I am no fan of David Davis, or Nadine Dorris for that matter (she was the first one to bring this to my attention) and I was like him, happy to see a "baby-killer" go down. If this is true (and it looks that way) then our justice system has not only failed, but is has acted with criminal neglet and even collusion. There should be an immediate retrial and those responsible should be held to account.
David, you are so right, it is the justice SYSTEM that is operated incorrectly, Lucy may be guilty as found, but growing evidence and the presentation of both prosecution and defence statements /evidence is being scrutinised, and even incorrect, It is of great concern that the Court of Appeal refuse an Appeal with such increasing information/ public interest. If they wish to restore faith in the UK justice system an Appeal must be allowed, then all this will be noted “ JUSTICE HAS BEEN SERVED” at the moment, it appears that a conviction has been served, not justice.
Hand over notes are not medical records, they are brief notes passed from nurse to nurse indicating what they have done on shift with patients. Very many nurses have said they often take them home, not unusual. The fact only a small percentage of the notes were related to the cases, indicate they are not 'trophies'. The doctors who accused Letby, and had just lost a grievance proceedure by Letby and had to apologize to her...were very poor. 2 ward rounds a week instead of the recommended 2 per day, very slow response to emergencies, kept on recieving very premature and very ill babies even knowing a deadly pathogen was rife in the unit, one was severely reprimanded the year before for accidentally killing a baby through incompetence, where hospital lawyers said it was indefenceable, another punctured the babies liver accidentally causing death which Letby was give life for. Where ever you look at this case it is riddled with faults, and failures in the hospital, police investigation, and legal process. The families deserve the truth, not have a scapegoat offered up to hide the real serious problems in neonatal units generally, as is being exposed at the moment...will every spike, which has been clearly explained by statisticians as normal, now lead to a witch hunt against the nurse working the longest hours on the unit, as Letby did? Too many people are in denial, usually when they only read the headlines, and don't know the actual facts.
Horrible to think that the hospital management knew of all the problems especially infections rife on the unit. Consultants error prone also sepsis in associated wards. The was closed. No wonder babies died!
What are you on about? Are you even a nurse? Why are you commenting on nursing practice when you don't know? Anyone who has taking handover notes are more than likely breaking professional code - the behaviour is unprofessional and not to be condoned or normalised.
I have dealt with the NHS when you complain they close ranks, lie and vilify the accuser. I 100% believe Lucy is innocent as are almost all other medical staff convicted in this manner
Yes, agreed...this was literally my experience as a health care profession student...it really deeply affected my mental health and nearly caused me to leave altogether, in uni we are taught to speak out if something isn't right...but if you do that in practice you risk being destroyed by your superiors...
Makes no sense, if they truly closed ranks they would have protected Letby at all costs - the fact they admitted Letby was responsible for the deaths still damages the reputation of the NHS, they had nothing to gain
I could never understand how a long retired, discredited paediatrician (not even a neonatologist or pathologist) could overturn post mortems, that found babies died from natural causes, just by reading patient notes and looking at a few x rays.
Not this again. He wasn’t a neonatologist simply because neonatology wasn’t a sub-discipline of pediatrics at the time he qualified. Indeed, Dr Evans was instrumental in helping to shape neonatology as a distinct branch of medicine, building the neonatology ward at his hospital from scratch. So yes, he was a neonatologist, only not in name because he predated the field.
@@8964TS what about this bit? could overturn post mortems, that found babies died from natural causes, just by reading patient notes and looking at a few x rays.
If that’s the line you want to take, be careful, because literally all of the “experts” coming up with their own theories have also done nothing more than read a few notes. In fact, they’ve seen even less evidence than Dewi Evans did, so if it’s your position that Evans’ opinions are worthless, the natural and logical corollary is that pro-Letby experts’ opinions are just as worthless, if not more so.
@@darklighter66 I know people love the "only in the UK...." narrative, but there is no population on the planet that properly understands statistics...
@OwenB-o5v The entire case is based on one retired paediatricians flawed interpretation of case notes a year after the babies had died. He did not perform the autopsy. It's based on a flawed statistical construction of the nurse rotas. It's based on ludicrous circumstantial evidence such as possession of handover notes. There is zero evidence. Zero.
I was uncomfortable about her conviction before I saw this video, and I learned in the video that the prosecution suppressed facts that did not fit their narrative - something which I thought was illegal. Also, it sounds like she had a legal team who were out of their depth and incapable of representing her adequately.
The legal system routinely blocks relevant evidence being presented. It's absolutely shocking. As is the adversarial system of two sides trying to present their most convincing case rather than actually trying to get to the truth.
Because some MPs are better campaigners than the lead figure for a political party which needs an entirely different skill set. I think David Davis works best as a backbencher free to look into these kinds of things.
In 1988 Lord Denning said ‘It is better that some innocent men remain in jail than that the integrity of the English judicial system be impugned,’ My experience of the English legal system suggests that attitude is still very much alive and well. It is almost impossible to get an appeal once convicted. The system has much invested in protecting it's image and much to lose if it's veil slips.
If these points were not raised at trial ... What on earth were her defence doing? What is there job other than scrutinizing the prosecution and presenting the best defence possible? Why is no one saying 'of course these things were examined in court'? Where are these people now and how are they accountable? The families of the babies who died have not been served at all well here.
Apparently they chose the approach to say little and let the prosecution prove the case. I think the obvious issue was that the prosecution had 4 years, all of the money, NHS backing and the weight of the police. They had far less time to create a defence. In a nutshell the full weight of the institutions, spending power and man power was all on one side.
Dewi Evans has stated that he knew within 10 minutes of looking at the case notes that there had been foul play but he was financially incentivised to find crimes. No crimes = no fee. This is a blatant conflict of interest.
I think that the fact he put himself forward to the court should have barred him immediately - nothing to do with his expertise, or lack of, but purely because the court should be the ones doing their own research and hiring.
I haven't studied the evidence, it's not my place to call this a miscarriage of justice. But if there was evidence that was withheld, there should be a retrial. And I don't see how that isn't the law of the land already.
The whole case was sus from the start . Serial killers rarely use multiple methods. And when the manipulations of the prosecution case unfolded, it confirmed my thoughts. There was no actual evidence of her being criminal. System failure. Poor woman,and poor parents who were wrongly told their baby had been murdered
I retired after a 37 year career as an anaesthetist, thirty as a consultant. Coincidentally I’ve always had a great interest in true crime and miscarriages of justice, To me, this is a miscarriage- for so many reasons. The lack of any statistical advice, a main prosecution ‘expert’ who put himself forward and came up with theories which many other experts now, like me, strongly disagree with- even he has ‘changed his mind’ on some of them, the lack of any experts called by the defence and the jury not hearing about other potential causes of death. But another very important fact, to me, is that it seems that her many nurse colleagues fully stand by her and feel strongly that she is innocent. At the press conference her barrister revealed that in one case the death of a baby seems to have been caused as a result of a procedure carried out by a doctor. I am hoping that her barrister can get the appeal re-opened and her convictions are all quashed.
Odd, that someone with an interest in crime and law, doesn't know that a "barrister" can't affect any court procedures or appeals. That is strictly for her team of solicitors.
@@brianferguson7840 Her new barrister, Mark McDonald, acknowledged at a news conference that the move was “unprecedented,” adding that he was also referring her case to the Criminal Cases Review Commission, the usual method for reopening a case when new evidence is found after an attempt to appeal has failed.
Thank you Sir David . You are taking a courageous stance about what could well be a really disgraceful miscarriage of justice. You are to be commended and we desperately need people in public life who care about justice.
Excellent interview. Perhaps the solution to the juror question is to have 12 jurors who are medical experts instead of 12 randonly chosen jurors? This would get round the medical jargon issue. Certainly the legal representatives need to be much better equipped to PRESENT the evidence as clearly and simply as possible, without dumbing it down, to the jury. The courts need to allow for this by allowing presenations to be more multimedia instead of relying on just the prosecution or defence advocates to rely only on verbal presentaitons (which can easily be missed through a momentary lack of concentration when trying to take-in large summaries of information). Presenttion slides, video footage and handouts should be used to give the jury as much information as possible. And finally, obviously you need experts on the defence side to counter the theories on the prosecution side. If that's NOT the case then the Judge AND Crown Prosecution Service should NEVER allow the Court proceedings to commence until a fair argument can be made for BOTH sides.
David Davis is very impressive. His command of the material, his exquisite carefulness, and most of all, that he cares for people. The justice system seems to be deeply flawed (1,068+ subpostmasters convicted of crimes that NEVER EXISTED). I am not involved with it but something is going very badly wrong far too often. 1. Professional (full time or nearly so) "expert witnesses" should be prohibited. 2. Are judges systematically biased against defendants? 3. Are defence teams systematically inadequate? 4. Are prosecution teams systematically over zealous?
@@phill6859Right! "No downsides to brexit, only considerable upsides". That level of being wrong is frankly mind boggling for someone who would have had all of the facts.
I was told that by a Barrister. It's not about proving what did or did not happen, ie getting to the truth. It's about what they can make a jury believe.
Having been on jury service many years ago I'd never want to be tried by a jury. If this lady is innocent or guilty I have no idea but we need confidence in the system. If that means a further trial then why not?
If Lucy is innocent and she was scapegoated,shame on the people whoever they are ,how can they look at their face in the mirror.Lucy needs to be free and compensated and steer clear of that career.It’s cruel and unfair on the lives lost the real culprits must be held to account.😢😢😢💕🙏
And the police feels so proud of the investigation that they have conducted. Go back to the interview that the lead investigator has given is sickening
Lucy letby is 100% innocent. She was scapegoated by those who are responsible for Gross failings which resulted in the deaths of babies at that hospital, The NHS shame on you all for sitting back and allowing this to happen to a young woman who only ever did her best for you all.
@RichardGallagherthesecondThe woke rag that campaigned for over 20 years to highlight the postmaster miscarriages of justice? Or did you think it was only made public by ITV ?
I would love to see a Venn diagram illustrating the overlap of a) people who voted Leave b) people who support Reform UK c) people who think Lucy Letby is innocent.
Why don't you include in your Venn diagram, people who have read books by David Icke too When you have made your diagram have a look at how much of what David Icke said 15 years ago, has an element of truth these days. I think you might be in for a shock
And are you suggesting then, that the Venn diagram in question, merely illustrates a level of critical thinking that is uncommon amongst your average LBC listener?
I voted remain, I don't support reform, I have some concerns about the Lucy Letby verdict, so I fall outside the intersection of your Venn diagram. I think it's very unwise to link completely disconnected events from politics and law - there simply isn't a connection between Brexit, voting intentions and questioning the verdict of a trial. And I know what you're trying to get at - that people who are Brexit voters and voted Reform are more likely to believe conspiracy theories around the innocence of Lucy Letby, but if you read Rachel Aviv's investigation in the New Yorker, at the very least there are serious questions about the verdict. I think it's rather patronising and disrespectful to try to link these unconnected things.
There was a research project going on called Speed In Feeding Trial ( SIFT), The same Doctor that lacerated baby Os liver was the lead researcher for this study at the hospital…some of the babies were fed at a faster rate than others, in this group they found a correlation with neurological issues. Most of the babies Lucy was accused of harming met the criteria for this study…premature and / or small…wonder if there is a correlation? How much grant money was given ? Just wondering…..which babies at countess of Chester was enrolled in the study?……one if the baby’s…baby G ended up with severe brain damage…not accusing here, have no idea if baby G was involved but would like to know if that baby was in that study
@@HeliganyI don’t know……it should have been….this was a 2.3 million pound grant that was distributed between over 50 UK hospitals…..in no way do I think, the lead reasearch at Oxford had any nefarious intentions ( quite the opposite), but now knowing dr Brearey past I am concerned he might have profited. Plus, as I suspect many of these babies were clearly being fed too much, too quickly, I have to suspect that might have been part of this study….. dr Brearey had an ethical duty to remove the babies from this study if he noticed any untoward effects….funny, many if not most of these babies met the criteria for the study by gestional age and/ weight….follow the money….plus the hospital might have been granted some money from this study…….inquiring minds want to know
Sky have a segment on the Letby case. I notice the comments are turned off. I wonder why 🤔 If there's any doubt then there should be a retrial. Let the evidence be aired before a jury. Justice should be seen to be done properly.
Is that right about The New Yorker? I think I would rather get that than any British newspaper or periodical these days - they are so poor and hijacked.
It's terrible that someone can be convicted and sent to jail for a crime they didn't commit. Shame on Keir Starmer and Shabana Mahmood for doing absolutely nothing to help.
Unfortunately there are many innocent people in prison, including some innocent nurses. But this case is particularly horrendous because the trial was so unfair. It was more like a 17th Century witch trial.
@@Laytown Based on the available information we at least can deduce that she is at most as likely to be a serial killer then a random person on the street. Which is about less then 1 in a Million. Given the fact that she was thoroughly investigated and still no direct evidence of her committing such crimes were found. The real chance is even lower then any random person. So based on that information alone I am more convinced that she isn't a serial killer then you are. but don't worry I don't believe that you are a serial killer either.
@@Philljag there are essentially none correlated in this manner. Not do they have suspects who did what she did during or after. You're all reaching that she's innocent...innocent people do not do what she did during or after, there are multiple areas where it makes absolutely no sense to be asking what she was or writing what she was.
@@Philljag Evidence presented during her trial overwhelmingly pointed to her guilt, and some key factors that clearly undermined any claim to her innocence included: 1. Detailed Medical Records and Patterns: • A noticeable spike in unexplained baby deaths and collapses occurred during her shifts. • Forensic reviews of medical charts revealed manipulations in care protocols tied to her presence. 2. Colleague Concerns: • Several colleagues raised concerns about her presence during these incidents, leading to internal reviews before external investigations began. 3. Malicious Acts of Harm: • Medical experts presented compelling evidence of deliberate acts of harm, such as injecting air into veins or overfeeding milk, which cannot be accidental. • Victims showed signs of harm consistent with intentional tampering. 4. Damning Written Evidence: • Investigators found a diary and handwritten notes in her possession. On one note, she wrote disturbing phrases such as “I am evil. I did this,” and similar statements that implied guilt. • Though some argued these notes reflected emotional turmoil rather than an outright confession, the context of the trial made them incriminating. 5. Inconsistencies in Defense: • Her explanations for the incidents lacked coherence and did not align with the overwhelming expert testimony against her. 6. No Plausible Alternative Explanation: • A thorough investigation ruled out systemic hospital failings, accidental causes, or external interference. This left her as the common factor in the tragic cases. The overwhelming weight of this evidence led the court to deliver a rare whole-life sentence, underscoring the seriousness of her crimes and the lack of doubt regarding her guilt.
@@Laytown There are no rules for what innocent people do or don’t do, and that kind of assumed thinking is how they end up staying wrongly convicted. The notes as well were addressed and explained in this interview if you watched it? She exclaims her innocence in them multiple times, as well as many other things as part of a private exercise with a therapist while suffering immensely from mental health issues (from being wrongly accused most likely).
Convicing according to letbys barrister, Mps, and specialist, including witnesses for letby and gaging orders to NHS nurses and staff. To prove letby was not guilty of the convictions against her. She should be allowed to appeal and be given a retrial.
Vested interests run right through the LL case, they are at the heart of whats wrong with it, they can be found in nearly every part of the Nhs and the CJS , they emerged in 2015 and are continuing to the present day.
Proven guilty in the longest trial in British history, there’s not a single piece of evidence that points to any other nurse but her - many proven c-o-d from insulin injections which had to be administered by a nurse/doctor, she’s the only one on shift at the time of every crime, and she was even defended by higher ups in the NHS until an independent investigation began so the idea that she’s been used as a scapegoat is bs… also none of the parents have come forward to say they’re doubtful of the verdict, they all know that she did it People like you defend LL because you think she doesn’t look like the type or can’t understand why anyone would do that (fair) but people do awful things and they can look/act completely unassuming before they get caught, do more research on the case👍
@@danieljames6136 If Lucy was the only nurse on duty.....she was over stretched. The mother of triplets was told that her 3 babies would have a nurse each. Apparently Lucy was caring for 2 of the triplets and a baby in another room. Baby D mother was sent home with no antibiotics after her waters had broken.....50 + hours later she was begging for a cesarean because she was concerned for the baby....still no antibiotics. When the baby was delivered the baby was limp/floppy and didn't look right.
@watnamecaniuseforfs it was a bit of a clickbait comment tbh. What is clear is that the statistics were totally misunderstood in the trial and that they don't prove anything with regards to her, any more than any other nurse that was working there.
I'm fairly persuaded by much of what he says, but not all. On the handover notes, I'm not sure I would think it points to a conscientious nurse to have these at home. When I worked in a hospital I would never have brought patients' confidential notes home with me, and am pretty sure it is against the code of practise if not the law. I stand to be corrected if I'm wrong, of course.
@@andypandy-v3jIncorrect. I am a nurse and handover sheets contain identifying, private and confidential patient information. This is why they are not to be taken off the ward. The quantities Letby had would result in her losing her nursing registration. Davis saying this was a sign of a conscientious nurse, indicates to me he hasn't spoken to any nurses about this case.
@@charl22222 Incorrect - as a nurse I know that handover notes normally identify a patient by either their initials or their bed number never their actual name.
@@francishooper9548We will agree to disagree then. Every handover I have ever taken as a shift co-ordinator and as a ward nurse the Patients DOB, Name, NHS number and diagnosis is clearly printed on the top. Along with a brief update about what has occurred clinically for the past 36hours. This is why handover information is now kept securely on iPads/tablets to avoid potential breaches of confidentiality and paper going "missing".
I must have been in the 10% then. Many jurors are swayed by the questions the judge asks of them, which isn't always the letter of the law, unfortunately. Having been called for duty twice, I have zero faith in the system.
I must have been in the 10% then. Many jurors are swayed by the questions the judge asks of them, which isn't always the letter of the law, unfortunately. Having been called for duty twice, I have zero faith in the system.
Absolutely. But on the other hand the false positive detection rate is through the roof. Especially if it turns out that you have nothing to back up the claim after investigation. The Judicial system shouldn't be equivalent to a lottery.
Insulin babies produce own insulin No insulin missing from Ward. Both babies SAID to have insulin in a feed bag ARE BOTH ALIVE AND WELL So who was poisoned?
There is no evidence of insulin poisoning and no evidence of air embolisms. These were unsubscribe assertions by Dewi Evans that were sold as facts to a gullible jury.
@@nickdandel5314 Almost all of Dr Evans's opinions were corroborated by one of the other seven expert witnesses. With respect to the insulin poisonings, the jury heard from Professor Hindmarsh, a consultant paediatric endocrinologist. It is unfortunate that the jury did not hear from TH-cam commenter nickdandel5314.
Here is no like in Spain? In Spain there is what we call " Cuerpo de peritos", are experts in different fields that the court assign to court cases, which the mission is an impartial testimony on their field of expertise. Anyone know how the system is here in UK?
This case is problematic. 1: Firstly if there is a spike in deaths do we expect those with a duty of care and in a position to investigate to do so. 2: If we are going to say oh well yes there is a spike but other hospitals are worse and ignore it that in itself is negligent. 3: The crux of this case then hangs on the viability of these neonates apparently suddenly collapsing correlated to what is stated by the prosecution Lucy Letby’s all too frequent presence. 4: The question looming over point 3 is whether the number of collapses was suggested to fit an agenda of intent to harm rather than being objective. This was down to ‘expert’ opinion. Like many people I lack the competence to know. 5: Trying to produce convincing proof of harm is incredibly difficult in so fragile neonates, nonetheless those that collapsed or died did so and note only 2 of the cases were challenged by David. 6: Personally, I think it entirely plausible Lucy Letby could be responsible, she has a history of lacking empathy and fits the bill for female serial killers. 7: There also is additional circumstantial evidence that does not bode well for her innocence. 8: The question is, is she guilty or has everything been construed against her which is also entirely plausible. 9: I am glad I was not on that jury.
I love how you laid out your thought process. Here is mine: First we need to know what is the chance of a random person being a serial killer. That's roughly 1 in a million. (I go by FBI says there are 25 to 50 active ones in the US, so I take the high number and divide it by the population in UK, that should be a rough overestimate) And then you should look at all the hospitals in the UK. If we assume a base mortality of 4% and add some variety and introduce an up to +6% penalty based on the fact that hospitals have different standards of quality which impacts the mortality. Then through general noise and random chance alone you produce orders of magnitudes more spikes then can plausibly explained by a serial killer. So if your selection process of suspecting someone to be a serial killer is just "hm the number are a bit higher then the years before" then that is a very very very bad selection process. In order to spot such an extremely rare event like a serial killer you need to show that something at least as rare as that event has happened. Or at the very least you should be able to show that a necessary condition was met: in this case you should at least show without the shadow of a doubt that the neonates actually were murdered. Even that wasn't shown. But it is exactly what you would likely expect to find if someone is innocent. As for the the lack in empathy it is normal that people can show a variety of empathy. There are a lot of reports that state that she showed a great deal of empathy throughout her life. her friends love her and say she isn't such a person that could harm others, she wrote condolence cards, adopted cats. Wanted to be a nurse because her own birth was complicated. All these stories also exist. And as for the circumstantial evidence. You can frame almost anybody in a bad light if you just cherry pick the information that you present about a person. But that's also the weakest form of evidence in this case and can at worst be seen as inconclusive.
@@Simchen Her apparent lack of empathy can be attributed to the medication she was on for depression and anxiety. Conditions which arose because of the circumstances she was in.
If they were concerned that Letby was harming babies why did the the consultants wait for over a year and for 17 babies to die before calling the police? It doesn't make any sense.
How could anyone say the babies were stable when some didn't see a consultant for 3 days? Baby D was reported to be floppy/limp and not looking right when she was delivered. I think Dr Sandie Bohin blamed the father for holding baby wrong.
@@DontstandintheparkNot buying that as answer. The GMC advice is to go to the police. In any case it is ridiculous. We are talking about murders. They wouldn't simply raise it with management. Management may be doing the murders!
@@Dontstandinthepark Why did one consultant keep it under his hat that he caught Lucy virtually red-handed for 13 months? Why didn't he tell anyone? Why didn't another consultant show anyone his drawer of doom?
@watnamecaniuseforfs yes. Was it baby O? The letters escape me at the moment. I've been following this with interest since the trial. I used to work at the BBC with Judith Moritz (I worked as a shoot edit camera operator for globecast covering satellite linked news across the north of England 20 years ago) and pointed out a number of issues at the time. She didn't reply.
@watnamecaniuseforfs interesting. And why the anonymity for one of them.. we know they were trying to have an affair with Lucy .. why is that being protected? The whole unit was utterly chronically dysfunctional
To get closer to getting justice appeals should be allowed on the basis of evidence that was not presented to the jury rather than what was available to the defence. Id also like juries to be able to ask for further evidence, on any aspects they are concerned about, rather than be forced to rely on what is presented.
The words REASONABLE DOUBT, based on information I have read about this case and subsequently have been thrown to the wind. Some”evidence “ is supposition and NOT confirmed. Perhaps , if there was a retrial a guilty verdict would be returned, but I have more than reasonable doubt that the current verdict, based on what was said has made it dubious.
The neonatal unit was chaotic and dysfunctional. It was not able to cope with vulnerable babies. What does an unexpected an unexplained death mean in such circumstances? An increase in deaths would surely be expected! That is before you factor in the obvious bias and conflict of interest from the consultants. It obviously makes their lives easier if they can pin a few deaths on an innocent nurse.
They had to downgrade the unit because it was not fit to take babies under 32 weeks....it sort of muddies the water that it was the same time that Lucy was removed. After 8 years they still haven't improved enough to be upgraded.
One of the Consultant wrote a letter to Tony Chambers, hospital CEO, predicting that babies would die in this unit prior to any of these deaths occurring.
Interesting tidbit just released by thirlwall…seems that the police reached out to doctor Brearey to help them, they wanted him to look at all the twins that would have survived to see if they too were victims…..him so they had the very man that pointed the finger at Lucy doing investigations for them? 😮
David Davis is such a liar. Just on the post it notes, she didn't claim that justification in court or in police interview but others came up with this explanation after conviction. Just goes to show his misleading bias.
Lucy wrote THEY WENT I am evil, I did this, I killed them on purpose. It was reported speech, she was writing what she believed the police and others thought about her. Lucy did make this clear in a police interview. Why would Lucy confess to killing babies that died from natural causes?
I very much doubt lucy letby is fully innocent also NHS you can take out own indemity insurance also so fight such cases no way in my view is she ever fully innocent to many clashes to be fully innocent davis fallen down the rabbit hole
Again the amount of handover sheets matter because she had no reason for keeping them for years and denied even knowing she had them despite some bagged up in her garage and some under her bed in 2 separate bags. Who put them there if she had no knowledge of them being there?
Actually, if you speak to nurses they will all tell you that it's very common to take handover sheets home by mistake. They also don't have any confidential information, and they're not really significant anyway because most of them are completely unrelated to the case.
@@pg-ne4bt thank you for mentioning this I have to keep telling people about this detail because hardly anyone realises how few of them were actually relevant to the case
Its weird also that none of the nurses I know keep nearly 25 sensitive documents about deaths (actually nearly 300 if you don't include those related to those of the victims) under their bed...on the pretence that they "collect paper".
The hand over sheets are an interesting thing. I understand the Care Quality Commission reported that at the time some nurses were recording their handover sheets on some sort of device. I assume a mobile phone. Was this to make a quick getaway after their shift and is there any connection with LL putting paper hand over sheets away in her pockets? In actual practice the medical information contained was being dispersed by all not just LL.
@Greedy-y3r if you read the case, she actually kept the documents under her bed. 10% of them related to the cases in question. 10%... She had a shredder at her property as well that had been bought well prior to the documents being kept. No other nurse was found to be stashing documents.
Also, if she did indeed “collect paper”, where was all the other paper? Surely there’d be piles of bills, receipts, coupons, leaflets, etc, lying around as well? A kleptomaniac with only niche kleptomania? Not convincing at all.
@watnamecaniuseforfs no they didn't. There were post it notes on documents, the documents were hospital documents taken home and if you followed the case you would know that nearly all of them barring a few found in clothing were stored under her bed.
Your notes are taken from other deniers not the the trial. There were no counsellors telling her to scribble notes to herself, not that it would have mattered, it was the content of what she wrote that was troubling.
Are you referring here to the "trial-by-jury" - the modern version of a "kangaroo" court? Are you referring to the opinion of (paid for) "experts" like Dewi Evans? Lucy's senior colleagues - probably desperately looking for a patsy to save their jobs - if not their TV careers? If so, you might be better off, reading the opinions of academics and experts who have double-checked the FACTS and are pointing to a Goss - I mean gross - miscarriage of Justice! The transcripts from an adversarial trial-by-jury will only give you the arguments used to convince the (mostly) illiterate members of the jury (...) Use your common sense Caz. No animosity implied.
@Philljag. Are your feelings about being evil..and that you have done this?..do you stalk bereaved parents on facebook even on Christmas day..do you steal and hide medical notes under your bed?...she's absolutely guilty..and EVEN IF she wasn't she is genuinely scary and unwell
The way Mr Davis describes the two murdered babies as "It" repeatedly and not him or her but calls Lucy by her name is so weird and disrespectful to the babies families. Whether you think she is guilty or innocent Davis behaviour and use of language is so so dehumanising and cold towards these innocent babies at times during this interview. Speaks volumes of his character IMO.
There was nothing disrespectful from Sir David Davis in this interview. The babies had already been dehumanised by being given letters instead of their names.
@@ruthbashford3176 I'll call him Sir when he stops calling murdered children "it". The children were given protected identities to protect them and their families. What a sensible and compassionate decision from the police and courts, considering all the Letby truthers including Mr Davis, who would be hounding them.
@@BonitaBonnieyou can call the babies him or her as they were described in court and during the police investigation and sentencing, they have never been referred to as "it".
@@charl22222 Some parents were in the process of suing the hospital..... Baby E mother was advised that a post-mortem was not needed because consultant said necrotising enterocolitis was the "most likely" cause of death. All the other babies had post mortems......and the coroner found no foul play.
😂😂😂😂 is this guy for real? The fact that some people are convinced by his reasoning, explains the ridiculous judgement from the British people that lead to Brexit... He gives examples of evidence which he considers "not strong enough". However, he ignores the fact that it's obvious she did it, given that all that evidence must be weighed as a whole. There's no reasonable doubt, in this case.
Are you for real? You can't still believe Lucy Letby is guilty? The medical evidence has been so comprehensively discredited by medical experts, including consultant neonatologists that is seems as if Dewi Evans plucked it out of the air. NOT ONE medical expert (outside of the trial) has publicly agreed with Evans. Even the so called medical experts who agreed with his nonsense at the trial are wisely keeping quiet. The bogus spreadsheet has also been roundly debunked by eminent statisticians from the The Royal Statistical Society. The rest of the evidence in the trial is worthless. The babies had post mortems and were found to have died from natural causes unless you prefer to believe a long retired, discredited paediatrician and his NHS mates.
It's obvious is not a fact, it's a belief. An assertion. Assertions need to be proven with sound evidence. There is no evidence for this case. It's a bundle of nothing evidence. Facebook searches, bits of paper and standing over a cot observing a baby is not evidence.
Show me the evidence that says she is guilty, there is none. Are you a leading neonatologist then ? Just to say someone is obviously guilty is not an argument for anything, you have to vase it on the evidence of which there is none. The evidence has be perused by some of worlds leading experts and there is a consensus that says she is not guilty, so how do you arrive at the opposite conclusion ?
I never thought she was guilty. If you read the case you can see all errors. It's an absolute disgrace that this poor woman has been scapegoated . By the NHS who truly are responsible
@@sihamhussein191 Lucy wrote THEY WENT I did this, I killed them on purpose. It was reported speech, she was writing what the police and others thought of her. Why would Lucy admit to killing babies that had died of natural causes?
It is appalling that an innocent nurse is in prison for life for crimes that not only she did not commit but never actually happened. The babies had post mortems and were found to have died from natural causes. Unless of course you prefer to believe a discredited paediatrician who fantasized about air embolism and insulin poisoning.
@@andrewdmcgill1 you can claim anything you like, if there's no credible evidence then the claim doesn't stack up. Here there's no credible evidence, so there's only one other option which is that she's innocent.
Thank you Mr David Davis, for looking into this miscarriage of justice, because that's what it is,
This is an obviously unsafe conviction that should never have gone to court in the first place.
I agree 💯 this conviction is not safe !
I am no fan of David Davis, or Nadine Dorris for that matter (she was the first one to bring this to my attention) and I was like him, happy to see a "baby-killer" go down. If this is true (and it looks that way) then our justice system has not only failed, but is has acted with criminal neglet and even collusion. There should be an immediate retrial and those responsible should be held to account.
David, you are so right, it is the justice SYSTEM that is operated incorrectly, Lucy may be guilty as found, but growing evidence and the presentation of both prosecution and defence statements /evidence is being scrutinised, and even incorrect, It is of great concern that the Court of Appeal refuse an Appeal with such increasing information/ public interest. If they wish to restore faith in the UK justice system an Appeal must be allowed, then all this will be noted “ JUSTICE HAS BEEN SERVED” at the moment, it appears that a conviction has been served, not justice.
Yeah the public need to find a way to push for reform of the justice system
Hand over notes are not medical records, they are brief notes passed from nurse to nurse indicating what they have done on shift with patients. Very many nurses have said they often take them home, not unusual. The fact only a small percentage of the notes were related to the cases, indicate they are not 'trophies'. The doctors who accused Letby, and had just lost a grievance proceedure by Letby and had to apologize to her...were very poor. 2 ward rounds a week instead of the recommended 2 per day, very slow response to emergencies, kept on recieving very premature and very ill babies even knowing a deadly pathogen was rife in the unit, one was severely reprimanded the year before for accidentally killing a baby through incompetence, where hospital lawyers said it was indefenceable, another punctured the babies liver accidentally causing death which Letby was give life for. Where ever you look at this case it is riddled with faults, and failures in the hospital, police investigation, and legal process. The families deserve the truth, not have a scapegoat offered up to hide the real serious problems in neonatal units generally, as is being exposed at the moment...will every spike, which has been clearly explained by statisticians as normal, now lead to a witch hunt against the nurse working the longest hours on the unit, as Letby did? Too many people are in denial, usually when they only read the headlines, and don't know the actual facts.
Well Said
Completely well said
Absolutely
Horrible to think that the hospital management knew of all the problems especially infections rife on the unit. Consultants error prone also sepsis in associated wards. The was closed. No wonder babies died!
What are you on about? Are you even a nurse? Why are you commenting on nursing practice when you don't know?
Anyone who has taking handover notes are more than likely breaking professional code - the behaviour is unprofessional and not to be condoned or normalised.
I have dealt with the NHS when you complain they close ranks, lie and vilify the accuser. I 100% believe Lucy is innocent as are almost all other medical staff convicted in this manner
Yes, agreed...this was literally my experience as a health care profession student...it really deeply affected my mental health and nearly caused me to leave altogether, in uni we are taught to speak out if something isn't right...but if you do that in practice you risk being destroyed by your superiors...
Makes no sense, if they truly closed ranks they would have protected Letby at all costs - the fact they admitted Letby was responsible for the deaths still damages the reputation of the NHS, they had nothing to gain
They need to get this case back in court.
If she's innocent, the NHS has so, so much to answer for.
It gets away with this all the time...
NHS not to blame for failures of law.
@@Jacky5299 innocent people do not do what she did. She had extensive journalling of her regrets and fault.
The NHS is not one single organisation.
For example, NHS Foundation Trusts are Public Benefit Corporations.
Unsafe conviction, not convinced there was even a crime to answer for.
I could never understand how a long retired, discredited paediatrician (not even a neonatologist or pathologist) could overturn post mortems, that found babies died from natural causes, just by reading patient notes and looking at a few x rays.
Not this again. He wasn’t a neonatologist simply because neonatology wasn’t a sub-discipline of pediatrics at the time he qualified. Indeed, Dr Evans was instrumental in helping to shape neonatology as a distinct branch of medicine, building the neonatology ward at his hospital from scratch. So yes, he was a neonatologist, only not in name because he predated the field.
Evidently a great builder too.
@@8964TS what about this bit? could overturn post mortems, that found babies died from natural causes, just by reading patient notes and looking at a few x rays.
If that’s the line you want to take, be careful, because literally all of the “experts” coming up with their own theories have also done nothing more than read a few notes. In fact, they’ve seen even less evidence than Dewi Evans did, so if it’s your position that Evans’ opinions are worthless, the natural and logical corollary is that pro-Letby experts’ opinions are just as worthless, if not more so.
After 10 minutes!! Outrageous!!
Letby is starting to look like a Postmaster
The way statistics are used in courts is ridiculous.
The way stats are used and understood in the UK is tragic.
@@darklighter66 I know people love the "only in the UK...." narrative, but there is no population on the planet that properly understands statistics...
No evidence, no motive, no MO, no childhood characteristics, no prior history.
What complete stitch up this case is.
Nobody has prior history until they are prosecuted the first time. There is no motive for serial killers.
You really believe there was no evidence??? That will come as news to everyone involved in the trial including Lucy Letby.
And you were investigating the case, were you?
@OwenB-o5v The entire case is based on one retired paediatricians flawed interpretation of case notes a year after the babies had died. He did not perform the autopsy.
It's based on a flawed statistical construction of the nurse rotas.
It's based on ludicrous circumstantial evidence such as possession of handover notes.
There is zero evidence. Zero.
Two, yes two, juries disagree with you.
I was uncomfortable about her conviction before I saw this video, and I learned in the video that the prosecution suppressed facts that did not fit their narrative - something which I thought was illegal.
Also, it sounds like she had a legal team who were out of their depth and incapable of representing her adequately.
The legal system routinely blocks relevant evidence being presented. It's absolutely shocking. As is the adversarial system of two sides trying to present their most convincing case rather than actually trying to get to the truth.
Any experienced medical professional will know that Lucy is innocent. And David Davis should be the next PM. He got what it takes.
Why isn't this guy leader of the Conservatives?
Because some MPs are better campaigners than the lead figure for a political party which needs an entirely different skill set. I think David Davis works best as a backbencher free to look into these kinds of things.
@@samsoncooper1because he has a history of utter failure
Because he’s partially responsible for destroying the country.
I suppose he believes Brexit has been a roaring success as well .
😂
In 1988 Lord Denning said ‘It is better that some innocent men remain in jail than that the integrity of the English judicial system be impugned,’ My experience of the English legal system suggests that attitude is still very much alive and well. It is almost impossible to get an appeal once convicted. The system has much invested in protecting it's image and much to lose if it's veil slips.
As long as the babies are safe now, I don’t care
Brearey and Jayaram have got their muddy paws all over the case. If she's proven innocent they'll have serious questions to ask.
If these points were not raised at trial ... What on earth were her defence doing? What is there job other than scrutinizing the prosecution and presenting the best defence possible? Why is no one saying 'of course these things were examined in court'? Where are these people now and how are they accountable? The families of the babies who died have not been served at all well here.
Apparently they chose the approach to say little and let the prosecution prove the case.
I think the obvious issue was that the prosecution had 4 years, all of the money, NHS backing and the weight of the police. They had far less time to create a defence.
In a nutshell the full weight of the institutions, spending power and man power was all on one side.
Thank you for focusing on this case!! A LOT of things are off!!
Dewi Evans has stated that he knew within 10 minutes of looking at the case notes that there had been foul play but he was financially incentivised to find crimes.
No crimes = no fee.
This is a blatant conflict of interest.
He also told John Sweeney that he would close a neonatal unit if it had pseudomonas.
I think that the fact he put himself forward to the court should have barred him immediately - nothing to do with his expertise, or lack of, but purely because the court should be the ones doing their own research and hiring.
Unsafe conviction the british justice system is sick
Brilliant interview
I haven't studied the evidence, it's not my place to call this a miscarriage of justice. But if there was evidence that was withheld, there should be a retrial. And I don't see how that isn't the law of the land already.
The whole case was sus from the start . Serial killers rarely use multiple methods. And when the manipulations of the prosecution case unfolded, it confirmed my thoughts. There was no actual evidence of her being criminal. System failure. Poor woman,and poor parents who were wrongly told their baby had been murdered
I retired after a 37 year career as an anaesthetist, thirty as a consultant. Coincidentally I’ve always had a great interest in true crime and miscarriages of justice, To me, this is a miscarriage- for so many reasons. The lack of any statistical advice, a main prosecution ‘expert’ who put himself forward and came up with theories which many other experts now, like me, strongly disagree with- even he has ‘changed his mind’ on some of them, the lack of any experts called by the defence and the jury not hearing about other potential causes of death. But another very important fact, to me, is that it seems that her many nurse colleagues fully stand by her and feel strongly that she is innocent. At the press conference her barrister revealed that in one case the death of a baby seems to have been caused as a result of a procedure carried out by a doctor. I am hoping that her barrister can get the appeal re-opened and her convictions are all quashed.
Odd, that someone with an interest in crime and law, doesn't know that a "barrister" can't affect any court procedures or appeals. That is strictly for her team of solicitors.
Keith, you appear to be lying on the internet again
@@brianferguson7840
Her new barrister, Mark McDonald, acknowledged at a news conference that the move was “unprecedented,” adding that he was also referring her case to the Criminal Cases Review Commission, the usual method for reopening a case when new evidence is found after an attempt to appeal has failed.
So, for the 2 comments above.. you are both wrong. Why comment if you haven't taken the time to find out about the case?
Thank you Sir David . You are taking a courageous stance about what could well be a really disgraceful miscarriage of justice. You are to be commended and we desperately need people in public life who care about justice.
Very interesting case review.
But also fantastic to have an intelligent and empathetic MP talking.
Culture wars have ruined discourse.
Its absolutely disgusting 🤮 Wats happen to Lucy 😔😭
More than that, ask about the Defence "No case to answer" which the judge denied!
Excellent interview. Perhaps the solution to the juror question is to have 12 jurors who are medical experts instead of 12 randonly chosen jurors? This would get round the medical jargon issue. Certainly the legal representatives need to be much better equipped to PRESENT the evidence as clearly and simply as possible, without dumbing it down, to the jury. The courts need to allow for this by allowing presenations to be more multimedia instead of relying on just the prosecution or defence advocates to rely only on verbal presentaitons (which can easily be missed through a momentary lack of concentration when trying to take-in large summaries of information). Presenttion slides, video footage and handouts should be used to give the jury as much information as possible. And finally, obviously you need experts on the defence side to counter the theories on the prosecution side. If that's NOT the case then the Judge AND Crown Prosecution Service should NEVER allow the Court proceedings to commence until a fair argument can be made for BOTH sides.
David Davis is very impressive. His command of the material, his exquisite carefulness, and most of all, that he cares for people.
The justice system seems to be deeply flawed (1,068+ subpostmasters convicted of crimes that NEVER EXISTED). I am not involved with it but something is going very badly wrong far too often.
1. Professional (full time or nearly so) "expert witnesses" should be prohibited.
2. Are judges systematically biased against defendants?
3. Are defence teams systematically inadequate?
4. Are prosecution teams systematically over zealous?
😂 he certainly is not impressive. His record of success in government is appalling
@@lordhonest72 I don't know anything about that. He is impressive in this interview.
@@lordhonest72 Sir David Davis is certainly impressive in this case.
@@springford9511someone speaking well, doesn't mean they are correct.
@@phill6859Right! "No downsides to brexit, only considerable upsides". That level of being wrong is frankly mind boggling for someone who would have had all of the facts.
It seems there's no such thing as justice. There's just the law.
I was told that by a Barrister. It's not about proving what did or did not happen, ie getting to the truth. It's about what they can make a jury believe.
OJ Simpson case.
Best PM we never had
@julian987r4 No, that's Andy Burnham.
Thank heavens for people like Tom Swarbrick.
Having been on jury service many years ago I'd never want to be tried by a jury. If this lady is innocent or guilty I have no idea but we need confidence in the system. If that means a further trial then why not?
If Lucy is innocent and she was scapegoated,shame on the people whoever they are ,how can they look at their face in the mirror.Lucy needs to be free and compensated and steer clear of that career.It’s cruel and unfair on the lives lost the real culprits must be held to account.😢😢😢💕🙏
And the police feels so proud of the investigation that they have conducted. Go back to the interview that the lead investigator has given is sickening
Lucy letby is 100% innocent. She was scapegoated by those who are responsible for Gross failings which resulted in the deaths of babies at that hospital, The NHS shame on you all for sitting back and allowing this to happen to a young woman who only ever did her best for you all.
100% innocent? How on earth can you be 100% sure?
Fortunately court cases are not decided by the views of conspiracy theorists like you.
Henna You are 100% right!
@brianferguson7840 Conspiracy theorists are generally 6 months ahead of what the newspaper say, as they are in this case too!
BRILLIANT interview Tom....This case Needs to be looked at again.
Mr Davis your first class gentleman. Thank you for helping Lucy she deserves all the help she can get.❤
Private eye did the first article should be mentioned
That woke rag? You must be joking 🤭😂
@RichardGallagherthesecond if you think the private eye is woke, that's a reflection of how far you've fallen into right bias
@RichardGallagherthesecondThe woke rag that campaigned for over 20 years to highlight the postmaster miscarriages of justice? Or did you think it was only made public by ITV ?
@Characteristics You are obviously one those who liberally uses 'woke' as a pejorative term.
I would love to see a Venn diagram illustrating the overlap of a) people who voted Leave b) people who support Reform UK c) people who think Lucy Letby is innocent.
Why don't you include in your Venn diagram, people who have read books by David Icke too
When you have made your diagram have a look at how much of what David Icke said 15 years ago, has an element of truth these days. I think you might be in for a shock
And are you suggesting then, that the Venn diagram in question, merely illustrates a level of critical thinking that is uncommon amongst your average LBC listener?
Well I voted Green last election, I voted Remain and I have huge doubts about her guilt
@@chrish9164😂 no the opposite
I voted remain, I don't support reform, I have some concerns about the Lucy Letby verdict, so I fall outside the intersection of your Venn diagram.
I think it's very unwise to link completely disconnected events from politics and law - there simply isn't a connection between Brexit, voting intentions and questioning the verdict of a trial.
And I know what you're trying to get at - that people who are Brexit voters and voted Reform are more likely to believe conspiracy theories around the innocence of Lucy Letby, but if you read Rachel Aviv's investigation in the New Yorker, at the very least there are serious questions about the verdict. I think it's rather patronising and disrespectful to try to link these unconnected things.
There was a research project going on called Speed In Feeding Trial ( SIFT), The same Doctor that lacerated baby Os liver was the lead researcher for this study at the hospital…some of the babies were fed at a faster rate than others, in this group they found a correlation with neurological issues. Most of the babies Lucy was accused of harming met the criteria for this study…premature and / or small…wonder if there is a correlation? How much grant money was given ? Just wondering…..which babies at countess of Chester was enrolled in the study?……one if the baby’s…baby G ended up with severe brain damage…not accusing here, have no idea if baby G was involved but would like to know if that baby was in that study
Do you know where specifically more information can be found in relation to SifT? If so can you please identify where this can be found?
Thanks.
This is very interesting I wonder if this information was available to the defence.
@@HeliganyI don’t know……it should have been….this was a 2.3 million pound grant that was distributed between over 50 UK hospitals…..in no way do I think, the lead reasearch at Oxford had any nefarious intentions ( quite the opposite), but now knowing dr Brearey past I am concerned he might have profited. Plus, as I suspect many of these babies were clearly being fed too much, too quickly, I have to suspect that might have been part of this study….. dr Brearey had an ethical duty to remove the babies from this study if he noticed any untoward effects….funny, many if not most of these babies met the criteria for the study by gestional age and/ weight….follow the money….plus the hospital might have been granted some money from this study…….inquiring minds want to know
Sky have a segment on the Letby case. I notice the comments are turned off. I wonder why 🤔
If there's any doubt then there should be a retrial. Let the evidence be aired before a jury. Justice should be seen to be done properly.
Is that right about The New Yorker?
I think I would rather get that than any British newspaper or periodical these days - they are so poor and hijacked.
The New Yorker is regarded as one of the highest quality journalism institutions in the world.
The New York article still can't be accessed online in the UK.
@@rsb8380 We used to have high journalism standards over here as well. Particularly if you look at the Thalidomide investigation.
@@watnamecaniuseforfs You need a VPN.
@@IMBlakeley VPN?
It's terrible that someone can be convicted and sent to jail for a crime they didn't commit. Shame on Keir Starmer and Shabana Mahmood for doing absolutely nothing to help.
Unfortunately there are many innocent people in prison, including some innocent nurses. But this case is particularly horrendous because the trial was so unfair. It was more like a 17th Century witch trial.
@@nickwebb5078 you don't know she didn't commit it
@@Laytown If there is evidence of her killing anyone, I haven't yet seen it.
@@Laytown Based on the available information we at least can deduce that she is at most as likely to be a serial killer then a random person on the street. Which is about less then 1 in a Million.
Given the fact that she was thoroughly investigated and still no direct evidence of her committing such crimes were found. The real chance is even lower then any random person.
So based on that information alone I am more convinced that she isn't a serial killer then you are. but don't worry I don't believe that you are a serial killer either.
Were you on the jury?@@nickwebb5078
The worst case scenario here is that there is a killer in that hospital, and it wasn't Letby.
No there isn't!! The children likely died of natural causes because they were seriously ill in the first place.
I dunno maybe worst case scenario is that the NHS is on the verge of collapse and sub optimal care cases are increasing...
The name of her lawyers should be published so they can be avoided in the future.
It's common knowledge that her defence barrister was Benjamin Myers.
Thank you.
Considering half the babies died when Lucy wasn’t even in the building 🤦♀️
15 cases plus prove otherwise
@ prove what? Have you seen the scandals all around the country of babies dying when they shouldn’t have?
@@Philljag there are essentially none correlated in this manner. Not do they have suspects who did what she did during or after. You're all reaching that she's innocent...innocent people do not do what she did during or after, there are multiple areas where it makes absolutely no sense to be asking what she was or writing what she was.
@@Philljag Evidence presented during her trial overwhelmingly pointed to her guilt, and some key factors that clearly undermined any claim to her innocence included:
1. Detailed Medical Records and Patterns:
• A noticeable spike in unexplained baby deaths and collapses occurred during her shifts.
• Forensic reviews of medical charts revealed manipulations in care protocols tied to her presence.
2. Colleague Concerns:
• Several colleagues raised concerns about her presence during these incidents, leading to internal reviews before external investigations began.
3. Malicious Acts of Harm:
• Medical experts presented compelling evidence of deliberate acts of harm, such as injecting air into veins or overfeeding milk, which cannot be accidental.
• Victims showed signs of harm consistent with intentional tampering.
4. Damning Written Evidence:
• Investigators found a diary and handwritten notes in her possession. On one note, she wrote disturbing phrases such as “I am evil. I did this,” and similar statements that implied guilt.
• Though some argued these notes reflected emotional turmoil rather than an outright confession, the context of the trial made them incriminating.
5. Inconsistencies in Defense:
• Her explanations for the incidents lacked coherence and did not align with the overwhelming expert testimony against her.
6. No Plausible Alternative Explanation:
• A thorough investigation ruled out systemic hospital failings, accidental causes, or external interference. This left her as the common factor in the tragic cases.
The overwhelming weight of this evidence led the court to deliver a rare whole-life sentence, underscoring the seriousness of her crimes and the lack of doubt regarding her guilt.
@@Laytown There are no rules for what innocent people do or don’t do, and that kind of assumed thinking is how they end up staying wrongly convicted. The notes as well were addressed and explained in this interview if you watched it? She exclaims her innocence in them multiple times, as well as many other things as part of a private exercise with a therapist while suffering immensely from mental health issues (from being wrongly accused most likely).
Convicing according to letbys barrister, Mps, and specialist, including witnesses for letby and gaging orders to NHS nurses and staff. To prove letby was not guilty of the convictions against her. She should be allowed to appeal and be given a retrial.
Beyond reasonable doubt 🧐🧐 this is shocking
Vested interests run right through the LL case, they are at the heart of whats wrong with it, they can be found in nearly every part of the Nhs and the CJS , they emerged in 2015 and are continuing to the present day.
Very much agree with you!
Innocent until proven guilty
This is not the case here
Proven guilty in the longest trial in British history, there’s not a single piece of evidence that points to any other nurse but her - many proven c-o-d from insulin injections which had to be administered by a nurse/doctor, she’s the only one on shift at the time of every crime, and she was even defended by higher ups in the NHS until an independent investigation began so the idea that she’s been used as a scapegoat is bs… also none of the parents have come forward to say they’re doubtful of the verdict, they all know that she did it
People like you defend LL because you think she doesn’t look like the type or can’t understand why anyone would do that (fair) but people do awful things and they can look/act completely unassuming before they get caught, do more research on the case👍
@@danieljames6136
If Lucy was the only nurse on duty.....she was over stretched.
The mother of triplets was told that her 3 babies would have a nurse each.
Apparently Lucy was caring for 2 of the triplets and a baby in another room.
Baby D mother was sent home with no antibiotics after her waters had broken.....50 + hours later she was begging for a cesarean because she was concerned for the baby....still no antibiotics.
When the baby was delivered the baby was limp/floppy and didn't look right.
She was found guilty though
@@crayontom9687 and by a very unstable case she soon will be found not guilty
@@BumberClarke so she’s guilty then
Sounds like she needs new lawyers.
She's clearly innocent. The stats prove it.
And you studied the case, did you? Examined all the evidence?
@RichardGallagherthesecond
What evidence proves Lucy guilty?
@watnamecaniuseforfs it was a bit of a clickbait comment tbh. What is clear is that the statistics were totally misunderstood in the trial and that they don't prove anything with regards to her, any more than any other nurse that was working there.
There clearly needs to be a retrial
I'm fairly persuaded by much of what he says, but not all. On the handover notes, I'm not sure I would think it points to a conscientious nurse to have these at home. When I worked in a hospital I would never have brought patients' confidential notes home with me, and am pretty sure it is against the code of practise if not the law. I stand to be corrected if I'm wrong, of course.
Handover notes are not medical records. They are just optional notes that nursing use during their work.
@@andypandy-v3jIncorrect. I am a nurse and handover sheets contain identifying, private and confidential patient information. This is why they are not to be taken off the ward. The quantities Letby had would result in her losing her nursing registration. Davis saying this was a sign of a conscientious nurse, indicates to me he hasn't spoken to any nurses about this case.
@@charl22222 Incorrect - as a nurse I know that handover notes normally identify a patient by either their initials or their bed number never their actual name.
@@francishooper9548We will agree to disagree then. Every handover I have ever taken as a shift co-ordinator and as a ward nurse the Patients DOB, Name, NHS number and diagnosis is clearly printed on the top. Along with a brief update about what has occurred clinically for the past 36hours. This is why handover information is now kept securely on iPads/tablets to avoid potential breaches of confidentiality and paper going "missing".
@@andypandy-v3j Thanks.
It’s correct to question the judgement but that will be for the Supreme Court to decide on appeal.
90% of juries make their minds up about the guilt or innocence of the person in the dock within the first minute of being presented.
Regardless of the length of the trial?
Citation needed.
I must have been in the 10% then.
Many jurors are swayed by the questions the judge asks of them, which isn't always the letter of the law, unfortunately. Having been called for duty twice, I have zero faith in the system.
I must have been in the 10% then.
Many jurors are swayed by the questions the judge asks of them, which isn't always the letter of the law, unfortunately. Having been called for duty twice, I have zero faith in the system.
People can come up with statistics to prove anything. 14% of people know that.
Reminds me of ongoing case in Glasgow, where several vulnerable people may be innocent of heinous crimes
One-in-a-million cases happen once (in a million)
Not never.
Absolutely. But on the other hand the false positive detection rate is through the roof. Especially if it turns out that you have nothing to back up the claim after investigation.
The Judicial system shouldn't be equivalent to a lottery.
Insulin babies produce own insulin
No insulin missing from Ward. Both babies SAID to have insulin in a feed bag ARE BOTH ALIVE AND WELL
So who was poisoned?
There is no evidence of insulin poisoning and no evidence of air embolisms. These were unsubscribe assertions by Dewi Evans that were sold as facts to a gullible jury.
@@nickdandel5314 Almost all of Dr Evans's opinions were corroborated by one of the other seven expert witnesses. With respect to the insulin poisonings, the jury heard from Professor Hindmarsh, a consultant paediatric endocrinologist. It is unfortunate that the jury did not hear from TH-cam commenter nickdandel5314.
This clearly needs looking into😢❤
Here is no like in Spain? In Spain there is what we call " Cuerpo de peritos", are experts in different fields that the court assign to court cases, which the mission is an impartial testimony on their field of expertise. Anyone know how the system is here in UK?
This case is problematic.
1: Firstly if there is a spike in deaths do we expect those with a duty of care and in a position to investigate to do so.
2: If we are going to say oh well yes there is a spike but other hospitals are worse and ignore it that in itself is negligent.
3: The crux of this case then hangs on the viability of these neonates apparently suddenly collapsing correlated to what is stated by the prosecution Lucy Letby’s all too frequent presence.
4: The question looming over point 3 is whether the number of collapses was suggested to fit an agenda of intent to harm rather than being objective. This was down to ‘expert’ opinion. Like many people I lack the competence to know.
5: Trying to produce convincing proof of harm is incredibly difficult in so fragile neonates, nonetheless those that collapsed or died did so and note only 2 of the cases were challenged by David.
6: Personally, I think it entirely plausible Lucy Letby could be responsible, she has a history of lacking empathy and fits the bill for female serial killers.
7: There also is additional circumstantial evidence that does not bode well for her innocence.
8: The question is, is she guilty or has everything been construed against her which is also entirely plausible.
9: I am glad I was not on that jury.
I love how you laid out your thought process.
Here is mine: First we need to know what is the chance of a random person being a serial killer. That's roughly 1 in a million. (I go by FBI says there are 25 to 50 active ones in the US, so I take the high number and divide it by the population in UK, that should be a rough overestimate)
And then you should look at all the hospitals in the UK. If we assume a base mortality of 4% and add some variety and introduce an up to +6% penalty based on the fact that hospitals have different standards of quality which impacts the mortality. Then through general noise and random chance alone you produce orders of magnitudes more spikes then can plausibly explained by a serial killer.
So if your selection process of suspecting someone to be a serial killer is just "hm the number are a bit higher then the years before" then that is a very very very bad selection process.
In order to spot such an extremely rare event like a serial killer you need to show that something at least as rare as that event has happened. Or at the very least you should be able to show that a necessary condition was met: in this case you should at least show without the shadow of a doubt that the neonates actually were murdered. Even that wasn't shown. But it is exactly what you would likely expect to find if someone is innocent.
As for the the lack in empathy it is normal that people can show a variety of empathy. There are a lot of reports that state that she showed a great deal of empathy throughout her life. her friends love her and say she isn't such a person that could harm others, she wrote condolence cards, adopted cats. Wanted to be a nurse because her own birth was complicated. All these stories also exist.
And as for the circumstantial evidence. You can frame almost anybody in a bad light if you just cherry pick the information that you present about a person. But that's also the weakest form of evidence in this case and can at worst be seen as inconclusive.
@@Simchen Her apparent lack of empathy can be attributed to the medication she was on for depression and anxiety. Conditions which arose because of the circumstances she was in.
If they were concerned that Letby was harming babies why did the the consultants wait for over a year and for 17 babies to die before calling the police? It doesn't make any sense.
They reported it to the management and the management covered it up to avoid a scandal- all well documented as you know
How could anyone say the babies were stable when some didn't see a consultant for 3 days?
Baby D was reported to be floppy/limp and not looking right when she was delivered.
I think Dr Sandie Bohin blamed the father for holding baby wrong.
@ she’s an expert - you’re not. They had highly trained nurses who could call the consultants if they felt there was a problem.
@@DontstandintheparkNot buying that as answer. The GMC advice is to go to the police. In any case it is ridiculous. We are talking about murders. They wouldn't simply raise it with management. Management may be doing the murders!
@@Dontstandinthepark
Why did one consultant keep it under his hat that he caught Lucy virtually red-handed for 13 months?
Why didn't he tell anyone?
Why didn't another consultant show anyone his drawer of doom?
It’s disappointing that the jury did not have the full facts, guilt or not she deserves a re-trial.
Letby could absolutely be innocent. The consultants are certainly directly liable for at least 2 deaths.
Did you hear about the inquest in January 2024 for a baby that died in 2020?
@watnamecaniuseforfs yes. Was it baby O? The letters escape me at the moment. I've been following this with interest since the trial. I used to work at the BBC with Judith Moritz (I worked as a shoot edit camera operator for globecast covering satellite linked news across the north of England 20 years ago) and pointed out a number of issues at the time.
She didn't reply.
@@karlsinclair9918
It seems that the consulant in question is a different letter in the trial than in the Thirlwall inquiry.
@@karlsinclair9918
No not baby O.......
Olly Stopworth died in 2020......it wasn't in the trial.
Lucy didn't work in the unit after June 2016.
@watnamecaniuseforfs interesting. And why the anonymity for one of them.. we know they were trying to have an affair with Lucy .. why is that being protected?
The whole unit was utterly chronically dysfunctional
A politician seeking the truth go figure
Tom have you spoken to her defense team?
To get closer to getting justice appeals should be allowed on the basis of evidence that was not presented to the jury rather than what was available to the defence.
Id also like juries to be able to ask for further evidence, on any aspects they are concerned about, rather than be forced to rely on what is presented.
The words REASONABLE DOUBT, based on information I have read about this case and subsequently have been thrown to the wind. Some”evidence “ is supposition and NOT confirmed.
Perhaps , if there was a retrial a guilty verdict would be returned, but I have more than reasonable doubt that the current verdict, based on what was said has made it dubious.
The neonatal unit was chaotic and dysfunctional. It was not able to cope with vulnerable babies. What does an unexpected an unexplained death mean in such circumstances? An increase in deaths would surely be expected! That is before you factor in the obvious bias and conflict of interest from the consultants. It obviously makes their lives easier if they can pin a few deaths on an innocent nurse.
It made it easier for the killer nurse to go undetected
@@watnamecaniuseforfs yes and they did because no one was watching Letby
They had to downgrade the unit because it was not fit to take babies under 32 weeks....it sort of muddies the water that it was the same time that Lucy was removed.
After 8 years they still haven't improved enough to be upgraded.
@ who’d want to send their very ill baby to a hospital that let a baby killer work undetected for years
One of the Consultant wrote a letter to Tony Chambers, hospital CEO, predicting that babies would die in this unit prior to any of these deaths occurring.
Not guilty
She must be blamed for rain falling in the Sahara and the sun rising in the east....blah blah blah
An impressive man indeed, Sir Davis Davis is. It's the first that I have heard of him, but I trust him in terms of diligence and honesty.
This is the guy that lied through his teeth about how Brexit would affect us, so don't get fooled by the way he talks.
Free Lucy Letby
It was not an error by the doctor
Doctors know their left from right
Grooming gang scandal, Southport, Peter Lynch list is very long
No. She's guilty.
Interesting tidbit just released by thirlwall…seems that the police reached out to doctor Brearey to help them, they wanted him to look at all the twins that would have survived to see if they too were victims…..him so they had the very man that pointed the finger at Lucy doing investigations for them? 😮
Why would anyone believe a Brexit apologist on any topic? Guy’s deluded.
It’s a London thing. Keep it there!
This is the guy who said that Brexit was going to be great. Are we still listening to him?
Sounds like you are.... yes.
She must be innocent because she's white and not an immigrant. Also being a woman helps.
I made a bet that someone will mention the race card.
Well done , you've won a prize.
@@voodoochile333well done both👍🏼
David Davis is such a liar. Just on the post it notes, she didn't claim that justification in court or in police interview but others came up with this explanation after conviction. Just goes to show his misleading bias.
It's written by Lucy. "I haven't done anything wrong, why is this happening to me" ... what part of that don't you understand?
He's not a liar. He's questioning the process.
Lucy wrote THEY WENT I am evil, I did this, I killed them on purpose. It was reported speech, she was writing what she believed the police and others thought about her. Lucy did make this clear in a police interview. Why would Lucy confess to killing babies that died from natural causes?
She didn't raise it in Court. We don't know the context of that because the transcripts are effectively hidden. Which immediately raises red flags.
How on earth do you work that out the guy has spent the entire Summer going through the evidence and you come along and tell him he is wrong
A conspiracy theorist from America called him up. Says it all.
There is no conspiracy theorist.
You made that up
lol even the expert on the case says she might be innocent 😂😂
Take a pill and go to bed. You are overheating.
Profile picture of Judge Judy. Says it all.
I very much doubt lucy letby is fully innocent also NHS you can take out own indemity insurance also so fight such cases no way in my view is she ever fully innocent to many clashes to be fully innocent davis fallen down the rabbit hole
No. Next question.
Shes guilty
Did you see her do it?
Lucy is innocent
On no evidence. Which makes it a witch trial.
Where's any evidence of guilt ?
And your reasons are...
Sir David , part of Brexit team. says it all. More lies, do your job a fix brexit , the mess you created do your job
Again the amount of handover sheets matter because she had no reason for keeping them for years and denied even knowing she had them despite some bagged up in her garage and some under her bed in 2 separate bags. Who put them there if she had no knowledge of them being there?
A fraction ~10% of them applied to the affected babies
She didn't deny she had them, she said she didn't remember they were there. If she had been a killer, don't you think she would have thrown them away?
Actually, if you speak to nurses they will all tell you that it's very common to take handover sheets home by mistake. They also don't have any confidential information, and they're not really significant anyway because most of them are completely unrelated to the case.
@@pg-ne4bt thank you for mentioning this
I have to keep telling people about this detail because hardly anyone realises how few of them were actually relevant to the case
@@caz4961 lol caz is so butthurt she’s wrong 🤦♀️😂😂
Its weird also that none of the nurses I know keep nearly 25 sensitive documents about deaths (actually nearly 300 if you don't include those related to those of the victims) under their bed...on the pretence that they "collect paper".
The hand over sheets are an interesting thing. I understand the Care Quality Commission reported that at the time some nurses were recording their handover sheets on some sort of device. I assume a mobile phone. Was this to make a quick getaway after their shift and is there any connection with LL putting paper hand over sheets away in her pockets? In actual practice the medical information contained was being dispersed by all not just LL.
@Greedy-y3r if you read the case, she actually kept the documents under her bed. 10% of them related to the cases in question. 10%... She had a shredder at her property as well that had been bought well prior to the documents being kept. No other nurse was found to be stashing documents.
Also, if she did indeed “collect paper”, where was all the other paper? Surely there’d be piles of bills, receipts, coupons, leaflets, etc, lying around as well? A kleptomaniac with only niche kleptomania? Not convincing at all.
@@Laytown
So much was found and all they had was a couple of post it notes with about 3 very short phases that you and others lapped up.
@watnamecaniuseforfs no they didn't. There were post it notes on documents, the documents were hospital documents taken home and if you followed the case you would know that nearly all of them barring a few found in clothing were stored under her bed.
Your notes are taken from other deniers not the the trial. There were no counsellors telling her to scribble notes to herself, not that it would have mattered, it was the content of what she wrote that was troubling.
Misinformation
There was a counsellor who told her to do that. Name is Kathryn De Beger. Google it.
Are you referring here to the "trial-by-jury" - the modern version of a "kangaroo" court?
Are you referring to the opinion of (paid for) "experts" like Dewi Evans? Lucy's senior colleagues - probably desperately looking for a patsy to save their jobs - if not their TV careers?
If so, you might be better off, reading the opinions of academics and experts who have double-checked the FACTS and are pointing to a Goss - I mean gross - miscarriage of Justice!
The transcripts from an adversarial trial-by-jury will only give you the arguments used to convince the (mostly) illiterate members of the jury (...)
Use your common sense Caz.
No animosity implied.
@@caz4961 lol I suffer with mental health and every doctor I’ve spoken to says to write my feelings down so who told you they hadn’t?
@Philljag. Are your feelings about being evil..and that you have done this?..do you stalk bereaved parents on facebook even on Christmas day..do you steal and hide medical notes under your bed?...she's absolutely guilty..and EVEN IF she wasn't she is genuinely scary and unwell
The way Mr Davis describes the two murdered babies as "It" repeatedly and not him or her but calls Lucy by her name is so weird and disrespectful to the babies families. Whether you think she is guilty or innocent Davis behaviour and use of language is so so dehumanising and cold towards these innocent babies at times during this interview. Speaks volumes of his character IMO.
Mr Davis handled identity discretion very well. What else do you call a baby that needs to be anonymous?
There was nothing disrespectful from Sir David Davis in this interview. The babies had already been dehumanised by being given letters instead of their names.
@@ruthbashford3176 I'll call him Sir when he stops calling murdered children "it". The children were given protected identities to protect them and their families. What a sensible and compassionate decision from the police and courts, considering all the Letby truthers including Mr Davis, who would be hounding them.
@@BonitaBonnieyou can call the babies him or her as they were described in court and during the police investigation and sentencing, they have never been referred to as "it".
@@charl22222
Some parents were in the process of suing the hospital.....
Baby E mother was advised that a post-mortem was not needed because consultant said necrotising enterocolitis was the "most likely" cause of death.
All the other babies had post mortems......and the coroner found no foul play.
😂😂😂😂 is this guy for real? The fact that some people are convinced by his reasoning, explains the ridiculous judgement from the British people that lead to Brexit... He gives examples of evidence which he considers "not strong enough". However, he ignores the fact that it's obvious she did it, given that all that evidence must be weighed as a whole. There's no reasonable doubt, in this case.
Are you for real? You can't still believe Lucy Letby is guilty?
The medical evidence has been so comprehensively discredited by medical experts, including consultant neonatologists that is seems as if Dewi Evans plucked it out of the air.
NOT ONE medical expert (outside of the trial) has publicly agreed with Evans. Even the so called medical experts who agreed with his nonsense at the trial are wisely keeping quiet.
The bogus spreadsheet has also been roundly debunked by eminent statisticians from the The Royal Statistical Society.
The rest of the evidence in the trial is worthless. The babies had post mortems and were found to have died from natural causes unless you prefer to believe a long retired, discredited paediatrician and his NHS mates.
It's obvious is not a fact, it's a belief. An assertion. Assertions need to be proven with sound evidence. There is no evidence for this case. It's a bundle of nothing evidence. Facebook searches, bits of paper and standing over a cot observing a baby is not evidence.
Show me the evidence that says she is guilty, there is none. Are you a leading neonatologist then ?
Just to say someone is obviously guilty is not an argument for anything, you have to vase it on the evidence of which there is none.
The evidence has be perused by some of worlds leading experts and there is a consensus that says she is not guilty, so how do you arrive at the opposite conclusion ?
@@twogitsinacar4811 there's no consensus. Poor Lucy: she's the victim of 20 coincidences!
I never thought she was guilty. If you read the case you can see all errors. It's an absolute disgrace that this poor woman has been scapegoated . By the NHS who truly are responsible
What’s with the notes she write on her diary then?
@@sihamhussein191 Lucy wrote THEY WENT I did this, I killed them on purpose. It was reported speech, she was writing what the police and others thought of her. Why would Lucy admit to killing babies that had died of natural causes?
@@sihamhussein191
Lucy wrote LD in her diary.
It meant....Long Day
She did it. This is all appalling lie spreading.
Bit like denying the Holocaust. Disrespectful to the victims.
Did what?
It is appalling that an innocent nurse is in prison for life for crimes that not only she did not commit but never actually happened. The babies had post mortems and were found to have died from natural causes. Unless of course you prefer to believe a discredited paediatrician who fantasized about air embolism and insulin poisoning.
@ you’re wrong.
@@andrewdmcgill1 you can claim anything you like, if there's no credible evidence then the claim doesn't stack up. Here there's no credible evidence, so there's only one other option which is that she's innocent.
The bloke interviewing him is pathetically swooning!🙄..he doesn't know the case of challenge any of this nonsense!unbelievable😂
Yes very very frustrating interview, there is zero fact checking and zero push back.
No place to push back. The real evidence speaks for its self!
Look back at Tom's past videos on Lucy Letby and see how you are wrong...