Nurse arrested for murdering babies
- Thread starter neocon
- Start date
Associate
- Joined
- 17 Sep 2018
- Posts
- 1,474
Yes, I saw that, I emailed him this:
Dear David, I'm very concerned that you are publicly making ill informed commentary defending the serial killer, Lucy Letby. You have done this based on a misleading article from the New York Times/Athletic. The commentators of the article have not studied the court transcripts at all. It makes many incorrect assumptions. I'd like to point out this is a bad move for your career and also your legacy.
I can direct you to Lucy Letby's claim for appeal, which in of itself I think is incriminating enough as an admittance of guilt with the overwhelming evidence within it. There's 59 pages of it, I've read it all.
However I can also provide you with hours of voice acted video transcripts of the court footage if you want to hear them to be better informed. I sincerely hope you study this case and state that the media have been irresponsible in their coverage of this case. The media have further traumatised the families of these baby victims. I believe you were misled by the media and I hope when you read the truth you speak out about their irresponsible journalism. A responsible journalist would attend the court hearings or seek out the court transcripts. Instead they've not even bothered to find out the basic reporting of the court case. Challenging a court case with no research of the available evidence breaks every rule of journalism and should be called out.
Yours sincerely
So you saw the interview where he mentions he's read that document and you thought you'd write to him, to request that he reads the document he's already stated that he's read?
‘I am evil I did this’: Lucy Letby’s so-called confessions were written on advice of counsellors
Prosecutors used densely written Post-its to build case against nurse, but she was told to write down her feelings to cope with extreme stress, sources say
www.theguardian.com
Caporegime
Publicity, promotion, Conservative MP trying to stick the boot into Labour on another issue. Could be a million reasons. Few of them are likely to be his deep concern for an innocent women falsely accused of a horrible crime.
I've noticed over the years, you get politicians who get involved in some sort of silly cause, or make a scene over something - and it's never clear why they do it, it just seems to come around every now and then.
You only have to go back a few years to Covid, when half of them were getting involved in the dumbest, stupidest **** and getting fired.
I re-listened to a load of the court testimony on a 3 hour drive at the weekend, I actually forgot about one of the main doctors Ravi Jayaram - who testified under oath in the trial. He testified that he walked in on Lucy Letby stood next to a new-born baby (Baby K I believe), the baby's oxygen levels were right down, the breathing tube had become dislodged (something an experienced nurse would always be checking on a baby in that condition), the machine's alarm had been turned off.
What's interesting, is that the alarm on the machine goes off if the oxygen levels drop below 80, but you can cancel the alarm for 60 seconds by pressing a pause button (so it's not going off constantly if you're treating the baby), so somebody was actively pausing the alarm whilst the oxygen levels continued to drop, Letby was the only person in there...
She was found guilty of attempted murder on baby K.
I mean, it's just one piece of evidence that's absolutely damning, but taken in context with all the other evidence - the other deaths, cooking the books, internet searches, everything else - it's an iron clad verdict.
You only have to go back a few years to Covid, when half of them were getting involved in the dumbest, stupidest **** and getting fired.
I re-listened to a load of the court testimony on a 3 hour drive at the weekend, I actually forgot about one of the main doctors Ravi Jayaram - who testified under oath in the trial. He testified that he walked in on Lucy Letby stood next to a new-born baby (Baby K I believe), the baby's oxygen levels were right down, the breathing tube had become dislodged (something an experienced nurse would always be checking on a baby in that condition), the machine's alarm had been turned off.
What's interesting, is that the alarm on the machine goes off if the oxygen levels drop below 80, but you can cancel the alarm for 60 seconds by pressing a pause button (so it's not going off constantly if you're treating the baby), so somebody was actively pausing the alarm whilst the oxygen levels continued to drop, Letby was the only person in there...
She was found guilty of attempted murder on baby K.
I mean, it's just one piece of evidence that's absolutely damning, but taken in context with all the other evidence - the other deaths, cooking the books, internet searches, everything else - it's an iron clad verdict.
Man of Honour
We've been all over this in a Hospital Legal Department with Lawyers and Solicitors and she may be 100% guilty but after some things that have come to light she still deserves to have certain things re-examined.
Associate
- Joined
- 17 Sep 2018
- Posts
- 1,474
Is that even circumstantial? Another piece of evidence was the mother of Baby E came and heard her baby screaming in agony and blood which was coming from baby E's mouth. The mother said Letby claimed the feeding tube had irritated the babies throat and caused bleeding. Lucy Letby didn't record the baby as bleeding in her medical notes and claims the baby was not bleeding and the baby wasn't screaming. The mother was asked by Letby to leave the room and wait in the ward and baby E later died. Letby's defence tried to argue with the mother that the baby wasn't screaming or bleeding because that was what Letby testified. The mother said 'it was blood' and 'it was horrendous'. The jury knows either Letby or the mother are lying about this incident. If the jury believes the mother it means Letby is lying about a baby bleeding. The jury has to ask 'what would Letby's motive be in lying about a baby bleeding', with the baby dying the same day either from blood trauma or air embolism given as causes of death.
Not only that but his twin brother nearly died 24 hours later. A blood sample later confirms “extremely high” insulin levels and very low C-peptide levels. The prosecution say this proves insulin poisoning. Another expert later tried to argue it wasn't 100% proof of insulin poisoning. But in all likelyhood it would be extremely unlikely to have these readings at all without insulin poisoning. Nevermind the next day after his twin brother was murdered. Letby's defense did not dispute that it was insulin poisoning.
Associate
- Joined
- 17 Sep 2018
- Posts
- 1,474
Wouldn't that be argued in front of a judge where he decides if it would or would not have affected the verdict? Her current representation are not appealing on the grounds of the expertise making incorrect assumptions. Probably because they know it wouldn't affect the verdict. They want to throw out the doctor's evidence as they claim he is biased/involved emotionally in the case. This was rejected in the trial and court of appeal.
Last edited:
What things have come to light, that you think warrant the whole thing being dug up and re-run, dragging the families, the witnesses, the whole shooting-match, through a full re-trial, (at god knows what cost)?
I suppose it's a combination of circumstantial, oral and testimonial evidence - none of it is direct or forensic, it's simply the amount of the former - which convicted Letby.
And also the fact that her own testimony undermined her defence; she agreed with the prosecution under cross examination, that babies were being poisoned (insulin), but that it wasn't her (when all of the evidence pointed at her, and there was no alternative suspect)
Last edited:
Man of Honour
Well we knew that the things wrote on the Post It Notes she was advised to do it by her Counsellor but a massive deal was made of them with no defence.
The spreadsheet didn't include every staff member and incidents/deaths on the ward and the bit shown only pointed to one person.
If you were sentenced for five murders and you only did one wouldn't you want a retrial?
It's not enough though, is it.
All you have is some other experts disagreeing with the experts at the trial, there isn't any new evidence - just new people arguing.
If exculpatory evidence had come out, (such as Letby had an alibi, or some other suspect came to light) then it would warrant a re-trial, but all I've seen so far, are a bunch of experts getting bogged down in fine details, who are not thinking clearly - and as a result they're not reading the case properly.
Associate
Whilst I believe Ms Letby is guilty and rightly deserves to remain in prison for the rest of her life - there have been many incidences of failures under our legal system, and if there is any doubt then this must be investigated and acted upon. We should never allow ourselves to just accept that mistakes happen.
It’s scary how she has been done over by the justice system. It seems they had no real evidence to convict her just some dodgy stats and one of those so called experts, he sounded like a proper character aswell.
The whole case seemed dodgy aswell, she was just labelled as an incarnation of satan even before the trial.
The whole case seemed dodgy aswell, she was just labelled as an incarnation of satan even before the trial.
Last edited:
Man of Honour
No, it doesn't, it just means they believe that to be the case.
The parents declined a post-mortem and the jury verdict for that one wasn't unanimous AFAIK.
and there you go go @Felon somebody at the total opposite end of the spectrum
Considering that two of the babies were poisoned by insulin, and the defendant (Lucy Letby) agreed with the prosecution that the babies were poisoned, just that it wasn't her. (when the evidence pointed directly at her, <she was caring for the babies, she was with them at the time, there's no evidence of anybody else being involved>).
I'd like to see @inferno explain that away as 'no real evidence'
Last edited: