Nurse arrested for murdering babies

Werewolf said:
Note I am not saying she is innocent, but that it's extremely common for people who've been involved, even effectively as a bystander to wonder if they could have done something, anything to stop something from happening. IIRC it's why you have the term "survivors guilt", as people can feel guilt just from surviving when someone else didn't.

*Apparently if someone kills themselves in front of a train it's not at all uncommon for the driver to end up giving up the job, and in some cases commit suicide themselves due to the guilt because despite the fact they did nothing wrong, they were "in control" of the train at the time.
Click to expand...

Also note that on her confessions she also confessed that she didn't do it but the Prosecution only wanted to show one side.
She's probably 100% guilty but when I work in the exact same department as Chester where the Lawyer was fobbing off the Clinicians, when my Lawyer and Solicitors come in saying 'There's things that need investigating' then I'd rather side with them.

From what we've heard the Staff Timesheet should not have been used in Court.
Many Staff were left off it and many incidents/deaths were left off it and that's why Letby ended up at every incident.
Again adding all that info still might show it was her but it needs investigating properly.
 
The evidence is pretty damning especially when pulling together all the individual elements. I mean shes even being investigated for her time spent at another hospital due to an unusually high number of incidents when she was on shift.
 
Last edited:
I'd assumed that she was guilty given the evidence made available, but after reading the recent columns in Private Eye by M.D (Phil Hammond), I'm not sure. (https://www.private-eye.co.uk/special-reports/lucy-letby)
He's a respected senior doctor who's been writing for them for years, so it gives me pause for thought that he thinks the trial was unfair given the question marks raised.

To be clear, I don't think she's necessarily not guilty, I just don't have enough confidence in the data to judge one way or the other.
 
Paracelsus said:
I'd assumed that she was guilty given the evidence made available, but after reading the recent columns in Private Eye by M.D (Phil Hammond), I'm not sure. (https://www.private-eye.co.uk/special-reports/lucy-letby)
He's a respected senior doctor who's been writing for them for years, so it gives me pause for thought that he thinks the trial was unfair given the question marks raised.

To be clear, I don't think she's necessarily not guilty, I just don't have enough confidence in the data to judge one way or the other.
Click to expand...

And therein lies the problem, so called resident experts having a stab at it or making guess work.

I haven't read the full article on detail but straight away in part 6 he asks why anyone would believe her over a consultant implying they lied? He also seemingly left out the part where the automatic breathing alarm was also turned off.

I'll put faith into the jury on this one
 
Paracelsus said:
I'd assumed that she was guilty given the evidence made available, but after reading the recent columns in Private Eye by M.D (Phil Hammond), I'm not sure. (https://www.private-eye.co.uk/special-reports/lucy-letby)
He's a respected senior doctor who's been writing for them for years, so it gives me pause for thought that he thinks the trial was unfair given the question marks raised.

To be clear, I don't think she's necessarily not guilty, I just don't have enough confidence in the data to judge one way or the other.
Click to expand...
I too have read that and heard him on the eye podcast. Guilty or not its hard to argue she received a fair trial, which is why at some point it will have to be re-tried. Basic justice.
 
Kill_Phil said:
And therein lies the problem, so called resident experts having a stab at it or making guess work.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's a fair summary of what he's been doing in the articles.
Private Eye is also not a publication prone to whipping out a resident expert to make controversial takes either, which is why I take his opinion more seriously. They do good journalism.
 
fez said:
She was convicted because of the overwhelming likelihood she did it. Death by a thousand cuts. Statisticians can pick apart their stats all they like but fundamentally, taken as a whole there is almost 0 chance she wasn't murdering babies.

Statistical evidence against her - She is either the unluckiest person ever ie. she turns up and babies start dying who should never die, she leaves and they stop dying, or she was killing them
Medical evidence - various pretty strong evidence that the babies were being murdered. Mostly missing direct proof she did it but someone did and she was the common factor. Some of the medical tests performed post mortem also very much pointed to things that cannot occur naturally no matter how unlucky the baby. There has been some questioning of this but we are talking the lab ****** up really badly... twice, months apart and they don't **** up often.
Her confessions - Self explanatory really

Have to say, at this point, the people who think she is innocent just come across as wanting to be on the other side of a moon shot. They want to think they know something other people don't. Want to think there is a conspiracy. There isn't. Shes guilty.
Click to expand...

There's allot more than this too though. Witness statements such as the doctor who saw Letby standing over a baby incubator with the breathing tube removed and the alarm being turned off to alert medical professionals that it had come loose.

A mother's testimony that she heard her baby screaming in pain and seeing blood dripping from it's mouth. Letby denied throughout her interviews and the trial that blood came from the babies mouth. It wasn't in her medical notes either.

Taking the victims medical records home. Stalking the victims on facebook. She couldn't explain why she did either of these things.

I've also heard hearsay that Letby made slips in some of her testimony during trial.
 
The problem is that people are looking at individual snippets of circumstantial evidence in isolation and pointing out that it's weak, because it is. Picking out individual strands of evidence in this case and focusing squarely on them, makes the conviction look weak - because there is no one big piece of evidence that seals the deal, by itself. People focus in on that and say "meh, I rekon she might be innocent"

The problem is - the mountain of circumstantial evidence needs to be considered as a whole, when you do that and add all of the pieces up - it's very strong.
 
Last edited:
The wider issue in this case isn’t just circumstantial evidence on specifically convicting Letby of murder, but also the doubt over whether the babies were even attacked by someone in the first place. This is why the Letby case stands out.
 
Jokester said:
The wider issue in this case isn’t just circumstantial evidence on specifically convicting Letby of murder, but also the doubt over whether the babies were even attacked by someone in the first place. This is why the Letby case stands out.
Click to expand...

That's not true, 1 of the babies had suffered a liver injury akin to a road traffic collision
 
Jokester said:
The wider issue in this case isn’t just circumstantial evidence on specifically convicting Letby of murder, but also the doubt over whether the babies were even attacked by someone in the first place. This is why the Letby case stands out.
Click to expand...

The problem with that, is that Lucy Letby agreed with the prosecution, that babies were being poisoned, just that it wasn't her.

Furthermore, of the two babies who were poisoned (Baby F and baby L) both tested positive for 'off the chart' levels of insulin, levels of which could only have been present if it was given artificially, because of the absence of peptide-c (always present if the body is naturally producing too much insulin)
 
Last edited:
Felon said:
The problem with that, is that Lucy Letby agreed with the prosecution, that babies were being poisoned, just that it wasn't her.
Click to expand...
Why is that a problem? Her opinion on whether the babies were being poisoned or not seems irrelevant, and she's allowed to change her opinion if new evidence casts doubt on it.
 
Eddie99 said:
Why is that a problem? Her opinion on whether the babies were being poisoned or not seems irrelevant, and she's allowed to change her opinion if new evidence casts doubt on it.
Click to expand...

Ok - but there isn't any new evidence casting doubt on it.

If it was possible to contradict the insulin evidence at the time, the defense would have done so - but they couldn't because it's too strong, there is no alternative explanation that makes sense, because the babies were poisoned.
 
Felon said:
Furthermore, of the two babies who were poisoned (Baby F and baby L) both tested positive for 'off the chart' levels of insulin, levels of which could only have been present if it was given artificially, because of the absence of peptide-c (always present if the body is naturally producing too much insulin)
Click to expand...

Expert witnesses who work in that field after the trial said that can occur naturally so needs investigating.

Felon said:
The problem with that, is that Lucy Letby agreed with the prosecution, that babies were being poisoned, just that it wasn't her.
Click to expand...

You are thinking too hard about this.
Coppers say to you "Do you believe John Smith was murdered?" and you say "Yes but it wasn't me" that doesn't mean you are an expert in John being murdered, you were just told that and went along with it.
Letby should have said "I don't know but if the experts say that happened then that was the reason but it wasn't me".
She is not an expert in insulin overdoses.
 
SexyGreyFox said:
Expert witnesses who work in that field after the trial said that can occur naturally so needs investigating.
Click to expand...

The majority of experts say it doesn't and there's nothing wrong with the test at all.

Also, two separate cases (Baby F and Baby L) , tested in two different labs - got the same results (unnaturally high levels of insulin that could not have been produced by the body)

Plus - both children were showing symptoms of insulin poisoning, which severely hurts the possibility of both tests being false positives, or there being any problem with the tests at all.
 
Last edited:
arknor said:
A bunch of post office workers got wrongly convicted with many of them serving prison sentences ?

Shes below average surely? the 3-4 photos that keep going around in the media seem to be from her younger days when she was like fresh out of uni or something, and then she's what a 6?

The arrest video might as well be an entirely different person.

I wouldn't be surprised if some people with influence are trying to protect the NHS at all costs, and a retrial is the last thing they need right now.
Click to expand...
I'm not really about rating people on their appearance, but surely 6 makes you above average? :cry:
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom