly which ahs been taken as nefarious rather than innocent" in other words that the babs died due to natural reasons but for otherwise unknown reasons. its really not the case, there is tons of medical evidence in this case suggesting otherwise. im surprised they missed it if that is the case.

The problem is that the word "statistics" has been used time and time again in this case when it simply has no place! Statistics formed NO PART of the prosecution case. No "statistics" were ever presented in evidence against her, as far as I am aware or recall.

We also repeatedly hear the the phrase ".......doctors/the hospital/managers (delete as appropriate) noticed a spike in deaths which led them to suspect Letby.....", or some variation of same. That is completely and utterly fase! It erroneously gives credence to the whole "statistics" rubbish because it implies that someone looking at statistical reports noticed a rise which resulted in an investigation leady to Lucy Letby. See the below link to a search I've just done on it - every single one of those articles is wrong! Is it any wonder that people believe it?

Google Search

The various media outlets really need to correct their reporting and start conveying the actual facts rather than the lie that they continually parrot to anyone who will listen.

As was clearly proved at the trial, doctors started taking note of her because she was always around when completely unexpected deaths and collapses happened, events which had no clear medical explanation.

She didn't rise to their attention because they had a monthly stats meeting; they became suspicious of her because they saw the events first hand when she and they were on the ward at the same time.

Sorry for my numerous posts on this particular point but it's an extremely important one and I will keep mentioning it in the hope that someone significant in the wider media actually sees it! It's lazy journalism and is fuelling ridiculous conspiracy theories which are a grievous insult to the families of Lucy Letby's victims.

 

[Jules2021]

Hi all,

I was on this site a lot during the trial but lately have taken to arguing with those that think it's all a whole miscarriage of justice. I don't know why I do it to myself. They are not going to change their minds. And my blood pressure is probably soaring!

Almost all of them seem to have gotten interested in the case well after the trial so they didn't follow it like we did and see the way it was laid out by the prosecution and I think that's the main reason they believe in her innocence. The first thing they read about the case was perhaps the NYT article.

They don't seem to be people who are interested in the profile of a serial killer at all so they either don't know about her strange behaviour around parents or just dismiss it as not relevant. They are very focused on the science only so don't seem to be able to look at the case as a whole just each part. It's infuriating but I just have to hope it stops if we find out there are credible new charges-especially from LWH where they can't put the blame on the poor Chester consultants.

JMO.

 

[Anxala]

More claptrap and misinformation from the Times tonight.

Loading…

archive.is

But if you read between the lines, that's not remotely a positive pro-Mcdonald or pro-Letby pitch.

On the contrary, it reads as if it's maybe by someone who knows how to best push the flattery button, the one that so clearly ressonates with and gets the 'best' out of the bloated and self-serving McDonald.

I would recommend reading it again in that light.

 

[Charlot123]

McDonald won't have him because
he won't say that Letby is innocent. He has always maintained that he doesn't know if she is innocent or not. Thats not what McDonald wants to hear. He wants people that are 100% convinced that Letby is innocent and want to shout it from the rooftopsp⁰

I was on this site a lot during the trial but lately have taken to arguing with those that think it's all a whole miscarriage of justice. I don't know why I do it to myself. They are not going to change their minds. And my blood pressure is probably soaring!

Almost all of them seem to have gotten interested in the case well after the trial so they didn't follow it like we did and see the way it was laid out by the prosecution and I think that's the main reason they believe in her innocence. The first thing they read about the case was perhaps the NYT article.

They don't seem to be people who are interested in the profile of a serial killer at all so they either don't know about her strange behaviour around parents or just dismiss it as not relevant. They are very focused on the science only so don't seem to be able to look at the case as a whole just each part. It's infuriating but I just have to hope it stops if we find out there are credible new charges-especially from LWH where they can't put the blame on the poor Chester consultants.

JMO.

(The profile of a serial killer" may be an obsolete term, tbh.)

In the meantime, “innocent” ≠ “not guilty”.

There may be a situation when the person is guilty but it can't be proven because “the burden of proof” has not been met.

LL’s case seems like it. The country spent a lot of money, only to get a “seriously unserious” trial expert who is clownish. By his "oh she killed them for sure", he accused LL, the hospital, the CEOs, the NHS, all the people who supervised her in training. And he is not a practicing neonatologist, even.

We have the main witness who stated he saw LL standing at the bed of a child in distress doing nothing. But Dr. Jayaram, apparently lied about baby K...under oath. The case like this can not rely on a lie. Dr. Jay is the only person who allegedly saw LL doing malfeasance... and apparently, it was a lie!

The fact that Dr. Jayaram hasn't not been charged with lying under oath creates a precedent. If one witness lied under oath with no consequences, then why can't witnesses for organized crime do it, for example?

COCH had Pseudomonas aeruginosa colonization and a similar spike in neonatal catastrophic events that year. Do you know what Pseudomonas aeruginosa means in plain English? Basically, "the rod responsible for infections with blue-green pus". If anyone Googles Pseudomonas aeruginosa and hits Images, you'll see how it looks on the nail beds. People with weakened immune system, newborns and ventilated patients are more susceptible to it. It quickly forms a foam on respiratory tubes and develops resistance to antibiotics. Colonization of the hospital with this nasty bug is unsurprising, but so-called "nosocomial infections" are responsible for the rise in intrahospital mortality, worldwide. Sadly, with resistance to antibiotics on the rise, you don't need a serial killer in the hospital.

LL's accusation, of being baby murderer, is too horrendous to rely on: her notes, Facebook searches, facial expression (!), a showman for the trial expert or a lying main witness. It was a fact-poor trial.

Yesterday I read about this horrible case, loss of the power in a Lincolnshire hospital during the surgery. Woman Dies During Heart Surgery After Hospital Loses Power for 10 Minutes Can happen anywhere in the world. But, heads that should roll are not those of the doctors or nurses. Perhaps of a CEO and CFO.

IMHO, LL's case is like this. With COCH in a bad shape, they didn't need to have a SK to explain the spike in deaths.

Why dr. Jay felt persuaded to lie under oath is a serious question and needs to be investigated. Mainly: a conviction based on the deposition of a lying witness is unsafe.

 

[marynnu]

But if you read between the lines, that's not remotely a positive pro-Mcdonald or pro-Letby pitch.

On the contrary, it reads as if it's maybe by someone who knows how to best push the flattery button, the one that so clearly ressonates with and gets the 'best' out of the bloated and self-serving McDonald.

I would recommend reading it again in that light.

i agree, there is definitely an undercurrent.

 

[May72031]

COCH had Pseudomonas aeruginosa colonization and a similar spike in neonatal catastrophic events that year. Do you know what Pseudomonas aeruginosa means in plain English? Basically, "the rod responsible for infections with blue-green pus". If anyone Googles Pseudomonas aeruginosa and hits Images, you'll see how it looks on the nail beds.

What it looks like and what its name means in English in completely irrelevant. There is NO evidence this was responsible. This isn't the first you've brought up the infection theory, and you have been repeatedly told there is no evidence to support it. It obviously doesn't explain the insulin cases.

IMHO, LL's case is like this. With COCH in a bad shape, they didn't need to have a SK to explain the spike in deaths.

This makes no sense whatsoever.