Lucy Letby - new thread

[anonymousamy]

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.

And there I was thinking it was a halfway credible source. Stupid of me really - the shocking superfluous punctuation should have been a give away.

On the perspective of using punctuation or spelling to discredit information is no better than questioning the credentials of the person as a way to side step the information, if the intelligence is correct then regardless of the source, regardless of the spelling, if it's true then surely it's true if it can be proven ?

Yes, I understand the consultants realised early on there was some form of sabotage.

They wanted LL removed from the unit and were told no, and they then wanted to get the police involved but were told no. I understand from another thread that the doctors involving the police of their own accord would have been career suicide. It's easy for us to say they should have done this much earlier but when your chief executive is hinting that the problem is you and there is a threat of being reported to the GMC, I can see why they were scared. Imagine having a vocation to be a paediatric doctor and the threat of never being able to treat another baby again.

My issue with that link is it makes claims like the consultants only reported to police when there was a report against them but fails to provide any sort of timeline or dates for when events happen. Whereas any decent reporter provides a timeline so you can easily see that the website is lying.

Which I can understand but then in intelligence circles we would or at least I would consider the information to be semi possible, then using other separate sources of intelligence try to work our own timeline, and then as and when other intelligence can be added that is undisputed and try to build from there.

Same with sources in the field, some times you only get bits and pieces.

Except it's not true is it? If there was any credibility, I can tell you with 100% certainty this would have been leapt on by Letby's defence team. Any argument to the contrary is such ridiculous conspiracy theory it beggars belief.

The whole point of credentials is it gives people a level of trust in the information provided. Because those credentialled experts are actually producing work recognised by their peers, are fully fact-checked (including spellings!) and willing to put their names on it, and can thus be relied on for evidence in court cases, then to be further tested by defence questioning and other evidence.

This site doesn't meet those basic thresholds - it's the equivalent of a climate-change denial, anti-vax or creationist 'science' website. It can therefore be dismissed on that basis, there is really no point in discussing the misinformation point by point because at this point if you want to be a conspiracy theorist, you're going to be one regardless.

It's also worth noting that a lot of LL's erstwhile colleagues who were also friends became susicious of her, especially when she was moved to day shifts. There were also reports of her making malicious comments to parents and staff during her shifts, which colleagues must have reported to police. I think you can see in her text history that her mask starts to slip.

Look at her texts like "I've done a timeline of the year. Hoping to get as much info together as possible - if they have nothing or minimal on me they'll look silly, not Me.'"

Or when she says she will be 'back with a bang lol' and then a baby is dead within 72 hours.

Her colleagues weren't stupid they will have seen her for what she is and distanced themselves. Even Lucy herself testifies in court that by the end she only had 2 friends to talk to. I'm guessing (but don't know) that they were childhood friends, not colleague friends.

You are obviously more concerned with your very narrow view being proven right, than any sense or pursuit of Justice, your criticism of Gill, who was instrumental in clearing Lucia de Berk Is not unexpected.
Best leave you to your pursuit of being proven right.

After watching the good wife show, and yes it's fiction but presumably based on semi reality
There could be any number of factors in play that may or may not explain why certain information was used or not used.

🤦‍♀️🤦‍♀️🤦‍♀️
It has already been investigated with a fine tooth comb and subject to a ten month trial with an extremely well-regarded criminal defence team.
One of these things is not like the other...

@Mustardseed86
Overall I do respect your perspectives.

But that's the point, there is no timeline. There are just long paragraphs of assertions.

Compare that conspiracy website with this BBC article, they are chalk and cheese.

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

I do believe the official story of the case, I was just offering different perspectives on judging information.

Remarkably, the consultant, Dr Gibbs, claimed that he suspected Ms Letby of murder in 2015. He, not only, failed to properly lodge this complaint, but he failed to ensure the proper collection of serum and blood samples after death of the patients. Additionally, it appears that, Dr Gibbs failed to notify the coroner that he had firm suspicions that the infants were murder victims. It is also the case that the hospital failed to lodge the deaths with the Child Death Overview Panel, which would have conducted an independent investigation at that time. Despite claiming he held concerns beginning in June 2015, Dr Gibbs failed to take the necessary steps to ensure proper preservation of the body after death, permitting the heating, bathing, and holding of the infants for hours after the loss of all vital signs of life. The treatment of the bodies after death, combined with the lack of blood and serum samples, collected at the time of death compounds the inherent difficulty in determining the cause of death. These shortcomings mean that there is no appropriate refutation of the autopsy findings, and nor can there be, where the bodies were not exhumed for re-examination.

Some of these posts are so disturbing, people trying to defend something like this, trying to exonerate her, without reading the evidence, it’s shocking people like this exist. One of those babies had injuries so bad it was likened to a car crash, the doctors traumatised by their screams. The deaths were not natural and shame on anyone saying they were/

read the evidence, educate yourselves and get off conspiracy sites.

Exactly. You would think that a high number of unexpected deaths of healthy infants who were just born too soon would have been thoroughly investigated. Any unexpected death is referred to the coroners and investigated. Drs should have insisted on a PM even when parents didn't want them and let's face it no-one wants to think of a post mortem being done on anyone let alone a tiny baby but it is essential when unexpected. I just don't understand how so many babies could have unexpectedly collapsed / died and a thorough investigation as to why not carried out. There are so many unanswered questions and I hope a public enquiry takes place.

She didn’t. It was part of the trial evidence.

This thread has gone wild

Do you have a medical background @loyalist ?

Because you keep quoting people who are making medical assertions but I'm unsure as to why you're lending them more credence than the medical assertions made by those who testified in court, in a ten month long trial where all parties had the opportunity to review and challenge their assertions.

However, an independent pathologist, who reviewed the case, said the boy had suffered an “impact injury” akin to a road traffic collision, while medical experts for the prosecution said he died due to a combination of that injury and air being injected into his bloodstream. “In brutal terms, an assault,” Johnson said.

What a horrible accusation, I did not, it wa part of rhe evidence, please at least pay the respect to those families and children by taking some time to read what actually happened.

The brilliant mathematicians who have exonerated neonatal nurses who were jailed for similar crimes are not conspiracy theorists - they are telling us LL’s case is flawed in disturbingly similar ways. We should listen.

See what Gill says about the LL case compared to Lucia de Berk case and others. Reported in Science Journal, very well respected

https://www.science.org/content/article/unlucky-numbers-fighting-murder-convictions-rest-shoddy-stats

If you were any way knowledgable about the case, you would know this is exactly how one baby's injuries were described.

I won't say what I think of you and your posts as I don't want to be deleted but suffice it to say you are not worth engaging with.

@loyalist

"One of those babies had injuries so bad it was likened to a car crash, the doctors traumatised by their screams"

You made that up. 😞

No they didn't.

www.chesterstandard.co.uk/news/23422288.lucy-letby-baby-suffered-liver-injury-akin-road-traffic-collision/