Thanks be that the UK has no death sentence. Making amends for one day in prison unjustifiably, is impossible, but making up for an execution.........................................
it is obvious lucy's original trial was rigged, with the judge & prosecution getting back handers from the hospital to make sure the medically ignorant jury found lucy 'guilty'! the 'evidence against her was distorted & deceitful & the hushed the main evidence which would have exonerated lucy, ie, the sewage leak in the neo natal unit!!
Ground News is not a reliable source, especially when it comes to the way they handle bias and left/right leaning. Their assessments of a news story, and news outlets are based entirely on a US understanding of politics. I in fact enquired with them how they present their content beyond the borders of the USA. They had no response. The way for example the USA interprets socialism, and the way the UK interprets socialism are WILDLY different. Ground News fails to account or correct for this. So, sadly it cannot help you avoid media bias, because the service itself is biased towards a very US-Centric view of the world. Now with due respect to Ground News, what they are attempting to do is a good thing. Their execution should be found wanting however. Likewise, I do respect that people such as yourself need to ensure that their videos make money. That is perfectly reasonable. However, I would simply suggest vetting your advertisers' talking points a little more carefully in future. It is in fact something I have noticed in some of your videos. On occasion the talking points sail very close to, but just short of false or misleading advertising. I have for example seen Ground News talking points in other TH-cam videos which are simply put false advertising, for which I have reported to the ASA. In this case, the left vs right claims, and the way you present them is more reasonable than other TH-camrs. This is encouraging.
It also doesn't mean they know everything. They just happen to know more than the average person. I'm a software developer with almost 40 years' experience. Compared to most, that makes me an "expert" in software development. Trust me, it doesn't. I also have a law degree. Compared to most people, that makes me an expert in the law. See what I mean?
I do not understand why the families would be upset about the doubts over Letby's guilt. If I were a parent who had lost a child I would want to know the TRUTH about that child's death. If it wasn't down to the accused I would want to know who, if anyone, was in fact to blame.
The families have already endured one huge breach of trust on top of a bereavement. If Lucy Letby didn't harm their children, they face a number of horrifying possibilities. The first is that they blamed someone for doing something appalling when they were innocent. In addition, then the questions get asked again and again...did the children die of natural causes? If yes, WHY was someone wrongly blamed? If no, was it neglect, systemic issues at the hospital or someone else? Truly adding to the nightmare the families are enduring. The search for truth is painful and they are already in agony. It's easier when people aren't directly involved to say that the TRUTH is the only important factor. Just think how people with broken legs need strong pain relief before they can receive treatment
Exactly. And I bellive some parents saw it through and see that letby is innocent and that the hospital (or doctors) f*** up. Sadly no media reports says ""Parents not convinced of letby guilt denamd answers"
I don't know if she is guilty or innocent, but I find it objectionable when people start saying that anyone questioning the outcome of a trial should be "ashamed of themselves". There have been plenty of miscarriages of justice in recent times and juries don't always get it right. If people who are experts in their field start raising questions then I think it is completely justifiable to be concerned and nobody should be shamed into staying quiet.
you can question it but you're an idiot for doing so. only because shes a good looking woman people are doubting. and maybe there's a few "anti mainstream" people who generally just believe the contrary of what is the truth. how many babies do you think would have died between 2016-2024 if letby wasn't caught, do you honestly think the deaths would have just stopped? there were only 2 nurses on her ward and she was on shift for all of the deaths. it's obvious.
@eadweard yes it is, it renowned across the globe as the gutter press! The UK press is sometimes called the gutter press because it is known for sensational journalism, especially about the private lives of public figures.
I'm sure the parents who thought this was finished and had some closure are upset by all this. But that should have no influence on whether a conviction is considered unsafe or not. If the Justice system is run on 'feelings' that's a bad day for justice.
Lucy Letby was convicted by a jury based on evidence that was submitted over 10 months, not feelings. That doesn't mean that they may not have got it wrong, but the only people seeking justice based on feelings are the people suggesting her innocence with no knowledge on the subject other than their "feelings".
Feelings are used in prosecutions- for example; Belfield was convicted because his accusers had a feeling that he may hurt them. He hadn’t met most of the people he was convicted of ‘stalking’. His stalking was unkind words uttered on TH-cam
the only massive problem is the ignorant “have a go lawyers” on social media that don’t bother to understand the issues and rely on social media. For example, here are some points to educate you; - Letby had defence experts, they attended a pre trial meeting with the prosecution’s experts, and notes were circulated to the legal teams. Letby chose not to call them at trial, the overwhelming likelihood being that it would have damaged her case in terms of the causes of death being suspicious (such as trauma from feeding tubes shoved down throats; air being injected; insulin being injected; breathing tubes being removed). - Letby accepted some of the prosecution’s evidence anyway - such as two babies having had insulin deliberately injected. - she was on duty for every one of the suspicious deaths. When she wasn’t on shift, they didn’t happen. - she was seen by a doctor standing alone over a baby that had been stable, and then suddenly it collapsed - its oxygen tube had been removed and the alarm turned off. Letby was doing nothing to help, just watching. - when Letby was training at another hospital, oxygen tubes had been removed on 40% of her shifts when the average was about 1%. Babies are very unlikely to be able to dislodge the tubes themselves, especially premature babies. - Letby was on her own with a baby that had been stable. Baby’s mother walked in and saw the baby’s mouth bleeding and the baby in distress, the oxygen tube had been rammed down its throat. - she amended medical notes to make it look like she was either less involved with a baby that died, or that the baby was declining before she was involved. - she stole confidential record of the dead babies, claimed she couldn’t destroy them, but admitted she had a shredder. Hoarding trophies like this is a classic sign of munchausen by proxy disorder. - she looked up the parents of the dead babies the night they died and she would be keen to be the first to break the news of the deaths, even when she wasn’t the designated deaths - she wrote a note admitting she had done these things, and at no point either with the police or at trial ever claimed it was because she was told to write it. - the doctors had major concerns about her, but those were suppressed and pressure put on doctors not to escalate by management. - she contradicted herself at trial on her evidence, couldn’t recall some parts when it was prejudicial to her but remembered massive details of the same time frame when she wanted to - the above is just some of the evidence that convinced her - she is likely to be a psychopath, with munchausen by proxy disorder, who chose nursing to be near to vulnerable babies. She thrived on attention and control, and in particular the attention she got from a doctor with whom she was obsessed.
I know somebody very close to me who has done jury service and he was honest and said they sent the guy down because he was a scumbag. Not because they thought he did the crime
It’s not a perfect system, it cannot be a perfect system because humans are involved and human beings have natural associative biases and projection biases which all trace back through their entire existence on this planet and what they have been exposed to and shaped by. Even individuals such as barristers or lawyers (to use the Americanism) may truly believe that a decision or opinion they hold is based purely upon the evidence and facts presented and that no emotion, bias, or personal feelings or judgements have been allowed to influence or affect their logical and critical thinking decisions and as I said they may wholeheartedly believe this and be as honest as the day is long however they would be incorrect. This is absolutely NOT to judge or criticise any barrister in any way, this is quite simply a scientific fact. Barristers can be and often are far advanced in critical thinking abilities and logical and rational analysis than most people in society and after many of practice and honing of these skills they are extremely capable. The problem as I see it is jury selection and the fact that ordinary working public are selected at random to make these often highly complex and exhausting judgements that hold a monumental heavy burden of responsibility upon them and to my mind at least I believe that to suddenly pull random people from all walks of life in and saddle them with these responsibilities under the strain of a new situation they haven’t experienced before is akin to asking a random individual on the street to come into your business whatever that maybe and suddenly analyse, scrutinise and conclude the current state of your business’s workforce, financial records and productivity and to then draw up detailed plans for the business for the next tax year and after careful consideration and evaluation decide what areas we can or should cut costs and what areas need investment and how do they project this affecting the balance sheet next year? Oh and the company or business has several on going legal disputes and also has been approached by another company who may purchase this business so your financial predictions will hugely affect the workers, owners and don’t forget pensions and insurance. Realistically, you would not expect many people to firstly give a damn, secondly have any motivation even if you paid them to actually attempt to be as accurate as you require and thirdly and most importantly to have the requisite skills, knowledge and experience to even attempt this let alone produce accurate and responsible results. Thinking about it you wouldn’t ask someone randomly out of the public to come round and fix your washing machine would you! No of course not you look for an expert in that industry and field with experience and prior professional experience so why on earth do we just pluck everyday working people and expect them to suddenly be up to making a responsible and both logical and rational completely unbiased decision that is accurate?? The long hours, the endless hours sat in court listening to so many different people telling you the same story a different way and add to the stress and strain of the new situation and serious responsibilities on top and it’s unsurprising that poor or incorrect decisions are made and more people than would care to admit I personally believe will decide their vote upon their own instincts and gut feelings. I personally believe that jury duty should be a career or at least an occupation you do for a few years to become competent and capable to make good decisions given the extreme circumstances.
I stood trial for raping my ex/child’s mother in a trial with 0% factual evidence given by 3 female liars who didn’t like me-I only ever told the truth and it took the Jury 5 minutes to find me innocent. Then a few weeks later stood trial for sexual assault of a minor (10 years after it happened,freind from first trail and her mother,again) and faced same people from first trial again and 0% factual evidence-I only ever told the truth but witness had to admit she “got it wrong” with certain evidence from first trail and it took the jury (completely different from first,coz separate case and not a “conspiracy” like I claimed) 5 minutes to find me innocent,again. Although the “evidence” was clear and I was conspired against by 3 evil witches I can’t get them done for conspiracy coz law and I’m poor,lol. I don’t believe Lucy is Guilty at all ✌️
it seems to me Letby’s defence was abysmal. Expert witnesses are supposed to be impartial and not advocate for one party or another. How could Evans be impartial having been a major part of the investigation that led to Letby being charged? From what I’ve seen of the evidence, it is entirely circumstantial and she should never have been convicted. The only identifiable motive is that of the hospital management that Evan’s worked for, which is to point the blame for a spike in infant deaths on an employee, rather than their unsanitary and understaffed hospital.
Exactly why there was an expert there and it lasted for months....... And they took 22 days..... Without a time machine what else do you expect to be done?
Good point! I have a friend who as on Jury service years ago, on an avaition fraud case (involving millions of pounds) - my friend isa highly succesful self employed business man , with a very good knowledge of Accounts / Taxation etc but even with this knowledge he eventually raised his hand and told the Judge that he was now out of his depth in terms of the technicalities of the case and needed more time and explanation.The Judge smiled and explained that in spite of 20 years of dealing with this kind of case, he too was finding this case complex - . The Judge then addressed the rest of the Jury and asked (if on the basis of only one person (my friend) expressing concern) could he (the Judge) assume that all other Jury members were up to speed , with the Technical issues here. One by one , each of them admitted to being completely at a loss and yet had remained silent for fear of looking foolish or holding things up.The Judge ordered that more time be given to explaining the concepts - apparently the man charged looked terrified ...!
@@JulieSimmonds-z2j certainly not. I think you are an ignorant SHEEP. No one can buy me because I'm not a Bread Head. How much experience do you have of working in the Hospital system. Have you studied the background of this case and found out all you can.... I have, and there is so much more than the media anywhere know or publish.
The media had pretty much convicted her before her trail even started. Personally from the start I thought it sounded more like NHS incompetence than a serial killer and another post office scandal in the making. But I only got to see what was in the media, still do think there is a good chance she was a scapegoat but only time will tell.
I also feel like she could be being used as a scapegoat. From things I've seen about the state of the hospital etc. I saw a report saying there were just as many deaths on the days she didn't work as to when she did. It's a very sad case no matter what way you look at it
@@robslade2571 If it was failings in the department, one would expect them to address those failings, even thought they threw her under the bus. There have also been spikes in other hospitals, some before and some since.
Her notes are worthless as evidence. Anyone who is distressed and is asked to write down stuff will state nonsense. I've done it. In any case, the notes are contradictory as she says she is innocent having previously blamed herself. I don't know enough about the case to form an accurate opinion about her guilt or otherwise, but those notes should be dismissed.
Lucy Letby did not have a fair trial. Lucy was a whistleblower because of the incompetence of the unit. They needed someone to blame and she had reported of the negligence on the unit. I agree with you. I’m a retired nurse who worked with neonatal babies and adults and it’s very complex. There was no real evidence and I believe Lucy was frustrated at the whole situation. This might be upsetting for the families, but I’m sorry Lucy is in prison and this is her life on the line. There was lots of information that was not used. Staff members were frightened to speak up because I believe they were threatened. In the 1980s neonatal care was completely different. Neonates are from 22/23 weeks onwards and the technology has changed soo much since that soo called specialist worked. These babies are soo at risk and can beat the odds . They need excellent and specialist nurses and doctors. That unit and some staff were described by many as being incompetent and the hospital had previously been reported as such. When Lucy described herself as feeling guilty, I imagine it was because no matter what she tried to change the situation she was ignored and suffered harshly. She was finally given an apology but by then it seems those involved needed to blame someone to get the hospital off the hook and out of trouble. She needs a new trial and she needs evidence that was not given at her trial to be incorporated. I watched her trial and I cried for her and her family. She looked gaunt and shell shocked. I agree these parents need some answers and an end to all of the pain.
She's guilty as any person ever convicted in a court of law and quite frankly it's embarrassing that you are advocating for the release of a monster that kills babies.
My wife has been a nurse for 24 years. She said early on in this case that there was something wrong with how they have cherry-picked so-called evidence. She also mentioned how management can and in some cases will always look for a scapegoat, such is the seriousness of a hospital facing an investigation for general malpractice.
But that's not what happened here. Hospital management protected Letby and forced her accusers to apologise. Management are now being criticised for not acting soon enough. It's the opposite of what you're suggesting.
@@dab. So how is she still found guilty for harming children on times when she wasn't even in work? And management did not disclose that other nurses who were also regularly present when babies were harmed. How is that the opposite? It's purposeful negligence.
@@lee4171 You said she was made a scapegoat by management. In fact he was protected by management. That's the opposite of what you said. Which child was Letby found guilty of harming when she was not at work?
@@dab. No no no. I said that children were found to turn very sick when she was not there. Yes, I still believe she was made a scapegoat for another poorly managed ward within the NHS. I would add that coincidence is also no grounds to prove someone guilty in a multi-person case. There remains still, no solid proof one person or Letby herself did this. Hopefully time will tell.
I don’t know if Lucy Letby is guilty or not. What I do know is that I too was a nurse in the UK. What I learned is, in places as least, it has a terrible blame culture. Over the years, I myself was swept up into three cases that ultimately involved police action. They were in no way as serious as the deaths of babies. These issues dragged on and on and on and I saw how certain staff were protected and others were not. In the cases I was involved in, ultimately no acceptable evidence was offered against staff and they were dropped. In one case a member of the public, by the use of CCTV, was proven to be a blatant liar and his complaint immediately dropped. However we were strongly advised not to bring a counter-action. It’s scary and incredibly unpleasant to be involved in these things and because I have seen how things so easily get twisted - I honestly don’t know what to believe but I have very little faith in “the system”.
I am also a nurse in the UK. There has always been a blame culture. When something happens management will always look around for some one to blame. An example of this is when a unit is very short staffed and management are aware of it. They will try to tell you that you are being silly for pointing it out but when something goes wrong, as a result of the staff shortage, the staff on duty will then get the blame. I am not sure if she is guilty or not but I do know about the culture that exists in nursing.
@@andrewjack31 What I said in my comment is that I did not know if she was gulty or not.. However having worked for 43 years as a nurse I do know about the blame culture that has always existed.
Letby wrote a piece in her own hand, stating how she felt responsible for the deaths of the babies. The prosecution claimed this was an admission of guilt, but there's a different interpretation. The babies had died on her watch. She felt guilty because she couldn't have prevented it. Reminds me of a man in the 1950s who was sent to the gallows, for saying "Let him have it".
In 1953, Derek Bentley and a boy were cornered by a policeman after a robbery. The boy held a pistol. The officer said, "Give me the gun". Bentley said "Let him have it", and the boy shot him dead. Bentley was sent to the gallows, based upon the Court interpreting his phrase as "Shoot him" rather than "Pass him the gun". Perhaps Letby writes she killed the babies, not because she killed them, but because she failed to save them.
@@stephenlaw9886 True. Is that "I did this" as in "I murdered them"? Or "I should've thought of something to prevent this from happening"? I honestly don't know.
Yup - I had to mop shit and blood off the toilet floor myself - multiple times. And was hated for raising the issue. They didn't notice the heart beat irregularities of my unborn until i mentioned it, And I had to help the registrar with the subsequently induced birth by holding a table lamp close to the action because the angle poise was broken.
I think you might be correct with that, you can’t have the NHS being sued for millions and millions, it’s better to frame or misrepresent the evidence in such a way that only one individual is guilty of such heinous results
As a barrister I'd think you'd be uneasy about both of Lucy's trials, the first was reminiscent of a 17th Century witch trial with the vast majority of evidence collected having no worth whatsoever. With the second trial the chief prosecution witness contradicted himself and the jury only found Lucy guilty because Goss almost directed them to find her guilty, kept going on about 'similar fact evidence'
There's nothing uneasy about it. In fact any barrister worth their salt would probably be in awe at how complex and thorough the prosecution's case was. Imagine if you weren't guilty and being accused of killing babies. You'd be outraged and have a good reason for every point they threw at you. She just let the prosecution roll over her because she had NO DEFENCE.
@@andrewjack31her defense team was poor,shocking to be precise. Circumstantial at best. Nothing sits right with it. Pre-trial is required. Just another scapegoat for NHS failings.
The problem is the justice system is packed full of people with no mathematical education beyond GCSE level. This trial involved complicated statistics and probability and until the legal profession is willing to accept the *only* people allowed to present statistics and probability in court need to be approved by the Royal Statistical Society to do so we will have miscarriages of justice like this almost certainly is and Sally Clarke was.
@@andrewjack31what utter nonsense. Are you dead from the neck up or something? What do you know if the case at all? Why do you think there is so much interest in this case and experts questioning it?
@@not2longnow how do you defend someone who has no defence? Her guilt was evident for everyone with more than a room temperature IQ to see. I realise that's the majority of the population though, which is why we, as a population, are so easily manipulated.
She will never be released, even if innocent. The judicial system, NHS and government cannot be seen to be anything but perfect in such a case and will clamp down fairly quickly on anything which shows doubt on the verdict.
@@billyruffian1426 I had to look that up, but yes basically this. I did do a stats degree and you are forced to examine human biases (read, we aren't computers and evolved in ways that are great for hunting and gathering, not so great at interpreting large number sets on 'feel'), but no one needs that level of training to see through the nonsense, given the proper explanation. The fact is, there are dozens of youtube vids that can walk even the mathematically challenged through the sorts of statistical mirages that can trick and deceive, which brilliantly demonstrate how such falsehoods can be extrapolated from a 'backwards' view of outcomes. The defense should have presented similar arguments and shown why (good) science these days is based on double blind trials for similar reasons, because separating fact from poorly interpreted sets of numbers is, sometimes, tricky. The amount of very well-respected scientific institutes who have debunked the way the investigation was carried out and the prosecution presented is frankly a little intimidating, if I were part of that investigation I'd be genuinely a bit worried about the Royal Statistics Society weighing in, entirely unprompted, on how much you bungled an investigation. All you have to do is determine that the expert was wrong only a few percent in his estimates of which children were harmed and which just died despite the best care and suddenly at least 3 nurses are equally likely to have been 'guilty'. Fact is, the parents could have spent the next 40 years before their own deaths mourning poorly children dying but instead they will be beset with rage over crimes against their offspring which likely didn't happen.
@@cherylemmanuel744 Interesting fact: a prosecution expert in the Cannings case, Ward-Platt, would have served on the Letby case, but he died before he could.
@jstelzner the sentence and conviction may be reversible...sje can never get the years back she spent with real monsters like Becky watts killer and God knows who else...and if she exonerated then what? Even if it's found she not only didn't murder or attack anyone and jn fact performed her duties the best she could wpuld she get her nursing certificate back? If she did would anyone hire her? If they did why would she put herself thru that again just probsbly be blamed the first time a patient so much as ran a temperature?
Dr Evans is so experienced a judge in another case more or less called him a joke. It's funny how he knows more than a coroner. And he's a paediatrician. Not a neonatal expert. There is a huge difference.
Judges are not infallable, though there is a tendency in UK to think that they are. Judges can even be crooked, though I am not suggesting that any involved in this case are.
@nighttrain1236 What is it with clowns like you? Who said she should not have been investigated? NOBODY. However, babies dying the same way when she wasn’t there is something that should of been investigated as well and whether she’s guilty or not is something that can be pointed to as a part of her defence. The whole case needs reinvestigated to be sure.
In the past innocent people have sat in prison waiting for judges and minister to retire so not to embarrass them. Ask the Birmingham six. Hopefully if she is innocent it won’t take that long on this occasion.
The same papers that called judges the enemy of the people are calling it sickening that someone is exercising their right to appeal. Absolutely appalling. Given the severity of the charges and the sentence, I don't understand how any sensible person could possibly oppose her seeking to appeal and the justice system ensuring as much as it can that the outcome was the correct one.
We had that with the Ched Evans case. I stopped reading them 25 years ago after my own experience with them and the criminal justice system. Lying sacks of s***.
@@skasteve6528 Exactly. We saw this with the Depp v Heard case. It doesn't matter the field or the experience of the prosecution's expert. Experts can get it disastrously wrong, as I know only too well.
Isn’t it better to risk letting a possibly guilty person go free than allow a possibly innocent young woman to spend the rest of her life in prison, and being unrelentingly demonised. I’m constantly hearing the argument that reviewing Lucy Letby’s trial is unfair to the grieving parents, but can that ever justify keeping a possibly innocent woman incarcerated with no right to have her conviction examined?
it absolutely is... thats why guilty beyond reasonable doubt, is and should always stand. I hate the fact that a persons life is judged by a jury ( group of ordinary working people ) shouldnt it always be down to a specialised panel, whos able to scrutinise whats presented and knows the in and out and isnt easily prejudice. not to mention this government is currently freeing prisoners proven guilty only having done 40% of their time 😂 ahaha. what on earth is going on with uk
@@keithvlogs1it would have helped if the last government had built more prisons, I agree with you re juries. Something as complex as this needed a panel of expert medical professionals, not someone who was clearly biased. And I mean that regarding the so called embolism evidence which was accepted and yet there was no physical evidence that it actually occurred.
Apparently Dr Evans was not a neonatologist, and the writer of the paper he used to prove air embolism because of the skin mottling has said that his paper was misinterpreted. Lucy was a whistle-blower, babies were getting ill in overcrowded wards with sewage leaks (still having issues to thie day). Lucy's diary contained secret code? Yeah unless you are a nurse that knows that LD refers to a Long Day shift. Expert statisticians have come out saying that the rosters only showed that LL was on duty when she was on duty. And don't get me started on the confession that wasn't.....
Dr Evans is "not a neonatologist" because neonatology wasn't a discipline when he qualified as a doctor. As a standalone medical discipline, it's relatively new. Dr Evans is a neonatologist by experience if not title though. He was instrumental in developing it as a field, building his hospital's neonatology care unit basically from scratch.
@@8964TSThat has absolutely nothing to do with what the OP was saying. It's a fact that he used Shoo Lee's own research and misinterpreted it, Shoo Lee disagreed with his findings. This is a baby LL was accused of killing by air embolism that one of the world's leading specialists has doubts about.
The OP was trying to discredit the expert witness by claiming he didn’t have the requisite experience. I merely pointed out why he doesn’t carry the title of “neonatologist” and does in fact have the requisite experience, and you think my comment “has nothing to do with” what the OP said?! You’re hilarious.
How can you say certainly? She confessed to it in her own diary, she wasnt tortured into it by police. Nobody who defends her explains this, they just talk about minor irrelevant things.
@@valleyshrew There is no confession, there was no diary. The notes the prosecution claimed were a confession were misrepresented. There is an excellent youtube video by Prof. Norman Fenton ( a statistician) and Dr Scott Mclachlan ( a nurse educator) where they explain what these notes were actually saying and why she wrote them. These notes were written on the advice of a therapist and actually contained declarations of innocence. The prosecution selected parts to present to th jury i.e" I did this" actually was "They say I did this".
Massive problem with expert witnesses. The Simon Hall case is one example. Though Hall made a 'confession' before then committing suicide in jail, we have to remember that you can't be released whilst convicted but not admitting guilt. After the hearing with Lord Judge in appeal, Hall knew he could never overturn his conviction. In that appeal, despite the sole evidence against Hall being utterly dismantled, Lord Judge said that he found the evidence against Hall compelling. That evidence relied on an expert witness in fibre analysis. Allegedly, that witness had based an academic career on fibre analysis and for years before the case supposedly made claims that at some point in the future it would be possible to be able to gain a conviction based on fibre evidence alone. In the appeal, experts called by the defence produced testimony that they could show that the conclusions drawn on the fibre evidence were unsustainable. The evidence used to convict Hall was that the fibres found at the scene of the crime could only have come from Hall's clothing seized by police at his home. The 'matching factor' was the colour of the fibres. However, the defence argued that whilst the colour match was correct the clothes were massed produced and in analogy it would be like taking a sample from paint left in a car crash. You might be able to say it came from a BMW but you could never say which BMW it came from. In Hall's case, the expert witness claimed, there was no doubt that the matching of the fibre's colour could only have come from Hall's clothes. This was the only evidence which convicted Hall and the slew of conflicting evidence was 'not presented' by the prosecution during the first trial. Evidence such as the alleged murder weapon having supposedly been taken from another house in a burglary which happened hours before the killing at a time when Hall was provably elsewhere. Evidence such as fingerprints at the scene which were neither Hall's not the victim's. Relying on 'experts' is fraught with danger because of the 'status' issues involved. Experts are human beings with human frailties and within academic circles. From such wellsprings many experts emerge and being a recognised court witness is reputational capital which leads to discipline status and can impact career trajectory. Beyond such professional validations, there is also the risk factor of human ego satisfaction which is hardly an unknown phenomenon in academic and medical practitioners. The moment the Letby case surfaced, the basis of expert testimony became obviously troublesome to my mind. More so when we live in a society, the Post Office scandal being an example, where management cult will work to cover up failures of process by blaming individuals. In the NHS, now dominated by such a management cult, it can be argued that the interests of patients come second to the interests of administrative management. In neonatal units, a complex medical provision, the history of cover-ups by management is not entirely unknown ( www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-62876617 ) but certainly the full extent of such actions is unlikely to be fully discovered. Anyone working in the NHS knows full well that the most likely outcome of complaint against the management process is usually a disciplinary process against the complainant. For all these reasons it is not difficult to conclude that the Letby case is unsafe. But as we can see in comparison between Hall and Letby, it goes beyond expert witness testimony and we have to question how prosecutions present evidence and how they fail to disclose anything prejudicial to their case. We also have to question the appeal process when, as in the case of Hall, evidence can be dismantled to a level where at the very least reasonable doubt is established but an appeals judge can say that they find the evidence remains compelling.
Have you read all the scripts, seen all the footage and heard all the interviews? If you had then you wouldn’t have any doubt about her guilt. When all the facts are laid bare it’s very obvious she’s guilty. I have studied every single part of the case from the very beginning. I was totally neutral until I saw it all for myself now I have absolutely no doubts. She is evil beyond belief.
It is getting more difficult each day to know what is true and what is not, this is an excellent channel and thought provoking. Ground News seems a good idea.
Circumstantial evidence can be very powerful and damning and many convictions are rightly made on circumstantial evidence, but this evidence was exactly the opposite, insubstantial, capable of different interpretations and in some cases outright dishonest. It is the quality of the evidence that is the issue, and this evidence was of very poor quality indeed.
@@Must_not_say_thatit's not just poor it is statistically flawed beyond redemption. Problem is the justice system is almost entirely filled with people who have no mathematical education beyond GCSE level. It is unsurprising they get complicated statistics and probability wrong all the time.
The real travesty is that there was no clear evidence of her killing any one of those babies, yet put all together it was claimed that seven cases of 'not sufficient evidence for each' adds up to 'overwhelming evidence for all'. The fix was in when both prosecution and defence claimed there had been murders. After that it was simply a case of 'who is the most likely suspect'.
@@fredneecher1746 the mother of one of the babies walked in to see her baby screaming, and Lucy Letby just looked at the mother blankly. A doctor walked in on her doing nothing while a premature baby's alarms were all blaring. A nurse walked in to find her similarly doing nothing when yet and baby's oxygen levels were dropping. She was pretty much caught in the act three times, but because she is a young woman nobody will accept her guilt.
@@shaya_g None of this is true - alarms often go off for reasons such as a probe becoming detached. They do nt all need an urgent response - any nurse will tell you this.
Just the fact that the jury found her 'not guilty' on some charges and reached 'no verdict' on others shows what you've said to be false. They looked at each charge one by one and reached separate verdicts. They didn't apply a sweeping verdict of guilt, which is what they would have done if they'd been instructed that they could apply the evidence "for each" to "for all"'. The 'not guilty' and 'no verdict' decisions also show us that they were very happy to give her the benefit of the doubt. Again, a jury that was eager to send her down wouldn't have approached their deliberations in this manner.
I have never thought for even 1 second that Lucy was any more than the victim of a witch hunt designed to make her scapegoat... Anybody with half a brain could easily deduce this.. Nobody was murdered. Change my mind.
@@lennymice2261 There is no evidence insulin was added to any TPN bags, there is no evidence any babies were given unprescribed insulin at any time. Neonates sometimes produce large amounts of insulin for no known reason - there are studies indicating this happens in up to15% in the first few days following birth. It is known that this happened in other cases but this was not attributed to LucyLetby.
My admittedly non legal opinion is that the evidence of recent weeks suggests that this case needs to be looked at again. Everybody involved and affected needs to be sure about exactly what happened and that justice is done "beyond reasonable doubt".
The head of the Enquiry says any complaints are just noise. This is precisely how injustice is allowed to happen. Someone's life is being destroyed here but they don't care.
@@womble321 Psychologists tell us that the legal professon is a favourite for white collar psychopaths, so is poltics, which explains why so many politicians were once lawyers.
Why Lucy Letby’s Guilt Is Clear: Breaking Down the Evidence There’s been a lot of debate about Lucy Letby’s guilt, with some people unable to believe that someone like her-a young, attractive nurse-could commit such horrific acts. Others think she was simply framed by the NHS, who needed a scapegoat to shift the blame away from institutional failures. But when we really break down the facts, the evidence overwhelmingly shows her guilt. **1. Stable Babies, Sudden Deaths** Many of the babies in Lucy Letby’s care were doing well-stable, improving, recovering. They weren’t on the brink of death, which makes their sudden collapses all the more suspicious. These babies **suddenly and inexplicably deteriorated** or died without any medical reason to explain such sharp turns. What set these cases apart was how **unexpected and unnatural** these collapses were. These weren’t fragile infants who were naturally declining. These were babies whose health **suddenly collapsed** without warning-and only when Letby was on shift. **2. Deliberate Acts of Harm** When doctors and investigators looked into these sudden collapses, they found evidence of **deliberate harm**. Babies were poisoned with insulin, injected with air, and overfed in dangerous ways. These are not natural complications or accidents-they are **intentional acts**. The medical evidence was clear: insulin where it shouldn’t be, air in the bloodstream, and overfeeding that led to serious complications. None of this happens by chance. **3. Lucy Letby: The Consistent Presence** It’s difficult for some to believe that a young woman like Lucy Letby could be capable of such cruelty. But in every instance of suspicious death or sudden deterioration, **Letby was present**. This wasn’t just bad luck. If this were simply a series of tragic coincidences, you would expect other staff to be present during at least some of these incidents. But they weren’t. It was always Letby. We often find it hard to reconcile that someone who seems innocent could be responsible for such atrocities. But criminals don’t fit into neat boxes-they can look like anyone. And the **pattern of harm** that emerged always involved Letby. She wasn’t just unlucky-she was the **common factor** in each case. **4. Circumstantial Evidence Is Powerful** Some people argue that the case was based on “circumstantial evidence,” implying that this made the case weaker. But **circumstantial evidence is often as strong as direct evidence**, especially when it points consistently in one direction. In this case, babies who were improving suddenly deteriorated. The medical evidence confirmed they were harmed deliberately-by insulin poisoning, air embolisms, or overfeeding. And Lucy Letby was there every time. Circumstantial evidence, when all the pieces fit together, can be overwhelming. There doesn’t always need to be a “smoking gun” when the circumstances all point to the same conclusion. In this case, the circumstantial evidence painted a clear picture of guilt: **Letby’s presence, the sudden collapses, and the confirmed medical harm**. **5. The “Scapegoat” Theory: Was She Framed?** Some people believe that Lucy Letby was framed by the NHS, who needed a scapegoat to avoid blame for its own failings. But let’s break that down. If this were true, it would require a **massive conspiracy** involving doctors, nurses, lab technicians, and forensic experts-all across different institutions. These independent experts found deliberate harm-insulin poisoning, air embolisms, overfeeding-confirmed by scientific tests. For Letby to be framed, it would mean manipulating physical evidence, blood samples, and autopsy results. **Such a large-scale fabrication is not just improbable-it’s impossible**. Letby wasn’t targeted from the start. The investigation was triggered by the unusual deaths and deteriorations, and the evidence naturally led to her. This wasn’t about protecting the NHS-it was about following the facts. If the NHS wanted to shift the blame, they could have easily pointed to systemic issues or other staff members. The evidence wasn’t fabricated-it emerged through independent investigations. **6. Falsified Medical Records: A Clear Cover-Up** It didn’t stop with the harm itself. Medical records were **falsified**-deliberately altered to obscure the real causes of these deaths. These weren’t accidental errors. The records were changed to cover up what had happened, and Letby had both the access and the knowledge to falsify them. If she were innocent, why would there be any need to falsify these records? **7. The Defense’s Failure to Challenge the Experts** The prosecution relied on **medical experts** to prove that these babies had been harmed. These weren’t just opinions-they were based on medical facts and scientific tests. The defense had every opportunity to bring in their own experts to challenge these findings, but they didn’t. The absence of defense experts is critical. If the defense could have provided a credible alternative explanation for these deaths, they would have. Their failure to do so speaks volumes about the strength of the prosecution’s case. **8. No Other Explanation Holds Up** Some have suggested alternate theories-like infections or hospital conditions-but these don’t hold up under scrutiny. The babies who died weren’t deteriorating naturally. They were stable, improving, and then suddenly collapsed in unnatural ways. The evidence of insulin poisoning, air embolisms, and overfeeding rules out natural causes or institutional failures. These deaths were caused by deliberate acts. **9. Conclusion: The Weight of the Evidence** Yes, Lucy Letby was young, and some find it hard to believe that someone like her could be capable of such horrific acts. But criminals don’t always fit our stereotypes. What’s undeniable is the overwhelming evidence: babies suddenly deteriorated or died while in her care, the medical evidence showed they were harmed deliberately, and Letby was always there when it happened. Some may say this case relied on circumstantial evidence, but when that evidence consistently points in the same direction, it becomes undeniable. Letby wasn’t framed by the NHS-she wasn’t a scapegoat. The investigation followed the facts, and the facts led back to her. **This wasn’t about bad luck**-it was deliberate, repeated harm. That’s why the jury found her guilty. **TL;DR:** Some can’t believe that someone like Lucy Letby-a young nurse-could be guilty of such horrific acts, or they think she was framed by the NHS. But the evidence tells a different story. Babies who were stable suddenly collapsed, and medical evidence confirmed they were deliberately harmed by insulin poisoning, air embolisms, and overfeeding. Letby was the one person consistently present. Circumstantial evidence, when it all points to the same conclusion, is powerful, and there’s no credible case for a conspiracy. The jury found her guilty because the evidence was overwhelming.
@@willowtree9291 I agree, Here's lord Denning commenting about the Birmingham six, “Just consider the course of events if their action were to proceed to trial… If the six men failed it would mean that much time and money and worry would have been expended by many people to no good purpose. If they won, it would mean that the police were guilty of perjury; that they were guilty of violence and threats; that the confessions were involuntary and improperly admitted in evidence; and that the convictions were erroneous… That was such an appalling vista that every sensible person would say, ‘It cannot be right that these actions should go any further’.”
The justice system of England and Wales is quite good really. Things improve over time, mistakes are made, you can never get it right all of the time. There are appeal systems in place to theoretically guard against injustices. It is not perfect and never will be but like most justice systems get better, it is often knee-jerk legislation from governments that derails those improvements Something like the Birmingham Six is far less likely to happen today, although I wouldn't exclude it entirely. People under oath are not expected to lie and police officers in particular are treated by judges and juries as amongst the most honest and reliable source of information. There was some forensic evidence, that was debunked long before their appeal, but the main reason those men were convicted, was because the police were under pressure, from the press as much as anyone, to charge someone with the bombings. Confessions were extracted by torture, evidence fabricated and officers lied under oath. No police officer was charged with any offence. Today, policing is different making it harder for police to lie and the officers themselves work to higher standards than in the past. That isn't to say it can not and does not happen, just that it is rarer. No justice system could cope well under those circumstances, it was thanks to investigative reporter Chris Mullins that enough evidence of a miscarriage of justice was gathered so that an appeal could be launched.
When found they were 'made available' for the press character assassination to make the public hate her. At the same time people who provided 'evidence' online that supported Letby's case were threatened by the court and forced to remove it!!
@@gcsecretsquirellapparently, and I say apparently, when she was a student nurse when she was on shift 40% of ET ( breathing tubes) were dislodged. Statistically that would be 1%. I know that correlation does not equal variation. It does add to the information we have about what is happening in her surroundings. I accept that there were shocking problems. Nonetheless I believe that she is guilty.
I was shocked that the prosecution case could put the case the way they did and can't believe the defence council didn't drive a coach and four through it. I could say more.
I was never happy about this trial right from the very start, something just didn't seem right about it. I don't know whether she's guilty or or not but it seemed to me to be a foregone conclusion that she would be convicted. If the jury needed 22 days to reach a verdict then that alone speaks volumes as to the uncertainty of the case.
That’s why we have trials. So “feelings” don’t come into play. Why Lucy Letby’s Guilt Is Clear: Breaking Down the Evidence There’s been a lot of debate about Lucy Letby’s guilt, with some people unable to believe that someone like her-a young, attractive nurse-could commit such horrific acts. Others think she was simply framed by the NHS, who needed a scapegoat to shift the blame away from institutional failures. But when we really break down the facts, the evidence overwhelmingly shows her guilt. **1. Stable Babies, Sudden Deaths** Many of the babies in Lucy Letby’s care were doing well-stable, improving, recovering. They weren’t on the brink of death, which makes their sudden collapses all the more suspicious. These babies **suddenly and inexplicably deteriorated** or died without any medical reason to explain such sharp turns. What set these cases apart was how **unexpected and unnatural** these collapses were. These weren’t fragile infants who were naturally declining. These were babies whose health **suddenly collapsed** without warning-and only when Letby was on shift. **2. Deliberate Acts of Harm** When doctors and investigators looked into these sudden collapses, they found evidence of **deliberate harm**. Babies were poisoned with insulin, injected with air, and overfed in dangerous ways. These are not natural complications or accidents-they are **intentional acts**. The medical evidence was clear: insulin where it shouldn’t be, air in the bloodstream, and overfeeding that led to serious complications. None of this happens by chance. **3. Lucy Letby: The Consistent Presence** It’s difficult for some to believe that a young woman like Lucy Letby could be capable of such cruelty. But in every instance of suspicious death or sudden deterioration, **Letby was present**. This wasn’t just bad luck. If this were simply a series of tragic coincidences, you would expect other staff to be present during at least some of these incidents. But they weren’t. It was always Letby. We often find it hard to reconcile that someone who seems innocent could be responsible for such atrocities. But criminals don’t fit into neat boxes-they can look like anyone. And the **pattern of harm** that emerged always involved Letby. She wasn’t just unlucky-she was the **common factor** in each case. **4. Circumstantial Evidence Is Powerful** Some people argue that the case was based on “circumstantial evidence,” implying that this made the case weaker. But **circumstantial evidence is often as strong as direct evidence**, especially when it points consistently in one direction. In this case, babies who were improving suddenly deteriorated. The medical evidence confirmed they were harmed deliberately-by insulin poisoning, air embolisms, or overfeeding. And Lucy Letby was there every time. Circumstantial evidence, when all the pieces fit together, can be overwhelming. There doesn’t always need to be a “smoking gun” when the circumstances all point to the same conclusion. In this case, the circumstantial evidence painted a clear picture of guilt: **Letby’s presence, the sudden collapses, and the confirmed medical harm**. **5. The “Scapegoat” Theory: Was She Framed?** Some people believe that Lucy Letby was framed by the NHS, who needed a scapegoat to avoid blame for its own failings. But let’s break that down. If this were true, it would require a **massive conspiracy** involving doctors, nurses, lab technicians, and forensic experts-all across different institutions. These independent experts found deliberate harm-insulin poisoning, air embolisms, overfeeding-confirmed by scientific tests. For Letby to be framed, it would mean manipulating physical evidence, blood samples, and autopsy results. **Such a large-scale fabrication is not just improbable-it’s impossible**. Letby wasn’t targeted from the start. The investigation was triggered by the unusual deaths and deteriorations, and the evidence naturally led to her. This wasn’t about protecting the NHS-it was about following the facts. If the NHS wanted to shift the blame, they could have easily pointed to systemic issues or other staff members. The evidence wasn’t fabricated-it emerged through independent investigations. **6. Falsified Medical Records: A Clear Cover-Up** It didn’t stop with the harm itself. Medical records were **falsified**-deliberately altered to obscure the real causes of these deaths. These weren’t accidental errors. The records were changed to cover up what had happened, and Letby had both the access and the knowledge to falsify them. If she were innocent, why would there be any need to falsify these records? **7. The Defense’s Failure to Challenge the Experts** The prosecution relied on **medical experts** to prove that these babies had been harmed. These weren’t just opinions-they were based on medical facts and scientific tests. The defense had every opportunity to bring in their own experts to challenge these findings, but they didn’t. The absence of defense experts is critical. If the defense could have provided a credible alternative explanation for these deaths, they would have. Their failure to do so speaks volumes about the strength of the prosecution’s case. **8. No Other Explanation Holds Up** Some have suggested alternate theories-like infections or hospital conditions-but these don’t hold up under scrutiny. The babies who died weren’t deteriorating naturally. They were stable, improving, and then suddenly collapsed in unnatural ways. The evidence of insulin poisoning, air embolisms, and overfeeding rules out natural causes or institutional failures. These deaths were caused by deliberate acts. **9. Conclusion: The Weight of the Evidence** Yes, Lucy Letby was young, and some find it hard to believe that someone like her could be capable of such horrific acts. But criminals don’t always fit our stereotypes. What’s undeniable is the overwhelming evidence: babies suddenly deteriorated or died while in her care, the medical evidence showed they were harmed deliberately, and Letby was always there when it happened. Some may say this case relied on circumstantial evidence, but when that evidence consistently points in the same direction, it becomes undeniable. Letby wasn’t framed by the NHS-she wasn’t a scapegoat. The investigation followed the facts, and the facts led back to her. **This wasn’t about bad luck**-it was deliberate, repeated harm. That’s why the jury found her guilty. **TL;DR:** Some can’t believe that someone like Lucy Letby-a young nurse-could be guilty of such horrific acts, or they think she was framed by the NHS. But the evidence tells a different story. Babies who were stable suddenly collapsed, and medical evidence confirmed they were deliberately harmed by insulin poisoning, air embolisms, and overfeeding. Letby was the one person consistently present. Circumstantial evidence, when it all points to the same conclusion, is powerful, and there’s no credible case for a conspiracy. The jury found her guilty because the evidence was overwhelming.
It would have lasted for longer, they couldn't reach a unanimous verdict. And then a juror had to be relieved, so the judge decided they could have a majority instead, and suddenly the verdict was passed.
Very difficult to get any defence expert to go against an expert for the prosecution , they close ranks to protect their professions I have personally experienced this
Read number 5. Why Lucy Letby’s Guilt Is Clear: Breaking Down the Evidence There’s been a lot of debate about Lucy Letby’s guilt, with some people unable to believe that someone like her-a young, attractive nurse-could commit such horrific acts. Others think she was simply framed by the NHS, who needed a scapegoat to shift the blame away from institutional failures. But when we really break down the facts, the evidence overwhelmingly shows her guilt. **1. Stable Babies, Sudden Deaths** Many of the babies in Lucy Letby’s care were doing well-stable, improving, recovering. They weren’t on the brink of death, which makes their sudden collapses all the more suspicious. These babies **suddenly and inexplicably deteriorated** or died without any medical reason to explain such sharp turns. What set these cases apart was how **unexpected and unnatural** these collapses were. These weren’t fragile infants who were naturally declining. These were babies whose health **suddenly collapsed** without warning-and only when Letby was on shift. **2. Deliberate Acts of Harm** When doctors and investigators looked into these sudden collapses, they found evidence of **deliberate harm**. Babies were poisoned with insulin, injected with air, and overfed in dangerous ways. These are not natural complications or accidents-they are **intentional acts**. The medical evidence was clear: insulin where it shouldn’t be, air in the bloodstream, and overfeeding that led to serious complications. None of this happens by chance. **3. Lucy Letby: The Consistent Presence** It’s difficult for some to believe that a young woman like Lucy Letby could be capable of such cruelty. But in every instance of suspicious death or sudden deterioration, **Letby was present**. This wasn’t just bad luck. If this were simply a series of tragic coincidences, you would expect other staff to be present during at least some of these incidents. But they weren’t. It was always Letby. We often find it hard to reconcile that someone who seems innocent could be responsible for such atrocities. But criminals don’t fit into neat boxes-they can look like anyone. And the **pattern of harm** that emerged always involved Letby. She wasn’t just unlucky-she was the **common factor** in each case. **4. Circumstantial Evidence Is Powerful** Some people argue that the case was based on “circumstantial evidence,” implying that this made the case weaker. But **circumstantial evidence is often as strong as direct evidence**, especially when it points consistently in one direction. In this case, babies who were improving suddenly deteriorated. The medical evidence confirmed they were harmed deliberately-by insulin poisoning, air embolisms, or overfeeding. And Lucy Letby was there every time. Circumstantial evidence, when all the pieces fit together, can be overwhelming. There doesn’t always need to be a “smoking gun” when the circumstances all point to the same conclusion. In this case, the circumstantial evidence painted a clear picture of guilt: **Letby’s presence, the sudden collapses, and the confirmed medical harm**. **5. The “Scapegoat” Theory: Was She Framed?** Some people believe that Lucy Letby was framed by the NHS, who needed a scapegoat to avoid blame for its own failings. But let’s break that down. If this were true, it would require a **massive conspiracy** involving doctors, nurses, lab technicians, and forensic experts-all across different institutions. These independent experts found deliberate harm-insulin poisoning, air embolisms, overfeeding-confirmed by scientific tests. For Letby to be framed, it would mean manipulating physical evidence, blood samples, and autopsy results. **Such a large-scale fabrication is not just improbable-it’s impossible**. Letby wasn’t targeted from the start. The investigation was triggered by the unusual deaths and deteriorations, and the evidence naturally led to her. This wasn’t about protecting the NHS-it was about following the facts. If the NHS wanted to shift the blame, they could have easily pointed to systemic issues or other staff members. The evidence wasn’t fabricated-it emerged through independent investigations. **6. Falsified Medical Records: A Clear Cover-Up** It didn’t stop with the harm itself. Medical records were **falsified**-deliberately altered to obscure the real causes of these deaths. These weren’t accidental errors. The records were changed to cover up what had happened, and Letby had both the access and the knowledge to falsify them. If she were innocent, why would there be any need to falsify these records? **7. The Defense’s Failure to Challenge the Experts** The prosecution relied on **medical experts** to prove that these babies had been harmed. These weren’t just opinions-they were based on medical facts and scientific tests. The defense had every opportunity to bring in their own experts to challenge these findings, but they didn’t. The absence of defense experts is critical. If the defense could have provided a credible alternative explanation for these deaths, they would have. Their failure to do so speaks volumes about the strength of the prosecution’s case. **8. No Other Explanation Holds Up** Some have suggested alternate theories-like infections or hospital conditions-but these don’t hold up under scrutiny. The babies who died weren’t deteriorating naturally. They were stable, improving, and then suddenly collapsed in unnatural ways. The evidence of insulin poisoning, air embolisms, and overfeeding rules out natural causes or institutional failures. These deaths were caused by deliberate acts. **9. Conclusion: The Weight of the Evidence** Yes, Lucy Letby was young, and some find it hard to believe that someone like her could be capable of such horrific acts. But criminals don’t always fit our stereotypes. What’s undeniable is the overwhelming evidence: babies suddenly deteriorated or died while in her care, the medical evidence showed they were harmed deliberately, and Letby was always there when it happened. Some may say this case relied on circumstantial evidence, but when that evidence consistently points in the same direction, it becomes undeniable. Letby wasn’t framed by the NHS-she wasn’t a scapegoat. The investigation followed the facts, and the facts led back to her. **This wasn’t about bad luck**-it was deliberate, repeated harm. That’s why the jury found her guilty. **TL;DR:** Some can’t believe that someone like Lucy Letby-a young nurse-could be guilty of such horrific acts, or they think she was framed by the NHS. But the evidence tells a different story. Babies who were stable suddenly collapsed, and medical evidence confirmed they were deliberately harmed by insulin poisoning, air embolisms, and overfeeding. Letby was the one person consistently present. Circumstantial evidence, when it all points to the same conclusion, is powerful, and there’s no credible case for a conspiracy. The jury found her guilty because the evidence was overwhelming.
I'm so glad that this is being looked into, I never believed that she was guilty and she was just a scapegoat for failures in the NHS. Doctors believe they are all powerful but they are not
Watched panorama, post mortem all natural cause of death, diary entries were after she was accused, ward under staffed, no list of doctors on duty, it's a ward where babies chance of staying alive are 50/50. She was scape goat for NHS failure, I don't think she done it 😬😢
We had a 26 weeker in NICU 2 years ago . Most of the nurses are dealing with similar issues as letby tbh and have read the reports and have question marks if she did it or If the trust stiched her up.
@@millsstrongfightstrengthco662she's not a shrinking violet you would choose as a scapegoat. Her texts show a very assertive woman who manipulated to get her own way.
Thank you for doing this. When I first heard of her conviction, I was highly skeptical because of the history of misuse of statistics by experts in selected medical murder cases (and a natural opposition to sensational headlines). Then I heard an interview with the chief expert for the prosecution, and I was HIGHLY convinced of Letby's guilt. Then I heard an interview with some of the statistical experts reminding me of my prior skepticism.
The statisticians are lying. Richard Gill, involved in the de Berk and Poggiali case, believes that Beverley Allitt and Ben Geen are innocent. He put those comments down in writing. Cursory research into those cases confirm that they were both guilty (indeed, Allitt confessed). Professor Jane Hutton similarly supported Geen's innocence fraud campaign as well and was on a podcast called The Trial where she admitted she hasn't read the Letby case evidence despite it being a 58 page document. She is blindly attacking a strawman when she knows nothing about the case. Statisticians will torture data to get it to confess to whatever the statistician wants. And these statisticians have been claiming Letby was innocent before she was ever brought to trial - so before any evidence was public. They've resorted to a misinformation campaign.
I have had experience of expert witnesses on a number of occasions and found them never to be truly independent. They tend to slant their evidence towards who is paying them. I often wonder if the courts were to appoint them, vet their independence, and be acceptable by both sides, would be the answer. Who knows? I don't.
I doubt you do have experience of expert witnesses. My experience is that instructing lawyers put loads of effort into getting good impartial expert witnesses. Judges are always highly critical of expert witnesses who come across as partisan, and very ready to discard their evidence. And having a credible expert witness is particularly important in jury cases.
So a verdict is really an opinion poll on which barrister is better at his job. And there's no double check on whether the jury's poll coincides with the truth or not. And all the time the accused person knows the real truth. What a very odd system.
Then who should decide? Instead of 12 regular impartial individuals who get to hear both sides present their case or 1 judge who may be biased or corrupted? If the trial isn’t ‘fair’ the losing party can appeal and argue their case again so I’m not sure I agree. No justice system is perfect but I think ours is certainly fairer than most.
all justice is a toss up between 2 fictional narratives as presented by the prosecution and defence.. the judge or jury choose their favourite and boom the gavel drops on someone's freedom and also a victims soul
It's weird how so many people are uneasy about this one. There was never a satisfying feeling of justice having been served when she was sentenced. A lot of people (me included) just felt she had been convicted purely on circunstancial evidence with no actual proof she had done anything wrong, and no feasible motive
I've been uneasy about it because I have been a patient at the Countess of Chester, so have several family members. I'd ask an ambulance to drive right past that place if I was ever sick in future. Take me anywhere else pls!
Trials like this are all circumstantial which makes the trial lengthy and complex. It is the jury to decide if guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt. Which they duly did.
We (public) haven't seen any evidence nor have we heard from Lucy herself or her family protesting her innocence. If she's innocent she's paying a very, very high price.
@cpnlsn88 you may correct me, bur it seems odd to have a case solely on circumstantial evidence. I can see merit it in being used to help build a case alongside actual evidence, but this seems a worrying precedent to me
Was absolutely shocked at this conviction! Followed the case & never heard anything that would leave me certain of her guilt. I have no idea of guilt or not? But this case wasn’t proved anywhere near beyond reasonable doubt.
In Lucy Letby's case, I was always of the opinion that her case was 'trial by media'. I was a juror on a murder case many years ago (it was before the internet was popular) We were TOLD not to read any news relating to the case which back then was easy to do - we just didn't buy a newspaper, and there was no social media. I'm sure that many would be swayed by stories they read online.
the only massive problem is the ignorant “have a go lawyers” on social media that don’t bother to understand the issues and rely on social media. For example, here are some points to educate you; - Letby had defence experts, they attended a pre trial meeting with the prosecution’s experts, and notes were circulated to the legal teams. Letby chose not to call them at trial, the overwhelming likelihood being that it would have damaged her case in terms of the causes of death being suspicious (such as trauma from feeding tubes shoved down throats; air being injected; insulin being injected; breathing tubes being removed). - Letby accepted some of the prosecution’s evidence anyway - such as two babies having had insulin deliberately injected. - she was on duty for every one of the suspicious deaths. When she wasn’t on shift, they didn’t happen. - she was seen by a doctor standing alone over a baby that had been stable, and then suddenly it collapsed - its oxygen tube had been removed and the alarm turned off. Letby was doing nothing to help, just watching. - when Letby was training at another hospital, oxygen tubes had been removed on 40% of her shifts when the average was about 1%. Babies are very unlikely to be able to dislodge the tubes themselves, especially premature babies. - Letby was on her own with a baby that had been stable. Baby’s mother walked in and saw the baby’s mouth bleeding and the baby in distress, the oxygen tube had been rammed down its throat. - she amended medical notes to make it look like she was either less involved with a baby that died, or that the baby was declining before she was involved. - she stole confidential record of the dead babies, claimed she couldn’t destroy them, but admitted she had a shredder. Hoarding trophies like this is a classic sign of munchausen by proxy disorder. - she looked up the parents of the dead babies the night they died and she would be keen to be the first to break the news of the deaths, even when she wasn’t the designated deaths - she wrote a note admitting she had done these things, and at no point either with the police or at trial ever claimed it was because she was told to write it. - the doctors had major concerns about her, but those were suppressed and pressure put on doctors not to escalate by management. - she contradicted herself at trial on her evidence, couldn’t recall some parts when it was prejudicial to her but remembered massive details of the same time frame when she wanted to - the above is just some of the evidence that convinced her - she is likely to be a psychopath, with munchausen by proxy disorder, who chose nursing to be near to vulnerable babies. She thrived on attention and control, and in particular the attention she got from a doctor with whom she was obsessed.
Thank you BBB, what I fail to understand is the parents of these babies seem to go along with the LL guilty verdict and seem opposed to a retrial. As a parent myself I would be determined that the guilty party was the person behind my child's death.
It happens all the time. People often just want someone to blame and they don't care who it is. When people are found not guilty of a murder, or the convition is overturned, the relatives (and the public) are enraged. Even when the suspect is proven to be innocent. People have found someone to direct their anger and hatred towards, and its hard to put that behind them, partly because they don't want to admit being wrong and their hatred was unfounded. It doesn't matter if the real killer got away with it, if its out of sight then its out of mind.
@@SentaDuckThis is indeed the default situation, hence the term scapegoat. When Stalin reported his stolen pipe, arrests and confessions for the theft followed, before he found it the next day where he had left it.
@@osric1730but the evidence is statistically flawed beyond redemption. The chances of the parents undersing that is basically zero. Heck even the judges dont understand it and you sure as hell don't.
The fact that there is clearly so much disquiet over this verdict must raise the question as to whether guilt has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt.
The reason I don't like Juries, is they are only allowed to deliberate on what they are given, often leaving out facts or evidence the Judge sees fit to exclude. Some evidence such as this was disallowed by the Judge in Lucy's trial. I am not convinced she got a fair trial, and may well be completely innocent of any wrongdoing. £100,000 for a copy of the transcript may not be adequate, as it will not include any evidence deemed inadmissible, so will not contain the full story.
Then who should decide? Instead of 12 regular impartial individuals who get to hear both sides present their case or 1 judge who may be biased or corrupted? If the trial isn’t ‘fair’ the losing party can appeal so I’m not sure I agree. No justice system is perfect but I think ours is certainly fairer than most.
@@Anthony-hs8zi the only massive problem is the ignorant “have a go lawyers” on social media that don’t bother to understand the issues and rely on social media. For example, here are some points to educate you; - Letby had defence experts, they attended a pre trial meeting with the prosecution’s experts, and notes were circulated to the legal teams. Letby chose not to call them at trial, the overwhelming likelihood being that it would have damaged her case in terms of the causes of death being suspicious (such as trauma from feeding tubes shoved down throats; air being injected; insulin being injected; breathing tubes being removed). - Letby accepted some of the prosecution’s evidence anyway - such as two babies having had insulin deliberately injected. - she was on duty for every one of the suspicious deaths. When she wasn’t on shift, they didn’t happen. - she was seen by a doctor standing alone over a baby that had been stable, and then suddenly it collapsed - its oxygen tube had been removed and the alarm turned off. Letby was doing nothing to help, just watching. - when Letby was training at another hospital, oxygen tubes had been removed on 40% of her shifts when the average was about 1%. Babies are very unlikely to be able to dislodge the tubes themselves, especially premature babies. - Letby was on her own with a baby that had been stable. Baby’s mother walked in and saw the baby’s mouth bleeding and the baby in distress, the oxygen tube had been rammed down its throat. - she amended medical notes to make it look like she was either less involved with a baby that died, or that the baby was declining before she was involved. - she stole confidential record of the dead babies, claimed she couldn’t destroy them, but admitted she had a shredder. Hoarding trophies like this is a classic sign of munchausen by proxy disorder. - she looked up the parents of the dead babies the night they died and she would be keen to be the first to break the news of the deaths, even when she wasn’t the designated deaths - she wrote a note admitting she had done these things, and at no point either with the police or at trial ever claimed it was because she was told to write it. - the doctors had major concerns about her, but those were suppressed and pressure put on doctors not to escalate by management. - she contradicted herself at trial on her evidence, couldn’t recall some parts when it was prejudicial to her but remembered massive details of the same time frame when she wanted to - the above is just some of the evidence that convinced her - she is likely to be a psychopath, with munchausen by proxy disorder, who chose nursing to be near to vulnerable babies. She thrived on attention and control, and in particular the attention she got from a doctor with whom she was obsessed.
These types of incidents occur after a chain of events, often involving indifference, inaction, and the neglect of issues by many. If matters had been handled with care and compassion when the first baby died (or even earlier), these tragic events might have been prevented. If there are doubts, the possibility that the hospital’s negligence-such as using unsuitable equipment, hygiene issues, building safety concerns, or employing poorly trained nurses-contributed to the accidents should be considered. For the hospital, making Lucy the scapegoat may seem the easiest option. However, it’s important to examine everyone’s behaviour carefully-look for signs of malignant narcissism among the staff, as it could be someone else, unless it truly was Lucy herself. RIP to the babies. To babies family, JUSTICE always falls. I know it doesn't console your souls but it is true. The truth will come out. Hang in there.
I really hope she’s released and given a large amount of compensation. The families of the babies need to direct their hurt and suffering towards the hospital in question and the NHS on a whole. They are the ones who are at fault here, not a singled out individual who was sectioned out to take the blame and weight off an underlying issue. I really feel for her and hope she gets the trail she deserved in the first place.
No amount of compensation will wash away the stigma of this… and watch, she will be released on condition that she accepts the judgement. It’s happened before. The law was correct, and the innocent cannot claim for compensation.
@@borntobewild8905 the only massive problem is the ignorant “have a go lawyers” on social media that don’t bother to understand the issues and rely on social media. For example, here are some points to educate you; - Letby had defence experts, they attended a pre trial meeting with the prosecution’s experts, and notes were circulated to the legal teams. Letby chose not to call them at trial, the overwhelming likelihood being that it would have damaged her case in terms of the causes of death being suspicious (such as trauma from feeding tubes shoved down throats; air being injected; insulin being injected; breathing tubes being removed). - Letby accepted some of the prosecution’s evidence anyway - such as two babies having had insulin deliberately injected. - she was on duty for every one of the suspicious deaths. When she wasn’t on shift, they didn’t happen. - she was seen by a doctor standing alone over a baby that had been stable, and then suddenly it collapsed - its oxygen tube had been removed and the alarm turned off. Letby was doing nothing to help, just watching. - when Letby was training at another hospital, oxygen tubes had been removed on 40% of her shifts when the average was about 1%. Babies are very unlikely to be able to dislodge the tubes themselves, especially premature babies. - Letby was on her own with a baby that had been stable. Baby’s mother walked in and saw the baby’s mouth bleeding and the baby in distress, the oxygen tube had been rammed down its throat. - she amended medical notes to make it look like she was either less involved with a baby that died, or that the baby was declining before she was involved. - she stole confidential record of the dead babies, claimed she couldn’t destroy them, but admitted she had a shredder. Hoarding trophies like this is a classic sign of munchausen by proxy disorder. - she looked up the parents of the dead babies the night they died and she would be keen to be the first to break the news of the deaths, even when she wasn’t the designated deaths - she wrote a note admitting she had done these things, and at no point either with the police or at trial ever claimed it was because she was told to write it. - the doctors had major concerns about her, but those were suppressed and pressure put on doctors not to escalate by management. - she contradicted herself at trial on her evidence, couldn’t recall some parts when it was prejudicial to her but remembered massive details of the same time frame when she wanted to - the above is just some of the evidence that convinced her - she is likely to be a psychopath, with munchausen by proxy disorder, who chose nursing to be near to vulnerable babies. She thrived on attention and control, and in particular the attention she got from a doctor with whom she was obsessed.
@@edward92128 the only massive problem is the ignorant “have a go lawyers” on social media that don’t bother to understand the issues and rely on social media. For example, here are some points to educate you; - Letby had defence experts, they attended a pre trial meeting with the prosecution’s experts, and notes were circulated to the legal teams. Letby chose not to call them at trial, the overwhelming likelihood being that it would have damaged her case in terms of the causes of death being suspicious (such as trauma from feeding tubes shoved down throats; air being injected; insulin being injected; breathing tubes being removed). - Letby accepted some of the prosecution’s evidence anyway - such as two babies having had insulin deliberately injected. - she was on duty for every one of the suspicious deaths. When she wasn’t on shift, they didn’t happen. - she was seen by a doctor standing alone over a baby that had been stable, and then suddenly it collapsed - its oxygen tube had been removed and the alarm turned off. Letby was doing nothing to help, just watching. - when Letby was training at another hospital, oxygen tubes had been removed on 40% of her shifts when the average was about 1%. Babies are very unlikely to be able to dislodge the tubes themselves, especially premature babies. - Letby was on her own with a baby that had been stable. Baby’s mother walked in and saw the baby’s mouth bleeding and the baby in distress, the oxygen tube had been rammed down its throat. - she amended medical notes to make it look like she was either less involved with a baby that died, or that the baby was declining before she was involved. - she stole confidential record of the dead babies, claimed she couldn’t destroy them, but admitted she had a shredder. Hoarding trophies like this is a classic sign of munchausen by proxy disorder. - she looked up the parents of the dead babies the night they died and she would be keen to be the first to break the news of the deaths, even when she wasn’t the designated deaths - she wrote a note admitting she had done these things, and at no point either with the police or at trial ever claimed it was because she was told to write it. - the doctors had major concerns about her, but those were suppressed and pressure put on doctors not to escalate by management. - she contradicted herself at trial on her evidence, couldn’t recall some parts when it was prejudicial to her but remembered massive details of the same time frame when she wanted to - the above is just some of the evidence that convinced her - she is likely to be a psychopath, with munchausen by proxy disorder, who chose nursing to be near to vulnerable babies. She thrived on attention and control, and in particular the attention she got from a doctor with whom she was obsessed.
I was amazed that this case ever came to trial with such weak and circumstantial evidence. Negligence of the hospital and professional competence of ALL of the staff should have been investigated first. If there had been any suspicions of criminal activity the ward should have been closed immediately, and sll staff suspended and investigated accordingly, as opposed to just one. Forensic pathologists should have investigated the deaths. It appears that the investigation and subsequent trial were wanting.
Why Lucy Letby’s Guilt Is Clear: Breaking Down the Evidence There’s been a lot of debate about Lucy Letby’s guilt, with some people unable to believe that someone like her-a young, attractive nurse-could commit such horrific acts. Others think she was simply framed by the NHS, who needed a scapegoat to shift the blame away from institutional failures. But when we really break down the facts, the evidence overwhelmingly shows her guilt. **1. Stable Babies, Sudden Deaths** Many of the babies in Lucy Letby’s care were doing well-stable, improving, recovering. They weren’t on the brink of death, which makes their sudden collapses all the more suspicious. These babies **suddenly and inexplicably deteriorated** or died without any medical reason to explain such sharp turns. What set these cases apart was how **unexpected and unnatural** these collapses were. These weren’t fragile infants who were naturally declining. These were babies whose health **suddenly collapsed** without warning-and only when Letby was on shift. **2. Deliberate Acts of Harm** When doctors and investigators looked into these sudden collapses, they found evidence of **deliberate harm**. Babies were poisoned with insulin, injected with air, and overfed in dangerous ways. These are not natural complications or accidents-they are **intentional acts**. The medical evidence was clear: insulin where it shouldn’t be, air in the bloodstream, and overfeeding that led to serious complications. None of this happens by chance. **3. Lucy Letby: The Consistent Presence** It’s difficult for some to believe that a young woman like Lucy Letby could be capable of such cruelty. But in every instance of suspicious death or sudden deterioration, **Letby was present**. This wasn’t just bad luck. If this were simply a series of tragic coincidences, you would expect other staff to be present during at least some of these incidents. But they weren’t. It was always Letby. We often find it hard to reconcile that someone who seems innocent could be responsible for such atrocities. But criminals don’t fit into neat boxes-they can look like anyone. And the **pattern of harm** that emerged always involved Letby. She wasn’t just unlucky-she was the **common factor** in each case. **4. Circumstantial Evidence Is Powerful** Some people argue that the case was based on “circumstantial evidence,” implying that this made the case weaker. But **circumstantial evidence is often as strong as direct evidence**, especially when it points consistently in one direction. In this case, babies who were improving suddenly deteriorated. The medical evidence confirmed they were harmed deliberately-by insulin poisoning, air embolisms, or overfeeding. And Lucy Letby was there every time. Circumstantial evidence, when all the pieces fit together, can be overwhelming. There doesn’t always need to be a “smoking gun” when the circumstances all point to the same conclusion. In this case, the circumstantial evidence painted a clear picture of guilt: **Letby’s presence, the sudden collapses, and the confirmed medical harm**. **5. The “Scapegoat” Theory: Was She Framed?** Some people believe that Lucy Letby was framed by the NHS, who needed a scapegoat to avoid blame for its own failings. But let’s break that down. If this were true, it would require a **massive conspiracy** involving doctors, nurses, lab technicians, and forensic experts-all across different institutions. These independent experts found deliberate harm-insulin poisoning, air embolisms, overfeeding-confirmed by scientific tests. For Letby to be framed, it would mean manipulating physical evidence, blood samples, and autopsy results. **Such a large-scale fabrication is not just improbable-it’s impossible**. Letby wasn’t targeted from the start. The investigation was triggered by the unusual deaths and deteriorations, and the evidence naturally led to her. This wasn’t about protecting the NHS-it was about following the facts. If the NHS wanted to shift the blame, they could have easily pointed to systemic issues or other staff members. The evidence wasn’t fabricated-it emerged through independent investigations. **6. Falsified Medical Records: A Clear Cover-Up** It didn’t stop with the harm itself. Medical records were **falsified**-deliberately altered to obscure the real causes of these deaths. These weren’t accidental errors. The records were changed to cover up what had happened, and Letby had both the access and the knowledge to falsify them. If she were innocent, why would there be any need to falsify these records? **7. The Defense’s Failure to Challenge the Experts** The prosecution relied on **medical experts** to prove that these babies had been harmed. These weren’t just opinions-they were based on medical facts and scientific tests. The defense had every opportunity to bring in their own experts to challenge these findings, but they didn’t. The absence of defense experts is critical. If the defense could have provided a credible alternative explanation for these deaths, they would have. Their failure to do so speaks volumes about the strength of the prosecution’s case. **8. No Other Explanation Holds Up** Some have suggested alternate theories-like infections or hospital conditions-but these don’t hold up under scrutiny. The babies who died weren’t deteriorating naturally. They were stable, improving, and then suddenly collapsed in unnatural ways. The evidence of insulin poisoning, air embolisms, and overfeeding rules out natural causes or institutional failures. These deaths were caused by deliberate acts. **9. Conclusion: The Weight of the Evidence** Yes, Lucy Letby was young, and some find it hard to believe that someone like her could be capable of such horrific acts. But criminals don’t always fit our stereotypes. What’s undeniable is the overwhelming evidence: babies suddenly deteriorated or died while in her care, the medical evidence showed they were harmed deliberately, and Letby was always there when it happened. Some may say this case relied on circumstantial evidence, but when that evidence consistently points in the same direction, it becomes undeniable. Letby wasn’t framed by the NHS-she wasn’t a scapegoat. The investigation followed the facts, and the facts led back to her. **This wasn’t about bad luck**-it was deliberate, repeated harm. That’s why the jury found her guilty. **TL;DR:** Some can’t believe that someone like Lucy Letby-a young nurse-could be guilty of such horrific acts, or they think she was framed by the NHS. But the evidence tells a different story. Babies who were stable suddenly collapsed, and medical evidence confirmed they were deliberately harmed by insulin poisoning, air embolisms, and overfeeding. Letby was the one person consistently present. Circumstantial evidence, when it all points to the same conclusion, is powerful, and there’s no credible case for a conspiracy. The jury found her guilty because the evidence was overwhelming.
What are the odds that the “scaoegoat” they chose just happened to have 200+ handover sheets stored under her bed, and at her parents house, fished a paper towel of baby notes out of the confidential waste bin to take home, kept her first handover sheet in a special memento box like a treasured souvenir, made repeated Facebook searches for the deceased babies families, had weird card photos on her phone, purchased a house backing onto a kids cemetery, claimed to be a paper hoarder yet had no other piles of random papers in her home aside from the said handover sheets, was rabid at work with reporting every tiny infraction whilst conveniently forgetting her own theft of the sheets was a huge breach of protocol, was texting constantly when she should have been looking after these babies ( time stamps from her messages and the baby feed chart notes show she could not have fed them at the usual flow rate whilst sending so many messages back and forth with one hand) so whatever she was up to, it was not diligently caring for these babies. It’s also been proven she has altered some of the notes and certainly changed some of the times. Tell me why an innocent person needs to alter patient records to change the time events occurred? I’m all for the odd coincidence here and there. But she is literally a screeching red flag whichever way you look at her. You can of course take some of the circumstantial evidence on its own and say it’s not really amounting to much and doesn’t prove anything. But there are also some very real pieces of evidence that cannot be ignored. Quite honestly on their own they should be enough to convict her. All the rest is just window dressing extras. Nice to have but not necessary. Let’s take the very provable case of the baby with blood around its mouth. And only Letby is present and doing sod all. The mother coming down to the ward and seeing it and being sent away. She claims it was 9pm. Letby says it’s 10pm. Lucy tells her to go and the doc is on the way. Mum does two things which are provable at 9pm. She calls her husband, naturally distressed. And she tells the midwife on the ward what she has just seen. As far as I recall, the midwife makes a note of this. So what’s going here please Team Innocent..? Is the mum a liar / the phone record falsified with the help of the telecom’s company and the midwife note faked retrospectively? There are other examples of her behaviour which quite frankly show her for exactly what she is. A baby killer. Hiding in plain sight. What people don’t want to see and admit is because she’s young and female, they are frightened. Because they know they wouldn’t have spotted her either. I know I wouldn’t. It’s so rare thankfully we can’t get our heads to believe it true. In a world where there’s a huge obsession with looks - an average blonde boring mouse looking girl is never going to be anyone’s idea of a killer. As humans we like rationale and we like motive. There’s definitely one there somewhere. But without her cooperation it’s all a bit up in the air. I’d take a stab it’s linked in some way to her upbringing and the whole parental codependency that seems such a feature of her life, but who really knows. We don’t so we look for a better more palatable explanation. What hasn’t helped is the sheer volume of babies involved and therefore the volume of information and medical notes per baby. It had to be done that way but it’s caused so much confusion it’s allowing discourse when there should be none. If you strip away all the noise, it’s quite simple. Too many babies were dying and none had infections. All were stable and some almost ready for discharge. None had life threatening conditions. Contrary to belief, most neonates do well and go home. It’s 2024 not 1960. Only Lucy was consistently there when these babies died. Some had injuries. Many were vomiting up milk far in excess of what they should have received in a feed. Many had strange rashes. Some showed air on their X-rays. None of these things are accidentally happening. Yes the NHS is a mess, but that’s actually against her not a plus point. Because it’s the entire NHS on its knees not just one hospital. So we should (if she’s innocent) be seeing the same thing in other neonate wards across the country. Except it’s not happening anywhere else. I’m happy to hear actual factual rebuttal from “experts” who have read every single page of every single document from the trial / had access to absolutely everything and are then able to provide a credible working counter argument. It’s beyond sad that so far, aside from massively traumatising these poor families further - not one of them has presented a case with actual facts as to why she is innocent. They’ve literally got nothing to add other than saying oh we aren’t sure. So fine - all go sit down behind closed doors and work your theory with the data. Do it quietly and when you have an explanation for all these poor dead babies, then perhaps go shoot your mouth. I wonder if they’ll try and help Rose West next? Did anyone actually see her do anything…,?
After reading about the case, I knew everything pointed to her guilt, and yet I felt uneasy about it.I can't really put a finger on why, I just know I did. It's awful that the parents might have to go through it all again, and I can't begin to imagine how that must feel, but I hope her case is going to be looked at again.
I was the foreperson on a murder case in Broome WA. I don't feel the jury was smart enough to understand the medical evidence. It was a very interesting experience which changed my thinking on many things.
@@philholding6905 ...I agree. So many ways that are undoubtable in life. But doubt is the juice. And my dear lord I tried a THC ridden vape for the first time in my life 15 minutes and and I'm stoned as fuck (seasoned "smoker 57yo) x
the only massive problem is the ignorant “have a go lawyers” on social media that don’t bother to understand the issues and rely on social media. For example, here are some points to educate you; - Letby had defence experts, they attended a pre trial meeting with the prosecution’s experts, and notes were circulated to the legal teams. Letby chose not to call them at trial, the overwhelming likelihood being that it would have damaged her case in terms of the causes of death being suspicious (such as trauma from feeding tubes shoved down throats; air being injected; insulin being injected; breathing tubes being removed). - Letby accepted some of the prosecution’s evidence anyway - such as two babies having had insulin deliberately injected. - she was on duty for every one of the suspicious deaths. When she wasn’t on shift, they didn’t happen. - she was seen by a doctor standing alone over a baby that had been stable, and then suddenly it collapsed - its oxygen tube had been removed and the alarm turned off. Letby was doing nothing to help, just watching. - when Letby was training at another hospital, oxygen tubes had been removed on 40% of her shifts when the average was about 1%. Babies are very unlikely to be able to dislodge the tubes themselves, especially premature babies. - Letby was on her own with a baby that had been stable. Baby’s mother walked in and saw the baby’s mouth bleeding and the baby in distress, the oxygen tube had been rammed down its throat. - she amended medical notes to make it look like she was either less involved with a baby that died, or that the baby was declining before she was involved. - she stole confidential record of the dead babies, claimed she couldn’t destroy them, but admitted she had a shredder. Hoarding trophies like this is a classic sign of munchausen by proxy disorder. - she looked up the parents of the dead babies the night they died and she would be keen to be the first to break the news of the deaths, even when she wasn’t the designated deaths - she wrote a note admitting she had done these things, and at no point either with the police or at trial ever claimed it was because she was told to write it. - the doctors had major concerns about her, but those were suppressed and pressure put on doctors not to escalate by management. - she contradicted herself at trial on her evidence, couldn’t recall some parts when it was prejudicial to her but remembered massive details of the same time frame when she wanted to - the above is just some of the evidence that convinced her - she is likely to be a psychopath, with munchausen by proxy disorder, who chose nursing to be near to vulnerable babies. She thrived on attention and control, and in particular the attention she got from a doctor with whom she was obsessed.
I'm confused by this whole trial. What was the evidence she did a crime? It can't just be she was on shift for some of the deaths so she did it. I thought the whole being found guilty thing was beyond reasonable doubt. I would have doubted it even if it was 100% the babies were murdered, you have to have more than a person was on shift on X days, that's nuts, like there are not other people in the hospital.
There’s a TH-cam channel that has bought the court transcripts and reads them out. There’s plenty of evidence. I can only presume those who are saying there isn’t haven’t listened to the transcripts. It’s not just statistical analysis and circumstance.
the only massive problem is the ignorant “have a go lawyers” on social media that don’t bother to understand the issues and rely on social media. For example, here are some points to educate you; - Letby had defence experts, they attended a pre trial meeting with the prosecution’s experts, and notes were circulated to the legal teams. Letby chose not to call them at trial, the overwhelming likelihood being that it would have damaged her case in terms of the causes of death being suspicious (such as trauma from feeding tubes shoved down throats; air being injected; insulin being injected; breathing tubes being removed). - Letby accepted some of the prosecution’s evidence anyway - such as two babies having had insulin deliberately injected. - she was on duty for every one of the suspicious deaths. When she wasn’t on shift, they didn’t happen. - she was seen by a doctor standing alone over a baby that had been stable, and then suddenly it collapsed - its oxygen tube had been removed and the alarm turned off. Letby was doing nothing to help, just watching. - when Letby was training at another hospital, oxygen tubes had been removed on 40% of her shifts when the average was about 1%. Babies are very unlikely to be able to dislodge the tubes themselves, especially premature babies. - Letby was on her own with a baby that had been stable. Baby’s mother walked in and saw the baby’s mouth bleeding and the baby in distress, the oxygen tube had been rammed down its throat. - she amended medical notes to make it look like she was either less involved with a baby that died, or that the baby was declining before she was involved. - she stole confidential record of the dead babies, claimed she couldn’t destroy them, but admitted she had a shredder. Hoarding trophies like this is a classic sign of munchausen by proxy disorder. - she looked up the parents of the dead babies the night they died and she would be keen to be the first to break the news of the deaths, even when she wasn’t the designated deaths - she wrote a note admitting she had done these things, and at no point either with the police or at trial ever claimed it was because she was told to write it. - the doctors had major concerns about her, but those were suppressed and pressure put on doctors not to escalate by management. - she contradicted herself at trial on her evidence, couldn’t recall some parts when it was prejudicial to her but remembered massive details of the same time frame when she wanted to - the above is just some of the evidence that convinced her - she is likely to be a psychopath, with munchausen by proxy disorder, who chose nursing to be near to vulnerable babies. She thrived on attention and control, and in particular the attention she got from a doctor with whom she was obsessed.
I think the crux of the matter was that babies were considered to die, unexpectedly and/or unexplainably. When LL was on shift. This happened, but around six babies died in that time period when she wasn't on shift. I don't know if any of those were considered unexpected and/or unexplained.
I was born at the countess, my kids were born there and I've also worked there. I've said right from the very start that Lucy has been well and truly stitched up! The doctors have done this, and I'd put money on that Dr Ravi being knee deep in it. He's been far too vocal about it
I find in general that the best media to read about issues in Britain is overseas media, where they are more detached from "significant interest" in cases such as the Letby one. This is also particularly true of political reporting, where the proprietar of the paper is less likely to be telling the editor what to say, and again, is simply more detached from the matter they are reporting on.
juries make mistakes, especially when not presented with the whole evidence. dont look into the complaint lucy had made previously about one of the consultants. and i wont mention any details about him, as i am sure that is not allowed. even if it were to explain the consultants beliefs and rationale for his behaviours.
@@jojonesjojo8919 its not very cryptic at all, the information you need is there to go look it up yourself. Which, in my opinion, is better than relying on some anonymous (as you put it) online person anyway.
@@lisah9561 the only massive problem is the ignorant “have a go lawyers” on social media that don’t bother to understand the issues and rely on social media. For example, here are some points to educate you; - Letby had defence experts, they attended a pre trial meeting with the prosecution’s experts, and notes were circulated to the legal teams. Letby chose not to call them at trial, the overwhelming likelihood being that it would have damaged her case in terms of the causes of death being suspicious (such as trauma from feeding tubes shoved down throats; air being injected; insulin being injected; breathing tubes being removed). - Letby accepted some of the prosecution’s evidence anyway - such as two babies having had insulin deliberately injected. - she was on duty for every one of the suspicious deaths. When she wasn’t on shift, they didn’t happen. - she was seen by a doctor standing alone over a baby that had been stable, and then suddenly it collapsed - its oxygen tube had been removed and the alarm turned off. Letby was doing nothing to help, just watching. - when Letby was training at another hospital, oxygen tubes had been removed on 40% of her shifts when the average was about 1%. Babies are very unlikely to be able to dislodge the tubes themselves, especially premature babies. - Letby was on her own with a baby that had been stable. Baby’s mother walked in and saw the baby’s mouth bleeding and the baby in distress, the oxygen tube had been rammed down its throat. - she amended medical notes to make it look like she was either less involved with a baby that died, or that the baby was declining before she was involved. - she stole confidential record of the dead babies, claimed she couldn’t destroy them, but admitted she had a shredder. Hoarding trophies like this is a classic sign of munchausen by proxy disorder. - she looked up the parents of the dead babies the night they died and she would be keen to be the first to break the news of the deaths, even when she wasn’t the designated deaths - she wrote a note admitting she had done these things, and at no point either with the police or at trial ever claimed it was because she was told to write it. - the doctors had major concerns about her, but those were suppressed and pressure put on doctors not to escalate by management. - she contradicted herself at trial on her evidence, couldn’t recall some parts when it was prejudicial to her but remembered massive details of the same time frame when she wanted to - the above is just some of the evidence that convinced her - she is likely to be a psychopath, with munchausen by proxy disorder, who chose nursing to be near to vulnerable babies. She thrived on attention and control, and in particular the attention she got from a doctor with whom she was obsessed.
I’ve always held concerns for the lack of evidence and ambiguity of evidence in this case. She was treated as guilty as soon as she was arrested by the press but it very well could be a cover up in my opinion. I don’t know how they could prove without reasonable doubt that she did this. It is possible she’s guilty too but it has never sat right with me.
The more we hear about this case the more unsafe the convictions become. The court and the judge in particular, clearly had no idea of Justice and the picture that is emerging is they wanted to secure a conviction at all costs. The defence team also seem to have been playing on the prosecution's side. The prosecution submitted evidence that could fairly be said to amount to deliberately perverting the course of Justice MSM appear to be guilty of contempt of court in their reporting. Prosecution witnesses kept changing their story. There was no direct evidence of any killings and the deaths could be from a number of possible reasons and causes. False evidence was agreed upon between the defence and prosecution. The whole schbang smells to High Heaven. And no accountability for these dreadful failures.
There has been numerous experts that have challenged Dewi's narrative and the statistics used to enable the case against Letby. None were utilised in the case for some odd reason.
They do not want or seek the truth, instead they want to play their macabre game between the prosecution and the defence as to who can emotionally persuade the jury the better.
From what i have read it looks like a substandard baby unit found a very suitable scapegoat to throw under the bus. What the hell was her defence team doing? Why didn't they challenge the dodgy "evidence" against her?
@@AP-nj1mr the only massive problem is the ignorant “have a go lawyers” on social media that don’t bother to understand the issues and rely on social media. For example, here are some points to educate you; - Letby had defence experts, they attended a pre trial meeting with the prosecution’s experts, and notes were circulated to the legal teams. Letby chose not to call them at trial, the overwhelming likelihood being that it would have damaged her case in terms of the causes of death being suspicious (such as trauma from feeding tubes shoved down throats; air being injected; insulin being injected; breathing tubes being removed). - Letby accepted some of the prosecution’s evidence anyway - such as two babies having had insulin deliberately injected. - she was on duty for every one of the suspicious deaths. When she wasn’t on shift, they didn’t happen. - she was seen by a doctor standing alone over a baby that had been stable, and then suddenly it collapsed - its oxygen tube had been removed and the alarm turned off. Letby was doing nothing to help, just watching. - when Letby was training at another hospital, oxygen tubes had been removed on 40% of her shifts when the average was about 1%. Babies are very unlikely to be able to dislodge the tubes themselves, especially premature babies. - Letby was on her own with a baby that had been stable. Baby’s mother walked in and saw the baby’s mouth bleeding and the baby in distress, the oxygen tube had been rammed down its throat. - she amended medical notes to make it look like she was either less involved with a baby that died, or that the baby was declining before she was involved. - she stole confidential record of the dead babies, claimed she couldn’t destroy them, but admitted she had a shredder. Hoarding trophies like this is a classic sign of munchausen by proxy disorder. - she looked up the parents of the dead babies the night they died and she would be keen to be the first to break the news of the deaths, even when she wasn’t the designated deaths - she wrote a note admitting she had done these things, and at no point either with the police or at trial ever claimed it was because she was told to write it. - the doctors had major concerns about her, but those were suppressed and pressure put on doctors not to escalate by management. - she contradicted herself at trial on her evidence, couldn’t recall some parts when it was prejudicial to her but remembered massive details of the same time frame when she wanted to - the above is just some of the evidence that convinced her - she is likely to be a psychopath, with munchausen by proxy disorder, who chose nursing to be near to vulnerable babies. She thrived on attention and control, and in particular the attention she got from a doctor with whom she was obsessed.
Have you read all the scripts, seen all the footage and heard all the interviews? If you had then you wouldn’t have any doubt about her guilt. When all the facts are laid bare it’s very obvious she’s guilty. I have studied every single part of the case from the very beginning. I was totally neutral until I saw it all for myself now I have absolutely no doubts. She is evil beyond belief.
You need to keep reading, there is a mountain of evidence against her including notes in her diary in her writing found in her room saying "I killed them on purpose because I'm not good enough, I AM EVIL I DID THIS, I'm sorry you couldn't have a chance at life, I need help" if you like to explain what else that could possibly mean in addition to all the other evidence I'd love to hear it.
Whilst having sat on the jury of a murder case I was disgusted that we the jury were directed by the judge and pushed into a corner to find the accused guilty of manslaughter and not murder. Did we have a choice!?
Getting interesting... I sent a letter to the Attorney General 9 months ago asking him to check that Dewi Evans (expert witness in the Lucy Letby case) was both correctly installed and briefed and whether he fulfilled the legal obligations set out for one being a proper EW. I don't believe he was briefed correctly.
As someone once wisecracked ( after a pompous fool was boasting he had been practicing for 30 yrs), if you’d practiced a bit more you might be halfway competent.
It did appear that he wasn't an "expert witness" so much as an "expert advocate for the prosecution". I know expert witnesses are paid for either by the prosecution or the defence, but whoever pays, once in the witness box they should be expert witnesses for the court.
I have always thought this was not a fair trial and a full life sentence when there was only circumstantial evidence isn’t right. But apparently I’m a ‘child killer sympathiser’.
A good example of another guilty: verdict overturned was Sally Clark's, and this has something n common. That also was based on misleading statistical evidence.
Visit ground.news/BBB for 40% off unlimited access to all the world's news with context. Get all sides of every story and avoid media bias.
Thanks be that the UK has no death sentence. Making amends for one day in prison unjustifiably, is impossible, but making up for an execution.........................................
it is obvious lucy's original trial was rigged, with the judge & prosecution getting back handers from the hospital to make sure the medically ignorant jury found lucy 'guilty'! the 'evidence against her was distorted & deceitful & the hushed the main evidence which would have exonerated lucy, ie, the sewage leak in the neo natal unit!!
Ground News is not a reliable source, especially when it comes to the way they handle bias and left/right leaning. Their assessments of a news story, and news outlets are based entirely on a US understanding of politics. I in fact enquired with them how they present their content beyond the borders of the USA. They had no response. The way for example the USA interprets socialism, and the way the UK interprets socialism are WILDLY different. Ground News fails to account or correct for this. So, sadly it cannot help you avoid media bias, because the service itself is biased towards a very US-Centric view of the world.
Now with due respect to Ground News, what they are attempting to do is a good thing. Their execution should be found wanting however.
Likewise, I do respect that people such as yourself need to ensure that their videos make money. That is perfectly reasonable. However, I would simply suggest vetting your advertisers' talking points a little more carefully in future. It is in fact something I have noticed in some of your videos. On occasion the talking points sail very close to, but just short of false or misleading advertising. I have for example seen Ground News talking points in other TH-cam videos which are simply put false advertising, for which I have reported to the ASA. In this case, the left vs right claims, and the way you present them is more reasonable than other TH-camrs. This is encouraging.
Already a subscriber to Ground News. Can recommend it as a way of diversifying your news sources, and avoiding being in an echo chamber.
@@KeithCambs THANK YOU!!!
Being an "expert" does not mean you are honest.
In my experience it doesn't mean they know their subject.
It also doesn't mean they know everything. They just happen to know more than the average person. I'm a software developer with almost 40 years' experience. Compared to most, that makes me an "expert" in software development. Trust me, it doesn't. I also have a law degree. Compared to most people, that makes me an expert in the law. See what I mean?
Being an expert doesn't necessarily mean you are an expert.
Or that you don't have a parallel 'agenda' of your own...
Correct
I do not understand why the families would be upset about the doubts over Letby's guilt. If I were a parent who had lost a child I would want to know the TRUTH about that child's death. If it wasn't down to the accused I would want to know who, if anyone, was in fact to blame.
Maybe they cant face going through a retrial. Highly distressing....
They are far too emotionally involved to use reasoning.
The families have already endured one huge breach of trust on top of a bereavement. If Lucy Letby didn't harm their children, they face a number of horrifying possibilities.
The first is that they blamed someone for doing something appalling when they were innocent.
In addition, then the questions get asked again and again...did the children die of natural causes? If yes, WHY was someone wrongly blamed? If no, was it neglect, systemic issues at the hospital or someone else?
Truly adding to the nightmare the families are enduring. The search for truth is painful and they are already in agony. It's easier when people aren't directly involved to say that the TRUTH is the only important factor. Just think how people with broken legs need strong pain relief before they can receive treatment
Exactly. And I bellive some parents saw it through and see that letby is innocent and that the hospital (or doctors) f*** up. Sadly no media reports says ""Parents not convinced of letby guilt denamd answers"
@@dawnmoriarty9347 Well said Dawn.
I don't know if she is guilty or innocent, but I find it objectionable when people start saying that anyone questioning the outcome of a trial should be "ashamed of themselves". There have been plenty of miscarriages of justice in recent times and juries don't always get it right. If people who are experts in their field start raising questions then I think it is completely justifiable to be concerned and nobody should be shamed into staying quiet.
Those experts haven’t read or have access to the case notes. They’re just joining the orchestra of noise.
you can question it but you're an idiot for doing so. only because shes a good looking woman people are doubting. and maybe there's a few "anti mainstream" people who generally just believe the contrary of what is the truth.
how many babies do you think would have died between 2016-2024 if letby wasn't caught, do you honestly think the deaths would have just stopped? there were only 2 nurses on her ward and she was on shift for all of the deaths. it's obvious.
@@steveflaunpeople are allowed to join the orchestra of noise. After all we have the freedom to express in this land.
Agree, it's sad that so many people, a majority I'd say, are unable to think rationally due to their emotions having total control of them.
@@averyintelligence although with recent events, I'm beginning to wonder if we still do.
The British press is called the gutter press for a reason.
It's not.
@@eadweard.called the gutter press? Or for a reason?
It is a well worn, well deserved, universally accepted description of the tabloid gutter press...Chip wrappers is its only value.
@eadweard yes it is, it renowned across the globe as the gutter press!
The UK press is sometimes called the gutter press because it is known for sensational journalism, especially about the private lives of public figures.
@@ali3143 "The gutter press" doesn't refer to the British press. It just means sleazy journalism in general. Every country has a gutter press.
I'm sure the parents who thought this was finished and had some closure are upset by all this. But that should have no influence on whether a conviction is considered unsafe or not. If the Justice system is run on 'feelings' that's a bad day for justice.
Lucy Letby was convicted by a jury based on evidence that was submitted over 10 months, not feelings. That doesn't mean that they may not have got it wrong, but the only people seeking justice based on feelings are the people suggesting her innocence with no knowledge on the subject other than their "feelings".
Sadly I think the guilty party may still be free. Possibly someone she rejected.
Sure, but so much of the belief in her innocence is "feelings".
Feelings are used in prosecutions- for example; Belfield was convicted because his accusers had a feeling that he may hurt them. He hadn’t met most of the people he was convicted of ‘stalking’.
His stalking was unkind words uttered on TH-cam
I'd say the majority is run on feelings, ego's, personalities and prejudices. There are humans involved, what else do you expect?
She's a scapegoat for NHS management incompetence.
💯
Also perhaps doctors covering their own @sses!
This case stinks.
AS MUCH AS SLIMY ASIAN DOCTOR JAYARAM & THE SEWAGE LEAK IN THE NEO NATAL UNIT!
the only massive problem is the ignorant “have a go lawyers” on social media that don’t bother to understand the issues and rely on social media. For example, here are some points to educate you;
- Letby had defence experts, they attended a pre trial meeting with the prosecution’s experts, and notes were circulated to the legal teams. Letby chose not to call them at trial, the overwhelming likelihood being that it would have damaged her case in terms of the causes of death being suspicious (such as trauma from feeding tubes shoved down throats; air being injected; insulin being injected; breathing tubes being removed).
- Letby accepted some of the prosecution’s evidence anyway - such as two babies having had insulin deliberately injected.
- she was on duty for every one of the suspicious deaths. When she wasn’t on shift, they didn’t happen.
- she was seen by a doctor standing alone over a baby that had been stable, and then suddenly it collapsed - its oxygen tube had been removed and the alarm turned off. Letby was doing nothing to help, just watching.
- when Letby was training at another hospital, oxygen tubes had been removed on 40% of her shifts when the average was about 1%. Babies are very unlikely to be able to dislodge the tubes themselves, especially premature babies.
- Letby was on her own with a baby that had been stable. Baby’s mother walked in and saw the baby’s mouth bleeding and the baby in distress, the oxygen tube had been rammed down its throat.
- she amended medical notes to make it look like she was either less involved with a baby that died, or that the baby was declining before she was involved.
- she stole confidential record of the dead babies, claimed she couldn’t destroy them, but admitted she had a shredder. Hoarding trophies like this is a classic sign of munchausen by proxy disorder.
- she looked up the parents of the dead babies the night they died and she would be keen to be the first to break the news of the deaths, even when she wasn’t the designated deaths
- she wrote a note admitting she had done these things, and at no point either with the police or at trial ever claimed it was because she was told to write it.
- the doctors had major concerns about her, but those were suppressed and pressure put on doctors not to escalate by management.
- she contradicted herself at trial on her evidence, couldn’t recall some parts when it was prejudicial to her but remembered massive details of the same time frame when she wanted to
- the above is just some of the evidence that convinced her
- she is likely to be a psychopath, with munchausen by proxy disorder, who chose nursing to be near to vulnerable babies. She thrived on attention and control, and in particular the attention she got from a doctor with whom she was obsessed.
Exactly.
I've twice done jury service and it's an eye opener.. some just go along with the majority
I know somebody very close to me who has done jury service and he was honest and said they sent the guy down because he was a scumbag. Not because they thought he did the crime
Exactly, the strongest character with best communication skills usually gets everyone else to think their way.
It’s not a perfect system, it cannot be a perfect system because humans are involved and human beings have natural associative biases and projection biases which all trace back through their entire existence on this planet and what they have been exposed to and shaped by.
Even individuals such as barristers or lawyers (to use the Americanism) may truly believe that a decision or opinion they hold is based purely upon the evidence and facts presented and that no emotion, bias, or personal feelings or judgements have been allowed to influence or affect their logical and critical thinking decisions and as I said they may wholeheartedly believe this and be as honest as the day is long however they would be incorrect.
This is absolutely NOT to judge or criticise any barrister in any way, this is quite simply a scientific fact.
Barristers can be and often are far advanced in critical thinking abilities and logical and rational analysis than most people in society and after many of practice and honing of these skills they are extremely capable.
The problem as I see it is jury selection and the fact that ordinary working public are selected at random to make these often highly complex and exhausting judgements that hold a monumental heavy burden of responsibility upon them and to my mind at least I believe that to suddenly pull random people from all walks of life in and saddle them with these responsibilities under the strain of a new situation they haven’t experienced before is akin to asking a random individual on the street to come into your business whatever that maybe and suddenly analyse, scrutinise and conclude the current state of your business’s workforce, financial records and productivity and to then draw up detailed plans for the business for the next tax year and after careful consideration and evaluation decide what areas we can or should cut costs and what areas need investment and how do they project this affecting the balance sheet next year?
Oh and the company or business has several on going legal disputes and also has been approached by another company who may purchase this business so your financial predictions will hugely affect the workers, owners and don’t forget pensions and insurance.
Realistically, you would not expect many people to firstly give a damn, secondly have any motivation even if you paid them to actually attempt to be as accurate as you require and thirdly and most importantly to have the requisite skills, knowledge and experience to even attempt this let alone produce accurate and responsible results.
Thinking about it you wouldn’t ask someone randomly out of the public to come round and fix your washing machine would you! No of course not you look for an expert in that industry and field with experience and prior professional experience so why on earth do we just pluck everyday working people and expect them to suddenly be up to making a responsible and both logical and rational completely unbiased decision that is accurate??
The long hours, the endless hours sat in court listening to so many different people telling you the same story a different way and add to the stress and strain of the new situation and serious responsibilities on top and it’s unsurprising that poor or incorrect decisions are made and more people than would care to admit I personally believe will decide their vote upon their own instincts and gut feelings.
I personally believe that jury duty should be a career or at least an occupation you do for a few years to become competent and capable to make good decisions given the extreme circumstances.
There is a book called ' secret barrister' explains all the faults in the justice system
I stood trial for raping my ex/child’s mother in a trial with 0% factual evidence given by 3 female liars who didn’t like me-I only ever told the truth and it took the Jury 5 minutes to find me innocent.
Then a few weeks later stood trial for sexual assault of a minor (10 years after it happened,freind from first trail and her mother,again) and faced same people from first trial again and 0% factual evidence-I only ever told the truth but witness had to admit she “got it wrong” with certain evidence from first trail and it took the jury (completely different from first,coz separate case and not a “conspiracy” like I claimed) 5 minutes to find me innocent,again.
Although the “evidence” was clear and I was conspired against by 3 evil witches I can’t get them done for conspiracy coz law and I’m poor,lol.
I don’t believe Lucy is Guilty at all ✌️
it seems to me Letby’s defence was abysmal. Expert witnesses are supposed to be impartial and not advocate for one party or another. How could Evans be impartial having been a major part of the investigation that led to Letby being charged? From what I’ve seen of the evidence, it is entirely circumstantial and she should never have been convicted. The only identifiable motive is that of the hospital management that Evan’s worked for, which is to point the blame for a spike in infant deaths on an employee, rather than their unsanitary and understaffed hospital.
Her ,convictions. Have never sat well with me
Let's face it. The average person isn't going to understand all of the medical details of such a case.
Exactly why there was an expert there and it lasted for months.......
And they took 22 days.....
Without a time machine what else do you expect to be done?
I was confused at first. Had to replay them. Jury didn't have that privilege.
You would be surprised at what information humans can take in when faced with something as significant and important as jury duty.
@@reesey8676 I wouldn't understand it.
Good point! I have a friend who as on Jury service years ago, on an avaition fraud case (involving millions of pounds) - my friend isa highly succesful self employed business man , with a very good knowledge of Accounts / Taxation etc but even with this knowledge he eventually raised his hand and told the Judge that he was now out of his depth in terms of the technicalities of the case and needed more time and explanation.The Judge smiled and explained that in spite of 20 years of dealing with this kind of case, he too was finding this case complex - . The Judge then addressed the rest of the Jury and asked (if on the basis of only one person (my friend) expressing concern) could he (the Judge) assume that all other Jury members were up to speed , with the Technical issues here. One by one , each of them admitted to being completely at a loss and yet had remained silent for fear of looking foolish or holding things up.The Judge ordered that more time be given to explaining the concepts - apparently the man charged looked terrified ...!
I'm a retired NHS Professional and I think something stinks here....
I've seen how some Managers work......
This is not a sound judgment....
@jaywalker3087
It's very sound. She's been convicted by two separate juries. Appeal rejected. Because shes guilty. That's why.
So who do you think is responsible ? Another serial killer working in the hospital?
@jaywalker3087
I think you're just another paid troll.
@@JulieSimmonds-z2j certainly not.
I think you are an ignorant SHEEP.
No one can buy me because I'm not a Bread Head.
How much experience do you have of working in the Hospital system.
Have you studied the background of this case and found out all you can....
I have, and there is so much more than the media anywhere know or publish.
There is a good chance there is no crime here at all @@MarcP589
Lucy is a victim of corporate incompetence.
I think it’s worse than that unfortunately
Lucia de Berk case
@HK-jz7lz
corporate incompetence let her get away with it!
@@HK-jz7lz
and you're a paid troll.
@@JulieSimmonds-z2j ppl didnt see anything wrong with her work ethics
The media had pretty much convicted her before her trail even started. Personally from the start I thought it sounded more like NHS incompetence than a serial killer and another post office scandal in the making. But I only got to see what was in the media, still do think there is a good chance she was a scapegoat but only time will tell.
I also feel like she could be being used as a scapegoat. From things I've seen about the state of the hospital etc. I saw a report saying there were just as many deaths on the days she didn't work as to when she did. It's a very sad case no matter what way you look at it
The real question is has the death rate come down since Lucy Letby was removed?
100% agree.
@@robslade2571 good point although could be many other factors as to why it happened in that timeframe
@@robslade2571 If it was failings in the department, one would expect them to address those failings, even thought they threw her under the bus.
There have also been spikes in other hospitals, some before and some since.
Her notes are worthless as evidence. Anyone who is distressed and is asked to write down stuff will state nonsense. I've done it. In any case, the notes are contradictory as she says she is innocent having previously blamed herself. I don't know enough about the case to form an accurate opinion about her guilt or otherwise, but those notes should be dismissed.
The whole thing stinks!
Lucy Letby did not have a fair trial. Lucy was a whistleblower because of the incompetence of the unit. They needed someone to blame and she had reported of the negligence on the unit. I agree with you. I’m a retired nurse who worked with neonatal babies and adults and it’s very complex. There was no real evidence and I believe Lucy was frustrated at the whole situation.
This might be upsetting for the families, but I’m sorry Lucy is in prison and this is her life on the line.
There was lots of information that was not used. Staff members were frightened to speak up because I believe they were threatened.
In the 1980s neonatal care was completely different. Neonates are from 22/23 weeks onwards and the technology has changed soo much since that soo called specialist worked. These babies are soo at risk and can beat the odds . They need excellent and specialist nurses and doctors. That unit and some staff were described by many as being incompetent and the hospital had previously been reported as such. When Lucy described herself as feeling guilty, I imagine it was because no matter what she tried to change the situation she was ignored and suffered harshly. She was finally given an apology but by then it seems those involved needed to blame someone to get the hospital off the hook and out of trouble. She needs a new trial and she needs evidence that was not given at her trial to be incorporated. I watched her trial and I cried for her and her family. She looked gaunt and shell shocked. I agree these parents need some answers and an end to all of the pain.
Nonsense.
@@S.TradesWhat a well thought out argument! 🤦♂️
The evidence was solid and thorough. You should follow the court trials instead of the internet.
@@rwaneuin6259 The so called evidence, was NOT presented in court, that is why there should be a retrial.
She's guilty as any person ever convicted in a court of law and quite frankly it's embarrassing that you are advocating for the release of a monster that kills babies.
My wife has been a nurse for 24 years. She said early on in this case that there was something wrong with how they have cherry-picked so-called evidence. She also mentioned how management can and in some cases will always look for a scapegoat, such is the seriousness of a hospital facing an investigation for general malpractice.
But that's not what happened here. Hospital management protected Letby and forced her accusers to apologise.
Management are now being criticised for not acting soon enough. It's the opposite of what you're suggesting.
@@dab. So how is she still found guilty for harming children on times when she wasn't even in work? And management did not disclose that other nurses who were also regularly present when babies were harmed. How is that the opposite? It's purposeful negligence.
@@lee4171 You said she was made a scapegoat by management. In fact he was protected by management.
That's the opposite of what you said.
Which child was Letby found guilty of harming when she was not at work?
@@dab. No no no. I said that children were found to turn very sick when she was not there. Yes, I still believe she was made a scapegoat for another poorly managed ward within the NHS. I would add that coincidence is also no grounds to prove someone guilty in a multi-person case. There remains still, no solid proof one person or Letby herself did this. Hopefully time will tell.
I don’t know if Lucy Letby is guilty or not. What I do know is that I too was a nurse in the UK. What I learned is, in places as least, it has a terrible blame culture. Over the years, I myself was swept up into three cases that ultimately involved police action. They were in no way as serious as the deaths of babies. These issues dragged on and on and on and I saw how certain staff were protected and others were not. In the cases I was involved in, ultimately no acceptable evidence was offered against staff and they were dropped. In one case a member of the public, by the use of CCTV, was proven to be a blatant liar and his complaint immediately dropped. However we were strongly advised not to bring a counter-action. It’s scary and incredibly unpleasant to be involved in these things and because I have seen how things so easily get twisted - I honestly don’t know what to believe but I have very little faith in “the system”.
I am also a nurse in the UK. There has always been a blame culture. When something happens management will always look around for some one to blame. An example of this is when a unit is very short staffed and management are aware of it. They will try to tell you that you are being silly for pointing it out but when something goes wrong, as a result of the staff shortage, the staff on duty will then get the blame. I am not sure if she is guilty or not but I do know about the culture that exists in nursing.
Who advised you not to raise a counter claim?
We are following in America's footsteps and turning into a litigious society. Always cover your back.
She's guilty. Why don't you do some research and educate yourself on the case?
@@andrewjack31 What I said in my comment is that I did not know if she was gulty or not.. However having worked for 43 years as a nurse I do know about the blame culture that has always existed.
Letby wrote a piece in her own hand, stating how she felt responsible for the deaths of the babies.
The prosecution claimed this was an admission of guilt, but there's a different interpretation.
The babies had died on her watch. She felt guilty because she couldn't have prevented it.
Reminds me of a man in the 1950s who was sent to the gallows, for saying "Let him have it".
In 1953, Derek Bentley and a boy were cornered by a policeman after a robbery. The boy held a pistol. The officer said, "Give me the gun". Bentley said "Let him have it", and the boy shot him dead. Bentley was sent to the gallows, based upon the Court interpreting his phrase as "Shoot him" rather than "Pass him the gun". Perhaps Letby writes she killed the babies, not because she killed them, but because she failed to save them.
She also said I am evil I did this
It's a good job the note was only one part of the prosecution's case.
@@stephenlaw9886 for context see BBB previous video concerning her therapist.
@@stephenlaw9886 True. Is that "I did this" as in "I murdered them"?
Or "I should've thought of something to prevent this from happening"?
I honestly don't know.
I've recently spent 2 weeks in a UK maternity ward. I can tell you it's no suprise that infants die there.
Yup - I had to mop shit and blood off the toilet floor myself - multiple times. And was hated for raising the issue. They didn't notice the heart beat irregularities of my unborn until i mentioned it, And I had to help the registrar with the subsequently induced birth by holding a table lamp close to the action because the angle poise was broken.
Letby has been made a scapegoat for failures in the NHS.
pure speculation
No, she murdered lots of babies and is rightly in prison for her despicable crimes.
Letby is a serial killer of babies and the evidence doesn’t allow for scapegoating the nhs as responsible for what she has done
@@UberFoX Since you or Andrew witnessed all the evidence, you simply cannot say that.
I think you might be correct with that, you can’t have the NHS being sued for millions and millions, it’s better to frame or misrepresent the evidence in such a way that only one individual is guilty of such heinous results
As a barrister I'd think you'd be uneasy about both of Lucy's trials, the first was reminiscent of a 17th Century witch trial with the vast majority of evidence collected having no worth whatsoever.
With the second trial the chief prosecution witness contradicted himself and the jury only found Lucy guilty because Goss almost directed them to find her guilty, kept going on about 'similar fact evidence'
There's nothing uneasy about it. In fact any barrister worth their salt would probably be in awe at how complex and thorough the prosecution's case was.
Imagine if you weren't guilty and being accused of killing babies. You'd be outraged and have a good reason for every point they threw at you.
She just let the prosecution roll over her because she had NO DEFENCE.
@@andrewjack31her defense team was poor,shocking to be precise. Circumstantial at best. Nothing sits right with it. Pre-trial is required. Just another scapegoat for NHS failings.
The problem is the justice system is packed full of people with no mathematical education beyond GCSE level. This trial involved complicated statistics and probability and until the legal profession is willing to accept the *only* people allowed to present statistics and probability in court need to be approved by the Royal Statistical Society to do so we will have miscarriages of justice like this almost certainly is and Sally Clarke was.
@@andrewjack31what utter nonsense. Are you dead from the neck up or something? What do you know if the case at all? Why do you think there is so much interest in this case and experts questioning it?
@@not2longnow how do you defend someone who has no defence? Her guilt was evident for everyone with more than a room temperature IQ to see.
I realise that's the majority of the population though, which is why we, as a population, are so easily manipulated.
She will never be released, even if innocent. The judicial system, NHS and government cannot be seen to be anything but perfect in such a case and will clamp down fairly quickly on anything which shows doubt on the verdict.
jeez, with the post office scandal alone ... the holes in the system is only just being exposed....
Six babies died when Letby was not on shift. When can we expect a trial for those six deaths ?
She was convicted, essentially, on the basis of the Texas sharpshooter fallacy.
@@billyruffian1426 I had to look that up, but yes basically this. I did do a stats degree and you are forced to examine human biases (read, we aren't computers and evolved in ways that are great for hunting and gathering, not so great at interpreting large number sets on 'feel'), but no one needs that level of training to see through the nonsense, given the proper explanation. The fact is, there are dozens of youtube vids that can walk even the mathematically challenged through the sorts of statistical mirages that can trick and deceive, which brilliantly demonstrate how such falsehoods can be extrapolated from a 'backwards' view of outcomes. The defense should have presented similar arguments and shown why (good) science these days is based on double blind trials for similar reasons, because separating fact from poorly interpreted sets of numbers is, sometimes, tricky. The amount of very well-respected scientific institutes who have debunked the way the investigation was carried out and the prosecution presented is frankly a little intimidating, if I were part of that investigation I'd be genuinely a bit worried about the Royal Statistics Society weighing in, entirely unprompted, on how much you bungled an investigation. All you have to do is determine that the expert was wrong only a few percent in his estimates of which children were harmed and which just died despite the best care and suddenly at least 3 nurses are equally likely to have been 'guilty'. Fact is, the parents could have spent the next 40 years before their own deaths mourning poorly children dying but instead they will be beset with rage over crimes against their offspring which likely didn't happen.
No, because those responsible are likely our strength
@@quigglebertlol, ahh yeah the untouchables that get everything our homeless vets are denied but deserve 😢
Babies die, i don't expect she was responsible for every death of a child in that time, so shut up with your space alien level theories.
There should be a statue of Sally Clark in every UK courthouse, to remind all that such miscarriages should never happen again
Sally Clark's first appeal was rejected even after Meadow's statistics had been debunked. Reason: overwhelming evidence.
And Angela Cannings!
@@somedude8877 There was no evidence of murder whatsoever. There were misinterpretions by pathologists, and the brazen lies told by Meadow.
@@cherylemmanuel744 Interesting fact: a prosecution expert in the Cannings case, Ward-Platt, would have served on the Letby case, but he died before he could.
@@hemlyns9916 Yes, but we must respect the court of appeal's judgments nonetheless....
Woman in Holland was jailed for the same thing… they later found out she was innocent
Thank god we don't have the death penalty in this country anymore.
15 life sentences is a death sentence unless a miracle happens.
@@scottaznavourian3720 15 life sentences is awful if you are innocent but it's not the death penalty!
@@storm_shadow78 one day is awful if you are innocent
@@scottaznavourian3720 But not irreversible!
@jstelzner the sentence and conviction may be reversible...sje can never get the years back she spent with real monsters like Becky watts killer and God knows who else...and if she exonerated then what? Even if it's found she not only didn't murder or attack anyone and jn fact performed her duties the best she could wpuld she get her nursing certificate back? If she did would anyone hire her? If they did why would she put herself thru that again just probsbly be blamed the first time a patient so much as ran a temperature?
Pherhaps the real crime in this case is the strong desire to uphold the guilt of one individual.
Absolutely!
The real crime here is how many ssimps there are for this murderer.
@@johnhawthorn5393lol yes.
@@johnhawthorn5393oh look another emotionally immature reactionary
Yes just like it was with Colin Stag hung over him for 16 years that the police tried to convict him
An innocent nurses life is at stake here, everything should be questioned to enable the truth to be revealed.
Dr Evans is so experienced a judge in another case more or less called him a joke. It's funny how he knows more than a coroner. And he's a paediatrician. Not a neonatal expert. There is a huge difference.
and in interviews he comes across as an horrible human being which doesnt help him
Judges are not infallable, though there is a tendency in UK to think that they are. Judges can even be crooked, though I am not suggesting that any involved in this case are.
He seems like a megalomaniac who enjoys destroying lives
the fact other babies died in the same fashion while she was not on duty should of raised a huge red flag
By that logic Shipman should never have been investigated.
@@nighttrain1236 we await his posthumus re-trial (!)
@@nighttrain1236David Davis begs to differ and I do believe he's better placed to comment than someone called night train
What does "should of" mean?
@nighttrain1236 What is it with clowns like you?
Who said she should not have been investigated? NOBODY.
However, babies dying the same way when she wasn’t there is something that should of been investigated as well and whether she’s guilty or not is something that can be pointed to as a part of her defence.
The whole case needs reinvestigated to be sure.
The trouble with this is that judges and courts don’t like to admit they weren’t wrong.
In the past innocent people have sat in prison waiting for judges and minister to retire so not to embarrass them. Ask the Birmingham six. Hopefully if she is innocent it won’t take that long on this occasion.
Just like doctors.
It’s abit like the NHS who don’t like patients explaining their own diagnosis
@@duncanmiller3067 just re-read that.
The same papers that called judges the enemy of the people are calling it sickening that someone is exercising their right to appeal. Absolutely appalling. Given the severity of the charges and the sentence, I don't understand how any sensible person could possibly oppose her seeking to appeal and the justice system ensuring as much as it can that the outcome was the correct one.
We had that with the Ched Evans case. I stopped reading them 25 years ago after my own experience with them and the criminal justice system. Lying sacks of s***.
The big problem for me is that a layman will ALWAYS believe a medical expert in this type of case.
That's why a defence team should always counter an expert with another expert.
and nothing wrong in that
@@skasteve6528 Exactly. We saw this with the Depp v Heard case. It doesn't matter the field or the experience of the prosecution's expert. Experts can get it disastrously wrong, as I know only too well.
Just as well both sides get to call their own isn't it?
@@UberFoXthe babies were so tiny and so ill . Unlikely to survive?
Isn’t it better to risk letting a possibly guilty person go free than allow a possibly innocent young woman to spend the rest of her life in prison, and being unrelentingly demonised. I’m constantly hearing the argument that reviewing Lucy Letby’s trial is unfair to the grieving parents, but can that ever justify keeping a possibly innocent woman incarcerated with no right to have her conviction examined?
it absolutely is... thats why guilty beyond reasonable doubt, is and should always stand.
I hate the fact that a persons life is judged by a jury ( group of ordinary working people )
shouldnt it always be down to a specialised panel, whos able to scrutinise whats presented and knows the in and out and isnt easily prejudice.
not to mention this government is currently freeing prisoners proven guilty only having done 40% of their time 😂 ahaha.
what on earth is going on with uk
@@keithvlogs1it would have helped if the last government had built more prisons,
I agree with you re juries. Something as complex as this needed a panel of expert medical professionals, not someone who was clearly biased. And I mean that regarding the so called embolism evidence which was accepted and yet there was no physical evidence that it actually occurred.
If I were a grieving parent g I was be devastated to think that my grief caused an innocent person to get life in prison.
Its okay saying this until your child is on her ward.
✡️👿✡️
Apparently Dr Evans was not a neonatologist, and the writer of the paper he used to prove air embolism because of the skin mottling has said that his paper was misinterpreted. Lucy was a whistle-blower, babies were getting ill in overcrowded wards with sewage leaks (still having issues to thie day). Lucy's diary contained secret code? Yeah unless you are a nurse that knows that LD refers to a Long Day shift. Expert statisticians have come out saying that the rosters only showed that LL was on duty when she was on duty. And don't get me started on the confession that wasn't.....
@@artg9418 yes, all a complete farce.
Yep. Shoo Lee wrote that paper and argued at her appeal the described rash didn't fit
Dr Evans is "not a neonatologist" because neonatology wasn't a discipline when he qualified as a doctor. As a standalone medical discipline, it's relatively new. Dr Evans is a neonatologist by experience if not title though. He was instrumental in developing it as a field, building his hospital's neonatology care unit basically from scratch.
@@8964TSThat has absolutely nothing to do with what the OP was saying. It's a fact that he used Shoo Lee's own research and misinterpreted it, Shoo Lee disagreed with his findings. This is a baby LL was accused of killing by air embolism that one of the world's leading specialists has doubts about.
The OP was trying to discredit the expert witness by claiming he didn’t have the requisite experience. I merely pointed out why he doesn’t carry the title of “neonatologist” and does in fact have the requisite experience, and you think my comment “has nothing to do with” what the OP said?! You’re hilarious.
No. Without question, unsafe verdict.
Her life is ruined either way .if there is a slightest chance of her innocence she deserves a re trial
stinks of a cover-up, i rekkon the hospital has made mistakes and this lady is a scape-goat!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hospitals all close ranks no one has a chance.
Scary to think this type of stuff happens in a hospital l
Everyone says... surely these big institutions don't cover up and make scape goats??... post office? Horizon? Anyone?
Doctors bury their mistakes
You better believe it
The jury certainly got it wrong in this case but then it wasn't their fault as they heard flawed evidence.
The defence was at fault and not the Jury in this one
Babies were so small unlikely to survive?
what makes you think the evidence was flawed?
How can you say certainly? She confessed to it in her own diary, she wasnt tortured into it by police. Nobody who defends her explains this, they just talk about minor irrelevant things.
@@valleyshrew There is no confession, there was no diary. The notes the prosecution claimed were a confession were misrepresented. There is an excellent youtube video by Prof. Norman Fenton ( a statistician) and Dr Scott Mclachlan ( a nurse educator) where they explain what these notes were actually saying and why she wrote them. These notes were written on the advice of a therapist and actually contained declarations of innocence. The prosecution selected parts to present to th jury i.e" I did this" actually was "They say I did this".
Massive problem with expert witnesses. The Simon Hall case is one example. Though Hall made a 'confession' before then committing suicide in jail, we have to remember that you can't be released whilst convicted but not admitting guilt. After the hearing with Lord Judge in appeal, Hall knew he could never overturn his conviction.
In that appeal, despite the sole evidence against Hall being utterly dismantled, Lord Judge said that he found the evidence against Hall compelling. That evidence relied on an expert witness in fibre analysis. Allegedly, that witness had based an academic career on fibre analysis and for years before the case supposedly made claims that at some point in the future it would be possible to be able to gain a conviction based on fibre evidence alone.
In the appeal, experts called by the defence produced testimony that they could show that the conclusions drawn on the fibre evidence were unsustainable. The evidence used to convict Hall was that the fibres found at the scene of the crime could only have come from Hall's clothing seized by police at his home.
The 'matching factor' was the colour of the fibres. However, the defence argued that whilst the colour match was correct the clothes were massed produced and in analogy it would be like taking a sample from paint left in a car crash. You might be able to say it came from a BMW but you could never say which BMW it came from.
In Hall's case, the expert witness claimed, there was no doubt that the matching of the fibre's colour could only have come from Hall's clothes. This was the only evidence which convicted Hall and the slew of conflicting evidence was 'not presented' by the prosecution during the first trial. Evidence such as the alleged murder weapon having supposedly been taken from another house in a burglary which happened hours before the killing at a time when Hall was provably elsewhere. Evidence such as fingerprints at the scene which were neither Hall's not the victim's.
Relying on 'experts' is fraught with danger because of the 'status' issues involved. Experts are human beings with human frailties and within academic circles. From such wellsprings many experts emerge and being a recognised court witness is reputational capital which leads to discipline status and can impact career trajectory. Beyond such professional validations, there is also the risk factor of human ego satisfaction which is hardly an unknown phenomenon in academic and medical practitioners.
The moment the Letby case surfaced, the basis of expert testimony became obviously troublesome to my mind. More so when we live in a society, the Post Office scandal being an example, where management cult will work to cover up failures of process by blaming individuals. In the NHS, now dominated by such a management cult, it can be argued that the interests of patients come second to the interests of administrative management. In neonatal units, a complex medical provision, the history of cover-ups by management is not entirely unknown ( www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-62876617 ) but certainly the full extent of such actions is unlikely to be fully discovered.
Anyone working in the NHS knows full well that the most likely outcome of complaint against the management process is usually a disciplinary process against the complainant. For all these reasons it is not difficult to conclude that the Letby case is unsafe.
But as we can see in comparison between Hall and Letby, it goes beyond expert witness testimony and we have to question how prosecutions present evidence and how they fail to disclose anything prejudicial to their case. We also have to question the appeal process when, as in the case of Hall, evidence can be dismantled to a level where at the very least reasonable doubt is established but an appeals judge can say that they find the evidence remains compelling.
Public sector , if you can guarantee one thing ,is that somewhere down the line someone would have been saying anything to save their own skin
@@LOTPOR0402 YES
scapegoat for the failures of the countess of Chester
it was the sewage leak in the neo natal unit which was obviously responsible for the babies deaths!!
Bollocks.
Have you read all the scripts, seen all the footage and heard all the interviews? If you had then you wouldn’t have any doubt about her guilt. When all the facts are laid bare it’s very obvious she’s guilty. I have studied every single part of the case from the very beginning. I was totally neutral until I saw it all for myself now I have absolutely no doubts. She is evil beyond belief.
It is getting more difficult each day to know what is true and what is not, this is an excellent channel and thought provoking. Ground News seems a good idea.
Life with no parole on circumstantial evidence.
Circumstantial evidence can be very powerful and damning and many convictions are rightly made on circumstantial evidence, but this evidence was exactly the opposite, insubstantial, capable of different interpretations and in some cases outright dishonest.
It is the quality of the evidence that is the issue, and this evidence was of very poor quality indeed.
@@Must_not_say_thatit's not just poor it is statistically flawed beyond redemption. Problem is the justice system is almost entirely filled with people who have no mathematical education beyond GCSE level. It is unsurprising they get complicated statistics and probability wrong all the time.
Most of the people with whole-life tariffs were convicted on circumstantial evidence.
Equally troubling is people with no knowledge of the justice system thinking they know how it works.
@@8964TSit was the same with the pandemic, everyone became a disease expert, financial crash everyone became expert economists.
The real travesty is that there was no clear evidence of her killing any one of those babies, yet put all together it was claimed that seven cases of 'not sufficient evidence for each' adds up to 'overwhelming evidence for all'. The fix was in when both prosecution and defence claimed there had been murders. After that it was simply a case of 'who is the most likely suspect'.
Her OWN defense accepted prosecution ALLEGATIONS/INTERPRETATIONS as fact...this was hugely damaging to her case.
@@fredneecher1746 the mother of one of the babies walked in to see her baby screaming, and Lucy Letby just looked at the mother blankly. A doctor walked in on her doing nothing while a premature baby's alarms were all blaring. A nurse walked in to find her similarly doing nothing when yet and baby's oxygen levels were dropping. She was pretty much caught in the act three times, but because she is a young woman nobody will accept her guilt.
Coincidences ie; Someone will win the lottery!
@@shaya_g None of this is true - alarms often go off for reasons such as a probe becoming detached. They do nt all need an urgent response - any nurse will tell you this.
Just the fact that the jury found her 'not guilty' on some charges and reached 'no verdict' on others shows what you've said to be false. They looked at each charge one by one and reached separate verdicts. They didn't apply a sweeping verdict of guilt, which is what they would have done if they'd been instructed that they could apply the evidence "for each" to "for all"'.
The 'not guilty' and 'no verdict' decisions also show us that they were very happy to give her the benefit of the doubt. Again, a jury that was eager to send her down wouldn't have approached their deliberations in this manner.
I have never thought for even 1 second that Lucy was any more than the victim of a witch hunt designed to make her scapegoat... Anybody with half a brain could easily deduce this..
Nobody was murdered.
Change my mind.
Who put insulin into baby F's feed bag, and why, if not to deliberately harm them?
@@lennymice2261 There is no evidence insulin was added to any TPN bags, there is no evidence any babies were given unprescribed insulin at any time. Neonates sometimes produce large amounts of insulin for no known reason - there are studies indicating this happens in up to15% in the first few days following birth. It is known that this happened in other cases but this was not attributed to LucyLetby.
Spot on; a witch-hunt was launched after this whistleblower won her bullying and harassment case. 😱
My admittedly non legal opinion is that the evidence of recent weeks suggests that this case needs to be looked at again. Everybody involved and affected needs to be sure about exactly what happened and that justice is done "beyond reasonable doubt".
The head of the Enquiry says any complaints are just noise. This is precisely how injustice is allowed to happen. Someone's life is being destroyed here but they don't care.
@@womble321 Psychologists tell us that the legal professon is a favourite for white collar psychopaths, so is poltics, which explains why so many politicians were once lawyers.
Read Dale Nance's book on burdens of proof
2016
Good book ✝️
Why Lucy Letby’s Guilt Is Clear: Breaking Down the Evidence
There’s been a lot of debate about Lucy Letby’s guilt, with some people unable to believe that someone like her-a young, attractive nurse-could commit such horrific acts. Others think she was simply framed by the NHS, who needed a scapegoat to shift the blame away from institutional failures. But when we really break down the facts, the evidence overwhelmingly shows her guilt.
**1. Stable Babies, Sudden Deaths**
Many of the babies in Lucy Letby’s care were doing well-stable, improving, recovering. They weren’t on the brink of death, which makes their sudden collapses all the more suspicious. These babies **suddenly and inexplicably deteriorated** or died without any medical reason to explain such sharp turns. What set these cases apart was how **unexpected and unnatural** these collapses were.
These weren’t fragile infants who were naturally declining. These were babies whose health **suddenly collapsed** without warning-and only when Letby was on shift.
**2. Deliberate Acts of Harm**
When doctors and investigators looked into these sudden collapses, they found evidence of **deliberate harm**. Babies were poisoned with insulin, injected with air, and overfed in dangerous ways. These are not natural complications or accidents-they are **intentional acts**.
The medical evidence was clear: insulin where it shouldn’t be, air in the bloodstream, and overfeeding that led to serious complications. None of this happens by chance.
**3. Lucy Letby: The Consistent Presence**
It’s difficult for some to believe that a young woman like Lucy Letby could be capable of such cruelty. But in every instance of suspicious death or sudden deterioration, **Letby was present**. This wasn’t just bad luck. If this were simply a series of tragic coincidences, you would expect other staff to be present during at least some of these incidents. But they weren’t. It was always Letby.
We often find it hard to reconcile that someone who seems innocent could be responsible for such atrocities. But criminals don’t fit into neat boxes-they can look like anyone. And the **pattern of harm** that emerged always involved Letby. She wasn’t just unlucky-she was the **common factor** in each case.
**4. Circumstantial Evidence Is Powerful**
Some people argue that the case was based on “circumstantial evidence,” implying that this made the case weaker. But **circumstantial evidence is often as strong as direct evidence**, especially when it points consistently in one direction.
In this case, babies who were improving suddenly deteriorated. The medical evidence confirmed they were harmed deliberately-by insulin poisoning, air embolisms, or overfeeding. And Lucy Letby was there every time. Circumstantial evidence, when all the pieces fit together, can be overwhelming.
There doesn’t always need to be a “smoking gun” when the circumstances all point to the same conclusion. In this case, the circumstantial evidence painted a clear picture of guilt: **Letby’s presence, the sudden collapses, and the confirmed medical harm**.
**5. The “Scapegoat” Theory: Was She Framed?**
Some people believe that Lucy Letby was framed by the NHS, who needed a scapegoat to avoid blame for its own failings. But let’s break that down. If this were true, it would require a **massive conspiracy** involving doctors, nurses, lab technicians, and forensic experts-all across different institutions.
These independent experts found deliberate harm-insulin poisoning, air embolisms, overfeeding-confirmed by scientific tests. For Letby to be framed, it would mean manipulating physical evidence, blood samples, and autopsy results. **Such a large-scale fabrication is not just improbable-it’s impossible**.
Letby wasn’t targeted from the start. The investigation was triggered by the unusual deaths and deteriorations, and the evidence naturally led to her. This wasn’t about protecting the NHS-it was about following the facts. If the NHS wanted to shift the blame, they could have easily pointed to systemic issues or other staff members. The evidence wasn’t fabricated-it emerged through independent investigations.
**6. Falsified Medical Records: A Clear Cover-Up**
It didn’t stop with the harm itself. Medical records were **falsified**-deliberately altered to obscure the real causes of these deaths. These weren’t accidental errors. The records were changed to cover up what had happened, and Letby had both the access and the knowledge to falsify them. If she were innocent, why would there be any need to falsify these records?
**7. The Defense’s Failure to Challenge the Experts**
The prosecution relied on **medical experts** to prove that these babies had been harmed. These weren’t just opinions-they were based on medical facts and scientific tests. The defense had every opportunity to bring in their own experts to challenge these findings, but they didn’t.
The absence of defense experts is critical. If the defense could have provided a credible alternative explanation for these deaths, they would have. Their failure to do so speaks volumes about the strength of the prosecution’s case.
**8. No Other Explanation Holds Up**
Some have suggested alternate theories-like infections or hospital conditions-but these don’t hold up under scrutiny. The babies who died weren’t deteriorating naturally. They were stable, improving, and then suddenly collapsed in unnatural ways. The evidence of insulin poisoning, air embolisms, and overfeeding rules out natural causes or institutional failures. These deaths were caused by deliberate acts.
**9. Conclusion: The Weight of the Evidence**
Yes, Lucy Letby was young, and some find it hard to believe that someone like her could be capable of such horrific acts. But criminals don’t always fit our stereotypes. What’s undeniable is the overwhelming evidence: babies suddenly deteriorated or died while in her care, the medical evidence showed they were harmed deliberately, and Letby was always there when it happened.
Some may say this case relied on circumstantial evidence, but when that evidence consistently points in the same direction, it becomes undeniable. Letby wasn’t framed by the NHS-she wasn’t a scapegoat. The investigation followed the facts, and the facts led back to her. **This wasn’t about bad luck**-it was deliberate, repeated harm. That’s why the jury found her guilty.
**TL;DR:** Some can’t believe that someone like Lucy Letby-a young nurse-could be guilty of such horrific acts, or they think she was framed by the NHS. But the evidence tells a different story. Babies who were stable suddenly collapsed, and medical evidence confirmed they were deliberately harmed by insulin poisoning, air embolisms, and overfeeding. Letby was the one person consistently present. Circumstantial evidence, when it all points to the same conclusion, is powerful, and there’s no credible case for a conspiracy. The jury found her guilty because the evidence was overwhelming.
Since you haven't seen all the evidence, you wouldn't have a clue.
The trial was another great example of the complete joke our justice system has become.
I suspect it has always been this way, but people didn't question authority figures (judges, barristers etc).
You sat through it and heard the evidence did you?
@@willowtree9291 I agree, Here's lord Denning commenting about the Birmingham six,
“Just consider the course of events if their action were to proceed to trial… If the six men failed it would mean that much time and money and worry would have been expended by many people to no good purpose. If they won, it would mean that the police were guilty of perjury; that they were guilty of violence and threats; that the confessions were involuntary and improperly admitted in evidence; and that the convictions were erroneous… That was such an appalling vista that every sensible person would say, ‘It cannot be right that these actions should go any further’.”
@@osric1730 from what I've seen of it there wasn't actually any real evidence. It was all statistical probabilities and guess work.
The justice system of England and Wales is quite good really. Things improve over time, mistakes are made, you can never get it right all of the time. There are appeal systems in place to theoretically guard against injustices. It is not perfect and never will be but like most justice systems get better, it is often knee-jerk legislation from governments that derails those improvements
Something like the Birmingham Six is far less likely to happen today, although I wouldn't exclude it entirely. People under oath are not expected to lie and police officers in particular are treated by judges and juries as amongst the most honest and reliable source of information. There was some forensic evidence, that was debunked long before their appeal, but the main reason those men were convicted, was because the police were under pressure, from the press as much as anyone, to charge someone with the bombings. Confessions were extracted by torture, evidence fabricated and officers lied under oath. No police officer was charged with any offence. Today, policing is different making it harder for police to lie and the officers themselves work to higher standards than in the past. That isn't to say it can not and does not happen, just that it is rarer.
No justice system could cope well under those circumstances, it was thanks to investigative reporter Chris Mullins that enough evidence of a miscarriage of justice was gathered so that an appeal could be launched.
Having followed this trial during its term, I found myself concerned, and still are, with the outcome
When found they were 'made available' for the press character assassination to make the public hate her. At the same time people who provided 'evidence' online that supported Letby's case were threatened by the court and forced to remove it!!
It's amazing to think that a just a year after conviction, so much doubt.
You are not the only one. I personally think, she is innocent!
@@gcsecretsquirellapparently, and I say apparently, when she was a student nurse when she was on shift 40% of ET ( breathing tubes) were dislodged. Statistically that would be 1%. I know that correlation does not equal variation. It does add to the information we have about what is happening in her surroundings. I accept that there were shocking problems. Nonetheless I believe that she is guilty.
I was shocked that the prosecution case could put the case the way they did and can't believe the defence council didn't drive a coach and four through it. I could say more.
This is a civil matter now. The public is becoming more and more concerned.
I’m not convinced she did this
I was never happy about this trial right from the very start, something just didn't seem right about it. I don't know whether she's guilty or or not but it seemed to me to be a foregone conclusion that she would be convicted. If the jury needed 22 days to reach a verdict then that alone speaks volumes as to the uncertainty of the case.
That’s why we have trials. So “feelings” don’t come into play.
Why Lucy Letby’s Guilt Is Clear: Breaking Down the Evidence
There’s been a lot of debate about Lucy Letby’s guilt, with some people unable to believe that someone like her-a young, attractive nurse-could commit such horrific acts. Others think she was simply framed by the NHS, who needed a scapegoat to shift the blame away from institutional failures. But when we really break down the facts, the evidence overwhelmingly shows her guilt.
**1. Stable Babies, Sudden Deaths**
Many of the babies in Lucy Letby’s care were doing well-stable, improving, recovering. They weren’t on the brink of death, which makes their sudden collapses all the more suspicious. These babies **suddenly and inexplicably deteriorated** or died without any medical reason to explain such sharp turns. What set these cases apart was how **unexpected and unnatural** these collapses were.
These weren’t fragile infants who were naturally declining. These were babies whose health **suddenly collapsed** without warning-and only when Letby was on shift.
**2. Deliberate Acts of Harm**
When doctors and investigators looked into these sudden collapses, they found evidence of **deliberate harm**. Babies were poisoned with insulin, injected with air, and overfed in dangerous ways. These are not natural complications or accidents-they are **intentional acts**.
The medical evidence was clear: insulin where it shouldn’t be, air in the bloodstream, and overfeeding that led to serious complications. None of this happens by chance.
**3. Lucy Letby: The Consistent Presence**
It’s difficult for some to believe that a young woman like Lucy Letby could be capable of such cruelty. But in every instance of suspicious death or sudden deterioration, **Letby was present**. This wasn’t just bad luck. If this were simply a series of tragic coincidences, you would expect other staff to be present during at least some of these incidents. But they weren’t. It was always Letby.
We often find it hard to reconcile that someone who seems innocent could be responsible for such atrocities. But criminals don’t fit into neat boxes-they can look like anyone. And the **pattern of harm** that emerged always involved Letby. She wasn’t just unlucky-she was the **common factor** in each case.
**4. Circumstantial Evidence Is Powerful**
Some people argue that the case was based on “circumstantial evidence,” implying that this made the case weaker. But **circumstantial evidence is often as strong as direct evidence**, especially when it points consistently in one direction.
In this case, babies who were improving suddenly deteriorated. The medical evidence confirmed they were harmed deliberately-by insulin poisoning, air embolisms, or overfeeding. And Lucy Letby was there every time. Circumstantial evidence, when all the pieces fit together, can be overwhelming.
There doesn’t always need to be a “smoking gun” when the circumstances all point to the same conclusion. In this case, the circumstantial evidence painted a clear picture of guilt: **Letby’s presence, the sudden collapses, and the confirmed medical harm**.
**5. The “Scapegoat” Theory: Was She Framed?**
Some people believe that Lucy Letby was framed by the NHS, who needed a scapegoat to avoid blame for its own failings. But let’s break that down. If this were true, it would require a **massive conspiracy** involving doctors, nurses, lab technicians, and forensic experts-all across different institutions.
These independent experts found deliberate harm-insulin poisoning, air embolisms, overfeeding-confirmed by scientific tests. For Letby to be framed, it would mean manipulating physical evidence, blood samples, and autopsy results. **Such a large-scale fabrication is not just improbable-it’s impossible**.
Letby wasn’t targeted from the start. The investigation was triggered by the unusual deaths and deteriorations, and the evidence naturally led to her. This wasn’t about protecting the NHS-it was about following the facts. If the NHS wanted to shift the blame, they could have easily pointed to systemic issues or other staff members. The evidence wasn’t fabricated-it emerged through independent investigations.
**6. Falsified Medical Records: A Clear Cover-Up**
It didn’t stop with the harm itself. Medical records were **falsified**-deliberately altered to obscure the real causes of these deaths. These weren’t accidental errors. The records were changed to cover up what had happened, and Letby had both the access and the knowledge to falsify them. If she were innocent, why would there be any need to falsify these records?
**7. The Defense’s Failure to Challenge the Experts**
The prosecution relied on **medical experts** to prove that these babies had been harmed. These weren’t just opinions-they were based on medical facts and scientific tests. The defense had every opportunity to bring in their own experts to challenge these findings, but they didn’t.
The absence of defense experts is critical. If the defense could have provided a credible alternative explanation for these deaths, they would have. Their failure to do so speaks volumes about the strength of the prosecution’s case.
**8. No Other Explanation Holds Up**
Some have suggested alternate theories-like infections or hospital conditions-but these don’t hold up under scrutiny. The babies who died weren’t deteriorating naturally. They were stable, improving, and then suddenly collapsed in unnatural ways. The evidence of insulin poisoning, air embolisms, and overfeeding rules out natural causes or institutional failures. These deaths were caused by deliberate acts.
**9. Conclusion: The Weight of the Evidence**
Yes, Lucy Letby was young, and some find it hard to believe that someone like her could be capable of such horrific acts. But criminals don’t always fit our stereotypes. What’s undeniable is the overwhelming evidence: babies suddenly deteriorated or died while in her care, the medical evidence showed they were harmed deliberately, and Letby was always there when it happened.
Some may say this case relied on circumstantial evidence, but when that evidence consistently points in the same direction, it becomes undeniable. Letby wasn’t framed by the NHS-she wasn’t a scapegoat. The investigation followed the facts, and the facts led back to her. **This wasn’t about bad luck**-it was deliberate, repeated harm. That’s why the jury found her guilty.
**TL;DR:** Some can’t believe that someone like Lucy Letby-a young nurse-could be guilty of such horrific acts, or they think she was framed by the NHS. But the evidence tells a different story. Babies who were stable suddenly collapsed, and medical evidence confirmed they were deliberately harmed by insulin poisoning, air embolisms, and overfeeding. Letby was the one person consistently present. Circumstantial evidence, when it all points to the same conclusion, is powerful, and there’s no credible case for a conspiracy. The jury found her guilty because the evidence was overwhelming.
@@SleepCove well said and comprehensively covered
Totally agree. To convict a person for the whole of their life the verdict should have been quite clear not taken so long to come to a conclusion.
@@SleepCove Thank you ChatGPT.
It would have lasted for longer, they couldn't reach a unanimous verdict. And then a juror had to be relieved, so the judge decided they could have a majority instead, and suddenly the verdict was passed.
Difficult to find doctors who will go against doctors in a court I have heard, however this needs to be changed.
You've obviously never been a part of or read any coroner's reports...
Very difficult to get any defence expert to go against an expert for the prosecution , they close ranks to protect their professions I have personally experienced this
Read number 5.
Why Lucy Letby’s Guilt Is Clear: Breaking Down the Evidence
There’s been a lot of debate about Lucy Letby’s guilt, with some people unable to believe that someone like her-a young, attractive nurse-could commit such horrific acts. Others think she was simply framed by the NHS, who needed a scapegoat to shift the blame away from institutional failures. But when we really break down the facts, the evidence overwhelmingly shows her guilt.
**1. Stable Babies, Sudden Deaths**
Many of the babies in Lucy Letby’s care were doing well-stable, improving, recovering. They weren’t on the brink of death, which makes their sudden collapses all the more suspicious. These babies **suddenly and inexplicably deteriorated** or died without any medical reason to explain such sharp turns. What set these cases apart was how **unexpected and unnatural** these collapses were.
These weren’t fragile infants who were naturally declining. These were babies whose health **suddenly collapsed** without warning-and only when Letby was on shift.
**2. Deliberate Acts of Harm**
When doctors and investigators looked into these sudden collapses, they found evidence of **deliberate harm**. Babies were poisoned with insulin, injected with air, and overfed in dangerous ways. These are not natural complications or accidents-they are **intentional acts**.
The medical evidence was clear: insulin where it shouldn’t be, air in the bloodstream, and overfeeding that led to serious complications. None of this happens by chance.
**3. Lucy Letby: The Consistent Presence**
It’s difficult for some to believe that a young woman like Lucy Letby could be capable of such cruelty. But in every instance of suspicious death or sudden deterioration, **Letby was present**. This wasn’t just bad luck. If this were simply a series of tragic coincidences, you would expect other staff to be present during at least some of these incidents. But they weren’t. It was always Letby.
We often find it hard to reconcile that someone who seems innocent could be responsible for such atrocities. But criminals don’t fit into neat boxes-they can look like anyone. And the **pattern of harm** that emerged always involved Letby. She wasn’t just unlucky-she was the **common factor** in each case.
**4. Circumstantial Evidence Is Powerful**
Some people argue that the case was based on “circumstantial evidence,” implying that this made the case weaker. But **circumstantial evidence is often as strong as direct evidence**, especially when it points consistently in one direction.
In this case, babies who were improving suddenly deteriorated. The medical evidence confirmed they were harmed deliberately-by insulin poisoning, air embolisms, or overfeeding. And Lucy Letby was there every time. Circumstantial evidence, when all the pieces fit together, can be overwhelming.
There doesn’t always need to be a “smoking gun” when the circumstances all point to the same conclusion. In this case, the circumstantial evidence painted a clear picture of guilt: **Letby’s presence, the sudden collapses, and the confirmed medical harm**.
**5. The “Scapegoat” Theory: Was She Framed?**
Some people believe that Lucy Letby was framed by the NHS, who needed a scapegoat to avoid blame for its own failings. But let’s break that down. If this were true, it would require a **massive conspiracy** involving doctors, nurses, lab technicians, and forensic experts-all across different institutions.
These independent experts found deliberate harm-insulin poisoning, air embolisms, overfeeding-confirmed by scientific tests. For Letby to be framed, it would mean manipulating physical evidence, blood samples, and autopsy results. **Such a large-scale fabrication is not just improbable-it’s impossible**.
Letby wasn’t targeted from the start. The investigation was triggered by the unusual deaths and deteriorations, and the evidence naturally led to her. This wasn’t about protecting the NHS-it was about following the facts. If the NHS wanted to shift the blame, they could have easily pointed to systemic issues or other staff members. The evidence wasn’t fabricated-it emerged through independent investigations.
**6. Falsified Medical Records: A Clear Cover-Up**
It didn’t stop with the harm itself. Medical records were **falsified**-deliberately altered to obscure the real causes of these deaths. These weren’t accidental errors. The records were changed to cover up what had happened, and Letby had both the access and the knowledge to falsify them. If she were innocent, why would there be any need to falsify these records?
**7. The Defense’s Failure to Challenge the Experts**
The prosecution relied on **medical experts** to prove that these babies had been harmed. These weren’t just opinions-they were based on medical facts and scientific tests. The defense had every opportunity to bring in their own experts to challenge these findings, but they didn’t.
The absence of defense experts is critical. If the defense could have provided a credible alternative explanation for these deaths, they would have. Their failure to do so speaks volumes about the strength of the prosecution’s case.
**8. No Other Explanation Holds Up**
Some have suggested alternate theories-like infections or hospital conditions-but these don’t hold up under scrutiny. The babies who died weren’t deteriorating naturally. They were stable, improving, and then suddenly collapsed in unnatural ways. The evidence of insulin poisoning, air embolisms, and overfeeding rules out natural causes or institutional failures. These deaths were caused by deliberate acts.
**9. Conclusion: The Weight of the Evidence**
Yes, Lucy Letby was young, and some find it hard to believe that someone like her could be capable of such horrific acts. But criminals don’t always fit our stereotypes. What’s undeniable is the overwhelming evidence: babies suddenly deteriorated or died while in her care, the medical evidence showed they were harmed deliberately, and Letby was always there when it happened.
Some may say this case relied on circumstantial evidence, but when that evidence consistently points in the same direction, it becomes undeniable. Letby wasn’t framed by the NHS-she wasn’t a scapegoat. The investigation followed the facts, and the facts led back to her. **This wasn’t about bad luck**-it was deliberate, repeated harm. That’s why the jury found her guilty.
**TL;DR:** Some can’t believe that someone like Lucy Letby-a young nurse-could be guilty of such horrific acts, or they think she was framed by the NHS. But the evidence tells a different story. Babies who were stable suddenly collapsed, and medical evidence confirmed they were deliberately harmed by insulin poisoning, air embolisms, and overfeeding. Letby was the one person consistently present. Circumstantial evidence, when it all points to the same conclusion, is powerful, and there’s no credible case for a conspiracy. The jury found her guilty because the evidence was overwhelming.
That’s why you gotta find a dr that’s just retired
Same with solicitors. I am finding it almost impossible to get a solicitor to act against another 'well connected' solicitor.
I'm so glad that this is being looked into, I never believed that she was guilty and she was just a scapegoat for failures in the NHS. Doctors believe they are all powerful but they are not
Watched panorama, post mortem all natural cause of death, diary entries were after she was accused, ward under staffed, no list of doctors on duty, it's a ward where babies chance of staying alive are 50/50. She was scape goat for NHS failure, I don't think she done it 😬😢
There is, at the very least, reasonable doubt.
I agree with you
We had a 26 weeker in NICU 2 years ago . Most of the nurses are dealing with similar issues as letby tbh and have read the reports and have question marks if she did it or If the trust stiched her up.
The babies that were found at autopsy to be beaten...yeah natural causes I suppose. You wouldn't have a clue.
@@millsstrongfightstrengthco662she's not a shrinking violet you would choose as a scapegoat. Her texts show a very assertive woman who manipulated to get her own way.
Thank you for doing this. When I first heard of her conviction, I was highly skeptical because of the history of misuse of statistics by experts in selected medical murder cases (and a natural opposition to sensational headlines). Then I heard an interview with the chief expert for the prosecution, and I was HIGHLY convinced of Letby's guilt. Then I heard an interview with some of the statistical experts reminding me of my prior skepticism.
Lucia de Berk case
The statisticians are lying.
Richard Gill, involved in the de Berk and Poggiali case, believes that Beverley Allitt and Ben Geen are innocent. He put those comments down in writing. Cursory research into those cases confirm that they were both guilty (indeed, Allitt confessed). Professor Jane Hutton similarly supported Geen's innocence fraud campaign as well and was on a podcast called The Trial where she admitted she hasn't read the Letby case evidence despite it being a 58 page document. She is blindly attacking a strawman when she knows nothing about the case.
Statisticians will torture data to get it to confess to whatever the statistician wants. And these statisticians have been claiming Letby was innocent before she was ever brought to trial - so before any evidence was public.
They've resorted to a misinformation campaign.
I don't understand how one judge can say that Dr Evans expertise is worthless and then he is allowed to testify in the Letby trial.
Definitely gutter press 🇬🇧 nothing had changed.
I have had experience of expert witnesses on a number of occasions and found them never to be truly independent. They tend to slant their evidence towards who is paying them. I often wonder if the courts were to appoint them, vet their independence, and be acceptable by both sides, would be the answer. Who knows? I don't.
Experts wishing to be re-hired are motivated to find in favour of their employer.
Why is such enormous bias not a problem?!
@@angusmacmillan5365 / And LL colleagues been forbidden to speak on her favour at court, very suspicious. But NHS is like that!
I doubt you do have experience of expert witnesses. My experience is that instructing lawyers put loads of effort into getting good impartial expert witnesses. Judges are always highly critical of expert witnesses who come across as partisan, and very ready to discard their evidence. And having a credible expert witness is particularly important in jury cases.
@@sam.p12345 With respect, I think you've just displayed and ignoance of the real world.
@@angusmacmillan5365 I think you've just displayed an ignorance of how to spell ignorance, which is ironically ignorant.
Admit I was pretty shocked by the lack of hard evidence against her. In some cases they didn't even KNOW for sure how they died.
In the six cases where an autopsy had been done, ALL of them were determined to have died of natural causes.
So a verdict is really an opinion poll on which barrister is better at his job. And there's no double check on whether the jury's poll coincides with the truth or not. And all the time the accused person knows the real truth. What a very odd system.
Your comment goes to the heart of the system, as a knife in the heart.
But they will never change it, they love it so, and they grow rich from it.
Then who should decide? Instead of 12 regular impartial individuals who get to hear both sides present their case or 1 judge who may be biased or corrupted? If the trial isn’t ‘fair’ the losing party can appeal and argue their case again so I’m not sure I agree. No justice system is perfect but I think ours is certainly fairer than most.
all justice is a toss up between 2 fictional narratives as presented by the prosecution and defence..
the judge or jury choose their favourite and boom the gavel drops on someone's freedom and also a victims soul
It's weird how so many people are uneasy about this one. There was never a satisfying feeling of justice having been served when she was sentenced. A lot of people (me included) just felt she had been convicted purely on circunstancial evidence with no actual proof she had done anything wrong, and no feasible motive
I've been uneasy about it because I have been a patient at the Countess of Chester, so have several family members. I'd ask an ambulance to drive right past that place if I was ever sick in future. Take me anywhere else pls!
Trials like this are all circumstantial which makes the trial lengthy and complex. It is the jury to decide if guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt. Which they duly did.
We (public) haven't seen any evidence nor have we heard from Lucy herself or her family protesting her innocence.
If she's innocent she's paying a very, very high price.
Because they know she did it.
@cpnlsn88 you may correct me, bur it seems odd to have a case solely on circumstantial evidence. I can see merit it in being used to help build a case alongside actual evidence, but this seems a worrying precedent to me
Was absolutely shocked at this conviction!
Followed the case & never heard anything that would leave me certain of her guilt.
I have no idea of guilt or not? But this case wasn’t proved anywhere near beyond reasonable doubt.
In Lucy Letby's case, I was always of the opinion that her case was 'trial by media'. I was a juror on a murder case many years ago (it was before the internet was popular) We were TOLD not to read any news relating to the case which back then was easy to do - we just didn't buy a newspaper, and there was no social media. I'm sure that many would be swayed by stories they read online.
the only massive problem is the ignorant “have a go lawyers” on social media that don’t bother to understand the issues and rely on social media. For example, here are some points to educate you;
- Letby had defence experts, they attended a pre trial meeting with the prosecution’s experts, and notes were circulated to the legal teams. Letby chose not to call them at trial, the overwhelming likelihood being that it would have damaged her case in terms of the causes of death being suspicious (such as trauma from feeding tubes shoved down throats; air being injected; insulin being injected; breathing tubes being removed).
- Letby accepted some of the prosecution’s evidence anyway - such as two babies having had insulin deliberately injected.
- she was on duty for every one of the suspicious deaths. When she wasn’t on shift, they didn’t happen.
- she was seen by a doctor standing alone over a baby that had been stable, and then suddenly it collapsed - its oxygen tube had been removed and the alarm turned off. Letby was doing nothing to help, just watching.
- when Letby was training at another hospital, oxygen tubes had been removed on 40% of her shifts when the average was about 1%. Babies are very unlikely to be able to dislodge the tubes themselves, especially premature babies.
- Letby was on her own with a baby that had been stable. Baby’s mother walked in and saw the baby’s mouth bleeding and the baby in distress, the oxygen tube had been rammed down its throat.
- she amended medical notes to make it look like she was either less involved with a baby that died, or that the baby was declining before she was involved.
- she stole confidential record of the dead babies, claimed she couldn’t destroy them, but admitted she had a shredder. Hoarding trophies like this is a classic sign of munchausen by proxy disorder.
- she looked up the parents of the dead babies the night they died and she would be keen to be the first to break the news of the deaths, even when she wasn’t the designated deaths
- she wrote a note admitting she had done these things, and at no point either with the police or at trial ever claimed it was because she was told to write it.
- the doctors had major concerns about her, but those were suppressed and pressure put on doctors not to escalate by management.
- she contradicted herself at trial on her evidence, couldn’t recall some parts when it was prejudicial to her but remembered massive details of the same time frame when she wanted to
- the above is just some of the evidence that convinced her
- she is likely to be a psychopath, with munchausen by proxy disorder, who chose nursing to be near to vulnerable babies. She thrived on attention and control, and in particular the attention she got from a doctor with whom she was obsessed.
Thank you BBB, what I fail to understand is the parents of these babies seem to go along with the LL guilty verdict and seem opposed to a retrial. As a parent myself I would be determined that the guilty party was the person behind my child's death.
It happens all the time. People often just want someone to blame and they don't care who it is. When people are found not guilty of a murder, or the convition is overturned, the relatives (and the public) are enraged. Even when the suspect is proven to be innocent. People have found someone to direct their anger and hatred towards, and its hard to put that behind them, partly because they don't want to admit being wrong and their hatred was unfounded. It doesn't matter if the real killer got away with it, if its out of sight then its out of mind.
Probably because they sat through the evidence and you didn't.
@@SentaDuckThis is indeed the default situation, hence the term scapegoat.
When Stalin reported his stolen pipe, arrests and confessions for the theft followed, before he found it the next day where he had left it.
@@osric1730How can juries be trusted to judge blindly when both the prosecution and the defence appeal mainly to their emotions?
@@osric1730but the evidence is statistically flawed beyond redemption. The chances of the parents undersing that is basically zero. Heck even the judges dont understand it and you sure as hell don't.
The fact that there is clearly so much disquiet over this verdict must raise the question as to whether guilt has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt.
The reason I don't like Juries, is they are only allowed to deliberate on what they are given, often leaving out facts or evidence the Judge sees fit to exclude.
Some evidence such as this was disallowed by the Judge in Lucy's trial.
I am not convinced she got a fair trial, and may well be completely innocent of any wrongdoing.
£100,000 for a copy of the transcript may not be adequate, as it will not include any evidence deemed inadmissible, so will not contain the full story.
Then who should decide? Instead of 12 regular impartial individuals who get to hear both sides present their case or 1 judge who may be biased or corrupted? If the trial isn’t ‘fair’ the losing party can appeal so I’m not sure I agree. No justice system is perfect but I think ours is certainly fairer than most.
Free lucy
@@Anthony-hs8zi the only massive problem is the ignorant “have a go lawyers” on social media that don’t bother to understand the issues and rely on social media. For example, here are some points to educate you;
- Letby had defence experts, they attended a pre trial meeting with the prosecution’s experts, and notes were circulated to the legal teams. Letby chose not to call them at trial, the overwhelming likelihood being that it would have damaged her case in terms of the causes of death being suspicious (such as trauma from feeding tubes shoved down throats; air being injected; insulin being injected; breathing tubes being removed).
- Letby accepted some of the prosecution’s evidence anyway - such as two babies having had insulin deliberately injected.
- she was on duty for every one of the suspicious deaths. When she wasn’t on shift, they didn’t happen.
- she was seen by a doctor standing alone over a baby that had been stable, and then suddenly it collapsed - its oxygen tube had been removed and the alarm turned off. Letby was doing nothing to help, just watching.
- when Letby was training at another hospital, oxygen tubes had been removed on 40% of her shifts when the average was about 1%. Babies are very unlikely to be able to dislodge the tubes themselves, especially premature babies.
- Letby was on her own with a baby that had been stable. Baby’s mother walked in and saw the baby’s mouth bleeding and the baby in distress, the oxygen tube had been rammed down its throat.
- she amended medical notes to make it look like she was either less involved with a baby that died, or that the baby was declining before she was involved.
- she stole confidential record of the dead babies, claimed she couldn’t destroy them, but admitted she had a shredder. Hoarding trophies like this is a classic sign of munchausen by proxy disorder.
- she looked up the parents of the dead babies the night they died and she would be keen to be the first to break the news of the deaths, even when she wasn’t the designated deaths
- she wrote a note admitting she had done these things, and at no point either with the police or at trial ever claimed it was because she was told to write it.
- the doctors had major concerns about her, but those were suppressed and pressure put on doctors not to escalate by management.
- she contradicted herself at trial on her evidence, couldn’t recall some parts when it was prejudicial to her but remembered massive details of the same time frame when she wanted to
- the above is just some of the evidence that convinced her
- she is likely to be a psychopath, with munchausen by proxy disorder, who chose nursing to be near to vulnerable babies. She thrived on attention and control, and in particular the attention she got from a doctor with whom she was obsessed.
These types of incidents occur after a chain of events, often involving indifference, inaction, and the neglect of issues by many. If matters had been handled with care and compassion when the first baby died (or even earlier), these tragic events might have been prevented. If there are doubts, the possibility that the hospital’s negligence-such as using unsuitable equipment, hygiene issues, building safety concerns, or employing poorly trained nurses-contributed to the accidents should be considered. For the hospital, making Lucy the scapegoat may seem the easiest option. However, it’s important to examine everyone’s behaviour carefully-look for signs of malignant narcissism among the staff, as it could be someone else, unless it truly was Lucy herself. RIP to the babies. To babies family, JUSTICE always falls. I know it doesn't console your souls but it is true. The truth will come out. Hang in there.
I really hope she’s released and given a large amount of compensation. The families of the babies need to direct their hurt and suffering towards the hospital in question and the NHS on a whole. They are the ones who are at fault here, not a singled out individual who was sectioned out to take the blame and weight off an underlying issue. I really feel for her and hope she gets the trail she deserved in the first place.
She had absolutely no defence at all it was a disgrace!
The babies were deliberately killed by someone. The causes of death were not accidental or due to care. They had to have been deliberately injected.
No amount of compensation will wash away the stigma of this… and watch, she will be released on condition that she accepts the judgement. It’s happened before. The law was correct, and the innocent cannot claim for compensation.
@@borntobewild8905 the only massive problem is the ignorant “have a go lawyers” on social media that don’t bother to understand the issues and rely on social media. For example, here are some points to educate you;
- Letby had defence experts, they attended a pre trial meeting with the prosecution’s experts, and notes were circulated to the legal teams. Letby chose not to call them at trial, the overwhelming likelihood being that it would have damaged her case in terms of the causes of death being suspicious (such as trauma from feeding tubes shoved down throats; air being injected; insulin being injected; breathing tubes being removed).
- Letby accepted some of the prosecution’s evidence anyway - such as two babies having had insulin deliberately injected.
- she was on duty for every one of the suspicious deaths. When she wasn’t on shift, they didn’t happen.
- she was seen by a doctor standing alone over a baby that had been stable, and then suddenly it collapsed - its oxygen tube had been removed and the alarm turned off. Letby was doing nothing to help, just watching.
- when Letby was training at another hospital, oxygen tubes had been removed on 40% of her shifts when the average was about 1%. Babies are very unlikely to be able to dislodge the tubes themselves, especially premature babies.
- Letby was on her own with a baby that had been stable. Baby’s mother walked in and saw the baby’s mouth bleeding and the baby in distress, the oxygen tube had been rammed down its throat.
- she amended medical notes to make it look like she was either less involved with a baby that died, or that the baby was declining before she was involved.
- she stole confidential record of the dead babies, claimed she couldn’t destroy them, but admitted she had a shredder. Hoarding trophies like this is a classic sign of munchausen by proxy disorder.
- she looked up the parents of the dead babies the night they died and she would be keen to be the first to break the news of the deaths, even when she wasn’t the designated deaths
- she wrote a note admitting she had done these things, and at no point either with the police or at trial ever claimed it was because she was told to write it.
- the doctors had major concerns about her, but those were suppressed and pressure put on doctors not to escalate by management.
- she contradicted herself at trial on her evidence, couldn’t recall some parts when it was prejudicial to her but remembered massive details of the same time frame when she wanted to
- the above is just some of the evidence that convinced her
- she is likely to be a psychopath, with munchausen by proxy disorder, who chose nursing to be near to vulnerable babies. She thrived on attention and control, and in particular the attention she got from a doctor with whom she was obsessed.
@@edward92128 the only massive problem is the ignorant “have a go lawyers” on social media that don’t bother to understand the issues and rely on social media. For example, here are some points to educate you;
- Letby had defence experts, they attended a pre trial meeting with the prosecution’s experts, and notes were circulated to the legal teams. Letby chose not to call them at trial, the overwhelming likelihood being that it would have damaged her case in terms of the causes of death being suspicious (such as trauma from feeding tubes shoved down throats; air being injected; insulin being injected; breathing tubes being removed).
- Letby accepted some of the prosecution’s evidence anyway - such as two babies having had insulin deliberately injected.
- she was on duty for every one of the suspicious deaths. When she wasn’t on shift, they didn’t happen.
- she was seen by a doctor standing alone over a baby that had been stable, and then suddenly it collapsed - its oxygen tube had been removed and the alarm turned off. Letby was doing nothing to help, just watching.
- when Letby was training at another hospital, oxygen tubes had been removed on 40% of her shifts when the average was about 1%. Babies are very unlikely to be able to dislodge the tubes themselves, especially premature babies.
- Letby was on her own with a baby that had been stable. Baby’s mother walked in and saw the baby’s mouth bleeding and the baby in distress, the oxygen tube had been rammed down its throat.
- she amended medical notes to make it look like she was either less involved with a baby that died, or that the baby was declining before she was involved.
- she stole confidential record of the dead babies, claimed she couldn’t destroy them, but admitted she had a shredder. Hoarding trophies like this is a classic sign of munchausen by proxy disorder.
- she looked up the parents of the dead babies the night they died and she would be keen to be the first to break the news of the deaths, even when she wasn’t the designated deaths
- she wrote a note admitting she had done these things, and at no point either with the police or at trial ever claimed it was because she was told to write it.
- the doctors had major concerns about her, but those were suppressed and pressure put on doctors not to escalate by management.
- she contradicted herself at trial on her evidence, couldn’t recall some parts when it was prejudicial to her but remembered massive details of the same time frame when she wanted to
- the above is just some of the evidence that convinced her
- she is likely to be a psychopath, with munchausen by proxy disorder, who chose nursing to be near to vulnerable babies. She thrived on attention and control, and in particular the attention she got from a doctor with whom she was obsessed.
I was amazed that this case ever came to trial with such weak and circumstantial evidence. Negligence of the hospital and professional competence of ALL of the staff should have been investigated first. If there had been any suspicions of criminal activity the ward should have been closed immediately, and sll staff suspended and investigated accordingly, as opposed to just one. Forensic pathologists should have investigated the deaths. It appears that the investigation and subsequent trial were wanting.
Lucia de Berk case
Why Lucy Letby’s Guilt Is Clear: Breaking Down the Evidence
There’s been a lot of debate about Lucy Letby’s guilt, with some people unable to believe that someone like her-a young, attractive nurse-could commit such horrific acts. Others think she was simply framed by the NHS, who needed a scapegoat to shift the blame away from institutional failures. But when we really break down the facts, the evidence overwhelmingly shows her guilt.
**1. Stable Babies, Sudden Deaths**
Many of the babies in Lucy Letby’s care were doing well-stable, improving, recovering. They weren’t on the brink of death, which makes their sudden collapses all the more suspicious. These babies **suddenly and inexplicably deteriorated** or died without any medical reason to explain such sharp turns. What set these cases apart was how **unexpected and unnatural** these collapses were.
These weren’t fragile infants who were naturally declining. These were babies whose health **suddenly collapsed** without warning-and only when Letby was on shift.
**2. Deliberate Acts of Harm**
When doctors and investigators looked into these sudden collapses, they found evidence of **deliberate harm**. Babies were poisoned with insulin, injected with air, and overfed in dangerous ways. These are not natural complications or accidents-they are **intentional acts**.
The medical evidence was clear: insulin where it shouldn’t be, air in the bloodstream, and overfeeding that led to serious complications. None of this happens by chance.
**3. Lucy Letby: The Consistent Presence**
It’s difficult for some to believe that a young woman like Lucy Letby could be capable of such cruelty. But in every instance of suspicious death or sudden deterioration, **Letby was present**. This wasn’t just bad luck. If this were simply a series of tragic coincidences, you would expect other staff to be present during at least some of these incidents. But they weren’t. It was always Letby.
We often find it hard to reconcile that someone who seems innocent could be responsible for such atrocities. But criminals don’t fit into neat boxes-they can look like anyone. And the **pattern of harm** that emerged always involved Letby. She wasn’t just unlucky-she was the **common factor** in each case.
**4. Circumstantial Evidence Is Powerful**
Some people argue that the case was based on “circumstantial evidence,” implying that this made the case weaker. But **circumstantial evidence is often as strong as direct evidence**, especially when it points consistently in one direction.
In this case, babies who were improving suddenly deteriorated. The medical evidence confirmed they were harmed deliberately-by insulin poisoning, air embolisms, or overfeeding. And Lucy Letby was there every time. Circumstantial evidence, when all the pieces fit together, can be overwhelming.
There doesn’t always need to be a “smoking gun” when the circumstances all point to the same conclusion. In this case, the circumstantial evidence painted a clear picture of guilt: **Letby’s presence, the sudden collapses, and the confirmed medical harm**.
**5. The “Scapegoat” Theory: Was She Framed?**
Some people believe that Lucy Letby was framed by the NHS, who needed a scapegoat to avoid blame for its own failings. But let’s break that down. If this were true, it would require a **massive conspiracy** involving doctors, nurses, lab technicians, and forensic experts-all across different institutions.
These independent experts found deliberate harm-insulin poisoning, air embolisms, overfeeding-confirmed by scientific tests. For Letby to be framed, it would mean manipulating physical evidence, blood samples, and autopsy results. **Such a large-scale fabrication is not just improbable-it’s impossible**.
Letby wasn’t targeted from the start. The investigation was triggered by the unusual deaths and deteriorations, and the evidence naturally led to her. This wasn’t about protecting the NHS-it was about following the facts. If the NHS wanted to shift the blame, they could have easily pointed to systemic issues or other staff members. The evidence wasn’t fabricated-it emerged through independent investigations.
**6. Falsified Medical Records: A Clear Cover-Up**
It didn’t stop with the harm itself. Medical records were **falsified**-deliberately altered to obscure the real causes of these deaths. These weren’t accidental errors. The records were changed to cover up what had happened, and Letby had both the access and the knowledge to falsify them. If she were innocent, why would there be any need to falsify these records?
**7. The Defense’s Failure to Challenge the Experts**
The prosecution relied on **medical experts** to prove that these babies had been harmed. These weren’t just opinions-they were based on medical facts and scientific tests. The defense had every opportunity to bring in their own experts to challenge these findings, but they didn’t.
The absence of defense experts is critical. If the defense could have provided a credible alternative explanation for these deaths, they would have. Their failure to do so speaks volumes about the strength of the prosecution’s case.
**8. No Other Explanation Holds Up**
Some have suggested alternate theories-like infections or hospital conditions-but these don’t hold up under scrutiny. The babies who died weren’t deteriorating naturally. They were stable, improving, and then suddenly collapsed in unnatural ways. The evidence of insulin poisoning, air embolisms, and overfeeding rules out natural causes or institutional failures. These deaths were caused by deliberate acts.
**9. Conclusion: The Weight of the Evidence**
Yes, Lucy Letby was young, and some find it hard to believe that someone like her could be capable of such horrific acts. But criminals don’t always fit our stereotypes. What’s undeniable is the overwhelming evidence: babies suddenly deteriorated or died while in her care, the medical evidence showed they were harmed deliberately, and Letby was always there when it happened.
Some may say this case relied on circumstantial evidence, but when that evidence consistently points in the same direction, it becomes undeniable. Letby wasn’t framed by the NHS-she wasn’t a scapegoat. The investigation followed the facts, and the facts led back to her. **This wasn’t about bad luck**-it was deliberate, repeated harm. That’s why the jury found her guilty.
**TL;DR:** Some can’t believe that someone like Lucy Letby-a young nurse-could be guilty of such horrific acts, or they think she was framed by the NHS. But the evidence tells a different story. Babies who were stable suddenly collapsed, and medical evidence confirmed they were deliberately harmed by insulin poisoning, air embolisms, and overfeeding. Letby was the one person consistently present. Circumstantial evidence, when it all points to the same conclusion, is powerful, and there’s no credible case for a conspiracy. The jury found her guilty because the evidence was overwhelming.
What are the odds that the “scaoegoat” they chose just happened to have 200+ handover sheets stored under her bed, and at her parents house, fished a paper towel of baby notes out of the confidential waste bin to take home, kept her first handover sheet in a special memento box like a treasured souvenir, made repeated Facebook searches for the deceased babies families, had weird card photos on her phone, purchased a house backing onto a kids cemetery, claimed to be a paper hoarder yet had no other piles of random papers in her home aside from the said handover sheets, was rabid at work with reporting every tiny infraction whilst conveniently forgetting her own theft of the sheets was a huge breach of protocol, was texting constantly when she should have been looking after these babies ( time stamps from her messages and the baby feed chart notes show she could not have fed them at the usual flow rate whilst sending so many messages back and forth with one hand) so whatever she was up to, it was not diligently caring for these babies.
It’s also been proven she has altered some of the notes and certainly changed some of the times. Tell me why an innocent person needs to alter patient records to change the time events occurred? I’m all for the odd coincidence here and there. But she is literally a screeching red flag whichever way you look at her.
You can of course take some of the circumstantial evidence on its own and say it’s not really amounting to much and doesn’t prove anything. But there are also some very real pieces of evidence that cannot be ignored. Quite honestly on their own they should be enough to convict her. All the rest is just window dressing extras. Nice to have but not necessary.
Let’s take the very provable case of the baby with blood around its mouth. And only Letby is present and doing sod all. The mother coming down to the ward and seeing it and being sent away. She claims it was 9pm. Letby says it’s 10pm. Lucy tells her to go and the doc is on the way. Mum does two things which are provable at 9pm. She calls her husband, naturally distressed. And she tells the midwife on the ward what she has just seen. As far as I recall, the midwife makes a note of this. So what’s going here please Team Innocent..? Is the mum a liar / the phone record falsified with the help of the telecom’s company and the midwife note faked retrospectively?
There are other examples of her behaviour which quite frankly show her for exactly what she is. A baby killer. Hiding in plain sight. What people don’t want to see and admit is because she’s young and female, they are frightened. Because they know they wouldn’t have spotted her either. I know I wouldn’t. It’s so rare thankfully we can’t get our heads to believe it true. In a world where there’s a huge obsession with looks - an average blonde boring mouse looking girl is never going to be anyone’s idea of a killer.
As humans we like rationale and we like motive. There’s definitely one there somewhere. But without her cooperation it’s all a bit up in the air. I’d take a stab it’s linked in some way to her upbringing and the whole parental codependency that seems such a feature of her life, but who really knows. We don’t so we look for a better more palatable explanation.
What hasn’t helped is the sheer volume of babies involved and therefore the volume of information and medical notes per baby. It had to be done that way but it’s caused so much confusion it’s allowing discourse when there should be none. If you strip away all the noise, it’s quite simple. Too many babies were dying and none had infections. All were stable and some almost ready for discharge. None had life threatening conditions. Contrary to belief, most neonates do well and go home. It’s 2024 not 1960. Only Lucy was consistently there when these babies died. Some had injuries. Many were vomiting up milk far in excess of what they should have received in a feed. Many had strange rashes. Some showed air on their X-rays. None of these things are accidentally happening. Yes the NHS is a mess, but that’s actually against her not a plus point. Because it’s the entire NHS on its knees not just one hospital. So we should (if she’s innocent) be seeing the same thing in other neonate wards across the country. Except it’s not happening anywhere else.
I’m happy to hear actual factual rebuttal from “experts” who have read every single page of every single document from the trial / had access to absolutely everything and are then able to provide a credible working counter argument. It’s beyond sad that so far, aside from massively traumatising these poor families further - not one of them has presented a case with actual facts as to why she is innocent. They’ve literally got nothing to add other than saying oh we aren’t sure. So fine - all go sit down behind closed doors and work your theory with the data. Do it quietly and when you have an explanation for all these poor dead babies, then perhaps go shoot your mouth.
I wonder if they’ll try and help Rose West next? Did anyone actually see her do anything…,?
@@SleepCove Got a link to all that never heard that mentioned about her just wish the court would disclose everything.
@@Jim-i2y The Lucy Letby subreddit is a good place to find lots of info.
I thank ChatGPT for that reply. Obvious tells grammatically that was written by AI
@@Jim-i2ythere is a podcast all about the trial. It disclosed all this detail and more. Search “the trial” and you should find it
After reading about the case, I knew everything pointed to her guilt, and yet I felt uneasy about it.I can't really put a finger on why, I just know I did. It's awful that the parents might have to go through it all again, and I can't begin to imagine how that must feel, but
I hope her case is going to be looked at again.
I was the foreperson on a murder case in Broome WA. I don't feel the jury was smart enough to understand the medical evidence. It was a very interesting experience which changed my thinking on many things.
I often wonder if she is a victim herself.
100%
I didn't buy this case from Day One... I am glad my hunch is finally being widely confirmed.
DITTO!
Mine too.
i was the opposite and thought she was 100% guilty........i swallowed all the news articles but when i did more reading i quickly changed my mind
@@Pmrace1960 YOU ARE NOT THE ONLY ONE WHO HAS CHANGED THEIR MIND ABOUT LUCY!!
@@normankennith7919 i now am pretty certain there were no murders
What is worse? To be innocent of a crime? Or to be innocent of a crime that never took place?
the latter!
@@philholding6905 ...I agree. So many ways that are undoubtable in life. But doubt is the juice. And my dear lord I tried a THC ridden vape for the first time in my life 15 minutes and and I'm stoned as fuck (seasoned "smoker 57yo) x
Something is seriously wrong about this case. Maybe somebody or organisation is being protected, and she's carrying the can.
the only massive problem is the ignorant “have a go lawyers” on social media that don’t bother to understand the issues and rely on social media. For example, here are some points to educate you;
- Letby had defence experts, they attended a pre trial meeting with the prosecution’s experts, and notes were circulated to the legal teams. Letby chose not to call them at trial, the overwhelming likelihood being that it would have damaged her case in terms of the causes of death being suspicious (such as trauma from feeding tubes shoved down throats; air being injected; insulin being injected; breathing tubes being removed).
- Letby accepted some of the prosecution’s evidence anyway - such as two babies having had insulin deliberately injected.
- she was on duty for every one of the suspicious deaths. When she wasn’t on shift, they didn’t happen.
- she was seen by a doctor standing alone over a baby that had been stable, and then suddenly it collapsed - its oxygen tube had been removed and the alarm turned off. Letby was doing nothing to help, just watching.
- when Letby was training at another hospital, oxygen tubes had been removed on 40% of her shifts when the average was about 1%. Babies are very unlikely to be able to dislodge the tubes themselves, especially premature babies.
- Letby was on her own with a baby that had been stable. Baby’s mother walked in and saw the baby’s mouth bleeding and the baby in distress, the oxygen tube had been rammed down its throat.
- she amended medical notes to make it look like she was either less involved with a baby that died, or that the baby was declining before she was involved.
- she stole confidential record of the dead babies, claimed she couldn’t destroy them, but admitted she had a shredder. Hoarding trophies like this is a classic sign of munchausen by proxy disorder.
- she looked up the parents of the dead babies the night they died and she would be keen to be the first to break the news of the deaths, even when she wasn’t the designated deaths
- she wrote a note admitting she had done these things, and at no point either with the police or at trial ever claimed it was because she was told to write it.
- the doctors had major concerns about her, but those were suppressed and pressure put on doctors not to escalate by management.
- she contradicted herself at trial on her evidence, couldn’t recall some parts when it was prejudicial to her but remembered massive details of the same time frame when she wanted to
- the above is just some of the evidence that convinced her
- she is likely to be a psychopath, with munchausen by proxy disorder, who chose nursing to be near to vulnerable babies. She thrived on attention and control, and in particular the attention she got from a doctor with whom she was obsessed.
I'm confused by this whole trial. What was the evidence she did a crime? It can't just be she was on shift for some of the deaths so she did it. I thought the whole being found guilty thing was beyond reasonable doubt. I would have doubted it even if it was 100% the babies were murdered, you have to have more than a person was on shift on X days, that's nuts, like there are not other people in the hospital.
There’s a TH-cam channel that has bought the court transcripts and reads them out.
There’s plenty of evidence.
I can only presume those who are saying there isn’t haven’t listened to the transcripts.
It’s not just statistical analysis and circumstance.
the only massive problem is the ignorant “have a go lawyers” on social media that don’t bother to understand the issues and rely on social media. For example, here are some points to educate you;
- Letby had defence experts, they attended a pre trial meeting with the prosecution’s experts, and notes were circulated to the legal teams. Letby chose not to call them at trial, the overwhelming likelihood being that it would have damaged her case in terms of the causes of death being suspicious (such as trauma from feeding tubes shoved down throats; air being injected; insulin being injected; breathing tubes being removed).
- Letby accepted some of the prosecution’s evidence anyway - such as two babies having had insulin deliberately injected.
- she was on duty for every one of the suspicious deaths. When she wasn’t on shift, they didn’t happen.
- she was seen by a doctor standing alone over a baby that had been stable, and then suddenly it collapsed - its oxygen tube had been removed and the alarm turned off. Letby was doing nothing to help, just watching.
- when Letby was training at another hospital, oxygen tubes had been removed on 40% of her shifts when the average was about 1%. Babies are very unlikely to be able to dislodge the tubes themselves, especially premature babies.
- Letby was on her own with a baby that had been stable. Baby’s mother walked in and saw the baby’s mouth bleeding and the baby in distress, the oxygen tube had been rammed down its throat.
- she amended medical notes to make it look like she was either less involved with a baby that died, or that the baby was declining before she was involved.
- she stole confidential record of the dead babies, claimed she couldn’t destroy them, but admitted she had a shredder. Hoarding trophies like this is a classic sign of munchausen by proxy disorder.
- she looked up the parents of the dead babies the night they died and she would be keen to be the first to break the news of the deaths, even when she wasn’t the designated deaths
- she wrote a note admitting she had done these things, and at no point either with the police or at trial ever claimed it was because she was told to write it.
- the doctors had major concerns about her, but those were suppressed and pressure put on doctors not to escalate by management.
- she contradicted herself at trial on her evidence, couldn’t recall some parts when it was prejudicial to her but remembered massive details of the same time frame when she wanted to
- the above is just some of the evidence that convinced her
- she is likely to be a psychopath, with munchausen by proxy disorder, who chose nursing to be near to vulnerable babies. She thrived on attention and control, and in particular the attention she got from a doctor with whom she was obsessed.
I think the crux of the matter was that babies were considered to die, unexpectedly and/or unexplainably. When LL was on shift. This happened, but around six babies died in that time period when she wasn't on shift. I don't know if any of those were considered unexpected and/or unexplained.
I was born at the countess, my kids were born there and I've also worked there. I've said right from the very start that Lucy has been well and truly stitched up! The doctors have done this, and I'd put money on that Dr Ravi being knee deep in it. He's been far too vocal about it
I find in general that the best media to read about issues in Britain is overseas media, where they are more detached from "significant interest" in cases such as the Letby one. This is also particularly true of political reporting, where the proprietar of the paper is less likely to be telling the editor what to say, and again, is simply more detached from the matter they are reporting on.
juries make mistakes, especially when not presented with the whole evidence.
dont look into the complaint lucy had made previously about one of the consultants. and i wont mention any details about him, as i am sure that is not allowed. even if it were to explain the consultants beliefs and rationale for his behaviours.
That's very cryptic. Why not just say what you know? You're anonymous and there will be no comebacks.
@@jojonesjojo8919 its not very cryptic at all, the information you need is there to go look it up yourself. Which, in my opinion, is better than relying on some anonymous (as you put it) online person anyway.
@@lisah9561 the only massive problem is the ignorant “have a go lawyers” on social media that don’t bother to understand the issues and rely on social media. For example, here are some points to educate you;
- Letby had defence experts, they attended a pre trial meeting with the prosecution’s experts, and notes were circulated to the legal teams. Letby chose not to call them at trial, the overwhelming likelihood being that it would have damaged her case in terms of the causes of death being suspicious (such as trauma from feeding tubes shoved down throats; air being injected; insulin being injected; breathing tubes being removed).
- Letby accepted some of the prosecution’s evidence anyway - such as two babies having had insulin deliberately injected.
- she was on duty for every one of the suspicious deaths. When she wasn’t on shift, they didn’t happen.
- she was seen by a doctor standing alone over a baby that had been stable, and then suddenly it collapsed - its oxygen tube had been removed and the alarm turned off. Letby was doing nothing to help, just watching.
- when Letby was training at another hospital, oxygen tubes had been removed on 40% of her shifts when the average was about 1%. Babies are very unlikely to be able to dislodge the tubes themselves, especially premature babies.
- Letby was on her own with a baby that had been stable. Baby’s mother walked in and saw the baby’s mouth bleeding and the baby in distress, the oxygen tube had been rammed down its throat.
- she amended medical notes to make it look like she was either less involved with a baby that died, or that the baby was declining before she was involved.
- she stole confidential record of the dead babies, claimed she couldn’t destroy them, but admitted she had a shredder. Hoarding trophies like this is a classic sign of munchausen by proxy disorder.
- she looked up the parents of the dead babies the night they died and she would be keen to be the first to break the news of the deaths, even when she wasn’t the designated deaths
- she wrote a note admitting she had done these things, and at no point either with the police or at trial ever claimed it was because she was told to write it.
- the doctors had major concerns about her, but those were suppressed and pressure put on doctors not to escalate by management.
- she contradicted herself at trial on her evidence, couldn’t recall some parts when it was prejudicial to her but remembered massive details of the same time frame when she wanted to
- the above is just some of the evidence that convinced her
- she is likely to be a psychopath, with munchausen by proxy disorder, who chose nursing to be near to vulnerable babies. She thrived on attention and control, and in particular the attention she got from a doctor with whom she was obsessed.
I’ve always held concerns for the lack of evidence and ambiguity of evidence in this case. She was treated as guilty as soon as she was arrested by the press but it very well could be a cover up in my opinion. I don’t know how they could prove without reasonable doubt that she did this. It is possible she’s guilty too but it has never sat right with me.
whether she did it or not is unknown. But there is no way she did it beyond a reasonable doubt.
I disagree
The more we hear about this case the more unsafe the convictions become.
The court and the judge in particular, clearly had no idea of Justice and the picture that is emerging is they wanted to secure a conviction at all costs.
The defence team also seem to have been playing on the prosecution's side.
The prosecution submitted evidence that could fairly be said to amount to deliberately perverting the course of Justice
MSM appear to be guilty of contempt of court in their reporting.
Prosecution witnesses kept changing their story.
There was no direct evidence of any killings and the deaths could be from a number of possible reasons and causes. False evidence was agreed upon between the defence and prosecution.
The whole schbang smells to High Heaven.
And no accountability for these dreadful failures.
Gut feeling right from the start that something not right about this case.
There has been numerous experts that have challenged Dewi's narrative and the statistics used to enable the case against Letby. None were utilised in the case for some odd reason.
think that man should face jail
“ Beyond Reasonable Doubt “ and I like more learned people are starting to doubt it also
She'll be owed a lot of money...
This case needs to be investigated again, don’t believe that they got to the main root,
A fair and balanced process that doesnt hold back any aspect of the truth is important.
Which part of our criminal justice system do you feel is not fair and balanced? Please be specific.
They do not want or seek the truth, instead they want to play their macabre game between the prosecution and the defence as to who can emotionally persuade the jury the better.
From what i have read it looks like a substandard baby unit found a very suitable scapegoat to throw under the bus. What the hell was her defence team doing? Why didn't they challenge the dodgy "evidence" against her?
@@AP-nj1mr the only massive problem is the ignorant “have a go lawyers” on social media that don’t bother to understand the issues and rely on social media. For example, here are some points to educate you;
- Letby had defence experts, they attended a pre trial meeting with the prosecution’s experts, and notes were circulated to the legal teams. Letby chose not to call them at trial, the overwhelming likelihood being that it would have damaged her case in terms of the causes of death being suspicious (such as trauma from feeding tubes shoved down throats; air being injected; insulin being injected; breathing tubes being removed).
- Letby accepted some of the prosecution’s evidence anyway - such as two babies having had insulin deliberately injected.
- she was on duty for every one of the suspicious deaths. When she wasn’t on shift, they didn’t happen.
- she was seen by a doctor standing alone over a baby that had been stable, and then suddenly it collapsed - its oxygen tube had been removed and the alarm turned off. Letby was doing nothing to help, just watching.
- when Letby was training at another hospital, oxygen tubes had been removed on 40% of her shifts when the average was about 1%. Babies are very unlikely to be able to dislodge the tubes themselves, especially premature babies.
- Letby was on her own with a baby that had been stable. Baby’s mother walked in and saw the baby’s mouth bleeding and the baby in distress, the oxygen tube had been rammed down its throat.
- she amended medical notes to make it look like she was either less involved with a baby that died, or that the baby was declining before she was involved.
- she stole confidential record of the dead babies, claimed she couldn’t destroy them, but admitted she had a shredder. Hoarding trophies like this is a classic sign of munchausen by proxy disorder.
- she looked up the parents of the dead babies the night they died and she would be keen to be the first to break the news of the deaths, even when she wasn’t the designated deaths
- she wrote a note admitting she had done these things, and at no point either with the police or at trial ever claimed it was because she was told to write it.
- the doctors had major concerns about her, but those were suppressed and pressure put on doctors not to escalate by management.
- she contradicted herself at trial on her evidence, couldn’t recall some parts when it was prejudicial to her but remembered massive details of the same time frame when she wanted to
- the above is just some of the evidence that convinced her
- she is likely to be a psychopath, with munchausen by proxy disorder, who chose nursing to be near to vulnerable babies. She thrived on attention and control, and in particular the attention she got from a doctor with whom she was obsessed.
Have you read all the scripts, seen all the footage and heard all the interviews? If you had then you wouldn’t have any doubt about her guilt. When all the facts are laid bare it’s very obvious she’s guilty. I have studied every single part of the case from the very beginning. I was totally neutral until I saw it all for myself now I have absolutely no doubts. She is evil beyond belief.
@@gems5638 100% agree
You need to keep reading, there is a mountain of evidence against her including notes in her diary in her writing found in her room saying "I killed them on purpose because I'm not good enough, I AM EVIL I DID THIS, I'm sorry you couldn't have a chance at life, I need help" if you like to explain what else that could possibly mean in addition to all the other evidence I'd love to hear it.
@@AP-nj1mr you need to read more then and think before you comment. There is an enormous amount of evidence against her.
Whilst having sat on the jury of a murder case I was disgusted that we the jury were directed by the judge and pushed into a corner to find the accused guilty of manslaughter and not murder. Did we have a choice!?
Jury nullification is a thing. Yes, you had a choice.
THE WELL PAID JUDGE WAS AS DODGY AS FUCK!!
The secret of the courts is to hear the words they say only, literally as they are said, and somehow ignore all social pressures or implied meanings.
Getting interesting... I sent a letter to the Attorney General 9 months ago asking him to check that Dewi Evans (expert witness in the Lucy Letby case) was both correctly installed and briefed and whether he fulfilled the legal obligations set out for one being a proper EW. I don't believe he was briefed correctly.
As someone once wisecracked ( after a pompous fool was boasting he had been practicing for 30 yrs), if you’d practiced a bit more you might be halfway competent.
It did appear that he wasn't an "expert witness" so much as an "expert advocate for the prosecution".
I know expert witnesses are paid for either by the prosecution or the defence, but whoever pays, once in the witness box they should be expert witnesses for the court.
I have always thought this was not a fair trial and a full life sentence when there was only circumstantial evidence isn’t right. But apparently I’m a ‘child killer sympathiser’.
Well presented Daniel. Thankyou.
A good example of another guilty: verdict overturned was Sally Clark's, and this has something n common. That also was based on misleading statistical evidence.
The babies in the Letby case were deliberately killed by someone. It’s not just a statistics case like some others have been.