Lucy Letby Guilty
Discussion
LivingTheDream said:
SlimJim16v said:
They're saying several doctors had previously raised concerns about her treatment of babies, but no action was taken.
Indeed this article - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66120934 details it. They were even made to apologise to her!!MrSmith901 said:
Anyone thinking she might be innocent, please research this properly before commenting. Just one example, she was on shift every time this happened. Across the hundreds of hours staff spent with the children, one thing was consistent, she was on shift, and usually alone, with the infants prior to their collapse.
The jury must have found this all so hard, but they have deemed her guilty beyond reasonable doubt. She is as guilty as sin and I hope she rots.
I agree. This article on the BBC website lays it all out. The chart showing who was on duty when each incident happened is very illuminating. Also the fact that the Dr in charge was trying to get her removed for months but was rebuffed by management is shocking. Hospital management need to be held fully accountable. Their actions are criminal.The jury must have found this all so hard, but they have deemed her guilty beyond reasonable doubt. She is as guilty as sin and I hope she rots.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-66120934
MrSmith901 said:
Anyone thinking she might be innocent, please research this properly before commenting. Just one example, she was on shift every time this happened. Across the hundreds of hours staff spent with the children, one thing was consistent, she was on shift, and usually alone, with the infants prior to their collapse.
The jury must have found this all so hard, but they have deemed her guilty beyond reasonable doubt. She is as guilty as sin and I hope she rots.
Thanks for the advice, but I wager I know a fair bit more about the subject matter than you, so I will continue commenting and expressing my doubts. The jury must have found this all so hard, but they have deemed her guilty beyond reasonable doubt. She is as guilty as sin and I hope she rots.
Hammersia said:
Thanks for the advice, but I wager I know a fair bit more about the subject matter than you, so I will continue commenting and expressing my doubts.
Are you an expert witness too? What’s your view on the way Dr. Dewi Evans and Dr. Sandie Bohin’s testimony was dealt with?
Terrible. And that Dr who tried to raise the alarm, wow. Every one of those people name checked in there need to be relieved of their jobs at the very least and arguably much more. Utter incompetence with the gravest of outcomes.
To the bloke above - please do share these skills you have that mean you know better?
To the bloke above - please do share these skills you have that mean you know better?
Hammersia said:
I think it's possible she did it.... maybe as much chance as 50/50..... but certainly can't see how it's been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
A jury who has heard all the evidence disagrees with you, obviously.But if it wasn't Letby, then what caused the deaths ? There are too many just to be bad luck, so you're implying it must be a different member of staff ?
I found this aspect of the case quite interesting and wonder if it has any potential implications in terms of any appeals: https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/rare-anonymity-o...
sebdangerfield said:
Hammersia said:
Thanks for the advice, but I wager I know a fair bit more about the subject matter than you, so I will continue commenting and expressing my doubts.
Are you an expert witness too? What’s your view on the way Dr. Dewi Evans and Dr. Sandie Bohin’s testimony was dealt with?
It doesn't change the entirely circumstantial case that was built.
If she really is guilty, then she has an entirely unique psychological make up amongst serial killers.
Hammersia said:
I didn't claim to be an expert witness but I can't see anything remotely controversial about their involvement.
It doesn't change the entirely circumstantial case that was built.
If she really is guilty, then she has an entirely unique psychological make up amongst serial killers.
Circumstantial evidence can be pretty damning if there is enough of it. In this case there is. It doesn't change the entirely circumstantial case that was built.
If she really is guilty, then she has an entirely unique psychological make up amongst serial killers.
No doubt she is unique. She has serious issues, but that doesn't mean she didn't do it. What is a normal serial killer anyway? Harold Shipman? Fred West? Peter Sutcliffe?
Hammersia said:
sebdangerfield said:
Hammersia said:
Thanks for the advice, but I wager I know a fair bit more about the subject matter than you, so I will continue commenting and expressing my doubts.
Are you an expert witness too? What’s your view on the way Dr. Dewi Evans and Dr. Sandie Bohin’s testimony was dealt with?
It doesn't change the entirely circumstantial case that was built.
If she really is guilty, then she has an entirely unique psychological make up amongst serial killers.
7 deaths plus many other life-threatening conditions experienced on the unit during the 12 months that Letby worked there, and she was on duty for all of them.
The article from which the above table is taken also notes towards the end:
"Since Letby left the hospital's neonatal unit, there has been only one death in seven years."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66120934
OzzyR1 said:
We are only reading a tiny percentage of the evidence that was presented to the court, but even from that, some of what you to refer to as "circumstantial" appears damning:
It certainly is but equally, did you read the above wikipedia link about the dutch case? Not saying it's necessarily equivalent but there are some similarities on the face of it as well.isaldiri said:
OzzyR1 said:
We are only reading a tiny percentage of the evidence that was presented to the court, but even from that, some of what you to refer to as "circumstantial" appears damning:
It certainly is but equally, did you read the above wikipedia link about the dutch case? Not saying it's necessarily equivalent but there are some similarities on the face of it as well.OzzyR1 said:
We are only reading a tiny percentage of the evidence that was presented to the court, but even from that, some of what you to refer to as "circumstantial" appears damning:
7 deaths plus many other life-threatening conditions experienced on the unit during the 12 months that Letby worked there, and she was on duty for all of them.
The article from which the above table is taken also notes towards the end:
"Since Letby left the hospital's neonatal unit, there has been only one death in seven years."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66120934
That chart covers a whole year, and it's a self selected chart showing cases that "fit an MO" eg air embolism and insulin. 7 deaths plus many other life-threatening conditions experienced on the unit during the 12 months that Letby worked there, and she was on duty for all of them.
The article from which the above table is taken also notes towards the end:
"Since Letby left the hospital's neonatal unit, there has been only one death in seven years."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66120934
It is NOT a chart recording all baby illnesses over the whole year, which might look very different and more random, and much, much bigger.
In other words, just on that piece of evidence alone, there must be some cause to suspect that the facts have been made to fit the case.
MrSmith901 said:
Circumstantial evidence can be pretty damning if there is enough of it. In this case there is.
No doubt she is unique. She has serious issues, but that doesn't mean she didn't do it. What is a normal serial killer anyway? Harold Shipman? Fred West? Peter Sutcliffe?
Yes, normal as in other killers have had comparable ethea to each of those three. No doubt she is unique. She has serious issues, but that doesn't mean she didn't do it. What is a normal serial killer anyway? Harold Shipman? Fred West? Peter Sutcliffe?
Hammersia said:
OzzyR1 said:
We are only reading a tiny percentage of the evidence that was presented to the court, but even from that, some of what you to refer to as "circumstantial" appears damning:
7 deaths plus many other life-threatening conditions experienced on the unit during the 12 months that Letby worked there, and she was on duty for all of them.
The article from which the above table is taken also notes towards the end:
"Since Letby left the hospital's neonatal unit, there has been only one death in seven years."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66120934
That chart covers a whole year, and it's a self selected chart showing cases that "fit an MO" eg air embolism and insulin. 7 deaths plus many other life-threatening conditions experienced on the unit during the 12 months that Letby worked there, and she was on duty for all of them.
The article from which the above table is taken also notes towards the end:
"Since Letby left the hospital's neonatal unit, there has been only one death in seven years."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66120934
It is NOT a chart recording all baby illnesses over the whole year, which might look very different and more random, and much, much bigger.
In other words, just on that piece of evidence alone, there must be some cause to suspect that the facts have been made to fit the case.
isaldiri said:
OzzyR1 said:
We are only reading a tiny percentage of the evidence that was presented to the court, but even from that, some of what you to refer to as "circumstantial" appears damning:
It certainly is but equally, did you read the above wikipedia link about the dutch case? Not saying it's necessarily equivalent but there are some similarities on the face of it as well.The graph does look damning, but also has similarities with the Dutch nurse, who the experts were also so convinced of guilt. Also, there were a lot more deaths which she was not charged with, which she was not on shift for.
Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 19th August 08:12
One of the most damning pieces of evidence most people claim are the insulin (LL even agrees the babies must have been given it),
Yet, if this is accurate
"It is the case that Professor Hindmarsh stated that a blood test with an insulin concentration of 4657 (units not given pmol/L or mU/L) and very low c-peptide could only occur due to exogenous administration. Remarkably, he then leaps to a conclusion that this insulin must have been administered via the dextrose/TPN solutions. This is a stunning claim to make, not least when a concentration of insulin of 4657 pmol/L or 4657 mU/L, would kill two grown men. Yet the infant, who was both very low birth weight and very preterm, recovered without any sequelae in a few hours"
https://rexvlucyletby2023.com/
Any insulin experts looked at this data, and can give their opinion?
Yet, if this is accurate
"It is the case that Professor Hindmarsh stated that a blood test with an insulin concentration of 4657 (units not given pmol/L or mU/L) and very low c-peptide could only occur due to exogenous administration. Remarkably, he then leaps to a conclusion that this insulin must have been administered via the dextrose/TPN solutions. This is a stunning claim to make, not least when a concentration of insulin of 4657 pmol/L or 4657 mU/L, would kill two grown men. Yet the infant, who was both very low birth weight and very preterm, recovered without any sequelae in a few hours"
https://rexvlucyletby2023.com/
Any insulin experts looked at this data, and can give their opinion?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff