Evans the expert witness was not qualified. The defence barrister told the judge he not a neonatal forensic qualified expert. He is a paediatrician The hospital plumbing was not safe with sewage coming up through the floor. The police didnt do a wide parameter investigation. The hospital was guilty of health an safety at work, water installation laws Pseudomonas aeruginosa was in the neonatal unit. On tapes sinks in the water. Lucy complained about it and consultants sent her to prison with the help of judicial systems. Journalists are comenting on this who have not studied it. Amanda knox in her book stated when they jail you before the courtcase you can not defend yourself you are shoved in a cell. The trial was not legal
@@LawrenceHyett Im just warming up. I have a S Yorks postcode. Hilsbrough Orgreave. Michael Sammes Cliff Richard. AMEY tree felling. Ched Evans..40 uninvestigated Rotherham rapes...Michael Kang Chen....It will be headline news when they get one right
People are protesting Letby's innocence, not Letby. Letby is guilty and she knows it! Otherwise, she'd be asking for a lie-detection test as 'any port in a storm' Hail Mary.
It's an issue when senior politicians are actively and persistently undermining a verdict. They're politicians, they're doing it for their own reasons.
The lack of evidence. That’s a small part, no doubt. She was convicted on vibes and really bad stats, presented by lawyers who didn’t understand them, defended by lawyers who didn’t understand them. If you understand stats you know the case is less than garbage.
Wes Streeting is basically saying don’t question anything the state does. Great logic Wes. On that basis the post office scandal would never have been exposed. And this bloke is a Labour MP?
My impression is that the main issue is that a growing band of reputable experts are questioning the expert witnesses, the evidence or the ability of the jury to understand said evidence.
They weren't in court, they haven't witnessed the babies' deaths and collapses, they haven't read the court transcripts, they haven't even read the babies' medical notes, they don't know anything about the babies, the nursing medical notes related to each event. Ask yourself whether their 'opinions ' should be taken into account.
They need to read the transcript of the trial and the report from the three expert judges who rejected her appeal . The very fact the her defence did not bring forward any expert witnesses that were available at the trial , only brought a plumber as witness , speaks volumes …those experts would have confirmed her guilt .
The main reason it took so long for the Birmingham Six to be freed is there was an 11-year gap between their arrest and the first World in Action documentary questioning their guilt. Because the Birmingham pub bombings were such a terrible event, nobody was prepared to seriously challenge what was a blatant miscarriage of justice. At least in Letby’s case people are questioning it straight away.
@@yamadakenji4143 I totally get the two cases are completely different in terms of what was used to convict. In Letby’s case there was no false confession battered out of her by the police like there was in the B’ham Six, becase because quite rightly that wouldn’t be allowed now the way it was 50 years ago. My initial point is nobody dared question the Birmingham Six verdict for a long time because the crime they had been stitched up for was so horrific. The same for Letby except this time people are questioning it already. I’ve no idea if she is innocent or not. My advice to her if she is innocent as she claims would be to take the truth drug or lie detector test. It isn’t admissible as court evidence admittedly but it would certainly go a long way to proving to the average Joe like me if she didn’t do it.
@@yamadakenji4143 Well, the problem is that none of the evidence presented conclusively shows that any of the babies were even murdered. The tests done which supposedly proved that some babies were poisoned with insulin were provably not suitable for that type of inquiry (although the jury, which per the sheer odds lack a single professional with chemistry background, might not have fully the ramifications of this), and the doctor who testified that there were evidence of air having been injected in others have previously had his testimony thrown out in other cases due to factual unreliability, and has also been contradicted by the very originator of research into air injection/embolisms (and again, there is the distressing possibility that the jury lacked the necessary educational and professional background to grasp the full nuance of this issue). For none of the other babies were any notable evidence even submitted showing that they died due to any causes other than natural ones. This is the Sally Clark case on steroids.
I wouldn't describe myself as "obsessed" about the Lucy Letby case. I do however feel that those who put her in jail are obsessed with keeping her there.
The lack of evidence and the lack of any motive is a serious flaw in this case, as is the complete lack of prior history. Letby tended for over 4,000 babies in her career, yet she enters a dysfunctional hospital and starts killing? Very convenient shift of blame here from what is obviously a hospital under great stress. Also the allegation of multiple MO's which does not stand up to any scrutiny. Multiple MO's can be far more likely interpreted as multiple causes of failings of the NHS Trust and the systems in place to look after those neonates. A serial killer having multiple MOs is almost unheard of. Shipman had one MO, Jeffrey Dahmer had one MO, John Wayne Gacy had one MO, a serial killer with multiple MOs is almost unheard of. So many flaws in this case.
You say right from the beginning that you're not interested in relitigating the facts of the case, you're just interested in analysing why Letby supporters believe what they believe. But couldn't a reason her supporters believe she's innocent be that the facts don't support her conviction? I'm tired of people psychoanalysing those who disagree with them instead of addressing their actual arguments, and I'm tired of the most crazy conspiracy theorists being used to dismiss an entire side of a discussion. The dozens of experts who have expressed concern about this case are not 'conspiracy theorists.' Why don't you take a look at their arguments?
It's a distraction.They are unable to challenge the expert statisticians and neonatologists, so they direct the narrative down a different line. Basic gutter press journalism!
It's not only a "could" that that might be a reason. Surely that's also the simplest reason, the first assumption that one might go to as to why people might think she's innocent: the Occam's Razor option, the naive reason, the reason that requires no addtional assumptions or ideas adding to the situation? It'd be like doing an in-depth analysis of why Argentina won the world cup but refusing to take any account of which teams were better at playing football than others.
@@zak3744 Occam's Razor is bandied about these days for all sorts of things. It is actually a philosophical position that posits "when presented with competing hypotheses about the same prediction and both hypotheses have equal explanatory power, one should prefer the hypothesis that requires the fewest assumption" (Wikipedia). In a case like this where somebody's life is concerned, this approach may be problematic. Perhaps the devil may be in the detail?
people's private notes & diary entries are not for the public's consumption, let alone the police!! they should never have been used as evidence against lucy!! it was the sewage leak in the neo natal unit was the reason 7 babies died! it was nothing to do with lucy!!
The post it is part of LL reflective journal about what was critisised about her practice by junior doctors and consultants. Their criticisms of LL were unfair and unstructured and that's how it is written on the post-it in reflection to her career development. That's how contentious a nurse she was. I wonder if those doctors had reflected on their practice to further develop their career. Their points about dead babies proved that their career development had come to an end, they have nothing more to learn to save babies life.
Why obsessed? There have been some very serious miscarriages of justice, I have no problem with experts looking at and reviewing cases if there is any possibility of an unsound conviction.
@@John-p7i5g I think there is an application process to apply to the review board for a review. So it's a bit like gatekeeping....you knoiw..."let's have a meeting about having a meeting"🤔
Two appeals have been rejected. The judicial system makes it very difficult with barriers dictating existing evidence cannot be used & only new evidence is allowed, which limits any appeal, case re-examination, acceptable unless on certain grounds.
Q: Why are people obsessed with the Lucy Letby case? A: Because many senior figures in the medical and legal professions are questioning whether this may be one of the biggest miscarriages of justice in British history (second only to the Post Office scandal). There were so many glaring omissions in the evidence presented at her trials. But who cares, right?
Also it's quite precious of media figures criticising people for having an interest in the case, when the media as a whole spent the entire preceeding years whipping up a veritable hurricane of press coverage of the case.
3 місяці тому+4
You're not really very familiar with the subject if you try to claim this is "one of the biggest miscarriages of justice in British history".
I have no idea of the innocence or guilt of Letby. However, the man who is talking about David Davis seems not to have listened to Davis in any detail. As Davis brings up many more concerns than simply those about statistics.
@@stephfoxwell4620 Here's an interesting stat revealed by fall out of Alan Bates endeavours. Post Office had a budget of 390 million quid for the cover up and S Yorks police declined the same evidence in 1999 after revealed bribes in the constituency of David Blunkett before he became Lord...could there be a connection ? Maybe embarrassed counsel didn't fancy being investigated by Jill Dando in 1999 but he needn't have worried
David R says that the Letby trial did not turn on the stats. Since we don't know any details of the jury's secret discussions, we can't say how much on of influence it had upon the jury's decision.
The problem with the statistics is not in the clusters but in the shift roster which was incorrectly drawn up and played a prominent part of the trial in convincing the jury that Lucy Letby was present for every single death and crash that happened June 2015 to June 2016 when, in fact, other deaths and crashes (for which she was not on shift) were left out of the presentation. "Her conviction was not overturned on appeal" - she hasn't had an appeal. Lucy Letby was refused the chance to appeal. It is not a conspiracy! You really should take a deeper look into the flaws of this case and then you might realise why so many people are concerned that this is not a safe conviction.
Yes they bamboozled the narrative with the allusion to clusters. It is the shift roster comprised of cherry-picked data and its presentation to the police, and subsequently in the trial, on which the assumption of guilt relies!
I may be one of the people obsessed with this case. I simply want JUSTICE .... if Letby is guilty then let's find her guilty, if she is innocent then let's find her innocent. People across the political spectrum have raised concerns about the conviction. British history is littered with miscarriages of justice.
"Let’s hope Wes streeting never finds himself in trouble and has to rely on people to help him". He won't be worried about that in the slightest - different rules for people of his tier from the rules for the Lucy Letby tier.
They're now saying that it wasn't about statistics ... but that's not what they said throughout the court case is it ? Read the 'Court of Appeal Judgement'. They were still emphasizing that spreadsheet meant she was the only one present which, as you say, was the reason for her arrest.
@Mervyn-wj1bi I agree that the statistics with the staff rota was used as a very significant part of her trial - and so if statisticians are questioning the rota, then their views should be taken seriously.
@@davestokes3446The term "conspiracy theorist" gets bandied around (particularly by the media) all too often nowadays to the extent that many people have a false impression of it's meaning and origin. A conspiracy requires more than one person to be acting in concert. So I suggest what you were trying to say that it was conspirators that brought about the conviction if you are meaning that some people (possibly to deflect attention away from failures by themselves/ others) promoted a narrative that Letby was the cause of numerous deaths at a single facility.
It is clearly because of the attitude of people just like the health secretary that we can't rely on the system alone to get things right. So often the court of appeals gets things wrong too. Many questions have gone unanswered and we all know that many judges are too old, do not live in the real world and are 'past there best before date'. This case needs to be thoroughly investigated and whilst that is happening (and no matter how long it takes), Lucy Letby should be released from prison and placed under house arrest.
You have a judiciary and a legal class that is innumerate. They don’t have an adequate understanding of probability. They are unable to identify the misleading use of statistics. They close ranks when they cause wrongful convictions. They cannot be trusted to handle these cases competently. There needs to be an ongoing and well-designed educational program to improve the abilities of lawyers and judges in these areas.
There's considerable academic research that lawyers struggle with the concept of probability. The Royal Statistical Society lobby for statisticians to be involved in such cases as this one.
@@KingBee24 Most people struggle with the fundamentals of probability, it's why casinos and betting sites are still able to operate not only profitably but also legally.
Appalling video. The collection of quotes at the beginning made it clear how slanted the view would be in this podcast, along with the language used. To not address the basis on which people are expressing their doubts is shocking...
I agree. And it’s crass to say that people used to have more deference towards authority eg the police and the courts but now they (whoever ‘they’ are) question things more. I dont think the friends and families of - for example - the Birmingham 6 felt any deference whatsoever. Some people do know a miscarriage of justice when they see one - from Day 1.
I had no reason to doubt LL's conviction and didn't until I read the puzzling news that the 13,000-word 'New Yorker' article had been banned. I subsequently heard that it was a poorly-researched sensationalist piece. But then I read a long article in the Guardian suggesting their paper had been approached by a significant number of medical experts who were very uneasy about the Letby conviction. So, as terrible as I can know this must be for the families, I can see why people are finding this case a subject of interest.
What seems of note in the Letby case is a number of experts have come forward to say the accusations lack evidence, or strong evidence. Yet in her trial her defence team did not call any of them? So the Jury was seemingly given little choice?
They (the prosecution) have to prove her guilt, rather than she (her defence) proove her innocence. Her defence should have been all over the prosecutions evidence where it was faulty, misleading or of little sustance. Her councel did a shoddy job there but the jury got swayed by the amount of evidence, length of the case and tabliod inputs. I also think that the judge should have directed more strongly and reminded the jury of the gravity of their decision where evidence is circumstantial. IMHO.
@@LawrenceHyett Looks like a case where if members of the Jury lacked much medical knowledge they were not going to be able to spot potential flaws in the accusation. I will need to look into the case more to probe into the make up and actions of the defence team.
@@miketomlin6040 I suspect that they likely had no medical experience and would have been heavily influenced by the 'confession note' and the spreadsheet.
@@LawrenceHyett That is not how jury trials work. If you tell a jury a story about how someone is guilty of a crime. But they don't get told any alternative story, they are going to go with the guilty story almost every single time. It is like not even having a trial. If you don't even have a medical expert state that it isn't even clear if babies were even murdered, then what is the point?
@@Prometheus4096 Thanks for that explanation. I am a bit green on jury trials and only go by what the legal system tells me what should happen. Having been involved in one trial as a member of the jury I know that there are the contradictory types who just want to bring up something left field that is hardly relevant and others that have already made up their minds, hardly want to listen to anyone else, or just want to get out of the jury room ASAP. I had jotted down a list of all the points I thought relevant or problematic buit most jurors trusted to memory about the details of the case which in long cases like Letby would be a stretch for anybody's memory.
I don't claim she's innocent and I haven't looked into it deeply enough (as well as lacking the medical/statistical expertise to comment). However, I would say that the claim you're not allowed to question a court's verdict if someone's crime is serious enough is ludicrous.
The lack of any evidence proving she did anything and there being no witnesses and the conviction seemingly being based entirely on circumstantial evidence is deeply disturbing... especially considering how the judge essentially told the jury to base their decision in their feelings and to not worry that there was no actual evidence...
Forget the statistics forget the conspiracies. The reason for the worldwide interest in Lucy Letby is, did she get a fair trial? And a great deal of people don't think she did. If this trial and the outcome of it doesn't worry you. Then one thing you should know is, it should. Any one of us could be next.
I don't know if she's guilty or innocent but the only 'expert' called by her defence was the plumber. With so many real experts from several fields casting doubt on the 'evidence', a retrial is justified.
@@lennymice2261 the only 'expert' witness to be called was the hospital plumber. The Royal Statistical Society has said that the statistical evidence presented by the prosecution was highly flawed. The claim was that it couldn't have been a coincidence that Lucy was present when most babies died. The RSS say that yes, it could have been a coincidence. Prof Geoff Chase from the University of Canterbury in New Zealand worked with chemical engineers on a mathematical model that calculated significantly higher quantities of insulin would be needed to harm the babies and generate insulin levels seen in their test results. There was no evidence in the trial to suggest significant quantities of insulin had gone missing on the ward. Another expert expressed concerns about the use of the same blood test results at the trial. Dr Adel Ismail said that he believes the immunoassay blood test can produce misleading results and that a second test should have been done. Two prosecution witnesses said that one baby had a swollen stomach “most likely due to deliberate” pumping of air into his feeding tube. However, neonatologist Dr Michael Hall, who has spoken publicly about his concerns before and has written to the chair of the public inquiry, said that there are many possible explanations for excess gas in the stomach. Dr Hall, who was consulted by the defence but never called to give evidence, said it is likely to have been caused by the respiratory support the baby was receiving and said the X-ray suggested there was a bowel obstruction. There are other worrying issues but even the few I've mentioned are enough to cause 'reasonable doubt'. That in itself would and should have resulted in an acquittal. This barrister is worth listening to: ua-cam.com/video/jL4E8S0EpA4/v-deo.htmlsi=LGay0KsGHZJKs-uh
I don't it's a conspiracy theory to think that Lucy Letby's conviction is.unsafe, on reading experts evidence. I feel as strongly about this case as I did back in the day about the Guildford 4 and the Birmingham 6.
Just thinking the conviction is unsafe isn't a conspiracy theory. For it to be a conspiracy theory it also needs to include the belief that people who thought that she was innocent conspired together to convict her anyway.
Poorly researched podcast in my opinion. Richard Gill, a statistician in the Netherlands has raised the troubling similarities between the Lucy Letby case and that of the Dutch nurse Lucia de Berk. Look it up ! You might realise why many experts are raising questions about the fairness of her trial. And whether she is innocent.
I don't think you should refer to it as "conspiracy". The evidence wasn’t strong. When you hear so much emphasis on posit notes which clearly wasn't a confession, and when you hear about facebook searches which were irrelevant. She just searched for almost everyone she met. What else did they spin to suit their narrative?
So you are saying she researched anyone she met and not just the parents of the babies? It is beginning to look as if certain parts of the picture have been presented which points to one particular narrative whereas the whole picture could tell a different story.
'No one is questioning the Wayne Couzens case'. Yeah, because he pleaded guilty. That case was beyond any doubt, let alone reasonable doubt. With the seriousness of the crimes Letby has been found guilty of, and the severity of the punishment, the conviction has to be absolutely watertight. But it isn't, so that's why people are questioning it.
Yep, drawing an analogy between a guy who was seen arresting a woman who was later found murdered and mutilated, and a woman treating at-risk babies, was a particular low point of this episode (in a crowded field)
Scepticism of institutions is rational. When things go wrong, institutions' tendency is to cover up their failure or crimes. We depend on investigative journalists to expose them.
excuse me? conspiracy theories? And a short length of time since the verdict to now??? I followed the trial and there was no evidence of guilt throughout the entire trial, it was a shocking shocking verdict to me when it was read out.
@@hydra66 There were people at the trial that did listen to all 10 months of evidence and had grave doubts about Letby being guilty. Consultant neonatologist, Mike Hall, is one such person.
@@hydra66 It's a logical fallacy that you had to be in court. The court was full of media and it was all over the television and newspapers. Dr Evans wasn't present at the post mortems, but still declared that the babies were murdered.
@@KingBee24post mortems generate a report. If I asked the unknown person "who you heard it from", have they reviewed the eveidence? Or are they also relying on another source
In your opening clip, I think Wes Streeting is making a categorical error. Yes, "innocent until proven guilty" is a legal principle, but it's also a wider principle. So in court you are legally innocent until you are proved legally guilty. But in a more general sense the application of the principle means we wouldn't assume that someone is factually guilty unless we feel that has been proven (to whatever standard of proof we choose). Streeting is talking about legal guilt. But I don't think anyone is claiming she is not legally guilty, I think everyone agrees on that! It's disingenuous of him to pretend all these people contest her legal guilt. The point of contention is whether or not she is factually guilty, not whether she's legally guilty (whatever side you personally come down on, or if you think you don't know). Indeed, for those who are het up about it, that's the very thing that annoys them: the idea that they think that legal guilt in this case is at odds with factual guilt.
The problem with using dodgy statistics at all in a trial based on circumstantial evidence is that juries are representative of the general public. Half of them are below average intelligence. Faced with a difficult case to decide on jurors will attach great weight to an "expert" who says the chances of this being a coincidence is 1 in (large number). A 1 in 50,000 chance means a juror will consider a guilty verdict is 50,000 times more likely to be the correct one than a not guilty one. I don't know if she is guilty or not, but I do know the average person can't wrap their heads around probabilities and therefore can't judge an experts testimony for themselves.
The jury had to believe the so called medical expert witnesses for the prosecution because there was no medical expert defence witnesses to counter the nonsense spouted by the discredited Evans who should NEVER have been employed as an expert witness in this case. Dr Dewi Evans was not a neonatologist or forensic pathologist and he had already been discredited in a previous case by a senior judge who called his evidence worthless. It needs to be investigated how this man was allowed to overturn the results of post mortems that found the babies died from natural causes?
Yes and the statisticians critiquing the trial say they have been involved in educating professionals in the legal field on statistics, as they admit themselves they are largely ignorant of the significance of the stats and their implications.
@@arfurascii2232 The jury came to their verdict based on what the 'experts' presented. If the experts gave them incorrect or incomplete information, they would have come to an unsafe verdict.
Dr Evans another claimed expert who basically inserted himself into the case, used as a witness & who's testimony was deemed not fit for purpose but carried the weight to convict.
agreed, also the only 'expert' witness to be called was the hospital plumber. The Royal Statistical Society has said that the statistical evidence presented by the prosecution was highly flawed. The claim was that it couldn't have been a coincidence that Lucy was present when most babies died. The RSS say that yes, it could have been a coincidence. Prof Geoff Chase from the University of Canterbury in New Zealand worked with chemical engineers on a mathematical model that calculated significantly higher quantities of insulin would be needed to harm the babies and generate insulin levels seen in their test results. There was no evidence in the trial to suggest significant quantities of insulin had gone missing on the ward. Another expert expressed concerns about the use of the same blood test results at the trial. Dr Adel Ismail said that he believes the immunoassay blood test can produce misleading results and that a second test should have been done. Two prosecution witnesses said that one baby had a swollen stomach “most likely due to deliberate” pumping of air into his feeding tube. However, neonatologist Dr Michael Hall, who has spoken publicly about his concerns before and has written to the chair of the public inquiry, said that there are many possible explanations for excess gas in the stomach. Dr Hall, who was consulted by the defence but never called to give evidence, said it is likely to have been caused by the respiratory support the baby was receiving and said the X-ray suggested there was a bowel obstruction. There are other worrying issues but even the few I've mentioned are enough to cause 'reasonable doubt'. That in itself would and should have resulted in an acquittal. This barrister is worth listening to: ua-cam.com/video/jL4E8S0EpA4/v-deo.htmlsi=LGay0KsGHZJKs-uh
It was concerning right from the start . The evidence is definitely NOT beyond reasonable doubt. Unless there is evidence against her that hasn't been reported? I remember Sally Clark, Lindy Chamberlain,the Birmingham six and thats just off the top of my head. Im not saying she's innocent,i wasnt there, but nothing thats been reported made her sound guilty to me 🤷
The CCRC appeal process is designed to block appeals. Only massive public opinion support will help Lucy Letby fight this obvious miscarriage of justice.
Loosely couched "conspiracy theories" - are you guys serious? I've always admired and enjoyed your podcasts, but this one has hit the buffers. Do any of you, including your production team, have a decent grade in GCSE Maths, or, at a stretch, know anything about neonatal medicine? I hope you will revisit this soon once you've gathered some true experts/specialists/people who can do basic maths with statistics who know what they're talking about. Currently, clearly you seem off with the fairies.
@@d-rex8223 When you see some of the podcasts on this subject, it would appear that a lot of them are taking their information from "The Sun" newspaper.
Sadly, journalists interviewing or having guests that are true (independent) experts is a thing of the distant past. Nowadays journalists interview or have guests that are mere journalists that are presented as being "authorities" on the topic of discussion. David Aaronovitch is neither an authority nor an expert. Whilst he spoke in an authoritive manner, the content of what he said was littered with inaccuracies & fundamental contradictions.
Conspiracy: An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act. I don't think this applies to what most people are saying happened. Most aren't saying that staff in the hospital got together and decided they should accuse someone of a crime they didn't commit. It seems the presenters don't know what a conspiracy or conspiracy theory is.
@@martineyles have you read through the comments on this video? It's quite literally what a lot of people are suggesting, even more so on GMB's David Davis video...
You could just as easily call the people who accused her "conspiracy theorists", since there is little if no science, logic, reason or evidence behind their far-fetched claims. (Even if they turn out to be right). Please stop mis-using this term to discourage debate.
If they had put 6 medical experts in front of the jury, explaining that the babies died of natural causes. Explaining that there didn't die any more babies in that hospital than normal. Explaining that the babies dying during the shift of 1 single specific nurse, when there are 29 million nurses in the world were some by chance are just going to be there when patients die, explaining that the theory of insulin and air embolisms are unproven. Explaining that people falsely accused of being serial killers that already had mental health issues are going to behave oddly. And against that, the prosecution has ZERO medical experts, she walks free 1000 times out of 1000 trials.
Are you fking serious. No wonder there is public consternation on both sides. There is likley to be an innocent young women rotting away in prison, and the parents of those babies have no idea what is going on.
Sanctimonious clap-trap from Wes Streeting. Individuals have a right to their own opinions. There have been many travesties of justice so scrutiny and second guessing is a healthy safeguard.
Why is it that after a few weeks of public questioning about various aspects of the Letby case, some commentators are describing those asking questions as conspiracy theorists?
A case where the defended didn't get a fair trial twice, because she had no expert witnesses at all, while the prosecution hand many, a case where it isn't even clear anyone was even murdered, and a case where there is no direct evidence, is just really odd. Especially when the leading argument against hose calling out about the case is to say they are 'conspiracy theorists' and the mantra 'we should respect the justice system and she was found guilty by a jury twice, and we have to be very sensitive to even criticize the ruling bla bla'.
Social media has massively increased the speed by which individuals can share information and can debate the topic . Once concerns are raised the debate can quickly become a national or even international debate . The Judicial System will necessarily come under more abd more scrutiny .The old adage that Justic must not only be done but must be seen to be done will tested like never before .
Though some people are "obsessed" (whatever that means)others like myself were concerned about how Letby was represented in the media and the trial evidence as far as it was reported. Healthcare is replete with examples of how workers are scapegoated for failing systems and the people at the bottom of the hierarchy are most likely to be scapegoated/blamed for failures of which there appears to have been legion at the Countess of Chester. I am also absolutely on board with the idea of doctors and nurses who have malicious intent and can cite examples. These incidents were known to senior hospital management and though the the offenders left the job they went on to work elsewhere. As a public we need structures that are transparent and accountable. If the evidence against Letby is robust over and above what we heard in the media let's hear it.
It is possible that this young nurse has suffered from a miscarriage of justice. Most people take little notice of those armchair experts and idiotic theories. However when a growing number of world renown experts and respected politicians express their consent and given the fact that the prosecution's Expert had been heavily critisise by a High Court Judge in a previous trial for being extremely biased against the accused and that his evidence was flawed and worthless, a fact not allowed to be told to the jury adds weight to the need for a retrial. I have lost two children myself and empathise with the parents in this case, I fully understand their distress over the call for a retrial. that said, would they want to see a young nurse spend the rest of her life in prison if a retrial shows that she is not guilty.
" the fact that the prosecution's Expert had been heavily critisise by a High Court Judge in a previous trial for being extremely biased against the accused and that his evidence was flawed and worthless, a fact not allowed to be told to the jury" - In fact this was raised by the defence at trial. The defence applied to exclude this expert's evidence and, after the judge ruled that his evidence would not be excluded, the defence cross-examined this expert in front of the jury about the judge's comments. The Court of Appeal judgment on the application for leave to appeal addresses all this between paragraphs 98 and 122.
I'm in two minds on this. One, all the court reports, evidence, and everything presented at trial leaves little doubt that Letby did what she was accused of. But, if evidence presents itself that brings any of that evidence into doubt, then she has a right to appeal. I think there is an unhealthy obsession with this case, mainly fueled by the fact that everyone has watched every cold case documentary on Netflix and no believe they are Columbo.
OK, then put the "crazy conspiracies" thru the test by seriously addressing their arguments, rather than dismissing them. That extreme reluctance to address the facts and any new evidence that may come up, along with the filtered reports that have been on the news (only publishing what they want us to know and concealing the rest) is a big fat sm0king gvn. Why did they show all over the news that there was a confession written on a note, but they conveniently omitted the fact that she was told to write it during a therapy session?
@@silviafarfan2523 "but they conveniently omitted the fact that she was told to write it during a therapy session?" - because she didn't say that at trial.
Original deaths were all given natural causes, so bodies were not retained for more thorough investigation. There's always going to be an element of uncertainty when that happens. I would like to see all the medical evidence used given to other experts and throw in other cases with a similar level of detail to see if experts can actually identify which cases were not natural deaths.
It is quite understandable that people cannot comprehend or accept the idea that such an act could be carried out by ANYBODY, let alone a young female nurse. But this incomprehension does not mean that such an act could not have happened, as the same attitude once applied to miscarriages of justice.
... and you could win the lottery. This idea that 'people don't believe it 'cos she was a young female' originated in a tabloid newspaper and people are repeating it like sheep. Google 'miscarriages of justice' and you'll see that 90% of them were male.
This has nothing to do with it. Murders are committed every day by all sorts of people. People have no problems accepting that young people, woman, attractive people, can be murders. You are tricking yourself. Don't forget that in this case, it took years for people to even come up with the theory that the patients that died were in fact murdered, and didn't just die because they were premature babies with illnesses inside a poorly ran hospital.
I wonder if this wasn't driven by a fear of not having another Harold Shipman or Beverly Allit. But if this has led to an unsafe conviction then what really needs to be done is to put systems in place to keep patients safe in the first place.
Generally like the podcast but I think you’re on the wrong side of history with this one. If you actually listen to the arguments about the evidence it’s nowhere near conspiracy, they’re very well reasoned arguments. If you care about avoiding punishing an innocent at ALL costs then we MUST be allowed to look again in cases with flawed evidence. These are people at the top of their professions saying this, not dorks on 4Chan.
I think it's disgusting to use the parents grief as a tool to silence people who question a shakey conviction. No one is holding placards outside home or harassing parents online. If they are they should be jailed but I don't think that is going on. Intelligent professional people have come forward and said, "wait a minute, there's something wrong here".
t now transpires that other people were removed from the spreadsheet making it look like Letby was alone at the time of the charges. She was not alone and others including a doctor and another nurse were present for many of the cases. Who removed the others from the chart and why were they so set on framing Letby? I don't want the other medics present to be hounded as I think an infection rife at the time was the cause of the spike, but whoever removed significant data in order to frame Letby needs investigating.
People are obsessed with the Lucy Letby case . Yes, this is because as a society we want to know that we have justice being served by our system, and we are safe. It is looking like something is badly wrong.And again we are looking for our system to help?
"...It is for the Courts to decide on the bassi of Evidence. " Fair enough so lets see some answer to the concerns the Royal Society For Statistics raise, which is that the wrong statistical propositions (not evidence I hasten to add) were given to the jury.
@@arfurascii2232 It's how you define 'circumstantial evidence'. Nobody saw Ian Brady do it, but they found a dead body in his house. Nobody saw Fred West do it, but they dug up all those bodies in his back yard. Nobody saw Lucy Letby do it, but ... ? She searched for people on facebook !
@@arfurascii2232 Very rare that someone is caught red-handed ... but there is always something to corroborate it. Nobody saw Ian Brady do it ... but when they went to the house, there was a dead body in the bedroom. Nobody saw Fred West do it ... but they dug up all those bodies in his back yard ... etc etc
The credibility of institutions is absolutely essential, whether it’s the courts or the NHS. They all have ‘codes of practice’ or ‘national standards’ and, they need to be vigorously applied to every single person within that institution. Failure to do so allows the conspiracy theorists to present a cavalcade of ‘ifs, buts and maybes’.
The nurse Beverly Allit admitted her vicious crimes against babies and is now due for parole and could be free in the next 5 years. If Letby was as artful and cunning as they try to paint her, it would have saved her a lot of aggro by pleading guilty with mitigating circumstances such as breakdown, overwork etc...Allit was found to have a physiological condition. Letby would have then got a shorter sentence with a chance of parole. But why should she plead guilty if she wasn't? if anything she was not cunning but a bit naive that truth and smoking gun evidence would prevail in a courtroom.
"Angel of Death" cases are always the most difficult to accept. Lewis made the point about female serial killers but the fact that she was a nurse plays a lot into it too. Most trusted profession in the country is nurse.
@@jmckeev765 Well us pseudo experts are listening to real experts in neonatal fields, statistics and medicine, as well as jurisprudence, and drawing conclusions. Locking a person up for life on the basis of no evidence, dodgy statistics, and flawed medical evidence technically means anyone can be found guilty of anything and thrown in jail. That's why it matters to us non-experts. And I'd very much like to ask them and go into the case further, but unfortunately it costs £100,000. What does that tell you.
@@John-p7i5g there are also real experts, statisticians, doctors, judges who are on the side of her being guilty. the experts who believe she;s innocent are small in comparison. it's easy to fall into a trap that we think we know everything these days with the info we have access to, i'm guilty of it too sometimes as a wise man once said ''if you believe everthing you read, you better not read''
@@jmckeev765 Correct. There are experts on both sides. Why weren't both sides fully thrashed out in court then? Why was only one side - the prosecution - afforded the luxury of calling upon 200 expert witnesses, whereas the defence had 1, a plumber? This case was flawed.
It's called deduction, reasoning, applying common sense, you want mathematical proof or a professor in physics explain the deaths and collapses of babies in an nnu? If so you should see a psychiatrist
@@raycorrigan3297 how about insulin poisoning, x-rays showing gas in blood vessels, the brain, in front of the spine, lacerated livers, splinted diaphragms, bleeding and projectile vomiting, u don't know what you're talking about
In Letby’s case, with significant and extensive circumstantial evidence surrounding each attack. The mistake many are making is believing she was found guilty by the way the case has been presented in media, like believing she was found guilty based on shift patterns and confession notes which is not what happened.
From what ive gathered its because a growing number of expert witnesses have come forward expressing doubt over the evidence used in the trial including the statisical data and the fact she was largely convicted on circumstantial evidence. If they are right it is scary. Whether shes guilty or not being convicted on shaky grounds does not do our justice system any favours. I know a lot of nurses who are quite frightened. They tell be bad months or weeks happen, and there is a massive shifting of blame culture that happens on the nhs.
Sopel is quite pretty, but he is not half as pretty as Maitlis! I wondered where she had gone. What a morbid discussion. Nevermind. Soon be Christmas. 🎉
It looks like a failure of the nhs - hospital facilities not fit for purpose, several people accountable, Letby is a patsy. The media closing ranks like these two and constantly emphasising the ‘evil’ nature of the case shows you that justice is not being served here. The format is always the same - we’re told to get emotional about how terrible the crime is, so that any doubt as to who’s responsible is seen as a fear of ‘fighting back’. My initial reaction to the case was ‘why did she do it’? Motive is one of the pillars of the justice system but the media has discarded this by using the usual device of ‘she was just evil’. Anyone with an ability to think for themselves knows that ‘evil’ is questionable concept.
You - and I - don't *know* whether or not she did the things she's accused of. You feel compelled to share your belief that she did not - that's what this podcast is about.
This would have been a lot better without David Aaronovitch. As I understand it with regard to the trial (correct me if I’m wrong) the legal parameters were set by the prosecution pre-trial and agreed upon by LL’s defence team. Those parameters were that murders had been committed on the neonatal ward. All LL had in her defence was that it wasn’t her that committed the murders. Why LL’s defence team agreed to these parameters, I have no idea. Therefore, the jury had to deliver a guilty verdict given the evidence they were presented with at the trial. That it took them such a long time (3 weeks) to deliver the verdict implies they were not convinced. I think there was at least one juror who refused to pass a guilty verdict. Then (correct me if I’m wrong) the judge said the verdict didn’t have to be unanimous whereas it had to be unanimous prior to deliberations. I am very glad LL has dumped her defence team. It is very important, even when buying a house, to ensure you have the best legal counsel. In my opinion, a retrial is necessary with different parameters, ie to include general clinical incompetence and mismanagement of the neonatal ward.
"As I understand it with regard to the trial (correct me if I’m wrong) the legal parameters were set by the prosecution pre-trial and agreed upon by LL’s defence team. Those parameters were that murders had been committed on the neonatal ward." - Wrong, the defence team did not agree that murders had been committed.
@@arfurascii2232 thanks for the clarification. I think my confusion lay around the insulin hypothesis, which must surely still remain an hypothesis since there is quite some scientific debate around it. The science is never settled, as they say. I think LL, when she took the witness box, was sort of tricked into agreeing with the prosecution that someone had adulterated the food pouch drips with insulin but that it wasn’t her that did it.
@@EastoftheDanube A number of commenters have claimed she was "tricked" into agreeing that but, to my knowledge, none have specified how she was tricked or quoted anything relevant from testimony reported in the media. Having read that reported testimony, it doesn't seem to me that she was tricked. The evidence seems strong that in terms of two babies, eight months apart, their infusion bags were contaminated by insulin. Lab test results suggested it. An expert witness for the prosecution said that was his conclusion. How could that occur? Given manufacture and procedure, it seems the contamination must have been deliberate. They were attempted murders. And those two babies had twins who had unexpectedly collapsed and died from other causes on the same days as the poisonings.
@@EastoftheDanube Why do you think she was tricked about the insulin (attempted murders, by the way)? To my knowledge, no-one claiming she was "tricked" has explained why they think that. I have read (non-verbatim) reporting of her testimony in court by journalists who were there - it seems to me she was asked a straight question.
@@arfurascii2232 lawyers and barristers use linguistic trickery all the time! They are masters of language. Try reading a contract from beginning to end. There’s a reason most people pay for legal representation rather than representing themselves, even when just buying a house.
I got a confirmation bias on Sept 7th 1998 despite the fact that time travel to the tune of 5 years for the offender to meet the victim would be needed. The cost of overturning that is insurmountable and the police complicity in the perjury equally so. It may be looked at again not the perpetrators have racked up an additional 700 jail terms for postmasters guilty of non occurring crimes.
Surprises me that it wasn't mentioned the fact that she is a white woman specifically, in addition to being young, pretty, etc. Also appreciate hearing about the French case, which is horrific and I hadn't heard at all yet. Thanks for the coverage!
Scapegoat for the incompetent NHS
Evans the expert witness was not qualified. The defence barrister told the judge he not a neonatal forensic qualified expert. He is a paediatrician
The hospital plumbing was not safe with sewage coming up through the floor.
The police didnt do a wide parameter investigation.
The hospital was guilty of health an safety at work, water installation laws
Pseudomonas aeruginosa was in the neonatal unit. On tapes sinks in the water.
Lucy complained about it and consultants sent her to prison with the help of judicial systems.
Journalists are comenting on this who have not studied it.
Amanda knox in her book stated when they jail you before the courtcase you can not defend yourself you are shoved in a cell.
The trial was not legal
Birmingham 6, Guildford 4, Bridgewater 3, The Maguires Judith Ward, and today Ollie Campbell. How distasteful that people campaigned on their behalf.
@@brendanhalligan2548 read the court transcripts Socrates
Well said.
Stefan Kiszco. Christopher Alder. Stephen Downing Andy Malkinson and 2700 postmasters.
@@kennethsimmons2029 Hear! Hear!
@@LawrenceHyett Im just warming up. I have a S Yorks postcode. Hilsbrough Orgreave. Michael Sammes Cliff Richard. AMEY tree felling. Ched Evans..40 uninvestigated Rotherham rapes...Michael Kang Chen....It will be headline news when they get one right
People who do not understand somebody’s right to protest their innocence represent a danger to society.
She's guilty, there's no innocence to be protested
People are protesting Letby's innocence, not Letby. Letby is guilty and she knows it! Otherwise, she'd be asking for a lie-detection test as 'any port in a storm' Hail Mary.
@@Robert-vw3od that’s why we have an appeals process.
It's an issue when senior politicians are actively and persistently undermining a verdict. They're politicians, they're doing it for their own reasons.
@@raycorrigan3297And part of that process is the possibility to ask questions in parliament and look at the case again.
The lack of evidence. That’s a small part, no doubt. She was convicted on vibes and really bad stats, presented by lawyers who didn’t understand them, defended by lawyers who didn’t understand them. If you understand stats you know the case is less than garbage.
Wes Streeting is basically saying don’t question anything the state does. Great logic Wes.
On that basis the post office scandal would never have been exposed.
And this bloke is a Labour MP?
My impression is that the main issue is that a growing band of reputable experts are questioning the expert witnesses, the evidence or the ability of the jury to understand said evidence.
@@olliestudio45 no you must listen to your moral superiors opine about society today
They weren't in court, they haven't witnessed the babies' deaths and collapses, they haven't read the court transcripts, they haven't even read the babies' medical notes, they don't know anything about the babies, the nursing medical notes related to each event. Ask yourself whether their 'opinions ' should be taken into account.
Spot on mate
They need to read the transcript of the trial and the report from the three expert judges who rejected her appeal . The very fact the her defence did not bring forward any expert witnesses that were available at the trial , only brought a plumber as witness , speaks volumes …those experts would have confirmed her guilt .
@@joycejnn meanwhile back in the real world none would testify unde fear of reprisals
The main reason it took so long for the Birmingham Six to be freed is there was an 11-year gap between their arrest and the first World in Action documentary questioning their guilt.
Because the Birmingham pub bombings were such a terrible event, nobody was prepared to seriously challenge what was a blatant miscarriage of justice.
At least in Letby’s case people are questioning it straight away.
But unlike in the case of the Birmingham Six nobody coerced Letby to confess and she was convicted solely on the existing evidence
@@yamadakenji4143 I totally get the two cases are completely different in terms of what was used to convict.
In Letby’s case there was no false confession battered out of her by the police like there was in the B’ham Six, becase because quite rightly that wouldn’t be allowed now the way it was 50 years ago.
My initial point is nobody dared question the Birmingham Six verdict for a long time because the crime they had been stitched up for was so horrific. The same for Letby except this time people are questioning it already.
I’ve no idea if she is innocent or not. My advice to her if she is innocent as she claims would be to take the truth drug or lie detector test.
It isn’t admissible as court evidence admittedly but it would certainly go a long way to proving to the average Joe like me if she didn’t do it.
@@paulgreen1821"truth drug or lie detector test"? What is a truth drug? Why do you think lie detector test findings *are* inadmissible in courts?
Exactly, and the Luton postmaster, Guildford four
@@yamadakenji4143 Well, the problem is that none of the evidence presented conclusively shows that any of the babies were even murdered. The tests done which supposedly proved that some babies were poisoned with insulin were provably not suitable for that type of inquiry (although the jury, which per the sheer odds lack a single professional with chemistry background, might not have fully the ramifications of this), and the doctor who testified that there were evidence of air having been injected in others have previously had his testimony thrown out in other cases due to factual unreliability, and has also been contradicted by the very originator of research into air injection/embolisms (and again, there is the distressing possibility that the jury lacked the necessary educational and professional background to grasp the full nuance of this issue). For none of the other babies were any notable evidence even submitted showing that they died due to any causes other than natural ones.
This is the Sally Clark case on steroids.
Imagine being convicted to die in prison becsuse of something you wrote on a postit note
I wouldn't describe myself as "obsessed" about the Lucy Letby case. I do however feel that those who put her in jail are obsessed with keeping her there.
The lack of evidence and the lack of any motive is a serious flaw in this case, as is the complete lack of prior history. Letby tended for over 4,000 babies in her career, yet she enters a dysfunctional hospital and starts killing? Very convenient shift of blame here from what is obviously a hospital under great stress.
Also the allegation of multiple MO's which does not stand up to any scrutiny. Multiple MO's can be far more likely interpreted as multiple causes of failings of the NHS Trust and the systems in place to look after those neonates. A serial killer having multiple MOs is almost unheard of. Shipman had one MO, Jeffrey Dahmer had one MO, John Wayne Gacy had one MO, a serial killer with multiple MOs is almost unheard of.
So many flaws in this case.
Lack of evidence?????? No High-Court trial lasts for over nine months based on a, 'lack of evidence'.
Strong point John👍
I agree with you,
But what about Beverly allit? Is she then also innocent?
@@carrie5490 every case is different
You say right from the beginning that you're not interested in relitigating the facts of the case, you're just interested in analysing why Letby supporters believe what they believe. But couldn't a reason her supporters believe she's innocent be that the facts don't support her conviction?
I'm tired of people psychoanalysing those who disagree with them instead of addressing their actual arguments, and I'm tired of the most crazy conspiracy theorists being used to dismiss an entire side of a discussion. The dozens of experts who have expressed concern about this case are not 'conspiracy theorists.' Why don't you take a look at their arguments?
It's a distraction.They are unable to challenge the expert statisticians and neonatologists, so they direct the narrative down a different line. Basic gutter press journalism!
It's not only a "could" that that might be a reason. Surely that's also the simplest reason, the first assumption that one might go to as to why people might think she's innocent: the Occam's Razor option, the naive reason, the reason that requires no addtional assumptions or ideas adding to the situation?
It'd be like doing an in-depth analysis of why Argentina won the world cup but refusing to take any account of which teams were better at playing football than others.
@@thelachlanburke 🎯
Are you a reform voter?
@@zak3744 Occam's Razor is bandied about these days for all sorts of things. It is actually a philosophical position that posits "when presented with competing hypotheses about the same prediction and both hypotheses have equal explanatory power, one should prefer the hypothesis that requires the fewest assumption" (Wikipedia). In a case like this where somebody's life is concerned, this approach may be problematic. Perhaps the devil may be in the detail?
Some parts from her talking therapy included as proof. That is unfair
After her accusation as well. This "evidence" should have been thrown out by the judge, but I'm not entirely convinced that Goss was impartial.
@@John-p7i5g I have that feeling too
people's private notes & diary entries are not for the public's consumption, let alone the police!! they should never have been used as evidence against lucy!! it was the sewage leak in the neo natal unit was the reason 7 babies died! it was nothing to do with lucy!!
The post it is part of LL reflective journal about what was critisised about her practice by junior doctors and consultants. Their criticisms of LL were unfair and unstructured and that's how it is written on the post-it in reflection to her career development. That's how contentious a nurse she was.
I wonder if those doctors had reflected on their practice to further develop their career. Their points about dead babies proved that their career development had come to an end, they have nothing more to learn to save babies life.
@@marie-francoiserama7052 there is more proof that lucy is innocent than she is guilty!!!!
Why obsessed? There have been some very serious miscarriages of justice, I have no problem with experts looking at and reviewing cases if there is any possibility of an unsound conviction.
They use this kind of rhetoric to make any one who questions the state look ridiculous
They are pompous snobs who have never studied statistics maths or science ! All humanities and nothing but arrogance
The review board have failed on numerous occasions to correctly review unsafe convictions
Evidence?
They are not even looking at reviewing the conviction. They are operating on the assumption that her conviction is correct.
@@John-p7i5g I think there is an application process to apply to the review board for a review. So it's a bit like gatekeeping....you knoiw..."let's have a meeting about having a meeting"🤔
Two appeals have been rejected. The judicial system makes it very difficult with barriers dictating existing evidence cannot be used & only new evidence is allowed, which limits any appeal, case re-examination, acceptable unless on certain grounds.
@@miacat1727 Well there is a whole stack of defence evidence that wasn't allowed into the case, so surely that counts as 'new'.
Q: Why are people obsessed with the Lucy Letby case? A: Because many senior figures in the medical and legal professions are questioning whether this may be one of the biggest miscarriages of justice in British history (second only to the Post Office scandal). There were so many glaring omissions in the evidence presented at her trials. But who cares, right?
I care.
I care
Also it's quite precious of media figures criticising people for having an interest in the case, when the media as a whole spent the entire preceeding years whipping up a veritable hurricane of press coverage of the case.
You're not really very familiar with the subject if you try to claim this is "one of the biggest miscarriages of justice in British history".
I care
I have no idea of the innocence or guilt of Letby. However, the man who is talking about David Davis seems not to have listened to Davis in any detail. As Davis brings up many more concerns than simply those about statistics.
When he's sober.
@@stephfoxwell4620 Here's an interesting stat revealed by fall out of Alan Bates endeavours. Post Office had a budget of 390 million quid for the cover up and S Yorks police declined the same evidence in 1999 after revealed bribes in the constituency of David Blunkett before he became Lord...could there be a connection ? Maybe embarrassed counsel didn't fancy being investigated by Jill Dando in 1999 but he needn't have worried
On his Radio 4 show, The Briefing Room, he cosplays the greatest PM we never had holding a COBRA -style briefing.
David R says that the Letby trial did not turn on the stats. Since we don't know any details of the jury's secret discussions, we can't say how much on of influence it had upon the jury's decision.
@@GeoffV-k1h I suspect that the spreadsheet would have had a big influence.
The problem with the statistics is not in the clusters but in the shift roster which was incorrectly drawn up and played a prominent part of the trial in convincing the jury that Lucy Letby was present for every single death and crash that happened June 2015 to June 2016 when, in fact, other deaths and crashes (for which she was not on shift) were left out of the presentation.
"Her conviction was not overturned on appeal" - she hasn't had an appeal. Lucy Letby
was refused the chance to appeal.
It is not a conspiracy! You really should take a deeper look into the flaws of this case and then you might realise why so many people are concerned that this is not a safe conviction.
Yes they bamboozled the narrative with the allusion to clusters. It is the shift roster comprised of cherry-picked data and its presentation to the police, and subsequently in the trial, on which the assumption of guilt relies!
Because the police and judiciary got it catastrophically wrong and people want the truth not a scapegoat.
I may be one of the people obsessed with this case. I simply want JUSTICE .... if Letby is guilty then let's find her guilty, if she is innocent then let's find her innocent. People across the political spectrum have raised concerns about the conviction. British history is littered with miscarriages of justice.
Well guess what, she IS guilty and been found guilty by two separate juries. It's over.
This time, they got it right.
Let’s hope Wes streeting never finds himself in trouble and has to rely on people to help him
"Let’s hope Wes streeting never finds himself in trouble and has to rely on people to help him". He won't be worried about that in the slightest - different rules for people of his tier from the rules for the Lucy Letby tier.
statistical evidence didn't pay a big part? it was the whole basis of the prosecution's argument, the basis of her arrest, everything.
They're now saying that it wasn't about statistics ... but that's not what they said throughout the court case is it ? Read the 'Court of Appeal Judgement'. They were still emphasizing that spreadsheet meant she was the only one present which, as you say, was the reason for her arrest.
Exactly.
@@cupofteawithpoetry oh right so there was some actual hard evidence that they just don't want to mention? that was mentioned in the trial?
@Mervyn-wj1bi I agree that the statistics with the staff rota was used as a very significant part of her trial - and so if statisticians are questioning the rota, then their views should be taken seriously.
David A is so ignorant about statistics. He doesn't even know when statistics are involved!
Lucy L should have another trial. PLEASE.
The notes from the counselling session being used as 'evidence' didn't sit quite right with me, sounds like there could be more to this for sure.
A setup? A serious amount of premeditation and collusion? I would say yes.
The notes should have been throw out as evidence as what is done in a counselling session is confedential.
Classing people's concern & growing momentum as conspiracies, shows a level of menacing & ignorance. Sorry switched off this conversation.
Thanks, I’m only 3 minutes in, I’ll bail now
I would argue that it was conspiracy theorists that brought about the conviction.
@@davestokes3446 Nice observation 👍
@@davestokes3446The term "conspiracy theorist" gets bandied around (particularly by the media) all too often nowadays to the extent that many people have a false impression of it's meaning and origin.
A conspiracy requires more than one person to be acting in concert.
So I suggest what you were trying to say that it was conspirators that brought about the conviction if you are meaning that some people (possibly to deflect attention away from failures by themselves/ others) promoted a narrative that Letby was the cause of numerous deaths at a single facility.
It is clearly because of the attitude of people just like the health secretary that we can't rely on the system alone to get things right. So often the court of appeals gets things wrong too. Many questions have gone unanswered and we all know that many judges are too old, do not live in the real world and are 'past there best before date'.
This case needs to be thoroughly investigated and whilst that is happening (and no matter how long it takes), Lucy Letby should be released from prison and placed under house arrest.
You have a judiciary and a legal class that is innumerate. They don’t have an adequate understanding of probability. They are unable to identify the misleading use of statistics. They close ranks when they cause wrongful convictions. They cannot be trusted to handle these cases competently. There needs to be an ongoing and well-designed educational program to improve the abilities of lawyers and judges in these areas.
There's considerable academic research that lawyers struggle with the concept of probability. The Royal Statistical Society lobby for statisticians to be involved in such cases as this one.
@@KingBee24 Most people struggle with the fundamentals of probability, it's why casinos and betting sites are still able to operate not only profitably but also legally.
They don't even realise when statistics are involved. This case was about 'unexpected' deaths. Unexpected is a statistical concept.
This is wrong - there's plenty of criticism of the medical evidence too
No
There's 0 doubt about her guilt, you read the news? Why she wasn't stopped, why were they protecting her is what's importan to know now
@@azieldaly2965Yes.
Disagree with you completely in saying the statistics that were incorrect had no effect on conclusion of the jury is absolutely astonishing!
Appalling video. The collection of quotes at the beginning made it clear how slanted the view would be in this podcast, along with the language used. To not address the basis on which people are expressing their doubts is shocking...
That's exactly what I thought.
I agree. And it’s crass to say that people used to have more deference towards authority eg the police and the courts but now they (whoever ‘they’ are) question things more. I dont think the friends and families of - for example - the Birmingham 6 felt any deference whatsoever. Some people do know a miscarriage of justice when they see one - from Day 1.
I had no reason to doubt LL's conviction and didn't until I read the puzzling news that the 13,000-word 'New Yorker' article had been banned. I subsequently heard that it was a poorly-researched sensationalist piece. But then I read a long article in the Guardian suggesting their paper had been approached by a significant number of medical experts who were very uneasy about the Letby conviction. So, as terrible as I can know this must be for the families, I can see why people are finding this case a subject of interest.
What seems of note in the Letby case is a number of experts have come forward to say the accusations lack evidence, or strong evidence. Yet in her trial her defence team did not call any of them? So the Jury was seemingly given little choice?
They (the prosecution) have to prove her guilt, rather than she (her defence) proove her innocence. Her defence should have been all over the prosecutions evidence where it was faulty, misleading or of little sustance. Her councel did a shoddy job there but the jury got swayed by the amount of evidence, length of the case and tabliod inputs. I also think that the judge should have directed more strongly and reminded the jury of the gravity of their decision where evidence is circumstantial. IMHO.
@@LawrenceHyett Looks like a case where if members of the Jury lacked much medical knowledge they were not going to be able to spot potential flaws in the accusation. I will need to look into the case more to probe into the make up and actions of the defence team.
@@miketomlin6040 I suspect that they likely had no medical experience and would have been heavily influenced by the 'confession note' and the spreadsheet.
@@LawrenceHyett That is not how jury trials work. If you tell a jury a story about how someone is guilty of a crime. But they don't get told any alternative story, they are going to go with the guilty story almost every single time. It is like not even having a trial. If you don't even have a medical expert state that it isn't even clear if babies were even murdered, then what is the point?
@@Prometheus4096 Thanks for that explanation. I am a bit green on jury trials and only go by what the legal system tells me what should happen. Having been involved in one trial as a member of the jury I know that there are the contradictory types who just want to bring up something left field that is hardly relevant and others that have already made up their minds, hardly want to listen to anyone else, or just want to get out of the jury room ASAP.
I had jotted down a list of all the points I thought relevant or problematic buit most jurors trusted to memory about the details of the case which in long cases like Letby would be a stretch for anybody's memory.
I don't claim she's innocent and I haven't looked into it deeply enough (as well as lacking the medical/statistical expertise to comment). However, I would say that the claim you're not allowed to question a court's verdict if someone's crime is serious enough is ludicrous.
The lack of any evidence proving she did anything and there being no witnesses and the conviction seemingly being based entirely on circumstantial evidence is deeply disturbing... especially considering how the judge essentially told the jury to base their decision in their feelings and to not worry that there was no actual evidence...
Forget the statistics forget the conspiracies. The reason for the worldwide interest in Lucy Letby is, did she get a fair trial? And a great deal of people don't think she did.
If this trial and the outcome of it doesn't worry you. Then one thing you should know is, it should. Any one of us could be next.
I don't know if she's guilty or innocent but the only 'expert' called by her defence was the plumber. With so many real experts from several fields casting doubt on the 'evidence', a retrial is justified.
Nothing any of the experts has said has warranted a retrial though.
@@lennymice2261 the only 'expert' witness to be called was the hospital plumber. The Royal Statistical Society has said that the statistical evidence presented by the prosecution was highly flawed. The claim was that it couldn't have been a coincidence that Lucy was present when most babies died. The RSS say that yes, it could have been a coincidence.
Prof Geoff Chase from the University of Canterbury in New Zealand worked with chemical engineers on a mathematical model that calculated significantly higher quantities of insulin would be needed to harm the babies and generate insulin levels seen in their test results. There was no evidence in the trial to suggest significant quantities of insulin had gone missing on the ward.
Another expert expressed concerns about the use of the same blood test results at the trial. Dr Adel Ismail said that he believes the immunoassay blood test can produce misleading results and that a second test should have been done.
Two prosecution witnesses said that one baby had a swollen stomach “most likely due to deliberate” pumping of air into his feeding tube. However, neonatologist Dr Michael Hall, who has spoken publicly about his concerns before and has written to the chair of the public inquiry, said that there are many possible explanations for excess gas in the stomach. Dr Hall, who was consulted by the defence but never called to give evidence, said it is likely to have been caused by the respiratory support the baby was receiving and said the X-ray suggested there was a bowel obstruction.
There are other worrying issues but even the few I've mentioned are enough to cause 'reasonable doubt'. That in itself would and should have resulted in an acquittal.
This barrister is worth listening to: ua-cam.com/video/jL4E8S0EpA4/v-deo.htmlsi=LGay0KsGHZJKs-uh
I don't it's a conspiracy theory to think that Lucy Letby's conviction is.unsafe, on reading experts evidence. I feel as strongly about this case as I did back in the day about the Guildford 4 and the Birmingham 6.
Just thinking the conviction is unsafe isn't a conspiracy theory. For it to be a conspiracy theory it also needs to include the belief that people who thought that she was innocent conspired together to convict her anyway.
Poorly researched podcast in my opinion.
Richard Gill, a statistician in the Netherlands has raised the troubling similarities between the Lucy Letby case and that of the Dutch nurse Lucia de Berk. Look it up !
You might realise why many experts are raising questions about the fairness of her trial. And whether she is innocent.
I don't think you should refer to it as "conspiracy". The evidence wasn’t strong. When you hear so much emphasis on posit notes which clearly wasn't a confession, and when you hear about facebook searches which were irrelevant. She just searched for almost everyone she met. What else did they spin to suit their narrative?
So you are saying she researched anyone she met and not just the parents of the babies? It is beginning to look as if certain parts of the picture have been presented which points to one particular narrative whereas the whole picture could tell a different story.
What is worse? Jail for life because you are innocent, or jail for a whole life order for a crime that never happened?
'No one is questioning the Wayne Couzens case'. Yeah, because he pleaded guilty. That case was beyond any doubt, let alone reasonable doubt. With the seriousness of the crimes Letby has been found guilty of, and the severity of the punishment, the conviction has to be absolutely watertight. But it isn't, so that's why people are questioning it.
Yep, drawing an analogy between a guy who was seen arresting a woman who was later found murdered and mutilated, and a woman treating at-risk babies, was a particular low point of this episode (in a crowded field)
And he had a known history of offending!
Have you noticed how how the state suddenly comes life if you question anything. No wonder people don't trust them.
Scepticism of institutions is rational. When things go wrong, institutions' tendency is to cover up their failure or crimes. We depend on investigative journalists to expose them.
excuse me? conspiracy theories? And a short length of time since the verdict to now??? I followed the trial and there was no evidence of guilt throughout the entire trial, it was a shocking shocking verdict to me when it was read out.
were you on that jury? Did you listen to all 10 months of evidence in full?
@@hydra66 There were people at the trial that did listen to all 10 months of evidence and had grave doubts about Letby being guilty.
Consultant neonatologist, Mike Hall, is one such person.
@@ruthbashford3176 so you' haven't listened to the entire 10 months?
@@hydra66 It's a logical fallacy that you had to be in court. The court was full of media and it was all over the television and newspapers. Dr Evans wasn't present at the post mortems, but still declared that the babies were murdered.
@@KingBee24post mortems generate a report. If I asked the unknown person "who you heard it from", have they reviewed the eveidence? Or are they also relying on another source
In your opening clip, I think Wes Streeting is making a categorical error.
Yes, "innocent until proven guilty" is a legal principle, but it's also a wider principle. So in court you are legally innocent until you are proved legally guilty. But in a more general sense the application of the principle means we wouldn't assume that someone is factually guilty unless we feel that has been proven (to whatever standard of proof we choose).
Streeting is talking about legal guilt. But I don't think anyone is claiming she is not legally guilty, I think everyone agrees on that! It's disingenuous of him to pretend all these people contest her legal guilt.
The point of contention is whether or not she is factually guilty, not whether she's legally guilty (whatever side you personally come down on, or if you think you don't know). Indeed, for those who are het up about it, that's the very thing that annoys them: the idea that they think that legal guilt in this case is at odds with factual guilt.
LL was never presumed innocent. She was scapegoated and had non existent murders hung around her
The problem with using dodgy statistics at all in a trial based on circumstantial evidence is that juries are representative of the general public. Half of them are below average intelligence.
Faced with a difficult case to decide on jurors will attach great weight to an "expert" who says the chances of this being a coincidence is 1 in (large number). A 1 in 50,000 chance means a juror will consider a guilty verdict is 50,000 times more likely to be the correct one than a not guilty one.
I don't know if she is guilty or not, but I do know the average person can't wrap their heads around probabilities and therefore can't judge an experts testimony for themselves.
The jury had to believe the so called medical expert witnesses for the prosecution because there was no medical expert defence witnesses to counter the nonsense spouted by the discredited Evans who should NEVER have been employed as an expert witness in this case.
Dr Dewi Evans was not a neonatologist or forensic pathologist and he had already been discredited in a previous case by a senior judge who called his evidence worthless.
It needs to be investigated how this man was allowed to overturn the results of post mortems that found the babies died from natural causes?
How specifically does that relate to the circumstances of the Letby case?
Yes and the statisticians critiquing the trial say they have been involved in educating professionals in the legal field on statistics, as they admit themselves they are largely ignorant of the significance of the stats and their implications.
@@arfurascii2232 The jury came to their verdict based on what the 'experts' presented. If the experts gave them incorrect or incomplete information, they would have come to an unsafe verdict.
@@KingBee24 I meant, to which count(s) / testimony does your original comment relate, specifically?
His name is Roy Meadow, and he gave evidence beyond his expertise, namely statistics.
Dr Evans another claimed expert who basically inserted himself into the case, used as a witness & who's testimony was deemed not fit for purpose but carried the weight to convict.
agreed, also the only 'expert' witness to be called was the hospital plumber. The Royal Statistical Society has said that the statistical evidence presented by the prosecution was highly flawed. The claim was that it couldn't have been a coincidence that Lucy was present when most babies died. The RSS say that yes, it could have been a coincidence.
Prof Geoff Chase from the University of Canterbury in New Zealand worked with chemical engineers on a mathematical model that calculated significantly higher quantities of insulin would be needed to harm the babies and generate insulin levels seen in their test results. There was no evidence in the trial to suggest significant quantities of insulin had gone missing on the ward.
Another expert expressed concerns about the use of the same blood test results at the trial. Dr Adel Ismail said that he believes the immunoassay blood test can produce misleading results and that a second test should have been done.
Two prosecution witnesses said that one baby had a swollen stomach “most likely due to deliberate” pumping of air into his feeding tube. However, neonatologist Dr Michael Hall, who has spoken publicly about his concerns before and has written to the chair of the public inquiry, said that there are many possible explanations for excess gas in the stomach. Dr Hall, who was consulted by the defence but never called to give evidence, said it is likely to have been caused by the respiratory support the baby was receiving and said the X-ray suggested there was a bowel obstruction.
There are other worrying issues but even the few I've mentioned are enough to cause 'reasonable doubt'. That in itself would and should have resulted in an acquittal.
This barrister is worth listening to: ua-cam.com/video/jL4E8S0EpA4/v-deo.htmlsi=LGay0KsGHZJKs-uh
It was concerning right from the start .
The evidence is definitely NOT beyond reasonable doubt.
Unless there is evidence against her that hasn't been reported?
I remember Sally Clark, Lindy Chamberlain,the Birmingham six and thats just off the top of my head.
Im not saying she's innocent,i wasnt there, but nothing thats been reported made her sound guilty to me 🤷
A judiciary convicting postmasters ? I'd be more convinced if Alan Bates convicted her.
scapegoat for bad hospital,
The CCRC appeal process is designed to block appeals. Only massive public opinion support will help Lucy Letby fight this obvious miscarriage of justice.
They don't like the idea of an innocent person being stuck on prison for the rest of their life?? 🤔
Loosely couched "conspiracy theories" - are you guys serious? I've always admired and enjoyed your podcasts, but this one has hit the buffers. Do any of you, including your production team, have a decent grade in GCSE Maths, or, at a stretch, know anything about neonatal medicine?
I hope you will revisit this soon once you've gathered some true experts/specialists/people who can do basic maths with statistics who know what they're talking about. Currently, clearly you seem off with the fairies.
Agreed - this was outside of their usual field of politics and they should have made a better attempt at getting some knowledgeable opinion.
@@d-rex8223 When you see some of the podcasts on this subject, it would appear that a lot of them are taking their information from "The Sun" newspaper.
Sadly, journalists interviewing or having guests that are true (independent) experts is a thing of the distant past. Nowadays journalists interview or have guests that are mere journalists that are presented as being "authorities" on the topic of discussion.
David Aaronovitch is neither an authority nor an expert. Whilst he spoke in an authoritive manner, the content of what he said was littered with inaccuracies & fundamental contradictions.
Conspiracy: An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act.
I don't think this applies to what most people are saying happened. Most aren't saying that staff in the hospital got together and decided they should accuse someone of a crime they didn't commit.
It seems the presenters don't know what a conspiracy or conspiracy theory is.
@@martineyles have you read through the comments on this video? It's quite literally what a lot of people are suggesting, even more so on GMB's David Davis video...
You could just as easily call the people who accused her "conspiracy theorists", since there is little if no science, logic, reason or evidence behind their far-fetched claims. (Even if they turn out to be right). Please stop mis-using this term to discourage debate.
If they had put 6 medical experts in front of the jury, explaining that the babies died of natural causes. Explaining that there didn't die any more babies in that hospital than normal. Explaining that the babies dying during the shift of 1 single specific nurse, when there are 29 million nurses in the world were some by chance are just going to be there when patients die, explaining that the theory of insulin and air embolisms are unproven. Explaining that people falsely accused of being serial killers that already had mental health issues are going to behave oddly. And against that, the prosecution has ZERO medical experts, she walks free 1000 times out of 1000 trials.
Are you fking serious. No wonder there is public consternation on both sides. There is likley to be an innocent young women rotting away in prison, and the parents of those babies have no idea what is going on.
Sanctimonious clap-trap from Wes Streeting. Individuals have a right to their own opinions. There have been many travesties of justice so scrutiny and second guessing is a healthy safeguard.
Even though the more I see (reenactments of long stretches of the trial) the more guilty she looks.
because hard science makes it clear that there is no real proof. How a bunch of random strangers feel should not determine innocence or guilt!
What is "real proof"?
Why is it that after a few weeks of public questioning about various aspects of the Letby case, some commentators are describing those asking questions as conspiracy theorists?
Possibly due to years of conditoning/ indoctrination.
How many trials take 10 months and are decided by a jury which must be bored stiff.
Three blind mice…..
A case where the defended didn't get a fair trial twice, because she had no expert witnesses at all, while the prosecution hand many, a case where it isn't even clear anyone was even murdered, and a case where there is no direct evidence, is just really odd. Especially when the leading argument against hose calling out about the case is to say they are 'conspiracy theorists' and the mantra 'we should respect the justice system and she was found guilty by a jury twice, and we have to be very sensitive to even criticize the ruling bla bla'.
"the defence instructed a number of expert witnesses of their own, and many reports were served from them before and during the trial"
Social media has massively increased the speed by which individuals can share information and can debate the topic . Once concerns are raised the debate can quickly become a national or even international debate . The Judicial System will necessarily come under more abd more scrutiny .The old adage that Justic must not only be done but must be seen to be done will tested like never before .
Though some people are "obsessed" (whatever that means)others like myself were concerned about how Letby was represented in the media and the trial evidence as far as it was reported.
Healthcare is replete with examples of how workers are scapegoated for failing systems and the people at the bottom of the hierarchy are most likely to be scapegoated/blamed for failures of which there appears to have been legion at the Countess of Chester.
I am also absolutely on board with the idea of doctors and nurses who have malicious intent and can cite examples.
These incidents were known to senior hospital management and though the the offenders left the job they went on to work elsewhere.
As a public we need structures that are transparent and accountable.
If the evidence against Letby is robust over and above what we heard in the media let's hear it.
There are also plenty of examples of nurses being found guilty of harming patients ... and later exonerated.
@@KingBee24 agreed.
It is possible that this young nurse has suffered from a miscarriage of justice. Most people take little notice of those armchair experts and idiotic theories. However when a growing number of world renown experts and respected politicians express their consent and given the fact that the prosecution's Expert had been heavily critisise by a High Court Judge in a previous trial for being extremely biased against the accused and that his evidence was flawed and worthless, a fact not allowed to be told to the jury adds weight to the need for a retrial.
I have lost two children myself and empathise with the parents in this case, I fully understand their distress over the call for a retrial. that said, would they want to see a young nurse spend the rest of her life in prison if a retrial shows that she is not guilty.
The jury of the original trial heard about what was said about the expert by the judge from a previous case. It wasn't disallowed.
" the fact that the prosecution's Expert had been heavily critisise by a High Court Judge in a previous trial for being extremely biased against the accused and that his evidence was flawed and worthless, a fact not allowed to be told to the jury" - In fact this was raised by the defence at trial. The defence applied to exclude this expert's evidence and, after the judge ruled that his evidence would not be excluded, the defence cross-examined this expert in front of the jury about the judge's comments. The Court of Appeal judgment on the application for leave to appeal addresses all this between paragraphs 98 and 122.
I'm in two minds on this. One, all the court reports, evidence, and everything presented at trial leaves little doubt that Letby did what she was accused of. But, if evidence presents itself that brings any of that evidence into doubt, then she has a right to appeal. I think there is an unhealthy obsession with this case, mainly fueled by the fact that everyone has watched every cold case documentary on Netflix and no believe they are Columbo.
OK, then put the "crazy conspiracies" thru the test by seriously addressing their arguments, rather than dismissing them. That extreme reluctance to address the facts and any new evidence that may come up, along with the filtered reports that have been on the news (only publishing what they want us to know and concealing the rest) is a big fat sm0king gvn. Why did they show all over the news that there was a confession written on a note, but they conveniently omitted the fact that she was told to write it during a therapy session?
@@silviafarfan2523 "but they conveniently omitted the fact that she was told to write it during a therapy session?" - because she didn't say that at trial.
@@arfurascii2232 I think she did. The whole transcript of the trial was not released initially. Only bits of info were leaked
wow! My initial. comment was removed. Go figure!
@@silviafarfan2523 It's removed for me too. That's weird, I don't see what was wrong with it.
Original deaths were all given natural causes, so bodies were not retained for more thorough investigation. There's always going to be an element of uncertainty when that happens. I would like to see all the medical evidence used given to other experts and throw in other cases with a similar level of detail to see if experts can actually identify which cases were not natural deaths.
It is quite understandable that people cannot comprehend or accept the idea that such an act could be carried out by ANYBODY, let alone a young female nurse. But this incomprehension does not mean that such an act could not have happened, as the same attitude once applied to miscarriages of justice.
Whoda think a government body with 2700 successes in courts could be exposed by an individual conspiracy theorist. Arise. Sir Alan Bates.
That is not what's being questioned. Listen and look at the evidence. It is an unsafe conviction.
... and you could win the lottery. This idea that 'people don't believe it 'cos she was a young female' originated in a tabloid newspaper and people are repeating it like sheep. Google 'miscarriages of justice' and you'll see that 90% of them were male.
This has nothing to do with it. Murders are committed every day by all sorts of people. People have no problems accepting that young people, woman, attractive people, can be murders. You are tricking yourself. Don't forget that in this case, it took years for people to even come up with the theory that the patients that died were in fact murdered, and didn't just die because they were premature babies with illnesses inside a poorly ran hospital.
I wonder if this wasn't driven by a fear of not having another Harold Shipman or Beverly Allit. But if this has led to an unsafe conviction then what really needs to be done is to put systems in place to keep patients safe in the first place.
Generally like the podcast but I think you’re on the wrong side of history with this one.
If you actually listen to the arguments about the evidence it’s nowhere near conspiracy, they’re very well reasoned arguments.
If you care about avoiding punishing an innocent at ALL costs then we MUST be allowed to look again in cases with flawed evidence.
These are people at the top of their professions saying this, not dorks on 4Chan.
It's because so much happened in the hospital and covered up that is coming out now that's why people are questioning
I think it's disgusting to use the parents grief as a tool to silence people who question a shakey conviction. No one is holding placards outside home or harassing parents online. If they are they should be jailed but I don't think that is going on. Intelligent professional people have come forward and said, "wait a minute, there's something wrong here".
t now transpires that other people were removed from the spreadsheet making it look like Letby was alone at the time of the charges. She was not alone and others including a doctor and another nurse were present for many of the cases. Who removed the others from the chart and why were they so set on framing Letby? I don't want the other medics present to be hounded as I think an infection rife at the time was the cause of the spike, but whoever removed significant data in order to frame Letby needs investigating.
She was found not guilty on some counts. So who killed those babies?
People are obsessed with the Lucy Letby case . Yes, this is because as a society we want to know that we have justice being served by our system, and we are safe. It is looking like something is badly wrong.And again we are looking for our system to help?
"...It is for the Courts to decide on the bassi of Evidence. "
Fair enough so lets see some answer to the concerns the Royal Society For Statistics raise, which is that the wrong statistical propositions (not evidence I hasten to add) were given to the jury.
the evidence is circumstantial, and that is not real evidence!
Beverly Allitt was convicted on circumstantial evidence. Do you think her conviction is unsafe?
Most convictions are based on circumstantial evidence. It's rare that someone is caught red-handed, with a smoking gun.
Her own tacit admission notes are hardly circumstantial.
@@arfurascii2232 It's how you define 'circumstantial evidence'. Nobody saw Ian Brady do it, but they found a dead body in his house. Nobody saw Fred West do it, but they dug up all those bodies in his back yard. Nobody saw Lucy Letby do it, but ... ? She searched for people on facebook !
@@arfurascii2232 Very rare that someone is caught red-handed ... but there is always something to corroborate it. Nobody saw Ian Brady do it ... but when they went to the house, there was a dead body in the bedroom. Nobody saw Fred West do it ... but they dug up all those bodies in his back yard ... etc etc
No real evidence I guess.
Another point is why did Jon sopell defend huw Edwards..
The credibility of institutions is absolutely essential, whether it’s the courts or the NHS. They all have ‘codes of practice’ or ‘national standards’ and, they need to be vigorously applied to every single person within that institution. Failure to do so allows the conspiracy theorists to present a cavalcade of ‘ifs, buts and maybes’.
Let her out
The nurse Beverly Allit admitted her vicious crimes against babies and is now due for parole and could be free in the next 5 years. If Letby was as artful and cunning as they try to paint her, it would have saved her a lot of aggro by pleading guilty with mitigating circumstances such as breakdown, overwork etc...Allit was found to have a physiological condition. Letby would have then got a shorter sentence with a chance of parole. But why should she plead guilty if she wasn't? if anything she was not cunning but a bit naive that truth and smoking gun evidence would prevail in a courtroom.
She was so cunning, she left a confession note and carried on murdering babies when she knew she was under suspicion ... doesn't add up
Allit admitted her guilt six months after she was found guilty
10:37 "I was listening to David Davis um ..who I think is a very clever politician.."
"Angel of Death" cases are always the most difficult to accept. Lewis made the point about female serial killers but the fact that she was a nurse plays a lot into it too. Most trusted profession in the country is nurse.
There are cases each year. To imply it's a historic problem is just sooo wrong.
Successful independent judiciary is a joke
corporate manslaughter..organisation lookin for a scapegoat perhaps?
when lucy is found guilty for a 2nd time, i hope people finally accept her guilt and put the case to rest. there's so many people in denial.
Found guilty for a second time based on what evidence?
@@John-p7i5g i dont know. ask the judge, jurors and detectives who know more about the case than us psuedo experts
@@jmckeev765 Well us pseudo experts are listening to real experts in neonatal fields, statistics and medicine, as well as jurisprudence, and drawing conclusions. Locking a person up for life on the basis of no evidence, dodgy statistics, and flawed medical evidence technically means anyone can be found guilty of anything and thrown in jail. That's why it matters to us non-experts.
And I'd very much like to ask them and go into the case further, but unfortunately it costs £100,000. What does that tell you.
@@John-p7i5g there are also real experts, statisticians, doctors, judges who are on the side of her being guilty. the experts who believe she;s innocent are small in comparison. it's easy to fall into a trap that we think we know everything these days with the info we have access to, i'm guilty of it too sometimes as a wise man once said ''if you believe everthing you read, you better not read''
@@jmckeev765 Correct. There are experts on both sides. Why weren't both sides fully thrashed out in court then? Why was only one side - the prosecution - afforded the luxury of calling upon 200 expert witnesses, whereas the defence had 1, a plumber?
This case was flawed.
Were the jury in absolute certainty?
Absolutely not 🎯
Lucy is innocent 💯
How do you FIND someone guilty with no HARD SCIENCE?
It's called deduction, reasoning, applying common sense, you want mathematical proof or a professor in physics explain the deaths and collapses of babies in an nnu? If so you should see a psychiatrist
Circumstantial evidence.Modern world has been led to believe that no dna no crime. Not so. Circumstantial evidence is very powerful
@@raycorrigan3297 how about insulin poisoning, x-rays showing gas in blood vessels, the brain, in front of the spine, lacerated livers, splinted diaphragms, bleeding and projectile vomiting, u don't know what you're talking about
In Letby’s case, with significant and extensive circumstantial evidence surrounding each attack.
The mistake many are making is believing she was found guilty by the way the case has been presented in media, like believing she was found guilty based on shift patterns and confession notes which is not what happened.
@@raycorrigan3297 Not in this case as most of the evidence collected was worthless
We don't have an independent judiciary Wes Streeting, as Two-tier has recently proven
@@Pmrace1960 Too many of them
From what ive gathered its because a growing number of expert witnesses have come forward expressing doubt over the evidence used in the trial including the statisical data and the fact she was largely convicted on circumstantial evidence. If they are right it is scary. Whether shes guilty or not being convicted on shaky grounds does not do our justice system any favours.
I know a lot of nurses who are quite frightened. They tell be bad months or weeks happen, and there is a massive shifting of blame culture that happens on the nhs.
Sopel is quite pretty, but he is not half as pretty as Maitlis! I wondered where she had gone. What a morbid discussion. Nevermind. Soon be Christmas. 🎉
The convictions are unsafe! The State failed to prove the guilt of Lucy Letby beyond a reasonable doubt!
It looks like a failure of the nhs - hospital facilities not fit for purpose, several people accountable, Letby is a patsy. The media closing ranks like these two and constantly emphasising the ‘evil’ nature of the case shows you that justice is not being served here. The format is always the same - we’re told to get emotional about how terrible the crime is, so that any doubt as to who’s responsible is seen as a fear of ‘fighting back’. My initial reaction to the case was ‘why did she do it’? Motive is one of the pillars of the justice system but the media has discarded this by using the usual device of ‘she was just evil’. Anyone with an ability to think for themselves knows that ‘evil’ is questionable concept.
Because she is innocent and there has been a major Miscarriage of Justice. So this is essential because otherwise she will be in prison for ever.
You - and I - don't *know* whether or not she did the things she's accused of. You feel compelled to share your belief that she did not - that's what this podcast is about.
This would have been a lot better without David Aaronovitch. As I understand it with regard to the trial (correct me if I’m wrong) the legal parameters were set by the prosecution pre-trial and agreed upon by LL’s defence team. Those parameters were that murders had been committed on the neonatal ward. All LL had in her defence was that it wasn’t her that committed the murders. Why LL’s defence team agreed to these parameters, I have no idea. Therefore, the jury had to deliver a guilty verdict given the evidence they were presented with at the trial. That it took them such a long time (3 weeks) to deliver the verdict implies they were not convinced. I think there was at least one juror who refused to pass a guilty verdict. Then (correct me if I’m wrong) the judge said the verdict didn’t have to be unanimous whereas it had to be unanimous prior to deliberations. I am very glad LL has dumped her defence team. It is very important, even when buying a house, to ensure you have the best legal counsel. In my opinion, a retrial is necessary with different parameters, ie to include general clinical incompetence and mismanagement of the neonatal ward.
"As I understand it with regard to the trial (correct me if I’m wrong) the legal parameters were set by the prosecution pre-trial and agreed upon by LL’s defence team. Those parameters were that murders had been committed on the neonatal ward." - Wrong, the defence team did not agree that murders had been committed.
@@arfurascii2232 thanks for the clarification. I think my confusion lay around the insulin hypothesis, which must surely still remain an hypothesis since there is quite some scientific debate around it. The science is never settled, as they say. I think LL, when she took the witness box, was sort of tricked into agreeing with the prosecution that someone had adulterated the food pouch drips with insulin but that it wasn’t her that did it.
@@EastoftheDanube A number of commenters have claimed she was "tricked" into agreeing that but, to my knowledge, none have specified how she was tricked or quoted anything relevant from testimony reported in the media. Having read that reported testimony, it doesn't seem to me that she was tricked.
The evidence seems strong that in terms of two babies, eight months apart, their infusion bags were contaminated by insulin. Lab test results suggested it. An expert witness for the prosecution said that was his conclusion. How could that occur? Given manufacture and procedure, it seems the contamination must have been deliberate. They were attempted murders.
And those two babies had twins who had unexpectedly collapsed and died from other causes on the same days as the poisonings.
@@EastoftheDanube Why do you think she was tricked about the insulin (attempted murders, by the way)? To my knowledge, no-one claiming she was "tricked" has explained why they think that. I have read (non-verbatim) reporting of her testimony in court by journalists who were there - it seems to me she was asked a straight question.
@@arfurascii2232 lawyers and barristers use linguistic trickery all the time! They are masters of language. Try reading a contract from beginning to end. There’s a reason most people pay for legal representation rather than representing themselves, even when just buying a house.
I got a confirmation bias on Sept 7th 1998 despite the fact that time travel to the tune of 5 years for the offender to meet the victim would be needed. The cost of overturning that is insurmountable and the police complicity in the perjury equally so. It may be looked at again not the perpetrators have racked up an additional 700 jail terms for postmasters guilty of non occurring crimes.
Surprises me that it wasn't mentioned the fact that she is a white woman specifically, in addition to being young, pretty, etc.
Also appreciate hearing about the French case, which is horrific and I hadn't heard at all yet. Thanks for the coverage!