There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 199 comments are related to the topic:
Lucy Letby TV programme tonight
Lucy Letby TV programme tonight
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 199
|
By:
it’s a new documentary - partly made and narrated by Judith moritz who previously was 100% convinced of her guilt - the fact she’s even entertaining the slightest doubts is a bit of a tell - her journalist partner has always been more on the fence and had doubts about her guilt
dr hall (Letby defence who wasn’t called) has questioned some of the panels findings on detail which was reported as a conflict in the programme but also reported is that he agrees with their overall findings ie no deliberate harm and medical reasons are there for illness and death the guy who made the bold claims about a doctor mistake (he shouldn’t have done) was not on the panel albeit he was speaking on behalf of letbys new defence to the press - an error of delivery by a 3rd party rather than in the medical findings the latest ‘evidence’ about dislodged breathing tubes from years before Letby so called started murdering again is based on statistics (which have been proven to have been misused in the actual trial) - the figures are supposed to have been exceptional yet you have to believe that none of these exceptional events were ever noticed at the time as it’s only been discovered retrospectively - Letby was also a student / inexperienced nurse at the time so would have been under extra supervision yet as far as has been reported she didn’t even have a ‘training need’ reported as needs to be better with breathing tubes or the like - again all these things supposedly all happened and no one has seen a thing at the time (over an extended period) Old Dewi evans isn’t looking well he has aged considerably from the confident guy claiming to have brought down the killer nurse and how the money he earned from it put his kids through uni and kept his daughter “in horses” - accepted it was a bit of a flippant reply at the time but looking ever more inappropriate as the days pass |
|
By:
Just watched the ITV doc.
They seem to have omitted the evidence that the CPS have actually been forced to admit that the prosecution botched (whether by accident or otherwise) - the swipe card evidence used by the prosecution to show that Letby was entering a room was actually Letby leaving a room and vice versa. i.e. for all of the times they were arguing that she was present she provably was not present. CPS said this had no meaningful impact on the prosecution lol. In particular, the (corrected) swipe card data showed that the the star prosecution witness had been lying to the court - when he said Letby was alone with a baby whose tube had been dislodged in fact she was not alone. The programme did correctly document another of his lies to the court by producing an email where he admitted that he'd only attended the scene because Letby called for help contrary to what he told the court. Contempt of court is a criminal offence isn't it? |
|
By:
yes the prosecution thought they had a key bit of evidence in an x-ray but it turned out the swipe card data was the wrong way round and an x-ray which was supposed to show banged to rights air embolism had been taken before Letby had even met the baby - not only did it eff-up that story it showed how unreliable the x-rays as standalone evidence was which to be fair the radiologist always caveated that they couldn’t be used as standalone - it was the other witnesses who tried to embellish it - that was what lead to Dewi evans changing his method of murder on one of the babies
At other times they claimed Letby might have tail-gated another member of staff in and apparently there was a door where you could get in without a card Basically a farce Letby team are looking into grounds to try that consultant for perjury who wrote the email - the guy was never off the telly until recently but he’s gone to ground now |
|
By:
Once let by was arrested,charged,a lot of the witnesses would drift into confirmation bias,presuming they re helping giving their accounts,
As it must be the explanation for the deaths. But, A poor preforming dept could be the answer,so it suits everyone for it to be her. Another doctor,maybe looking for easy shifts,killing off the problem cases, Did any of these doctors have 2nd private work. Has anyone looked into their working weeks,again it suits them to lump it on letby. The deaths stopped when she was moved,but if it was someone else,they would of stopped because of risk.if it was poor dept,they maybe upped their game,got more staff,hence the deaths stopped. Quite a few maternity wards have been highlighted as badly performing over last few years,so could easily be this. Everyone involved will just look atfer themselves,and letby fitted the bill. If it was bad ward or lazy doctor,they re cover this up in the same way as covering up the murders. Plus the doctors have more to lose, |
|
By:
the deaths stopped because at the same time as Letby left the ward it was downgraded meaning it would take less risky babies which also meant the understaffing issue in even the healthier babies was eased
There was an internal and external medical investigation into the unit - it found a raft of issues with understaffing under skilled etc - doctors were doing ward rounds twice a week instead of the recommended twice per day - one of the doctors was also a tv doctor - not sure how that managed with his time given he was only doing 2 rounds per week instead of per day - the defence wanted the results of these reports to be aired at the trial but apparently it was ruled against - don’t no the justification While there was a rise in deaths (and reasons for it even without a serial killer) the numbers while looked at the hospital alone looked significant but taken globally across the uk they weren’t a statistical outlier - there have been similar issues/numbers at lots of other hospitals without serial killers I don’t believe Letby was deliberately set up or scapegoated I think a couple of doctors thought they were Poundland poirots and too arrogant not see differently - then fuelled by a dodgy expert witness (he has history which appears to have played out again in this trial) - at some point the doctors probably thought **** we’ve got this wrong but self preservation probably kicked-in |
|
By:
a number of her colleagues wanted to speak in her defence but were warned against it as it could harm their career - one or two still did and still do and others are potentially about to come forward
|
|
By:
Similar issues / numbers at other hospitals at different times that should read eg one year Cheshire was the worst then another year Nottingham was similarly bad etc
|
|
By:
the swipe card evidence used by the prosecution to show that Letby was entering a room was actually Letby leaving a room and vice versa
this was dealt with and corrected at the retrial - both defence and prosecution accepted it was a mistake The programme did correctly document another of his lies to the court by producing an email where he admitted that he'd only attended the scene because Letby called for help contrary to what he told the court this email was available to her appeal but did not feature as a ground of appeal indicating that if nothing else it was of no evidential value |
|
By:
The bosses would rather it be her than admit a bad unit.
if you followed the thirlwall inquiry you'll know that her managers tried to protect her even planning to put her back on the neonatall unit but the police being called stopped all that. three managers have been arrested as part of a gross negligence manslaughter investiagtion |
|
By:
what you consider normal ,misleading,not evidence based stats at the l,pool hospital are currently with ther CPS waiting for a charging decision,so may well get their day in court, the dr who said the dr in the needle evidence should be ashamed done for manslaughter has gone to ground ,refusing interviews as his evidence been considered garbage ,like the tv shows your doing exactly the same pointing out evidence/mistakes that suit your narrative and ignoring the rest
|
|
By:
her new lawyer,s evidence based response to the new l,pool hospital stats, of I DONT BELIEVE THEM it going to get her very far
|
|
By:
only a tv show i know but looking back earlier in the thread where letby's lack of appropriately qualified experts was discussed panorama had a consultant neonatal endocrinologist to dismiss letby's experts claims about the insulin attempted murders evidence. she has no neonatal endocrinologist and her attempts to undermine those convictions look particularly weak
|
|
By:
how can an email which directly contradicts the testimony of a witness be of no evidential value - especially when that witness was also called out by a judge who mentioned that his actions at the time was inconsistent with his testimony - looks like another blunder by the original defence team if it was available at the time - this like everything else will be tested via the ccrc
The swipe card data did result in dewi evans change his mind (not the only thing or time that happened) and also as another poster said placed another nurse in the vicinity when letby was supposed to be alone before the data was corrected - compared to other inconsistencies in the evidence things not that important to be fair the insulin claims at the trial - the jury were not made aware of the requirement for further testing to confirm results - the scenario also required a probability of the nurse on the subsequent shift picking up the correct feed bag for the correct baby as letby hadn’t spiked them all - the new panels findings on insulin will be tested via the ccrc the doctor who made the claim about the needle shouldn’t have done it in the way he did I don’t think anyone is disputing that - as has been pointed out he wasn’t on the panel all dislodged breathing tubes from the distant past will be tested if new charges are brought - you would wonder why it wasn’t raised at the time or at the first trial given how extreme it was - letby was also a trainee / inexperienced nurse so would have been under supervision and have a training / development schedule - seems strange that it wasn’t at least listed as a training need - again like the whole trial the theories put forward are not impossible but much much more plausible theories need to be discarded first |
|
By:
how can an email which directly contradicts the testimony of a witness be of no evidential value
because it was available to the defence for the appeal on the conviction where the doctor was a witness. if you say it was evidence of the witness unreliability then you are accusing the defence counsel of withholding it from court - which would be a very serious allegation. if it was a blunder then letby would be able to apply directly to the court of appeal citing conduct of trial representatives rather than go the long-winded way of the CCRC which might take years she's never claimed poor counsel so you can only assume that she's satisfied with the performance of her defence team. too much relies on claiming defence blunders - she had very experienced counsel - even being given legal aid funding for a third barrister. most likely the email is simply not signifiant and was recognised as such by the defence. the daily mail said "a source close to the case said:'The email was disclosed to the prosecution, Letby's defence team and the judges at the Court of Appeal before her application to appeal her conviction in relation to Baby K. 'There is no material contradiction between the email and Dr Jayaram's evidence, so it was deemed irrelevant.' " but yes the ccrc will decide if it is of any value |
|
By:
irrespective of the reasons why it wasn’t disclosed - the consultant said he wasn’t called for help by letby and in the email he says he was called by letby for help (he also goes on in subsequent emails / documents to explain reasons for the baby’s death which wasn’t air embolism or any of dewis theories)
does that sound like materially different to you ? (not the daily mail) letby has never claimed good or bad counsel - she has changed her team though which might be a hint |
|
By:
A_T since when is perjury not relevant? No material contradiction between the email and evidence given under oath you state and yet the reality is the opposite?
You really should give up trying to appear as if you understand the law and the technicalities of evidence being debated which even many experts in both fields would struggle to understand never mind the ordinary public or a jury? |
|
By:
maysoon3
 As someone who can't be bothered following the case and think there are better things to do your posts are a good read , summarized nicely and whilst some personal opinion included there's also plenty of fact , keep it going.  |
|
By:
the problem is once someone gets it into their head that someone is guilty even the old bill have done it ( not knocking em as they just want wrong uns off the streets for the publics and everyone elses safety )it is hard to get that notion out of their heads ,as said she may be guilty she may not but there have been cases in the past and will be in the future where miscarriages of justice have come to light later.
|
|
By:
there are so many inconsistencies within the trial that the whole thing needs examined which will happen - any claims that this happened because this is how the legal system works falls on its ass on individual points because of these inconsistencies - not my opinion the opinion of top judges in particular those who were in the shes guilty camp or expressed no opinion early doors (obviously in different words)
the evidence via email thing can only be contradicted imo by (1j that didn’t actually happen the emails a fake or something like that (2j saying one thing years later and writing the opposite at the time is not a contradiction because …….. that event was the best the prosecution could come up with to an eye-witness account of letby doing something wrong so it wasn’t insignificant No-one has answered these questions as far as I’m aware discrediting this witness will not be enough to clear letby as one of the main things which put her where she is the insulin cases of which that consultant played no major part - it all relies on potentially dodgy tests (limitations not disclosed to the jury) and a Russian roulette probability that the next nurse picked up the spiked bag from a number of alternatives (and that the findings of the panel turn out to be nonsense) that’s why they wouldn’t have just gone back on that single point |
|
By:
cheers Hayden - I don’t spend that much time online and this case is pretty much the only thing I comment on and came on my radar due to my background in statistics - I try to keep it balanced and while I think the trial was dodgy af and I do think she’s innocent there is a tiny percent accepting that she could be guilty irrespective of how clumsy (to be generous) the trial was
Horse racing tho - no amount of numbers statistics or expert opinion will ever convince me there’s been a better miler than el gran senor since 1984 or every will be - FACT etc |
|
By:
FOYLESWAR 12 Aug 25 12:39
the problem is once someone gets it into their head that someone is guilty ........................... I suspect many of those who don't want a retrial would rather an innocent person rot in jail than ever admit they were mistaken. |
|
By:
No material contradiction between the email and evidence given under oath you state
No as I said it's what the daily mail reported their source as telling them. what is fact is that this email was in the hands of the defence team before her appeal - yet nowhere did in feature in that appeal. of course the obvious inference is that it had no evidential value i.e it was not what her defence purported it to be but no of course we have to hear yet again about an incompetent defence - a defence which letby kept for her appeals after her trials and at no time has complained about. letby has never claimed good or bad counsel - she has changed her team though which might be a hint she hasn't changed her team she's using Mark McDonald pro bono for her ccrc application - there's no legal aid available for her to continue with her trial counsel - they might come back in if she is charged or gets to the court of appeal when she'll get legal aid for a silk (Mark McDonald is a junior barrister). McDonald hasn't actually done anything for her yet that requires a lawyer - he started representing her before her second appeal but was not involved in the appeal - that was in the hands of her trial counsel. |
|
By:
No-one has answered these questions as far as I’m aware
|
|
By:
they have been answered in court and at appeal
you should read the court of appeal judgment in particular about the insulin evidence A proposed ground 4 (that the jury were wrongly directed on evidence relating to the persistence of insulin in the bloodstream) was withdrawn following the refusal of leave to appeal by the single judge. it's already been dealt with by the appeal court. Letby is just rehashing old evidence that has been ventilated in court - there's nothing now which is what she needs. |
|
By:
Keep telling yourself that she is just rehashing old evidence when in fact she probably has little to no input on what the defence will present and long odds on much of what they will present is unknown to the public domain.
|
|
By:
she probably has little to no input on what the defence will present
it's ultimately her decision - if she's been badly advised then she could have changed her counsel for her appeals which she didn't she's got nothing new - even the email was available to her defence for her appeal but it did not feature. the rest is just opinion on evidence that has already been through the trials and appeal. you can't just keep appealing the same evidence endlessly. |
|
By:
I bow to your insider knowledge A_T, never had the benefit of knowing everything a defence had until trial. Btw if you are correct there will be no new trial but imo its is long odds on there will be?
|
|
By:
He's nailed himself to the guilty cross, fearful of a retrial imo.
|
|
By:
Looks like it saddo, btw the email will constitute new evidence if introduced as will any other evidence not used at the trial or re-trials.
|
|
By:
the police can think the moon is made of cheese ,they dont charge a single person,THE CPS lays down charges after studying the evidence and chances of a guilty verdict
|
|
By:
even if the email is significant (which it's absence from the defence at appeal suggests not) the witness in question was only involved for 3 of the 14 convictions - which leaves 11 more
the insulin convictions for attempted murder look rock solid - Letby already tried to contest them at appeal (see above) but failed. I'd say she's much more likely to be in a crown court facing new charges than she is for a another retrial. |
|
By:
the email will constitute new evidence if introduced as will any other evidence not used at the trial or re-trials.
no. evidence not used at trial is inadmissible to the court of appeal - as dr lee found out at letby's appeal no good reason has been shown why the applicant should now be allowed to adduce evidence which could have been obtained and adduced at the appropriate time. The interests of justice require a defendant’s whole case to be put forward at trial unless there is good reason why that could not be done. |
|
By:
lads here should read the court of appeal judgement and stop looking for shadowy figures on grassy knolls
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/R-v-Letby-Final-Judgment-20240702.pdf |
|
By:
Inadequate counsel is considered as good reason A_T and I think reasonable to presume it will be one of the reasons for having unused evidence allowed but you appear to be better informed than most tbf.
|
|
By:
Inadequate counsel is considered as good reason A_T and I think reasonable to presume it will be one of the reasons for having unused evidence allowed but you appear to be better informed than most tbf.
|
|
By:
Inadequate counsel is considered as good reason A_T
That's the thing - for all the criticism of her defence she has never used poor counsel as a ground of appeal. She actually kept them on for the appeals. She's got Mark McDonald now for the CCRC application because he's doing it for free as there's almost no legal aid for a CCRC job. He won't be her counsel for crown court or appeal court because she'd need a silk which she'd be entitled to. |
|
By:
And you know that there will be no change? Must be a good crystal ball you have?
|
|
By:
This is not a red herring and it may come too late to affect the Letby case but when Donna Ockenden's report into maternity services, initially centred on Nottingham, is published, the proverbial will hit the fan. Lack of training, poor management and limited skill sets will be seen as widespread across the country. Displaced tubes, over/under drug prescribing and a raft of other failures may well be proved to be the norm.
|
|
By:
She didn't kill any babies in my expert opinion, she's far too good looking. Killers are usually ugly b@ggers imo.
|
|
By:
As I stated earlier - Does finding new expert opinion constitute new evidence ? - That's the point here - She / her defence picked their expert witnesses , went to trial and lost. Do you then get the right to pick a new bunch of
of experts and get another pop ? If so - where does it end ? |