The Other Side of Lucy Letby ep 21 - "She was doing exceptionally well..." (Michael McConville)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 4 ก.พ. 2025
- "She was doing exceptionally well and was clinically very satisfactory.”
Final thoughts on Baby D. May she rest in peace - Michael McConville.
Link to short essay
www.perplexity...
Papers By Professor Arthurs:
pubmed.ncbi.nl...
Series description: A general medical practitioner deconstructs the falsehoods told in the trial of Lucy Letby.
Thanks for another excellent medical analysis
Quick thanks again for putting these on yt. Excellent stuff.
It's good to see the defenders of truth working together. Well done indeed.
I'm again gobsmacked! Thank you for this incredible detailed analysis.
Yes indeed may little baby D Rest In Peace, and her parents find some kind of closure. How awful, dragging their poor hearts through the LL charade. 😢
🕯 🕯 🕯 🕯 🕯!
and trying to put some blame on the poor father, that’s horrific. Even if it was true and he was handling the baby in a dangerous way, why wasn't he told prior to holding his newborn the "safe" way to do so? Beggars’ belief. The more I hear about this case the more frustrating it becomes.
@ indeed - that poor father - in my experience in maternity wards, new dads are the most careful, protective people in the world - they hold their new babies as if they were made of fairy dust; and how does this awful suggestion that the little one could have been choked by a new dad go along with Dewi Evans’ assertion that babies are fairly robust, and they don’t just collapse for nothing? (My wording) Dr Michael’s break down of evidence is compelling - I wish those babies had had doctors half as kind, and knowledgeable.
Hearing about Baby D's short life fills me with despair. 'A blip' no way to describe any of these decisions. Would this care be ok for a child of their own.
DR Richard Mconville 📚 🕒 🥇 🥇 🕯 🕯 🕯 👍 WE need the TRUTH 🇬🇧 ! Great essential work & scientific skill & experience!❤
Does seem hurried to take Baby off ventilation having only being on Antibiotics for a day. So sad to speak like that to a new Dad.
Absolutely disgraceful behaviour from these not fit to practice Drs who Cleary have No idea how to care for any of these tiny and sick babies, and their treatment to both the babies and the parents is absolutely disgusting, absolutely heartbreaking. They all should all be in Prison for what they did.
As a good comparison to the evidence given in the LL trial it would be worthwhile watching Murder on Trial that the bbc has recently added to their iplayer regarding the trial of David Barnes, which relies upon circumstantial evidence.
Barnes was a decorator carrying out work on the home of a 60 year old man in Fife, Scotland when he was last seen. Over one year later the partial mummified remains of a human were discovered by chance a few miles away in a derelict industrial unit. The body had been set on fire and all that remained was a skeleton.
Barnes was witnessed by a neighbour loading a very heavy wheelie bin (that belonged to the neigjbour) into the boot of his car the day after the man was last seen alive. A partially burnt bank statement of the neighbour was found next to the remains, which the neighbour said had put in his bin.
Fromm mobile phone data Barnes turned his phone off that day and did not switchitt back on until mich later in the say. In the meantime his girlfriend had sent him many (unanswered) messages trying to get in contact with him. His girlfriend also gave evidence that Barnes was flush with cash in the following weeks.
Barnes first told neighbours that the 60 year old man had gone on holiday then told them he'd gone to permanently live in England to with his sister (His only sister actually lived further north in Scotland).
Over the following weeks and months Barnes withdrew money from the man's bank account and bought goods and services on line with the dead mans bank card.
Barnes used the dead mans phone to send a text on the day his estranged daughter got married.
Because of the state of the remains it was impossible for the pathologist to say what was the cause of death. In court she openly admitted that she could not say.
Fragments of the vegetation outside the industrial unit were found in the footwell of Barnes car.
The prosecution had no direct evidence that Barnes had killed the man, where he had been killed or even if he had been killed at all (and not died of natural causes before his body was burnt).
Throughout police interviews Barnes answered most questions with "no comment" and he did not give evidence in his own defence at the trial.
It was argued by the defence in court that the jury could not convict for murder due to no evidence that Barnes had caused any harm. It was possible the old man had just died of natural causes and Barnes took advantage of the opportunity to steal the old man's money, which did not make him a murderer.
In that case, the pathologist, who was the best placed person to state the cause of death, gave evidence at the trial, and honestly stated she could not determine the cause of death.
It was left to the jury to weigh up the circumstantial evidence and the fact the defendant answered most questions no comment to the police and did not vive evidence in his own defence.
The jury found him guilty.
In LLs case, the pathologist did not give evidence and "experts" (who were anything but best placed) came up with a fantastical (definitive) cause of death or harm fir each baby and ruled out every other possibility (when impossible to do so and other causes were far more likely according to what Michael mcConville says). The evidence of these experts would have (no doubt) heavily influenced the jury, particularly given the absence of any other relevant direct or forensic evidence (apart from being present in the unit) to rely upon.
In LLs case she was fully cooperative in all police interviews and she gave evidence in her own defence.
@@robbomax1143 that Barnes case sounds like an episode of Vera. I believe in Scotland they can also find ‘not proven’. But the circumstantial evidence does lead to the conclusion that he was guilty. I’m glad I didn’t have be in the jury for that one!
@MsDormy I've been on a jury (foreman) in a case where some charges were found not proven.
The jury in the Barnes case found him guilty ( along with quite a few lot of other charges) after just 3 hours if deliberation so this suggests there was minimal doubt.
Barnes sticking to "no comment " in police interviews and not taking the stand in his own defence are anything but signs of innocence.
If he did not do it then he would have taken the stand and given evdence. It is worthy of note that there was a subsequent appeal but only against the length of sentence and not against the conviction itself.
@MsDormy I meant to add that at the appeal, it was revealed that Barnes had previous convictions for fraud/ deception and had been in prison before for violence.
The points I was making with the comparison were (1) there was a lot of very compelling circumstantial facts but in LLs case her presence was all that was a fact. (2) the expert on the Barnes case gave an honest opinion that she could not determine the cause of death whereas the purported experts on the LL case were definitive about a sole cause, which was impossible for them to conclude,