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

[Sweeper2000]

Sorry, how did this guy come up here? What's his relevance to anything? What's his relevance to anything in this country as he appears to be an Aussie?

Have I missed something here?

The relevance is that he was the Head of the department responsible for investigations at the time.

 

[Charlot123]

I was replying to two separate posts. The other post queried baby E.

Sorry

 

[Charlot123]

Dr Evans said in the court case that it either an air embolism, air injection to the stomach or both that killed baby C. It was clearly explained at the trial that Lucy wasn't there when the X Ray was taken. There was air found in the stomach during the post mortem.

True, air was found in the stomach.

But if it is what I suspect it could be - necrotizing enterocolitis caused by gens. Clostridium bacteria (they form gas; another type of Clostridium causes gas gangrene), then gas in the stomach makes sense.

Clostridial Necrotizing Enteritis - Infectious Diseases - Merck Manual Professional Edition

Clostridial Necrotizing Enteritis - Etiology, pathophysiology, symptoms, signs, diagnosis & prognosis from the Merck Manuals - Medical Professional Version.

www.merckmanuals.com

So the type of NEC caused by Clostridium perfringens is very severe and may turn deadly and one would expect a lot of gas.

I hope they identified the type of bacteria that causes NEC in baby C.

 

[May72031]

Don't tell me Charlot is STILL banging the Pseudomonas theory, even though there is zero evidence backing it? [shakes head]

 

[katydid23]

So is anyone who doesn’t agree with your opinion dismissed as a fool with an axe to grind or a flat-earther?

Most of us are basing our opinions upon a lengthy, well investigated and well litigated jury trial and the juror's deliberations.

Some others are basing their opinions upon faulty, unfounded baseless articles written by crack pots looking for clicks and publicity. IMO

 

[Charlot123]

Most of us are basing our opinions upon a lengthy, well investigated and well litigated jury trial and the juror's deliberations.

Some others are basing their opinions upon faulty, unfounded baseless articles written by crack pots looking for clicks and publicity. IMO

And others are weighing the knowledge of the international panel of experts and think that they present, look and sound more logical and knowledgeable than, as doctor Gibbs put it, "the band of seven".

 

[katydid23]

And others are weighing the knowledge of the international panel of experts and think that they present, look and sound more logical and knowledgeable than, as doctor Gibbs put it, "the band of seven".

This panel of experts has not looked at all of the actual evidence., They are basing their responses upon fragments of the actual reams of evidence given during the trial. They are missing the trial testimonies of staff members, medical experts, and family witnesses. They are missing the 4 days of the defendant's testimony, where she was caught lying about her actions during these incidents.

This international panel is just riffing----just coming up with 'alternative possibilities'----speculative scenarios. It is a waste of time because it does not fit in with the rest of the facts and data admitted into evidence.

 

[Charlot123]

This panel of experts has not looked at all of the actual evidence., They are basing their responses upon fragments of the actual reams of evidence given during the trial. They are missing the trial testimonies of staff members, medical experts, and family witnesses. They are missing the 4 days of the defendant's testimony, where she was caught lying about her actions during these incidents.

This international panel is just riffing----just coming up with 'alternative possibilities'----speculative scenarios. It is a waste of time because it does not fit in with the rest of the facts and data admitted into evidence.

If this is “secret” evidence that could be shown to the jury but not to the medical experts, who’d doubtlessly be happy to review it, then herein lies the biggest weakness of the case. JMO.

Supposedly there is some professional/medical information that can’t be shown to “external” doctors. Then consider this, Dr. Shoo Lee has already voiced his opinion of COCH NICU. You can’t make it worse, so what is there to be scared of?

Logically thinking, it must be something personal. I often think that the case started with certain source of information and that Dr. Breary is just an easily instigated “conductor” of another’s opinion. But if there is personal opinion/information that is revealed to neither doctors nor the public then the prosecution is standing on a horribly shaky ground. Mostly, we know nothing about the source. This would make the whole case terribly weak. JMO.

 

[katydid23]

If this is “secret” evidence that could be shown to the jury but not to the medical experts, who’d doubtlessly be happy to review it, then herein lies the biggest weakness of the case. JMO.

Supposedly there is some professional/medical information that can’t be shown to “external” doctors. Then consider this, Dr. Shoo Lee has already voiced his opinion of COCH NICU. You can’t make it worse, so what is there to be scared of?

Logically thinking, it must be something personal. I often think that the case started with certain source of information and that Dr. Breary is just an easily instigated “conductor” of another’s opinion. But if there is personal opinion/information that is revealed to neither doctors nor the public then the prosecution is standing on a horribly shaky ground. Mostly, we know nothing about the source. This would make the whole case terribly weak. JMO.

The defendant has not signed off on her trial Discovery being shared with others. WHY would that be? Wouldn't one think she'd want to share it if it is so egregiously thin evidence?

What if it's not? WHAT IF these other 'international experts' would be surprised by how strong that evidence really is?

 

[joltz]

There was evidence they should investigate that though, there was pseudomonas in the taps and didn’t one of the babies test positive for E Coli? This is faecal bacteria, in a unit with faeces in the ceiling. And we’re to believe it’s all just a big coincidence, that babies were destabilising and dying during the exact same period the estates team was being repeatedly called out to deal with sewage issues. Not to mention the babies dying on the unit next door.

Just because a baby didn’t have a full blown infection when they died (many of them did though, didn’t they,“he died with pneumonia, not of pneumonia”), how are we to know that constant exposure to this filthy environment was not a factor in causing the destabilisation of these infants? Where are the studies that show the effects of those pathogens and compounds in the air, and in ventilated babies? Cheshire Police don’t have the knowledge to answer it, and I’m not aware of them calling in any experts to look at things from that angle. However many millions they spent on this, and their little hummingbird charms, and they couldn’t even smell the filth coming out the ceiling.

There's not a single shred of evidence to support the collapse of any baby, which can be linked to sewage, bacteria or pathogens. It's a dead end.

And did these pathogens decide to go on holiday at the same time as Lucy Letby?

The plumber was called to give testimony on his day to day activities as a maintenance plumber. It was the same testimony that would have been given by any plumber up and down the country working in a unit of the same age. He also made an important point that alternative hand washing facilities were available but were actually never needed for the unit. No call out or problems aligned with any collapses or deaths.

Saying that some bacteria destabilised the babies is fantasy with zero evidence to support it. It's just an idea that you have in your head.

JMO

 

[Charlot123]

The defendant has not signed off on her trial Discovery being shared with others. WHY would that be? Wouldn't one think she'd want to share it if it is so egregiously thin evidence?

What if it's not? WHAT IF these other 'international experts' would be surprised by how strong that evidence really is?

Logic and preceding cases prompt that usually such stories start with “a signal”, and a very personal one. The problem is, in the US, either the names are less protected, or even if they are, good luck prohibiting people from sharing information on Facebooks. First Amendment, you know. We know who the informants are. In the U.K., protection is serious. Is it always right to provide such level of protection? It is your country…I think that in half of such cases, the source of the information would be of low credibility, have own criminal past, a mental illness or feeling of vindictiveness towards the accused. Since the sources are protected, they are never properly vetted. JMO.

However…JMO. In fact, Breary, somewhat one-track-minded and impulsive, could be easily “instigated” - I may be wrong, but I can imagine how it could have started.

Also: that *gossip*, *signal* or whatever it might have been did not follow the regular routes for such information. There was no HR involved; the CEO took Lucy’s side, the nursing union supported Lucy. If this was a colleague, a nurse or a doctor, why bypass the traditional route? I also feel that the information was horribly unreliable and wouldn’t stand a thought investigation.

Here is where I am split. Intuitively I feel that the signal came from the unit, but the way it looks objectively, it had to be an outsider, say, a priest, a therapist or a disgruntled ex-BF.

Also: I feel that if the *source* were investigated, something in the person’s past (criminal or mental history?) would have made their credibility index low.

However, if I am right, today we are dealing with the reconstructions of the situation minus a very important part during the trial. As the result, the accusations looked like a joke. And since we don’t get any additional information, it hasn’t existed.

As to Lucy not sharing the Discovery, enough if she shared it with her current lawyer. I can give you tons of reasons why an innocent person would not do it, In Lucy’s case, I’d say, “for fear of prejudice”.

 

[Parker Knoll]

Gosh …. I was wondering when this circular conversation was going to make its bi monthly appearance !

 

[joltz]

Logic and preceding cases prompt that usually such stories start with “a signal”, and a very personal one. The problem is, in the US, either the names are less protected, or even if they are, good luck prohibiting people from sharing information on Facebooks. First Amendment, you know. We know who the informants are. In the U.K., protection is serious. Is it always right to provide such level of protection? It is your country…I think that in half of such cases, the source of the information would be of low credibility, have own criminal past, a mental illness or feeling of vindictiveness towards the accused. Since the sources are protected, they are never properly vetted. JMO.

However…JMO. In fact, Breary, somewhat one-track-minded and impulsive, could be easily “instigated” - I may be wrong, but I can imagine how it could have started.

Also: that *gossip*, *signal* or whatever it might have been did not follow the regular routes for such information. There was no HR involved; the CEO took Lucy’s side, the nursing union supported Lucy. If this was a colleague, a nurse or a doctor, why bypass the traditional route? I also feel that the information was horribly unreliable and wouldn’t stand a thought investigation.

Here is where I am split. Intuitively I feel that the signal came from the unit, but the way it looks objectively, it had to be an outsider, say, a priest, a therapist or a disgruntled ex-BF.

Also: I feel that if the *source* were investigated, something in the person’s past (criminal or mental history?) would have made their credibility index low.

However, if I am right, today we are dealing with the reconstructions of the situation minus a very important part during the trial. As the result, the accusations looked like a joke. And since we don’t get any additional information, it hasn’t existed.

As to Lucy not sharing the Discovery, enough if she shared it with her current lawyer. I can give you tons of reasons why an innocent person would not do it, In Lucy’s case, I’d say, “for fear of prejudice”.

Absolute word salad

JMO

 

[JosieJo]

Why don’t you think it’s impactive?

An assistant chief constable who himself has conducted large scale investigations into healthcare deaths and who drew up the policy for investigating such deaths, saying Hummingbird was a product of confirmation bias.

Must be another Letbyist, nothing to see here?

I would say he wouldn't be able to give a conclusive opinion without seeing all the investigation logs ..hence why he suggests they need to be seen

 

[Tortoise]

The relevance is that he was the Head of the department responsible for investigations at the time.

He was the SIO at Hampshire Constabulary during the third police investigation (2002 to 2006) into the deaths at Gosport War Memorial Hospital, which resulted in the CPS deciding not to prosecute. The Gosport Independent Panel set up in 2015, concluded in 2018 that "the quality of the police investigations was consistently poor". This led to Kent Police launching a fresh independent investigation in May 2019.

The Panel Report - 20th June 2018

The Gosport Independent Panel was set up to address concerns about the care of patients in Gosport War Memorial Hospital and the subsequent investigations into their deaths. This website contains an online archive of documents obtained and examined by the Panel, as well as the Panel’s Report...

www.gosportpanel.independent.gov.uk

More suspects identified in Gosport War Memorial Hospital death probe

Five more suspects have been identified by police investigating the deaths of hundreds of patients at scandal-hit Gosport War Memorial Hospital,…

mhv.dailyecho.co.uk

https://www.kent.police.uk/police-forces/kent-police/areas/kent-police/about-us/about-us/op-magenta/op-magenta/

https://www.kent.police.uk/police-forces/kent-police/areas/kent-police/about-us/about-us/op-magenta/latest-updates/

 

[Sweeper2000]

He was the SIO at Hampshire Constabulary during the third police investigation (2002 to 2006) into the deaths at Gosport War Memorial Hospital, which resulted in the CPS deciding not to prosecute. The Gosport Independent Panel set up in 2015, concluded in 2018 that "the quality of the police investigations was consistently poor". This led to Kent Police launching a fresh independent investigation in May 2019.

The Panel Report - 20th June 2018

The Gosport Independent Panel was set up to address concerns about the care of patients in Gosport War Memorial Hospital and the subsequent investigations into their deaths. This website contains an online archive of documents obtained and examined by the Panel, as well as the Panel’s Report...

www.gosportpanel.independent.gov.uk

More suspects identified in Gosport War Memorial Hospital death probe

Five more suspects have been identified by police investigating the deaths of hundreds of patients at scandal-hit Gosport War Memorial Hospital,…

mhv.dailyecho.co.uk

https://www.kent.police.uk/police-forces/kent-police/areas/kent-police/about-us/about-us/op-magenta/op-magenta/

https://www.kent.police.uk/police-forces/kent-police/areas/kent-police/about-us/about-us/op-magenta/latest-updates/

It's not easy is it? Somebody who has reached that level but also says what he said. It's difficult to think him that incompetent so I'm guessing he just has very high standards.

 

[Tortoise]

It's not easy is it? Somebody who has reached that level but also says what he said. It's difficult to think him that incompetent so I'm guessing he just has very high standards.

He wasn't inside the investigation into the events at the Countess of Chester, his opinion is not based on having seen strategic decision logs, he made some sweeping idiotic (in my view) statements about the trial which shows he paid no attention to the evidence and has listened to unfounded conspiracy nonsense theories, and he cites no basis or evidence for his criticisms of the police and/or the CPS.

Therefore, I think what he has to say is irrelevant, and bearing in mind the panel's findings in regards to his own sub-par hospital deaths investigation, it's looking very much like he's got an axe to grind, as with so many of these people who are coming out of the woodwork to pile on in support of Letby's application to the CCRC.

IMO

 

[belinda15]

Most of us are basing our opinions upon a lengthy, well investigated and well litigated jury trial and the juror's deliberations.

Some others are basing their opinions upon faulty, unfounded baseless articles written by crack pots looking for clicks and publicity. IMO

Hardly crack pots. Some of these people are very intelligent and well qualified,

 

[Marantz4250b]

Hardly crack pots. Some of these people are very intelligent and well qualified,

Whom, and what are their credentials, please?

 

[Sweeper2000]

Whom, and what are their credentials, please?

I think she means the people like Dr shoo Lee etc not the people writing weird stuff on fb and the likes. Even Mr Hammond must be somewhat reputable to be published the way he is.