Jump to content

Lucy Letby - Nurse on trial for murdering babies.


numnuts

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, dirtydog said:

These links may be of interest, from experts who have looked at the case in detail and believe Lucy Letby did not receive a fair trial. 

 

 

https://gill1109.com/2023/05/24/the-lucy-letby-case/

 

https://rexvlucyletby2023.com/

 

https://www.chimpinvestor.com/post/the-travesty-of-the-lucy-letby-verdicts

 

 

 

 This

 https://rexvlucyletby2023.com/ 

 

definitely raises many  questions with the case and the wider ramifications 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, dirtydog said:

These links may be of interest, from experts who have looked at the case in detail and believe Lucy Letby did not receive a fair trial. 

 

 

https://gill1109.com/2023/05/24/the-lucy-letby-case/

 

https://rexvlucyletby2023.com/

 

https://www.chimpinvestor.com/post/the-travesty-of-the-lucy-letby-verdicts

 

 

 

 

18 hours ago, Malbec said:

This is interesting.... apols if already posted 

 

 

 

17 hours ago, Talorgan said:

 This

 https://rexvlucyletby2023.com/ 

 

definitely raises many  questions with the case and the wider ramifications 

It is hard to understand looking at all the links and videos posted, how the defence counsel got it so badly wrong. It doesn't seem that the right experts were sought in this case to highlight all the lack of actual evidence and the the counter arguments to what the prosecution team put forward, which were basically hypothesis. That in itself should raise red flags, because these are the things that even us mere mortals would have considered semi-obvious. 

 

Regardless of if she is guilty, she didn't seem to get a fair trial or fair representation by the defence team. Strange case. I wasn't old enough/awake enough for some of the previous miscarriages of justice, but were so many experts coming out as quick as this case to highlight all the inconsistency? 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, BornFreeNowAgain said:

 

 

It is hard to understand looking at all the links and videos posted, how the defence counsel got it so badly wrong. It doesn't seem that the right experts were sought in this case to highlight all the lack of actual evidence and the the counter arguments to what the prosecution team put forward, which were basically hypothesis. That in itself should raise red flags, because these are the things that even us mere mortals would have considered semi-obvious. 

 

Regardless of if she is guilty, she didn't seem to get a fair trial or fair representation by the defence team. Strange case. I wasn't old enough/awake enough for some of the previous miscarriages of justice, but were so many experts coming out as quick as this case to highlight all the inconsistency? 

Yes and the numbers were bad after she left ,it looks like a possible cover up there?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Talorgan said:

Yes and the numbers were bad after she left ,it looks like a possible cover up there?

It sure does. It seems a little too strange for it to simply be just a cover up though, so perhaps they are preparing for new laws to be brought in, or the final nail in the NHS coffin? Or maybe what Dr McLachlan says has merit, in that there were serious flaws in the plumbing that were causing infections in the babies, which could carry a huge cost in being sued by parents? I don't know if the parents can sue for a staff member killing their child or what the pay-out differences may be between the two scenarios? Maybe Lucy Letby is a convenient scapegoat? 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excellent article appearing in PSI. Even better is the full-length original (link posted at end of following article) ...

 

Shocker: Is Key ‘Expert Witness’ in UK Nurse Baby Killings Trial Exposed?

Published on August 25, 2023

Written by John O'Sullivan

 

 

ffffffff-copy.jpg?resize=450%2C301&ssl=1

Having personal experience of how science is used and abused in courtroom battles the recent sensational conviction of nurse Lucy Letby as modern Britain’s worst serial child killer is troubling. Did the science presented fairly reflect the facts or was an innocent women cruelly jailed for life?

 

Death of a newborn is expecially devastating when a criminal court rules that your precious baby was intentionally harmed at its most vulnerable and in the most trusted of hands.

This month Lucy Letby became the most prolific serial killer of children in modern British history when convicted of the murders of at least seven infants. At least six other babies sustained injuries when she was working as a neonatal nurse between June 2015 and June 2016 at the Countess of Chester Hospital (CoCH) in Chester, England.

But in the period June 2015 to June 2016 nobody suspected Lucy Letby of wrong-doing.  It was only after the Consultants, running the neonatal unit, were the subject of a critical report from the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health (RCPCH) that the Consultants filed a report with the police alleging the infant deaths were due to the actions of nurse Lucy Letby.

 

Having studied independent reports on the case it became clear that this case was far more uncertain and problematic than the media have reported and it has spurned unease among many experts that the science presented to the jury was not only sub par, but may be tainted by confirmation bias.

In all but one case, the infants received autopsies, and the coroner found that they died of natural causes.

According to one independent expert source:

“Based upon published peer-reviewed research, and with the guidance, advice, and insights of other scientists, it is the view of Science on Trial that the scientific information put before the court by the expert witnesses is very simply inaccurate, misleading, and in many places false. The expert witnesses in this case are likely aware that the claims they have made lack necessary scientific findings, and if they were to write these claims up and attempt to submit them for publication, their submission would be quickly rejected.”

While another independent analyst revealed that:

“A former paediatrician sometimes called ‘Doctor Evidence For Hire’ is the prosecution’s linchpin ‘expert witness’. Retired since 2009, evidence shows that rather than as Dr Dewi Evans led under oath regarding the National Crime Agency contacting him to assist on the case – Dr Evans had insinuated himself into the case early on by contacting the police first and offering his services.

He testified that he thought he ‘could help’, ‘give advice’, ‘review case notes’ and ‘form an opinion of what led to the collapses of Child A and Child B’. Evans became involved in the Letby case when he travelled from Wales to Cheshire to ‘visit’ Cheshire police because, he said, there were concerns regarding the number of deaths at CoCH which were ‘unusual’ and which exceeded expectations. Defence counsel and no doubt many others saw this as ‘touting for business’. “

It appears Dr Dewi Evans profited handsomely from his craft. His company called Dewi Evans Paediatric Consulting Limited is listed on LinkedIn selling his services as an expert witness for hire. His company reports current accounts with cash at hand of over £108,000 for the financial year ending 2022. He appears to have invoiced totals between £80,000-150,000 annually during the period of the Lucy Letby investigation.

Critics of his assert that his testimony tended more towards the role of being an apologist for the doctors who were present at CoCH at the time, rather than presenting the confident and independent judgement of an expert.

In previous trial work the Lord Justice of Appeals had rejected Dr Dewi Evans’ evidence, describing it as “tendentious and partisan expressions of opinion that are outside of Dr Evans’ professional competence which had “no place in a reputable expert report.

From the outset, this case proceeded by pure scientific speculation, where it introduced employees of the same organization that employs the defendant (The National Health Service) to testify to the validity of the forensic investigation performed by an expert who solicited the role as an investigator (Dr Evans).

There were several instances where it could be argued that strict application of the scientific method was not only missing, but cock-eyed guess work predominated, as indicated in the following independent analysis: 

“…it is incredible that all of the claims against Lucy Letby rely on the half-baked assertions of Dr Evans regarding air emboli being the only cause that explains what happened to several of these neonates. Assertions that yet again may very well be outside his expertise.

The bulk of Dr Evans’ initial evidence in chief included taking the jury through a collection of medical training videos and explaining key terms and procedures. Among others, this included a training video on the Phillips neonatal patient monitors. During cross examination he undermined his own ‘expert evidence’ first by telling the jury that not everything could be learned from training videos, and then by admitting he had not only never used in clinical practice the Phillips monitors he had been taking them through – but that he had actually never seen one at all.”

It can be shown that Dr Evans provided no real suggestion in his testimony for Child A that any alternate potential theories for the cause of death were considered and discounted. In fact, he describes that he came to his conclusion (the air embolus) first, and then found he could even fit the circumstances of Child B to it.

This gave the impression that some degree of confirmation bias was inherent in his thinking. The impression of confirmation bias became stronger when Dr Evans rapidly and with little consideration concluded new evidence solely reinforced his theory of the case, such as the claimed skin mottling Registrar Harkness described seeing on Child A for the first time while giving evidence during this very trial.

lawhealthandtech.substack.com tells us:

“Another example came when, after it had been put to him during cross examination, he unequivocally denied that an infection could even be involved. He brushed infection aside with the bold claim that evidence of infection “would appear on a post-mortem examination”.

However, this is not always the case. Unless there was some obvious outward sign of infection, clinical observations at death that strongly suggested it, or the post-mortem request suggested it, the pathologist might not undertake the complete panel of tests that identify a broad range of viral and bacterial infections. “

Science on Trial, how does it stack up?

Essentially, the scientific “proof” in this case amounts to the conflation of gas embolism with air embolism, and the reliance on one single publication from 1989, which details the consequences of gas embolism. However, this is not the same phenomenon that Dr Evans uses in his assessment of cause of death.

Dr Evans contends that these infants, with wildly different autopsy findings, died due to air embolism and not gas embolism. The evidence Dr Evans relies on to prove air embolism is from a paper detailing a wholly distinct phenomena called gas embolism. This alone demonstrates how woefully out of his depth Dr Evans was in conducting his investigation.

The case against Lucy Letby was wholly circumstantial such that expert medical evidence required to convict her for a full life term should be of the most impeccable standard. But was it?

It has been repeatedly claimed that the number of deaths at CoCH increased in 2015 and 2016, and the implication was that these two years were unique in the number of infant deaths.

However, the original announcement made regarding the investigation, of the infant deaths at the Countess of Chester Hospital, contained no statement surrounding an increased incidence of deaths. In the years subsequent to 2015 and 2016 the rates of perinatal death continued to increase.

  • DCS Nigel Wenham stated on or around May 18th 2017 that: “Cheshire constabulary has launched an investigation, which will focus on the deaths of eight babies that occurred between that period [2015-2016] where medical practitioners have expressed concern”
  • The cumulative infant mortality rate at the Countess of Chester Hospital, for 2015 and 2016 was lower than the national average.
  • There is an unusual trend in the pattern of stillbirths and perinatal deaths.
  • The number of perinatal deaths in 2017 and 2018 was higher than in 2015 and 2016, but Lucy Letby was not on the ward in these years
  • In June 2019, Dr Gibbs retired.  Dr Gibbs was the Senior Consultant who accused Lucy Letby of murdering infants.  In that same year the number of perinatal deaths and stillbirths dramatically declined.

Principia Scientific is collaborating with interested third parties to impartially review all the scientific evidence to assist in resolving uncertaintities and we will post updates in due course.

 

References:

https://www.scienceontrial.com/

https://rexvlucyletby2023.com/

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I honestly can't understand how a case that rests on "expert" evidence from the prosecution, didn't have adequate experts for the defence to counter most of the evidence. I haven't yet found, but will try to work out whether any expert evidence at all was called in the defence case. (The interview video seemed to suggest only the plumber was called by the defence other than LL).  If it wasn't, it seems negligent on the part of the solicitors/ defence team to not challenge any of it or advance any expert evidence in her defence in a trial such as this, which is so heavily reliant on what the "experts" conclude about various different deaths. 

 

and why wasn't the coroner called if his findings were natural causes for each baby?  

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Malbec said:

I honestly can't understand how a case that rests on "expert" evidence from the prosecution, didn't have adequate experts for the defence to counter most of the evidence. I haven't yet found, but will try to work out whether any expert evidence at all was called in the defence case. (The interview video seemed to suggest only the plumber was called by the defence other than LL).  If it wasn't, it seems negligent on the part of the solicitors/ defence team to not challenge any of it or advance any expert evidence in her defence in a trial such as this, which is so heavily reliant on what the "experts" conclude about various different deaths. 

 

and why wasn't the coroner called if his findings were natural causes for each baby?  

Great points ! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is looking more and more like the 'defence' team did not wish to do much defending in this trial. When medical professionals, legal experts and scientists come out within days raising red flags, then you know you have a problem. The fact that the defence team did not raise any counter arguments or bring in any experts to counter what amounted to speculation and hypotheses by the prosecution says it all. Was the defence team 'pressured' to not help LL, or were they just 'inconveniently incompetent', which happens so much in Politics? 

 

Even guilty people deserve proper legal defence, so why was LL not afforded this?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah but she has to either appeal through her current solicitors and KC, or instruct a new one for a second opinion which takes a while when you're in prison. And strictly speaking she has to do it in 4 weeks, although you can apply out of time beyond that with good reason. I presume she will be shell shocked for a while as well. I bet loads of people could justify an appeal, but just don't know how to do it or why they have grounds on an evidential or technical basis etc....without receiving proper legal advice. I wonder if those science on trial people will approach her about their findings? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Malbec said:

 

The majority of the 30 or so comments I read show support for an appeal ...

 

Fergus Sira-Lexon, England, 3 days ago

 

Once more and more people start looking into how the CPS really built their "case" against her and see how their medical expert came to work for them (and what a judge at another trial said about him), more and more people will realise that this is the biggest miscarriage of justice ever! Please search the following two things Richard Gill Statistics Lucy Letby case and Bid to exclude evidence of Dewi Evans

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my opinion the medical expert they used would know or be aware of the 'gang of four' involved because working through the medical ranks and specialising in premature babies would result in being well known to each other, with the numbers in that expert field becoming smaller as they 'climb'. They would attend numerous conferences  (jolly time), training, research, adding names to written papers and pioneering surgical methods. In other words - they have a pact to keep quiet because they will also know the naughty things about each other so if one goes down they all do and it's b*llocks that he was neutral. Also he knew the police wanted a conviction - they are not going to do years of investigating for him to say "no, they died due to inadequate care". And then his stoic loyalty to the NHS?

 

Maybe this pact and loyalty was the reason there didn't appear to be experts for the defence? I also think the lack of anyone sticking up for Lucy would be down to the fear involved in this. There's a lot at stake if you speak up!

 

Oh and this from another case. Lucy Letby trial: Judge described expert witness report as 'worthless' | Chester and District Standard (chesterstandard.co.uk)

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Observations said:

 

The majority of the 30 or so comments I read show support for an appeal ...

 

 

It could be a lot more but on all Lucy Letby articles I've seen so far, the Mail per-moderates comments for the first few days, and they are mostly only allowing through comments which think she is guilty. Sometimes they don't allow through a single comment which says she even MIGHT be innocent, until much later, when few people will see it. The Mail does this on articles routinely where it wants to mould public opinion. Most people don't realise when their thoughts and opinions are being manipulated, which is why so many people feel so strongly that Letby is guilty - they were told to feel this way. They haven't done much or any thinking of their own. And then they see comments (which are the only ones the Mail allows to be published) from members of the public agreeing, so this reinforces their 'opinion'. It's very insidious, the Mail has a lot of power and does not use it fairly. 

 

(Not just the Mail. The Guardian is the same, although they tend to let any comment be posted initially, but rapidly delete opinions they don't want aired, on the dishonest grounds that they break their 'community standards'.)

 

Edited by dirtydog
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Malbec said:

Yeah but she has to either appeal through her current solicitors and KC, or instruct a new one for a second opinion which takes a while when you're in prison. And strictly speaking she has to do it in 4 weeks, although you can apply out of time beyond that with good reason. I presume she will be shell shocked for a while as well. I bet loads of people could justify an appeal, but just don't know how to do it or why they have grounds on an evidential or technical basis etc....without receiving proper legal advice. I wonder if those science on trial people will approach her about their findings? 

 

I think she has a hell of an uphill battle. The system in the UK is much harder to appeal than in America I believe. Our system seems more prone to miscarriages of justice for a few reasons. My understanding of this is shallow so maybe someone can correct me if I'm wrong. In the US you would be able to hire the best defence attorneys for trial, lawyers who work exclusively in defence and this means you can get someone who passionately believes in your innocence and will do their damnedest to get you off. 

 

In the UK, the barrister defending you will also work for the prosecution in other trials. In theory barristers are strictly neutral and the fact they also work for the prosecution doesn't impact their ability to put on a good defence. In practice though, to me that is dubious. And in Lucy Letby's trial it was apparent that the defence team were lacklustre and seemed to be just going through the motions. In an American court, any top attorney would be landing heavy blows left and right on the weak circumstantial evidence, they would be licking their lips at the opportunity to tear holes in the prosecution's case. Here, that didn't happen. 

 

The other thing is that the defence can't put on its own expert witnesses because it assumed they are neutral and work for the court. Sounds fine in theory but in practice hinders the defence's ability to counter the prosecution's assertions and raise reasonable doubt. 

 

I hope Lucy and her family are receiving good advice, I'm sure there will be a lot of people seeking to give it to them. Picking the good advice from the bad might be difficult, as it would be for any of us if we were in that position. I would like to donate to her appeal but I will certainly wait until there is an official request from the family themselves or their appointed representatives. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, dirtydog said:

 

I think she has a hell of an uphill battle. The system in the UK is much harder to appeal than in America I believe. Our system seems more prone to miscarriages of justice for a few reasons. My understanding of this is shallow so maybe someone can correct me if I'm wrong. In the US you would be able to hire the best defence attorneys for trial, lawyers who work exclusively in defence and this means you can get someone who passionately believes in your innocence and will do their damnedest to get you off. 

 

In the UK, the barrister defending you will also work for the prosecution in other trials. In theory barristers are strictly neutral and the fact they also work for the prosecution doesn't impact their ability to put on a good defence. In practice though, to me that is dubious. And in Lucy Letby's trial it was apparent that the defence team were lacklustre and seemed to be just going through the motions. In an American court, any top attorney would be landing heavy blows left and right on the weak circumstantial evidence, they would be licking their lips at the opportunity to tear holes in the prosecution's case. Here, that didn't happen. 

 

The other thing is that the defence can't put on its own expert witnesses because it assumed they are neutral and work for the court. Sounds fine in theory but in practice hinders the defence's ability to counter the prosecution's assertions and raise reasonable doubt. 

 

I hope Lucy and her family are receiving good advice, I'm sure there will be a lot of people seeking to give it to them. Picking the good advice from the bad might be difficult, as it would be for any of us if we were in that position. I would like to donate to her appeal but I will certainly wait until there is an official request from the family themselves or their appointed representatives. 

Good points, there are obviously certain rules so the defence team don't necessarily have to believe your innocence, but work with your instructions and cross examination is usually based on the clients instructions.

 

All cases such as this should have experts, all covered by legal aid. Examples such as baby shaking cases, RTAs a lot of drug and assault cases, dna cases usually have experts for the defence where you are disputing expert evidence for the Crown. Eg. If you admit presence and admit its you on CCTV you wouldn't need an expert in that field, but say your DNA is on an item and you have an explanation for that you may want a DNA expert to see if any other people's DNA is on it. If the defendant isn't accepting the experts findings then obviously you would instruct an expert on basis of what the defendants case is.  

 

Often prosecuting and defending is an advantage, as the defence counsel will know how the prosecutor would be running their case so that can also give an advantage. 

 

Im at a complete loss as to there not being any expert evidence in the case for the defence apart from a plumber. 

 

Jurors are not medical experts so they are dependant on explanations by experts at the trial for scientific/ medical / peadiatric / neonatal anatomy including illnesses and tendencies that babies at such a low gestation have and risks/ statistics etc.

 

A recent example is that woman kicking a horse case, one prosecution expert said it was cruel and animal I distress, defence expert disagreed. Both were horse equestrian experts. She was weirdly acquitted. Another jury full of animal lovers may have convicted her. Assuming she would have paid privately for her barrister as she was part of a fox hunting group so I'm assuming that's an upper class sort of sport? Although the barrister's should give the best service to their clients all of the time   

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Malbec said:

Good points, there are obviously certain rules so the defence team don't necessarily have to believe your innocence, but work with your instructions and cross examination is usually based on the clients instructions.

 

All cases such as this should have experts, all covered by legal aid. Examples such as baby shaking cases, RTAs a lot of drug and assault cases, dna cases usually have experts for the defence where you are disputing expert evidence for the Crown. Eg. If you admit presence and admit its you on CCTV you wouldn't need an expert in that field, but say your DNA is on an item and you have an explanation for that you may want a DNA expert to see if any other people's DNA is on it. If the defendant isn't accepting the experts findings then obviously you would instruct an expert on basis of what the defendants case is.  

 

Often prosecuting and defending is an advantage, as the defence counsel will know how the prosecutor would be running their case so that can also give an advantage. 

 

Im at a complete loss as to there not being any expert evidence in the case for the defence apart from a plumber. 

 

Jurors are not medical experts so they are dependant on explanations by experts at the trial for scientific/ medical / peadiatric / neonatal anatomy including illnesses and tendencies that babies at such a low gestation have and risks/ statistics etc.

 

A recent example is that woman kicking a horse case, one prosecution expert said it was cruel and animal I distress, defence expert disagreed. Both were horse equestrian experts. She was weirdly acquitted. Another jury full of animal lovers may have convicted her. Assuming she would have paid privately for her barrister as she was part of a fox hunting group so I'm assuming that's an upper class sort of sport? Although the barrister's should give the best service to their clients all of the time   

 

 

Great post! It is strange if true that the defence cannot call in their own experts, very strange indeed. In this particular case, the prosecutions main 'expert' was appointed by the Police after 'whoring' himself to them. How can that be classed as an impartial expert? When you look at the calibre of some of those already raising serious questions and listen to some of those concerns, you can see clearly how badly defended Letby was in this case.  A top statistician would have been able to tear holes in a lot of the hypotheses presented as facts and evidence. Given that a lot of the prosecution case was based on numbers, why did the defence not put forward a decent argument outlining the confirmation bias used to draw these numbers used by the prosecution? 

 

Even with the restrictions that others have cited regarding the way experts are called in UK trials; it still doesn't explain how or why the defence did not tear the 'expert' to bits. If experts can highlight so quickly serious flaws that should have been targeted by the defence, then why didn't the 'defence' team do at least some of that? This is looking like the whole trial was already a foregone conclusion; a guilty verdict was inevitable it seems. It would be interesting to hear from a top defence barrister on what they think of the representation Letby received. If Letby is a 'patsy', then what is the wider agenda here?, a simple cover-up, new laws or solutions coming in, or is there another agenda here? 

Edited by BornFreeNowAgain
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BornFreeNowAgain said:

Great post! It is strange if true that the defence cannot call in their own experts, very strange indeed. In this particular case, the prosecutions main 'expert' was appointed by the Police after 'whoring' himself to them. How can that be classed as an impartial expert? When you look at the calibre of some of those already raising serious questions and listen to some of those concerns, you can see clearly how badly defended Letby was in this case.  A top statistician would have been able to tear holes in a lot of the hypotheses presented as facts and evidence. Given that a lot of the prosecution case was based on numbers, why did the defence not put forward a decent argument outlining the confirmation bias used to draw these numbers used by the prosecution? 

 

Even with the restrictions that others have cited regarding the way experts are called in UK trials; it still doesn't explain how or why the defence did not tear the 'expert' to bits. If experts can highlight so quickly serious flaws that should have been targeted by the defence, then why didn't the 'defence' team do at least some of that? This is looking like the whole trial was already a foregone conclusion; a guilty verdict was inevitable it seems. It would be interesting to hear from a top defence barrister on what they think of the representation Letby received. If Letby is a 'patsy', then what is the wider agenda here?, a simple cover-up, new laws or solutions coming in, or is there another agenda here? 

Yeah I can't see any reason as to why they couldn't instruct an appropriate expert in the same (alleged) "field" as Dewi Evans.  Therefore they have chosen not to? A barrister would normally advise the solicitor to instruct a certain type of expert if they haven't already.  

 

However, If they have sourced an expert who has produced a report which isn't helpful, or agrees with the prosecution in some ways then I understand they would maybe not rely on it. But given what the science on trial have said on their website, I don't see how they haven't found an appropriate expert.  Even an expert looking at the wider statistics of death on the unit (where she wasn't present or after she left) would put more context on the situation.  And if the coroner found that all deaths were natural causes you would just call that coroner at the very least? 

 

Strange that the daily mail story above doesn't allow any further comments as well... 

 

Yeah it would be good to get a barrister or KC's opinion on how the case was handled from a defence perspective. 

 

I also don't know if they published whether it was majority or unanimous decision in the end after the judge allowed a majority verdict, bearing in mind it was only 11 not 12 of them left as well. 

 

Agenda wise, is it designed to protect the NHS so that people blame her as a rogue nurse rather than institutionalised corruption and negligence in the whole baby / maternal services in the UK? 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Malbec said:

Yeah I can't see any reason as to why they couldn't instruct an appropriate expert in the same (alleged) "field" as Dewi Evans.  Therefore they have chosen not to? A barrister would normally advise the solicitor to instruct a certain type of expert if they haven't already.  

 

However, If they have sourced an expert who has produced a report which isn't helpful, or agrees with the prosecution in some ways then I understand they would maybe not rely on it. But given what the science on trial have said on their website, I don't see how they haven't found an appropriate expert.  Even an expert looking at the wider statistics of death on the unit (where she wasn't present or after she left) would put more context on the situation.  And if the coroner found that all deaths were natural causes you would just call that coroner at the very least? 

 

Strange that the daily mail story above doesn't allow any further comments as well... 

 

Yeah it would be good to get a barrister or KC's opinion on how the case was handled from a defence perspective. 

 

I also don't know if they published whether it was majority or unanimous decision in the end after the judge allowed a majority verdict, bearing in mind it was only 11 not 12 of them left as well. 

 

Agenda wise, is it designed to protect the NHS so that people blame her as a rogue nurse rather than institutionalised corruption and negligence in the whole baby / maternal services in the UK? 

I admit I have not followed the trial, as being in Australia I am not sure how much has even been covered, so I may have missed crucial things or not be as clued up as some of you are. But, like many it seems, something stinks about this case. I even came across people on Reddit who were sceptical as I was searching for anything on the Letby case, and if people on Reddit are sceptical, then that is quite alarming from my limited experience (3rd party) of Reddit users in general. Why does it appear that the defence were so incompetent and failing to rebut the prosecution arguments? The least you would expect from a competent defence is to draw into question the validity of the prosecution arguments, that is if you cannot totally disprove them. And there appears to be many possible arguments to at least put in the jury's minds the doubts over the 'evidence'. 

 

The other 'smoking gun' as you allude to, is things like the Daily Mail comments as you suggest and was suggested earlier. Why would the 'media' be so averse to the 'truth' about this case. Why are they deliberately steering the narrative and censoring comments to sway the public? The video I posted earlier where the experienced barrister was being interviewed was revealing too; both presenters appeared flustered and incredulous that someone was questioning the verdict, let alone an expert in the field. So on top of a dodgy trial, the media also happen to be steering the narrative, that adds weight to this stinking to high heaven. 

 

It could be mate, a way to cover up the NHS failings. But, are they not trying to totally destroy the NHS anyway? I am not sure what to think here; perhaps time will tell on where this is heading. I notice a lot of the search results coming up for 'is Lucy Letby innocent', have mainstream headlines such as 'internet sleuths trying to prove Letby is innocent', and 'true crime obsessives are convinced Letby is innocent'. I do wonder if this is some sort of 'unconscious programming'; we don't know how far we are into the COVID scam, we could be 1/2 way, or a 10th of the way through the whole agenda. Perhaps this is some unconscious imprint on the masses that medical malpractice and rogues are always being investigated. Over the last week I have seen two products being highlighted as unsafe or being more restricted (Bonjella being one here in Australia) and I cannot help thinking this is yet another attempt to 'plant' the idea of there being a 'protective agency' looking out for people. Right at the time that ne of the biggest depopulation agendas is taking place. 

 

I suppose it could be many things. But certainly, the rule of law in this case appears to be another erosion of the 'system' that many believe affords some protection. It might be a 'nod' to the fact that they can basically pin anything on anyone. So many possibilities and I hope for Letby's sake, that an appeal is applied for and she gets much better representation this time. Even if she is indeed guilty, she deserves decent legal representation, which she certainly appears not to have received here. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's hard to get an actual running order of witnesses for the trial for example, it may be possible going through reddit or some kind of forum for someone who went and tracked what was going on each day? I've never used reddit. But the public obviously only get snippets which suit the press agenda. So it's likely that any points that helped her during the trial are simply not reported. I don't know the rules on reporting during a trial, they seem to do it a lot but you would think its not going to help the jury potentially seeing headlines of someone else's opinion or interpretation.  So that's another unfair element of the case perhaps. 

 

Most of the public aren't the brightest (as we know) and are easily persuaded and influenced. Such as an undecided split jury turning unto a unanimous jury a day or 2 later. They deliberated for hours ( understandably to an extent) I bet some of them now are having doubts. Wonder if there was a copper on the jury as well as they always dominate everyone into the accused being guilty.  

 

The barrister interview above is really good @BornFreeNowAgain

 

It seems like some kind of cover up, protecting of NHS management. Who knows. I agree it certainly shows how it's not that hard to set someone up like this. 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Malbec said:

It's hard to get an actual running order of witnesses for the trial for example, it may be possible going through reddit or some kind of forum for someone who went and tracked what was going on each day? I've never used reddit. But the public obviously only get snippets which suit the press agenda. So it's likely that any points that helped her during the trial are simply not reported. I don't know the rules on reporting during a trial, they seem to do it a lot but you would think its not going to help the jury potentially seeing headlines of someone else's opinion or interpretation.  So that's another unfair element of the case perhaps. 

 

Most of the public aren't the brightest (as we know) and are easily persuaded and influenced. Such as an undecided split jury turning unto a unanimous jury a day or 2 later. They deliberated for hours ( understandably to an extent) I bet some of them now are having doubts. Wonder if there was a copper on the jury as well as they always dominate everyone into the accused being guilty.  

 

The barrister interview above is really good @BornFreeNowAgain

 

It seems like some kind of cover up, protecting of NHS management. Who knows. I agree it certainly shows how it's not that hard to set someone up like this. 

 

Yeah Reddit is best avoided, I only use if it comes up in search results, although it does have some good stories on things like Glitches in the Matrix stuff. 

 

Too true, most are easily swayed and adopt the passive position of 'well there must be truth to it, if she has been found guilty, or no smoke without fire', which a lot of us know is untrue. I cannot help wondering if things likes these stories are a way for the 'cabal' to 'check the pulse' so to speak of the population? The internet is now such a powerful tool to check just how many are 'awake' and how many 'are asleep'. Could stories like these be 'barometers' perhaps? The optimist in me also wonders if 'events' like these are ways that those 'tuned in' can hone their intuitive abilities, in a just World without 'evil and deceit' intuition would perhaps not be a skill much needed, but in this 'realm' with the 'rules of the game', it is a core skill for those of us tuned in. Hopefully that part is not derailing the thread. 

 

It is interesting because after reading your post, I looked up Mark McDonald the barrister in the interview I posted and he comes with a good pedigree in law and both defence and prosecution. More than that he seems a decent humanitarian so no wonder the two presenters didn't seem to appreciate his stance;

 

https://furnivalchambers.co.uk/barrister/mark-mcdonald/

 

You also make a great point about the 'make-up' of juries. You only need one narcissist or 'plant' to derail the whole thing really. Probably still the fairest way to have a trial but still possibly flawed. 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Anti Facts Sir changed the title to Lucy Letby - Nurse on trial for murdering babies.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...