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]

I will look out for you! I often walk my dog around bronzefield prison.

Lol excellent I'll need some help with the pro letby brigade that I read sometimes group up outside the prison? You seen them ?

 

[Marantz4250b]

M

A kind of interesting article focusing on her noted detachment and cold appearance. They hired an expert who goes into depth on it and explores numerous potentials and what it says and also what it doesn't necessarily say. However she does point out that emotional warmth is selective and someone can be very warm but also capable of extreme harm in other circumstances. Interesting read at least and they do cover the relationship with her parents.

Inside Lucy Letby's mind in her darkest moment - and why she seems emotionless

A new Netflix documentary shows Lucy Letby in her most vulnerable moments, begging to pet her cat as her mum wails. But what does this astonishing footage really tell us about the killer nurse?

www.mirror.co.uk

Also apparently her cats are being looked after by the letby seniors. I also didn't know hmp bronzefield was in Surrey, my current place of residence. I might go for a look.

Lucy Letby's cats Tigger and Smudge now from 'bad mummy' to new forever home

New Netflix documentary, The Lucy Letby Investigation, has revealed how the last thing a crying Lucy Letby did before being taken into custody was to ask if she could hug her cat goodbye. But what happened to Tigger and Smudge after she was banged up for life?

www.mirror.co.uk

The current form of tabloid websites is absolutely awful. I honestly couldn't finish the first article due to the horrendous amount of flashy, swirly and intrusive adverts on either side, sometimes intruding right into the print area itself.

 

[Sweeper2000]

M

The current form of tabloid websites is absolutely awful. I honestly couldn't finish the first article due to the horrendous amount of flashy, swirly and intrusive adverts on either side, sometimes intruding right into the print area itself.

I did think of putting a "the mirror" warning

 

[mummyshark]

“Very” frequently isn’t correct, otherwise it wouldn’t have been notable in any way and we wouldn’t be discussing it. I apologise. However, the equipment does get changed when it’s not clean or been in situ for a week, with checks being performed constantly. Here’s guidelines: Nursing Care of CPAP/BiPhasic CPAP - Neonatal Network South East

Apologies because I'm forgetting the exact instance you're referencing, but a neonatal baby who is on oxygen would almost certainly be having NG feeds too. So did she also remove the NG tube for a photo opportunity?

 

[mummyshark]

I was challenged by a friend today and I couldn't contest what she said. Her argument was that her opinion changed from watching the press conference. I didn't want to get into why the press conference was crap, but I did say that it was entirely inappropriate for the claims to be made in a press conference and they should have been presented as an appeal. Her response was that Letby had exhausted her appeals at that point and so the only option was a press conference. Is that true? I thought it was the case that everything was presented in the press conference and then taken to the COA afterwards. But my friend seems to be saying that avenue was only an option BECAUSE of the press conference.

 

[mummyshark]

“Very” frequently isn’t correct, otherwise it wouldn’t have been notable in any way and we wouldn’t be discussing it. I apologise. However, the equipment does get changed when it’s not clean or been in situ for a week, with checks being performed constantly. Here’s guidelines: Nursing Care of CPAP/BiPhasic CPAP - Neonatal Network South East

These guidelines only refer to CPAP. I believe your earlier argument was in relation to oxygen being administered through nasal prongs. How frequently does that equipment need to be cleaned? When my daughter was in NICU and later SCBU, she often pulled her nasal cannula out with her fidgety arms, but even then it wasn't cleaned before being put back in. And in those moments that she was being deprived of the oxygen she needed, I wasn't taking photos, I was calling a nurse to help her.

The hospital took a photo of my daughter in NICU because I couldn't be by her side. Funnily enough they didn't remove her ventilator to get a "better" photo of her.

 

[Sweeper2000]

I was challenged by a friend today and I couldn't contest what she said. Her argument was that her opinion changed from watching the press conference. I didn't want to get into why the press conference was crap, but I did say that it was entirely inappropriate for the claims to be made in a press conference and they should have been presented as an appeal. Her response was that Letby had exhausted her appeals at that point and so the only option was a press conference. Is that true? I thought it was the case that everything was presented in the press conference and then taken to the COA afterwards. But my friend seems to be saying that avenue was only an option BECAUSE of the press conference.

The medical stuff was always the most difficult to process part of the trial. The conference added to that. I'm not the best person on this forum on that subject matter but I actually believe allot if what was said was already covered in the first trial. That means the coa have already heard it and ruled it out. The conferences emphasis on the pedigree of those involved within it didn't matter really as top levels were already involved at the trial, it was purely on subject matter where any relevance was held, it mostly sounds like they didn't hit the bar as it was all old news.

After the conference she had exhausted her appeals (coa) and it then goes to the ccrc as that's the only option as she had been rejected by the coa already. No the conference wasn't necessary, those med professionals would have had the same opinions without the public knowing about it. McDonald could have applied to the ccrc without it.

I think that's right, anyone to correct or add to please do.

 

[mummyshark]

So did the press conference open up any new appeals process that wasn't already available to her? I suspect not.

 

[Sweeper2000]

So did the press conference open up any new appeals process that wasn't already available to her? I suspect not.

Not at all. The ccrc are always there in case there is an argument that a trial wasnt fair or that new evidence might mean the defendant could get a NG if that evidence was present at the original trial.

As an easy example if a person was convicted of a murder before fingerprints and dna were found then prints and dna of a known serial killer is found at the scene later. When that new evidence is presented it would go to the ccrc then the coa.

Eta

In the case of letby dr Lees input is put forward by McDonald as "new evidence" to the ccrc who will review it.

Many people here don't think it is new evidence and there is at least one case where we know it isn't.

 

[joltz]

I was challenged by a friend today and I couldn't contest what she said. Her argument was that her opinion changed from watching the press conference. I didn't want to get into why the press conference was crap, but I did say that it was entirely inappropriate for the claims to be made in a press conference and they should have been presented as an appeal. Her response was that Letby had exhausted her appeals at that point and so the only option was a press conference. Is that true? I thought it was the case that everything was presented in the press conference and then taken to the COA afterwards. But my friend seems to be saying that avenue was only an option BECAUSE of the press conference.

No, that's a load of cobblers. It was done for the benefit of portraying Letby as a MOJ for the media. The application to the CCRC didn't hinge on a crass press conference. The CCRC application was going to happen regardless.

McDonald's approach in holding press conferences was that he could present evidence without the risk that it would be analysed, challenged or questioned. It gives them the ability to control the narrative without having to explain why Letby chose not to call that evidence at trial. It's also not new evidence but rather a re-hash of evidence that was available to Letby at trial and which could have been called in her defence, had she been willing to subject that evidence to scrutiny.

McDonald actually stated that his tactic was to try and garner support for Letby and I suppose it's worked.

 

[joltz]

I was challenged by a friend today and I couldn't contest what she said. Her argument was that her opinion changed from watching the press conference. I didn't want to get into why the press conference was crap, but I did say that it was entirely inappropriate for the claims to be made in a press conference and they should have been presented as an appeal. Her response was that Letby had exhausted her appeals at that point and so the only option was a press conference. Is that true? I thought it was the case that everything was presented in the press conference and then taken to the COA afterwards. But my friend seems to be saying that avenue was only an option BECAUSE of the press conference.

No, that's a load of cobblers. It was done for the benefit of portraying Letby as a MOJ for the media. The application to the CCRC didn't hinge on a crass press conference. The CCRC application was going to happen regardless. But

So did the press conference open up any new appeals process that wasn't already available to her? I suspect not.

Absolutely not

McDonald's approach in holding press conferences was that he could present evidence without the risk that it would be analysed, challenged or questioned. It gives them the ability to control the narrative without having to explain why Letby chose not to call that evidence at trial. It's also not new evidence but rather a re-hash of evidence that was available to Letby at trial and which could have been called in her defence, had she been willing to subject that evidence to scrutiny.

 

[Marantz4250b]

Totally agree with Joltz here. However, not only is MM trying to introduce evidence which was not used at trial he is blatantly trying to gaslight everyone who didn't follow the trial in detail by regurgitating evidence which was used in her defence!

At the stupid press conference, Dr Lee gave a long winded explanation as to how one baby likely contracted something from her mother at birth and died of that - I forget the name but it's been done at length on here. Not only was that examined in detail at court, it was comprehensively and categorically dismissed and was even accepted by her defence that it absolutely did not happen!

In order for the CCRC to refer her case back to the Court of Appeal there has to be new and compelling evidence. This means evidence which could reasonably have caused a jury to arrive at a different conclusion to the one it did. It has to be new evidence. It can't be evidence that you knew about (or could have reasonably have been expected to know about) and chose not to use at trial. It most certainly cannot be evidence that was previously tested in court that you want to go over again!

There has not been one single piece of truly new evidence mentioned at any of these press conferences. If anyone can point to anything then please do so. The whole thing is a massive gas-lighting exercise, nothing more.

These press conferences are utterly despicable, imo, and I know that many people agree with that opinion. We do NOT conduct legal proceedings by public opinion in this country. It is doubly despicable, imo, because MM is trying to bring the decision of previous courts and their juries into disrepute. There is absolutely no reason as to why this should be done in a public forum. None. He should simply submit his new and compelling evidence to the CCRC and be done with it.

Lucy Letby is guilty as a puppy sitting next to a pile of poo!

She's going nowhere, ever for the rest of her life - other than doing a tour of His Majesty's prison estate, obvs!