[Merged] Lucy Letby inquiry

[Still Waters]

Quote

An “outpouring of comment” on the validity of Lucy Letby’s convictions for murder and attempted murder has created a “noise that has caused an enormous amount of stress for the parents” of her victims, Lady Justice Thirlwall has said on the opening day of a public inquiry into events surrounding the tragic deaths.

Thirlwall told the inquiry that doubts cast on Letby’s convictions have come “entirely from people who were not at the trial” as she opened the inquiry at the Countess of Chester hospital’s neonatal unit where Letby was a nurse between 2015 and 2016.

Thirlwall said it was not for her to review the convictions, adding the court of appeal had done that with a clear result. “The convictions stand,” she said.

Refresh the page in the Guardian link for updates.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/live/2024/sep/10/thirlwall-inquiry-lucy-letby-countess-of-chester-hospital-latest-updates

Related:

 

[Duke Wellington]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R40F0ryO1JE

A different context for her so called confession

[MrAnderson]

15 hours ago, Duke Wellington said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R40F0ryO1JE

A different context for her so called confession

 

21 hours ago, Still Waters said:

Refresh the page in the Guardian link for updates.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/live/2024/sep/10/thirlwall-inquiry-lucy-letby-countess-of-chester-hospital-latest-updates

Related:

 

How can you have an inquiry when there are serious doubts about the safety of her conviction?

These doubts have been expressed openly by a good number of scientists/experts in various fields as well as journalists and members of the public.

Can they not see that probably something is wrong with this case? I don't see any harm in granting Letby another trial where experts will make the case for and against her guilt and involvement. So far it has been only one sided and that can't be right no matter if she is guilty or innocent.

The British MP David Davies said in a recent interview that he had doubts so far that her conviction was unsafe. Now he says he is convinced this is a miscarriage of justice. In a few words he says that she is not guilty and she hasn't harmed these babies.

Edited September 11 by MrAnderson

[MrAnderson]

21 hours ago, Still Waters said:

Refresh the page in the Guardian link for updates.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/live/2024/sep/10/thirlwall-inquiry-lucy-letby-countess-of-chester-hospital-latest-updates

Related:

 

I have been reading about a number of miscarriages of justice in the UK and it seems to be a serious issue. Not exclusive to the UK though.

I made a thread not that long ago with the case Lucia de Berg who was a nurse in the Netherlands. She was convicted for killing and attempted to kill a number of babies and everyone was absolutely sure at that time she was guilty and an evil persona who should never get out of prison. Fast forward, she received an apology from the Prime Minister of the Netherlands and she was exonerated as she was not responsible for the deaths of these babies. She spent almost a decade in jail for something she didn't do.

The argument that the trial lasted for long and hence the verdict it's likely to be correct is very problematic. The other suggestion that because the families of the babies are very upset about Letby's new attempts to get another trial hence people should be careful when they express their doubts is also very problematic. The families of the killed babies would not want an innocent person in jail and I think if there are serious doubts the only wise path is for the case to go to the courts again.

[Still Waters]

Lucy Letby conspiracy theorists ‘should be ashamed’, inquiry told

At the inquiry on Thursday, Richard Baker KC, a barrister speaking on behalf of the parents of Children C, D, E, F, G, H, J, K, O, P and R, five of whom were murdered by Letby, said: “Everybody who recklessly promotes conspiracy theories, or who parrots them without questioning the same tired misconceptions about this case, should be ashamed of themselves.

“The families, along with the jury, collectively sat through 10 months of evidence – in the case of Family K two trials. They did so with impressive dignity, they heard the evidence against her and have no doubt that she was guilty. The jury had no doubt that she was guilty.

“The trial was overseen by an experienced high court judge and reviewed comprehensively with care by the court of appeal.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/sep/12/lucy-letby-conspiracy-theorists-should-be-ashamed-inquiry-told

‘Ghoulish sideshow’: Lucy Letby victims’ barrister speaks on parents’ behalf

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/sep/12/ghoulish-sideshow-lucy-letby-victims-barrister-speaks-parents-behalf

[MrAnderson]

4 hours ago, Still Waters said:

Lucy Letby conspiracy theorists ‘should be ashamed’, inquiry told

At the inquiry on Thursday, Richard Baker KC, a barrister speaking on behalf of the parents of Children C, D, E, F, G, H, J, K, O, P and R, five of whom were murdered by Letby, said: “Everybody who recklessly promotes conspiracy theories, or who parrots them without questioning the same tired misconceptions about this case, should be ashamed of themselves.

“The families, along with the jury, collectively sat through 10 months of evidence – in the case of Family K two trials. They did so with impressive dignity, they heard the evidence against her and have no doubt that she was guilty. The jury had no doubt that she was guilty.

“The trial was overseen by an experienced high court judge and reviewed comprehensively with care by the court of appeal.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/sep/12/lucy-letby-conspiracy-theorists-should-be-ashamed-inquiry-told

‘Ghoulish sideshow’: Lucy Letby victims’ barrister speaks on parents’ behalf

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/sep/12/ghoulish-sideshow-lucy-letby-victims-barrister-speaks-parents-behalf

Like for example all the University Professor and experts who have spoken against the safety of the conviction or have raised legitimate doubts of the court proceedings and the evidence presented. Yeah! Shame on them just as Richard Baker said, they are conspiracy theorists. How dare challenging the decision of the court.

[+ouija ouija]

'Tubes dislodged' when Letby was at other hospital - inquiry

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2g20rpr78o

[+susieice]

So now unusual deaths are being investigated at another hospital where Letby was employed. This seems to, co-incidentally, follow her around, doesn't it? We had a nurse who worked at numerous hospitals and nursing facilities in our area who was finally caught. He killed people everywhere in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. His name was Charles Cullen. Sadly people like this are among us. I worked with nurses who worked with him and they would not talk about him. He was a disgrace to his profession. He killed 29 that are confirmed and may have killed hundreds. He's serving 18 life prison terms. It took a long time for hospitals to act on what they suspected. He kept working because they were afraid to pass word of their suspicions along. You don't want that either.

Edited September 13 by susieice

[MrAnderson]

9 hours ago, susieice said:

So now unusual deaths are being investigated at another hospital where Letby was employed. This seems to, co-incidentally, follow her around, doesn't it? We had a nurse who worked at numerous hospitals and nursing facilities in our area who was finally caught. He killed people everywhere in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. His name was Charles Cullen. Sadly people like this are among us. I worked with nurses who worked with him and they would not talk about him. He was a disgrace to his profession. He killed 29 that are confirmed and may have killed hundreds. He's serving 18 life prison terms. It took a long time for hospitals to act on what they suspected. He kept working because they were afraid to pass word of their suspicions along. You don't want that either.

Is there any other investigation at another hospital where she worked or they are trying to create another correlation? How does some information about dislodged tubes at another hospital incriminates Letby or even suggests she was behind these acts and she acted maliciously.

Edited September 13 by MrAnderson

[+ouija ouija]

2 hours ago, MrAnderson said:

Is there any other investigation at another hospital where she worked or they are trying to create another correlation? How does some information about dislodged tubes at another hospital incriminates Letby or even suggests she was behind these acts and she acted maliciously.

If you read the link I gave you, you will see why they are investigating.

[MrAnderson]

2 hours ago, ouija ouija said:

If you read the link I gave you, you will see why they are investigating.

I did read the article but I don't know why they are trying to correlate her presence with these events. Is there any evidence she is responsible for these events? That's what I am trying to say.

Edited September 13 by MrAnderson

[+ouija ouija]

1 hour ago, MrAnderson said:

I did read the article but I don't know why they are trying to correlate her presence with these events. Is there any evidence she is responsible for these events? That's what I am trying to say.

This is from the link and refers to the dislodging of babies' breathing tubes:

"It is unusual, and you will hear that it occurs generally in less than 1% of shifts."

The audit found that there were recorded incidents of the tubes being dislodged on 40% of the shifts Letby worked at Liverpool Womens' Hospital.

Mr Baker said: "In light of what we know now, we might wonder why.”

[MrAnderson]

1 hour ago, ouija ouija said:

This is from the link and refers to the dislodging of babies' breathing tubes:

"It is unusual, and you will hear that it occurs generally in less than 1% of shifts."

The audit found that there were recorded incidents of the tubes being dislodged on 40% of the shifts Letby worked at Liverpool Womens' Hospital.

Mr Baker said: "In light of what we know now, we might wonder why.”

That's what the representative of the families says. There is no way that these statistics can be confirmed. The same thing happened back in the Netherlands for which I made a thread about and at that time based on statistics which were flawed they sentenced Lucia de Berg to life imprisonment. Almost a decade later she was exinerated and given an apology by the prime minister of the Netherlands. Lucia was a nurse too.

Don't rely so much on what they say. There needs to be another trial imo as these statistics and arguments have been criticised by a number of academics and experts who have said the conviction is not safe. She may or may not be guilty as they said but based on the evidence you can't have a safe conviction.

Take a look at a number of threads made recently about miscarriages of justice in the UK.  It's really worrying and the only way to be sure is to refer the case to the courts again just as a number of experts have argued.

If she is guilty then she is guilty. If she is not then they must find who is guilty and even establish the cause of these deaths in case there is nobody to blame. The least they can do is to absolutely sure she is the person behind all these deaths.

Edited September 13 by MrAnderson

[+ouija ouija]

47 minutes ago, MrAnderson said:

That's what the representative of the families says. There is no way that these statistics can be confirmed. The same thing happened back in the Netherlands for which I made a thread about and at that time based on statistics which were flawed they sentenced Lucia de Berg to life imprisonment. Almost a decade later she was exinerated and given an apology by the prime minister of the Netherlands. Lucia was a nurse too.

Don't rely so much on what they say. There needs to be another trial imo as these statistics and arguments have been criticised by a number of academics and experts who have said the conviction is not safe. She may or may not be guilty as they said but based on the evidence you can't have a safe conviction.

Take a look at a number of threads made recently about miscarriages of justice in the UK.  It's really worrying and the only way to be sure is to refer the case to the courts again just as a number of experts have argued.

If she is guilty then she is guilty. If she is not then they must find who is guilty and even establish the cause of these deaths in case there is nobody to blame. The least they can do is to absolutely sure she is the person behind all these deaths.

The police are currently looking into the case mentioned in the link.

[MrAnderson]

2 hours ago, ouija ouija said:

The police are currently looking into the case mentioned in the link.

Do you think there would be another investigation that will end up in the courts?

[+ouija ouija]

3 hours ago, MrAnderson said:

That's what the representative of the families says. There is no way that these statistics can be confirmed.

1 minute ago, MrAnderson said:

Do you think there would be another investigation that will end up in the courts?

 

Of course the statistics can be confirmed! A record will have been made of every time a babys' breathing tube became dislodged and there will also be a record of which staff were on duty on which dates.

IMO, no. I think it's way too obvious that she's guilty on all counts.

[MrAnderson]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/09/13/doctor-who-helped-convict-letby-no-objective-evidence/

Quote

At Letby’s trial, Dr Ravi Jayaram was said to have caught the nurse “virtually red handed” dislodging a breathing tube from a baby at the Countess of Chester Hospital in February 2016.

Quote

known as Baby K – at retrial in July, after earlier being convicted of the murders of seven newborns and attempted murders of six others in August last year.

Quote

At the original trial, Dr Jayaram told the court that what happened was “emblazoned” in his mind.

Quote

However, documents leaked to The Telegraph show that the consultant paediatrician did not mention the incident when interviewed by Dr Christopher Green, the hospital’s director of pharmacy, during a grievance procedure brought by Letby in the autumn of 2016 after she had been removed from the ward.

Quote

He said that he and others had safety concerns and were worried that the spike would continue if they carried on doing what they were doing.

Quote

Dr Jayaram said the “only concern raised about Lucy was she had been exposed to so many deaths” and there was a feeling that “it might be traumatic for her”.

 

Quote

He added: “The only association was Lucy’s presence on the unit at the time. Anything else is speculation.”

 

@Duke Wellington @pellinore @Grey Area you may find this very interesting. If we assume that these leaked documents to the telegraph are accurate I wonder who is leaking them and under what circumstances have been leaked. 

If you can't access the link there are other sites which can give you the story.

Edited September 14 by MrAnderson

[MrAnderson]

13 hours ago, ouija ouija said:

Of course the statistics can be confirmed! A record will have been made of every time a babys' breathing tube became dislodged and there will also be a record of which staff were on duty on which dates.

IMO, no. I think it's way too obvious that she's guilty on all counts.

Take a look at the post above. I made a thread about it but it was merged with this thread.

The title of the article by the Telegraph

Doctor who helped convict Letby previously said there was ‘no objective evidence’ against her

 

[+ouija ouija]

23 minutes ago, MrAnderson said:

Take a look at the post above. I made a thread about it but it was merged with this thread.

The title of the article by the Telegraph

Doctor who helped convict Letby previously said there was ‘no objective evidence’ against her

 

I can't read the link without subscribing to the site and giving them details of myself . . . which I don't want to do.

[Grey Area]

2 hours ago, MrAnderson said:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/09/13/doctor-who-helped-convict-letby-no-objective-evidence/

 

@Duke Wellington @pellinore @Grey Area you may find this very interesting. If we assume that these leaked documents to the telegraph are accurate I wonder who is leaking them and under what circumstances have been leaked. 

If you can't access the link there are other sites which can give you the story.

so from what I am garnering from the small bits of info you have provided, and sorry not signing up to the Telegraph to be spammed by them, is that we have Doctor that worked with Letby stating he said nothing during a formal chat with another professional and yet said he had caught her during the trial.  Does that sum it up?

So frame the question this way:  Why did a Doctor not reveal he had caught Letby during a formal Chat but not under oath, but then reveal the damning information during the trial, while under oath?

I suggest the answer may be there, somewhere.  

[MrAnderson]

8 hours ago, Grey Area said:

so from what I am garnering from the small bits of info you have provided, and sorry not signing up to the Telegraph to be spammed by them, is that we have Doctor that worked with Letby stating he said nothing during a formal chat with another professional and yet said he had caught her during the trial.  Does that sum it up?

So frame the question this way:  Why did a Doctor not reveal he had caught Letby during a formal Chat but not under oath, but then reveal the damning information during the trial, while under oath?

I suggest the answer may be there, somewhere.  

It's not true that I am providing 'small bits' of information. I have linked several articles and videos of experts in a number of threads who are questioning the safety of Letby's conviction. I have quoted you several times in a number of threads. The Telegraph is fine just as the Guardian and the NewYorker that have all questioned the safety of the conviction with a number of articles.

The challenges are not coming from laymen but from a number of experts including the guy who helped exonerate the Dutch Nurse Lucia de Berg who was convicted in a very similar case.

That's the title of the article

Doctor who helped convict Letby previously said there was ‘no objective evidence’ against her

You can read through the paragraphs I have quoted and I may quote a few more later on.

Anyone can speculate anything and there have been speculations that the Doctors tried to incriminate her after her grievances were successful. How do we know that the doctor is not lying? We don't. Under oath, yes, but where is the truth? Because there is no direct evidence, nobody have seen her harming the babies. She could still be guilty by the way but as many others said it's better to be absolutely sure rather than what is currently happening. Does anyone believe this conviction is safe?

 

A British Professor of Mathematics and Statistics explains why the conviction was unsafe.

 

Edited September 14 by MrAnderson

[MrAnderson]

9 hours ago, ouija ouija said:

I can't read the link without subscribing to the site and giving them details of myself . . . which I don't want to do.

Ok but you can read the quotes I posted. There are websites that allow you access but don't worry. The point has been made.

[Grey Area]

1 hour ago, MrAnderson said:

It's not true that I am providing 'small bits' of information. I have linked several articles and videos of experts in a number of threads who are questioning the safety of Letby's conviction. I have quoted you several times in a number of threads. The Telegraph is fine just as the Guardian and the NewYorker that have all questioned the safety of the conviction with a number of articles.

I was discussing this leaked information about the doctor that you suggested I might be interested in.  The link you provided requires registration and possibly payment, and you quoted a few sentences.

1 hour ago, MrAnderson said:

The challenges are not coming from laymen but from a number of experts including the guy who helped exonerate the Dutch Nurse Lucia de Berg who was convicted in a very similar case.

Yes statisticians.  It’s worthy pointing out they were not present at the trial, are not legal experts and are addressing a small part of the trial.

1 hour ago, MrAnderson said:

Doctor who helped convict Letby previously said there was ‘no objective evidence’ against her

You can read through the paragraphs I have quoted and I may quote a few more later on.

Dude you have not posted ‘paragraphs’, but it’s fine I got it.

I think perhaps we should wait for a response from this Doctor with regard to the allegation.  My point was, there could be any number of reasons this guy didn’t want to incriminate Letby when engaged in the grievance process, but with a trial, being under oath, and hindsight, the circumstances are very different.

1 hour ago, MrAnderson said:

Anyone can speculate anything and there have been speculations that the Doctors tried to incriminate her after her grievances were successful. How do we know that the doctor is not lying? We don't. Under oath, yes, but where is the truth? Because there is no direct evidence, nobody have seen her harming the babies. She could still be guilty by the way but as many others said it's better to be absolutely sure rather than what is currently happening. Does anyone believe this conviction is safe?

Okay, and you can be absolutely sure how?

[MrAnderson]

6 hours ago, Grey Area said:

I was discussing this leaked information about the doctor that you suggested I might be interested in.  The link you provided requires registration and possibly payment, and you quoted a few sentences.

Yes statisticians.  It’s worthy pointing out they were not present at the trial, are not legal experts and are addressing a small part of the trial.

Dude you have not posted ‘paragraphs’, but it’s fine I got it.

I think perhaps we should wait for a response from this Doctor with regard to the allegation.  My point was, there could be any number of reasons this guy didn’t want to incriminate Letby when engaged in the grievance process, but with a trial, being under oath, and hindsight, the circumstances are very different.

Okay, and you can be absolutely sure how?

It doesn't matter whether they have been present in the trial because much of the transcripts have been released (not all of it) through the NewYorker article that had accesss after they paid thousands of dollars to get it. It's another problem with the system you guys have there. But at least they were able to see what it was discussed and what statistical arguments were made.

Yes, a response from the Doctor will be interesting because the leaked information is probably coming from members of the hospital who somehow disagree with what is happening but are afraid to come forward. This is what the Doctor said when he spoke to the director of the hospital's director of pharmacy during a grievance procedure brought by Letby in the autumn of 2016 after she had been removed from the ward.

Dr Jayaram said the “only concern raised about Lucy was she had been exposed to so many deaths” and there was a feeling that “it might be traumatic for her”.

He added: “The only association was Lucy’s presence on the unit at the time. Anything else is speculation.”

That's very different to arguing she is guilty as he claimed later on. People have seen this to be a major contradiction. Nowhere he claims she is guilty or that she is resounsible for these deaths but a victim of circumstances.

To me there needs to be another trial because it's rather obvious there are discrepancies, contradictions, and a lot of doubts about whether she is guilty or not by many experts. More importantly the reputation of the NHS in England and of the entire Justice System will suffer in case the conviction is overturned. This time the damage will be permanent and probably non reversible so I understand why they don't want another trial.

Edited September 15 by MrAnderson

[Grey Area]

3 hours ago, MrAnderson said:

It's another problem with the system you guys have there.

What problem is that?

3 hours ago, MrAnderson said:

That's very different to arguing she is guilty as he claimed later on. People have seen this to be a major contradiction. Nowhere he claims she is guilty or that she is resounsible for these deaths but a victim of circumstances.

Well yes clearly it is a contradiction IF the leak is correct.  Context in this instance is everything, and a grievance procedure brought by Letby against this doctor would not be focussing on that issue.  At that stage the suspicions against Letby were not so apparent.

3 hours ago, MrAnderson said:

This time the damage will be permanent and probably non reversible so I understand why they don't want another trial.

What are you on about?  Explain this please.  Please articulate what you think the damage will be, why it will be permanent?

I suggest you are caught in a media bubble here in this instance.  Try to break out and listen to some alternate viewpoints on this.