Page 33 | Lucy Letby - new thread

anonymousamy · 2023-08-21T21:23:22+00:00

No idea why the last one was taken down, but for anyone who wants to continue the discussion on Letby, I’m starting a new thread here. I’m 100% sure she’s guilty, but I’m still massively struggling to comprehend why on earth she did it.

Crowfinch · 23/08/2023 10:35

Mustardseed86 · 23/08/2023 10:33

There's nothing similar about these cases. Lucy Letby murdered and attempted murders in a variety of ways including vastly overfeeding, insulin poisoning, for both of which there was clear physical evidence. The collapses were quick and completely unexpected. These same sudden, unexpected and unexplained collapses followed Letby from night to day shifts. There were no symptoms of infection, no markers of infection, and infection was ruled out post-mortem. They happened on significant dates - due dates, Father's Day, 100 day milestones. I don't know of any natural causes that would remotely explain that.
Please just stop this inane and grossly disrespectful misrepresentation. It's either malicious, stupid, or both.

Edited

I suspect it's because their intellects are vastly superior to ours, and we are all sheeple.

Sunflowers20 · 23/08/2023 10:35

OK that makes sense. So if the defence lawyer said, for example, that providing family and colleague witnesses would be helpful to show her mental status before and after each child died she could just say no she didnt want them involved and they wouldn't be called. Or if they suggested certain medical experts or lines of questioning etc it can be refused.

So in effect the mental status of a defendent at the time has a material affect on the evidence provided.

How does that work in cases where a defendent is diagnosed with a mental health condition that affects their reasoning?

OvaHere · 23/08/2023 10:37

Mustardseed86 · 23/08/2023 10:33

There's nothing similar about these cases. Lucy Letby murdered and attempted murders in a variety of ways including vastly overfeeding, insulin poisoning, for both of which there was clear physical evidence. The collapses were quick and completely unexpected. These same sudden, unexpected and unexplained collapses followed Letby from night to day shifts. There were no symptoms of infection, no markers of infection, and infection was ruled out post-mortem. They happened on significant dates - due dates, Father's Day, 100 day milestones. I don't know of any natural causes that would remotely explain that.
Please just stop this inane and grossly disrespectful misrepresentation. It's either malicious, stupid, or both.

Edited

Not meaning to go off on a tangent but wow, MN has an edit button at long last!

Cailleachian · 23/08/2023 10:37

@BeenThereDoneThat101 "The need to defend a murderer is quite disturbing and says a lot about the people who do it."

People who are questioning this verdict tho arent defending a murderer, they are suggesting that there might not be a murderer, and poor hygiene and consultant negligence is an alternative explanation for many of the deaths. This is the conclusion that the review of the deaths came to.

The consultants that were criticised in the report then went over the heads of the trust management and called in the police, accusing Letby (who they had already been disciplined for bullying) of murdering the infants.

In the words of Dr Gibbs "We began to realise that we were in direct confrontation with managers and we had no choice but to fight and to make sure the police got involved. By that stage, it was us or her.'

Mustardseed86 · 23/08/2023 10:38

OvaHere · 23/08/2023 10:37

Not meaning to go off on a tangent but wow, MN has an edit button at long last!

Show quote history

Yes! 🙌🙌😀😀

CherryMaDeara · 23/08/2023 10:44

loyalist · 23/08/2023 09:27

Tom Pinch.

"You're missing the point. Once again, the defence could have brought in their own expert witness. If the Crown witness was genuinely not in his field of expertise the defence could have challenged his evidence"

The defence did challenge his evidence and his inclusion as an "expert witness", after his very public evisceration by Law Lord Justice Jackson, who described his report as worthless, in another case.

Lord Jackson said for all that had gone before “For all those reasons, no court would have accepted a report of this quality even if it had been produced at the time of the trial.”

For whatever reason the Letby judge dismissed Lord Justice Jackson's opinion, out of hand, saying it was for the jury to decide, something else that the appeal court will look at I think, notwithstanding the totally erroneous report produced by evan's in the letby trial.

Do you really think your attempts at obfuscation works?

Dr Evans, the expert witness, explained he had sent a letter to a firm of solicitors on a different case which was never meant to be sent to a court. He further explained it was the only time a judge had dismissed his report in his 30 year career.

What do you think was erroneous about Dr Evans report on the Letby murders?

TomPinch · 23/08/2023 10:47

I take it you mean this:

https://www.irishnews.com/news/uknews/2023/02/09/news/report_by_expert_witness_described_as_worthless_by_judge_letby_trial_told-3050154/

Your logic must be that because a judge decided he was biased in one dissimilar case he must be the same in this one.

Which I accept isn't a great look but it's still irrelevant. The judge presiding over the Letby trial decided to allow his evidence and Letby's defence decided not to appeal that ruling.

Regardless of that, Letby's barrister gave him a mauling on that point. I guess the jury just didn't buy it.

Most significantly though - once again the defence chose not to present their own expert. If Evans was as bad as you say his evidence would have been vulnerable.

I reckon Evans' brief of evidence would have been shown to other experts who said there was nothing contentious about it.

Report by expert witness described as ‘worthless' by judge, Letby trial told

.

https://www.irishnews.com/news/uknews/2023/02/09/news/report_by_expert_witness_described_as_worthless_by_judge_letby_trial_told-3050154

loyalist · 23/08/2023 10:49

cherrymadeara

"What do you think was erroneous about Dr Evans report on the Letby murders?"

Fill your boots👍👇

"As an example, Dr Evans’ primary assertion is that the infants were harmed by air embolism, where air was deliberately injected into a vein, or through the stomach. Peculiarly, Dr Evans relies on a research paper from 1989 which depicts gas embolism, which is due to the usage of high ventilation pressures in preterm neonates. The cause of death due to gas embolism from high pressure ventilation differs substantially from the cause of death due to air embolism. It is never properly explained how the article Dr Evans references could have ever been used as a basis for describing air embolism using ambient air with 21% oxygen introduced through various tubes. The paper Dr Evans references describes air embolism caused by high pressure 100% oxygen being delivered to the lung with such force it caused air leak in the lung. When demonstrating the symptoms of a given physiological state it is necessary to demonstrate this state in multiple peer reviewed journal articles. There is no evidence supporting the finding of air embolism in any of the infants, as the expert witnesses rely on a journal article depicting gas embolism and not air embolism".

MiniTheMinx · 23/08/2023 10:55

Cailleachian · 23/08/2023 10:37

@BeenThereDoneThat101 "The need to defend a murderer is quite disturbing and says a lot about the people who do it."

People who are questioning this verdict tho arent defending a murderer, they are suggesting that there might not be a murderer, and poor hygiene and consultant negligence is an alternative explanation for many of the deaths. This is the conclusion that the review of the deaths came to.

The consultants that were criticised in the report then went over the heads of the trust management and called in the police, accusing Letby (who they had already been disciplined for bullying) of murdering the infants.

In the words of Dr Gibbs "We began to realise that we were in direct confrontation with managers and we had no choice but to fight and to make sure the police got involved. By that stage, it was us or her.'

"it was us or her"

What a very strange thing to say!

CherryMaDeara · 23/08/2023 10:56

loyalist · 23/08/2023 10:16

abouttimemum,

"What a shame they didn’t use that as part of her non existent and absolutely dreadful defence then"

You haven't been following very closely, they couldn't use the reports, the Judge for some unknown reason excluded them...that alone will guarantee a retrial.

Any evidence for your claim that the reports were excluded?

As far as I can see, the prosecution instructed new pathology reports, which makes sense to me. When the original reports were done the coroner may not have known to look for things like globules of air in the blood.

CherryMaDeara · 23/08/2023 11:00

loyalist · 23/08/2023 10:49

cherrymadeara

"What do you think was erroneous about Dr Evans report on the Letby murders?"

Fill your boots👍👇

"As an example, Dr Evans’ primary assertion is that the infants were harmed by air embolism, where air was deliberately injected into a vein, or through the stomach. Peculiarly, Dr Evans relies on a research paper from 1989 which depicts gas embolism, which is due to the usage of high ventilation pressures in preterm neonates. The cause of death due to gas embolism from high pressure ventilation differs substantially from the cause of death due to air embolism. It is never properly explained how the article Dr Evans references could have ever been used as a basis for describing air embolism using ambient air with 21% oxygen introduced through various tubes. The paper Dr Evans references describes air embolism caused by high pressure 100% oxygen being delivered to the lung with such force it caused air leak in the lung. When demonstrating the symptoms of a given physiological state it is necessary to demonstrate this state in multiple peer reviewed journal articles. There is no evidence supporting the finding of air embolism in any of the infants, as the expert witnesses rely on a journal article depicting gas embolism and not air embolism".

What is your source? Because the pathology report I read said there was evidence of air being injected in the baby's abdomen.

BIossomtoes · 23/08/2023 11:00

BIossomtoes · 23/08/2023 10:33

Once again. Which deaths did postmortem reports show to be natural?

Show quote history

Third time now. Anyone?

TomPinch · 23/08/2023 11:05

TomPinch · 23/08/2023 10:47

I take it you mean this:

https://www.irishnews.com/news/uknews/2023/02/09/news/report_by_expert_witness_described_as_worthless_by_judge_letby_trial_told-3050154/

Your logic must be that because a judge decided he was biased in one dissimilar case he must be the same in this one.

Which I accept isn't a great look but it's still irrelevant. The judge presiding over the Letby trial decided to allow his evidence and Letby's defence decided not to appeal that ruling.

Regardless of that, Letby's barrister gave him a mauling on that point. I guess the jury just didn't buy it.

Most significantly though - once again the defence chose not to present their own expert. If Evans was as bad as you say his evidence would have been vulnerable.

I reckon Evans' brief of evidence would have been shown to other experts who said there was nothing contentious about it.

Sorry, this was for loyalist.

loyalist · 23/08/2023 11:07

R v. Lucy Letby
In 2020, Lucy Letby was charged with the murder of 7 infants, and the attempted murder of 10 infants. These children were all under the care of Lucy Letby in the neonatal unit at the Countess of Chester Hospital, in Chester, UK. These attacks were reported to span the period June 2015- June 2016. At the time nobody suspected Lucy Letby of wrong-doing. It was only after the Consultants, running the neonatal unit, were the subject of a critical report from the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health (RCPCH) that the Consultants filed a report with the police alleging the infant deaths were due to the actions of nurse Lucy Letby. In all but one case, the infants received autopsies, and the coroner found that they died of natural causes. This website was created to present the science behind the claims made against Ms Letby. The information contained here reflects the basic scientific standards and findings relevant to the claims made by the expert witnesses. Despite the requirement that expert witnesses present completed information on those matters they are called to testify on, none of the information contained on this website was ever made available to the jury by the expert witnesses.

BeenThereDoneThat101 · 23/08/2023 11:07

Talking about gross miscarriages of justice is defending a murderer.

She had a defence team for that. It is quite frankly ridiculous to start making claims of miscarriage of justice based on the nameless blog of some conspiracy theorist when even her defence was unable to find any expert witnesses to testify in her defence.

And it is equally notable that there haven’t been any mentions of an appeal at this point, which is usually something which comes up pretty quickly.

It is highly likely that this is just the tip of the iceberg in this instance and that she was responsible for murdering many more babies, including the two whose deaths are currently being investigated at Liverpool Women’s hospital where she did her placement

BIossomtoes · 23/08/2023 11:11

loyalist · 23/08/2023 11:07

R v. Lucy Letby
In 2020, Lucy Letby was charged with the murder of 7 infants, and the attempted murder of 10 infants. These children were all under the care of Lucy Letby in the neonatal unit at the Countess of Chester Hospital, in Chester, UK. These attacks were reported to span the period June 2015- June 2016. At the time nobody suspected Lucy Letby of wrong-doing. It was only after the Consultants, running the neonatal unit, were the subject of a critical report from the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health (RCPCH) that the Consultants filed a report with the police alleging the infant deaths were due to the actions of nurse Lucy Letby. In all but one case, the infants received autopsies, and the coroner found that they died of natural causes. This website was created to present the science behind the claims made against Ms Letby. The information contained here reflects the basic scientific standards and findings relevant to the claims made by the expert witnesses. Despite the requirement that expert witnesses present completed information on those matters they are called to testify on, none of the information contained on this website was ever made available to the jury by the expert witnesses.

Where does that text come from? And can you link to it, please?

CherryMaDeara · 23/08/2023 11:12

loyalist · 23/08/2023 11:07

R v. Lucy Letby
In 2020, Lucy Letby was charged with the murder of 7 infants, and the attempted murder of 10 infants. These children were all under the care of Lucy Letby in the neonatal unit at the Countess of Chester Hospital, in Chester, UK. These attacks were reported to span the period June 2015- June 2016. At the time nobody suspected Lucy Letby of wrong-doing. It was only after the Consultants, running the neonatal unit, were the subject of a critical report from the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health (RCPCH) that the Consultants filed a report with the police alleging the infant deaths were due to the actions of nurse Lucy Letby. In all but one case, the infants received autopsies, and the coroner found that they died of natural causes. This website was created to present the science behind the claims made against Ms Letby. The information contained here reflects the basic scientific standards and findings relevant to the claims made by the expert witnesses. Despite the requirement that expert witnesses present completed information on those matters they are called to testify on, none of the information contained on this website was ever made available to the jury by the expert witnesses.

Again, you've posted from the conspiracy theorist's website.

It was only after the Consultants, running the neonatal unit, were the subject of a critical report from the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health (RCPCH) that the Consultants filed a report with the police alleging the infant deaths were due to the actions of nurse Lucy Letby.

This isn't true. The doctors suspected Lucy from early July 2015 and repeatedly asked management to involve police.

There are emails between doctors saying they need police help.

"I believe we need help from outside agencies," he wrote. "And the only agency who can investigate all of us, I believe, is the police."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66120934

Hawkins009 · 23/08/2023 11:16

CherryMaDeara · 23/08/2023 11:12

Again, you've posted from the conspiracy theorist's website.

It was only after the Consultants, running the neonatal unit, were the subject of a critical report from the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health (RCPCH) that the Consultants filed a report with the police alleging the infant deaths were due to the actions of nurse Lucy Letby.

This isn't true. The doctors suspected Lucy from early July 2015 and repeatedly asked management to involve police.

There are emails between doctors saying they need police help.

"I believe we need help from outside agencies," he wrote. "And the only agency who can investigate all of us, I believe, is the police."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66120934

Show quote history

I'm not usually one for x files but omg I'f any is possible true.

BeenThereDoneThat101 · 23/08/2023 11:18

MN HQ need to start deleting this conspiracy bollocks. Because it is bollocks.

As soon as you read “this website hopes to….” You know that it’s a conspiracy website put together by some halfwhit who wants to make a name for themselves as being the voice of the wrong committed against Lucy Letby. There will be similar websites for Fred West, Rose West, Harold Shipman, in fact any notorious criminal out there, and equally there are similar websites designed to prove the guilt of people who were either found to be not guilty of a crime or who there has never been reason to charge with one. One particular individual springs to mind where there are numerous websites which claim to prove guilt.

loyalist · 23/08/2023 11:19

"Again, you've posted from the conspiracy theorist's website"

The refuge of the befuddled, everything they don't agree with is a conspiracy theory🫵

this website....

BIossomtoes · 23/08/2023 11:21

loyalist · 23/08/2023 11:19

"Again, you've posted from the conspiracy theorist's website"

The refuge of the befuddled, everything they don't agree with is a conspiracy theory🫵

this website....

Where’s the link?

Efacsen · 23/08/2023 11:22

BIossomtoes · 23/08/2023 11:11

Where does that text come from? And can you link to it, please?

Show quote history

I think that this risks becoming something of a circular argument in that all the babies would have been provided with death certificates in 2015/16 so that they could be buried. The cause of death could not have been murder at this stage but a variety of other causes = 'natural causes'

Subsequently the natural causes diagnoses have been re-examined and re-categorised as murder following the court case so new death certificates will need to be provided presumably by way on an inquest

milveycrohn · 23/08/2023 11:24

@CherryMaDeara
"I believe we need help from outside agencies," he wrote. "And the only agency who can investigate all of us, I believe, is the police."

This is true, as it is only the police who have the power to search LL's house, and take away her computers (and possibly her phone) for forensic investigation.

As I understand it, the consultants (I think there were more than one) went through the deaths and realised there had been some sabotage, etc. The management refused to take further action, and accused them of bullying LL.

But this is where further action should have been taken, considering it is NOT jsut the reputation of the hospital, it is the lives of very young babies.

When the police were finally called in, they consulted with a doctor from outside that trust (I believe more than 1 doctor). Ultimaltey, it was the CPS who decided there was enough evidence to prosecute.

Hawkins009 · 23/08/2023 11:25

BeenThereDoneThat101 · 23/08/2023 11:18

MN HQ need to start deleting this conspiracy bollocks. Because it is bollocks.

As soon as you read “this website hopes to….” You know that it’s a conspiracy website put together by some halfwhit who wants to make a name for themselves as being the voice of the wrong committed against Lucy Letby. There will be similar websites for Fred West, Rose West, Harold Shipman, in fact any notorious criminal out there, and equally there are similar websites designed to prove the guilt of people who were either found to be not guilty of a crime or who there has never been reason to charge with one. One particular individual springs to mind where there are numerous websites which claim to prove guilt.

On the flip side how many times in the papers etc is information considered conspiracy then years later oh by the way it was true?

In this case of Lucy, I presume what the officials have told us I presume to be true, but I've not studied all the information in detail and I'm not qualified to understand it all.

loyalist · 23/08/2023 11:28

"Where’s the link?"
Isn't it obvious, Dr Gill recommends it at the end.