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]

Just rewatching that Netflix documentary. Mcdonald gives the game away
His words "i don't need the person who read the book and became an expert" ie Dr Evans "i need the person who wrote the book" ie dr lee. With that framing one would think Dr lee is the authority on the matter itself and actually the broader consensus is that there is no authority on the matter as its so rare its almost undocumented and thus difficult to say anything about definitively.

That's not a small error from McDonald is it.

 

[Marantz4250b]

TO ANYONE who is thinking of opening those med files BE WARNED. It couldn't be more SAD and UPSETTING, VERY GRAPHIC.

Fortunately, I have no reason to doubt her convictions in the slightest, so I won't be!

 

[Marantz4250b]

The faithful have been..............

And, this says it all, imo.

These sorts of causes (conspiracies) are a religion in all but name.

Imo, obvs.

 

[Marantz4250b]

Just rewatching that Netflix documentary. Mcdonald gives the game away
His words "i don't need the person who read the book and became an expert" ie Dr Evans "i need the person who wrote the book" ie dr lee. With that framing one would think Dr lee is the authority on the matter itself and actually the broader consensus is that there is no authority on the matter as its so rare its almost undocumented and thus difficult to say anything about definitively.

That's not a small error from McDonald is it.

And that plays exactly with his character, as far as it seems to me. Totally in keeping with the elaborately over the top pressers.

If that phrase (or something very close to it) hasn't been spoken by a famous film detective, or used on a movie poster , I'd be astonished. Pure melodrama and has no place in such serious and sombre legal proceedings.

 

[Ruthbullock]

It's quite the coincidence that this chap has spoken up now, right after LL has waived privilege. That's a very detailed article which I doubt was knocked up in a couple of hours.

Maybe it's just my jaded cynicism, but I wonder if there's some connection here?

If you can count an almost 3 month gap as a coincidence then it is. Letby waived privelege months ago and the CCRC got the information on the 11th December. It is really unlikely the only delay in the CCRC receiving it was down to Letby pondering and far more likely it took months for the defence to gather and produce all the evidence requested.

 

[Ruthbullock]

Plenty of red flags.

Isn't it also interesting that the defences strength of position hasn't grown and has in fact weakened and comparatively the prosecutions has grown. It grew every time the coa rejected the appeals and with those med files grows even stronger. Not that the defence was ever strong anyways.

To be fair I think its quite a task to actually study comprehensively everything about this case and then be able to bring it into one coherent picture. If people in her defence are only doing it with part of the picture then they wouldn't ever really get it. With Dr lee that would be one of the first things they hear really in her defence as well and its been so long since an answer. His credentials, his self claimed authority on AE would make it seem more punchy than it actually is.

I really do hope the ccrc get a bloody move on and issue their decision on the matter. I think it would provide closure to the families and hush up allot of the vacuous noise around the case.

I think it’s going to take years yet- you only have to look at how long it took Cheshire police to go through it all, then how long it took as a trial, to realise they aren’t looking through and assessing a small amount of evidence. It would speed it up if the Thirlwall inquiry came to their conclusions based on the evidence they heard (and this could be cross referenced with the trial evidence)- but it’s become a bit chicken and egg and no one wants to be first .

 

[Parker Knoll]

They had all the information they needed back in January 2025 according to the squeals of the panel at the press conference so what’s the delay one might say ?

The general idea when you are submitting a criminal appeal to either the COA or the CCRC (and I speak with experience here) is you don’t submit it in dribs and drabs - it goes in as a whole completed document with the relevant submissions/expert reports attached.
They were sending addendums to this for nearly a year.
Wild.

 

[Ruthbullock]

They had all the information they needed back in January 2025 according to the squeals of the panel at the press conference so what’s the delay one might say ?

The general idea when you are submitting a criminal appeal to either the COA or the CCRC (and I speak with experience here) is you don’t submit it in dribs and drabs - it goes in as a whole completed document with the relevant submissions/expert reports attached.
They were sending addendums to this for nearly a year.
Wild.

You could also wonder what this says about the organisational capability of her original defence team that it took that long to gather everything together.

 

[Ruthbullock]

So we have Prof (well honorary) so also just Dr Paul Clarke with his shared insight about the rashes. The papers seem to focus on the baby from Taiwan, which is obviously a paper written after the press conference- so a new research paper, unavailable at the time of the press conference and research absolutely unavailable at the time of the trial. I feel some Déjà vu about DNA evidence here and evolving research- which is always a good thing.

The rash in the photos is obviously blue, black and described as such, it also lasted and evolved as shown by the photographs- this doesn’t seem to match with the red blotches, fleeting appearance described by the parents. (Admittedly only read parents A and B inquiry description so far)

I don’t doubt there is some relevance to what has been written in the article, but I am struggling to identify it. Some of my difficulty transferring it in relatable terms is that the article doesn’t seem to do that. Can anyone share the highlights that relate to the contradictions in Letby. I need the comparisons, the footnotes, the evidence, my brain won’t compute a simple statement of they are wrong, I am right and to be fair I had the same issue with the press conference so disregarded it. Help me out with what is obvious to some on here.

 

[Parker Knoll]

I’m sorry I’m not following ?
Her original defence counsel filed her appeal in the following January from her August sentence and conviction.
Four months after a trial of that magnitude is perfectly acceptable - in fact it’s quick off the mark.
It went in correctly without a press conference and endless fan fair funnily enough in one document.

It can be done it would seem.

 

[Ruthbullock]

I’m sorry I’m not following ?
Her original defence counsel filed her appeal in the following January from her August sentence and conviction.
Four months after a trial of that magnitude is perfectly acceptable - in fact it’s quick off the mark.
It went in correctly without a press conference and endless fan fair funnily enough in one document.

It can be done it would seem.

Crossed wires as I also have no idea what you are saying. I was discussing the waiving of privileges and delay in submitting it to the CCRC

 

[Parker Knoll]

You could also wonder what this says about the organisational capability of her original defence team that it took that long to gather everything together.

I was responding to this - your question.

 

[Ruthbullock]

I was responding to this - your question.

Can you clarify your point then, as I responded and you didn’t understand- I will attempt to do better

 

[Parker Knoll]

I just answered your question Ruth !

 

[Sweeper2000]

So we have Prof (well honorary) so also just Dr Paul Clarke with his shared insight about the rashes. The papers seem to focus on the baby from Taiwan, which is obviously a paper written after the press conference- so a new research paper, unavailable at the time of the press conference and research absolutely unavailable at the time of the trial. I feel some Déjà vu about DNA evidence here and evolving research- which is always a good thing.

The rash in the photos is obviously blue, black and described as such, it also lasted and evolved as shown by the photographs- this doesn’t seem to match with the red blotches, fleeting appearance described by the parents. (Admittedly only read parents A and B inquiry description so far)

I don’t doubt there is some relevance to what has been written in the article, but I am struggling to identify it. Some of my difficulty transferring it in relatable terms is that the article doesn’t seem to do that. Can anyone share the highlights that relate to the contradictions in Letby. I need the comparisons, the footnotes, the evidence, my brain won’t compute a simple statement of they are wrong, I am right and to be fair I had the same issue with the press conference so disregarded it. Help me out with what is obvious to some on here.

That med file doesn't say when the pictures were taken. Needless to say they don't show when the symptoms developed in relation to the developments of the symptoms of teh AE. The similarities are in the language used both medical language and more plain but descriptive language. Examples livedo reticularis, mottled, reddish and the presentation on the skin on the hands of the baby. I think I got that right. I'm doing it from memory so feel free to correct me.
That's the relevance of the med file to the letby case.

Dr lee position was always that a ae could not happen the way it was alleged in the letby trial as the circulatory system would not allow migration of the air into the right place, the article and that dr quote the med file proving it can and proving that Dr Lees opinion on the matter wasnt comprehensive enough.

 

[Ruthbullock]

I was responding to this - your question.

A while ago I shared an article from the law gazette (the paper for the legal eagles in the UK) with an article stating that Letby wouldn’t waive privelege until requested and she would be remiss to do otherwise. It got reported as not relevant and deleted. She waived privelege the evidence was submitted, she won’t have personally collated all the documents- it was her defence team. There will have been a vast amount to collate and submit. The timeline seems reasonable and there isn’t anything untoward to read into it.

 

[Ruthbullock]

That med file doesn't say when the pictures were taken. Needless to say they don't show when the symptoms developed in relation to the developments of the symptoms of teh AE. The similarities are in the language used both medical language and more plain but descriptive language. Examples livedo reticularis, mottled, reddish and the presentation on the skin on the hands of the baby. I think I got that right. I'm doing it from memory so feel free to correct me.
That's the relevance of the med file to the letby case.

Dr lee position was always that a ae could not happen the way it was alleged in the letby trial as the circulatory system would not allow migration of the air into the right place, the article and that dr quote the med file proving it can and proving that Dr Lees opinion on the matter wasnt comprehensive enough.

The most recent paper, published in the journal Paediatrics and Neonatology last year, examines the case of a 33-week gestation premature baby boy who developed a blotchy purple and pink rash associated with air getting into their venous circulation.- they were from 2025 according to the article.

I could understand the correlation of the parents red fleeting blotches to a pink rash (although there is even in my non medical training a big difference between a rash and a blotch)- but purple to red is quite a stretch.

 

[Ruthbullock]

That med file doesn't say when the pictures were taken. Needless to say they don't show when the symptoms developed in relation to the developments of the symptoms of teh AE. The similarities are in the language used both medical language and more plain but descriptive language. Examples livedo reticularis, mottled, reddish and the presentation on the skin on the hands of the baby. I think I got that right. I'm doing it from memory so feel free to correct me.
That's the relevance of the med file to the letby case.

Dr lee position was always that a ae could not happen the way it was alleged in the letby trial as the circulatory system would not allow migration of the air into the right place, the article and that dr quote the med file proving it can and proving that Dr Lees opinion on the matter wasnt comprehensive enough.

Dr Lee wasn’t involved in the trial.

 

[Sweeper2000]

Dr Lee wasn’t involved in the trial.

Your points being?

The med file proves that ae can happen as alleged in the trial which dr lee said was not the case. Dr lee has had his opinion on the trials medical files put to the ccrc in essence becoming a part of it if not actively participating in the trials original time frame. Indeed the ccrc application is meant as "new evidence".