UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
News and current affairs => A look at the news stories currently making the headlines. => Topic started by: Vertigo Swirl on February 04, 2025, 02:11:40 PM
-
I’m astounded that on a forum called Miscarriage of Justice UK that there hasn’t been any discussion about this case. Is no one interested?
-
I’m astounded that on a forum called Miscarriage of Justice UK that there hasn’t been any discussion about this case. Is no one interested?
I am, but then I think she is guilty.
-
OK thanks. Close the thread....
-
Joking.
I think we may have a broad consensus on this one for a change, although I could be wrong.
We could delve in to the miscarriage element and the preponderance of circumstantial evidence, notwithstanding the disputed medical evidence / expert testimony.
-
As I wrote on another thread I was convinced she was guilty and a few months ago waded into a discussion online about it with people who are (IMO) the equivalent of 2007/08 McCann sceptics, i.e: apparently dedicating their whole lives to a justice campaign with a ferocity and determination not to mention unlimited reserves of stamina and bitchiness that was initially quite bewildering. These people (mostly women) had an answer for absolutely everything I threw at them but I had to admit defeat in the end as their knowledge of the minutiae of the case far exceeded mine. In fact I actually think without an in-depth knowledge of the science involved it’s pretty difficult to draw conclusions either way and that was a strong part of their argument. That jurors aren’t really qualified or knowledgeable enough to make a value judgement about evidence in such cases. Of course there’s loads of circumstantial evidence, just as there is in the case of Bruckner, but most if not all can be explained away and is easily dismissed by the Lucy Letby fan club. Then of course there’s is the independent investigations by various highly regarded publications such as Private Eye and the New Yorker, and the support of many extremely well regarded scientists and medical experts such as we saw at the press conference yesterday, all convinced that LL has been the victim of a terrible miscarriage of justice.
I really don’t want to admit it but I think they may have a point, terrible though it is for the parents of these babies to be put through his re-examination of the evidence in the mainstream media and social media, but should their feelings be considered when there is a possibility that an innocent woman will be spending the rest of her life behind bars?
-
I am, but then I think she is guilty.
Thanks for authorising my thread.
-
Thanks for authorising my thread.
My pleasure. But apart from The Jury no one seems to know what they are talking about other than their own opinions.
-
The thing that I have noticed is that for all the months that have passed, as far as I can recall, we have only seen one photo of Lucy Letby. This was a dreadful photo of her, probably taken when she was being interrogated, fearful for her future and feeling hated by everyone.
She looked like she was the sort ... and the media kept presenting this photo to us.
Now, all of a sudden, we are seeing photos of a smiling happy young woman who looks opposite to the photo that we had been (sort of) brainwashed with. I don't think that the media should be allowed to bombard us with such biased photos and not show the other side. It undoubtedly influenced me into thinking that she looked the part.
However, I need facts and would not allow that perception to influence me as far as Justice was concerned ... but I fear that some would judge her on her face at that time. So unfair.
I have no idea whether she is innocent or guilty and hope that true Justice transpires.
-
As I wrote on another thread I was convinced she was guilty and a few months ago waded into a discussion online about it with people who are (IMO) the equivalent of 2007/08 McCann sceptics, i.e: apparently dedicating their whole lives to a justice campaign with a ferocity and determination not to mention unlimited reserves of stamina and bitchiness that was initially quite bewildering. These people (mostly women) had an answer for absolutely everything I threw at them but I had to admit defeat in the end as their knowledge of the minutiae of the case far exceeded mine. In fact I actually think without an in-depth knowledge of the science involved it’s pretty difficult to draw conclusions either way and that was a strong part of their argument. That jurors aren’t really qualified or knowledgeable enough to make a value judgement about evidence in such cases. Of course there’s loads of circumstantial evidence, just as there is in the case of Bruckner, but most if not all can be explained away and is easily dismissed by the Lucy Letby fan club. Then of course there’s is the independent investigations by various highly regarded publications such as Private Eye and the New Yorker, and the support of many extremely well regarded scientists and medical experts such as we saw at the press conference yesterday, all convinced that LL has been the victim of a terrible miscarriage of justice.
I really don’t want to admit it but I think they may have a point, terrible though it is for the parents of these babies to be put through his re-examination of the evidence in the mainstream media and social media, but should their feelings be considered when there is a possibility that an innocent woman will be spending the rest of her life behind bars?
How do we explain the notes? Again, I'm only going on the press reports and later articles you mentioned, so I can't comment with much authority, but the notes may have helped to sway the jury.
Unfortunately I do think this campaign gaining traction will eventually lead to her getting off.
Edit: Her lawyer stating that 'no crime had been committed' is not true, in my opinion. 'Poor care' is negligence, which is a crime, either involuntary manslaughter or gross negligence due to lack of diagnosis or treatment.
-
How do we explain the notes? Again, I'm only going on the press reports and later articles you mentioned, so I can't comment with much authority, but the notes may have helped to sway the jury.
Unfortunately I do think this campaign gaining traction will eventually lead to her getting off.
Edit: Her lawyer stating that 'no crime had been committed' is not true, in my opinion. 'Poor care' is negligence, which is a crime, either involuntary manslaughter or gross negligence due to lack of diagnosis or treatment.
The notes are explained as a self-help device, suggested by her counselor to unburden her deepest darkest fears and worries. The ramblings on the note do paint a contradictory narrative, both “I killed them” and “I did not do this”. The thing is, her defence never put this unnamed counselor on the stand to back up LL’s claim about the notes, in fact the only witness for the defence was a plumber who confirmed that there was dodgy plumbing in the neonatal ward leading to the presence of faecal matter in the taps. Innocent or not she was hugely let down by her defence counsel, they did not do a good job from what I can gather.
-
The notes are explained as a self-help device, suggested by her counselor to unburden her deepest darkest fears and worries. The ramblings on the note do paint a contradictory narrative, both “I killed them” and “I did not do this”. The thing is, her defence never put this unnamed counselor on the stand to back up LL’s claim about the notes, in fact the only witness for the defence was a plumber who confirmed that there was dodgy plumbing in the neonatal ward leading to the presence of faecal matter in the taps. Innocent or not she was hugely let down by her defence counsel, they did not do a good job from what I can gather.
Are you being swayed?
I think Sadie has a point with the British press' classic demonisation of their perceived culprit, with echoes of Chris Jeffries, et al. They don't really care if they're guilty or not, they just need clicks and papers sold and they deal with the consequences later.
Did her collegaues back her or throw her under the bus? I'm relatively new to this one.
-
Are you being swayed?
I think Sadie has a point with the British press' classic demonisation of their perceived culprit, with echoes of Chris Jeffries, et al. They don't really care if they're guilty or not, they just need clicks and papers sold and they deal with the consequences later.
Did her collegaues back her or throw her under the bus? I'm relatively new to this one.
I’m not swayed exactly but I am less certain than I was that she is guilty. Some of her colleagues threw her under the bus, some went out of their way to shield her. There is a good article in the Times today reminding us of the evidence against her. I shall post it below.
-
Lucy Letby’s defence team claims that it has definitive proof of her innocence. Having analysed the available medical records, a group of 14 neonatologists reported that Letby had not harmed any of the babies whose deaths she was convicted of. “If you are looking for the truth you don’t need to go any further,” said Dr Shoo Lee, the leader of the panel.
The problem, however, is that Letby was not convicted solely on the basis of medical evidence. The prosecution did indeed go further to convince the jury.
“Medical or scientific evidence in a case should never be compartmentalised or examined in isolation from the wider canvas,” warned Rachel Langdale KC during the Thirlwall Inquiry, which was set up to examine the circumstances around Letby’s crimes.
Uncertainties were an acknowledged part of the case against Letby. As Nick Johnson KC, for the prosecution, noted during the trial “in this extraordinary case, context is everything”. In other words, there was no one piece of evidence that proved Letby to be a killer beyond all reasonable doubt.
Here we lay out the evidence that convinced two juries of Letby’s guilt — during the original trial and at a retrial of one of the charges.
‘He was completely stable’
Opening the case for the prosecution at the first trial, which began in October 2022, Johnson told the jury that before January 2015, the mortality rate at the Countess of Chester Hospital’s neonatal unit was two to three deaths a year, which was in line with other units around the country. However, over the next 18 months, that figure would rise significantly — to eight deaths in 2015 and seven in 2016.
It was not only the increased mortality rate that began to trouble consultants on the unit; it was also the way in which babies were collapsing. Newborns who were stable would suddenly and unexpectedly deteriorate. While some failed to respond to resuscitation efforts, others would recover. In all of these cases, medical norms and the expectations of the treating doctors were confounded.
“I couldn’t explain why this sequence of events had happened in the first place, and I couldn’t explain why the physiological responses didn’t happen as they should have done,” said Dr David Harkness, a registrar on the unit, giving evidence at the trial about the death of Baby A, the first of Letby’s victims. “Until the point that this happened he was completely stable.”
The bewilderment that Harkness described was to be repeatedly recalled by numerous doctors and nurses throughout the course of the trial as they gave evidence on the collapses and deaths of several different babies. The infants cared for at the Countess’s neonatal unit were vulnerable and premature but they were not expected to die.
Baby O and Baby P were two of triplet siblings born at 33 weeks gestation. This is roughly a month before babies are normally considered full term. A baby of 33 weeks’ gestation would normally have higher than a 99 per cent chance of survival at birth, Dr Stephen Brearey, a consultant paediatrician, told the trial. As a level two unit, the hospital normally only cared for babies older than 27 weeks’ gestation.
Dr Stephen Brearey was the lead clinician in the Chester hospital’s neonatal unit and the first to alert a hospital executive to the fact that Letby was present at unusual deaths and collapses of babies in June 2015
BBC/PA
All three of the triplets were born in good condition and were said to have been doing “very well”. But babies O and P died within days of their birth following rapid deteriorations. Both had been under the care of Letby, who was found to have killed them through a combination of blunt trauma and air injection. They would be her final murders.
Common denominator
After three babies died within the space of three weeks in June 2015, consultant paediatricians began searching for a cause. At a meeting the following month, Letby’s name was first raised because of the fact that she had been present at all three. Brearey, who attended the meeting with Eirian Powell, the ward manager, recalls eschewing the idea of any causal link, saying words to the effect of: “Not Lucy, not nice Lucy.”
But as the unexplained deaths and collapses continued, with Letby present at every one, consultants could not help but recognise that she was the “common denominator”, Johnson told the jury.
At the start of the trial, the jury was shown a chart listing on one axis 25 suspicious deaths and collapses between June 2015 and June 2016 and on the other the names of the 38 nurses who had worked on the unit. Every other nurse had a handful of crosses showing that they were on duty during incidents, but Letby had an unbroken row of crosses beside her name, putting her at the scene for every death and collapse. The nurse present at the second-highest number of collapses had been at seven.
This piece of evidence has come under criticism from statisticians, who note that the table did not include six other deaths during that period for which Letby was not charged. It has therefore been likened to the statistical illusion known as the “Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy”, an analogy of repeatedly firing a gun at a barn and drawing a ring around the densest group of holes to make it look, misleadingly, as if a target was hit.
However, the table only included cases that were deemed suspicious by the expert witness engaged by the police to look at the case, who was not aware at that point that Letby was a suspect.
Lucy Letby was removed from duties on the ward from June 30, 2016, as a precaution — and would never return to the same role
CHESHIRE CONSTABULARY/PA
These were also suspicions that were developing in real time. The staffing table was not a piece of evidence used retrospectively to identify Letby as a potential killer. As the meeting of July 2015 shows, clinicians were alert to the connection between Letby and the unusual collapses from the very beginning.
The jury also heard how collapses had at first happened at night, then began to occur during the day when Letby was moved to cover day shifts following growing concern among clinicians.
After July 2016, when Letby was removed from the unit under a cloud of suspicion and placed on clerical duties, the unexpected collapses immediately stopped and the neonatal mortality rate at the hospital returned to normal levels.
Air injection
It was the prosecution’s case that every child murdered by Letby had been killed by an injection of air, either into their bloodstream through an IV line or into their stomach through a nasogastric tube.
This was a theory developed by Dr Dewi Evans, the lead expert witness called by the prosecution, largely drawn from descriptions given by nurses and doctors of the unusual discoloration they saw on many of the babies’ skin shortly after collapse. His opinion was supported by Dr Sandie Bohin, the second expert medical witness.
Because it is so rare, research into the effects on neonates of air embolism, as it is known, is scant. In reaching his conclusion, Evans referred to a paper written in 1989 by Dr Shoo Lee, a Canadian neonatologist, that detailed 53 cases of air embolism in newborn babies, some of whom had also shown signs of skin discoloration.
Lee, who only became aware that his research had been used in this way after the trial, has now said that it was misinterpreted. He and the other 14 neonatologists say that none of the babies died of air embolism, instead dying of conditions such as sepsis and thrombosis.
Dr Shoo Lee
JOSHUA BRATT FOR THE SUNDAY TIMES
The radiologist who examined X-rays of the babies agreed with the diagnosis of air embolism after finding large amounts of gas in the great vessels that could not be explained by other conditions such as sepsis or trauma.
The inquiry heard that bosses at the Countess of Chester Hospital were “truly sorry” for not contacting police earlier
ALAMY
Dr Andreas Marnerides, an expert in neonatal pathology who was asked by Cheshire police to review the case in 2017, also thought it likely that a number of babies had died as a result of air being injected into their bloodstreams. He told the court he had found “globules” in the lungs and brain tissue that were most likely to have been air, as well as air around the tip of one of the baby’s UVC catheters.
Evans’s theory was challenged at the Court of Appeal hearing this year when Lee himself appeared before the court and said that none of the descriptions of the babies’ skin discolorations given by witnesses matched the sort he had recorded in his paper. He said the only sign visible on a baby’s skin from which one could draw a conclusion of an air embolism was bright-pink blood vessels over blue skin.
But the judges did not admit his testimony, deeming it irrelevant. In their 58-page judgment, they stated that there was no prosecution expert evidence diagnosing air embolism solely on the basis of skin discolouration. “In short, the circumstantial evidence and medical evidence has to be considered in its totality, not reduced to a single issue as to skin discoloration as a basis for diagnosis,” they said.
Circumstantial evidence
Letby was never caught red-handed. No one ever saw her harm a baby. But there were occasions, it was said, when she very nearly was.
In August 2015, Letby was assigned to care for Baby E, a boy, and his twin brother, Baby F, who had been born ten weeks premature. The prosecution said the twins’ mother interrupted Letby attacking the baby when she decided to visit her sons in the unit shortly after 9pm.
Former bosses at the Countess of Chester Hospital have apologised to the families of victims at the inquiry
CHESTER HOSPITAL
She came in to find the baby distressed and bleeding from his mouth, an unusual and unexpected complication. Letby, who was the only nurse in the room, turned to her and said the words: “Trust me, I’m a nurse.”
Baby E went on to suffer significant blood loss later in the evening and died in the early hours of the following day. The fatal bleed was believed to be the result of Letby interfering with his nasogastric tube. Having so nearly been caught, Letby then attempted to cover her tracks by erasing the mother’s visit from the medical records and afterwards falsely claimed to have been in another room when Baby E collapsed, the court was told. This, the prosecution said, was the nurse trying to establish an “alibi in someone else’s medical records”.
A key part of the circumstantial evidence against Letby was discovered when police searched her home in Chester following her arrest in July 2018. Here they found a handwritten note on which Letby had written the words, “I am evil, I did this,” along with protestations of innocence, including: “I haven’t done anything wrong.”
They also found more than 250 nursing handover sheets, a blood test result and resuscitation notes relating to some of her victims. Johnson called these her “trophies”.
Insulin
Letby was found guilty of attempting to murder two babies by injecting synthetic insulin into their feed bags. Both babies survived.
The test results showing that insulin had been given to them was the only piece of concrete evidence of criminality throughout the whole of the prosecution’s case. It was the closest thing they had to a smoking gun and became the keystone for their case as a whole.
Johnson’s argument ran that if the jury could agree that Letby had deliberately poisoned two babies, they could also reasonably conclude that she had harmed others using different methods, even if the evidence for those were less concrete. In the event, the insulin cases were the first on which the jury reached a verdict.
The 14 neonatologists have challenged this, saying that the method used to test the presence of insulin is not reliable. Letby did not contest the fact that someone had poisoned those babies with insulin, only that it was her who did it.
Lady Justice Thirlwall has warned that speculation over Letby’s convictions is causing the victims’ families enormous stress
PETER BYRNE/PA
“Positive immunoassay results are not sufficient as binding toxicological evidence of foul play in a criminal prosecution for murder,” Professor Alan Wayne Jones, an expert in forensic chemistry, told The Times last month.
• What could Thirlwall inquiry mean for Lucy Letby’s convictions?
Keith Frayn, an emeritus professor of human metabolism at the University of Oxford who has been using immunoassay for insulin since the 1970s, rejected the notion that the tests were unreliable. “I don’t think many people who know about insulin assays would say you can disregard those tests,” he said. “They are very clear.”
He acknowledged there was a small margin for error but said the Letby case results were far outside that, given the two babies had insulin between ten and 40 times the normal level. Crucially, C-peptide was undetectable in one baby and very low in the other. Given that natural insulin produces with it higher levels of C-peptide, the only explanation was insulin introduced from outside. “There are most unlikely to be analytical errors,” Frayn said.
He agreed with other experts that follow-up insulin assays to confirm results would have been desirable but insisted the insulin levels in both cases were so far outside the margin of error that it was unlikely to have made a difference.
-
Her fans are a nasty bunch. Very odd. They certainly aren't encouraging me to change my mind, especially as I know far more about it than they do. Some of their fibs are quite awesome;
-
I have followed this case from the beginning. I had come to the conclusion that she is guilty, but after the recent press conference, I have some doubts.
It seems that many people have some doubts, and if there is doubt, I think the case should be looked at again, particularly as she has whole life tariffs.
I am on several discussion groups, and I find that there are a few NGs and a few Gs who are particularly nasty.
-
As I wrote on another thread I was convinced she was guilty and a few months ago waded into a discussion online about it with people who are (IMO) the equivalent of 2007/08 McCann sceptics, i.e: apparently dedicating their whole lives to a justice campaign with a ferocity and determination not to mention unlimited reserves of stamina and bitchiness that was initially quite bewildering. These people (mostly women) had an answer for absolutely everything I threw at them but I had to admit defeat in the end as their knowledge of the minutiae of the case far exceeded mine. In fact I actually think without an in-depth knowledge of the science involved it’s pretty difficult to draw conclusions either way and that was a strong part of their argument. That jurors aren’t really qualified or knowledgeable enough to make a value judgement about evidence in such cases. Of course there’s loads of circumstantial evidence, just as there is in the case of Bruckner, but most if not all can be explained away and is easily dismissed by the Lucy Letby fan club. Then of course there’s is the independent investigations by various highly regarded publications such as Private Eye and the New Yorker, and the support of many extremely well regarded scientists and medical experts such as we saw at the press conference yesterday, all convinced that LL has been the victim of a terrible miscarriage of justice.
I really don’t want to admit it but I think they may have a point, terrible though it is for the parents of these babies to be put through his re-examination of the evidence in the mainstream media and social media, but should their feelings be considered when there is a possibility that an innocent woman will be spending the rest of her life behind bars?
My opinion is that the case should continue to be investigated if there is doubt, and that this must come before the feelings of the families.
-
My opinion is that the case should continue to be investigated if there is doubt, and that this must come before the feelings of the families.
Has there not just been a Thirwell Review? The findings have not yet been published. Waiting for those might be a good idea. Or will those not be enough for some? I will be paying particular attention.
-
Has there not just been a Thirwell Review? The findings have not yet been published. Waiting for those might be a good idea. Or will those not be enough for some? I will be paying particular attention.
Yes. The Thirlwall Inquiry has its own website, and there is some very interesting stuff on there, if you look under transcriptions, evidence and documents.
The Inquiry did not go into the possible innocence of LL. It was examining how she managed to get away with her crimes for so long.
-
The ITV programme on the case broadcast the other night makes a compelling argument for a re-trial at the very least.
-
The ITV programme on the case broadcast the other night makes a compelling argument for a re-trial at the very least.
It sure does, Vertigo!
After having no opinion on the case, I now have reasonable doubt at least!
-
The thing is, with the Lucy Letby case there are just too many experts coming forward in her defence! And not just any expert witnesses, but the best of the best in their field from all over the world.
Would it be fair to say that David Davis started the ball rolling?
There was some evidence of Letby 'allegedly' being caught in the act as it were, but these claims have been largely debunked too it seems, due to recently discovered E-mails and such I believe.
Anyway, its definately a case for the medical experts to fight over, and not one for the lay-person I feel?
-
She did Facebook searches of the families of her victims = guilty. There's no legitimate & logical reason for her to have done that, other than her revelling in her work & it's such an unfortunate coincidence that she should be the nurse on duty every time there was a suspicious death on the ward. She is right where she belongs.
-
She did Facebook searches of the families of her victims = guilty. There's no legitimate & logical reason for her to have done that, other than her revelling in her work & it's such an unfortunate coincidence that she should be the nurse on duty every time there was a suspicious death on the ward. She is right where she belongs.
I didn't really know about the Facebook searches, Spam!
Not sure if they addressed that point in the prog or not.
The prog does claim however that the chart was made up to suit a guilty Letby.
-
She did Facebook searches of the families of her victims = guilty. There's no legitimate & logical reason for her to have done that, other than her revelling in her work & it's such an unfortunate coincidence that she should be the nurse on duty every time there was a suspicious death on the ward. She is right where she belongs.
How is that proof that she murdered those babies? It?s strange that you should focus on that most tenuous piece of evidence. As for thr suspicious deaths thing - they only assigned the deaths on the nights that Letby was working as supicious after they?d decided she might be involved, rather than looking at all the deaths that occurred on the neo natal ward in that period, some of which she was not present for. I agree that on the face of it there?s a load of circumstantial evidence but none of it is irrefutable and as you?re someone who demands actual tangible forensic evidence of Bruckner?s guilt I?m surprised you aren?t in the Letby is Innocent camp.
-
I didn't really know about the Facebook searches, Spam!
Not sure if they addressed that point in the prog or not.
The prog does claim however that the chart was made up to suit a guilty Letby.
I followed the trial. She Facebook searched multiple of her victims families.
-
How is that proof that she murdered those babies? It?s strange that you should focus on that most tenuous piece of evidence. As for thr suspicious deaths thing - they only assigned the deaths on the nights that Letby was working as supicious after they?d decided she might be involved, rather than looking at all the deaths that occurred on the neo natal ward in that period, some of which she was not present for. I agree that on the face of it there?s a load of circumstantial evidence but none of it is irrefutable and as you?re someone who demands actual tangible forensic evidence of Bruckner?s guilt I?m surprised you aren?t in the Letby is Innocent camp.
I really can't be arsed to give this case the attention Ms Letby craves.
-
I followed the trial. She Facebook searched multiple of her victims families.
OK, Spam!
I will do some research into the case before commenting further!
Meantime, I will sit on the fence, as it were!
-
I really can't be arsed to give this case the attention Ms Letby craves.
b....r off then.
-
b....r off then.
No I've changed my mind now. I won't do what you tell me. I'm going to sit here with my arms folded & a stern look on my face until justice is served. I fully trust Ms Letby now, I think she should be welcomed back into the nursing profession with no supervision whatsoever. She can run the children's ward & Brueckner can work in the creche. Ian Huntley can manage the children's bathtime & Harold Shipman can administer vaccinations.
-
No I've changed my mind now. I won't do what you tell me. I'm going to sit here with my arms folded & a stern look on my face until justice is served. I fully trust Ms Letby now, I think she should be welcomed back into the nursing profession with no supervision whatsoever. She can run the children's ward & Brueckner can work in the creche. Ian Huntley can manage the children's bathtime & Harold Shipman can administer vaccinations.
Sadly Harold Shipman is dead, so bang goes that plan.
-
No I've changed my mind now. I won't do what you tell me. I'm going to sit here with my arms folded & a stern look on my face until justice is served. I fully trust Ms Letby now, I think she should be welcomed back into the nursing profession with no supervision whatsoever. She can run the children's ward & Brueckner can work in the creche. Ian Huntley can manage the children's bathtime & Harold Shipman can administer vaccinations.
Ha ha! Is this what you mean by massive WUM, Spam?
-
Ha ha! Is this what you mean by massive WUM, Spam?
He does try hard / is very trying (delete as applicable)
-
Sorry. There hasn't been much to talk about lately & I've been getting withdrawal symptoms from not being silly
-
Sorry. There hasn't been much to talk about lately & I've been getting withdrawal symptoms from not being silly
Don?t worry, the Met have been reading your posts and come to their senses and be arresting and charging the McCanns, shouldn?t be long now.
-
Don?t worry, the Met have been reading your posts and come to their senses and be arresting and charging the McCanns, shouldn?t be long now.
There isn't enough evidence. But I still wouldn't trust the McCanns as babysitters. It seems like too great a risk. Same as releasing Ms Letby & allowing her back to work.
-
There isn't enough evidence. But I still wouldn't trust the McCanns as babysitters. It seems like too great a risk. Same as releasing Ms Letby & allowing her back to work.
But Mr Smith?s evidence is cast iron proof no? Wasn?t he pretty certain, and aren?t you even more certain than him even though you weren?t there? What more do you need for a successful conviction? As for Letby even if she?s as innocent as a new born I very much doubt she would choose to go back into a professional environment that would appear to have stitched her up good and proper. Like Bruckner (if she is ever released) she will be able to run away to some remote tropical paradise and live off the compo and the endless media interviews and book / film offers.
-
An interesting bar chart at the beginning of this article. If Letby hadn?t ?murdered? all those babies then presumably the COCH hospital would have shown up in the stats as having one of the better records for neonatal care, this despite the fact that there were obviously failings in practice there irrespective of the LL case
https://triedbystats.com/
-
An interesting bar chart at the beginning of this article. If Letby hadn?t ?murdered? all those babies then presumably the COCH hospital would have shown up in the stats as having one of the better records for neonatal care, this despite the fact that there were obviously failings in practice there irrespective of the LL case
https://triedbystats.com/
Did you watch Panorama, Vertigo?
Have we problems with the insulin and the amount of dislodged breathing tubes at the Liverpool hospital?
-
Did you watch Panorama, Vertigo?
Have we problems with the insulin and the amount of dislodged breathing tubes at the Liverpool hospital?
Yes we did watch it, and yes it was very balanced we thought. It seems no one really knows what went on and proves the point that you can find an expert to prove anything you need depending on your point of view. That being the case we think the conviction is unsafe and that her guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.
-
Yes we did watch it, and yes it was very balanced we thought. It seems no one really knows what went on and proves the point that you can find an expert to prove anything you need depending on your point of view. That being the case we think the conviction is unsafe and that her guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Well as I said, the two most damaging points in the prog for Letby was the claim by one expert that the insulin must have been injected and the other being the number of tubes being dislodged while Letby was on duty at the Liverpool hospital, although some are claiming on X that this is another case of the statistics being manipulated.
I dont know! Its definately a case for the experts to battle out, Vertigo! I see the chief prosecution witness is still adamant that Letby is guilty. I remain on the fence, and await further developments.
-
Well as I said, the two most damaging points in the prog for Letby was the claim by one expert that the insulin must have been injected and the other being the number of tubes being dislodged while Letby was on duty at the Liverpool hospital, although some are claiming on X that this is another case of the statistics being manipulated.
I dont know! Its definately a case for the experts to battle out, Vertigo! I see the chief prosecution witness is still adamant that Letby is guilty. I remain on the fence, and await further developments.
I think the fact that the chief prosecution witness completely changed his mind after the trial about how one of the babies was a apparently murdered is extremely problematic. I thought so e of his respinses to questions on last night?s programme showed him to be rather arrogant and a bit shifty tbh.
-
Well as I said, the two most damaging points in the prog for Letby was the claim by one expert that the insulin must have been injected and the other being the number of tubes being dislodged while Letby was on duty at the Liverpool hospital, although some are claiming on X that this is another case of the statistics being manipulated.
I dont know! Its definately a case for the experts to battle out, Vertigo! I see the chief prosecution witness is still adamant that Letby is guilty. I remain on the fence, and await further developments.
Definitely a case of dodgy statistics on the Panorama programme
https://www.reddit.com/r/LucyLetbyTrials/comments/1hr7mkm/the_40_dislodgment_rate_from_lucy_letbys_time_at/
-
I am a victim of a miscarriage of justice with two police officer committing perjury in court
-
I am a victim of a miscarriage of justice with two police officer committing perjury in court
Why don?t you start your own thread and tell us more about it there?
-
I am a victim of a miscarriage of justice with two police officer committing perjury in court
Welcome to the forum, Wullie, I am a relative newbie too.
-
Definitely a case of dodgy statistics on the Panorama programme
https://www.reddit.com/r/LucyLetbyTrials/comments/1hr7mkm/the_40_dislodgment_rate_from_lucy_letbys_time_at/
Thanks Vertigo, have been asking a lot of questions over on X recently. but still haven't taken a side.
I dont really understand the statistical evidence very well, I know Panorama have admitted making mistakes but not sure what the final percentage was agreed on or whether it was still high compared to other nurses?
Then there is the fact that most of the time there was more than one nurse usually on duty in the ward, but Letby always waited until she was on her own before getting up to no good undetected, any truth in this?
Now I see one baby had a foreign object stuck in its throat?
What about the smoking gun as it were, the insulin results? The Dr at the end of Panorama said it had to have been administered by someone because of the low C-peptides, but the likes of Dr Shoo Lee and his associates said the low peptides can occurr naturally in some cases, but if so, presumably they have produced such documents to back this up, did they?
Oh yes, and someone claimed that notes in Letbys house mentioned foreign objects before she was charged, meaning she had guilty knowledge.
BUT!!!! In the meantime I dont know which allegations are fact and can be backed up, and which are fiction, Vertigo!
So as I say, I remain on the fence for the time being
-
Thanks Vertigo, have been asking a lot of questions over on X recently. but still haven't taken a side.
I dont really understand the statistical evidence very well, I know Panorama have admitted making mistakes but not sure what the final percentage was agreed on or whether it was still high compared to other nurses?
Then there is the fact that most of the time there was more than one nurse usually on duty in the ward, but Letby always waited until she was on her own before getting up to no good undetected, any truth in this?
Now I see one baby had a foreign object stuck in its throat?
What about the smoking gun as it were, the insulin results? The Dr at the end of Panorama said it had to have been administered by someone because of the low C-peptides, but the likes of Dr Shoo Lee and his associates said the low peptides can occurr naturally in some cases, but if so, presumably they have produced such documents to back this up, did they?
Oh yes, and someone claimed that notes in Letbys house mentioned foreign objects before she was charged, meaning she had guilty knowledge.
BUT!!!! In the meantime I dont know which allegations are fact and can be backed up, and which are fiction, Vertigo!
So as I say, I remain on the fence for the time being
I think the insulin tests can be highly unreliable from what I have read. Both babies alleged to have been poisoned with insulin survived and recovered despite off the chart insulin levels in one case which could suggest that the test results were overstated . There is no tangible proof that LL administered insulin to them, no one saw her take insulin from the medical store, there is nothing, only a belief that because she supposedly murdered other babies (but not by insulin ods) that she must be behind these incidents as well. She seemed to have quite an array of murder methods did she not? Quite unusual imo. Insulin, air tube disruption, injecting air, physically attacking resulting in ruptured organs and so on. I don?t know what you mean about foreign objects, I haven?t heard about those. And you know the old saying about statistics?
-
I think the insulin tests can be highly unreliable from what I have read. Both babies alleged to have been poisoned with insulin survived and recovered despite off the chart insulin levels in one case which could suggest that the test results were overstated . There is no tangible proof that LL administered insulin to them, no one saw her take insulin from the medical store, there is nothing, only a belief that because she supposedly murdered other babies (but not by insulin ods) that she must be behind these incidents as well. She seemed to have quite an array of murder methods did she not? Quite unusual imo. Insulin, air tube disruption, injecting air, physically attacking resulting in ruptured organs and so on. I don?t know what you mean about foreign objects, I haven?t heard about those. And you know the old saying about statistics?
Thanks, Vertigo, its just that I cant take sides without looking at all the different claims out there and having them verified. I will check what exactly was claimed about the foreign object/body in the throat, if I can find it again!
-
Thanks, Vertigo, its just that I cant take sides without looking at all the different claims out there and having them verified. I will check what exactly was claimed about the foreign object/body in the throat, if I can find it again!
Yes the foreign body was allegedly the object used to attack the baby with hemophilia to cause bleeding, Vertigo!
I am currently listening to the trial transcript of Letbys cross examination by the prosecution, all eight hours of it from youtube.
-
I have followed this case from the beginning. After the trial, I assumed she was guilty (and she may well be), but I do now have doubts, and believe she needs a retrial.
There appear to be two strong sides, going by what I read on various sites. One side is so sure she is guilty, that members are verbally abusive and aggressive about it. I don't understand why they need to be, since LL has 15 whole life sentences !!! The opposing side is so sure she is innocent, that they are holding demos and birthday parties for her. I don't understand how anyone can be entirely sure.
I can understand why people think she is guilty: there are a lot of strange co incidences, for example, babies deteriorating shortly after she appears on the scene.
I also have a lot of doubts. I don't believe all the medical experts who are expressing doubts/alternative explanations are merely conspiracy theorists . Nor do I believe that public figures such as Lord Sumption and David Davis are stupid: they must have good reasons for what they say. I am also uncomfortable about locking somebody up for life when she wasn't actually seen causing harm to any baby, and when her line manager had nothing bad to say about her. In fact, if you read the nurse witness statements on the Thirlwall Inquiry site, none of her fellow nurses seem to have had any suspicions about her.
As for her text messages, they seem normal to me. I believe she wrote that notorious note because she knew people were suspecting her. I dont know why she kept so many handover sheets-----any ideas? Possibly, she wanted to "cover herself" in case she was ever questioned. I certainly dont believe they were trophies.
So, I'm very interested in following future developments on this case.
It also occurs to me that, in all likelihood, a person accused of killing babies in a hospital is always going to be found guilty!
-
I have followed this case from the beginning. After the trial, I assumed she was guilty (and she may well be), but I do now have doubts, and believe she needs a retrial.
There appear to be two strong sides, going by what I read on various sites. One side is so sure she is guilty, that members are verbally abusive and aggressive about it. I don't understand why they need to be, since LL has 15 whole life sentences !!! The opposing side is so sure she is innocent, that they are holding demos and birthday parties for her. I don't understand how anyone can be entirely sure.
I can understand why people think she is guilty: there are a lot of strange co incidences, for example, babies deteriorating shortly after she appears on the scene.
I also have a lot of doubts. I don't believe all the medical experts who are expressing doubts/alternative explanations are merely conspiracy theorists . Nor do I believe that public figures such as Lord Sumption and David Davis are stupid: they must have good reasons for what they say. I am also uncomfortable about locking somebody up for life when she wasn't actually seen causing harm to any baby, and when her line manager had nothing bad to say about her. In fact, if you read the nurse witness statements on the Thirlwall Inquiry site, none of her fellow nurses seem to have had any suspicions about her.
As for her text messages, they seem normal to me. I believe she wrote that notorious note because she knew people were suspecting her. I dont know why she kept so many handover sheets-----any ideas? Possibly, she wanted to "cover herself" in case she was ever questioned. I certainly dont believe they were trophies.
So, I'm very interested in following future developments on this case.
It also occurs to me that, in all likelihood, a person accused of killing babies in a hospital is always going to be found guilty!
I'm in the middle of listening to her trial testimony at the moment, mrswah, all fifteen hours of it.
The prosecution cross examination, that is!
-
I'm in the middle of listening to her trial testimony at the moment, mrswah, all fifteen hours of it.
The prosecution cross examination, that is!
What's your thoughts? Guilty or not guilty?