Yes I came up against them and they Lie and Lie to save them self's, Doctors to they Lie a lot , a lot of them that I came across anyway, and PAL they are in the Pockets Of the NHS management more than fighting for the Patients from my experience, I feel they threw Lucy under the Buss
Trust me, until you have stood trial, you will never appreciate how flawed the criminal justice system is, relying as it does on the general ignorance of the public who process information emotionally not intellectually.
@annbumfrey6812 I've been there. Enough said. It's a different world. It's a less efficient, less respectable, less intellectually-informed, less sophisticated arena than people realise. It's far less about truth and reason, than it is about simply winning with a sophistry of debate constricted by arcane rules.
@@MikeS-hs4vh yeah, but you were guilty, right? 99% of crimes don't go to trial, so when it does you're usually guilty as sin. Also, most serious crimes are proven beyond doubt with DNA.
@@annbumfrey6812I have also experienced this...as a result I have zero faith in jurys, the legal system as a whole, and the idea of "justice"...there is no justice...guilty people walk free while innocent people are punished...the system is f**ked...anyone who think otherwise is either completely naive, deluded, or part of it... 👍
There’s a nasty smell surrounding this case….irresponsible press reporting caused the public to assume her guilt & then tough sentencing followed.For those that dug a little deeper the evidence is questionable at best, vital evidence was withheld, & those on prosecution side circled the wagons in a effort to give the public the result they wanted.
I'm a retired Nurse... I've been following this since the start. I've always thought that the whole affair was Dodgy... It's not been clear enough with too much taken for granted.... This needs investigating properly.....
It has been - that's what 2 separate criminal trials are for. Both found her guilty. The Court of Appeal found no problems. The NMC struck her off. Do you not believe in the criminal justice system or your former professional regulator?
@@lucypalmer5228 case was investigated but not thoroughly, and the parameters for both favoured the prosecution. Institutions have vested interests and can get things wrong. So can authorities.
@@John-p7i5g Well there has been 2 trials with different judges and juries and a court of appeal hearing. There has been an NMC hearing. They all concluded the same thing. So every system must be bent according to you from the criminal courts, to the ordinary people like you and me who are called to sit on juries, to a professional nursing regulator. Or it could be that she was totally guilty and they were all doing their job properly and protecting the public from her? Funny how the deaths didn't happen before she turned up, and haven't since she stopped working there. Funny how she called herself evil. Funny how she is apparently friendly with other child killers in prison. Funny how her own parents didn't even turn up at her second trial.
@@lucypalmer5228 both trials under identical parameters. The second trial was a formality. There's been no appeal - it was rejected. The spike in deaths coincided precisely with CoCH being raised to a level 2. The spike ended when it was lowered to a level 1. Which nicely coincided with LL being taken off ward. The diary entries' validity as evidence has been comprehensively debunked. They are useless evidence. And parents not turning up at trial is completely irrelevant. The case rests on flawed statistical methods and all the rest is circumstantial. A profoundly unsafe judgement in my view. You can't just lock someone up on a flawed hypothesis, groupthink, confirmation bias and 'feels'.
@@John-p7i5g Nonsense. You're not a lawyer, just a conspiracy theorist. Would you want her looking after your baby? And the 2nd trial was all about the evidence of a doctor who caught her red-handed. So he's all part of the bent system too is he? The jury should have believed a nurse who called herself evil, a nurse who was involved in a very large number of infant deaths over a doctor who was just there to report what he had caught her doing?
The NHS does everything in its power to cover-up bad practice, neglect, laziness, arrogance and ignorance, and I believe strongly that doctors and those in charge would rather blame a single person than admit their hospital is failing. I know many people who have been made seriously ill, and others who have died, because of poor practice, and it was all admitted, yet the hospital fought to the very end, so they wouldn't have to pay out. A solicitor told us the NHS has deep pockets and will fight until the person has run out of money. The whole NHS system is corrupt.
The NHS could be saved instantly by stripping out 4-5 levels of middle management, they provide the cover between the actual productive staff on the front line (coupled with the public) for the political appointees at the top.
@@sarahgriffiths3419 I can attest to this. By the way did you know during Covid-19 there was a hospital directive not to report Covid-19 as the cause of death? Did you know Doctor deliberately admitted vulnerable patients to hospital during Covid and resulted in patients contracted Covid and die? One particular patient could have been rehydrated at home with a giving set! Did you know I quit nursing because I did not feel comfortable with what I was observing but bound by Confidentiality policy? Did you know that I have observed many people made into a scapegoat within the NHS? Did you know the corruption that takes place within the NHS?
But those are single cases, you've never heard of babies dying in quick succession of eachother with ONE COMMON FACTOR- Lucy Letby. If she didn't look as "normal" as she does, you'd believe in what she did to those babies.
A government spokesperson stated 30 years ago."At least 5% of convicted prisoners in prison today are statically totally innocent!!" I believe this woman is innocent. The prosecution can say anything in court against this bewildered woman but there are major discrepancies in the evidence presented in her trial!! That's the bottom line!
In the case of solicitor Sally Clark who was falsely accused of murdering her baby, the jury were swayed by statistics presented by paediatrician Meadow and ‘Meadow’s Law’. He used statistics erroneously and moreover statistics was not his area of expertise. Sally Clark spent three years in prison before her conviction was overturned. Paediatricians Meadow and Southall were very well paid expert witnesses used by the crown prosecution in cases where babies had died and where it might be in the interests of the NHS to obscure the reasons why. In the case of Sally Clark, for instance, she had had two previous babies die, apparently for reasons unknown. When a third died Meadow popped up. Sally’s babies had been born early and received their vaccines with no account taken of this. The jury, however, were told that vaccines should be ruled out as having anything to do with the deaths. This is illogical. But nothing can be allowed to threaten sacred cows, can it? Whether they be wars (Ian Huntley miscarriage of justice) vaccine damage (Sally Clark and others) or child abuse by the state (eg - children in care homes).
@jrobertson9796 I j just watched about Sally Clark and it seemed both deaths (two mot 3 ) could be natural and all the 'injuries' we due to cpr attempts...sadly sally drank herself to death after she was exonerated
The Post Office scandal seemed unbelievable too. Convicted on evidence. A trusted organisation that people cannot believe would allow gross miscarriages of justice. When the weight of these systems comes down on you, an innocent person doesn't stand a chance.
@darcyperkins7041 They had no evidence to convince them of the fraud. Even when the software showed missing money, those money never existed. It has never been taken away. The post office was pure fraud. Lucy Letby is a different story.
I listened to the trial of Lucy Letby podcast at the time. Newspaper and online media articles were sensationalising her for the most part. I have to say that at the conclusion of the trial and her conviction I was less than convinced she was guilty. Her testimony during the trial and in police interviews remained very consistent and unambiguous. She didn’t make up stories or have wild theories for the causes of these deaths. Not exactly the actions of a cold calculating serial killer, as the media have painted her. My impression of her was more of a rabbit caught in the headlights. My opinion doesn’t count for nothing of course but I’ve shared it here anyway.
Newspapers do that to the defendant in ALL criminal cases..they use sensationalist journalism and only give the prosecution story..WHY not worry about ALL those cases?
how the ramblings of a distressed nurse whose had the trauma of witnessing lots of babies dying(from things that they have no control over)is evidence there guilty..................is frankly beyond me....and unless i see evidence that says otherwise it makes her conviction"extremely unsafe".......
Her legal team passed over making several arguments for some bizarre reason. The prosecution cherry picked those deaths with which she was present, and those deaths are high in number. But what is also high in number are those deaths when she wasn`t even there. There is something odd going on at that hospital. I think she is the fall woman. And that leaves the question of who was there during most of the deaths, both those cherry picked and those not?
There's a video on UA-cam that explains how a man in America was falsely accused and convicted by an algorithm as well. He was eventually acquitted but it took years to prove his innocence.
@@PatrickMcAsey She was convicted based on her proximity to the events. To do that you would have to put peoples clock card activity into a model and reach a number where 0 means a nurse was never present and 1 means the nurse was always present. Thats basically all the evidence they had. By this standard, they should check all nurses in the UK and for any of them with a score of 0.9 or higher, they should throw them all in jail for life.
@@Aspartame69 Lucy Letby was not convicted 'based on her proximity to the events' . She was convicted on a number of pieces of evidence, of which 'proximity to events' (whatever that means) was onlly one. I admit that there might be certain points in this case which may need to be looked at again. However, one should take no account of 'armchair experts' such as you, who did not spend one second in what was an extremely long and complex trial, but who somehow knows more than those who were.
The system is supposed to allow for an appeal? She has not been allowed an appeal? If the system is so amazingly accurate (it is not) then letting her appeal should be no problem. This is about the conviction being sound not about guilt. This needs readdressing
@@steveblundell7766 Just being innocent is not good enough. Until this case I still had some faith in our justice system but not anymore. Lucy's trials were like 17th Century witch trials. The discredited, long retired Dr Dewi Evans is the new Witchfinder General.
Put it this way, in my lifetime I've seen both: 1. Harold Shipman and Jimmy Saville effectively get away with glaringly horrific behaviour AND 2. The whole generation of mothers who were falsely accused of battering and murdering their babies, when the babies had died of Infant Sudden Death Syndrome caused mainly by bad NHS advice to sleep them on their stomachs, and bacterial respiratory infections. So we know that when 'bad' things happen, people, especially in crowds and institutions, can resort to willful blindness AND scapegoating.
@@ExplorewithSarahlouise not necessarily, if the 'cover up' aspect only applies to a small group of consultants at one hospital. With a wider group of detectives, jury and perhaps even some hospital management misled early into a conviction that she was guilty. For example by a cherry-picked list of 'incidents', under-awareness of the normality of statistical clustering and misdirection from local senior staff hiding their own failings. Look at the Tavistock, after all. Horrendous evidence, yet only one unit belatedly closed. Depends how much contagion there is, and how justified such contagion would be.
@@louisehogg8472 I don’t know I think the trust in the nhs is so low if it’s found to be a cover up by senior officials there it will be a huge incident. Prob we will see riots then.
It's a two tier policing and judical system now... certain demographics get favourable treatment/lesser sentences, they also get more training and support off the government. Look at the sentences for the rioters, some have been put behind bars for literally chanting... whereas someone smashing a bus cabin and threatening the driver with a 24 inch zombie sword whilst horrified passengers watched in fear received a suspended sentence and employment training.
@@MargaretOHare-p8h why? She’s killed babies. Not one or two. She killed 7 babies. And possibly many more. Are you mad? Maybe you need to see a doctor. Do you know how she got caught? Eventually it came to a point where she was the only one involved with all the murdered babies. You need help. Protecting a child killer is very stange.
@@fessali5726 A lot of people feel uneasy about what they heard in the media and as Pete Hitchens says she should be allowed to appeal, every convicted person should have that right.
As a former nurse myself. I seriously question Lucy Letby’s guiltiness. I strongly believe she was set up by rogue Doctors. Especially if she had challenged their practice in the past. There would have been non concordance approaches by CPS and an element of corruption.
@StraightLetterz because she did ..she was obviously suffering from some mental health issues It took about a year to collect the evidence against her Babies have stopped dying now so how do you account for that ??
Convicted on zero evidence, and faked heavily biased statistics. The first serial killer in history to use multiple MOs, have zero past form, and zero motive.
@@absinthephrenz ...not to do anything of the sort Her lifelong career Her mortgage Her family and friends Her rigorous sense of duty and following procedures to the letter Many many reasons not to do what she is accused of.
I have had a terrible thought with this case, one that I cannot shake, that a nurse under the psychological duress of losing babies under her care might come to believe that she is cursed, that somehow, in her failure to save them, had come to believe she caused them. This is partly based in psychology, but also my inability to comprehend how someone who has spent their life caring for newborns could do the opposite
Exactly. Well known psychological phenomenon that depressed people have more accurate risk perception. Well people underestimate and miss warning signs. So she hangs around the babies she's noticed don't seem quite right, trying to help them. And then, they all seem to die on her! Who's everyone going to blame? Her. Who's SHE going to blame? Herself! Could be that she was the best nurse on the premises! For all we know. While everyone else wandered past in hurrying, blinkered, tunnel vision, missing the distress signals of the dying.
@@hermancharlesserrano1489 yes someone with empathy and an over developed conscience, would blame themselves. And feel why couldn't i save them, to feel guilty etc is in fact normal.
Good point on a funny note she did not display any of the criminal attributes or damaged upbringing that killers have she had parents and friends that love her . Of course the profiles do not fit so the physiatrists got around this by saying she was born evil . They just make it up as they go along
The very real "miscarriage of justice" is (allegedly) allowing doctors to freely walk away from any blame for their practices! Most of them get a slap on the wrist following A" Serious Averse Event inquiry"! Also since it is mainly doctors who carry out these SAE inquiries it is usually the poor Nurses that get blamed for taking too long to report their findings!
I disagree with Hitchens on many things but he is such an erudite, articulate and brilliant man with a spectacular mind. I definitely agree with him on this.
As a former Dutch DA, penal judge and barrister with thirty years experience in courts of law I'm deeply shocked by the medieval level of the law in England. Even though the Dutch legal system like most legal systems in the world is seriously flawed at least the law that derives from the French Code Penal and procedures is in order. It seems to me to be so bad that if possible England should be expelled from the European Convention of Human Rights. It's a bloody legal witch hunt trial. If I understand it correctly the judge, prosecution, and defence decide pre trial what evidence is admissible. They must thus be telepathic. Thus the jury isn't shown the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth when as in this case during the trial expert opinions in their respective fields of expertise are brought to the attention of all parties except Lucy Letby and the jury! The so called free independent press accepts a gag order during what was it 7 or more months of a trial that with any competent judge would have been thrown out of court for lack of evidence. It shouldn't even have come to trial. For me the first time a saw some evidence of the case the what was it writing by Lucy Letby in which she stated to be a bad person is convincing evidence of someone who is innocent even though for people who don't have much experience how certain personality types react to the pressures and feelings of guilt having failed to save the babies in such a way being openly scape goated by writing it down is coping behavior I've witnessed several times in different cases. The jury should have been presented with the expert opinions based on broadly held consensus in the respective fields of expertise including the methods of research. On several key points this hasn't been the case. Leading also to a trial by media. Boy oh boy.
I have to agree with you. The continental legal system is a search for the truth whereas our system unfortunately is an adversarial one, a contest where the best performance wins and truth is often the casualty. To quote Peter Hitchens, the case is entirely based on hypotheses. To that I would add that the sheer wight of theories, speculation and absence of any proof undoubtedly make this an unsafe conviction and should arguably have been thrown out of court.
You can't trust a conviction on a hunch which is basically what this was. Also a jury is never safe in these situations. I don't care what anyone says you can't take emotion out of a person. Their life experiences.
A jury CAN be safe, but only if THEY are given properly reliable, clear explanations of the situation. NOT partial or biased information. Were there GENUINELY independent experts explaining ALL possibilities of what might have happened? Remember the whole 'battered babies' scandal? Bad (risky) NHS advice to lie babies on their stomachs, yet juries believed 'expert advice' in good faith!
@@louisehogg8472 Nope the Human element is never safe. People aren't logical, the fact you think they can forced to be, shows how little you understand. Hence the fact witnesses are known not to be completely unreliable as shown time and time again. People literally make stuff up in their head they believe is real on a regular basis.
@@davidDean-g5n on a hunch? Those babies x-rays showed the amount of air in their bodies that only a traffic collision could cause! Perhaps your emotions for real cases of injustice are wrongly inserted into a case full of evidence, or perhaps u find Lucy Letbys sad eyes pull on yr heart strings
Including the juries who found her guilty? You, of course, are so brilliant that you would never have found her guilty, had you been on one of the juries, would you? This is called 'being wise after the event'.
@@mvl6827 This sort of comment is lazy, cynical and ignorant. You can't even be bothered to explain why you think this. But I, unlike you, am going to explain my view.. Jury trial is the basis of common law, and indeed, common law would have little meaning without it. Jury trial is thousands of years old. This, of itself, doesn't necessarily mean it's correct, but it's a poweful arguement for it, because it simply works. I think that bench trial is inferior to jury trial. There is nothing which makes the operation of the law more democratic than the jury system, where you are judged by your peers. It isn't perfect, and juries have made mistakes, but it most usually works extremely well. Sometimes juries are misled, but the judge is there to stop this. Sometimes jurors flout the rules under which they are supposed to operate. Sometimes lawyers are incompetent, but that's not the fault of the jury. In the case of Lucy Letby, two juries in two separate cases found her guilty, quickly and unanimously. You would too, had you been on the jury. The judge in the fiirst, main trial, thanked the jury, and he was right to.
@@PatrickMcAsey thousand years old... that means out of date mate . Most European countries don't do juries whatsoever. For obvious healthy reasons. Juries are remnants of the now obsolete British Empire... gone into history...
The Post Office got hundreds of people convicted with extremely dodgy evidence; why not Lucy Letby. The NHS has just as much interest in seeing her convicted as the PO and Fujitsu had with the subpostmasters, and probably even fewer principles, based on previous NMS scandals.
The same week that LL was convicted a man was released from prison after serving 17 years for a crime he did not commit DNA evidence was suppressed by a judge 10 years earlier , The police are corrupt and the courts are corrupt we have just seen large over the top sentences given out by the courts for minor offences in resent troubles not for justice but to frighten the population into silence about religious fanatics that we are not allowed to speak of
The PO and Fujitsu are not people, they had no interest in seeing the subpostmasters convicted. It was specific people at those organisations that were responsible and we know who they were. If you are saying that specific people at the NHS framed Letby then you need to name names and provide evidence, otherwise you are just urinating into the wind
@@steveblundell7766 The answer to that is simple the 4 doctors concerned led the investigation simply because the police are thick and know nothing about medicine, they only reported her to police after she had humiliated them during an internal enquiry the management thought there was no problem with her . The major concern was the expert evidence /opinion on deaths lets not forget the case for the police was not going to court even though they had spent years investigating with no evidence of foul play . Then Evan volunteered his services for payment , according to him he knew how they died even though 5 babies had been previously recorded as natural deaths by other docs
@@rolandhawken6628 Your proposition is ridiculous, you don't even know the policemen involved but you dismiss them as "thick" . And saying the police "know nothing about medicine" is laughable. Have you never heard of Forensic Medical Examiners, Police Surgeons, Forensic Psychiatrists, Pathologists and Crime Scene Investigators (CSIs) with Medical Training. These people know "nothing about medicine" LOL! As for the 4 doctors, I doubt you know anything about them either or their careers, but one doctor said he saw Letby acting suspicious around a baby, which would be a massive red flag for any parent. Carry on supporting this worthless nurse if you must, I feel more comfortable trusting the doctors, the police, the witnesses, the prosecution, the 2 juries and the 3 appeal court judges.
I am not sure of guilt or innocence. But after the recent Post Office scandal where it has transpires that it was computer error and not human error, plus much of the evidence against LL is based on data and circumstantial evidence then this does probably need reviewing.
The longest trial in legal history, half a million medical reports, 2000 witness statements and still NO real EVIDENCE that any unnatural deaths occurred. The whole case was based on assumption, opinion and coincidence...
Your claim that this was 'The longest trial in legal history' is completely untrue. It isn't even the longest in UK history. I think it's safe to assume that the rest of your claims are also lies plucked by you out of thin air.
I don't know if she's innocent or guilty, but having followed the Private Eye investigation, it's astonishing that there's no ACTUAL evidence that those babies were even murdered let alone by her.
Correctamundo. Even the evidence that 2 of the babies were killed because of by products of artificial insulin are challenged by world experts saying 'There's no definitive test for that'.
According to the coroners office who was responsible for the autopsy of the majority of the babies who were supposed to have been harmed, no evidence was found of any misdemeanour.
Many of her defenders need to actually read about the case. She was the only one with the victims, other nurses and doctors are the witnesses who described her as "giddy with excitement" after babies were passing away under her care.
The jury were presented with hypothetical scenarios on cause of death. The original coroner and pathology reports didn't pick up anything unusual. A jury isn't qualified to decide if a hypothesis is correct or not. There is something wrong with this process. These cases should have been referred back to the coroners and allowed space for a range of forensic scientists to investigate.
If she is innocent, I pray that she is found to be so on appeal whilst both of her parents are still alive, for her sake and theirs. My God if she has not done the things of which she was convicted this will be the greatest miscarriage of justice and she will deserve compensation running into the hundreds of millions.
@@lucypalmer5228 Nope, this is NOT the end of it. This is an ongoing process. I don't have the time or inclination to explain it to you. Try to enjoy your day (best wishes from a lawyer and the daughter of a Crown Prosecutor). I will not be getting into any debate with you on this. The internet is packed full of people who don't know, are convinced they do and have too much time on their hands. Goodbye.
For the benefit of anyone who does not have a completely closed mind on the question of whether or not Letby is guilty, the CCRC (Criminal Cases Review Commission) may be an option for an appeal of her conviction.
This is a classic example of what happens in the case of the most horrific crimes. People lose all sense of reason and just want to punish the first person who is brought in front of them. Birmingham Six, anyone?
@@dooshkin8552 You are saying the Birmingham 6 were guilty! They confessed under torture, and apart from those confessions, the only evidence was the testimony of a forensic scientist which was contradicted at the trial by Dr Hugh Kenneth Black of the Royal Institute of Chemistry, the former HM Chief Inspector of Explosives. Your statements on this detract credibility from your argument on Letby.
Have you seen the “The life of David Gale”? That’s why I don’t agree with the death penalty either. Funny that in the UK people think you’re guilty and you get death the next week and it saves all the tax payers money. They don’t realise people in the US can be held for decades same as a life sentence
i was watching something the other day about a hospital in the US , and at the same time lucy was supposedly doing her things , the hospital in america noticed a 300% increase in random babies deaths , where they had 1 a month they now had 30 a month , and they could not work out why! I am sure they wanted a scapegoat for their malpractice (we all know what was doing it) and the perfect target is someone who not only challehged them but was proved right and got an aopolgy off her seniors , they would have hated that...
I am willing to wager they tried very hard to find a Black american to pass the blame to and couldn't find because this is what they usually do. if i had been the accused i would have sued the apricot ... Apologies are not cutting it especially when crafted with the legal system in mind.
even when innocent, people are advised by their barristers to plead guilty in order to get a less severe sentence, in my opinion, this results in a system where you are guilty until proven innocent which is almost impossible to do from a jail cell
To think that such a witch hunt can still take place in this day and age is depressing. The Police and CPS underestimated the power of social media nationally and internationally in seeing through this travesty of justice so quickly. Geoblocking articles such as in the New Yorker reeks of desperation. Thankfully the tide is moving fast in Lucy Letby's favour. The public outcry is gathering pace.
Is she innocent? Probably. There is more than reasonable doubt. The 'case' against her was not adequately defended. Het defence team needs looking at. Why didn't they call the expert witness who would refute the evidence given by a less-specialised neonatal 'expert'? Was the judge tired of it? Was he worried that the jury wrre becoming weary? He rushed the end of the trial! It's unsafe!
There are a lot of variables that lean towards Letby being guilty - the facebook searches of the bereaved parents, scores of hospital records taken home, her diary records, writing cards for bereaved parents, saying she isn't able to remember when awkward questions were being asked by the prosecution, notes to self saying "I did this, I am evil". I have listened to the trial podcasts twice & I found the evidence damning - this trial was nothing like the Andrew Malkinson trial.
That's not the point, if some of the evidence was presented in an unsafe way, her conviction is unsafe. If there were enough other evidence, and any other possibility had been completely excluded, then she would be convicted any way.
Well stated! I've just listened to a discussion about the points of the trial that many of us probably know only too well, and I am more convinced than ever that Letby is guilty. The juries in two separate trials were unanimous, and it took them a short while to reach their verdicts. Her appeal to the Court of Appeal was not allowed. It should be emphasised that, in this video, Peter Hitchens does not cast doubt on the conviction, merely on one aspect of the evidence. He says that he is not making any claim as to Letby's guilt or otherwise.
I was a children’s nurse, I wrote cards to bereaved parents and searched for them on Facebook, because I cared about them and wanted to know how they were coping. Ok perhaps I didn’t take records home or some of the other things, but many of the things that “point to her guilt”, look very different when the conviction begins to be questioned. If there is a question over whether she received a fair trial, she should be allowed to appeal her conviction.
I was a children’s nurse, I wrote cards to bereaved parents and searched for them on Facebook, because I cared about them and wanted to know how they were coping. Ok perhaps I didn’t take records home or some of the other things, but many of the things that “point to her guilt”, look very different when the conviction begins to be questioned. Perhaps she was attempting her own investigation into the deaths? Is it clear to what she was referring when she wrote the diary entries? I’m sure we’ve all written things which could or have been taken out of context. If there is a question over whether she received a fair trial, she should be allowed to appeal her conviction. Could she still vibe guilty? Absolutely, but let the conviction be on a more secure premise.
I have no idea of her guilt or innocence but after the number of miscarriages of justice over cot deaths, the post office scandal and numerous other cases, it is not surprising that people question such verdicts. There seems "defensive practice" in both social services (forced adoption on the slightest excuse) and the same in the justice system. It is basically about covering their own backs.
I HAVE NEVER BELEIVED FOR ONE SECOND THAT THIS YOUNG WOMAN WAS GUILTY OF ANYTHING. THE N H S IS WELL SCHOOLED AT COVER UPS, something needs to be done for this person, before she spends 23yrs or more and then say, sorry about that
The media did not convict her 'long before the actual verdict'. The media confined itself only to reporting what was said each day in court, without comment of any kind. The reporting was wholly fair.
_"It seems the media had her convicted long before the actual verdict!."_ Nothing unusual in that, unfortunately. If you read up about most serious miscarriages of justice you'll find the media usually do their best to help state prosecutors put their victims away.
@@PatrickMcAseythank you. Let's not forget the amount of evidence Lucy had in her home. Even some of the babies clothes. That is called taking a Trophy serial killer use them to remind them of thier crime
There is a hierarchy of blame and bullying in the NHS. Nurses take the blame for Drs mistakes and non clinical staff get blamed for nurses mistakes. As far as I know Letby was bullied, was it possible she was the whistleblower? Not saying release her at all hut consider if someone is still out there posing a risk to babies. RIP little ones.
If there is any evidence that Letby blew the whistle regarding the actions of other medical staff, the argument may be valid. However evidence was presented that at least one doctor expressed concerns regarding her conduct at Chester hospital. Before considering whether a third party is involved, a review of evidence is essential.
The legal system is failing the public! Was there any crime committed or just hospital management wanting a way of deflecting their poor performance. This case needs a full review now and not in 5 years time. What a biased system when the defendant can't get expert witnesses but the prosecution can!
I don't know why but something about this has never sat well with me. Always knowing and now Having experience of how, practicioners in health and social care have a culture of blaming ', framing, and gaslighting other people including patients I wouldn't put it past all involved to have made someone the scapegoat of a mass failure.
Find it strange how the death rate was skyrocketing when she was on the ward and now its back to what is considered normal after she was arrested. Lost count of all the serial killers that said I didn't do it yet after they were arrested all the murders ceased and bodies stopped appearing.
She was the only person in the room with the victims when somebody injected oxygen into their blood. That is a 100% probability unless the babies did it themselves.
...in discussions of the supposed air embolisms, witnesses tried to pinpoint the precise shade of skin discoloration of some of the babies. In Myers’s cross-examinations, he noted that witnesses’ memories of the rashes had changed, becoming more specific and florid in the years since the deaths. But this debate seemed to distract from a more relevant objection: the concern with skin discoloration arose from the 1989 paper. An author of the paper, Shoo Lee, one of the most prominent neonatologists in Canada, has since reviewed summaries of each pattern of skin discoloration in the Letby case and said that none of the rashes were characteristic of air embolism. He also said that air embolism should never be a diagnosis that a doctor lands on just because other causes of sudden collapse have been ruled out: “That would be very wrong-that’s a fundamental mistake of medicine.”
From what I've seen I'd agree. With the exception of the confession she wrote and left in her house. Although false confessions from people are surprisingly common. Especially in regards to people with mental health problems. Wouldn't surprise me if she did do it. Also wouldn't surprise me if it's an NHS cover up. Definitely something that needs extensive independent investigation though.
Circumstantial evidence is evidence. It's just not direct evidence. That does not make it not evidence. The observed motion of the planets in the sky is circumstantial evidence that the Earth is not the centre of the solar system, the Sun is. That doesn't make it "not evidence". We all want a "smoking gun" I guess and then we can know for sure any conviction is sound. But there is evidence here to say she is guilty, like the notes, the behaviour, the fact she was always on shift. We just have to trust that jurors weigh the evidence, even if it is circumstantial.
This presenter seems to come across as more concerned about people's perception of the judiciary being outstanding than it actually being outstanding. It's quite sinister to be ok throwing away the key regardless of guilt as long as people's confidence remains.
Convicted on what amounts to quite shaky statistical analysis of shift patterns ect, and it would appear not the most dynamic of defence lawyers. It seems quite unfair Lucy is not allowed an appeal
I would urge anyone who doubts Lucy Letby’s conviction to listen to the hours of court testimony read out by Jon on the UA-cam channel Crime Scene 2 Courtroom. Jon was present in the courtroom for most of the trial. What is reported in the newspapers or on news channels does not reflect the depth and breadth of evidence given in court. It is Letby’s own testimony that is particularly revealing.
I don't get how people can doubt it ffs. She was literally on shift every time a baby died/got injured! Hutchins is right that now, there's more emotion intervening with the judiciary system (which imo has a lot to do with wokeism), mainly due to media manipulation. However, in Letby's case, all the evidence adds up, albeit mainly circumstantial.
He only reads out the prosecution section. A good barrister can make anyone look guity, especially against someone who cannot afford their own defense barrister and is relying on free legal aid
@@Jessicacaca00there is enough of evidence against it’s not possible there every time, I mean ever time she was on the floor a child die, they did a case analysis before she joined after she joined, there is also proof she gave a child insulin that’s why she got caught, because traces were found in the child and the child did not need insulin. Many doctors reported on her, but it was ignored.
@@GBPaddlingwho are ‘they’? If there was some massive conspiracy involving the highest levels of the CPS and NHS wouldn’t Ms Letby have been found dead next to a detailed confession? There’s this incredibly powerful group that chooses to trust 12 random jurors? Were the jurors in on it too?! Who wasn’t involved?
I did think when Letb6 was first arrested that it sounded more like another hospital management patients deaths scandal that was being blamed on a single scapegoat.
@@steponfrog7265 It's extremely unlikely a neonatal nurse would ever be scapegoated for such horrific and distressing murders. If there had been a dodgy doctor involved, there would surely be plenty of clues...?
@@iallyl3877 100% wrong, she was only on shift for 7 out of 13 deaths, she wasnt even looking after all 7. When you look at all emergence incidents on the unit that didnt result in death there is no correlation with Letby at all. Even though she put in far more hrs than any other nurse on the unit...
PEOPLE SHOULD NOT HAVE CONFIDENCE IN THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM. There have been many occasions that they knew they had got it wrong but refused to back down or allow appeal against conviction. The jury system is innately flawed simply because people are fallible.
Quite right. There are so many areas of the 'law' that are loose and open to misuse and interpretation that a real saint could easily be 'proved' guilty!
@@gunlokman I SO HAPPY THAT THE GENERAL PUBLIC IS NOW WAKING UP TO THE TRUE NATURE OF THE JUSTICE SYSTEM !!!!THAT REFUSES IN MULTIPLE CASES TO GRANT APPEALS EVEN WHEN THERE ARE STRONG EVIDENCE EMERGING THAT A PERSON WAS WRONGLY CRIMINALISED
Thank goodness! I didn't know how any jury could honestly find her guilty given the way the 'evidence' was presented. I suspect hospital failings and picking a scapegoat.
Hospital failings that completely coincided with her presence on the wards, that weren't there before she was employed, and ceased to be after she was arrested? OK
Few can understand the duality of psychopaths. We expect the bad guys to look the part, black hats, twirling moustaches, but psychopaths are more dangerous than that, and the further confusing factor is that their 'good side' (think of Gollum arguing with his dark side) can be, and usually is, very convincing of an innocent. They're convincing con artists, whose brains, time after time, are wired to enjoy a secretive sense of power & enjoyment in causing pain. In this case, wallowing in watching on and apparently offering support to the grieving parents, stealing the limelight as if she also was the victim. Jealousy is often a factor lurking - parents had something she, with a psychopath's sense of isolation, would never attain with their loving relationship. It is not necessarily the killing they exult in, it's the ongoing destruction they can enjoy long after. People who did not see the complex evidence, see her reactions should not be offering silly opinions. One thing I can advise - if you look in a killer's eyes, you know what you're seeing - you feel the chill. Psychopaths are always secretive, sneaky destroyers of others' lives, they will always believe they are the injured party & most people are incapable of seeing them as they are. They are arch manipulators and in my experience are able to skilfully exploit doubt and dubious sense of morality, as well as others' inability of recall - pathological liars to the end they do make mistakes but can charm others to forget their instincts. The evidence of the post-its is intriguing, but lying as much as they do is exhausting, they will always reveal themselves, but equally know how to skilfully 'explain' away those revelations. I've met a few, and in the end you truly know what they are.
Its amazing how just bc a killer is continuing to protest her innocence, that could so easily influence people to believe she is innocent. Many experts believe the evidence is overwhelming, and common sense - letby was the common factor in evey single death. That many babies DO NOT die in quick succession of eachother with ONE common factor. But these few "experts" saying theres not enough evidence, reject common sense in this case. If lucy didn't look like she does, the world would believe in what she did to those babies.
@@mrsthatcher9815did that nurse stalk her patients? Did she keep the patient's dead babies belongings as a souvenir? Was she writing about darkness in her? Were babies found with deliberately injections of air in their bloodstream? Babies were 'collapsing' then when out of Lucys care, they were recovering. Back in Lucys care, they were suddenly collapsing again. The doctor in the case said "babies don't go from being stable into a cardiorespiratory situation within minutes"
@@mrsthatcher9815 it's natural causes if there's no substances in their body, it was air. But it's not natural that they had that air in them. One baby was found with air in his spine. The doctor said that was not normal and it had to have been injected. Why do u think she used air? It wasnt as traceable as a substance
Motive? - none Criminal history - none Previous harm to others - none. Convicted on: * statistics that we're completely worthless. * lies by colleagues who were obviously jealous of her ability (both men) * and the insecure ramblings of a woman's personal diary! This should terrify every woman everywhere!
I was in agreement with your list until you had to turn it into a "men vs women" thing. Like a man was never framed for anything? Were the Birmingham Six in jail for 16 years because they were women? If you actually believe the doctors/men motive to frame LL was because they were "jealous" and "because she was a woman", then you should get help.
The Letby case was based upon wholly circumstantial evidence, not to par, and was a very emotive narrative - which is to be expected when it’s babies involved, and a nurse. It’s a dangerous precedent to set and the KC’s words are actually quite damning. For the people saying ‘she did this, and that; wrote this and that’.. that’s not beyond reasonable doubt evidence. I hope that one day, the people not hellbent on keeping the judicial system stringent and proper, never have to rely on is being so if they are behind the dock, wrongly accused.
The supposed medical expert was a 15 years retired general paediatrician - not a neonatologist with any knowledge of current practices. He speculated on possible methods babies may have been murdered. The author of the article he quoted about air emboli disagrees with the flawed application in this case. There is more than enough grounds for revisiting this trial if you listen to actual experts
@@noooowaydaddyoHe is an experienced doctor, his report was supported by 5 different doctors from with narrow subspecialty such as such as neonatal neuroradiologist, he isn't the only expert involved Dr Bohin who is a practicing neonatologist also was an expert witness, the defence didn't have any expert witnesses to offer an alternative to view. I am not against an appeal I just don't think there will be an alternative outcome
@@turanasan5368 being an experienced doctor doesn't automatically qualify you as an expert in another field of medicine. The defence did have an expert witness, but for reasons many can't fathom he wasn't called to the stand to give a reasoned argument. Possibly because the defence incorrectly assumed the garbage being presented by the prosecution wouldn't hold up, but we can only speculate on that. I think the outcome will be quite different if a retrial is permitted. Read the Private Eye special reports if you haven't already
Luke Mitchell is innocent, he has been in jail for 20 years since he was 16 , his dog has died his gran has died in that time and the boy was convicted with no evidence against him. he needs help
There're so many issues with the case. Yet, the most important being, everyone believed before the evidence was offered she was guilty. Even her defence team didn't believe in her. Everyone was certain of her guilt, due to the time it took to bring the case together. Everyone trusted the system... even the jury. The press were hushed up. So there was no other possible outcome or verdict. She was not the suspect... she did it. The trial was just to prove it. That was everyones job there. She was not the only nurse on duty. They left her out of a series of other fatalities on the ward. The note was only written after days of interrogation... when they hounded her constantly, that she was guilty. They literally broke her. No one knows for sure if she did or didn't, end life prematurely. She did work almost exclusively on a ward filled with premature babies, weighing sometimes only a single pound. There were too many complex medical procedures, ( which are open to interpretation ) that were too complex for a jury to understand. The entire case against her is deeply problematic.
I spent 6 months in ICU with my daughter (23 weeks) and many times caught the nurses almost double dosing her meds. Apparently that would have killed her. I thought If every nurse had dosed immediately on shift change (without me there to say to check with the previous nurse, who hadn't updated the notes) she would have been dead many times over. ... Food for thought.
Does seem strange that she would write in her diary that she killed them!!! And all that paperwork she took home concerning the babies that died. When questioned about the paperwork she suggested that it ended up at her home under her bed by accident?? Looking for the parents of the dead babies on Facebook. Hanging around parents who were spending time with their dying babies. If she's not guilty she's weird.
Strange that when it comes to these kind of cases, or the recent post office, Windrush and other injustices of the last 20 years, many people have strong opinions about convictions which lack safe or solid evidence. And yet, when it comes to more than 10,000 convictions for historical abuse between 2000 and 2020 that were made with `0` evidence or even corroboration, everybody is quite satisfied that they must be guilty. Just on the accuser's say-so a person is convicted of these SOs. Tears and a strong story on social media takes the place of absolutely any evidence. No burden of proof laid on the prosecution. No innocent until proven guilty for these cases. Perhaps one of the biggest injustices in British history is whitewashed by both the public and the government as a mass offering to re-establish faith in a system that covered institutional abuse from the church and the rich to politicians and the BBC. Unsavoury, sordid content from these supposed cases are pored over in every dark detail in the papers and yet the idea of having the courage to question its truth could make one look as though one is defending the actions of the supposed and presumed guilty party. There is no true justice in Britain, only politics. Those that know, know. It really is an unfair system we have in the UK.
Surely, if we had judges of any intellectual ability, then the judge in this case should have been raising questions, before passing a sentence. Far too many people, have or are serving sentences that they are not guilty of.
No system of trial will be absolutely safe. It is in the nature of things. Just as the guilty can escape, the innocent can be condemned. All we can do is ensure we have swift remedies of redress.
This is what happens when people in authority think they are untouchable and their opinion (or the outcome they want) trumps hard evidence and a fair hearing. It’s shocking. We saw it in the Post Office, and we’re seeing it in the recent ‘online social media thought police’ charges.
Hitchens is totally correct. This conviction and in fact the way the trial was run brings shame on the medical and legal professions, the police, and the judicial system. If this had been investigated properly from the start, without the false statistics and with a review of the unit and the medical notes by a panel of properly qualified Neonatologists this misscarriage of justice would never have occured. The truth is that there were NO MURDERS but these poor babies died in a totally dysfunctional, under-resourced, badly led and managed unit which was bound to fail its sick patients. These babies should never have been in that unit as it was so clearly unsafe and THAT was the problem. Lucy Letby was a convenient scapegoat for a lot of powerful professional people to save themselves from disgrace. I suspect their moment is coming.....
So if the babies died as a result of a "dysfunctional, under-resourced, badly led and managed unit" why were the deaths reported to the police as suspicious and why did the police agree and bring charges? Why did the state decide to prosecute and why did the jury come to a guilty verdict? In your version, it would seem the whole legal system is a "dysfunctional, under-resourced, badly led and managed unit"
To answer your first question please read the last 4 lines of my post again and again until you understand it. And yes the legal system is totally dysfunctional especially with regard to how technical and scientific evidence is used and assessed in the courts where judges, barristers and especially jury have no clue as to what the evidence means but the jurors are swayed by the play-acting skills of sharp barristers who are there for the money. Any more questions??
This is a confusing interview. He says he doesn't know if she's innocent, didn't attend the trial, but he did read other people's articles and based on that and his feelings, he thinks there should be a retrial! What the actual F!
No it’s understandable. What he is saying is that he does not know the intimate details of the prosecution case against Lucy Letby but he does know that a significant body of evidence giving a counter argument was not presented in court, neither to the counsel of Lucy Letby nor to the jury. This alone makes the process unreliable.
Let me explain. This isn’t a situation where Lucy is guilty or innocent. It’s the evidence used to convict Lucy which is questioned, in short people like Peter Hitchens question if a crime even took place. That is the crux of the matter.
People have doubts about Lucy Letby’s guilt. They need resolved because just maybe she’s innocent and the blame lays elsewhere. I’m just amazed non of her superiors got held accountable for anything.
@@NauticalNightmareDeep I worked as a RN in the NHS for 20 years, it is a terrible place full of bullies. They are more than happy to throw you to the wolves to save their own skin ... Glad I left
I think you've caught an important issue there. "... maybe ...the blame lies elsewhere." You, like most people, assume there is blame. That it's just a question of on whom we pin it. If these many deaths were not originally thought to be unnatural, do they have a common cause? Maybe some were due to faults, not necessarily all by the same person. Is LL responsible for any of them? Once you make the assumption that they are all linked and have a common cause, then, and only then, could statistical coincidence come into play. (Even if they had done the statistics rigorously.) But can you, should you, retrospectively make that assumption?
@@Merlin3189 The plumber who gave evidence suggested it was an unsanitary environment. Many variables. End of the day they just pinned it on Letby for convenience.
Having worked for the NHS, there are no limits to what these people will cover up, and will throw anyone under the bus.
Yes I came up against them and they Lie and Lie to save them self's, Doctors to they Lie a lot , a lot of them that I came across anyway, and PAL they are in the Pockets Of the NHS management more than fighting for the Patients from my experience, I feel they threw Lucy under the Buss
I can personally attest to this. That’s why my immediate impulse was to assume LL was innocent all those years ago.
They tries to cover it for so long but she's guilty
Trust me, until you have stood trial, you will never appreciate how flawed the criminal justice system is, relying as it does on the general ignorance of the public who process information emotionally not intellectually.
@@MikeS-hs4vh how do you know
@annbumfrey6812 I've been there. Enough said. It's a different world. It's a less efficient, less respectable, less intellectually-informed, less sophisticated arena than people realise. It's far less about truth and reason, than it is about simply winning with a sophistry of debate constricted by arcane rules.
@@MikeS-hs4vh yeah, but you were guilty, right? 99% of crimes don't go to trial, so when it does you're usually guilty as sin. Also, most serious crimes are proven beyond doubt with DNA.
@@goatlps where did you get that from?
@@annbumfrey6812I have also experienced this...as a result I have zero faith in jurys, the legal system as a whole, and the idea of "justice"...there is no justice...guilty people walk free while innocent people are punished...the system is f**ked...anyone who think otherwise is either completely naive, deluded, or part of it... 👍
There’s a nasty smell surrounding this case….irresponsible press reporting caused the public to assume her guilt & then tough sentencing followed.For those that dug a little deeper the evidence is questionable at best, vital evidence was withheld, & those on prosecution side circled the wagons in a effort to give the public the result they wanted.
@@williamoram6969 tough sentencing followed? She was found guilty of multiple murders and multiple attempted murders.
What "sentence" do you suggest?
She wrote she did it! LOL
I'm a retired Nurse...
I've been following this since the start.
I've always thought that the whole affair was Dodgy...
It's not been clear enough with too much taken for granted....
This needs investigating properly.....
It has been - that's what 2 separate criminal trials are for. Both found her guilty. The Court of Appeal found no problems. The NMC struck her off. Do you not believe in the criminal justice system or your former professional regulator?
@@lucypalmer5228 case was investigated but not thoroughly, and the parameters for both favoured the prosecution.
Institutions have vested interests and can get things wrong. So can authorities.
@@John-p7i5g Well there has been 2 trials with different judges and juries and a court of appeal hearing. There has been an NMC hearing. They all concluded the same thing. So every system must be bent according to you from the criminal courts, to the ordinary people like you and me who are called to sit on juries, to a professional nursing regulator. Or it could be that she was totally guilty and they were all doing their job properly and protecting the public from her? Funny how the deaths didn't happen before she turned up, and haven't since she stopped working there. Funny how she called herself evil. Funny how she is apparently friendly with other child killers in prison. Funny how her own parents didn't even turn up at her second trial.
@@lucypalmer5228 both trials under identical parameters. The second trial was a formality. There's been no appeal - it was rejected.
The spike in deaths coincided precisely with CoCH being raised to a level 2. The spike ended when it was lowered to a level 1. Which nicely coincided with LL being taken off ward.
The diary entries' validity as evidence has been comprehensively debunked. They are useless evidence.
And parents not turning up at trial is completely irrelevant.
The case rests on flawed statistical methods and all the rest is circumstantial.
A profoundly unsafe judgement in my view. You can't just lock someone up on a flawed hypothesis, groupthink, confirmation bias and 'feels'.
@@John-p7i5g Nonsense. You're not a lawyer, just a conspiracy theorist. Would you want her looking after your baby? And the 2nd trial was all about the evidence of a doctor who caught her red-handed. So he's all part of the bent system too is he? The jury should have believed a nurse who called herself evil, a nurse who was involved in a very large number of infant deaths over a doctor who was just there to report what he had caught her doing?
The NHS does everything in its power to cover-up bad practice, neglect, laziness, arrogance and ignorance, and I believe strongly that doctors and those in charge would rather blame a single person than admit their hospital is failing. I know many people who have been made seriously ill, and others who have died, because of poor practice, and it was all admitted, yet the hospital fought to the very end, so they wouldn't have to pay out. A solicitor told us the NHS has deep pockets and will fight until the person has run out of money. The whole NHS system is corrupt.
Yes.
The NHS could be saved instantly by stripping out 4-5 levels of middle management, they provide the cover between the actual productive staff on the front line (coupled with the public) for the political appointees at the top.
@@sarahgriffiths3419 I can attest to this. By the way did you know during Covid-19 there was a hospital directive not to report Covid-19 as the cause of death? Did you know Doctor deliberately admitted vulnerable patients to hospital during Covid and resulted in patients contracted Covid and die? One particular patient could have been rehydrated at home with a giving set! Did you know I quit nursing because I did not feel comfortable with what I was observing but bound by Confidentiality policy? Did you know that I have observed many people made into a scapegoat within the NHS? Did you know the corruption that takes place within the NHS?
@@generalwastemanI agree with you and bring back crown indemnity and Immunity
But those are single cases, you've never heard of babies dying in quick succession of eachother with ONE COMMON FACTOR- Lucy Letby. If she didn't look as "normal" as she does, you'd believe in what she did to those babies.
The main stream media really destroyed this poor woman, it was a witch hunt, they decided she was a monster and she never stood a chance.
❤ I have said that from day one
@@derry1423 a 21st century lindy chamberlin
A government spokesperson stated 30 years ago."At least 5% of convicted prisoners in prison today are statically totally innocent!!"
I believe this woman is innocent. The prosecution can say anything in court against this bewildered woman but there are major discrepancies in the evidence presented in her trial!!
That's the bottom line!
In the case of solicitor Sally Clark who was falsely accused of murdering her baby, the jury were swayed by statistics presented by paediatrician Meadow and ‘Meadow’s Law’. He used statistics erroneously and moreover statistics was not his area of expertise. Sally Clark spent three years in prison before her conviction was overturned. Paediatricians Meadow and Southall were very well paid expert witnesses used by the crown prosecution in cases where babies had died and where it might be in the interests of the NHS to obscure the reasons why. In the case of Sally Clark, for instance, she had had two previous babies die, apparently for reasons unknown. When a third died Meadow popped up. Sally’s babies had been born early and received their vaccines with no account taken of this. The jury, however, were told that vaccines should be ruled out as having anything to do with the deaths. This is illogical. But nothing can be allowed to threaten sacred cows, can it? Whether they be wars (Ian Huntley miscarriage of justice) vaccine damage (Sally Clark and others) or child abuse by the state (eg - children in care homes).
@jrobertson9796 I j just watched about Sally Clark and it seemed both deaths (two mot 3 ) could be natural and all the 'injuries' we due to cpr attempts...sadly sally drank herself to death after she was exonerated
The Post Office scandal seemed unbelievable too. Convicted on evidence.
A trusted organisation that people cannot believe would allow gross miscarriages of justice.
When the weight of these systems comes down on you, an innocent person doesn't stand a chance.
Actually there was no evidence in the post office scandal.
@@puclopuclik4108 Horizon. Then the people who testified it couldn't make mistakes. The people who lied and said it couldn't be manipulated.
Yet you still participate in the very same system. You are part of the corruption.
@@puclopuclik4108No evidence!? Maybe rather that it was flawed and incorrect because of faulty software.
@darcyperkins7041 They had no evidence to convince them of the fraud. Even when the software showed missing money, those money never existed. It has never been taken away. The post office was pure fraud. Lucy Letby is a different story.
I listened to the trial of Lucy Letby podcast at the time. Newspaper and online media articles were sensationalising her for the most part. I have to say that at the conclusion of the trial and her conviction I was less than convinced she was guilty. Her testimony during the trial and in police interviews remained very consistent and unambiguous. She didn’t make up stories or have wild theories for the causes of these deaths. Not exactly the actions of a cold calculating serial killer, as the media have painted her. My impression of her was more of a rabbit caught in the headlights. My opinion doesn’t count for nothing of course but I’ve shared it here anyway.
Did you mean “count for nothing” or “count for anything “?
@@onepartyroule Ahh, my 70’s secondary school education laid bare… ‘anything’ is the correct grammar.
Newspapers do that to the defendant in ALL criminal cases..they use sensationalist journalism and only give the prosecution story..WHY not worry about ALL those cases?
If you ignore the mountains of evidence against her and the constant coincidences. Sure she’s innocent. 🙄
@@rossisempre86 just to be on the safe side, I wouldn’t want her coming round to my house and babysitting for my godchildren
how the ramblings of a distressed nurse whose had the trauma of witnessing lots of babies dying(from things that they have no control over)is evidence there guilty..................is frankly beyond me....and unless i see evidence that says otherwise it makes her conviction"extremely unsafe".......
Ashlee, this is depressing as heck and i actually believed all the papers that insisted she was this cold heartless monster.
@Ashleymartin - So true and I think this aspect was not sufficiently acknowledged at the trial.
@@PHlophe this is how the mainstream media control the thoughts in the minds of their readers.
How did those babies overdose on insulin under her care? Hmmmmmmm
@@PHlopheshe is 🙄
If there is the slightest chance that Lucy Letby has not done the horrific things she was convicted for there MUST be an independent investigation.
Her legal team passed over making several arguments for some bizarre reason. The prosecution cherry picked those deaths with which she was present, and those deaths are high in number. But what is also high in number are those deaths when she wasn`t even there. There is something odd going on at that hospital. I think she is the fall woman. And that leaves the question of who was there during most of the deaths, both those cherry picked and those not?
She did it
@@janicelewin447 She probably did but if serious doubts exist more investigations are needed.
@@jmum189man stop , if she was another ethnicity you guys wouldn't talk like this
We wouldn't be hearing any of this if we were discussing a male nurse.
It was bad enough when she was convicted by algorithm, but it turns out the imputed data into that algorithm was faulty too? Madness.
There's a video on UA-cam that explains how a man in America was falsely accused and convicted by an algorithm as well. He was eventually acquitted but it took years to prove his innocence.
@@Aspartame69 What on earth are you talking about? Lucy Letby was not convicted 'by algorithm'. This sounds like - and is - utter nonsense.
@@PatrickMcAsey She was convicted based on her proximity to the events. To do that you would have to put peoples clock card activity into a model and reach a number where 0 means a nurse was never present and 1 means the nurse was always present. Thats basically all the evidence they had. By this standard, they should check all nurses in the UK and for any of them with a score of 0.9 or higher, they should throw them all in jail for life.
@@Aspartame69 Lucy Letby was not convicted 'based on her proximity to the events' . She was convicted on a number of pieces of evidence, of which 'proximity to events' (whatever that means) was onlly one. I admit that there might be certain points in this case which may need to be looked at again. However, one should take no account of 'armchair experts' such as you, who did not spend one second in what was an extremely long and complex trial, but who somehow knows more than those who were.
What about the “I killed them on purpose because I am not good enough to care for them and I am a horrible evil person” data?
How do you silence people? You put them in jail or into an asylum.
Exactly. Happened to me.
Too late, she'd already confessed in writing.
@@BadgerBotherer1😢
@@goatlpsjust like in the Lancashire witch trials
I hope Lucy gets a new, fair trial, with a good defence.
The system is supposed to allow for an appeal? She has not been allowed an appeal? If the system is so amazingly accurate (it is not) then letting her appeal should be no problem. This is about the conviction being sound not about guilt. This needs readdressing
Rigged.
In order for there to be an appeal, there has to be some negligence either by the judge or the defence or the defence have to introduce new evidence
@@steveblundell7766 Just being innocent is not good enough. Until this case I still had some faith in our justice system but not anymore. Lucy's trials were like 17th Century witch trials. The discredited, long retired Dr Dewi Evans is the new Witchfinder General.
Her grounds for appeal were examined by three judges over a 4 day hearing. It was rejected. That's why she can't appeal.
So he's saying its a possibility that Letby was a scapegoat for poor NHS service?
There was raw sewage leaking in those wards and other issues with cleanliness.
Put it this way, in my lifetime I've seen both:
1. Harold Shipman and Jimmy Saville effectively get away with glaringly horrific behaviour
AND
2. The whole generation of mothers who were falsely accused of battering and murdering their babies, when the babies had died of Infant Sudden Death Syndrome caused mainly by bad NHS advice to sleep them on their stomachs, and bacterial respiratory infections.
So we know that when 'bad' things happen, people, especially in crowds and institutions, can resort to willful blindness AND scapegoating.
Imagine if it comes out as an nhs cover up the whole system will collapse
@@ExplorewithSarahlouise not necessarily, if the 'cover up' aspect only applies to a small group of consultants at one hospital.
With a wider group of detectives, jury and perhaps even some hospital management misled early into a conviction that she was guilty.
For example by a cherry-picked list of 'incidents', under-awareness of the normality of statistical clustering and misdirection from local senior staff hiding their own failings.
Look at the Tavistock, after all. Horrendous evidence, yet only one unit belatedly closed.
Depends how much contagion there is, and how justified such contagion would be.
@@louisehogg8472 I don’t know I think the trust in the nhs is so low if it’s found to be a cover up by senior officials there it will be a huge incident. Prob we will see riots then.
The British police and Judicial system are in a very poor place
so is your dad
It's a two tier policing and judical system now... certain demographics get favourable treatment/lesser sentences, they also get more training and support off the government. Look at the sentences for the rioters, some have been put behind bars for literally chanting... whereas someone smashing a bus cabin and threatening the driver with a 24 inch zombie sword whilst horrified passengers watched in fear received a suspended sentence and employment training.
Years of Conservative underfunding have left it this way.
@@20quidof course it’s down to government police’s, but the rioters will insist it’s black people and immigrants who cause all the problems in the UK.
@@nvcn86strange man you are
It does not take ten months to convict a guilty person but it does to throw blame on an innocent person and convict them.
And also the police took a very long time to decide whether to proceed or not.
@@John-p7i5git took them ages to fabricate a case against Lucy and find their "expert" witness, Evans, who is a discredited charlatan.
What rot.
Bottom line ..if evidence was kept away from court then needs a retrial !
Been saying this since it all began she is innocent!
Same. I thought she was guilty for about 3 days after the initial verdict. Then I did some further reading the contradictions started appearing.
The whole case has left me feeling uneasy about her conviction or even trial.
You want her released?
And me and my husband
No another trial
@@MargaretOHare-p8h why? She’s killed babies. Not one or two. She killed 7 babies. And possibly many more. Are you mad? Maybe you need to see a doctor. Do you know how she got caught? Eventually it came to a point where she was the only one involved with all the murdered babies. You need help. Protecting a child killer is very stange.
@@fessali5726 A lot of people feel uneasy about what they heard in the media and as Pete Hitchens says she should be allowed to appeal, every convicted person should have that right.
As a former nurse myself. I seriously question Lucy Letby’s guiltiness. I strongly believe she was set up by rogue Doctors. Especially if she had challenged their practice in the past. There would have been non concordance approaches by CPS and an element of corruption.
I've seen plenty of negligent doctors get away with all sorts
Why do you think she wrote “I’m guilty I killed them. I am evil”
The evidence was caught on cctv .
@StraightLetterz because she did ..she was obviously suffering from some mental health issues It took about a year to collect the evidence against her Babies have stopped dying now so how do you account for that ??
The question is where are these rouge Dr's now and why have the babies stopped dying ???since Letbys imprisonment
Convicted on zero evidence, and faked heavily biased statistics.
The first serial killer in history to use multiple MOs, have zero past form, and zero motive.
@@John-p7i5g Conveniently forgetting Beverly Allett………………
Plenty of motive...
@@absinthephrenz ...not to do anything of the sort
Her lifelong career
Her mortgage
Her family and friends
Her rigorous sense of duty and following procedures to the letter
Many many reasons not to do what she is accused of.
@@absinthephrenz please elaborate
I have had a terrible thought with this case, one that I cannot shake, that a nurse under the psychological duress of losing babies under her care might come to believe that she is cursed, that somehow, in her failure to save them, had come to believe she caused them.
This is partly based in psychology, but also my inability to comprehend how someone who has spent their life caring for newborns could do the opposite
Exactly. Well known psychological phenomenon that depressed people have more accurate risk perception. Well people underestimate and miss warning signs. So she hangs around the babies she's noticed don't seem quite right, trying to help them. And then, they all seem to die on her! Who's everyone going to blame? Her. Who's SHE going to blame? Herself!
Could be that she was the best nurse on the premises! For all we know. While everyone else wandered past in hurrying, blinkered, tunnel vision, missing the distress signals of the dying.
@louisehogg8472 it's very possible. No good deed goes unpunished
@@hermancharlesserrano1489 yes someone with empathy and an over developed conscience, would blame themselves. And feel why couldn't i save them, to feel guilty etc is in fact normal.
Good point on a funny note she did not display any of the criminal attributes or damaged upbringing that killers have she had parents and friends that love her . Of course the profiles do not fit so the physiatrists got around this by saying she was born evil . They just make it up as they go along
Is that why she falsified her timesheets to make it seem like she wasn't there when the babies condition declined?
Miscarriage of justice, or typical of British justice? NHS needed a scapegoat for its failures? 😮
@@Zerpentsa6598 And I suppose Allett is innocent too?! There aren’t half some morons posting here…….
The very real "miscarriage of justice" is (allegedly) allowing doctors to freely walk away from any blame for their practices! Most of them get a slap on the wrist following A" Serious Averse Event inquiry"! Also since it is mainly doctors who carry out these SAE inquiries it is usually the poor Nurses that get blamed for taking too long to report their findings!
I disagree with Hitchens on many things but he is such an erudite, articulate and brilliant man with a spectacular mind. I definitely agree with him on this.
As a former Dutch DA, penal judge and barrister with thirty years experience in courts of law I'm deeply shocked by the medieval level of the law in England.
Even though the Dutch legal system like most legal systems in the world is seriously flawed at least the law that derives from the French Code Penal and procedures is in order.
It seems to me to be so bad that if possible England should be expelled from the European Convention of Human Rights. It's a bloody legal witch hunt trial.
If I understand it correctly the judge, prosecution, and defence decide pre trial what evidence is admissible. They must thus be telepathic.
Thus the jury isn't shown the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth when as in this case during the trial expert opinions in their respective fields of expertise are brought to the attention of all parties except Lucy Letby and the jury!
The so called free independent press accepts a gag order during what was it 7 or more months of a trial that with any competent judge would have been thrown out of court for lack of evidence. It shouldn't even have come to trial.
For me the first time a saw some evidence of the case the what was it writing by Lucy Letby in which she stated to be a bad person is convincing evidence of someone who is innocent even though for people who don't have much experience how certain personality types react to the pressures and feelings of guilt having failed to save the babies in such a way being openly scape goated by writing it down is coping behavior I've witnessed several times in different cases.
The jury should have been presented with the expert opinions based on broadly held consensus in the respective fields of expertise including the methods of research. On several key points this hasn't been the case. Leading also to a trial by media. Boy oh boy.
You don't know what you are talking about.
I have to agree with you. The continental legal system is a search for the truth whereas our system unfortunately is an adversarial one, a contest where the best performance wins and truth is often the casualty. To quote Peter Hitchens, the case is entirely based on hypotheses. To that I would add that the sheer wight of theories, speculation and absence of any proof undoubtedly make this an unsafe conviction and should arguably have been thrown out of court.
You can't trust a conviction on a hunch which is basically what this was. Also a jury is never safe in these situations. I don't care what anyone says you can't take emotion out of a person. Their life experiences.
I know. This is why we have 'Believe Women', isn't it? LOL!
A jury CAN be safe, but only if THEY are given properly reliable, clear explanations of the situation. NOT partial or biased information. Were there GENUINELY independent experts explaining ALL possibilities of what might have happened?
Remember the whole 'battered babies' scandal? Bad (risky) NHS advice to lie babies on their stomachs, yet juries believed 'expert advice' in good faith!
As someone who has been on the jury for 3 trials, I agree.
@@louisehogg8472 Nope the Human element is never safe. People aren't logical, the fact you think they can forced to be, shows how little you understand.
Hence the fact witnesses are known not to be completely unreliable as shown time and time again. People literally make stuff up in their head they believe is real on a regular basis.
@@davidDean-g5n on a hunch? Those babies x-rays showed the amount of air in their bodies that only a traffic collision could cause! Perhaps your emotions for real cases of injustice are wrongly inserted into a case full of evidence, or perhaps u find Lucy Letbys sad eyes pull on yr heart strings
If this turns out to be the case that she is innocent, everyone who contributed to her imprisonment should be locked up themselves...
Agree
Including the juries who found her guilty? You, of course, are so brilliant that you would never have found her guilty, had you been on one of the juries, would you? This is called 'being wise after the event'.
@@PatrickMcAsey juries are a waste of time and energy .
@@mvl6827 This sort of comment is lazy, cynical and ignorant. You can't even be bothered to explain why you think this. But I, unlike you, am going to explain my view.. Jury trial is the basis of common law, and indeed, common law would have little meaning without it. Jury trial is thousands of years old. This, of itself, doesn't necessarily mean it's correct, but it's a poweful arguement for it, because it simply works. I think that bench trial is inferior to jury trial.
There is nothing which makes the operation of the law more democratic than the jury system, where you are judged by your peers. It isn't perfect, and juries have made mistakes, but it most usually works extremely well. Sometimes juries are misled, but the judge is there to stop this. Sometimes jurors flout the rules under which they are supposed to operate. Sometimes lawyers are incompetent, but that's not the fault of the jury. In the case of Lucy Letby, two juries in two separate cases found her guilty, quickly and unanimously. You would too, had you been on the jury. The judge in the fiirst, main trial, thanked the jury, and he was right to.
@@PatrickMcAsey thousand years old... that means out of date mate . Most European countries don't do juries whatsoever. For obvious healthy reasons. Juries are remnants of the now obsolete British Empire... gone into history...
The Post Office got hundreds of people convicted with extremely dodgy evidence; why not Lucy Letby. The NHS has just as much interest in seeing her convicted as the PO and Fujitsu had with the subpostmasters, and probably even fewer principles, based on previous NMS scandals.
The same week that LL was convicted a man was released from prison after serving 17 years for a crime he did not commit DNA evidence was suppressed by a judge 10 years earlier , The police are corrupt and the courts are corrupt we have just seen large over the top sentences given out by the courts for minor offences in resent troubles not for justice but to frighten the population into silence about religious fanatics that we are not allowed to speak of
The PO and Fujitsu are not people, they had no interest in seeing the subpostmasters convicted. It was specific people at those organisations that were responsible and we know who they were. If you are saying that specific people at the NHS framed Letby then you need to name names and provide evidence, otherwise you are just urinating into the wind
@@steveblundell7766 The answer to that is simple the 4 doctors concerned led the investigation simply because the police are thick and know nothing about medicine, they only reported her to police after she had humiliated them during an internal enquiry the management thought there was no problem with her .
The major concern was the expert evidence /opinion on deaths lets not forget the case for the police was not going to court even though they had spent years investigating with no evidence of foul play . Then Evan volunteered his services for payment , according to him he knew how they died even though 5 babies had been previously recorded as natural deaths by other docs
@@rolandhawken6628 Your proposition is ridiculous, you don't even know the policemen involved but you dismiss them as "thick" . And saying the police "know nothing about medicine" is laughable. Have you never heard of Forensic Medical Examiners, Police Surgeons, Forensic Psychiatrists, Pathologists and Crime Scene Investigators (CSIs) with Medical Training. These people know "nothing about medicine" LOL! As for the 4 doctors, I doubt you know anything about them either or their careers, but one doctor said he saw Letby acting suspicious around a baby, which would be a massive red flag for any parent. Carry on supporting this worthless nurse if you must, I feel more comfortable trusting the doctors, the police, the witnesses, the prosecution, the 2 juries and the 3 appeal court judges.
@@steveblundell7766 Of course they were - it gave then a big bonus all the money in fines went to them.
I am not sure of guilt or innocence. But after the recent Post Office scandal where it has transpires that it was computer error and not human error, plus much of the evidence against LL is based on data and circumstantial evidence then this does probably need reviewing.
The longest trial in legal history, half a million medical reports, 2000 witness statements and still NO real EVIDENCE that any unnatural deaths occurred. The whole case was based on assumption, opinion and coincidence...
Constructed by the regulator perhaps?
Well that argument won't see the daylight...
@@JulietCrowson Constructed by the prosecution who are NOT interested in the truth, only a conviction.
Your claim that this was 'The longest trial in legal history' is completely untrue. It isn't even the longest in UK history. I think it's safe to assume that the rest of your claims are also lies plucked by you out of thin air.
She was either going for the world record or for a niche of serial killers...
@@andimoraru5539 ...Or, is completely innocent.
I don't know if she's innocent or guilty, but having followed the Private Eye investigation, it's astonishing that there's no ACTUAL evidence that those babies were even murdered let alone by her.
Guilty!! Now you know. Facts proven, no doubts.
Correctamundo. Even the evidence that 2 of the babies were killed because of by products of artificial insulin are challenged by world experts saying 'There's no definitive test for that'.
@@victorvictoriousv5255shut up. You know nothing stop judging. One day will be you.
@@bannjaxx I totally agree with you. A 2lb baby does not have a great survival rate without even knowing what other problems they have going on.
According to the coroners office who was responsible for the autopsy of the majority of the babies who were supposed to have been harmed, no evidence was found of any misdemeanour.
Many of her defenders need to actually read about the case. She was the only one with the victims, other nurses and doctors are the witnesses who described her as "giddy with excitement" after babies were passing away under her care.
Read the Private Eye reports
I Was never happy about her conviction it never smelt right at all!
The jury were presented with hypothetical scenarios on cause of death. The original coroner and pathology reports didn't pick up anything unusual. A jury isn't qualified to decide if a hypothesis is correct or not. There is something wrong with this process. These cases should have been referred back to the coroners and allowed space for a range of forensic scientists to investigate.
I said that at the time that she was sentenced and everybody said I was a shameful person
If she is innocent, I pray that she is found to be so on appeal whilst both of her parents are still alive, for her sake and theirs. My God if she has not done the things of which she was convicted this will be the greatest miscarriage of justice and she will deserve compensation running into the hundreds of millions.
Her appeal has already been rejected.
@@lucypalmer5228 We all know that. That does mean it is the end of it.
@@Her.Serene.Feline.Cuteness. It is the end. Once an appeal has been rejected there are no other appeal avenues.
@@lucypalmer5228 Nope, this is NOT the end of it. This is an ongoing process. I don't have the time or inclination to explain it to you. Try to enjoy your day (best wishes from a lawyer and the daughter of a Crown Prosecutor).
I will not be getting into any debate with you on this. The internet is packed full of people who don't know, are convinced they do and have too much time on their hands. Goodbye.
For the benefit of anyone who does not have a completely closed mind on the question of whether or not Letby is guilty, the CCRC (Criminal Cases Review Commission) may be an option for an appeal of her conviction.
This is a classic example of what happens in the case of the most horrific crimes. People lose all sense of reason and just want to punish the first person who is brought in front of them. Birmingham Six, anyone?
Guilford 4
MacGuire family
Just being Irish, in the U.K., back in the 1970/80's was precarious ....
Did you read any of the notes in her diary? the Birmingham six probably were guilty, and got away with it on a technicality
@@dooshkin8552 You are saying the Birmingham 6 were guilty! They confessed under torture, and apart from those confessions, the only evidence was the testimony of a forensic scientist which was contradicted at the trial by Dr Hugh Kenneth Black of the Royal Institute of Chemistry, the former HM Chief Inspector of Explosives. Your statements on this detract credibility from your argument on Letby.
@@dooshkin8552 Are you really that ignorant?
Not if it's a woman, of course.
People facing the courts are told “plead guilty”
Even if you are innocent
Or you will have a longer sentence if they decide you are guilty.
We are seeing the tip of the iceberg as watch how vad it gets once a Digital ID and cashless tyranny is enforced.
Absolutely correct. I've heard it said of an ex nhs nurse.
And Yet nobody rioted over her but when a Asian or black does this the UK goes under fire
@@TheLetterK81that’s just not true riots very rarely happen in the uk and we have had plenty of Islamist attacks over the years
@@Simon37423 We had plenty of white man attacks women killing babies white pedos etc nobody rioted over white people
And This is Why im against the death penalty, if shes innocent - that makes all of us Guilty ..of Imprisoning an innocent woman .
Have you seen the “The life of David Gale”? That’s why I don’t agree with the death penalty either.
Funny that in the UK people think you’re guilty and you get death the next week and it saves all the tax payers money.
They don’t realise people in the US can be held for decades same as a life sentence
@@donnaharris8097 are you a judge? Or a member of the jury? Otherwise speak for yourself.
i was watching something the other day about a hospital in the US , and at the same time lucy was supposedly doing her things , the hospital in america noticed a 300% increase in random babies deaths , where they had 1 a month they now had 30 a month , and they could not work out why!
I am sure they wanted a scapegoat for their malpractice (we all know what was doing it) and the perfect target is someone who not only challehged them but was proved right and got an aopolgy off her seniors , they would have hated that...
I am willing to wager they tried very hard to find a Black american to pass the blame to and couldn't find because this is what they usually do. if i had been the accused i would have sued the apricot ... Apologies are not cutting it especially when crafted with the legal system in mind.
If that was the case they wouldn't have waited so long before contacting the police.
even when innocent, people are advised by their barristers to plead guilty in order to get a less severe sentence, in my opinion, this results in a system where you are guilty until proven innocent which is almost impossible to do from a jail cell
To think that such a witch hunt can still take place in this day and age is depressing. The Police and CPS underestimated the power of social media nationally and internationally in seeing through this travesty of justice so quickly. Geoblocking articles such as in the New Yorker reeks of desperation. Thankfully the tide is moving fast in Lucy Letby's favour. The public outcry is gathering pace.
Is she innocent? Probably. There is more than reasonable doubt. The 'case' against her was not adequately defended. Het defence team needs looking at. Why didn't they call the expert witness who would refute the evidence given by a less-specialised neonatal 'expert'? Was the judge tired of it? Was he worried that the jury wrre becoming weary? He rushed the end of the trial! It's unsafe!
There are a lot of variables that lean towards Letby being guilty - the facebook searches of the bereaved parents, scores of hospital records taken home, her diary records, writing cards for bereaved parents, saying she isn't able to remember when awkward questions were being asked by the prosecution, notes to self saying "I did this, I am evil".
I have listened to the trial podcasts twice & I found the evidence damning - this trial was nothing like the Andrew Malkinson trial.
That's not the point, if some of the evidence was presented in an unsafe way, her conviction is unsafe. If there were enough other evidence, and any other possibility had been completely excluded, then she would be convicted any way.
@@romulanwang for her defence she called on a plumber to give evidence.
That's the best her team could do.
Well stated! I've just listened to a discussion about the points of the trial that many of us probably know only too well, and I am more convinced than ever that Letby is guilty. The juries in two separate trials were unanimous, and it took them a short while to reach their verdicts. Her appeal to the Court of Appeal was not allowed.
It should be emphasised that, in this video, Peter Hitchens does not cast doubt on the conviction, merely on one aspect of the evidence. He says that he is not making any claim as to Letby's guilt or otherwise.
I was a children’s nurse, I wrote cards to bereaved parents and searched for them on Facebook, because I cared about them and wanted to know how they were coping. Ok perhaps I didn’t take records home or some of the other things, but many of the things that “point to her guilt”, look very different when the conviction begins to be questioned.
If there is a question over whether she received a fair trial, she should be allowed to appeal her conviction.
I was a children’s nurse, I wrote cards to bereaved parents and searched for them on Facebook, because I cared about them and wanted to know how they were coping. Ok perhaps I didn’t take records home or some of the other things, but many of the things that “point to her guilt”, look very different when the conviction begins to be questioned. Perhaps she was attempting her own investigation into the deaths? Is it clear to what she was referring when she wrote the diary entries? I’m sure we’ve all written things which could or have been taken out of context.
If there is a question over whether she received a fair trial, she should be allowed to appeal her conviction. Could she still vibe guilty? Absolutely, but let the conviction be on a more secure premise.
I have no idea of her guilt or innocence but after the number of miscarriages of justice over cot deaths, the post office scandal and numerous other cases, it is not surprising that people question such verdicts. There seems "defensive practice" in both social services (forced adoption on the slightest excuse) and the same in the justice system. It is basically about covering their own backs.
If there is one shred of doubt there has to be an investigation or even a re trial asap..scapegoat for management of the ward ?
I HAVE NEVER BELEIVED FOR ONE SECOND THAT THIS YOUNG WOMAN WAS GUILTY OF ANYTHING. THE N H S IS WELL SCHOOLED AT COVER UPS, something needs to be done for this person, before she spends 23yrs or more and then say, sorry about that
She will spend more than 23 years locked up, she will never get out. Don't wish for her to be let out, what if she gets another nursing job?
I don't think she's guilty at all, the trial was speculation, no hard evidence
And you heard all the evidence did you? You were in court were you? What do you base your expert opinion on?
Yes I was in court, I heard everything so based on what I heard she is not what the tabloids make her out to be, so yes. Imo she is innocent.
Well, thanks for your expert resolution - why did we even bother with a trial and expert evidence when we had you to give us the result immediately?!
@@Bevan69 I don’t believe you, so, rather like you are calling out the prosecution evidence, I’m calling you out as a liar……….
@@any1younger You didn't have to be in court to know that the jury heard flawed evidence
I always thought there was something not quite right about this girls trial!.
It seems the media had her convicted long before the actual verdict!.
You were there were you...
This “girl” … this child murderer , just take a long look at the evidence, you’re a f*cking sick joke
The media did not convict her 'long before the actual verdict'. The media confined itself only to reporting what was said each day in court, without comment of any kind. The reporting was wholly fair.
_"It seems the media had her convicted long before the actual verdict!."_ Nothing unusual in that, unfortunately. If you read up about most serious miscarriages of justice you'll find the media usually do their best to help state prosecutors put their victims away.
@@PatrickMcAseythank you. Let's not forget the amount of evidence Lucy had in her home. Even some of the babies clothes. That is called taking a Trophy serial killer use them to remind them of thier crime
There is a hierarchy of blame and bullying in the NHS. Nurses take the blame for Drs mistakes and non clinical staff get blamed for nurses mistakes. As far as I know Letby was bullied, was it possible she was the whistleblower? Not saying release her at all hut consider if someone is still out there posing a risk to babies.
RIP little ones.
If there is any evidence that Letby blew the whistle regarding the actions of other medical staff, the argument may be valid. However evidence was presented that at least one doctor expressed concerns regarding her conduct at Chester hospital. Before considering whether a third party is involved, a review of evidence is essential.
The legal system is failing the public! Was there any crime committed or just hospital management wanting a way of deflecting their poor performance.
This case needs a full review now and not in 5 years time.
What a biased system when the defendant can't get expert witnesses but the prosecution can!
Don't know if she's guilty or not but I don't believe they proved it beyond the reasonable doubt.
Umm...a jury won't convict if there is reasonable doubt.
Must try harder.
"conspiracy theory" is now being used so widely and loosely that it's another phrase that is losing all meaning.
She's been used as a scapegoat, it is clear there is a cover up because they need someone to blame. The system is far from perfect.
The hospitals reputation is more important than what happens to a nurse
I don't know why but something about this has never sat well with me.
Always knowing and now Having experience of how, practicioners in health and social care have a culture of blaming ', framing, and gaslighting other people including patients I wouldn't put it past all involved to have made someone the scapegoat of a mass failure.
No way she did it. I don’t even think the babies were even murdered
Find it strange how the death rate was skyrocketing when she was on the ward and now its back to what is considered normal after she was arrested. Lost count of all the serial killers that said I didn't do it yet after they were arrested all the murders ceased and bodies stopped appearing.
Research further. CoCH was upgraded to level 2, then back to level 1 after she was taken off ward. Of course the death rates dropping coincided.
@@John-p7i5g true but you could argue chicken or egg did it go down because it went from 2 to 1 or because she was no longer on the ward
They quite literally convicted her on the basis of a probability chart, no direct evidence like DNA or cctv etc.
Wow!
Hope the truth is revealed soon
She was the only person in the room with the victims when somebody injected oxygen into their blood. That is a 100% probability unless the babies did it themselves.
...in discussions of the supposed air embolisms, witnesses tried to pinpoint the precise shade of skin discoloration of some of the babies. In Myers’s cross-examinations, he noted that witnesses’ memories of the rashes had changed, becoming more specific and florid in the years since the deaths. But this debate seemed to distract from a more relevant objection: the concern with skin discoloration arose from the 1989 paper. An author of the paper, Shoo Lee, one of the most prominent neonatologists in Canada, has since reviewed summaries of each pattern of skin discoloration in the Letby case and said that none of the rashes were characteristic of air embolism. He also said that air embolism should never be a diagnosis that a doctor lands on just because other causes of sudden collapse have been ruled out: “That would be very wrong-that’s a fundamental mistake of medicine.”
I never believed her guilt. Her friends have stood by her.
She too middle class, white, blue eyed i guess 😂
Not one shred of actual evidence, everything they had is circumstantial.
But she actually admitted the crimes in her own diary....
From what I've seen I'd agree. With the exception of the confession she wrote and left in her house. Although false confessions from people are surprisingly common. Especially in regards to people with mental health problems.
Wouldn't surprise me if she did do it. Also wouldn't surprise me if it's an NHS cover up. Definitely something that needs extensive independent investigation though.
@@mitchhills4747she wrote "I did it because I'm not good enough" amongst other non sensible ramblings. She didn't exactly write a detailed confession
Circumstantial evidence is evidence. It's just not direct evidence. That does not make it not evidence. The observed motion of the planets in the sky is circumstantial evidence that the Earth is not the centre of the solar system, the Sun is. That doesn't make it "not evidence". We all want a "smoking gun" I guess and then we can know for sure any conviction is sound. But there is evidence here to say she is guilty, like the notes, the behaviour, the fact she was always on shift. We just have to trust that jurors weigh the evidence, even if it is circumstantial.
@AleaIactaEst2009 Couldn't be more right. Most evidence in convictions is circumstantial not direct.
This presenter seems to come across as more concerned about people's perception of the judiciary being outstanding than it actually being outstanding. It's quite sinister to be ok throwing away the key regardless of guilt as long as people's confidence remains.
Convicted on what amounts to quite shaky statistical analysis of shift patterns ect, and it would appear not the most dynamic of defence lawyers. It seems quite unfair Lucy is not allowed an appeal
I would urge anyone who doubts Lucy Letby’s conviction to listen to the hours of court testimony read out by Jon on the UA-cam channel Crime Scene 2 Courtroom. Jon was present in the courtroom for most of the trial.
What is reported in the newspapers or on news channels does not reflect the depth and breadth of evidence given in court. It is Letby’s own testimony that is particularly revealing.
No but her testimony, did she admit to it after being confronted to such an army of testimonies?
@@BoominGameyou mean like Dr Shipman, Peter Sutcliffe etc?
I don't get how people can doubt it ffs. She was literally on shift every time a baby died/got injured! Hutchins is right that now, there's more emotion intervening with the judiciary system (which imo has a lot to do with wokeism), mainly due to media manipulation. However, in Letby's case, all the evidence adds up, albeit mainly circumstantial.
He only reads out the prosecution section. A good barrister can make anyone look guity, especially against someone who cannot afford their own defense barrister and is relying on free legal aid
@@Jessicacaca00there is enough of evidence against it’s not possible there every time, I mean ever time she was on the floor a child die, they did a case analysis before she joined after she joined, there is also proof she gave a child insulin that’s why she got caught, because traces were found in the child and the child did not need insulin. Many doctors reported on her, but it was ignored.
For some reason I doubted this case right from the start, something is very wrong here.
Sounds like they just wanted a conviction
They ALWAYS do, and they NEVER want to admit they're wrong when they get it so badly, and obviously wrong.
and the person convicted must tick the right boxes, so as not to offend some of the uk's communities
@@GBPaddlingwho are ‘they’? If there was some massive conspiracy involving the highest levels of the CPS and NHS wouldn’t Ms Letby have been found dead next to a detailed confession? There’s this incredibly powerful group that chooses to trust 12 random jurors? Were the jurors in on it too?! Who wasn’t involved?
The ward was understaffed , overcrowded and unable to provide adequate care
For once they catch a real baddy they want to show doing something about it.
She was clearly guilty. Listen to the trial like the JURY did..
I did think when Letb6 was first arrested that it sounded more like another hospital management patients deaths scandal that was being blamed on a single scapegoat.
And you turned out to be wrong.
@@steponfrog7265 It's extremely unlikely a neonatal nurse would ever be scapegoated for such horrific and distressing murders. If there had been a dodgy doctor involved, there would surely be plenty of clues...?
oh how wrong you where.. all the babys who died where in HER care at the time..
@steponfrog7265• 👍🏿
@@iallyl3877 100% wrong, she was only on shift for 7 out of 13 deaths, she wasnt even looking after all 7. When you look at all emergence incidents on the unit that didnt result in death there is no correlation with Letby at all. Even though she put in far more hrs than any other nurse on the unit...
PEOPLE SHOULD NOT HAVE CONFIDENCE IN THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM. There have been many occasions that they knew they had got it wrong but refused to back down or allow appeal against conviction. The jury system is innately flawed simply because people are fallible.
Because of the high profile case, yes.
Quite right. There are so many areas of the 'law' that are loose and open to misuse and interpretation that a real saint could easily be 'proved' guilty!
@@gunlokman I SO HAPPY THAT THE GENERAL PUBLIC IS NOW WAKING UP TO THE TRUE NATURE OF THE JUSTICE SYSTEM !!!!THAT REFUSES IN MULTIPLE CASES TO GRANT APPEALS EVEN WHEN THERE ARE STRONG EVIDENCE EMERGING THAT A PERSON WAS WRONGLY CRIMINALISED
@@gunlokmanthats the way the government like it.
They love grey areas, it allows them to exploit and abuse the people "legally"
Do you have a better solution?
Thank goodness! I didn't know how any jury could honestly find her guilty given the way the 'evidence' was presented. I suspect hospital failings and picking a scapegoat.
@@dawnatkinson7704 how can injecting insulin into baby’s be a “hospital failing” you people are insane
Hospital failings that completely coincided with her presence on the wards, that weren't there before she was employed, and ceased to be after she was arrested? OK
@@scootaymildo1070 this.. funny how babys stopped dieing once she was arrested
And she had a diary in her home full of disturbing things about killing people
@@anxietyexpertwahida She had nothing of the sort.
Few can understand the duality of psychopaths. We expect the bad guys to look the part, black hats, twirling moustaches, but psychopaths are more dangerous than that, and the further confusing factor is that their 'good side' (think of Gollum arguing with his dark side) can be, and usually is, very convincing of an innocent. They're convincing con artists, whose brains, time after time, are wired to enjoy a secretive sense of power & enjoyment in causing pain. In this case, wallowing in watching on and apparently offering support to the grieving parents, stealing the limelight as if she also was the victim. Jealousy is often a factor lurking - parents had something she, with a psychopath's sense of isolation, would never attain with their loving relationship. It is not necessarily the killing they exult in, it's the ongoing destruction they can enjoy long after. People who did not see the complex evidence, see her reactions should not be offering silly opinions. One thing I can advise - if you look in a killer's eyes, you know what you're seeing - you feel the chill. Psychopaths are always secretive, sneaky destroyers of others' lives, they will always believe they are the injured party & most people are incapable of seeing them as they are. They are arch manipulators and in my experience are able to skilfully exploit doubt and dubious sense of morality, as well as others' inability of recall - pathological liars to the end they do make mistakes but can charm others to forget their instincts. The evidence of the post-its is intriguing, but lying as much as they do is exhausting, they will always reveal themselves, but equally know how to skilfully 'explain' away those revelations. I've met a few, and in the end you truly know what they are.
Its amazing how just bc a killer is continuing to protest her innocence, that could so easily influence people to believe she is innocent. Many experts believe the evidence is overwhelming, and common sense - letby was the common factor in evey single death. That many babies DO NOT die in quick succession of eachother with ONE common factor. But these few "experts" saying theres not enough evidence, reject common sense in this case. If lucy didn't look like she does, the world would believe in what she did to those babies.
the same happened to a nurse in the netherlendss and was overturned after 7 year
@@mrsthatcher9815did that nurse stalk her patients? Did she keep the patient's dead babies belongings as a souvenir? Was she writing about darkness in her? Were babies found with deliberately injections of air in their bloodstream? Babies were 'collapsing' then when out of Lucys care, they were recovering. Back in Lucys care, they were suddenly collapsing again. The doctor in the case said "babies don't go from being stable into a cardiorespiratory situation within minutes"
@@laremabella all the post mortems were cleared of unnatural causes of death
@@laremabella you need to watch the ch.5 doc' on it
@@mrsthatcher9815 it's natural causes if there's no substances in their body, it was air. But it's not natural that they had that air in them. One baby was found with air in his spine. The doctor said that was not normal and it had to have been injected. Why do u think she used air? It wasnt as traceable as a substance
Maybe her innocence is assumed because she is middle class.no one doubted Beverly Alitt.
She is a scapegoat
I fear so.
Celebrating the justice system this week for the swift action it has taken? Sure! If you want to live in a version of North Korea with worse weather.
Motive? - none
Criminal history - none
Previous harm to others - none.
Convicted on:
* statistics that we're completely worthless.
* lies by colleagues who were obviously jealous of her ability (both men)
* and the insecure ramblings of a woman's personal diary!
This should terrify every woman everywhere!
I was in agreement with your list until you had to turn it into a "men vs women" thing. Like a man was never framed for anything? Were the Birmingham Six in jail for 16 years because they were women?
If you actually believe the doctors/men motive to frame LL was because they were "jealous" and "because she was a woman", then you should get help.
The Letby case was based upon wholly circumstantial evidence, not to par, and was a very emotive narrative - which is to be expected when it’s babies involved, and a nurse. It’s a dangerous precedent to set and the KC’s words are actually quite damning.
For the people saying ‘she did this, and that; wrote this and that’.. that’s not beyond reasonable doubt evidence. I hope that one day, the people not hellbent on keeping the judicial system stringent and proper, never have to rely on is being so if they are behind the dock, wrongly accused.
He clearly didn't read the medical expert reports and has no clue about air embolism induced death in babies, she is guilty beyond reasonable doubt
The supposed medical expert was a 15 years retired general paediatrician - not a neonatologist with any knowledge of current practices. He speculated on possible methods babies may have been murdered. The author of the article he quoted about air emboli disagrees with the flawed application in this case. There is more than enough grounds for revisiting this trial if you listen to actual experts
@@noooowaydaddyoHe is an experienced doctor, his report was supported by 5 different doctors from with narrow subspecialty such as such as neonatal neuroradiologist, he isn't the only expert involved Dr Bohin who is a practicing neonatologist also was an expert witness, the defence didn't have any expert witnesses to offer an alternative to view. I am not against an appeal I just don't think there will be an alternative outcome
@@turanasan5368 being an experienced doctor doesn't automatically qualify you as an expert in another field of medicine. The defence did have an expert witness, but for reasons many can't fathom he wasn't called to the stand to give a reasoned argument. Possibly because the defence incorrectly assumed the garbage being presented by the prosecution wouldn't hold up, but we can only speculate on that. I think the outcome will be quite different if a retrial is permitted. Read the Private Eye special reports if you haven't already
I've never been comfortable with this conviction.
it must have been an immigrant right?
Luke Mitchell is innocent, he has been in jail for 20 years since he was 16 , his dog has died his gran has died in that time and the boy was convicted with no evidence against him. he needs help
Irrelevant to this subject and your comment provides zilch evidence - just emotional, immature waffle.
@@C.Hughes-Lloyd Fyi, he is saying to look into it, not to draw a conclusion, careful: Summa ius, summa iniuria.
You have no idea if he is innocent or not. That's a fact.
Luke Mitchell is guilty, Lucy Letby is also guilty, look at the evidence against them.
My friend went to prison for life and was innocent, he's out now though
There're so many issues with the case. Yet, the most important being,
everyone believed before the evidence was offered she was guilty.
Even her defence team didn't believe in her. Everyone was certain of her guilt,
due to the time it took to bring the case together. Everyone trusted the system... even the jury.
The press were hushed up. So there was no other possible outcome or verdict.
She was not the suspect... she did it. The trial was just to prove it. That was everyones job there.
She was not the only nurse on duty. They left her out of a series of other fatalities on the ward.
The note was only written after days of interrogation... when they hounded her constantly,
that she was guilty. They literally broke her. No one knows for sure if she did or didn't,
end life prematurely. She did work almost exclusively on a ward filled with premature babies,
weighing sometimes only a single pound. There were too many complex medical procedures,
( which are open to interpretation ) that were too complex for a jury to understand.
The entire case against her is deeply problematic.
Exactly.
I always thought it was a bit weird using circumstantial evidence based on statistics for something this serious.
Gaslighting
I spent 6 months in ICU with my daughter (23 weeks) and many times caught the nurses almost double dosing her meds. Apparently that would have killed her. I thought If every nurse had dosed immediately on shift change (without me there to say to check with the previous nurse, who hadn't updated the notes) she would have been dead many times over. ... Food for thought.
another reason why I am childfree by choice
@@beaulieuc8910 You're partly child free due to potential NHS incompetency?
liar
@@beaulieuc8910 idiot
Nobody is disputing the fact that there was at least one rotten nurse at Chester hospital
The criminal justice system is not fit for purpose 😮
Does seem strange that she would write in her diary that she killed them!!! And all that paperwork she took home concerning the babies that died. When questioned about the paperwork she suggested that it ended up at her home under her bed by accident?? Looking for the parents of the dead babies on Facebook. Hanging around parents who were spending time with their dying babies. If she's not guilty she's weird.
Weird does not equate to guilt
@@noooowaydaddyo I'm well aware of that, only making a comment.
Strange that when it comes to these kind of cases, or the recent post office, Windrush and other injustices of the last 20 years, many people have strong opinions about convictions which lack safe or solid evidence. And yet, when it comes to more than 10,000 convictions for historical abuse between 2000 and 2020 that were made with `0` evidence or even corroboration, everybody is quite satisfied that they must be guilty. Just on the accuser's say-so a person is convicted of these SOs. Tears and a strong story on social media takes the place of absolutely any evidence. No burden of proof laid on the prosecution. No innocent until proven guilty for these cases. Perhaps one of the biggest injustices in British history is whitewashed by both the public and the government as a mass offering to re-establish faith in a system that covered institutional abuse from the church and the rich to politicians and the BBC. Unsavoury, sordid content from these supposed cases are pored over in every dark detail in the papers and yet the idea of having the courage to question its truth could make one look as though one is defending the actions of the supposed and presumed guilty party. There is no true justice in Britain, only politics. Those that know, know. It really is an unfair system we have in the UK.
Everyone conveniently forgetting BEVERLY ALLIT ?!
Surely, if we had judges of any intellectual ability, then the judge in this case should have been raising questions, before passing a sentence.
Far too many people, have or are serving sentences that they are not guilty of.
not in this case Remember Lucy Letbys diary entries. Guilty
I smelt a rat as soon as soon as this case hit the headlines.
yea that rat was called lucy
@iallyl3877 you obviously haven't looked at the non existing evidence. Thank god you're not on the jury.
@@JRMTZD every baby that died was in her care.. I have looked at more than you think, would you trust her with your baby?
@@iallyl3877 The problem with that is that it is not statistically improbable at all that somebody would be there at the time of all the murders.
Conspiracy cranks often do
No system of trial will be absolutely safe. It is in the nature of things. Just as the guilty can escape, the innocent can be condemned. All we can do is ensure we have swift remedies of redress.
This is what happens when people in authority think they are untouchable and their opinion (or the outcome they want) trumps hard evidence and a fair hearing. It’s shocking. We saw it in the Post Office, and we’re seeing it in the recent ‘online social media thought police’ charges.
Hitchens is totally correct. This conviction and in fact the way the trial was run brings shame on the medical and legal professions, the police, and the judicial system. If this had been investigated properly from the start, without the false statistics and with a review of the unit and the medical notes by a panel of properly qualified Neonatologists this misscarriage of justice would never have occured.
The truth is that there were NO MURDERS but these poor babies died in a totally dysfunctional, under-resourced, badly led and managed unit which was bound to fail its sick patients. These babies should never have been in that unit as it was so clearly unsafe and THAT was the problem. Lucy Letby was a convenient scapegoat for a lot of powerful professional people to save themselves from disgrace. I suspect their moment is coming.....
Well Said
And your reason for stating as a fact that there were no murders is ...?
Read the above more carefully this time.....
So if the babies died as a result of a "dysfunctional, under-resourced, badly led and managed unit" why were the deaths reported to the police as suspicious and why did the police agree and bring charges? Why did the state decide to prosecute and why did the jury come to a guilty verdict? In your version, it would seem the whole legal system is a "dysfunctional, under-resourced, badly led and managed unit"
To answer your first question please read the last 4 lines of my post again and again until you understand it.
And yes the legal system is totally dysfunctional especially with regard to how technical and scientific evidence is used and assessed in the courts where judges, barristers and especially jury have no clue as to what the evidence means but the jurors are swayed by the play-acting skills of sharp barristers who are there for the money. Any more questions??
We need a better Justice System in this country they something wrong with it
Hmmmm, I see an early release from prison, a massive compensation pay out, a series of high-powered media interviews and a book.
She's rotting there
It isn't. The Court of Appeal said that it isn't. Hitchens isn't a lawyer, let alone a judge. He hasn't heard the appeal.
I'll admit I was never very happy about the court case.
This is a confusing interview. He says he doesn't know if she's innocent, didn't attend the trial, but he did read other people's articles and based on that and his feelings, he thinks there should be a retrial! What the actual F!
That's Peter Hitchens for you
But it got you to click, and that's all that matters to them.
Using the deaths of those babies to make money.
No it’s understandable. What he is saying is that he does not know the intimate details of the prosecution case against Lucy Letby but he does know that a significant body of evidence giving a counter argument was not presented in court, neither to the counsel of Lucy Letby nor to the jury. This alone makes the process unreliable.
Let me explain. This isn’t a situation where Lucy is guilty or innocent. It’s the evidence used to convict Lucy which is questioned, in short people like Peter Hitchens question if a crime even took place. That is the crux of the matter.
@@epincionso agree with you. I think Peter Hitchen’s haters are out
People have doubts about Lucy Letby’s guilt. They need resolved because just maybe she’s innocent and the blame lays elsewhere. I’m just amazed non of her superiors got held accountable for anything.
I think she was a scapegoat for an incompetent NHS
@@joforrest1 Exactly 👍
@@NauticalNightmareDeep I worked as a RN in the NHS for 20 years, it is a terrible place full of bullies. They are more than happy to throw you to the wolves to save their own skin ... Glad I left
I think you've caught an important issue there. "... maybe ...the blame lies elsewhere." You, like most people, assume there is blame. That it's just a question of on whom we pin it. If these many deaths were not originally thought to be unnatural, do they have a common cause? Maybe some were due to faults, not necessarily all by the same person. Is LL responsible for any of them?
Once you make the assumption that they are all linked and have a common cause, then, and only then, could statistical coincidence come into play. (Even if they had done the statistics rigorously.) But can you, should you, retrospectively make that assumption?
@@Merlin3189 The plumber who gave evidence suggested it was an unsanitary environment. Many variables. End of the day they just pinned it on Letby for convenience.
Lucy Letby is guilty as sin, KC Prosecutor Nick Johnson proved it without a doubt the Jury thought the same, Peter Hitchens has lost his mind.