|
By:
fair point but as we,re not on the jury none of us no how close a guilty/not guilty verdicts are, suppose in theory you could have 12 people think on balance he,s 60% guilty and 12 think he,s a 100% guilty, yes i no i,m arguin against myself now,but juries are given advice,guidance itisnt a free for all
|
|
By:
A-T, you are blinded by what you have read or just making up stuff to suit your opinion of her being guilty, fair enough but the team who represent her are obviously not people who have been fooled by a documentary? A circumstantial evidence case is the most difficult for a jury to understand especially one involving technical and medical opinions.
To date I have not heard or read of any direct evidence so it basically comes down to who tells the best story to the jury, guilty or not, if there is any new evidence it has to be heard. What it proves will either clear her or confirm the evidence does not change the prosecution narrative. Tbh another jury trial might just create more questions than answers unless it consisted totally of medical experts who could actually understand the arguments as opposed to which story they believe. |
|
By:
1tp ask the birmingham 5 barrie george or colin stag their cases looked cut and dried .
interesting thing about those cases is there was huge public pressure to convict someone - noone knew anything about chester baby deaths until an investigation was announced. |
|
By:
Perry Mason ……Cag…
Forum putting the law to bed lol ffs….. |
|
By:
this is where the scapegoat theory falls apart. hardly anyone knew there were excessive baby deaths at chester. why would they then draw attention to it? makes no sense.
|
|
By:
A_T I don’t know whether you’ve got all the facts at your disposal. Have you read the report by Dr Shoo Lee who assembled 24 of the world’s leading experts to look into the cases independently. The panel flagged more than a dozen problems that were likely to have contributed to the babies’ deaths. These ranged from failures in diagnosing disease, poor skills in basic medical procedures such as inserting chest tubes, poor management of common neonatal conditions like low blood sugar and a disregard for warnings about infections. It said, “There was no medical evidence to support malfeasance causing death or injury in any of the 17 cases in the trial. Death or injury of affected infants were due to natural causes or errors in medical care.”
|
|
By:
Was this review of shoo Lees work considered by TV show?
https://pubpeer.com/publications/457C9A9DF7B389621C9FEC4CE3FE7D#1 .. |
|
By:
Yhtl I can't remember - probably. You can check on catch up. Turning my gaze now from this important subject to the slightly less serious question of Josephine Gordon and her plum draw 3.30 Brighton.
|
|
By:
DrGordons
These are reports submitted by the defence - so it's no surprise that they are supportive of letby - or that at least her defence claim they are. but why should these be believed rather than the prosecution's? or letby's experts for the trial who she didn't call? and we don't know of they are of a standard required for court evidence. i don't know how credible these new reports are. and in any case they are only available to the public in summary form you may be interested in the babies' families' barrister's words about them at the thirlwall inquiry - about p150 onwards https://thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Written-Closing-Submission-of-Family-Group-2-and-3-7-March-2025.pdf of particular interest is where he points out "Although 14 experts are put forward, they are all neonatologists or paediatricians, with one specialist in infectious diseases. None of the experts appear to possess any forensic experience." whereas "the prosecution adduced evidence from multiple expert witnesses of different disciplines" |
|
By:
All of the 24 experts were working pro bono on the understanding that if they found Letby to be responsible this would be made public. They all worked independently, there was no discussion group, no informal chats - they all came to the same conclusion. Dr Lee actually invented one of the tests the prosecution used ( skin colouring) but he said the prosecution witness/s misunderstood how to use it and the opinion they put forward was wrong.
Even if half this group found no evidence of harm that would be powerful enough but the conclusion was unanimous - you can't just throw it away because you don't like it. |
|
By:
nothing to do with whether I like it or not
|
|
By:
Remember the case of Sally Clarke jailed for killing her two sons? Served three years and had a terrible time in prison bfore being cleared. Expert witnesses Sir Roy Meadow and Professor Alan Williams were totally discredited. Too late for poor Sally who died after turning to alcohol. I hope history isn't repeating itself by people thinking the Letby prosecution witnesses are beyond reproach.
|
|
By:
i don't know how credible these new reports are.
They are not new. |
|
By:
Sally Clarke was found not guilty when new evidence came to light
Previously unknown condition, tragedy compounded by not enough science knowledge. Letby killed by diverse methods so likely needs 3 of 4 new previously unknown conditions affecting children under her care, for this to be relevant |
|
By:
Regarding child A - irrespective of whether the tendency to blood clot was passed from the mother or not - the child did have a blood clot (identified in the post mortem) and the reason the child likely had a fatal clot in addition was due to the iv line coming out and then when re-applied can cause a clot - this can happen whether the child has a tendency to blood clots or not - so whether the antibodies were passed from the mother or not only made it more likely but even with out that a fatal blood clot was very feasible
Dewi evans admitted his theories were driven by the fact he couldn’t think of anything else as per his talk tv interview - it also only took him 10 minutes to apparently realise there was deliberate harm (ludicrous really) There are plenty other more credible explanations as given by the panel and by a medic on letbys defence team who wasn’t called for some reason 6 out of the 7 babies were given post mortems at the time and their deaths was described as natural causes the other was unexplained Letby is not an expert on insulin testing she was in no position to doubt the results of the tests so accepted if the tests said they had been poisoned then someone other than her must have done this - the tests were not appropriate and could return false positives something the jury wasn’t made aware of - the application of the tests was inappropriate As well as writing I did this etc - Letby also wrote I have done nothing wrong and why are they doing this to me - irrespective of why she wrote it why believe one statement and not the conflicting one (beyond reasonable doubt) After Letby left the ward it was also downgraded at the same time - the deaths stopped due to taking on less seriously ill / vulnerable babies the doctor who claimed he caught her almost redhanded has subsequently been found out to be telling a pile of lies as he wrote an email at the time which conflicts with the story he gave in court There is no piece of evidence which can’t be countered by something much more credible The only thing that Dewi evans has said which is in any way sensible is that the findings of the panel also need to tested - that needs to be done - they say the insulin findings are garbage - someone should have the opportunity to counter / disprove that Luke Mitchell (and his mother) both past lie detector tests and he’s still in prison - so legally there’s no mileage in Letby taking a lie detector test |
|
By:
letbys medical expert (dr hall) didn’t agree with the prosecution - why he wasn’t called wasn’t clear
they didn’t go shopping for alternative experts - shoo lee when realising his paper had been used inappropriately by the prosecution offered to look at the rest of evidence via a panel on the provision that they would publish their findings even if they found against letby - letby agreed anyone who thinks statistics weren’t used by the prosecution either know nothing about the case or statistics or both - the shift chart which appeared to be a slam dunk for the jury was built on statistics - it’s been statistically proven that any nurse working a lot of overtime (as letby was) was as likely to have been at a similar number of incidents had they all been considered rather than just the ones letby was at - it wasn’t just a case of proving that letby was at the events she was being tried for otherwise they would have disclosed all the other events the prosecution built their case from one event to the other based on (very flawed) probabilities (ie statistics) saying things like given event A happened when letby was there and now event B etc - it was all very flawed but to the jury it must have seen reasonable statisticians have described it as misleading and crude and similar flawed methods have been used in the past - thankfully a few have since been over-turned another judge wrote to letbys judge warning of dewi evans performance at a previous trial where he described his evidence as biased and “worthless” - letbys judge thought it was ok to ignore this and let the jury decide on whether evans evidence was expert or not the judge also allowed for a non-unanimous verdict - I’m not sure how unusual this is but the majority of miscarriages of justice have been from non-unanimous verdicts the judge also instructed the jury that if they thought letby done it but didn’t know how they should still find her guilty - you can’t even win a game of cluedo without knowing the murder method biggest issue for letby now is that public confidence in the police nhs and the judicial system is pretty low especially given recent miscarriages of justice ****-ups at the ccrc and resignations at the ccrc - for public confidence it would be a bit of a disaster if there’s sufficient doubt on this now very high profile debated case - probably why they’re still scavenging around trying to find some different/proper evidence - they may be justified in claiming none of the new letby defence is new but that’s not always strictly enough to refuse an appeal and probably doesn’t address public interest anymore |
|
By:
the reason why letby found herself in the frame in the first place was because a couple of consultants driven by arrogance rather than malice imo thought they had uncovered a murderer amidst the shambles which was the unit - they were doing rounds twice a week instead of twice a day so I’m surprised they noticed
I can only presume once they started on that road they and with the blinkers on couldn’t get off it fuelled by 10-minute dewi - I don’t believe they set out to frame or scapegoat letby however there may have come a point where they started to have doubts but felt they had gone past the point of no return - eg testimonies given at trial inconsistent with actions at the time and emails written being the polar opposite of testimonies given there was no “need” to find a suspect to satisfy the public but one had already been found anyway |
|
By:
Shoo lees panel included all the medical qualifications of the prosecution medics and to a much higher standard - the one exception being that it didn’t include a radiologist the reason being that they dismissed dewi evans air embolism theory so a radiologist was deemed unnecessary
Also worth noting at the trial the prosecution radiologist said the x-rays could be consistent with but not diagnostic of air embolisms - the x-rays were a tag-on support to dewis theories (of which he changed both during the trial and after - especially when he had letby killing one of the babies then realised she wasn’t on shift that day) - those x-rays nor the radiologist testimony couldn’t stand alone |
|
By:
letbys medical expert (dr hall) didn’t agree with the prosecution - why he wasn’t called wasn’t clear
Kind of more important than yer ramblings |
|
By:
Maysoon's " Ramblings" pretty much sums up what happened and emphasises the difficulty a defence has with purely circumstantial evidence in a jury trial, you have to laugh, your narrow minded sarcasm adds nothing of worth imo.
|
|
By:
those x-rays nor the radiologist testimony couldn’t stand alone
Like that? Yeah right, it's rambling and nonsensicle |
|
By:
Remember the case of Sally Clarke jailed for killing her two sons?
yes it was found that one of her babies suffered from a very rare condition - which was not known at the time of the trial because it was in documents not found until after the trial and first appeal. letby's going to have to find something similar for multiple babies. Sally clark's new evidence was so strong the Crown did not oppose the appeal and sought no retrial - zero chance of them doing that for letby |
|
By:
Shoo lees panel included all the medical qualifications of the prosecution medics and to a much higher standard - the one exception being that it didn’t include a radiologist the reason being that they dismissed dewi evans air embolism theory so a radiologist was deemed unnecessary
No the prosecution's experts in addition the paediatricians Dr Evans and Dr Bohin were i) Dr Andreas Marnerides, forensic pathologist and histopathologist; ii) Professor Owen Arthurs, consultant paediatric radiologist; iii) Professor Sally Kinsey, consultant paediatric haematologist; iv) Professor Peter Hindmarsh, consultant paediatric endocrinologist; v) Professor Stavros Stivaros, consultant paediatric neuroradiologist; vi) Dr Simon Kenney, consultant paediatric surgeon Dr lee's panel lacks some of these disciplines and are certainly not of a higher standard. |
|
By:
With respect A_T you're wrong there. The word neonatal doesn't appear in your list. You can read the names of Dr Lee's panel online plus their qualifications (too long to include here) and they cover all the salient points in the investigation.
|
|
By:
No Dr Lee does not have a consultant endocrinologist, consultant haematologist or consultant radiologist. So basically he has noone of the correct discipline to provide rebuttal of those prosecution trial experts. If it gets to the Court of Appeal Letby will need to instruct more appropriate experts.
Dr Bohin is a consultant neonatologist. Dr Evans is a consultant paediatrician - Letby tried to complain that he was not a neonatologist but as the Court of Appeal heard "The reason Dr Evans did not classify himself as a neonatologist was because when he developed the speciality in South Wales, neonatology was a sub-speciality - so he didn’t train as a neonatologist. Each of these features was addressed by the judge". Co complaining now about Dr Evans qualifications is just hot air and has no legal value. |
|
By:
don’t believe my ramblings - believe Owen archer who gave evidence at the trial - youu can even Google what he said - his phrase consistent with but not diagnostic of are reported on many of the main stream media websites
why dr ball wasn’t called isn’t clear - a tactical mistake by the defence is the best theory as he didn’t agree with the prosecution - he has stated that in interviews and he had written reports saying so for the trial Of the experts witness I’ve already said why there was no radiologist on shoo lees panel the bottoms 3 experts contributed nothing material during the trial - made a couple of non-vital statements Marienereides is no doubt an expert - he backed dewi evans on theories where dewi subsequently changed his mind leaving the guy hanging dewi evans has no credibility - he’s embarrassed himself on multiple interviews since the trial and resorted to talking about people being “turned on” by letby in a nurses uniform as a response to people (journalists etc) ripping his ramblings apart the other two who contributed in a material sense don’t not have skills that outrank the shoo lee panel shoo lees panel have nothing to gain (either retired or at the top of their profession) and everything to lose by backing someone the majority of the public (used to think) was a multiple baby killer - they recruited over 20 experts yet forgot to recruit some of the right ones - that would be some blunder to be fair |
|
By:
Sally Clark was also freed on a statistical blunder by the prosecution which a first year student shouldn’t have made where they multiplied two non-independent probabilities together to get a final probability- the most basic of blunders but that went through a jury trial without being properly challenged - shows how imperfect they can be
|
|
By:
Sally Clark was also freed on a statistical blunder by the prosecution which a first year student shouldn’t have made where they multiplied two non-independent probabilities together to get a final probability- the most basic of blunders but that went through a jury trial without being properly challenged - shows how imperfect they can be
|
|
By:
She was freed as a new condition emerged
That negated the probability. If 4 new conditions emerge then let y may have a case |
|
By:
Refused to leave her cell for sentencing hearing, never a good look.
|
|
By:
Very few TV specials relating to crime using investigative 'journalists' approach the subject matter with an open mind. Everyone has an agenda.
|
|
By:
letby had a very experienced defence team - her KC got duckenfield off the hook for hillsborough, if there were flaws in the case they would have been found and presented at the trial. the convictions are safe noone cares about tv documentaries made for entertainment
|
|
By:
Presumably you have seen or heard all the evidence and understood it A_T, to make such a comment?
|
|
By:
no reason to think they aren't safe - the court of appeal said they were and no new evidence has emerged that make one think they weren't
|
|
By:
letbys barrister did put up a good defence in some ways at the trial in fact some of the evidence from the panel the barrister raised at the trial - the jury chose to believe who they thought was the medical expert (evans) over the non-medical, expert barrister - why they didn’t call dr hall and also refuse / ignore the offer of help from modi and statistical experts is unclear
to say there is no reason to think the verdicts are unsafe is utter nonsense - previously people subsequently freed have failed in multiple attempts at appeal - letby is less far down that road of failure of others who have subsequently been freed - at one appeal application the judge did cast concern over one of the prosecution witness testimony (a consultant) since then it appears his testimony is at complete odds with an email he wrote at the time (which wasn’t disclosed during the case nor the appeal but is in the public domain now) some of the evidence is not new but is now backed by an expert panel some of the evidence is new - again backed from an expert panel - not just medical evidence but failure to disclose other incidents which happened when letby was not on duty and testimony given by prosecution witnesses which has been undermined by their own emails which were not previously disclosed some of the prosecution evidence has subsequently been undermined by the chief prosecution witness himself (dewi evans) as he couldn’t help himself portraying himself as the hero on a raft of interviews and tied himself in so many knots he’s resorted to accusing journalists and mathematicians who question him (not just punters on the internet) of being turned on by Lucy letby in her nurses uniform - the guy who in his own words knew there had been deliberate harm within 10 minutes of seeing the first set of notes reduced to this as I’ve said before - the one thing dewi evans has said which has some credence is the old and new evidence via the panel has not been properly tested - evans theories were based on not being able to think of anything else (again his own words) so the panel obviously believe there are much much more plausible explanations - its their job to convince the ccrc (this time or a later time if necessary) - if it wasn’t for revised public interest in this letby (if innocent) would be lucky if she was out within decade or two like a lot of the rest of the miscarriages of justice |
|
By:
I agree it’s plausible to think that people making documentaries have an opinion / agenda already and the output maybe swayed by it
What is noticeable that a number of people who were high-profile burn the witch shouters early doors some have made a complete turn around and are now pro-letby and probably more importantly / balanced some have opened their mind up to the flaws in the case and the possibility of the convictions being unsafe again talking about semi-respected journalists legal professionals and podcasters rather than just punters on the internet |
|
By:
sally clark was released on medical evidence but it was also confirmed that the statistical evidence which was believed to play a big part in her conviction should never have been allowed in the form it was presented
It was pretty much the arithmetical equivalent of 2 + 2 = 50,000 That was over 2 decades ago but is still going on today such that the royal statistical society are constantly looking for dialogue with the legal profession to put a stop to this so that only valid and properly presented statistics are used where appropriate |
|
By:
I watched tonight's Panorama on iPlayer and didn't think it was very well done. If you're assessing the evidence, why include comments from the poor bereaved parents? Nothing to do with it. Also as she has a book out, Judith Moritz should have been replaced by another journalist - not knocking her but it looks a bit conflicted.
|
|
By:
Another Lucy Letby programme starting now on bbc1
Don't know if it's a new one or repeat |
|
By:
New if on prime time bbc.
Tricky dilemma, There’s been loads of poor baby units in the press ,so is she a confident excuse. Always on shift,but did a lot of overtime in an under staffed unit,so she’s bound to be there. The bosses would rather it be her than admit a bad unit. But she could also of been guilty. |