Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
By whoever reviews the evidence not me or you wtf do we know
By whoever reviews the evidence not me or you wtf do we knowChallenged by who? What about Baby C whose mother was dismissed by Letby and told to leave the unit as she was a nurse and needed to help the baby who subsequently dies. Letby does not recall the conversation. Letby when going home then spent hours trawling the parents on facebook
And yet this is the baby who Letby hadn’t been on shift since before the baby’s birth and no evidence was provided as to whether she accessed the unit whilst off duty, Also the baby that 5 experts have said was very high risk and should have been in a higher grade unit and two experts saying it was other natural causes or as a result of th treatment being received.Challenged by who? What about Baby C whose mother was dismissed by Letby and told to leave the unit as she was a nurse and needed to help the baby who subsequently dies. Letby does not recall the conversation. Letby when going home then spent hours trawling the parents on facebook
A defence lawyer trying to get a murderer off the hook.If she's not witnessed, or cctv recorded tampering with the lines then it ISNT evidence, it's purely circumstantial.
For example, a defence lawyer would argue that the figures could be wrong, who says the normal failure rate was 1% ? Based on what? From where, collated by who? do different nurses have different failure rates? Do different hospitals or wards have different rates? Who's to say Letby wasn't just poor at fixing breathing tubes?
Was she trained? If so When? by who?
Was her failure rate monitored? Was it too high? If so, why wasn't any action taken?
If no action was taken, was her work deemed to be acceptable? Etc etc.
Honestly a defence lawyer would drive a bus through that data. To call it evidence is rediculous.
I still think she's guilty though.
By whoever reviews the evidence not me or you wtf do we know
It’s the supposed evidence that wasn’t submitted that’s the problem.The evidence that convicted her will still be presented - the evidence has been reviewed. She was found guilty again in a separate trial. Have you read any of the submitted evidence in the case?
No just articlesThe evidence that convicted her will still be presented - the evidence has been reviewed. She was found guilty again in a separate trial. Have you read any of the submitted evidence in the case?
It was brought up at the court case which is now being held to scrutiny because the subsequent conviction is now thought to be unsafe.it’s circumstantial evidence which is an entirely legitimate form of evidence. It’s also pretty much non refutable. It was bought up in the subsequent court case wasn’t it? The gap is statistically huge.
It was brought up at the court case which is now being held to scrutiny because the subsequent conviction is now thought to be unsafe.
It's incredibly difficult to get a safe conviction based on any amount of circumstantial evidence. Let alone no motive.
That's why Maddeline Mccann's parents weren't prosecuted, even though the police know exactly what happened, ...there's no body, and no motive, just loads of circumstantial evidence, none of which is proof positive.
I think the exhumed bodies laced with morphine and the wills produced on his typewriter were probably a tad more damning than statistics In Shipman’s case.they weren’t prosecuted as their was zero evidence they did anything. What a dumb comeback.
What was Harold Shipman’s motive? Fair bit of evidence in that trial was based on statistics.
The conviction is considered unsafe? By who?
Are you being fucking serious????they weren’t prosecuted as their was zero evidence they did anything. What a dumb comeback.
Exactly, I think Shipman's conviction was pretty safe in everyone's mind.I think the exhumed bodies laced with morphine and the wills produced on his typewriter were probably a tad more damning than statistics In Shipman’s case.
Well to name but one, there's her defence lawyer Mark Mcdonald and his team, who have now amassed so much evidence from "expert" medical practitioners that he's taking her case to The Criminal Case Review Commisssion.The conviction is considered unsafe? By who?
Well to name but one, there's her defence lawyer Mark Mcdonald and his team, who have now amassed so much evidence from "expert" medical practitioners that he's taking her case to The Criminal Case Review Commisssion.
Apparently he's amassed enough medical data to shred the prosecution evidence to bits.
I wish you'd take the time to read up on these issues before posting such bollocks, you can't call my response dumb when it's blatantly obvious you are completely ignorant of what's actually happening.
Are you being fucking serious????
I strongly suggest you take some time out to educate yourself!
Have you read the book "the truth of the lie" by the head of the Portuguese investigation?
Have you seen the interviews with Scotland Yard's Jon Wedger?
Have you watched the documentary film by Richard Hall?
Are you even aware of the connection between the McCann's and British pedophile Clement Freud, who, incidentally, lived just a few minutes walk from the Ocean Club apartments at Praia da Luz?
Have you watched the 10 part (6+ hour) documentary by Crime Knight on the evidence? It's online in the public domain.
Why were the police told that there are areas of the case that they would not be allowed to Investigate? According to now retired British detectives.
Why has the cover up gone to the highest level of government? As detailed by British and Portugese detectives.
The police know exactly what happened, they just can't get ENOUGH proof to secure a conviction, and have been actively prevented from bringing a case by our government, why???
ALL of which goes to enforce exactly what I've said in above posts about circumstantial evidence.
The defence basically did a crap job and expert witnesses don’t seem to have been called despite their opinions being opposite to those of the prosecution expert. The jury was presented with a one sided interpretation and opinion - hardly surprising a guilty verdict was reached.i am not necessarily disagreeing that some parts of this look dodgy, however highlighting that her defence lawyer considers the conviction unsafe isn’t exactly a smoking gun is it? What else is he going to say. I also have to ask where was this evidence when it mattered, ie the trial.
Whatever the evidence, unfortunately history would suggest that any appeal will get nowhere. When you have people like Andrew Milkinson serving almost 20 yrs it would suggest that Lucy Letby is never coming out, or at least until the prosecutors involved are long gone and the potential embarrassment & blame has gone.
You have actually quoted Richard Hall as a serious reporter. I assume this is the same Richard Hall who said the Manchester bombings were staged by the British government and no-one died? The victimes were sent abroad and the coffins were empty boxes and the grieving fake?
Oddly I have not watched his tripe.
Jon Wedger has been discredited numerous times. He also has a curious affinity to Tommy Robinson.
Your posting history is of someone obsessed with fake conspiracy theories
No moon landings
Climate change fake news and just the burning of Iran oilfields
Anti Vax
911 - an inside job
What next? David Icke talks sense?
I know a bit about Jon Wedger and I’d be interested to know where & how he got discredited. I’m not a fan of his & not sticking up for him, just interested.
The Witchcraft nonsense was enough for me
Police Whistleblowers’ Group Raises Concerns about Jon Wedger and Maggie Oliver
The Independent Police Support Group, which has existed since 2004 to provide “moral support and guidance to police whistleblowers or those who have been bullied”, has posted a statemen…barthsnotes.com
You clearly have no knowledge of the case, and have obviously resorted to mud slinging in a pointless attempt to cover your ignorance.Oh Jesus the flat earth society have entered the building
You clearly have no knowledge of the case, and have obviously resorted to mud slinging in a pointless attempt to cover your ignorance.
Your obviously quite happy to blindingly go along with the sheep who have no idea what goes on behind the headlines that's great, good for you, I'm not going to waste time trying to convince someone so blissfully ignorant.
How much supporting evidence do you require? I could fill pages and pages of links, if you choose to discredit one person fine, but theres plenty of others all in the public domain if you ever want to peak behind the news headlines.You have quoted a bat shit conspiracy theorist who harassed victims of the Manchester bombing as supporting evidence
I also quoted the book by the head Portuguese detective on the case, so go on, poo poo that!You have quoted a bat shit conspiracy theorist who harassed victims of the Manchester bombing as supporting evidence
I do think he was trying to cover up / deflect from the piss poor job him and his team did.I also quoted the book by the head Portuguese detective on the case, so go on, poo poo that!
That’s how I used to feel about Channel 5.I’m with you but channel 5 ffs
That would be madness, as it is proving to be difficult to get leave to appeal.Inexplicable to me,why would a defence team behave as such? To bring a future case?
A neonatal ward manager at Lucy Letby’s hospital outlined 15 reasons why the nurse could not be to blame for the deaths and collapse of babies, it has emerged.
Documents released for the Thirlwall Inquiry, which is examining how incidents at the Countess of Chester could have been prevented, show that Eirian Powell, Letby’s boss, was unconvinced by allegations against the nurse.
She distributed a document entitled Neonatal Unit review 2015-2016, in May 2016, which gave 15 reasons why it was unlikely there was a baby killer on the ward.
“There is no evidence whatsoever against LL (Lucy Letby) other than coincidence,” she wrote.
“LL works full time and has the qualification in speciality (QIS). She is therefore more likely to be looking after the sickest infant on the unit, LL is also available herself to work overtime when the acuity of the unit is over capacity.”
The neonatal ward manager went on to point out that the spike in deaths could be accounted for by failings on the unit and elsewhere as well as health problems with the babies.
Ms Powell argued that two of the babies were diagnosed with congenital pneumonia, two had necrotising enterocolitis – a dangerous complication for preterm infants – one mother had a maternal syndrome and one baby had overwhelming sepsis.
“Some of the issues were related to midwifery problems,” she added. “The Cheshire and Mersey transport service have been involved in a few of these mortalities and they may have survived if the service was running adequately.”
She concluded: “Of all the post results there was no evidence of foul play.”
Ms Powell also pointed out that two doctors, Dr John Gibbs and Dr Dave Harkness, had been present at several of the incidents.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?