Lucy Letby (1 Viewer)

[Sky Blue Pete]

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

By whoever reviews the evidence not me or you wtf do we know

 

---

[MalcSB]

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

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.

Its all very confusing, I don’t see how a mother can be dismissed by a nurse who hadn’t been on duty since before the baby”s birth,

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

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.

A defence lawyer trying to get a murderer off the hook.

 

[Grendel]

By whoever reviews the evidence not me or you wtf do we know

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?

 

[MalcSB]

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?

It’s the supposed evidence that wasn’t submitted that’s the problem.

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

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 articles
Didn’t one trial go on for over 6 months

 

[fatso]

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.

 

[Grendel]

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.

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?

 

[MalcSB]

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?

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.

 

[fatso]

they weren’t prosecuted as their was zero evidence they did anything. What a dumb comeback.

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.

 

[fatso]

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.

Exactly, I think Shipman's conviction was pretty safe in everyone's mind.
I'm beginning to think Grendel is just being a WUM, no one can be THAT thick.

 

[fatso]

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.

 

[Grendel]

Oh Jesus the flat earth society have entered the building

 

[Ring Of Steel]

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.

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.

 

[Grendel]

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.

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?

 

[MalcSB]

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.

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.

 

[Ring Of Steel]

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.

 

[Grendel]

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

 

[Ring Of Steel]

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

My take on all this stuff is that they probably have some truth in there somewhere. Wedger does have quite a compelling story, until it jumps the shark totally and he gets into satanic rituals taking place at police stations.

At some stage these people realise that conspiracies sell (you only have to look at this place) and so they ramp up the weird stuff to get followers and listens, and it stars to turn almost into a cult. Some stay with them, the saner people tune out and never go back.

 

[fatso]

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.

 

[Grendel]

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.

You have quoted a bat shit conspiracy theorist who harassed victims of the Manchester bombing as supporting evidence

 

[fatso]

You have quoted a bat shit conspiracy theorist who harassed victims of the Manchester bombing as supporting evidence

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 quoted my claim about the moon landings, well here's NASA declaring we've never been beyond low earth orbit

I suppose in your world they are full of shit!

If you choose not to believe NASA then fine, there's literally shit loads of evidence out there, just go look. But you won't look will you, because that involves effort and might actually challenge your small world view on things. The truth is your comfortable living in ignorance, and prefer not to look.

 

[fatso]

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!

 

[MalcSB]

I also quoted the book by the head Portuguese detective on the case, so go on, poo poo that!

I do think he was trying to cover up / deflect from the piss poor job him and his team did.

 

[MalcSB]

LUCY LETBY: THE NEW EVIDENCE Sunday 6 October 9PM, CH5 ★★★

This follow-up to disturbing documentary Lucy Letby: Did She Really Do It? (stream on My5) doesn’t shy away from asking very difficult questions. While the former neonatal nurse was found guilty of the murder of seven babies, there are some experts who want to have her case officially reviewed. This asks whether evidence in her initial trial was flawed, and if her ‘confession’ was all that it seemed to be.

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

I’m with you but channel 5 ffs

 

[MalcSB]

I’m with you but channel 5 ffs

That’s how I used to feel about Channel 5.

 

[stupot07]

Lucy Letby: police and CPS handling of case raises new concerns about convictions

Exclusive: Letby’s barrister says application challenging verdicts is being prepared using expert medical evidence

www.theguardian.com

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

I know Jane she’s a good friend and her integrity is very high
Bless her being involved in this

 

[MalcSB]

New audit of baby deaths at Lucy Letby's hospital makes bombshell claim

Experts have questioned the reliability of the evidence that saw Lucy Letby jailed - after she was found guilty of murdering seven babies and attempting to kill seven more

www.mirror.co.uk

To me, this just seems more and more like a cover up.

The appeal court is dreadful is well,

But the appeal court judges said his (Dr Shoo Lee) evidence was not admissable because he was not called to the trial by Letby's defence. They said: "No good reason has been shown why the applicant should now be allowed to adduce evidence which could have been obtained and adduced at the appropriate time".

I would have though the fact that her original defence team seem to have poorly represented her should be good enough reason.

 

[wingy]

Inexplicable to me,why would a defence team behave as such? To bring a future case?

 

[MalcSB]

Inexplicable to me,why would a defence team behave as such? To bring a future case?

That would be madness, as it is proving to be difficult to get leave to appeal.

I would imagine an incompetent defence might fail to call appropriate defence witnesses. It also seems there is an Inexplicable reluctance for experts employed by the NHS to appear as defence witnesses in cases which may prove “difficult” for the NHS. I have no idea why that might be the case

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

Was speaking to professor Hutton tonight and she’s not dropping the police dropping the line of enquiry she was involved in

Very interesting stuff - profession feel defence barristers role over too quickly

 

[dutchman]

Lucy Letby hospital outlines 15 reasons why ‘baby killer’ was innocent

Neonatal ward manager lists why nurse, who would eventually be convicted of murder, could not be behind the deaths of babies

www.telegraph.co.uk

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.

 

[MalcSB]

A defence lawyer trying to get a murderer off the hook.

Let’s be brutally honest here. There is on,y one person in the world who definitively knows whether she is actually a murderer. My guess is she is unlikely to share that information with us.

in terms of driving buses through the data, you are nearly right. A decent, competent defence lawyer shood have been able to drive. A bus through that data. It’s terrible that that didn’t happen. I genuinely am unsure about her guilt. I can just as easily believe the “scapegoat” theory. There really isn’t any compelling direct evidence it’s circumstantial at best.

Circumstantial evidence is indirect evidence that does not, on its face, prove a fact in issue but gives rise to a logical inference that the fact exists. Circumstantial evidence requires drawing additional reasonable inferences in order to support the claim. The problem is with this case is that the defence didn’t put anyexpert witnesses on the stand to challenge the reasonableness of inferences being made in court and to the jury, we have had a number of eminent statisticians now who have said that the only thing that could reasonably be inferred by the staff rosters was that Lucy Letby did in fact work at that unit. IF she is innocent and the victim of a cover up that is truly disgusting and really not helping the poor parents who lost their babies.