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

[May72031]

They had Hitchens, Crapton up front asking the questions. The point is, that they were able to present a bunch of half cocked theories without scrutiny. Some of the claims were outlandish. Accusing Breary of killing a baby, and everything that went with that.

It was crass, beyond belief.

Ronald McDonald still hasn't apologised for being responsible for inviting the crank who made that accusation.

 

[Marantz4250b]

Ronald McDonald still hasn't apologised for being responsible for inviting the crank who made that accusation.

It literally stuns me that he hasn't been subject to action by his regulator - maybe he has?

The way he has conducted himself in the form of holding stupid "pressers" and trotting out all and sundry to make statements as to her innocence and, in doing so, bringing the whole UK justice system into disrepute is disgraceful, imo.

 

[katydid23]

I think anyone interested in that case should start with Mother I’s thirlwall statement. She describes a steady deterioration of her baby in the days leading up to that ‘attempted murder’, contrary to the prosecution describing her baby as well and stable. She was an experienced mother whose intuition was screaming, yet she was let down and not listened to. Again and again.

She also describes a sorry state at another hospital where she predicted her baby would deteriorate when repositioned, was ignored, and then when it did happen she had to instruct the doctor to ventilate her child. This was during a time we were told that the baby was perfectly fine away from Letby’s “orbit”.

Child I’s care was clearly suboptimal. The hospital immediately panicked about a potential claim given the number of transfers the baby had endured, as per their datix. How lucky for the hospital that they’ve ended up absolved, thanks to a pesky serial killer also being present.

I have no thoughts on Letby coming out of the shadows like the Joker to spookily tell Hudson that the baby looked unwell. It’s ridiculous, and the fact the trial focused so much on how dim the room was, instead of the actual facts of the case, is just another example of why this case has so many parallels to a witch trial.

Has it ever occurred to you, that Nurse Letby might possibly be guilty as charged?

Is it even a slight possibility in your mind? Or are you 100% absolutely shut down to that as a reality?

 

[Marantz4250b]

Has it ever occurred to you, that Nurse Letby might possibly be guilty as charged?

Is it even a slight possibility in your mind? Or are you 100% absolutely shut down to that as a reality?

Good questions!

I have to say that it always strikes me that the vast majority of people who are convinced that she's innocent are simply not willing at all to consider any alternative. Their approach, as it usually is with other silly conspiracies, is one of starting out to prove their belief, rather than to follow the facts before them.

The main route of failure in this particular case is that of continually nit-picking discrete points and claiming that because a particular point can be taken in more than one light, then it cannot be used as evidence against her. As we've said many, many, many times, this was never a prosecution that succeeded on one specific point - or even two or three. It was a case that relied on the entire weight of the combined evidence taken and assessed as a whole. It was the completeness of the evidence which was the point here.

I find it somewhat worrying that people fail to see that, tbh.

 

[Anxala]

Ronald McDonald still hasn't apologised for being responsible for inviting the crank who made that accusation.

Unfortunately we're living in times where what's likely to get the most sensational tabloid attention becomes what even the MSM news focus is. Where responsibility in media reporting terms has become a foreign language. Where clicks and revenue have become the first and foremost order of the day, with integrity and truth coming in, if at all, now as just opinion pieces.

No apologies necessary when none are being asked for.

 

[Jules2021]

A lot of people just can't get their head around circumstantial evidence it seems. Which begs the question why they bother arguing about a case that is only going to frustrate them because the person in question didn't get caught doing it on CCTV or have multiple witnesses to their crimes. It doesn't matter how many times Lucy ended up in a room with a collapsing baby the minute a parent or staff member left, or how many times a baby deteriorated the minute she got on shift. Or even the insulin results. It's all irrelevant to them because no one actually saw her. I can't understand that thought process tbh.

JMO

 

[Sweeper2000]

Her whole 'career' was based on risk. The thrill of it was getting away with murdering and harming infants who were the most heavily monitored patients in the hospital. And harming clusters of babies, especially multiples, one after the other or virtually simultaneously.

When you take that into account, leaving her trophies in her own home hardly rates on the scale of risk.

I think I can see an increase on the scale of traceability though? Yeh though you make good points.

 

[iamshadow21]

I think I can see an increase on the scale of traceability though? Yeh though you make good points.

By that point, she wasn't on the ward any more and the only way she could get her thrills was by revisiting old acts of sadism. The sheets were her touchstone for that, and also gave her the information to Facebook stalk the families any time she needed a pick-me-up on their birthdays, death days or holidays like Mother's Day or Christmas, when their families might memorialise their losses or post pictures of the kids she damaged but didn't kill.

It was hubris that she kept them, yes, but keeping them made her feel alive in the way she craved like a drug.

Without sadism, who was she? A hollow beige shell with cartoons on her diary and post it notes filled with seething, abortive rage and loathing, both at herself and her situation.

Sadism made her a god.

Very much my opinion only.

 

[WaneLyrical]

Has it ever occurred to you, that Nurse Letby might possibly be guilty as charged?

Is it even a slight possibility in your mind? Or are you 100% absolutely shut down to that as a reality?

Yes my mind is currently shut down to prospect of anyone being guilty, because currently I’m not persuaded any crimes occurred on the unit.

 

[WaneLyrical]

The postmortem of baby C showed air in the stomach and intestines. His stomach was aspirated just before he collapsed. That is why Marnerides thought he had an injection of air.

Clearly I’m not taking about post mortem. I’m talking about the 12th June xray which Marnerides, Evans and Bohin all testified as being indicative of deliberate harm, and the event which caused the deterioration.

Until they realised Letby wasn’t there, and suddenly that xray was no longer indicative of anything. Of course, if Letby HAD been in the hospital that day, the xray would have been used against her.

 

[Marantz4250b]

A lot of people just can't get their head around circumstantial evidence it seems. Which begs the question why they bother arguing about a case that is only going to frustrate them because the person in question didn't get caught doing it on CCTV or have multiple witnesses to their crimes. It doesn't matter how many times Lucy ended up in a room with a collapsing baby the minute a parent or staff member left, or how many times a baby deteriorated the minute she got on shift. Or even the insulin results. It's all irrelevant to them because no one actually saw her. I can't understand that thought process tbh.

JMO

I can't understand this either, tbh. It's very rare for a murderer to be seen committing their crime, let alone to be captured on camera. Are we to now have a policy of not convicting anyone who hasn't been seen committing murder?

That is just beyond bizarre, tbh.

 

[joltz]

How do you know what “makes sense”? Are you a pathologist?

I already know what Marnerides said during the original trial. He was also someone who was certain the Baby C xray showed deliberate harm (until they figured out Letby wasn’t there, at which point the xray was no longer suspicious and perfectly normal). So I do not consider him to be a reliable witness.

Letby being “innocent of crimes” does indeed make sense if there weren’t any crimes.

If you could think clearly, you would be able to see that, the ridiculous claims required to exonerate Letby on every charge, are just not feasible.

Based on the evidence, it doesn't stand up to scrutiny on an individual level. Charge by charge, offense by offense. Behaviour, attitude, texts, medical evidence, witness testimony etc etc etc etc.

The reasoning powers needed to make all of it work together are beyond belief.

There is absolutely no way possible that Letby is not guilty of these crimes.

Everyone involved and all of the evidence stands.

The people that long for Letby to be innocent are unable to even, take single elements and truly discredit them. As a whole the case, remains extremely strong. I cannot see how even a single charge can realistically be undermined through the appeals process.

Some of the convictions in particular, are cast iron and McDonald has barely touched on them because they are absolutely going nowhere, ever

JMO

 

[joltz]

I think anyone interested in that case should start with Mother I’s thirlwall statement. She describes a steady deterioration of her baby in the days leading up to that ‘attempted murder’, contrary to the prosecution describing her baby as well and stable. She was an experienced mother whose intuition was screaming, yet she was let down and not listened to. Again and again.

She also describes a sorry state at another hospital where she predicted her baby would deteriorate when repositioned, was ignored, and then when it did happen she had to instruct the doctor to ventilate her child. This was during a time we were told that the baby was perfectly fine away from Letby’s “orbit”.

Child I’s care was clearly suboptimal. The hospital immediately panicked about a potential claim given the number of transfers the baby had endured, as per their datix. How lucky for the hospital that they’ve ended up absolved, thanks to a pesky serial killer also being present.

I have no thoughts on Letby coming out of the shadows like the Joker to spookily tell Hudson that the baby looked unwell. It’s ridiculous, and the fact the trial focused so much on how dim the room was, instead of the actual facts of the case, is just another example of why this case has so many parallels to a witch trial.

You are the only person attempting to concord Letby into some sort of fantasy murderer. The prosecution didn't do this.

The evidence of Letby in the dimly lit room comes from witness testimony of the nurse. Another example amongst many, where Letbys version of events is at complete odds with her colleagues/parents.

Letby can be boring, uninteresting, completely forgetabable and still be a serial murderer of babies.

JMO

 

[joltz]

I can't understand this either, tbh. It's very rare for a murderer to be seen committing their crime, let alone to be captured on camera. Are we to now have a policy of not convicting anyone who hasn't been seen committing murder?

That is just beyond bizarre, tbh.

Apparently it's just not possible for Letby to commit these acts with other people present

Yet, the jury were made perfectly aware of the exact locations of Letbys colleagues and what they were doing, while also hearing witness testimony from them all regarding events

And they still decided to convict her.