Letby's Lawyers only produced 2 witnesses. One was the Hospital Plumber, the other was Letby herself. How on Earth did they not produce expert witnesses to counter the testimony given by the Prosecution's witnesses? The main Prosecution Witness, Dr. Dewi Evans, twice cited a paper on Insulin overdoses in babies - the Author of that paper has come forward to state that Dr. Evans was wrong. Never mind that Autopsies on both babies didn't find evidence of Insulin overdoses - and the test needed to determine whether there was an Insulin overdose, was never performed. Her Lawyers need to explain themselves.

Go to CrimeScene2Courtroom channel on KZfaq and start listening from the video 'Lucy Letby - The Police Search' onwards. These videos are a reenactment of the original trial based on the actual court transcripts purchased by someone who actually attended most days of the trial so he was able to demonstrate times when there was a dramatic pause or what her tone of voice was when she said certain things. These videos will take you through all 17 cases in the trial and then you will understand why she was found guilty of some counts, not guilty of others, and no verdict reached for others. I think there is an assumption that this was a blanket verdict and she was found guilty of everything, but that isn't true. The jury took their time to go through each case one by one.

@@stevegregson4357 do you know who her father is ' fred west ' yep ' how do i know this ' becsuse im mr armchair detective ' by the way ' shes is guilty as fred ' & as sin ☠️

Corcumstantial evidence IS evidence

@@janlittle2148 & there was alot 👍 guilty in my book

He was playing Devils Advocate. Normal practice when conducting an interview ?

@@Fanakapan222 i dont think he was

The judge was emotionally biased and came across as a sadist.

@@aoae-hf3rz Your right The judge delighted in sentencing her to life without parol, a morbid sense of personal victory.

@@aoae-hf3rz you're just saying that because you think she's innocent! 😂 Evidence of sadism please.

@@PedrSion please give the whole summing up and context, because we all know you NG people hate "cherry-picking" but keep doing it.

@@miacat1727 I saw the video. Is that what a delighted person looks like? You're delusional if you believe that looks like delight. Tell me at what point he looked delightful. His expression was the same throughout delivering the sentencing

@@kevinconnolly759 Then in that case what he is arguing is that trial by jury is not a viable system. The jury alone can decide if the evidence suffices. Not journalists and social media.

@@Maisiewuppp well he says he believes in trial by jury but has had his reservations of late . I must admit I do wonder how in some of these super high profile cases the jury remain unbiased . I’m aware they are supposed to listen to the evidence only but I’m not entirely sure that’s human nature .

@@Maisiewuppp The jury isn't really the problem; the problem is the judge who should've been far more stringent as to what evidence could be adduced - allowing the prosecution to use such cherry-picked data and an expert witness who applied for the position rather than being approached as a true neutral is inexcusable. In the first example, I don't suppose the judge even had the knowledge of statistics to know that... unfortunately the judiciary think they're far cleverer than they are... in the second example, he really should've known better...

Hitchens also said, the case made him feel uncomfortable, was unsafe. Many people have that same feeling about this trial & how it was conducted. Fair play to him for having the guts to disagree with the narrative & not be brainwashed by the system.

​@@pedrinho7 then the Defence could easily have produced their own expert witness to refute the Prosecution EW and case and they didn't. There's no way the Prosecution would have secured Evans unless they thought his evidence was going to be excluded and they were correct. Back up your cherry-picking statement and please don't say they only investigated cases when Letby was on duty unless you were part of Operation Humingbird and can say other deaths weren't looked. I can't promise they were because I wasn't part of the taskforce, so please explain how you know other cases were not investigated. Back up your cherry picking statement and prove the other deaths were not eliminated. The police don't work in the way you're trying to imply. They don't just go along with people saying another person has done something wrong.

I think "were you in court" is the crux of the problem. They were confined to a court whereby crucial information may not have been available to them.

@@georger-c4645 Absolutely agree. The Judge can influence a trial enormously with rulings on what is or not admissible etc etc etc. Also if video/tv were allowed in court then we could at least say "well I wasn't in court but I did watch it".....not perfect but much better than the current 'no peeking' situation we have now.

I was not in court during the OJ murder trial but I am convinced that the jury reached the wrong verdict. I am not alone.

​@castlerock58 well members of the jury in the OJ case have even since came forward and admitted they knew he was guilty but found him not guilty because of some sort of retribution for the Rodney King police brutality.

Agree as a Nurse I would want this re-examined. Especially as she did put in a grievance before. It's all very wishy washy and as a young woman I would want anyone reading my diary and what I used to write !!! It's all circumstantial IMHO

There was another nurse who was on duty and five deaths occurred she was not investigated

@firecrest27 I bet its easy to set a colleague up in that game.

FAKE NEWS 🤫

@@innocentman3346 Ah, so it's a set up. It's the colleague against whom there is no evidence who is guilty, and the woman against whom the evidence was so extensive it took 21 months to present who is innocent.

@@Dogfacedbloke no-one said that

@@trevorchap21 correct 👍🏼

It was one consultant ... his colleagues then fell into line.

Well that's more detail than Peter gives. Thanks.

@@trevorchap21 She shouldn’t have agreed then.

@@JohnPretty1 Then Letby’s a fool for allowing it.

@marqbeatty2694 what's parcel's gotta do with anything relating to letby?

@@paulis8107 Grow a brain or don't comment.

@@marqbeatty2694 how many dead babies 👶 was it blamed for?

And that there was no fraud in the 2020 US election 😅🤦 All of these systems are incompetant these days...

@@paulis8107 You clearly know nothing about the Post Office misdemeanours.

This has been bothering me since I was 8 years old. The fact that majority opinion can be a herd mentality of closed mindedness leading to injustice.

@@pamwilson4050 terrifying

Yes, i too have witnessed first hand Jury members kajoling other to change there mind and give a guilty verdict, however, i did stand my ground and refused to budge and said for me there was not sufficient evidence to find the defendant guilty. I also informed the 2 main instigaters on the Jury if they did not stop the intimidation i would inform the court usher.

A relative of mine was in the coppers and called (when retired). She gave verdict on a Rape case. at least two of the members didn't wan too be there and wanted to get home so that they could see shiot on the TV in one case and go to a party in the other (very young). Of the rest at least one of the blokes was bigoted racist and sexist. The evidence thankfully she said was indeed crap - and of course the CPS have to bring cases of rape now whether there is a real prospect of them being thrown out (which I sone of the reasons there is such a back log and severe resourcing problems) - and of course Prosecutors now would be very brave to drop them. Anyway the case was thrown out - but imagine if she had been in the minority for an acquittal.

​@@elainewojnicki9610that sounds dreadful that there was intimidation going on. What was in for the instigators what way you voted?

I sincerely hope so…but not enough outcry is happening

The defence had to go admit that someone was killing children in the hospital. The prosecution did the most forensic investigation I have ever seen. It is far beyond reasonable doubt.

They may have admitted that, but they did not have to. Nothing the prosecution said could only be explained by a serial killer hypothesis . Indeed, that is now becoming clear more widely.

my wife too is a senior nurse and has serious concerns having read the New Yorker piece

Now that I realise that no one can comment publicly on the trial while it is going on I can see how the narrative can be skewed in one particular direction. A trial is a process and all processes are subject to human error therefore if a trial is investigated and found to contain errors then the result should be appealed and a retrial should take place especially when a person is sent to prison for the rest of their life. I think that Mr Hitchems puts forward a very good argument and he has a keen conscience.

As a Nurse I've never been stitched up myself but I have witnessed Nurses who have been. If questions arise around poor Drs. practices I've witnessed them close ranks to prevent scrutiny of their profession.

Completely irrelevant

@@Curryking32000 Well said. I was stitched up with a diagnosis where a supposed expert wanted to amputate my leg above the knee and got others to join in, after a scan to find the cause of a leg ulcer. The bloke didn't believe me that the "unusual bone formation" was actually a bone graft and commited his diagnosis to record before I had chance to contest it. They seriously do close ranks.

@@JohnPretty1 she wasn’t stitched up, you seeing a stitch up in the NHS (allegedly) is irrelevant her conviction She is guilty. That is obvious

​@@darrenambrosiaWhat specific evidence 'proved' this for you?

These nurses killing patients trials seem to pop up somewhere in the world every 10 years. The nurse is inevitably found guilty and after a few years is inevitably released after new evidence or some injustice was discovered. I think it's a form of mass hysteria, similar to the periodic satanic-riduals-at-the-local-daycare trials that pop-up. There is an investigation after a natural statistical blip in patients deaths. The media picks it up, magnifies it and whips up the hysteria. The police feel pressure from families and the public to obtain "justice" on an imaginary crime and the poor nurse who had the statistical bad fortune to be working during most of the deaths becomes the sacrificial lamb. Once time and the hysteria passes and no one cares about the deaths, they are free to release the innocent person.

Bristol Poly and Bristol University in about 1992 were doing some research on what prisoners were reporting about their convictions (prisoners mind so caution please). One bloke who sharp elbowed into this (I would have like to have helped but brushed off the indirect invitation) said that (third hand) the figures were about 25% said they were wrongfully convicted. Then again there is the argument they would say that wouldn't they?

Go to CrimeScene2Courtroom channel on KZfaq and start listening from the video 'Lucy Letby - The Police Search' onwards. These videos are a reenactment of the original trial based on the actual court transcripts purchased by someone who actually attended most days of the trial so he was able to demonstrate times when there was a dramatic pause or what her tone of voice was when she said certain things. These videos will take you through all 17 cases in the trial and then you will understand why she was found guilty of some counts, not guilty of others, and no verdict reached for others. I think there is an assumption that this was a blanket verdict and she was found guilty of everything, but that isn't true. The jury took their time to go through each case one by one.

I grew up in Australia in the 80's, and remember how the whole nation was utterly convinced the Lindy Chamberlain was a monster who had killed her baby, l mean it was so clear and obvious and everyone was completely furious with a mother who had murdered her baby and then used a ridiculous "dingo took my baby* excuse. A few years later it turns out she was actually completely innocent. It happens.

totally agreed but her legal team need to be accountable as well they let her down

Agree, the case sets a presidence of unlawful findings to protect the medical establishment. Questions, who will be next. Frightening.

Like the post office

you don’t want to see more murderers being convicted? Strange take

@@fainitesbarley2245how many were murdered in the post office scandal?

@@darrenambrosia That's your take on what he said, I fail to see how you can draw that inference.

100%

31 deaths in all, before the ward was demolished because it was very old an unsanitary.

@@user-of9bq7zu2h are you on Twitter? Really good to see the change of heart that's happening all around us.

@@user-of9bq7zu2h were are the 17 complaints and were the documents read out by the Defence?

and have you seen those consultants giving interviews ? clearly lying

That's a question you're simply not allowed to ask. It goes against the required narrative.

EXACTLY MY QUESTION! If they increased on her watch and nowhere else, if they have gone back to 'normal' figures since she was removed- doesn't THAT speak volumes ?!

@@peteblanco7640 Don’t you think the fact that the unit was down graded and took on far fewer cases of seriously at risk babies coupled with the fact that the authorities would be desperately making sure that nothing was going wrong and covering their own backside would ensure that things improved after Letby was removed. Suspicion, dubious interpretation of statistics, and the authorities desperate need to find ‘someone’ responsible played a part in things. Stats will tell you anything you want to believe and circumstantial evidence has been found to be suspect and even downright wrong in too many cases in the past. Just imagine going to prison for the rest of your life if there was no incontrovertible evidence to convict you, particularly if you were innocent.

Shortly before the deaths started the unit started accepting much younger and sicker babies. During the period in question, the number of neonatal deaths that also happened when letby wasn’t on shift was also significantly above expectation. Following this period the unit stopped accepting babies as young and as sick. The common factor is the inability to look after babies that young and that sick, not letby

@@carolinejohn4537it doesn’t if you see my response below

If you had watched the trail, the defence admitted someone was murderering babies on this unit. They didn’t dispute it. There argument was it wasn’t her. It was utterly forensic.

What do you think it means that "the defence admitted someone was killing babies". If I'm not a serial killer how could I be in a position to "admit" that someone was killing babies.

​@@jamesrobinson9167when the police announced there was a serial killer on the loose in Yorkshire was it the police doing the killing and not Peter Sutcliffe?

It's not as if we have recently seen a vicious cover up by the Post Office, Government and Judicial System that led to wrongful convictions of innocent people is it?

The conviction is not being claimed unsafe because the evidence is circumstantial. Most convictions are based on circumstantial evidence

There should be television cameras in the courtroom for every case as important as this, with no limits on public discussion.

I just replied to one commentator, not a judgment on the verdict but simple fact, there was no evidence. That's not a comment on the verdict just that there was no direct evidence connecting her to any crime. The case the prosecution presented was based on opinion, association and statistics. All of which can be questioned. Hitchen's et al aren't making judgment about innocence but the procedure and safety of the verdict.

there is also a huge character assassination if you express doubts about the case. I saw a youtube video analysing those who disagree as having personality disorders, being attracted to her, or disbelieving somebody 'so middle class like themselves' could be a murderer. They are trying to scare people away from questioning that which should be examined - the justice system.

@@firecrest27 That ignores the fact that several neonatal experts have expressed concern about some of the evidence presented during the trial, something we've read about only since the verdict. Personally, like most people, I was persuaded by the weight of associated evidence she was possibly guilty. Since reading the many doubts surrounding the verdict that possibility has been thrown into confusion. Maybe the ones attacking doubt about the verdict are the ones with personality disorders and unable to question what is obviously not as clear as it once seemed.

there is also the "nobody would have thought that this woman could possibly have committed such heinous acts" (therefor she must be guilty), they repeat this again and again, as if they want it to print into our brain. People are more than willing to believe anything, they've seen it all. This, I find weird.

If he has not read the actual evidence , then why is he saying that the verdict was wrong ? He cannot judge what he has not seen .

​@@BlackStump172 exactly, based on the interview, it seems Hitch has read a few articles, and this forms the basis for his suggestions retrial.

@@121mcvUK Exactly, I don't have any issues with people having different opinions of the evidence but when they haven't actually read proper sources, like court reports, then I can't help but see it as sloppy journalism and muddying the waters unnecessarily.

We dont have trial by media in this country. Thank God !

@@mikewilson8513 Are you sure about that?

"We all now know how expert witnesses can be. Pompous old men with a lot of power in their hands who think they know everything" Unfortunately the situation is a great deal worse than that and has been for a very long time. It's often enough not much, to extents even not essentially, about professionals and professional and personal ego over balance and reason. It's so much worse, often. It is about money. Money, money, money, money, money. In such a high profile case a so-called expert - often an expert who is ready to do not too far away from anything to help one or the other side in a trial - is simply not going to offer "expertise" on which the whole case more or less depends for their standard fee of £20,000-£50,000. With such a high profile case with a lot of emotional baggage in the population experts are likely to cost at least £100,000 but easily may charge hundreds of thousands. (From the public purse as the Prosecution is paying it.) There are experts whose very well remunerated livelihoods depend mostly upon trials income - basically professional court trials appearers, many of whom are ready to provide "expertise" for and also against the accident in a case depending on who is asking - and paying - defence or prosecution. For accused persons who have to pay to defend themselves their counsel may not be able to afford much to investigate and rebut expensive prosecution "experts" who are themselves paid handsomely by taxpayers. No, if only court expert testimony were just a situation about genuine farts who love the sounds of their own voices and over-value their professional opinions. At the end of the day a lot of court experts, often these who have appeared many times, are people who have spent quite a lot of time practising how to say, how to pass off convincingly, that what they say is valuable and important information. There is a lot of money in it for them.

Totally agree

Don't forget about the two doctors in this case, they were influential in starting it.

@@ncooper8438 absolutely. A similar sort of thing happened to my friend’s mother. If you talk about a masonic stitch up involving police, doctors, lawyers you're labelled a conspiracy theorist……if Lucy Letby isnt a scapegoat, I don’t know who is?

"It was clearly a stunt to make local people think she must be guilty if they are going to such lengths" Completely false. Also if they suspected strong she maybe a serial killer, its pretty protocol to do such things. "Pompous old men with a lot of power in their hands" It would appear that getting this women out of jail has (by the recent rhetoric flooding everything) become the War of the extremist Left.

What was the problem with the conviction?

@@davidc3839 it clearly is unsafe which bit of that do you not get ?

@@markennyee I don't get people like you who hang onto conspiracy theories. I bet you have a whole list of them.

@@davidc3839 will you eat your boots when you are proved wrong ??

You mean she doesn't have the serial killer looks and demeanour you're used to from the telly

Was the one consultant who repeatedly pointed the finger at Letby ever investigated himself or were the doctors above suspicion?

So it's the theories of a tabloid journalist against a mountain of evidence that a jury agreed with....

​@magenta6754 nobody else was ever investigated on the ward. The doctors blamed her fairly early on and by all accounts the police ran with it- classic texas sharpshooter fallacy. Therefore everything from her text messages to her Facebook searches were viewed from the angle of that she was a killer and sold to the media as such.

You're not keeping up ! Dozens of doctors and scientists have said that the 'expert witness' presented the jury with incorrect information.

Because it's more important that somebody is guilty than the right person being guilty?

How is this case strong,noone saw her do it,,,the post mortems done on all the babies did not prove their theories,,,nothing linked her to the murders apart from the fact that she was the nurse on shift and don't forget that those weren't the only children who died,another nurse had 5kids die on her,why isn't she in prison

If you know anything about the rule of law then you’ll know this case is not strong

How was this a strong case ?

Then get a new hearing aid.

wow. i can't unhear it now.

That's why his dream career in adult phone chat dived. 😜

@@edelgyn2699 🤣😂

I would imagine everything annoys you.

Go to CrimeScene2Courtroom channel on KZfaq and start listening from the video 'Lucy Letby - The Police Search' onwards. These videos are a reenactment of the original trial based on the actual court transcripts purchased by someone who actually attended most days of the trial so he was able to demonstrate times when there was a dramatic pause or what her tone of voice was when she said certain things. These videos will take you through all 17 cases in the trial and then you will understand why she was found guilty of some counts, not guilty of others, and no verdict reached for others. I think there is an assumption that this was a blanket verdict and she was found guilty of everything, but that isn't true. The jury took their time to go through each case one by one.

Try using a VPN , it's blocked in this country which kind of speaks volumes about the case. The link is still active, check it out, you'll be shaking your head in disbelief like I was

I was very uncomfortable with the verdict after hearing some dubious witness statements. I would love to know your reasons, especially as you had first hand knowledge of neonates.

@@patpat4317 it's because I have worked at a neonatal unit I am uncomfortable with the trail. From what I have listened to about the unit Lucy worked in it sounds like bad management, poor leadership and incompetence killed those babies.

The unit sounded very understaffed and they kept taking in very sick babies instead of transferring them out when they knew they didn't have the nursing staff to safely care for these babies. In my unit we would have phoned round other units if we couldn't safely provide care. Also they should have reduced the number of cots, which is what a responsible unit manager would have done and put a contingency plan in place. That wasn't done and these babies were put at risk as a result. No one questioned the management of the unit. The whole blame for the deaths was put onto Lucy. Of course she was on duty when most of the deaths occurred. When you work full-time and do extra shifts the chances of you being on duty when these babies died is quite high but that wasn't considered. I have had experience of children and babies becoming unwell after I've nursed them on a shift, and come in the next shift only to realise that and I have went over my care with a fine tooth comb to see did I miss something. Her writing notes saying she is evil and she did this, I understand that. You do a lot of soul searching when a child or baby dies in your care and it is a horrible experience, you question everything you did, I've done that with one child I can imagine what was going through her head when a number of babies died on her shift, esp if she was looking after them. Some of the things the prosecution were saying about them being well babies, these babies were not well. They were in a neonatal unit. The one about injecting air into a babies tummy via ngt and causing air in the gut that killed the baby. That sounds more like Nec and because can kill a baby from birth to 3 months. Premature babies are more at risk of neck as are sick neonates. I have never put 10mls of air down a baby's ngt but I have aspirated 10mls of air from them. If a baby has a lot of air in it's tummy it will be uncomfortable and it will vomit. I could go on but I will stop there. It's just a few things that make me query this whole trail and it's verdict.

The way she would be caring for certain babies she wasn't assigned to, and pushing otberstaff away to take over care... is really concerning

@@HumanimalChannel not really. When staff go on break you take over their babies also maybe the nurse looking after those babies didn't really know what to do and she did, esp in an emergency situation. This happens in all units staff with more experience take over from staff with little neonatal experience. That could be all that was happening there but it has been protrayed a different way. Some of those staff may not have liked the way she took over from them. Also she could have been helping them look after their sick babies if she saw that they were out of their depth with them. Esp if they were new staff with very little neonatal experience.

Simple ,no real evidence , no confession .no witnesses , just character assassination she was there so she must be guilty quite laughable I was shocked she was found guilty . Just take a look at the so called expert witness Evans a beat up old quack who had not practiced med for ten years sets himself up as an expert then on the stand says he is not an expert , she was cross questioned about wearing pyjamas for over 30mins total miscarriage of justice I am ashamed to be British disgusted ,and as for the media they found her guilty before she stepped in court . Thank god at least some one who is listened to like Hitch has had the guts to speak out

Try answering the following questions: (1) why were none of the deaths or attempted murders reported as suspicious incidents at the time, or revealed to be suspicious by the coroner? (2) why did the judge allow medical evidence to be given on air embolism by a retired practitioner who had never even encountered one in his practice? (3) why was that evidence allowed to be supported by a research paper (much outdated) which the author claimed was misinterpreted by the courts? (4) why were statistics allowed to be used in a way which the Royal Statistical Society claims is misleading? (5) why didn't the Defence call its own expert witnesses?

Your understanding is wrong. Among other things, several other deaths took place on that ward in the same period, but were not included in the indictment. I do urge you to read the growing store of material available on the web, in which the case is re-examined.

@peterhitchens4240 Of course other deaths took place. It's an intensive care unit for premature babies for goodness sake ! You're conflating two different things. Eg , Everytime England play without Harry Kane they lose 25%. When Kane plays , they lose 5% of games ( not actual results btw ). Your argument is that these type of stats are not so relevant and can be somewhat queried. Over a 2 or 3 year career period or 2 or 3 seasons , they surely do have meaning , as they can be compared to the " normal , average " longterm results of other staff and/ or players in the same " team ". The more stats, the more accurate are those stats.

​@@johnristheanswer I wonder how much effort was put into understanding her competence and concentration levels. Knowing what to do and then doing the right thing quickly and confidently is obviously important in this job and wouldn't be helped if she was somewhat ditsy, if that's a word. That could explain worse outcomes over a long period. To assume everyone performs at the same level is a gross assumption. Without reading up on this case, I can say that if my engineering management want a job doing quickly, don't give it to me. I can do it well but I'm just not that motivated for high output and spend too much time chatting, texting, reading the news on my phone or the ESG crap that the company puts out. Much of it promoting the case for diversity hiring rather than competence. The NHS is ground zero for diversity hiring... it is its raison d'etre now.

​@@geoffmilnerSo true 🤣.

What do you mean? Surely she can say nothing when arrested, and then still defend her self in court?

They legally couldn’t comment on the case while there was an ongoing legal proceeding

They should have had free rein to do so after the verdict last summer. It seems quote clear the primary purpose of the retrial was the maintain the reporting restrictions themselves. It is not surprising and was clear to most concerned health care professionals information and concern of this kind would emerge shortly after the lifting of restrictions.

Actually they've been very quick. She was convicted less than a year ago and already there has been one very long and detailed article in the New Yorker followed by two major stories in both the Guardian and the Telegraph and now contributions from Peter Hitchens and others. Expect a lot more to follow.

The purpose of mainstream media is to obscure the truth … And if you can’t see that then they are doing a very good job of it.

​@@cupofteawithpoetry Damning headlines and broadcasts around the world, relentlessly.

The hospital has avoided nothing. They defended her initially. How can she be framed when the hospital was in fact negligent for not removing her? Your theory is contradictory.

@@Flash-sr8hm Not at all. You should examine the time line.

​@@Flash-sr8hm Listen to what Peter Hitchens said.

Indeed, the only expert witness called by the defence, and his evidence is of great interest. The unit's plumbing was frequently affected by unhygienic leakages(let me put this delicately).

@@peterhitchens4240 The case of Canadian nurse Susan Nelles springs to mind which you could say is on a similar line & the maternity unit in that Hospital needed extensive upgrades revealed in a press release of November 2023 so was it really fit for purpose as some of the complaints didn't appear to do it justice ?

​@@peterhitchens4240thank you for that. I also feel that there has been a miscarriage of justice.

@@peterhitchens4240 Half of the plumbing problems the plumber described had no relevance to the unit and the other half didn't occur on or around the dates of the incidents in the indictment. The defence didn't put forward an association between the plumbing problems and the health conditions of the babies.

It was not arbitrary. it was those children whose collapsed were unexpected or unexplained.

@@Flash-sr8hm As far as I understand, there were no criteria that were decided on before the Letby trial started. The decision which children were included and which weren't was made by the prosecution. As a matter of fact, all of these children were originally, years earlier, considered to be natural deaths. There were another 17 babies in the same time frame which were not included. I think even Dewi Evans said at some point that he did not understand why other children he had assessed were not included. The approach taken by the prosecutors would work if they had some objective criterion which children were suspicious and which weren't. Moreover, they would have to control for confounding factors, e.g., how many shifts were done by Lucy Letby and how much by other nurses. Apparently, she was working more than the average hours.

@@JohnPretty1 Well, maybe. But he was in that way also misleading the audience about the facts of the case.

The case almost only rests on one pediatricians "insight". He notices the number of deaths, , then he selects which deaths are suspect, then he convinces the rest of the staff that Letby is here everytime an abnormal death occurs,then he's the only witness of Letby harming a child , then he's the wistleblower, and now he's the hero. From his testimony all the evidence could be seen as confirmation bias from what his own accusations.

@@backintimealwyn5736 ...he reported her to management, who investigated and found no wrongdoing by LL and made him apologize ... and he then went to the police ... and his evidence is inconsistent !

Statistician Richard Gill offered his services and was threatened with legal action by the police.

@@KingBee24 that is absolutely contemptible! There seems to be a lot of underhand goings-on. The fact the defence only had one witness. Just appalling

Yes it’s likely, follow the money

Spot on. Government and it's agencies can never be seen to be wrong - include the police, the NHS etc. So they cover up. Remember Hillsborough??

Smug..............if Lucy Letby was found to be innocent, the government at that time would be culpable, and we can't have that, can we?!!!

A judge in a previous case threw him out 'cos in layman's terms he was talking nonsense. He should never have been accepted as an 'expert witness'

What evidence 🤷🏼

​@KingBee24 Agreed, Dewi Evans wasn't even a neonatal qualified, or expert in this field, only a long retired, paediatrician

@@fulham1958 Good point! The court took as "evidence" the testimony of a man, retired for over 10 years and who said there were symptoms described which he'd never seen before during many years of NOT being a neonatologist, so the only possible explanation in his mind was a serial killer nurse, ignoring all other factors. I've seen him being interviewed and the arrogance of the man is astounding, assuming guilt and making up hypotheses to fit. He needs to be exposed and soon.

That sounds ropey to start with. Why would a judge do that? Our judiciary are becoming politicised.

@@S.Trades when was she caught out?

... and this consultants 'evidence' is inconsistent ...

@@steveblundell7766 I have had experience of the nhs at its worst. One big cover up

@@manofkent4472 Webb compared it to a different case and then dismissed the guilty conviction because it shared a similarity, ignoring all of the additional evidence and witness testimony.

No one cares about your feelings - we care about evidence

Did they report those words then or has it just come up in trial

totally agree.

Just after the verdict on the first trial I was sat next to a criminal barrister on a plane. We discussed the case. His arrogance was awful. His point was that she was found guilty and therefore was guilty he just didn't accept that the courts ever got things wrong. I went on to list some but it made no difference to his closed mind.

@@AmandaPotter-i2z the test is beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal cases and she was found guilty. Therefore it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The Jury saw the entire trial.

An acquaintance of mind was jailed for 8 years for rape which he probably didn't commit. I was a witness at the trial in that the accuser initially came on to me in a bar in front of my wife. To be specific she asked if I could be her sugar daddy and that she gave excellent BJs. No kid. I asked the friend (not the accused) who'd brought the woman into the bar to take her away and this he did. Unfortunately, in doing so he introduced her to the man she ended up accusing of rape. I knew the accused because he'd done some building work for me and I said I'd help him. He gave me the bundle of evidence and one thing immediately stuck out as a lie by the woman which was that she claimed that she'd gone to a bar with her boss after work and they'd drunk two bottles of wine before she got the tram home. The point of this was to say that she didn't know what she was doing when she invited the accused into her bed that night. However, this wine consumption couldn't have been possible because her statement gave the time she left her workplace and there was irrefutable evidence as to the time she got on the tram. For this all to be correct, she would have had to down a bottle of wine in 5 minutes flat. I met her 10 minutes after she'd got off the tram and she seemed stone cold sober. There was no forensic evidence presented in this trial. In a rape trial, it's often the case that there is very little actual evidence other than one word against another and so the credibility of the accused and the accuser is vital. If one side can show that the other side is lying about one thing then the jury might conclude that they were also lying about the rape itself. I pointed this out to the accused's solicitors and fully expected them to make a big thing of it at the trial because the accuser's boss testified in court as to the bar evidence. But the accused's legal team made no reference to it when the boss was on the stand. It would have been game, set and match for the defence but it just wasn't raised and the verdict was guilty. There were another couple of major inconsistencies that weren't pointed out by the defence that I won't go into here. The builder, just like Letby, had been terribly let down by his legal team. I consulted one of my oldest friends, a criminal barrister about what to do next. He advised that in the absence of further evidence that his only ground for appeal was that his defence team had misrepresented him and that he should use a specialist firm of appeals solicitors for this. I conveyed this to him. What did he do next? He only asked the existing legal team to give him their opinion as to if THEY had misrepresented him. Of course, they concluded that they hadn't. He didn't even get as far as that appeal and he served half his 8 year sentence in a cell next door but one to Rolf Harris. And when I read that Letby's appeal was being handled by the very same useless legal team that had let her down so badly in the first place, the memories came flooding back. Post script. The accuser's ex partner approached the builder in a local pub after his release. He sympathised with him and told him that he was her fourth victim.

How do you explain the insulin?

Good point. However there have been cases, one in particular that Hitchens mentions of a Nurse who was wrongly convicted of a more than similar crime.You may well be familiar with the case of Lucia de Berk, if not then you may discover there is a counter argument to your take.

Lucy's conviction should be quashed as the medical evidence is "utter crap" The babies Lucy was supposed to have murdered had post mortems and were found to have died from natural causes. Unless, of course, you prefer to believe the long retired, discredited paediatrician, Dewi Evans, who fantasized about air embolisms and insulin poisoning. And whoever put that bogus spreadsheet together should be prosecuted for fraud. The level of negligence and incompetence on that unqualified neonatal unit was breathtaking This is going to be one of the biggest miscarriages of justice this country has seen.

I doubt anyone would be defending a male nurse in this situation. The fact she's a reasonably pretty young woman makes people rush to her defence.

@@johntgw I don't remember Ben Geen or Colin Norris attracting this many defenders

@@johntgw What a puerile argument !

Bingo!

omg that makes so much sense

Only if you thought she was guilty already

@@peterhitchens4240So what you’re saying is that we should have a standard that nothing the accused has written should be admissible as evidence in court?

How can WE prove that she wrote those words?!

@@vinparaffin6082 It was her journal. You mean police created a fake journal in order to nail this woman to the wall? I mean, you can keep pushing for a higher and higher standard of evidence-but eventually you’ll just have to let everyone out of gaol.

@@abcdefg3315 She confessed in her journal repeatedly.

Please tell more.

Look up the cross examination.

@@chrisdude9641 - link ?

@@autoclearanceuk7191 Go to CrimeScene2Courtroom channel on KZfaq and start listening from the video 'Lucy Letby - The Police Search' onwards so you can hear for yourself what Lucy's explanations were. These videos are a reenactment of the original trial based on the actual court transcripts purchased by someone who actually attended most days of the trial so he was able to demonstrate times when there was a dramatic pause or what her tone of voice was when she said certain things. These videos will take you through all 17 cases in the trial and then you will understand why she was found guilty of some counts, not guilty of others, and no verdict reached for others. I think there is an assumption that this was a blanket verdict and she was found guilty of everything, but that isn't true. The jury took their time to go through each case one by one.

You listened to the Court reports nit the transcripts.

The judge doesn’t call a mistrial for lack of evidence 😂😂

Because they examined all the evidence.

They found her guilty because of the emotional connection we all have to protect children. The bar for proving guilt was lowered because of emotions

Are you uncomfortable having already done your due diliigence by reading/listening to the court transcripts and what was actually said by Lucy herself? If not, please do the 10-20 hours of homework before concluding that you don't understand the topic: Go to CrimeScene2Courtroom channel on KZfaq and start listening from the video 'Lucy Letby - The Police Search' onwards. These videos are a reenactment of the original trial based on the actual court transcripts purchased by someone who actually attended most days of the trial so he was able to demonstrate times when there was a dramatic pause or what her tone of voice was when she said certain things. These videos will take you through all 17 cases in the trial and then you will understand why she was found guilty of some counts, not guilty of others, and no verdict reached for others. I think there is an assumption that this was a blanket verdict and she was found guilty of everything, but that isn't true. The jury took their time to go through each case one by one.

Do you think juries would be more careful convicting when the evidence is poor if there was a DP?

​@@paulthomas963the prosecutions ought to be more rigorous

I dont think you would go straight from court to the gallows...In the USA they sit on death row for years, I doubt we would be that different considering our cultural similarities.

@@paulthomas963 Yes I do

@donalobrien7582 do stop saying "WAKE UP".That phrase is so old and overused since Brexit, Covid ,BLM, Me Too,it's dragged out every time.

Yes, but is the evidence against her reliable, is the question? From what I've read, and it may be wrong, there are serious issues with it. I'm intrigued. I'm going to keep on digging. Below is what I've read. Following the verdicts, it was revealed that Lucy Letby's Barrister, Benjamin Myers, KC, sought to have the expert witness evidence of Dr Dewi Evans dismissed from the case. The Judge presiding over the case denied the Barrister's application stating that it is for the jury "to determine, as with any witness, his reliability, having regard to all the evidence in the case." This decision to permit Dr Evans evidence is controversial, as permitting the jury to evaluate expert witness testimony is distinct from that of a general witness. It was previously found that, “In determining the issue of admissibility, the court must be satisfied that there is a sufficiently reliable scientific basis for the evidence to be admitted. If there is then the court leaves the opposing views to be tested before the jury.” R v Dlugosz [2013] EWCA Crim 2, [2013] 1 Cr App R 32 at [11]” At issue is the reliability of the evidence on a scientific basis. It is evident that none of the normal practices used to determine air embolism as a cause of death were applied by Dr Evans, and the one publication he referred to does not relate to air embolism through ambient air entrainment in the vasculature. Dr Evans determined that the infants died due to air embolism by referring to a 1989 research paper, which described gas embolism, due to the usage of high ventilation pressures which is a practice no longer applied to neonates. None of the findings on autopsy suggest the children died due to air embolism. It is apparent that a crucial element in the Lucy Letby case is the reliability of the original investigation. It is of great concern that Dr Evans conducted the investigation with the assistance of the consultants who were present on the ward at the time of death, and where, in any other setting, such individuals should have been treated as suspects. A further factor is whether Dr Evans was qualified to conduct any investigation given that he is neither a forensic scientist, nor a pathologist. Dr Evans has no formal training or background in the principles of scientific research. It is highly irregular for a group of medical doctors to play a primary role in carrying out a criminal investigation. In most other jurisdictions such activity would not constitute an independent investigation.

That's means the Letby fan's would have to do actual research and reading!

And if they are too lazy to read, then they should listen: Go to CrimeScene2Courtroom channel on KZfaq and start listening from the video 'Lucy Letby - The Police Search' onwards. These videos are a reenactment of the original trial based on the actual court transcripts purchased by someone who actually attended most days of the trial so he was able to demonstrate times when there was a dramatic pause or what her tone of voice was when she said certain things. These videos will take you through all 17 cases in the trial and then you will understand why she was found guilty of some counts, not guilty of others, and no verdict reached for others. I think there is an assumption that this was a blanket verdict and she was found guilty of everything, but that isn't true. The jury took their time to go through each case one by one.

Did you also read the Birmingham 6 appeal?

P.Hitchens does make that point.

Has Hitchens actually read the entire transcript? I don't know, do you? Or has he simply read articles in the Guardian and New Yorker and formed his views on that basis? I don't know, do you? Can I suggest you obtain the opinion of senior counsel rather than journalists? Here, you assert that you know something. Do you?

These issues first come to light through the media. Now brave people need to step forward and have a look.

​​@@scabthecatDid you actually listen to what he said? The New Yorker had the transcript of the entire trial and published it so he read it all not just a few bits.

If the statistical evidence is worthless the medical evidence unsound and without an evidential basis and the insulin test data gathered by a non forensic level test then the whole case collapses. It's not necessary to know every word spoken in 10 months. The foundation of the prosecution's case is crumbling because it is speculation not science

If only the trial was filmed we'd know!

indeed, that consultant reeks of insincerity and celebrity desire

Yes, many of my nursing colleagues feel the same.

Yep, now there's even going to be a documentary on MSM titled something like "Did she really do it". They changed gears fast

@niriop So if she had her hands in the incubator, they could've said she was tampering or attacking the baby! She can't win can she?!! Lucy said they are taught as nurses about "self correcting" but Jayaram, a man that changes his mind, more times than I change my underpants obviously disputed this. For Christ's sake, he said the alarms weren't sounding, yet another nurse said they was!! He should've been toast on that witness stand

@@bradleyday5829 Listen to me: she stood over the infant’s bed while it was in respiratory distress and was observed doing nothing for close to a minute. Why did she do that?

There was rambles certainly but no confession. Go back and look at the actual evidence and stop making it fit your already made up mind.

@@niriop I've just told you why Read my reply again

@@bradleyday5829 I did. It makes no sense: why did an experienced neonatal nurse just stand there?

The police played no part at all.

@@patpending8134 so who arrested them and on what evidence

No they did not. It was the Post Office executives using the Criminal Justice System for Debt Collection purposes.

@@ScruffyTubbles a you’re saying that over 900 people were never charged with an offence and investigated by the police as to whether they were innocent of the accusation or guilty of the accusation?

@@patpending8134 😂😂😂😂 say what! 😂😂😂

They say it is difficult for someone guilty to give a strong response to accusations of their crime because they are concious of the truth. But there have also been cases where a mentally ill peron has randomly claimed responsiblity for something they never commited. Not saying it happened in this case. Just describing general cases.

You haven't been listening to the Court Transcripts - they have only just been obtained.

Now he's borderline "no fool like an old fool".

@@ileanamuntean7338 Nah, there is usually reason behind his objections - you can't write him off as a fool. I mostly don't agree with his conclusions, but I recognise he's reached them by applying logic and genuine concern. @Otter We need people like that because too many of us don't question popular thought. He may go off in the 'wrong' direction, but he often gives the alarm about issues that we should reconsider.

It's because everything in the 10-month trial, only suggests she is guilty, nothing came out that actually proves it.

its part of a wider agenda to undermine our systems in the uk. hithcens is part of that problem.

Because the evdience of her guilt is so weak and full of holes. English courts do seek to prove innocence. They attempt to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

@@peterhitchens4240 Bullshit.

Nothing suggested her guilt either

@@fredo1070 Yes, Jill Dando was whacked - orders from the very top of government.

Who is ‘they’

​@@darrenambrosiaHe probably means the establishment...Jill Dando was whacked and the order came from the very top of government.

@@lcship1905 conspiracy theory bullshit. The lizard people did it

​@@JohnPretty1ah well, tracks were covered. The manner of the attack -professionalism if you like means it's a previous, trained killer and not b.George. The trails left in media about retribution for Crimewatch don't convince either. At some point in the intervening years someone would have grassed. She worked at the BBC, Saville was still about and she'd discovered something very dangerous. Establishment/top of Labour govt .

Because the unit was downgraded at the same time, she no longer worked in that unit. Therefore, they never had seriously ill babies in their care. Additionally, there was never any air embolism recorded by the Drs at the point of death or by the coroner.

You go back to Eastenders!

Air embolism wasn't found to be the cause of death and the Canadian expert on this insisted that the skin decolourisation didn't fit with air embolism. Regarding the drop off in deaths, the first responder is correct about the unit not taking on such serious cases also if your unit is under the spotlight you're going to do everything you can to make it look like a good unit, more staff more training etc. It seems like they then had issues in the maternity department, which to me sounds like they were taking money and resources from one unit to improve another.

And also pass case NHS miscarriages of justice of how NHS managements treat, lie and block the truth from ever coming about. And why did 2 of the lead managers from that hospital retire with full pension before it went to court and have never had to answer important questions that have never been answered, and the over 2 Nursing managers were able to side step to do the same job in a different hospital and then all NHS employees were taken in to group meeting to told if they talk to anyone about it they will be fired, they made Lucy Letby an scapegoat end off.

@@stephencrook3916 I can tell you, from seeing it happen, that a defence solicitor might change a defendants plea behind their back, NG to G. I've seen it happen. He did this because the court couldn't establish whether the defendant (who also had bogus charges filed against him), actually had insurance for the vehicle he was driving (a company van). Yes, it really does happen.

tell me you know nothing about stats without telling me you know nothing about stats

Erm.... maybe it has something to do with the fact that the ward was downgraded after she left. Serious cases now go to Liverpool or Manchester.

@@QPRRhinoThe unit was downgraded at the same time whereby they stopped taking high risk newborns.

It was one consultant. The other consultant then fell into line. Many of her fellow nurses say she's innocent. The excess deaths continued after her arrest and stopped when the unit stopped taking such premature babies.

​@@KingBee24Her fellow nurses called her the angel of death

@@deldia further awful luck that in short few-minute windows of time right she's aline with the babies that they have a sudden and unexpected collapse!

@@ames876i3 Lucy was one of only two Nurses who worked on that ward, that had advanced training. That's why she was present. There were another 9 deaths which occurred when she wasn't present. At the very same time, the Maternity ward at the same hospital had a spike in Stillborns - should we blame Lucy for them too?

They counted bad data, they made up events to suit their narrative

@@ames876i3 that happens sometimes, right?

Have you listened to what Lucy herself had to say about the cases? Go to CrimeScene2Courtroom channel on KZfaq and start listening from the video 'Lucy Letby - The Police Search' onwards. These videos are a reenactment of the original trial based on the actual court transcripts purchased by someone who actually attended most days of the trial so he was able to demonstrate times when there was a dramatic pause or what her tone of voice was when she said certain things. These videos will take you through all 17 cases in the trial and then you will understand why she was found guilty of some counts, not guilty of others, and no verdict reached for others. I think there is an assumption that this was a blanket verdict and she was found guilty of everything, but that isn't true. The jury took their time to go through each case one by one.

*nessecary

@@jamescoburn6789 If you're correcting a mis-spelling at least try to get it right at the second attempt.

It wasn't as simple as "she was on shift"; so were other staff members and they haven't been accused. It was more like "other staff members have looked after this child for the past X days/weeks and nothing happened. The parents were with them all day and nothing happened. 5 minutes after the parents left and LL was alone with the baby, the baby randomly collapsed. There was no medical explanation as blood gases were normal, there was no infection etc. The child recovered after intervention and remained well whilst others were present. Then they were alone with LL and mysteriously collapsed AGAIN." Now multiply this weird coincidence by about 10 children. And add the letter she addressed to 3 dead triplets even though only two had died - she told her friend "I'll be back with a bang" following her annual leave and in less than 48 hours, two out of three previously well triplets were dead and she seemed against the third one being transferred elsewhere. Then we add the handover sheets that she used to FB stalk the parents of dead children (which we know because she was unable to spell the name of a parent she said she could spell from memory) and then there is her own note stating 'I am evil ... I did this' and 'I will never know what it is like to get married and have children'. There is SO much more than "she was on shift". Go to CrimeScene2Courtroom channel on KZfaq and start listening from the video 'Lucy Letby - The Police Search' onwards. These videos are a reenactment of the original trial based on the actual court transcripts purchased by someone who actually attended most days of the trial so he was able to demonstrate times when there was a dramatic pause or what her tone of voice was when she said certain things. These videos will take you through all 17 cases in the trial and then you will understand why she was found guilty of some counts, not guilty of others, and no verdict reached for others. I think there is an assumption that this was a blanket verdict and she was found guilty of everything, but that isn't true. The jury took their time to go through each case one by one.