Lucy Letby's conviction was 'unsafe' due to 'misleading data'
Вставка
- Опубліковано 15 вер 2024
- "I'm concerned that the conviction might not be safe."
Professor Jane Hutton says the evidence presented in Lucy Letby's prosecution was "misleading."
Join this channel to get access to perks -
/ @listentotimesradio
📻 Listen to Times Radio - www.thetimes.c...
🗞 Subscribe to The Times www.thetimes.c...
📲 Get the free Times Radio app www.thetimes.c...
In years to come, important people will be pretending to be very sorry.
Good point
Shes not innocent, the case wasnt handled properly, she's still guilty as charged but they might change her sentence.
@@TheynotLikeus-m7snot if the information given to the jury was incorrect.
@@Saintash1964 incorrect evidence doesnt mean she didnt fill those babies with air and insulin, wake up and smell the coffee or address someone else cause nobody writes a confession note if they havent done anything wrong, that is the damning evidence, she told on her self, searched the families on fb, taking their medical records home and storing under her bed, she has admitted to all of this so what evidence did they present that was wrong? The jury being mislead will count in her favour but with the evidence against her, she cant be let out, like i said, they will review her sentence. Its possible she cant have kids and that's her real motive, we gotta be realistic here babies dont just die and especially not healthy ones... if it was natural causes why would she feel bad enough to write those things? Its time to get real, just cause some politician has some questions about how it was handled dont be fooled into thinking she hasnt done it at all🙄
True this Steve.
If I were one of the parents I would want the truth, I'm not convinced they have it.
The point is half of the parents know their baby died in that unit and Letby was not responsible
Yes, and I would also feel more at peace knowing that the baby had not been targeted and mistreated. I don’t understand the argument that an enquiry into this trial will cause the parents more distress - what could be more distressing than believing your child was murdered? Surely, better to know that the death was natural- even if that raises the question of failings in the unit.
💯
the truth could be those babies died because they were ill.
@@stevenmoore3480 they died because the hospital was a disgrace of understaffing with raw sewage coming out of the taps.
I always get worried when juries are presented with "the odds of this happening are x-million to one". See also the mothers who were jailed for shaking their babies purely on statistical odds
I'm Russian can I have a sausage😪
Yes, completely unrelated. Nothing to do with this case.
Or SIDs
@@dpelpal no, YOU are the troll.
@@S.Trades I meant in terms of the way that statistics are presented to Juries not in terms of the actual specifics of the case
If you ask me lucy letby is a scapegoat for departmental failures and now people are scared what the inquiry will bring up cover up and nothing will happen because she is now label as a killer
I hope not but l m afraid you could be right poor girl. Cowards using this girl to cover up the dreadful state of the unit. She had the cheek to complain about it and look where she is.
Do you really think the whole department conspired together and murdered infants in order to frame LL ?
Would you send someone you know is innocent to prison for the rest of their life?
That is not the sequence of events. She wasn't accused after a weird number of deaths. She was suspected of harming babies in her care and it took a concerted effort to get management to take action.
@@rubyredall2145lies
This needs to be revisited without prejudice. Too many highly regarded experts are calling this conviction into question. I personally feel uncomfortable that this is a safe conviction
Professor Hutton makes an excellent case that she did not get a fair trial.
This about the hospital practice.
Totally agree. I've said right from the beginning of this trial this stinks of a miscarriage of justice in the waiting. If it turns out she is innocent the whole justice system needs a massive overhaul.
Letby is being used as a 'patsy.'
There are no ‘highly regarded’ experts questioning this. Only a few fringe nut jobs and journalists
If she is innocent and the hospital are at fault …this could be the worst miscarriage of justice x I hope this is allowed to be looked at properly x
I think its biggest already.. those doctors set her up
We have seen the Post office scandal....not to forget the Grenfell fire tragedy ....the legal system is not an infallible system and neither are the NHS
@@fairytale_313 There is no miscarriage of Justice re; Grenfell, as the case hasn't even gone to court yet.
Thanks for leaving a kiss at the end. Something tells me you spent your entire day texting men lol
Do better
@LisaSmythers how was it incorrect ? The information stands up . They are just trying to skew it now to protect NHS employees because they are ALL COMPLICIT. Trying to set a precedent of low responsibility
what was the speculation? That she was around lots of children dying without cause , a very large amount and she was present for all of them .
Why are you not concerned for the babies ? Why are you so concerned for the validity of the evidence against her ?
So many UA-cam commenters seem to think they are some sort of legal eagles concerning Lucy Letby all of a Sudden
Weird weird people and Bots . Probably Nurses being paid to write this
She is guilty
How can the head of the paediatric unit be classified as a Whistleblower? Surely it was his job to act on any issues that endangered children. It is very suspicious. The New Yorker article is a wonderful investigative piece. It seems that the neonatal unit was well below par and this poor nurse was used as the scapegoat. The longest trial may well turn out as the greatest miscarriage of justice.
The very same doctor who was doing everything he could to become a celebrity doctor on daytime TV shows. Very suspicious
@@oddunb6190 ... and the same doctor who LL had previously complained about.
It was his job to be around when needed but he was never around , why wasn't he if he was so concerned? Why only after a number of time after Lucy reported him for poor practices did he suddenly have so many concernds when before he was more then happy to let Lucy and the other nurses to be left so short staffed and over worked, while he was doing god knows what?
Dr Ravi is a snake. He says he 'caught her virtually red handed'. No you didn't. Because that sentence doesn't even make sense. You either saw her do something or you didn't. I would suggest he saw her do squat. To cover his own back.
Lucy was the Patsy for there Incompetence on the Ward,
If she is inecent my god wat she must be going thro
It appears that no-one on the unit ever saw her causing any patient harm.
and that the causes of death of the majority of these infants is open to doubt.
Air embolism is not a cause of death that any of the Drs had seen... and relied on a 30yr old scientific paper which has no corroboration.
Patients on intensive care and SCBU are ill... otherwise they would be elsewhere. And sadly some of them die, sometimes for reasons which remain hidden.
The reaction of the consultants to the prospect of their unit having a bad reputation and that they are ultimately responsible for this, can vary. But one reaction is to look for a scapegoat. It occurs over and over in the NHS, and I've seen it before.
Juries are human. Some of them won't be very bright, and they certainly will have little grasp of the medical niceties of ICU.
My experience as a juror, was that a proportion of the folk there were willing to convict, almost on the basis that the accused had been arrested and charged, and therefore must be guilty.
To convict this nurse of serial killings on the basis of a time sheet, which shows she was doing a lot of shifts and was always around, seems to me to be a little forward. is this really beyond all doubt...
I don't think so.
Everyone wants to feel sympathy for parents of children who have died. its only natural. However to jump on a band wagon... because "she must be guilty" is an easy assumption.
For folk who have no background in the NHS and it's Byzantine internal politics, its simple to say she must have done it especially when the jury were shown the time sheet with the crosses on it showing that nurse Letby was present at all the incidents on the unit. What they weren't shown was the full list of incidents over the same time period, during which there were 17 not 10 deaths, and correspondingly more near misses, at which nurse Letby was absent.
The unit itself had been upgraded to a local referral centre a year or so before, and during its inspection prior to any of the Letby drama, had been rated as chaotic.
Obviously that reflects very poorly on the consultants in charge, and when things continued to be chaotic and more mistakes were made, by an understaffed overstressed unit, some of the consultants rather than accepting responsibility looked for a scapegoat.
Since then the unit has been downgraded, and several of the consultants have been on tv trying to repair their reputations by emphasizing their amateur sleuthing.
No-one wants to admit that this conviction is unsafe, and its much easier, for everyone concerned to simply say she did it and not face the difficult questions that this case raises.
I didn't see a single case of air embolus in 40yrs as a Dr, and neither have any of the experts called, or the doctors on the unit either.
@@snackweasle6516 Very well said.
Thank you for this very detailed comment
Thank you. Please don't ever be afraid to speak up and let your professional voice be heard over this.
Feels like the truth to me.
It gets worse the police I believe when investigating set out to get a conviction so they are wrongly allowed to present so called evidence that looked at individually means nothing, they put forward so much it overwhelms a jury ,this is how they get convictions when there is no concrete evidence confession or motive . Anyone wanting proof of this only needs to look at the Barry George case zero evidence just smoke and mirrors
Whatever the ins and outs of this, it's pretty clear the defence were criminally incompetent.
Yes.
Always got to blame someone. They were very experienced and respected lawyers. Have you ever wondered if the reason they didn't call witnesses was because the prosecution could have demolished them.
Or complicit in the frame up.
Who'd want to be a nurse after this witch hunt...
We will end up with no nurses at all, particularly neonatal. Staff shortages were half the problem in this scenario.
I personally have a number of concerns with this conviction.
No you don't. You're a paid troll.
Nobody cares
@@S.Trades anyone who understands this “evidence” knows it’s BS. She is innocent.
@@S.Trades😂
@@SuperStella1111enlighten us please in relation to the evidence you don't agree with. *Putting it inverted commas doesn't mean it doesn't exist*
The more I hear about this the more it stinks.
If she didn’t do it then I feel soo bad for her, that’s gotta be the worst possible thing to be wrongly accused of.
Worse than the Guildford 4 or wrongly convicted s£x offenders.
She has only herself to blame for being an appalling nurse and disgracing herself at her trial instead of defending herself
She is innocent@@steveblundell7766
@@steveblundell7766 The evidence points to Lucy Letby being an excellent nurse and I think she defended herself admirably against the bullying Johnson.
@@steveblundell7766 She was not the only appalling medical professional there, as half of the excess deaths were nothing to do with her.
Someone deserves an indeterminate life sentence because in your words the are a
“bad nurse”?
Hmmm, you’re a real compassionate sorta person aren’t you?
I always thought the prosecution’s and media’s interpretation of the statistics was very very wrong. Out of, let’s say, 300,000 nurses in the NHS, someone is going to have the most deaths associated with them. That is a 100% certainty! Which department is likely to have the most deaths? A neonatal one because the babies are just so vulnerable. Which neonatal one? The one with countless failings , shortages and bacterial problems. Which nurse is it likely to be? The one who does the most shifts? Like someone is highly likely to win the lottery. But if after the event look at the winner. What were the odds of it being them?
Yes, but its not like there were not deaths at that unit in the same time frame that couldn't be down to Letby. A full half of the excess deaths could not have been Letby so were due to the unit being sub standard. But that invalidated the statistical probability calculation of no murders having taken place that the jury heard
K S
Totally agree with your analysis, spot on is clearly if you do more shifts statistically you're more likely to have babies die on your watch given the standards in the neonatal unit were very poor in the first place 😮
@@seancidy6008 In other words the evidence is "it's a bit fishy imo" and "trust me bro, I'm a doctor". Not really sure but there might be a whole serious of crimes (sick babies in the ICU that died) then use statistics to prove you're not exactly sure, but LETBY plastered all over the papers for weeks on end, must have done some of it surely.
@@stevenmoore3480 I don't think we can be confident either way yet. She may be guilty but the evidence was very much more shaky that one might be forgiving for thinking.
I think this a travesty of justice, there are deeper issues that existed in that unit, this stinks of cover up.
The sewage coming up the sinks should be enough to close a NICU unit ……absolutely insane
Totally. The hospital was in a shocking state. There was water leaking into the unit from the overhead pipes from what I heard.
@@benzof5475 I don't like the way doctors are free to accuse someone but are discouraged (threatened) by hospital managers from defending them. That's immoral imo.
IMAGINE BEING A SIMP FOR A BABY MURDERER💩💩💩🤡🤡🤡
@@benzof5475 so you're saying she is the unluckiest person in that hospital? All the evidence they have pointed to her, don't be fooled by the pretty face,a killer is a killer, those babies deserve justice.
The interviewer tried to railroad the academic being interviewed but she would have none of it and concluded by saying the court verdict was unsafe.
I think that interviewer was expecting it to be couched in generalities, and the Professor was very specific.
Yes I thought the interviewer was trying to railroad the academic glad she was not railroaded and saw through her
The interviewer keeps using the word "killing the babies". She clearly does not understand that the objections are so serious we cannot really say the babies were killed (with due respect for the bereaved families, who are certainly going again through a painful period too).
To be fair to the journalist interviewing, the fact is that, currently, LL is a convicted criminal, regardless of the evidence being called into question by the interviewee. The journalist is only speaking in terms of the reality as it stands; it’s not the interviewer’s job to speculate.
@@neoscylax Of course she was convicted, why else would the professer be speaking out about the expert testimony at trial including a false probability estimate on cherry picked excess deaths. The interviewer thought the professor was making some abstruse academic point, but it goes to the heart of whether Letby received a fair trial.
The very idea that a British institution such as the Post Office for example or an NHS Hospital would allow innocent individuals to take the blame for its own failings is beyond ridiculous 🥴
It is a total disgrace we have no confidence in anybody in authority anymore, their standards are so dam low, nobody in positions of power sets a decent moral example anymore, they lie, mislead and cheat to protect their own back.
No it is not we have seen it happen in both of them, the NHS Doctors and management are full of liars and the Post office workers well we know what they did now as well
😏
@@sophiejameson4064 I must admit that’s a rock solid argument you’re putting forward
Do I detect a note of sarcasm ?
The professor is right that Lucy Letby was never observed to harm any babies. This is significant because this unit was quite small and very over crowded. In some areas if you were attended to one baby your back was against the next crib. There was also supposed to be a high ratio of nurses to the babies - there should have been more than one nurse at any one time in the wards. There would also have been frequent movement in and out of the units in an unpredictable way by a number of different staff. The methods the prosecution claims were used to harm the babies would easily have been detected by any of these staff but it never happened. I have worked in hospitals for nearly 40 years. I would accept that she could have got away with it once but multiple times - no. That did not happen.
A doctor stumbled in on her standing over a baby having a massive crisis and doing absolutely nothing but watching it struggle for life. Then there's her diaries that are basically an admission of guilt.
@@robertstorey7476tbh i think its the doctors who messed up and blaming her. Feeding tubes put in incorrectly etc. i think she is innocent ive have done.
@@robertstorey7476 That eyewitness testimony of Dr Jayram has since been called into question as his claim was LL was alone on the ward, yet keycard data has since shown another nurse was there too. As for the diaries, she also writes that she's innocent - her notes seem more the ramblings of a highly emotional and distressed nurse questioning her own competency and ability because a high volume of vulnerable little ones died while she was at work.
@@robertstorey7476the diaries are not an admission of guilt. Any time I see someone cite them as such I automatically discard their opinion on anything else because it betrays such a basic inability to think critically.
@@robertstorey7476therapy diaries written at the suggestion of her hospital therapist.
Unsafe. A lot of it was circumstantial evidence.
There was quite good circumstantial evidence against her but they presented it as far more damning than it was.
@@seancidy6008 Where the proof of guilt is circumstantial, no matter how strongly the evidence may suggest guilt, a conviction cannot be sustained unless the evidence is consistent with a reasonable hypothesis affecting the outcome of the case. I haven't followed the case to any significant involvement. Still, the defendant's trial and outcome appear to involve excessive amounts of circumstantial evidence that doesn't support DIRECT evidence to conclude a satisfactory conviction on the balance of justice where the burden and proof by the Crown must be overwhelming to convict. Yet her appeal was turned down. We have some very dodgy politicians and judges in this country, and I fear for the future.
@@TomThumb-d1rcircumstantial evidence is evidence. It is a question of "reasonable doubt". To doubt the mountain of evidence that pointed to LL and no one else, as well as the testimony of witnesses who placed her a baby's bedside during the collapses, when she was not even assigned to care for those children, is not reasonable.
@@Flash-sr8hm Circumstantial evidence is not direct evidence. It's not a case of reasonable doubt; it's about a case of BEYOND reasonable doubt. This is the legal threshold to uphold the balance of justice.
Wow! You people debating about whether a baby killer is innocent or not is beyond belief! 🤦♂️
What about the times the babys died at that hospital when lucy letby was off work? Multiple more deaths and attempted deaths, this conviction is seriously unsafe. This is a cover up to the highest level.
Yep! It was also not shown to the court!
She may have done it or she may not. Did she get a fair trial? That's the question and it's looking increasingly untenable. The trial relied too much on coincidence and dubious statistics, not hard evidence.
There was no hard evidence, none what so ever. Not even evidence that ANY deaths were fowl play!!
The Judge was impartial, the procedures were followed and the evidence was admissible. Therefore the trial was fair.
The Jury was free to reject the evidence and decide innocence, they didn't. Twice.
@@happyjonn9242 As was true in all the major travesties of justice cases the COURTS have been guilty of...
The judges statements throughout the trial do not show impartiality
@@TrequartistaFM yawn
Using therapy notes as evidence is worrying. Therapy is now like talking to the police without a lawyer. You shouldn't do it and if you are innocent, you really shouldn't do it.
Brilliant, a revelation we are well aware of, and may the truth of the "hospital" arrangements, plots and plans, be shared🙏
Your right. People think your guilty of an offence when your a mental health issues the police won’t allow you any rights. When being interviewed.
I mean to knowingly convict an innocent nurse of that is beyond evil if it is true
@@le_rayon_vert It is difficult to believe that the prosecution and doctors who testified against her did not understand the significance of the other half of the excess deaths.
@le_rayon_vert have you actually being watching the news recently lol there does not seem to be sufficient evidence
@@pablobar6379 i don’t think her conviction is safe from what i’ve seen, but it doesn’t follow from that that she was ‘knowingly’ convicted
@@seancidy6008 i suppose but when you delve into it, doctor’s aren’t immune to falling for these kind of statistical fallacies. It’s happened in other cases hence the reason professionals in the field wrote to the Judges in advance of the trial.
@le_rayon_vert i just cannot believe anyone could do that if it turns out she did then i honestly dont know what to say it all.. 1 thing is a fact? Something happened to that poor innocent children
No court should hide evidence. Everything should be disclosed and then proved right or wrong. Now the whole thing stinks of a cover up by the hospital and police and cps. It looks like the hospital failed and threw someone under the bus. It needs to be retrialed correctly. If I was one of the parents of the babies I would want to know the right person is being punished.
It’s not the Court it’s the CPS that sits on unused evidence that can assist your case to disprove what the CPS case. Most of the time solicitors don’t ask for it.
Lucy Letby's defence failed to challenge the evidence properly. The chart was terrible statistics as any statistician could have explained to the jury if the defence had called one.
I always thought this was an unsafe conviction, It stinks of police incompetence .
As always
More like a CPS problem - police have no actual role in the court process
I also believe Lucy has been stitched up by doctors consultants and nhs for their own failings, you only got to look at how our justice systems work post office failings for starters, and hilborough these are classic examples, Lucy is a young girl imagine how she and her family will feel when everything is uncovered say 20 years down the line.Our system is disgusting, at present it feels like we are living in china.
It always felt that the jury was being steered by coincidences, not factual evidence. There were failings. Was Lucy a scapegoat for incompetence?
Looks like the hospital managers needed a scapegoat
This professor is 100% correct
The establishment is now in cover-up mode.
Selective, incomplete and misleading evidence was interpreted by people (a jury) not equipped to understand what they're presented with. This radio presenter seems to think all that is a mere technicality and that the convictions are safe, regardless. Astonishing, but there again it's not, given the blind faith in which we are all supposed to place in the legal system.
The interviewer obviously did not understand the direct relevance of what the professor was complaining about to the safety of Letby's conviction.
@@turnitback I think the penny was beginning to drop for her closer to the end of the interview.
Among other things this will show just how terrible the legal system has become. 12 jurers with little medical jargan they di not understand and then decide your fate believing medical experts because that s what is expected of them. Judges are notnof this world. They are strange ceatures indeed. The whole system is so outdated.
You're smarter than them though, those fools.
Agreed. The interviewer does not seem to capture how serious the issues are.
Disgraceful miscarriage of justice. The most shocking in British history. Free Lucy Letby!
The establishment is reluctant to acknowledge it can ever get anything wrong, this is the problem: the judiciary, the health service, the media, the whole gamut, and if that means individuals suffer injustice so be it as long as the “integrity” of our institutions is seen to remain intact
Sometimes they have to break the rules to get a wrong 'un.
@@marinka424 There was a case to answer, just not as good as the prosecution made it sound.
L.L is convicted on suspicion and speculation.Not good enough for the parents who lost babies
@jillrossiter8757 that she was the only person around a massive amount of babies dying without cause ? And the questioned her and spoke to her and thought she was a psychopath
She's guilty
@@20FreeWill Not so sure my dear.But we may yet see. No harm differing in opinion eh?
4 judges refusing appeal in a nakedly corrupt and political court system means exactly zilch.
Yes who do they think they are
It is corrupt. My barrister told the judges that she could act for me because I would accept the CPS deals as I elected for a trial. The day the trial started it was promptly cancelled in the afternoon
There is no way she is guilty. And when she’s exonerated it’ll be like the postal workers, a case of institutional failure blamed on an individual.
Absolutely agree!
You wonder why they bother having a trial when all you talking heads turn up and know better than the jury. Let's do it all by referendum in future shall we?
@@superted6960 the jury were fed misleading information. Given this was a case built on circumstantial evidence, this proved vital, and the key piece of evidence by which the prosecution built their case.
I’m not knocking trial by jury. You clearly miss the point here.
Best you go back over the case before commenting.
@@paulfrancis8764you are full of it. You have read or watched misleading videos, and convinced yourself you're smarter than everyone else. You are instead, a gullible fool.
GUILTY!!!!!!
Ive always aaid shes innocent
Same
You must be dumb then
How do you know, horoscope?
@@Jontyfarmer Fall off of something high.
@@dannysummers4372 you've always been wrong
What makes you think she's innocent?
The tip of the iceberg, how many others are in prison, because of their incompetence?
Imagine if you were convicted of something like this, and you had not done it.... damn.
So there could still be a baby killer out there? Or a dangerous underperforming neonatal unit?
There are no other suspects
The latter
@@lunatigannie8860 Well, if she saw babies dying because the staff (including doctors) in the unit were not doing their jobs properly top to bottom she could quite easily have seen an opportunity to get away with murdering some. And if she did that then it was going to be rather difficult to convict her at a fair trial. So maybe they decided to downplay the babies dying because the unit was not run properly, in order to nail her for the murders. But they are not supposed to do that, are they?
The latter probably.
There was a bacterial infection known to be rife during 2015-16 and tiny premature babies with open lines would be highly vulnerable to that.
i really think somethings not right with her conviction. I think shes actually innocent
Based on?
I dont know whether I think she's innocent or guilty, but I do increasingly think that she hasn't had a fair trial. If she hasn't had a fair trial, then no one can really know if she's guilty or not.
Out of cases of caregiver infant killers, or cases of individuals being wrongly convicted as a result of institutional failings, I don't know what's more statistically likely, but I'd love to find out.
I agree with you.
If I was one of the parents, I would want to know for sure. Because if it wasn't her, then it was severe negligence by the hospital, and that would need to be addressed.
The cops are generally very intellectually short. Data and evidence is not something they often understand.
@@godsgod1677 in this case they had to depend on a medical expert to guide them as they would not have the medical knowledge!
@@hubbert22 Just wondering who they depend on for legal knowledge since that another of their struggles.
Dunning Kruger alert ‼️
So many things wrong in this conviction. When serial killers are found guilty and their lives are reported on, it all becomes clear that they were always crazy. Lucy on the other hand doesn't come across that way. She had a normal childhood with loving parents, she had normal friends, she lived in a normal house and worked a normal and stable job. No trauma, no body parts in the freezer, no drunken father or abusive mother, no nasty siblings or ex boyfriends. Nothing!
Go Professor Hutton!
What’s happened is Dr Jram was letting his rookie drs run the show in which case Lucy was the most qualified nurse on the ward and he had to throw the blame at someone when it started looking bad on his leadership ….Lucy was the scapegoat
It's all part of.. **tHe CoNsPiRaCY**
@@AgentSmith123Don't be silly. Read up on everything that's related to the case. This isn't holographic aircraft conspiracy theory stuff, this is pure logic.
@@tomellingham8627 Find a medical statistician or any statistician that will defend the statistical evidence used to convict her. They were banned from talking about it before but now everyone qualified in the field says the main evidence against Lucy Letby was misleading the jury as to the probability of her being innocent.
He’s too busy making himself a tv star.
I don't understand why doubts about the evidence are being raised now instead of at the time. If some of the prosecution evidence is so poor why wasn't it challenged at the time?
This is the question and the answer to that is very disturbing. What would stop defence witnesses appearing do you think? Worst scenario l m afraid.
Her lawyers were in above their heads
It does raise doubts about the defence team, imo.
Barrister Mark McDonald, who specializes in cases of medical people being accused of harming patients, says that medical experts won't appear for the defense though fear of losing their jobs.
Those of us who are aware of the abuse of statistics in medicine were questioning this at the time
I hate that this lengthy trial went ahead using unsafe data. These babies deserve better. What a mockery of justice
Newspaper hype can railroad in to prison and experts who are making a name for themselves. Especially involving hospitals . There are many failings in maternity hospitals all over.
As many people..I always thought something wasn't quite right in the case..
Good news if this case is appealed..
Clearly You obviously know nothing about the case then. She applied to appeal and it was rejected. Look more into the case and you’ll see there is no way she is innocent. You really think she was found guilty based on statistics alone ? 🤦♂️
@@HamzaStallionRead the latest news about her 'notes', which were used as evidence of a confession.
@@tomellingham8627 well the notes did say ‘I am evil I did this’ ‘I killed them because I’m not good enough to look after them’ so yeah I’d say that’s something the prosecution could say is as good as a confession
Imagine hoping a baby killer would get an appeal. 🤦♂️
@@HamzaStallion she also said she didn’t do it. The preoccupation with the notes actually shows how weak the case is.
Hope she is freed and sues everyone including lying parents
Yes she needs to sue them all including the Judge he miss lead the jury I feel, and the NHS needs to be sued and the doctors who lied through their high teeth ,and do not get me started on the parents some of them
Are you on drugs? Did you see her letters basically admitting she was killing
Let's hope so. Key is justice will be done by all, she is freed, and the truth will be known to all. They would have tried to intimidate, scare and bully her for a long time. May she be freed🙏
I think she will be in danger if she's freed.never mind sueing anyone.
Are you out of your mind? Baby killer goes free? Only in this country
I have no idea how this conviction got over the reasonable doubt mark.
Men are getting locked up on just someone's word all the time nowadays in SA cases. So I can believe it, unfortunately
It's a disgrace she's a scapegoat and the truth will come out
@@leighabbott9874 no she's not she's guilty let's talk about it
How is she a scapegoat? The hospital wasnt being investigated for the deaths. The police were called in because many consultants and doctors had raised concerns so many times about her. The evidence was damning. She is guilty.
@@emmahoward7913 your comment sums up the problem. You don’t even realize it.
I don't want to be too critical of this interview as it was so helpful to get the expert view of Professor Hutton but I think,in retrospect, that the interviewer might be a little embarrassed that she was clearly pushing Prof Hutton to say something that she did not want to. Prof Hutton finally got a little irritated and repeated that she felt the conviction was unsafe and,in doing so,that she felt the inquiry,if it goes ahead as planned, must allow this possibility to be considered .I doubt, however, if there will be any change in the agenda if it does go ahead at this time.
This is so wrong. In years to come I’m worried this will be one of the gravest miscarriages of justice. From the get go the evidence provided by the prosecution was dubious at best. I do wonder what Lucy’s defence team were doing! This was a trial by media…. My hope is the facts are looked over by an independent inquiry team and she is released sooner rather than later.
I contend complex cases which involve significant medical context/issues need to be determined by a judge, plus they need experts to ask the right questions (diligently investigate) on these very complex medical issues to ensure justice is served.Has appropriate and sufficient medical due diligence in this case been completed, I suggest many medical professionals have caste significant doubt it has.
Why do we need staticians to tell us that it's misleading to show data of all of babies that died while Lucy was on shift, while excluding all the data of the babies that died while Lucy wasnt on shift.
It should be as obvious as the nose on your face ... ditto the so-called 'confession note'
Read more into the case. An expert looked in detail at ALL of the deaths, and picked out the suspicious ones, Without knowing anything about Lucy letby, the hospital asked him to look at all of the deaths As there had been a spike in deaths of course. He then picked out suspicious deaths and then they looked at who was on shift for those deaths. This is not the only thing that the prosecution had to go on you know? There is SO much more evidence stacked up against her that if you took the time to read then you’d know there is absolutely no way she is innocent
@@HamzaStallion I've read everything that's in the public domain, including the 'Court of Appeal Judgement'. Dr Evans was far from being an expert, he said so himself in court. He was a doctor who retired in 2009, no scientific or forensic background. The babies had post mortems at the time which said 'natural causes'. I find it incredible that a long retired doctor with no forensic experience was allowed to overturn the post mortems. He chose those deaths that he deemed as suspicious aided by the very consultant who had first accused LL of causing harm. No bias there then ! The statistical 'proof' could be destroyed by a youth with an 'O' level in statistics.
I get that when things like this happen that we want someone to answer for it, but not when were unsure of who it was and data like this is the main bulk of convicting evidence and the rest being mainly circumstantial.. She should be bailed and released pending further investigation
The New Yorker article is a disturbing read about the prosecution team. Evan's, their expert witness was refused presenting his expertise in another court case. The presiding judge calling his research misleading and unreliable.
No motive, no actual evidence and no confession. British justice.
It seems likely the prosecuting barrister had no idea what they were doing, so how were the jurors to understans the data?
You are wrong. The prosecutor' had a brilliant grasp of the data and LLs MO and movements in each of the attacks. LLs lies and selective memory were laid bare. The jury got it right.
Possibly.
But the other experts, this professor included, disagrees.
Who killled the other 15 children at the hospital then?
... In the infant high dependency ward, which by its very nature has a high mortality rate.
@@Flash-sr8hm no. He thought he did. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. You have Nobel prize winning statisticians coming out and saying: the case is garbage. I read that Tyson - the billionaire who drowned in the boat in Sicily and a statistics prodigy (it’s how he made his billions) was so concerned with the evidence (he deemed it not only trash, but considered her guilt impossible) he was going to start up an innocence project. He was talking about it in the last hours of his life.
All of the excess deaths occured during spikes of still births on the labour ward which Letby couldnt have been responsible as she wasnt a midwife and didnt work on the labour ward.
These babies were sick and the doctors failed some of them.
@@TopherL all of the babies which died were still births? Letby wasn't even there ?
Are you soft in the head ?
This sends a powerful message to practising nurses.
I always believe she's innocent why wouldn't they let her have her say in court doctors was afraid too go on the stand because they will be targeted they choose this woman to cover up that the babies died not murded
Did the judge hurry things through because he was worried that the jury were becoming weary? It was a long trial and could have gone on longer if Letby's defence had called the neonatal expert to refute the Dewi Evan's (expert who put himself forward) evidence. This conviction is unsafe on that alone. The re entry revelation that the notes she wrote were written on advice from counsellors. So that's not as the prosecution alleges. Sorry, this should be looked at urgently!
In statistics we call this the "Cluster Illusion", and that is what she was convicted on
If she was to get a new trial in the future Judge Goss should be allowed to hand the case because he was clearly biased and didnt give her a fair trial not allowing the defense to present important evidence is a travesty of justice the man should retire.
Following this case and some of the Postmaster cases, I have concern regarding the quality of expert witnesses in UK court proceedings. I think it is an area that needs review.
I also feel the interviewer in this video, failed to understand what the Professor was saying and incorrectly interpreted what was said.
'The Persecution of Lucy Letby' channel and 'Mark Mayes' channel (both Mark) go into these and many other factors that suggest a miscarriage of justice. They include Countess of Chester Hospital data obtained from freedom of information requests. Mark has been following this case for a long time and his video catalogue is well worth a watch.
Criminals, including murderers have a modus operandi. This may be refined over time resulting in small changes to the modus operandi. The prosecution concil would have us believe that Lucy Letby kept changing her modus operandi. I don't believe she killed those childeren. The presenter will one day regret her assumption of Lucy Letby's guilt. It's collective madness to believe the prosecution case.
I think the status of an employees employment should also be included as in whether the staff member is part time or full time and how many extra shifts an employee did or not.
You are correct. LL worked far more shifts than anyone else and was the best nurse on the unit so statistically she would be there for more infant deaths. Remember these babies are very tiny and can go diwnhill fast. Additionally the "statistics" left out all the infant deaths that happened in LL s ansence. Whatbis fair about that? One more thing. Ll complained about the terrible state of the unit which of couse implicates Management
This is her reward. Evetybody who works for the NHS will tell you they cannot complain about the hierarchy.
Lucy is innocent. Until she is reliced there is no justice.
@@daviddavidsen907 guilty
Why do all these people think she’s innocent based solely on errors in the statistics? They really need too read more into the case and see the mountains of other circumstantial evidence against her
Nobody is ever happy to see someone convicted on circumstantial evidence except the prosecution. There s an awful lot more to this. I mean 10 months of trial. It is not over yet.
Yes. There was a mountain of evidence against her. The doubt was not reasonable.
You answered your own question there: “CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence “. That is not enough.
@@Flash-sr8hmSuch as her ''confessions'? Please read about them.
@@Gigilamer when there is so much of it and so many links and patterns forming around her then it becomes very very nearly conclusive. Nobody saw dahmer in the act of killing so is he innocent too ?
Aside from the main point, how can you have under-resourcing, under-staffing and construction/sewage issues that would affect the most vulnerable patients in a hospital ...
Ah! how interesting! Unit lacking advanced nurse practionars, and medical failings.Prof Hutton you are so right to question this! As some-one who has worked in NHS this is so helpful to throw a light on it.
Babies with medical problems die, there is always a pathological need to blame someone now people don'rt ascribe these things to God anymore. Letby could well be a sacrifice on the altar of human fantasy.
I thought I was a lone voice when I was concerned these convictions were so wrong. Even my wife thought I was wrong but she too has since become convincec Lucy Letby has been scapegoated. I hope this matter is resolved sooner rather than later. Her conviction is at the very least unsafe and at worst a travesty.
I think she was a scapegoat. Was everyone looked into, like the doctors!
Lets not cry for her when you dont know the full story . The dead babies are the priority and she was still around a lot of those
Fix the thumbnail, which says, "was the jury mislead," rather than "...misled"
I guess they fixed it. Definitely should be past tense though, I agree it should be misled not mislead
Your intellect is frightening.. there is that better.
@@kevinbrown3593”frightening” get a grip.
@@Ontgo-dt9fc grip of what..you
@@kevinbrown3593
What? You wanna grip me? Pin me against a wall? 😏
Unsafe conviction - how does this happen? - Sub Postmasters etc, etc…..
letby is a scapegoat, this whole case is a tragedy, for the families and then for lucy letby.
@@Mk-cn9xw nah
@@20FreeWill yah
I'm no fan of nurses, so-called 'angels', but this one seems in all likelihood to have been 'stitched up''.🤨
Jus' sayin'!
Unfortunate cluster she's not guilty
@@Waihekeguy she is absolutely guilty
Wrong
If she didn’t do it then killers are roaming that hospital. This is a Very Dangerous situation. Blame nurses and let the accusing doctors answer to no one. Very very worrying.
In a serious case neonatal unit there DOES NOT HAVE TO BE A KILLER.. Premature babies die all the time in hospitals.. that's why they have these units.. for the most seriously marginal babies. Some make it and some don't.. it's a fact of life. 50 years ago zero.. none.. at all.. of the babies in this unit would have survived.. they wouldn't have even tried to save them.
If this unit was so "fantastic" how come it was rapidly downgraded so it didn't take the most serious cases any more... and then that "fact" was also used to point a finger of guilt. I saw the staffing sheets.. it would be just as easy to blame 4 or 5 other nurses in the unit of the same thing..
The management needed a scapegoat for their failings.. and with the help of them media they got one.
Or it is just chance
Oh, so Justice Thirwell has changed the parameters in the video on their page? She makes it clear in her video, that the inquiry, in part 3, is investigating of the inquiry covers a much broader investigation into the workings of the NHS and not just these cases.
@@lesley9989 link please?
Unsafe? Go read up on the evidence. This was an open and shut case.
All evidence was circumstantial, not a fact in sight.
The more I look at this case, the more I sense that thing's are just not right with it. At the least it deserves another look at, but that may be a way off yet...🤔
In years to come, they will roll out that tried and trusted line.................We must learn lessons.A Tory Bob used that same line on TV yesterday when being interviewed about the Grenville inquiry.
Misleading data! 🇬🇧 😢 !! ⚖️ new York article 👀 was accurate 👌 🕯 🕯 🕯 🕯 🕯 🕯 🕯 🕯 🕯 🕯 🕯 🕯 🕯 🕯 🕯 🕯 🕯 🕯 🕯 🕯 🕯 🕯 🕯 🕯 🕯 🕯 🕯 🕯 🕯 🕯 🕯
The New York article is brilliantly researched.
The sentence is unsound! An in-depth review needs to urgently undertaken. I just wonder how many consultants are covering their own backs.
i don't know much about how the evidence statistically stacks up. i just wonder about motive and why did she do this. there are psychopaths that don't need reason to cause harm but usually they come with a history of ill mental health that surely would have been evident already before she was allowed into a health care setting like that. maybe I'm wrong but being a case that has no motive to cause harm to innocent babies, its a very confusing case to me.
I believe psychopathy becomes a factor in this case when we look at the role of the doctor in the unit.
She did not get a fair trial.
Lucy I do not Know you , but sue all those who convicted you on No real evidence
The Crime Scene 2 (Courtroom) channel presenter has made numerous videos using court transcripts. She is guilty, the wealth of evidence supports that conclusion. It so easy to sit back and say "that doesn't satisfy me", the families of the babies would rather try and move on I'm sure.
Lol so some random true crime bro is right and all these experts are wrong.
@@ConchaFrancour-i7d He attended the whole of the trial and purchased transcripts of the same. Do a little bit of research before you criticise, it's not difficult.
@@ConchaFrancour-i7dyou have clearly not read all the evidence. She is guilty
Can't hear his monotonous voice, he's difficult to listen to. Other people who attended the trial feel differently to him. He also thought she was guilty because she was wearing a leisure suit rather than pyjamas, that kind of our me off his opinion.
@@queenvickyv He'd decided she was guilty before the trial had started.
She was not convicted on statistics "Once it was established that someone was deliberately harming children on the ward - a fact that Letby herself conceded - it was highly relevant that she was the only person who was always present. Other evidence presented at the trial, such as her falsification of medical records, strengthened the case but none of this had anything to do with statistics. The jury did not spend ten months staring at a staff rota."
She could sue for wrongfully convicted and wrongfully arrested wrongfully detained if she is cleared
Hope she Does sue
If there was it ever a clearer case of guilt in the UK it was this. I remember a similar collection of Simps and nutters claimed Hindley was innocent as well.
She should be released and the hospital board investigated
I’ve always thought she was innocent
Based on?