New Lucy Letby details

[Mrsdoyler]

Did you see today in the news that LucyLetby originally failed her nursing training.

Reason: Lack of empathy

the heart was said to have been damaged by the injection of air into the blood stream

No it wasn’t. Evans said he was murdered by an injection of air into his stomach causing the baby’s stomach to balloon, “splinting his diaphragm” and crushing his lungs so that he couldn’t breathe.

When later confronted with the fact that LL wasn’t working when the X-ray showing air in the stomach was taken, he claimed the death must have been due to air in the bloodstream.

Except there is no evidence for air in the bloodstream on the post mortem and the pathologist’s report is clear as to cause of death. It was known and accepted during the trial that the baby had an infection (pneumonia) and Evans even accepted infection was a “significant” factor in the child’s death during the trial.

The other expert witnesses were giving evidence based on the x-ray taken before Letby had seen Baby C.
Any other evidence relating to Lucy Letby’s behaviour or presence is worthless if it is impossible for her to have done the damage shown in the x-ray.

If you wanted to see how they were doing, you want to see ordinary, everyday, potentially positive stuff - so you'd do that at times other than the anniversaries of the deaths.

Anniversaries of losses & bereavement are going to have a particular type of post.

She sought that.

In any case, it was inappropriate given their babies had been her patients, and lost in such tragic circumstances. It was intrusive.

Hardly surprising from Miss "You'll never guess what's happened!" about tiny babies' deaths. As her senior colleague was perturbed to hear her say in a bright tone to another colleague.

And Miss "He's not getting out of here alive, is he?* which disgusted another colleague who expressed so to her.

And her "encouraging" parents to put a not yet deceased baby into a ventilated crib for deceased babies.

And having to be told to get out of rooms with grieving parents.

And bouncing around talking about momento boxes and first baths, in the face of devastated, grieving parents.

So sensitive and caring.

I guarantee not one of you CT "miscarriage of justice posters would be comfortable with her caring for a baby of yours. You'd have to be clinically insane to be comfortable with it. You're lying if you say you would.

Being emotionally tone-deaf and socially inappropriate isn't a sign that someone has murderous tendencies. If it was, 90% of people with autism would be under suspicion of wrongdoing. Honestly. 🤦🏻‍♀️

Oh and according to Mirabai, numerous paediatric consultants framed and scape goated her ...... All colluded on it, the police didn't see through it, nor the CPS, nor juries.

And all the consultants all go about their merry way, having framed an innocent woman for multiple infant murders, making her Britain's worst historical child killer, meaning she'll never she the outside of a prison again ..... But they're all perfectly ok with that, they just shrug their shoulders, enjoy their lives, and think "oh well, better than us getting into trouble" (which they weren't going to anyway with that shit show of a management in charge).

I wonder do they meet for a glass of wine every now and then and say "Phew, still got away with it, Lucy'll be fine in there, she wasn't doing much with her personal life anyway".

Yeeeaah.

.

It's part of the picture..

I know you've got the ear plugs in and the blindfold on and you're singing lalala, so you can't see the picture.
Because you don't want to see it.

The delusion is something to behold.

Honestly 🙄

isn't a sign that someone has murderous tendencies

What is a sign of murderous tendencies?

And do people ever hide signs?

Do tell, because we could end all murders, we could have seers with this special knowledge, like in Minority Report ... If we were to use that unique knowledge of how to reliably identify potential murderers.

I mean, no murder need happen again.

Honestly 🙄.

Well that would rather depend on whether people were dying mysteriously around them or not wouldn't it?

Yes, it's part of a picture being used to make someone look like they must be capable of murder. Yet none of it has anything to do with being capable of murder.

Bull - fucking - shit.

That would depend on if the deaths are actually mysterious wouldn't it?

Are you even capable of having a discussion without being obnoxious?

@HazelPlayer I said the consultants scapegoated her. (Altho I think they were genuinely swayed by a misunderstanding of the significance of the stats.)

Police and CPS are not scientists, this is complex medical science.

If the court is only presented with half the expert evidence it needs to hear to evaluate the case properly, it’s hardly surprising if they vote on that.

I don’t think so.

She better hope no one dies around her under suspicious circumstances because when they take a look at her internet usage they'll see a history of her being vile and use it to build a picture.

Haha I was just thinking this

Well done @HazelPlayer for trying. You have done a great job trying to explain.

Some just haven't followed the trial daily and thirwall.

Geez, she said she did not remember. They asked her 7 years later whether she was aware ‘child F’ had low blood sugar. It would be suspicious if in November 2022 she could recall all the vital stats of one baby from one day in 2015.

I'm not sure I'd want anyone involved in the trial treating babies. Management not efficiently dealing with sewage issues and understaffing etc. Consultants changing evidence to suit their pre determined positions. Unexplained and not investigated increased deaths in the maternity unit too. It was a total disaster.

There's a whole load of options between not guilty of anything and guilty of multiple murders. It's clear LL made mistakes. It's clear other people did too. I'm not sure the evidence of deliberate harm stacks up sufficiently (not to say this didn't happen).

But she would have been advised by her legal team...yes she could overrule them but if they said that we don't think we should call Dr Hall because of X and Y then presumably most people will go along with the legal experts opinion as they would trust that they're the ones offering the educated opinions.

It can be very much a sign of murderous tendencies.

For me the thing that makes the fact that nobody saw anything so significant is that in many cases she wasn’t alone. Whether she was even in the room is quite doubtful in some cases.
Different people obviously find different aspects of the case improbable.
I can’t just dismiss the six or so murder methods supposedly used without having researched them and without having researched any serial killers especially from someone who seems to have looked up anyone who was on her mind.
I don’t know what a normal reaction to being treated like a murderer by your work would be in your mid-twenties.
If the evidence that the murders and attempted murders actually took place were strong and there was good evidence she had committed them then nothing else would matter very much.

Yes if you scroll down a bit after half way in this substack article you'll see the layout of one of the rooms and how exposed LL would have been.

https://lawhealthandtech.substack.com/p/ll-part-6-the-incredible-dr-dewi

Thanks. This quotation from the article bears repeating:

“...it is essential that the circumstances should, to a moral certainty, actually exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved: hence results the rule in criminal cases that the coincidence of circumstances tending to indicate guilt, however strong and numerous they may be, avails nothing unless the corpus delicti, the fact that the crime has actually been committed, be first established...”
Starkie on Evidence, 3rd ed., (1842)

I just don’t feel the judge communicated this principle to the jury.

Literally not a single part of this makes her a murderer. You'd have to be clinically insane to think so.