Politics
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
17 Mar 25
21:07
Joined:
Date Joined:
10 Dec 01
Lawyers for former bosses of the hospital where killer nurse Lucy Letby murdered babies have asked for the public inquiry into the events surrounding her crimes to be suspended.
Beginning to seem all a bit strange considering this appeared to be a Slam Dunk Case
As stated I have no opinion only snippets from the Media
Beginning to seem all a bit strange considering this appeared to be a Slam Dunk Case
As stated I have no opinion only snippets from the Media
Show More
the jury deliberations lasted over 100 hours, for me this suggests it was far from a slam dunk case.
(i havent a clue if she is guilty or not guilty)
(i havent a clue if she is guilty or not guilty)
The inquiry is based on the premise that she is a mass murderer. If it turns out that there
were no murders, the inquiry and any findings are going to look ridiculous.
were no murders, the inquiry and any findings are going to look ridiculous.
Beginning to seem all a bit strange considering this appeared to be a Slam Dunk Case
he lawyers are claiming she's innocent. what's strange about that?
he lawyers are claiming she's innocent. what's strange about that?
"It is now clear there is overwhelming and compelling evidence that Lucy Letby's convictions are unsafe.
Bit different from saying she is Innocent , as stated I know little about the case
Jolly says jury 100 Hours , I doubt any were Medical Professionals
Of course many like me assumed she was Guily and didnt spend hours studying the Case
Bit different from saying she is Innocent , as stated I know little about the case
Jolly says jury 100 Hours , I doubt any were Medical Professionals
Of course many like me assumed she was Guily and didnt spend hours studying the Case
No evidence other than circumstantial, no witnesses, no motive, highly speculative mental gymnastics from the expert witness - I can't imagine why anyone would think it's unsafe.
"It is now clear there is overwhelming and compelling evidence that Lucy Letby's convictions are unsafe.
Her barrister says the same about his other clients Michael stone and ben green who have been in prison 20 years and had countless failed appeals
Her barrister says the same about his other clients Michael stone and ben green who have been in prison 20 years and had countless failed appeals
he lawyers are claiming she's innocent. what's strange about that?
The strange and unusual thing about this case is the world's foremost expert on air embolisms, the guy who wrote the scientific paper used in court to 'prove' Letby murdered those children, held
a press conference a few weeks ago saying:
"The science does not prove what you claimed in court it proved".
I don't know the details of the case, but from some aspects, it's beginning to look like she's been made a scapegoat to cover up systemic negligence.
Given the light of the Post Office Horizon widespread miscarriages of Justice, it's hard to believe widespread establishment cover ups are not a thing.
As mentioned, it's tragic for the families.
Michael stone did not Attack them AT ,was convvicted Because he supposedly talked to two scrotes through a pipe in a prison Cell , One who has Said that did not happen
the info the other Scrote provided was Available in the media
The most unsafe conviction I have ever heard of TBH , there is Zero evidence that he attacked the family ,The bloke was a nutter but attacking children was not in his make up
I find it hard to believe he is still in prison ..
the info the other Scrote provided was Available in the media
The most unsafe conviction I have ever heard of TBH , there is Zero evidence that he attacked the family ,The bloke was a nutter but attacking children was not in his make up
I find it hard to believe he is still in prison ..
When she is eventually cleared and released .... I hope that she sues for tens of millions
By saying he didnt , If I were on the Jury I could not have found him Guilty
from the families' barristers today at the inquiry
The approach by the executives to halt this Inquiry, and indeed by Letby’s supporters to do the
same thing is, insofar as the Families are concerned, a naked attempt to prevent the Inquiry from
reaching conclusions that criticise the actions of the executives. From Letby’s perspective she is
keen to control the narrative and prevent the events that occurred between June 2015 and June
2016 being set out in a way that she cannot control. It is, as the Inquiry heard occurred following
June 2016, an attempt by Letby to use her own victimhood as a way of deflecting attention away
from her actions. None of these motivations are reasonable or credible reasons for stopping now.
same thing is, insofar as the Families are concerned, a naked attempt to prevent the Inquiry from
reaching conclusions that criticise the actions of the executives. From Letby’s perspective she is
keen to control the narrative and prevent the events that occurred between June 2015 and June
2016 being set out in a way that she cannot control. It is, as the Inquiry heard occurred following
June 2016, an attempt by Letby to use her own victimhood as a way of deflecting attention away
from her actions. None of these motivations are reasonable or credible reasons for stopping now.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ce8mp73p1kdo
Richard Baker KC, representing some of the parents of babies harmed and killed by Letby, said: "Letby will have a serious mountain to climb in convincing the Criminal Cases Review Commission or the Court of Appeal that [her application] is indeed fresh evidence."
Referring to recent publicity generated by Letby's new legal team, he said the former nurse had "cynically tried to change the narrative".
"Despite all the bells and whistles which might be attached to a press conference, there is nothing new or remarkable about the evidence being presented," he said.
"The volume of noise surrounding this inquiry shouldn't be allowed to distract from the message at its heart."
Referring to recent publicity generated by Letby's new legal team, he said the former nurse had "cynically tried to change the narrative".
"Despite all the bells and whistles which might be attached to a press conference, there is nothing new or remarkable about the evidence being presented," he said.
"The volume of noise surrounding this inquiry shouldn't be allowed to distract from the message at its heart."
The hurried memos from doctors about babies collapsing in Letby’s presence and curt replies from hospital execs reveal, in vivid detail, the chaos behind the scenes.
AT she may well be Guilty , But there are certainly other Issues that need addressing ,The Inquiry may well highlight Those
AT she may well be Guilty , But there are certainly other Issues that need addressing ,The Inquiry may well highlight Those
Mar 17, 2025 -- 9:17PM, jollyswagman wrote:
the jury deliberations lasted over 100 hours, for me this suggests it was far from a slam dunk case.(i havent a clue if she is guilty or not guilty)
The jury had 21 cases to consider. We don’t know how long it took to reach a conclusion on the guilty verdict, we certainly don’t have enough information to decide if it was a “slam dunk” or not.
She was cleared of two cases there were 6 charges where jury could not reach a conclusion. These 6 cases would have taken a few hours as the jury was divided.
Is 100 hours a long time to reach a verdict in 21 cases ? Especially when we can assume that 6 cases involved a fair bit of discussion , looking at evidence and thinking.
you are proving my point, thank you mexico, it was far from a slam dunk.
Jolly
The point I’m making is that you are clueless regarding the many many many convictions.
I’m glad you agree.
The point I’m making is that you are clueless regarding the many many many convictions.
I’m glad you agree.
If 3 people don't agree they can hold out until discharged
100 hours, 200 hours depends how long judge wants
to give them and foreman tells judge no more progress
towards a verdict can be made.
100 hours, 200 hours depends how long judge wants
to give them and foreman tells judge no more progress
towards a verdict can be made.
I don't know the details of the case, but....
All the details are there
All the details are there
Families unite to debunk Lucy Letby innocence claims
https://archive.ph/8FLJO
Representatives for the families of the babies killed by the nurse say a campaign to free Letby is based on flawed reasoning and factual errors, and that campaigners have made an “unprecedented” attempt to generate maximum publicity rather than appeal her conviction in a reasoned way.
They have drawn up a detailed analysis of the fresh claims made by Letby’s supporters, pointing to a number of errors. Addressing each claim individually, the families say it is “fanciful” to suggest the alleged new evidence would have persuaded the jury in the former nurse’s trial to reach a different verdict.
https://archive.ph/8FLJO
Representatives for the families of the babies killed by the nurse say a campaign to free Letby is based on flawed reasoning and factual errors, and that campaigners have made an “unprecedented” attempt to generate maximum publicity rather than appeal her conviction in a reasoned way.
They have drawn up a detailed analysis of the fresh claims made by Letby’s supporters, pointing to a number of errors. Addressing each claim individually, the families say it is “fanciful” to suggest the alleged new evidence would have persuaded the jury in the former nurse’s trial to reach a different verdict.
the full debunking submitted to the inquiry last week
https://thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Written-Closing-Submission-of-Family-Group-2-and-3-7-March-2025.pdf
The families need to know who did it if it wasn't Letby.
Families of babies murdered by Lucy Letby rally to debunk claims serial child killer is innocent- and accuse of 'using her victimhood' to 'defect attention' from her heinous crimes
https://archive.is/TUngF
If there actually were no murders she will be the biggest victim in this saga, irreparable damage.
Exactly saddo
And
IF Fred West didn’t murder anybody then he shouldn’t have been punished.
IF nobody died during WW1 it is terrible that it is taught in schools.
Perhaps somebody could present some evidence to the court & allow a jury to decide.
Where is this new evidence?
And
IF Fred West didn’t murder anybody then he shouldn’t have been punished.
IF nobody died during WW1 it is terrible that it is taught in schools.
Perhaps somebody could present some evidence to the court & allow a jury to decide.
Where is this new evidence?
I expect they will engage a more competent defence who will point
out the lack of actual evidence of murder.
out the lack of actual evidence of murder.
I expect they will engage a more competent defence who will point
out the lack of actual evidence of murder.
anyone who followed the trial will remember this was exactly what the defence tried
out the lack of actual evidence of murder.
anyone who followed the trial will remember this was exactly what the defence tried
Saddo
Care to explain your legal background and the reasons you believe Benjamin Myers isn’t competent.
He appears to have a fair bit of experience, obviously he doesn’t know as much about the law as you believe you do.
Care to explain your legal background and the reasons you believe Benjamin Myers isn’t competent.
He appears to have a fair bit of experience, obviously he doesn’t know as much about the law as you believe you do.
Only a leftie loon credentialist would be impressed by his experience and ignore the fact that he failed to provide an expert for the defence. It's a classic case of incompetence.
Yes clown
A nice CV you have. Thanks for sharing you experience of the law. No wonder you actually believe you don’t need any evidence.
Every teacher thought you were special & your in depth knowledge of the law is impressive.
A nice CV you have. Thanks for sharing you experience of the law. No wonder you actually believe you don’t need any evidence.
Every teacher thought you were special & your in depth knowledge of the law is impressive.
he failed to provide an expert for the defence
he had plenty of experts - it was Letby's decision not to call them
he had plenty of experts - it was Letby's decision not to call them
Most likely on the advice of her incompetent barrister.
I don't envy the dilemmas you must have to face Mexico with your dependence on experts telling you what to think. If there are two equally qualified barristers with different opinions which one would you believe? That must make your head explode if you are a leftie loon credentialist.
Most likely on the advice of her incompetent barrister.
if it was she was happy to keep him on for the retrial and appeals. and ineffective assistance of counsel would be a firm ground for appeal - much better than those she's trying to get heard now
if it was she was happy to keep him on for the retrial and appeals. and ineffective assistance of counsel would be a firm ground for appeal - much better than those she's trying to get heard now
It's a clear case of incompetence if her barrister failed to advise her she needed the experts to testify. That's the barrister's fault irregardless of whether she kept him on.
You really are a special child Ron.
Without bothering to study law, attend the trial , speak to witnesses, read the court records you have reached the “conclusion “ that the experienced defence team didn’t know what they were doing.
Yet at the same time fail to provide one shred of evidence which could be used by Letby .
Very special.
Without bothering to study law, attend the trial , speak to witnesses, read the court records you have reached the “conclusion “ that the experienced defence team didn’t know what they were doing.
Yet at the same time fail to provide one shred of evidence which could be used by Letby .
Very special.
Still got my doubts about this case. Not confident enough to claim it's a balls up but there remain questions.
Below is from Private Eye:
Lead prosection expert said none of the kids were killed by the injection of air or fluids, but the Court of Appeal judgement stated that three of them were.
Her confession notes were actually an idea to brainstorm her feelings by her counsellor. This fact wasn't revealed at trial.
Detailed reports by 18 experts (more expert than those used in the trial) state no evidence of malfeasance, but instead they died of natural causes or substandard care.
The prosecution failed to disclose that they hired and then, after pressure from the CPS, unhired a medical statistician. The defence could have used this.
There was a Baby Y who showed the same insulin and peptide readings as the other dead kids, but was instead diagnosed as dying from a congenital condition, so the prosecution just ignored them.
Prosection closing statement said that poisoning by insulin was the best bit of evidence in the case. This has since been described as deeply flawed.
As said, I'm not confident enough to claim she should be released tomorrow but this feels like a really flawed trial to me given all the doubts raised since, and not by friends or fans but by respected experts in their field.
Below is from Private Eye:
Lead prosection expert said none of the kids were killed by the injection of air or fluids, but the Court of Appeal judgement stated that three of them were.
Her confession notes were actually an idea to brainstorm her feelings by her counsellor. This fact wasn't revealed at trial.
Detailed reports by 18 experts (more expert than those used in the trial) state no evidence of malfeasance, but instead they died of natural causes or substandard care.
The prosecution failed to disclose that they hired and then, after pressure from the CPS, unhired a medical statistician. The defence could have used this.
There was a Baby Y who showed the same insulin and peptide readings as the other dead kids, but was instead diagnosed as dying from a congenital condition, so the prosecution just ignored them.
Prosection closing statement said that poisoning by insulin was the best bit of evidence in the case. This has since been described as deeply flawed.
As said, I'm not confident enough to claim she should be released tomorrow but this feels like a really flawed trial to me given all the doubts raised since, and not by friends or fans but by respected experts in their field.
My opinion is the same as her new barrister, I think there's no evidence she did anything wrong. Her new barrister is qualified and experienced in law. Is it the credentials you have a problem with, or the opinion? Sounds like the opinion, and yet you are not legally qualified to have an opinion about my opinion by your own preposterous standard.
It is reasonable to have a retrial if there is new evidence to suggest the original verdict was incorrect.
There doesn’t appear to be much new evidence YET.
It would be poor form to spend another year on a trial if the evidence is basically the same as the original trial and appeals.
Clowns just saying an experienced barrister is useless without actually studying the evidence is silly. There will be plenty of people with some legal knowledge looking at the notes.
Something might come up, or perhaps she is guilty as charged.
There doesn’t appear to be much new evidence YET.
It would be poor form to spend another year on a trial if the evidence is basically the same as the original trial and appeals.
Clowns just saying an experienced barrister is useless without actually studying the evidence is silly. There will be plenty of people with some legal knowledge looking at the notes.
Something might come up, or perhaps she is guilty as charged.
You are not remotely qualified to say that. Let the cleverer lads sort it out.
Oh dear,
Did you eat your too many crayons in your special class at school?
Why bother with evidence for a retrial, just do it all over again with the same evidence as before.
Did you eat your too many crayons in your special class at school?
Why bother with evidence for a retrial, just do it all over again with the same evidence as before.
That defence didn't work, twice, give us another go.
PorcupineorPineapple
just look at the posters in letby threads who think the same as you . that should tell you something. people who think letby is innocent are often antivaxxers and climate change deniers. it's easy to be taken in by Letby's team - which include a PR firm
you should read the annex to the closing submissions to the Inquiry from the families barrister - which debunks letby's claims
just look at the posters in letby threads who think the same as you . that should tell you something. people who think letby is innocent are often antivaxxers and climate change deniers. it's easy to be taken in by Letby's team - which include a PR firm
you should read the annex to the closing submissions to the Inquiry from the families barrister - which debunks letby's claims
https://thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Written-Closing-Submission-of-Family-Group-2-and-3-7-March-2025.pdf
Child serial killer Lucy Letby's retrial for the attempted murder of a baby girl should not have gone ahead due to “overwhelming and irremediable prejudice” caused by media coverage of her first trial, the Court of Appeal has been told.
Letby is asking three senior judges for approval to challenge her conviction for trying to kill the newborn, known as Child K, following a retrial in July, for which she was sentenced to a 15th whole life order.
The hearing is taking place before Lord Justice William Davis, Lord Justice Jeremy Baker and Mrs Justice McGowan.
And yet they want another retrial....
Letby is asking three senior judges for approval to challenge her conviction for trying to kill the newborn, known as Child K, following a retrial in July, for which she was sentenced to a 15th whole life order.
The hearing is taking place before Lord Justice William Davis, Lord Justice Jeremy Baker and Mrs Justice McGowan.
And yet they want another retrial....
A_T 24 Mar 25 15:38
PorcupineorPineapple
just look at the posters in letby threads who think the same as you . that should tell you something. people who think letby is innocent are often antivaxxers and climate change deniers.
.............................
How blinkered you appear. You'll disagree with anyone not taken in by the covid scam
on any other matter. Interesting.
PorcupineorPineapple
just look at the posters in letby threads who think the same as you . that should tell you something. people who think letby is innocent are often antivaxxers and climate change deniers.
.............................
How blinkered you appear. You'll disagree with anyone not taken in by the covid scam
on any other matter. Interesting.
I don't care what other people think AT. I've read up on it and got my own doubts. I'd have them if everyone here agreed or disagreed with me. Doesn't matter.
She's the devil, the MSM media told you so and that's that.
I don't think there is a for sure. That's the problem.
Will you apologize to everyone on the forum when you are proved wrong?
The prosecution failed to disclose that they hired and then, after pressure from the CPS, unhired a medical statistician. The defence could have used this.
it was the police who initially consulted a statistician not the prosecution
Her confession notes were actually an idea to brainstorm her feelings by her counsellor. This fact wasn't revealed at trial
this was claimed in the media - she never said this in police interviews or on the stand despite plenty of opportunity
Prosection closing statement said that poisoning by insulin was the best bit of evidence in the case. This has since been described as deeply flawed.
yes described by Letby's team. one of those she instructed prior to the trial was an expert in insulin - but she did not call that expert
you're incredibly shaky on the basic facts - you clearly haven't read up on it properly at all. as I said read my link above - but i suspect you've made up your mind already
it was the police who initially consulted a statistician not the prosecution
Her confession notes were actually an idea to brainstorm her feelings by her counsellor. This fact wasn't revealed at trial
this was claimed in the media - she never said this in police interviews or on the stand despite plenty of opportunity
Prosection closing statement said that poisoning by insulin was the best bit of evidence in the case. This has since been described as deeply flawed.
yes described by Letby's team. one of those she instructed prior to the trial was an expert in insulin - but she did not call that expert
you're incredibly shaky on the basic facts - you clearly haven't read up on it properly at all. as I said read my link above - but i suspect you've made up your mind already
Will you apologize to everyone on the forum when you are proved wrong?
letby will still be in jail when I'm long shuffled off this mortal coil
letby will still be in jail when I'm long shuffled off this mortal coil
And you sound completely dismissive AT. As I've said (many times by now) I'm not certain one way or the other. But I have doubts. Sorry if that troubles you.
She's the devil, the MSM media told you so and that's that.
2 juries and 7 appeal court judges have determined she's guilty. the media have nothing to do with it
2 juries and 7 appeal court judges have determined she's guilty. the media have nothing to do with it
She could have provided evidence at her retrial
But they didnt
Now they want to...
But they didnt
Now they want to...
"she never said this in police interviews or on the stand despite plenty of opportunity". What opportunity? Defendants don't just get to say what they want in court, they can only answer the questions they are asked. If she was asked surely she would have explained the notes were done on the suggestion of her counsellor? Her incompetent barrister should have asked but he was incompetent.
She was asked about the notes but said nothing about any therapist. And she never has - the only source for this is an anonymous one in the media.
In any case no therapist would ever tell anyone to write "I killed them on purpose because I'm not good enough"
In any case no therapist would ever tell anyone to write "I killed them on purpose because I'm not good enough"
I suppose all the Letby is guilty bros think this guy in innocent? Just being contrary for the sake of it.
https://x.com/BBCNews/status/1912446498052186435
/
https://x.com/BBCNews/status/1912446498052186435
/
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539