Nurse arrested for murdering babies

Looks like another issue with the case has come out of the woodwork now :(

I still think she's guilty but I also think it warrants the question that if you convict a person based entirely on circumstantial evidence due to the sheer amount of it, then at which point does the amount of it shown to be flawed warrant a retrial.

A bombshell statement given to police that supported Lucy Letby's claim to be innocent of murdering babies was not disclosed to her defence team, it was claimed yesterday.

The evidence from Dr Astha Soni, a paediatrician at the neonatal unit at the Countess of Chester Hospital where Letby worked, disputed claims by prosecution experts that the poor health of one baby in the unit, Baby Y, was linked to insulin poisoning by Letby.

Dr Soni's statement said Baby Y's high insulin levels were due to a genetic condition which produces excess levels of the hormone.

This contradicted claims by Dewi Evans, the controversial retired paediatrician who played a central role in the prosecution, who told police that Baby Y had been given 'insulin from an external source'.

The statement by Dr Soni calls into question the prosecution's methodology and was never passed to Letby's defence by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS).

 

Some possible big failing going to be exposed?

More news on it today. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn7v847r2x8o

"Lady Justice Thirlwall said that lawyers for the former hospital executives - chief executive Tony Chambers, medical director Ian Harvey, director of nursing Alison Kelly and HR director Sue Hodkinson - had also written to the secretary of state for health to seek a suspension of the inquiry."

Likely a lot of finger pointing coming up.
 
"Lady Justice Thirlwall said that lawyers for the former hospital executives - chief executive Tony Chambers, medical director Ian Harvey, director of nursing Alison Kelly and HR director Sue Hodkinson - had also written to the secretary of state for health to seek a suspension of the inquiry."
why do they want a suspension of the inquiry ? surely it looks dodgy to even ask
 
hows it even legal to ask for an inquiry to be suspended? only in the UK and other kangaroo countries no doubt

two tier britiain and all that, if you have money you get a lesser sentence, if your have a rich daddy you can get away with it entirely.

if your from a council estate that's 2 years for you sir.

literally a country that judges peoples character based on wealth and social status
 
Last edited:
hows it even legal to ask for an inquiry to be suspended? only in the UK and other kangaroo countries no doubt

two tier britiain and all that, if you have money you get a lesser sentence, if your have a rich daddy you can get away with it entirely.

if your from a council estate that's 2 years for you sir.

literally a country that judges peoples character based on wealth and social status
Inquiries and inquests are routinely suspended at the request of various parties, usually whilst additional information is sought or tests are being done.

It doesn't mean the inquiry won't complete or is being stopped, it means that there is a pause for a specific reason, and as the whole idea of an inquiry or inquest is to find out what happened it is better to put a hold on it if they think important information that may be forthcoming. IIRC usually such pauses are either for a set time, for a specific reason such as waiting for a test, or because there is a related legal matter or investigation that must be concluded first (IE a court case, or they're waiting on the police to finish an investigation).
 
Back
Top Bottom