She may have made mistakes but I don't think she deliberately tried to murder those babies, like you, I have my doubts. There's a lot of evidence that the hospital had some serious failings at the senior management level and Lucy was a convenient scapegoat that shifted attention away from them and onto her. This hospital needs to be subject to a thorough public inquiry by the government and all the senior staff (some contracted who have since left and gone on to work at other babies hospitals) need to be held to account. If they had called in the police after the 2nd death, the rest could have been avoided maybe, regardless of the causes. They chose not to bring in the police after two suspicious deaths which is in and of itself a CRIME. You ALWAYS bring in the police in ANY suspicious sudden death. That's the law.
Lucy Letby is in my mind most certainly innocent. She was a dedicated nurse who took extra shifts and that explains the only common factor between all the baby deaths. That she was on shift during the seven deaths. And her journal details not a confession but anguish that she must be to blame for her incompetence when in fact many factors such as understaffing, inexperienced junior doctors, general levels of cleanliness, and condition, or lack, of certain equipment provide more compelling explanations than an angel of death stalking the wards. None of her nursing colleagues or friends think she did this. And her conviction mirrors similar miscarriages of justice where nurses were wrongly convicted of harming patients and later exonerated.
Another overlooked details - besides the misinterpretation of statistics - is that people do tend to die in the earlier hours - exactly when she happened to be working. It happens worldwide. It is a statistical fact.
@@aldecruz9146 Correct. And especially if they are premature, low birthweight babies. One could argue its amazing that some of these tiny fragile and vulnerable babies ever survive. Thank God they do ... but don't blame a hardworking dedicated nurse if they dont - first look at the care provided by TV celebrity doctors.
What's needed in the Lucy Letby case is a dedicated investigative journalist to look into this huge travesty of justice. Something like Panorama. Irrespective of her innocence or guilt, what is strikingly apparent - to any objective observer - is that her trial was an absolute fiasco from the start to the finish. I find it downright scandalous that this could happen in the UK. Lucy Letby seems like a younger version of myself. I'm now retired after working as a senior clinical nurse for decades in hospital environments. I have a Masters Degree in Nursing and a PhD in Psychology (I feel the need to state this to show Im not stupid as some critics of my view would no doubt suggest). I was a hardworking and dedicated nurse who put in a lot of unpaid overtime for decades. Our adversarial legal system does not differentiate between truth and lies. Here, an ageing judge, a weak defence team and a police/prosecution team allowed absolute garbage (so-called "evidence") to be put forward to convince that Lucy Letby was a mass murderer!!! It beggars belief!!!. If you are at all convinced of the guilty verdict, you really do need to go and look at the problems with the evidence as judged by experts in their respective fields (statisticians, biochemists, pathologists, nurses, psychologists, doctors and the like) - check out "scienceontrial" website. For anyone who really does believe Lucy Letby has been proven guilty, you owe it to your yourself to be better informed, And, please, don't accuse people like me of causing further grief to grieving parents, not unless you spent more time in your life than I did caring for and supporting such people. I too have great compassion for the parents. They, above all others, deserve the truth.
That’s the best response Iv ever read on Lucy and the trail. As a nurse myself I think she needs a retrial. My heart breaks for the parents of the poor babies but they deserve the truth too. This is the most accurate answer/opinion Iv read!! 🙌
@@mdaddy775 Quite simply. The doctors targetted an innocent nurse to cover up the baby injuries and deaths - to protect themselves. This nurse had complained about them.
They certainly did not prove she was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Citizens of England should be concerned that she was put in prison without a chance to appeal.
I've always had my doubts about this conviction. I know it's not scientific, but l just don't get the evil vibe like l do from Rose West or Myra Hindley. Also l totally believed her friend in the BBC documentary who said she just knew Lucy was not capable of such abhorrence. Either she's genuinely mistaken or she is correct. She was in no way trying to cover up anything.
When someone doesn't seem to fit the crime especially when they are women the police and press simply say aha that proves they were cunning psychopaths as I have said from day one Witch Trial of the 21st Century
She's just been called to a retrial in the case of one of the babies. Not granted a retrial - called to a retrial. It is totally unrelated to any appeal she might be granted.
He can't talk about Lucy's trial any more because of the retrial of one case of attempted murder, so that means no news channels can talk about all the other cases which are keeping her in prison.
@@MrAn0n She didn't write a letter or confession! It's crazy how many people think that. It's actually embarrassing. Do your research! Preferably away from mainstream media articles.
@@MrAn0n She confessed to nothing. The words, 'baby' and 'babies, weren' tmentioned in her scribblings. If they had, they would have been made much of it in court, which they weren't.
It always amazes me that ordinary people decide the outcome of a trial which is about the law, is it not? To prove my point, get a bunch of random people and put them in charge of a ship going from UK to the US. See how far they manage to get.
He entered the case with all knowledge of nurses and so on redacted from him. He looked at every single case and was asked to find red flags, which he did. He had no prior knowledge of who was on shift, who was caring for what baby or any details other than the medical notes and in some cases post mortem notes and coroner reports. You're changing the facts to suit your illogical beliefs.
@@BoshSoldierCarphe used a 1989 paper to diagnose a GAS embolism as opposed to an air embolism. His advice seems shaky at best when far more established and specialised medical researchers cannot corroborate his theories.
I admire Peter very much for his very eloquent and reasoned view. If you are to be put away for life then the process and evidence needs to be 100pc correct. In this case it needs to be reviewed.
Hes not even been charged with a crime, all thats happened is an ex girlfriend from decades ago has accused him of rape. It disgusts me that the press and state are acting so aggressively on something that hasnt even got enough evidence to take to court.
The more I look into this case, the more convinced I am that Lucy Letby is completely innocent of any wrong doing. Surely if there is this much doubt, then it needs looked at again, if Lucy is otherwise going to spend the rest of her life in prison.
The Russel Brand /Jonathan Ross event was simply dreadful. Poor Mr Sachs died not terribly long after that - imagine the horror that a true, gentle man would suffer, knowing his granddaughter was being trolled as a loose young woman on mainstream radio/telly- and they thought it was hilarious. Simply inexcusable.
Indeed, that was a big red flag for me during the trial. How can you have a doctor and central witness anonymous. Apparently the reason for that was because he was married and romantically involved with Lucy, so presumably to protect his family from the media publicity. He decided to have an affair though so he shouldn't be afforded any special treatment. The public, and families who used that hospital and the victims families in particular, have a right to know that doctor's name and identity. It's in the public interest.
Worth mentioning that the once also wayward Sach's granddaughter forgave Brand (though not Ross who has not apologized) for that granted shameful episode. He apologized profoundly and later paid for her to enter rehab. An act which she believes likely saved her life.
He payed for her rehab for his own benefit. If she had died from a drug overdose or suicide he would have been blamed. An entirely selfish act by Brand.
I have always had concerns about the fact that there was never any proof that this girl was guilty of ending these, what were always, very fragile lives.
Well said. The case was purely circumstantial evidence that the prosecution used. The burden of proof fell well short IMO on her conviction. Like you say, no motive was established, no real scientific evidence linking her to every death beyond any doubt, and the 'evidence' from her home the so-called 'diary confessions' were ambigious, taken out of context to fit their time-line and narrative and were wide open to intepretation as many professional experts have commented.
I have an interest and background in criminal prosecution trials and followed the Lucy Letby trial with great interest and have been following the retrial. The evidence that she was prosecuted on and found guilty on was circumstantial. I don't believe burden proof was sufficientlly met in the court. Interestingly, the prosecution used Lucy's diary's and scrawled writings on post-it note and pages found in her diary AFTER the events which were presented in court as key evidence of her guilt. And whilst on the surface it does look like an admission of guilt by Lucy where you see her write "I did this, I am evil" and similar remarks she made, when you look at the writings in a proper context you can see they are not the writing of a woman in her right mind. She was clearly under tremendous stress, conflicted and probably having some kind of psychotic mental breakdown episode at the time of those writings. She writes on the same page, "I'm not good enough" "I will never have a husband, a family or children" and other remarks which suggest guilt and regret. Those writings are irratic and seem to be written over the top of her original writing about her being cleared of any wrong-doing and expressing her sadness that the babies died. I read with an interest a professional psychiatrist's analysis of those writings (independent not part of the trial proceedings) who expressed the valid professional mental health opinion that just because Lucy (and people in general accused of crimes) write things that appear to be an admission of guilt, it doesn't automatically follow they are admissions of guilt or evidence in itself that a person committed any crime. And really, in Lucy's case it would have been wise to spend more time on those writings in the original trial (and now in the re-trial) to get a professional witness on the defense side to analysis the writings from an evidence prospective in proper context. ie to assess Lucy's mental health state at the time of the writings, and the events that happening in her life at the time she made the writings. And from the prosecution side, they need to show a jury that the writings are an admission of guilt beyond any doubt and that Lucy's motivation for writing those things wasn't due a psychotic episode or stressful external factors leading her to basically conclude that she MUST somehow be guilty and so evil because everyone was saying she was. Another interesting thing from an evidence prospective the prosecution relied on is the fact Lucy looked up babies names on Facebook and social media, together with the names of parents, as the deaths occurred and after. The prosecution asserts this is evidence Lucy was getting some perverse pleasure from seeing the grief of the babies parents and/or monitoring their reactions and what was being said by the parents, relatives and friends online, perhaps so she could see if she was being accused or suspected. The media reporting and the prosecution asserted Lucy's behaviour was strange behaviour and sinister in doing those searches and monitoring the victims social media posts. I would argue it would be strange if a nurse DIDN"T do that. Of course, as a nurse on a ward where babies have died she's going to be very interested in what the parents think and are saying, particularly since she herself and all the other staff were being investigating through disciplinary hearings in the hospital to find out what caused the deaths and if the staff or hospital were negligent in their duties of care or made mistakes. I personally think a lot of mistakes were made in that hospital and on that ward in particular. We know beyond any doubt the hospital's senior management is at least partially responsible for some of the deaths (irrespective of whether Lucy or someone else deliberately or accientally caused the babies deaths) because they had NUMEROUS warnings and opportunities after the first 2-3 deaths to bring in the police and carry out a proper thorough criminal investigation and chose not to. And they allowed Lucy Letby to remain on the ward again after she had previously been removed from it. So to me, the hospital's management has a lot to answer for and shares a significant amount of responsibility and blame for not acting earlier and in the appropriate manner. We know the NHS is under-staffed, lacks sufficient funding and there's some serious problems with the running of NHS hospitals and facilities both in front-line services and at the senior management level. It's entirely possible Lucy could be a scapegoat here for a catalogue of mistakes and errors made by the hospital. Coming back to the evidence that returned a guilty verdict on one count for Lucy (based purely on circumstantial evidence) not only do I think the burden of proof hasn't been met on such a serious charge which carries a severe prison sentence, but that Lucy has also been found guilty in the court of public opinion due to the intense and sensationalised media coverage of this. Lucy is hardly likely to get a fair re-trial now in this country as I doubt any juror hasn't been exposed to the media coverage and portrayal of Lucy as some evil baby serial killer and criminal mastermind who came up with all these different ways of killing babies and making it look like accidents. It's a pity the UK doesn't have the lie detector tests the US court system uses. Although lie detection tests are not infalible and can't be relied upon to secure convictions in a court, they are none the less useful in establishing the honesty and credibility of witnesses and defendants. It would be interesting to see if Lucy could pass a series of lie detector tests on each of the allegations she's accused of and been charged with. If she passed a number of those tests it would create cracks on the prosecutions argument and lend her some credibility that she's been scapegoated and stitched up for failings of the ward, doctors and hospital. And finally, one interesting thing for me was the TV doctor who was at the center of this trial and who gave a recent interview in which the interviewer claimed families of the victims were saying he was a hero for being persistent in complaining about Lucy. Interestingly, that doctor broke down suddenly in the interview and started crying. Then quickly composed himself and said he's not a hero and only doing what was right and that he wished he could get the government to carry out a proper inquiry into the hospital and the failings with senior NHS contracted management. People should make of that what they will.
@@changwillneverdie9378 Ravi Jarayam who in a proper investigation should have been considered suspect. Not saying he was guilty. Just a suspect like the rest. Experts have said.
@@bitabyte I absolutely agree after reading every single court trial transcript now which are available on UA-cam in audio format.. The whole thing stinks of a cover up by the doctors and hospital. Imagine if the hospital had just installed CCTV cameras in each ward over the babies cots and monitored them with weekly reviews on nurse and staff performance, probably none of this would have happened! They also had no proper procedures in place regarding supervision of nurses, ie two nurses (one senior always) present when procedures were carried out on babies often documents for meds/readings not being co-signed by two nurses, the wrong size tubes used in babies, some serious mistakes made including 1 baby left without fluids for 4 hours which Lucy herself raised as an official complaint! No weekly nursing/staff meetings to establish any problems in the team or wards etc.. it just looks like very poor management.
Talk to comedians or ex comedians. The Triggernometry guys said two years ago why they would never have Russel brand on their show. Everyone in the entertainment industry knew.
Yes, but let's not talk about that. Let's just argue about whether he's guilty or innocent. If we stick to debating the merits (or absence thereof) of the allegations that have been made against Brand, we can ignore the much bigger and more important issue of the legality (or absence thereof) of British Intelligence orchestrating a smear campaign against an independent broadcaster with the sole object of preventing him from exposing government and corporate corruption.
No, she is now guilty until proven innocent. She has had her day in court, and an appeal does not give her innocent status once again. She can only try to prove the guilty verdict was wrong
@@thecarpetman7687Well I listen to GB news and I understand the process , It is a waste of time they are not going to reverse on this case , in any way shape or form ,
@@thecarpetman7687I understand what the person is saying. She's been convicted, so her just applying for an appeal does not suddenly mean she is innocent until proven guilty again. I think this is what the other person meant to convey. Although everyone is innocent until proven guilty, it's completely different if you have already been convicted, irrespective of whether you have lodged an appeal. The onus now is actually to prove her innocence as she's been convicted and an appeal would only be successful if there was a law technically, or new and compelling evidence. Exceptionally unlikely since she's already got another Court date for next year
@@thenoahzacky1 I don't understand people's problems with circumstantial evidence. Shipman was convicted on circumstantial evidence. Loads of people are convicted purely on circumstantial evidence because it is evidence. Even if the prosecution has any foresnic evidence a case is still built with circumstantial evidence.
@@thenoahzacky1 I'm not saying this doesn't happen, but the police would not have investigated for years and the trial would not have lasted as long as it did. I've had colleagues lie in statements. I wasn't send down for countless who life tarrifs. Her appeal will be rejected, unless their is "new and substantial evidence", or a law technicality
That was because each of the 17 accusations was examined separately. A jury is composed of 12 people ... they could be bricklayers, accountants, whatever ... not scientists. Hence, there is an 'expert witness' who explains things to the court. The 'expert witness' in this case wasn't a scientist, he was a doctor who retired in 2009 and whose 'opinions' in a previous case were thrown out by the judge as worthless. She was convicted primarily on the 'opinion' of this man and some very dubious statistics. Scientists ( including phd's and professors ) are expressing very serious doubts regarding the information that the jury were presented with and therefore based their verdict on.
Perhaps it was because the evidence was weak and convoluted and relied heavily on 'expert' witness testimony that it took so long to decide? After a 5 year investigation, the best evidence they could come up with was a rota, a post it note and some handover notes.
It's a logical fallacy that you had to be there. I wasn't there at Fred West's trial, but as they dig up 12 bodies from his back yard it was conclusive. We don't have to be present at any trial to get the details because they're widely reported. Of course I don't know what the jury discussed ! But I do know that their verdict was based at what information they were presented with ... and that information has been challenged by some very eminent people. For precision, the trial was in Manchester, not Scotland. @phoebecaulfield4062
@phoebecaulfield4062 because a great deal of the evidence now available was not heard, for example the extensive statistical and scientific analysis available on science on trial. Feel free to read through that, it might give you a more balanced perspective. I was adamantly in camp guilty until I read it. As a legal professional, once I have seen something I am unable to argue against I have to hold my hands up. And I could not argue with the science. Hope that answers your question.
17 deaths over the period of time. Lucy was on duty for under half. Fact. But youve been told by the media trial there was 7 deaths and she was on duty for 7. So wrong its criminal. Two other nurses were on duty for 6 each of the deaths. Did they do it? No. She's 100pc innocent.
@@flyinyamaha She was proven on all counts of murder by a jury who examined in great detail the evidence that was presented to them. Just because you don't like a verdict that doesn't mean you can deny its legitimacy.
@@user-up2mo1xq7z Someone recently got released from prison 17 years after been incorrectly convicted of rape. I'm sure at the time everyone was convinced he was guilty.
BTW it is "presumed innocent until found guilty", the implication being that you wouldn't have been accused if you were innocent. Also, what if Russel Brand is innocent? It turned out that Johnny Depp was.
I've always found Peter Hitchins a bit odd and lacking empathy. People had an open mind, Peter, which is why they found it hard to believe that Lucy was guilty and took great pains to examine the evidence.
So an you explain how a nurse with previously unblemished record was convicted of murdering babies who's autopsy reports showed 'natural causes'? The evidence against her was cherry picked circumstantial evidence. Her friends and nursing colleagues still maintain she's innocent. The police took 5 years and a massive unprecidented extra budget to make their very weak case stick. How does it take 5 years and a special tax payer funded 70 man team to convict someone if there's evidence of their guilt? So much wrong with this case. Anyone that takes the time to actually look at the detail has concerns. What if she's innocent?
@@paulroberts7544 ”unblemished record” - like that matters 😂 that’s like saying Harold Shipman’s record was unblemished …. until he killed someone. She put up very little/to no defence and said nothing when she had a chance to in the face of all the evidence. That’s damning enough to me. If you were innocent you would protest that until the end.
you don't even know the meaning of words like empathy. It's precisely because Hitchens has empathy that he hates the idea of an innocent spending life in prison. And lets list what PH has been right about: iraq wmd, covid lockdown and mask mandates, drug laws. Three huge issues where he was right and the majority were wrong. Letby may be guilty but 'solely circumstantial evidence' and 'only a plumber as expert witness' should make us question things. Unbelievable!
At least he sticks to his values by defending Russell Brand's rights. But let's think about "Innocent until proven guilty". Hmm, if he really believes in that value, then surely Lucy Letby is no longer innocent, she's been proven to be guilty
There is no inconsistency. His concern is that there may have been a miscarriage of legal justice in the Letby case and he has no opinion of her actual guilt or innocence. RB was a scumbag as a younger man when he was much loved by the Establishment. He repented and is anti-Establishment now on the COVID jab among other matters. Mysteriously now the Establishment media is doing a hit job on him. Again none of us actually know whether or not he ever actually raped a young woman.
You may give him some credit by reading the article in the Daily Sceptic about Lucy Letby. Then you would be able to actually comment something worthwhile.
It's an easy equation - babies are dying in a hospital in unusual numbers. The nurse responsible for overseeing their safety is removed and what happens? Babies stop dying.
On the same post it note, she also wrote "I haven't done anything wrong". Even the prosecution didn't see that note as a confession ... it's the media who have jumped on it.
I wish people wouldn't say it's "just circumstantial" evidence. Even cases with forensics, they're is always circumstantial evidence as well. Circumstancial evidence is evidence
Well obviously. The point is that circumstantial evidence is not inferior evidence. Everything is circumstantial unless the perpetrator is seen or filmed committing the crime.
They were also on the verge of being reported for professional misconduct, so after two years and 3 internal investigations clearing Letby of any wrongdoing, they decided to go to the police.
A few of her old colleagues in The Countess of Chester hospital have also been interviewed and say they think she’s innocent 🤯 And Doctor A in the trial didn’t believe she was guilty either. It’s believed she was having an affair with the married doctor, he was kept anonymous and only referred to as Dr A through the trail and media reporting.
What's your point? That a different person pleaded innocent so everyone who does myst secretly be guilty? You aren't convincing us skeptics with this I'm afraid, we like hard facts.
In Harold Shipmans case he was alone and there was evidence of stealing the estate of some of the patients his motive was deemed financial gain with evidence.
well the fact she wrote "I killed them on purpose because I'm not good enough. I will never have children or marry or know what it's like to have a family. " in her diary kind of points you in the right direction Pete,deary me
@@normafarmer3254 Without saying who it was she killed, it's worthless legally, There was no mention of a baby or babies. That means it isn't a confession in the eyes of the law. That's why little was made of her scribblings in court.
With all due respect, just from reading your shocking comment, lol I can tell you've done zero fact finding, literally zero. Even the media criminal reporting of the case state she been found guilty on circumstantial evidence, and basically two parts of that despicable evidence is what got her the guilty verdict and lifelong sentence. Both are absolute case law violations, actually criminal which when you actually hear the truth and the omitted details or the darn right waffle by so called expert should open your eyes. This poor woman is innocent, been stitched up massively.
@@dmvvideos7672 haha. Please. Let's not cuss eachother, lets be adults. I wasn't being horrible with my last message. I just know that from your comment that you havent looked at the actual fact. The ones that matter. Please just take you emotions out of it for a while. Just for a moment, think about this. A human being has been sentenced to life without parole. Now usually in a court of law theres evidence that proves someone's guilt. Actal hard evidence. Cctv, DNA, phone triangulation, witnesses, and along with that there may be a few sprinkles of circumstantial evidence to help nail the person on trial. But I'm this case there is zero evidence. Absolutely Zero.
@@IanGammer-vj9cb cuss? where? 🤣 there was like 10 months of evidence and I agree with the verdict and not with you which you seem to have a problem with 🤣
if I thought he was innocent (as I do Lucy) I would be there yelling from the rafters to retrial and release. to put my money where my mouth is I am part of a group called 'the innocence project' that campaign to get many black men on death row who have had unfair trials and are potentially innocent exonerated. we sometimes succeed - we sometimes dont - but thank god the group will never stop trying. there were several prisoners freed this year by the group who have disgustingly been on death row for 25 years. sickening. sounds like a story from Iran and its Oklahoma or Texas.
the only statistics used was the fact that she was the only one on duty each time there was a collapse or death. The plumber gave evidence about the plumbing, no evidence to suggest that any of the babies died from infections that could have been caused by sewege, she had a first class defence , no doubt if they could have called any other witnesses they would have ,that speaks volumes
@jetster785 17 deaths were covered over the said period of time. The absolute fraudulent graph used to convict her was a fit up. Of the 17 deaths she was on duty for under half. 7. There were two other staff members on duty for 6 each too. The graph used to fit her up and presented to to jury pertained to only 7 of the deaths. Or 100pc of the time she was on duty. Tottally ignoring the actual fact thatvthe graph should of been impartial and shown 17 deaths and all the rota of staff which were on duty for all 17. This would then not be worth the paper it printed on
You simply don't know the details of the case. The defence refused assistance from several experts who freely offered information. Hitchens also explained in the interview why it's difficult to get defence experts for major cases involving children.
He only said it needs to be looked at again, I suspect he's probably looked into it more than you have otherwise he wouldn't have said such a thing. Unlike you he does have a public reputation to think about and wouldn't be flippant in making such a statement.
@@lamehogshit3730are you serious? He regularly comes out with complete nonsense in a desperate attempt to get attention, he is a narcissist who believes he knows better than anyone about areas he has experience or knowledge of
There were over 100 miscarriages of justice in England in the last three years. In many of those cases, people outside of the court system had to fight for their freedom. We cannot just 'leave things to the courts'.
@@RTAC_1234 yeah Andy Malkinso, Luke Mitchell, 1500 sub postmasters ...all wrongly convicted and Luke Mitchell was only 14 when accused of murder he has been in prison for twenty years and the police have being destroying the forensic samples just when his legal team got permission from the CCRC for samples to be retested . Much like in Andy Malkinson's case
It had nothing to do with faulty plumbing. These babies were given lethal doses of insulin, air injected into their tubes, excess amounts of milk found in their little bodies and trauma.
So who did these things ? Do you trust the medical establishment ? Do you trust doctors who have behaved with cowardice and psychopathy over recent years ? Might she be an easy scapegoat ? I don't know personally - but so many sheep think they know the truth, because they are spoon fed by the media ! Wake up fools - What if this girl is innocent ? At least think about it...
If you do some actual research and not just cast judgment and are happy for the so called justice system to basically end peoples lives on zero evidence then I hope the system never ends up in your kingdom. Also a side note. Plumbing has saved more lives than medicine. Excrement coming up through basin wastes where nurses, mum's, dad's, wash their hands and then hold poor little sick babies will in no time at all fight and end the little mights lives. And you have that same excrement dripping from pipework abive the most sensitive ward in any hospital above the babies cots. Well, need I say more?
I absolutely believe that Lucy is innocent. Circumstantial evidence only. The verdict was not unanimous. Cheshire police have a history of putting the accused in an assumption of guilt and then building their case around that instead of looking at the evidence as a whole and then deciding whether there is guilt. their investigation methods are fundamentally flawed. They start with ‘Lucy is being investigated for multiple murders’ not a way to get an untainted view or opinion from anyone. If they didn’t get letby the others would be sh1t scared they’d come for them after. The whole thing was bad investigation from start to finish. Bad things happened and they needed a scape goat.
I do too. I think she's been scapegoated by a hospital who's senior management tried to cover up the first two deaths and prevented a police investigation early on which absolutely SHOULD have been done as is normally done with ANY suspicious death. The hospital's managment bears DIRECT responsibility for the other deaths in failing to do that. Regardless of whether the deaths were accidental failings or deliberate murders, the hospital could have prevented further deaths if they had reported them to the police and allowed a full foresnic police investigation early on. The fact Lucy faced a disciplinary hearing by management after the first deaths and then was put BACK on the same ward does raise a lot of questions, given that the doctor and other staff expressed serious concerns about her. Whether those concerns were justified or whether Lucy was being scapegoated for general failings, the fact the disciplinary hearing cleared her of any wrong-doing and decided to put her back on the ward with the lives of vulnerable babies in her care does raise some questions both over Lucy's innocence possibly and also the hospital's negilgence and failings by senior staff.
Not even circumstantial! Statistical and they got the statistics completely wrong! Ask Professor Emeritus Richard D Gill for details (website) There is also two very good, recent investigation articles published by the Guardian and the Telegraph yesterday (9 July 2024). Google and you shall find.
I cannot compare Lucy Letby to Russell Brand. It is beyond probability that all these babies died unnaturally when only she was there. Also her notes saying she did it
1.There were plenty of unexpected deaths in that unit when she wasn't on duty. 2. She did not write a confession. She simply wrote that she felt responsible. Read the notes and her explanation. Easy to read it as a confession without the right context. 3. I'm not saying she's innocent, just not as clear cut as you're claiming @@joee8278
Why didn’t Lucy Letby’s legal team call in medical expert witnesses. Because they knew the prosecution would tear them apart. It’s simple, the case was heard over 10 months. A jury found her guilty. Move on.
Peter explained there's a reluctance in medical trials by experts to appear on the defense. I imagine being a defense witness at a trial like this is career suicide if the defendant loses the case
She said "that was me trying to process my feelings"" or words to that effect. It is called in Psychoanalysis catharsis. A method developed by Freud and called "free association".
Why are these idiotic opions . She's guilty . Pity you didn't question the miscarriage of justice on Alex belefield instead of supporting a serial killer .well O'Sullivan will support that as he a Pratt .
I used to listen to Alex Bellfield, before he started doing homophobic content and talking in sexually derogatory ways about women. I stopped listening then. And then the evidence of all the emails he sent to people harassing them. He is clearly guilty and he was open on his UA-cam channel about hating the people he was convicted of harassing.
This man aint worth the time. He's the definition of someone who is so out of touch with the real world. I cant believe he gets so much time to drivel on in public
That is some thing to do perhaps with an understanding of just how corrupt the press , police and legal system is . The press lie and exaggerate to sell papers . The police select facts that secure convictions ignoring evidence that proves innocence . As for the courts it makes no difference if you are guilty or innocent .in the right or in the wrong , you just have to convince 12 idiots that are probably thick as planks ,this is done by emotion and deception . Happens all the time . The same week LL was convicted a man was released after serving 17 years for a crime he did not commit ,worse the courts judges suppressed evidence that could have released him 10 years sooner
The health status of these babies was known, they were considered stable. Other babies the doctors and nurse can predict they may require medical assistance due to being unwell...None were in that category that died..that is why the staff were so alarmed. I would think many hospitals have faulty plumbing, it has not led to deaths. Delia Morris
That is simply not the case, a new hospital in NHS had pathogens in the cold water system killed nine babies , Viruses pathogens are often hard to detect there was sewage on the floor so it would vaporise in a warm building into the air.People who dry wet clothes on rads with the windows shut risk infection esp among children there was a case 2 years ago when tenants did this killing their child . The press and the left tried to blame housing association. Don't believe me try it . She was fitted up
@@IanGammer-vj9cbthey were stable and not expected to die. Someone put insulin into their bodies and stick a tube down one's throat and gave them air bubbles. They were vulnerable, but these were not natural deaths
She has been found guilty on all counts of murder by a jury who listened to the evidence in great detail from start to finish over a long period of time. This depraved woman is exactly where she should be and anyone protesting her innocence is either uneducated on the case or have ulterior motives.
If you are so sure that she is guilty surely she will be found guilty again, why are you so afraid of re-trial if you are sure the evidence proves her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?
She wrote a note preempting that all 3 triplets died but one was saved by being moved to another hospital. She wrote in her own words that she did it and she was evil. She displayed bizarre behaviour around the grieving parents and stalked them on Facebook. This is before we even look at the statistical points. Why is it so hard to believe that a woman can be this evil?
Read science on trial. It answers your question brilliantly and explains in a highly logical way (most of this trial was stretch and speculation, very little logic when you look at it objectively - the insulin bags being perhaps the best example of this) it basically demonstrates that it was actually likely the deaths were attributed to other, natural causes which were not investigated at the time. The criminal causes were never satisfactorily established by the proper investigatory means (a home office forensic pathologist, the testing unit at Liverpool etc). It's worth your time if you do care about a fair justice system.
No, she wrote notes saying she was evil and didn’t deserve to work with babies. That is someone who hates themself. People who hate themselves don’t believe they are worthy of seeing a beautiful day, a stunning sunset etc. As for stalking patients’ families on facebook, again, mental illness but there are also care workers and nurses known as “mourners” who go to all the patients’ funerals and take an unhealthy interest in patients and their families. Again, mental illness and no social life or boundaries. Sad people basically. I’ve worked with quite a few in hospitals and care homes. It isn’t evidence of criminal behaviour, just a sad life.
@@CatherineX-ph3on Yes she did write those notes. The first one I refer to was a draft of a sympathy card that she was planning to send after she had killed all 3 children. The details of the case are widely available, I suggest that you spend the hours reading or listening to them before passing comment. She is evil and you are a little bit for defending her without taking the time to look into what you are saying.
@@RC-gh7os I do care. With respect I think you and Peter Hitchins are taking small aspects of the case rather than looking at the totality of the evidence.
@@DH-uq1zw with respect, could you elaborate on your certainty of guilt? I'm open minded to either out come, but I am yet to see any evidence that has convinced me of a criminal cause of death. That's the point in the case where the house of cards falls, and I can point you in the direction of the science that convinced me of this. If you can point me in the direction of evidence that proves a number of murders took place, and that LL was responsible, I will certainly align to that way of thinking. But a shift rota, a distressed post it note, 250 handover notes only a few of which were used as evidence, facebook searches and a sympathy card are not good enough. Please, fire away with your 'totality of evidence' if you have anything more to add? I would sleep better at night if someone could convince me, but so far the only thing that has is the exonerating science.
What happened to without reasonable doubt. If these questions are being asked then surely the case needs to be investigated. I’m not saying she is innocent but without real proof it needs investigation
@@christopherthomas5333It's crazy. Even though you've just asked him directly. Basically pointing him to the truth. He won't go seek it. 99pc of the world has lost the ability to think critically. Madness.
well he is right on some things and wrong on others - just as medhi Hasan and Christopher hitchins and George Galloway and rula jubreal and tucker Carlson are right on some things and wrong on others.
She has been found guilty of several deaths. She had a top defence team. I suspect the reason she did not have any expert medical witness support was because nobody could be found to provide helpful evidence for her because there wasn't any. She is going to appeal anyway. As for HS2, if it had been started at Manchester it would be full steam ahead for Euston by now.
"A top defence team"? Really? Millions are needed when pitted against a state, to have a cat in hell's chance of equilibrium. Do you know something we don't? Have you for a moment considered the sheer SCALE of the financial compensation which would have been sought (and achieved) by the victims families were the deaths/injuries found to be resultant of malpractice by the neo-natal clinic? The astronomical cost of both the internal, and particularly external inquiries? The level of compensation sought by parents whose children either died or suffered injury in other neo-natal clinics? The potential costs would measure in BILLIONS. Catastrophic to a floundering, perhaps already fatally wounded Conservative government.
Have any more murders taken place at the hospital since Letby was arrested, or at any other workplace where a member of staff that worked with Letby has moved to? It seems not. Also if the plumbing was faulty then wouldn’t other staff members look guilty as well? Seems strange the plumbing went wrong when only when Letby was on duty with those babies. I think Hitchens looks foolish with that argument.
Actually the number of perinatal deaths at the Countess of Chester in 2017 and 2018 was higher than in 2015 and 2016 (ONS statistics), but Lucy Letby was not on the ward in these years. It is very uncertain as to whether any 'murders' took place.
No she isn’t innocent would you be saying this if she was a man instead of a fairly pretty looking woman ? Honestly you types of people absolutely disgust me how dare you!
I wonder if he questioned Harold Shipman's verdict as well... This man lacks imagination. Women's crimes can be a bad as men's. Look at the mother and baby homes in Ireland.
Circumstantial evidence is valid evidence and what's usually used to convict people. There were 9 months if it and up to 100 witness testimonies including parents'. The police investigated each case with separate teams and every team came to same conclusions. Her attitude and appearance on the stand shouted guilt. What part of that do you doubt?
@@RC-gh7os I'm an RN & Midwife in Australia's equivalent to the NHS. The hierarchy of healthcare is fraught with problems, she was trying to impress Doc A, She'd work back after she sould have been finished, she had a huge sense of self-importence & felt 'superior' to others. But she really is an introvert. But I truly think she attacked the most innocent & helpless of patients, just because she could/ It gave her heaps of attention. Taking the pics of one newborn with their breathing tube. Taking home notes & handover sheets with confidential patient details. Every nurse knows this is unacceptable. She would infiltrate the parents/babies lives in their grieving process. She'd look up parents on social media, probably to see how the mourning process was going. Another no-no. It's hard to explain but having worked in these areas for years, her guilt is very apparent to me..
@@passionfruitprincess much of what you have said is your opinion based on speculation which is fine, but obviously for a whole life tariff forensic evidence is required. Your theories are based only on your interpretation of ideas put forward (absolutely no evidence of her being in love with a doctor) and your own experience. Many logical thinkers need more objective evidence which is not being offered.
@@judewhitbread2394 Saying circumstantial evidence is valid evidence is like saying hearsay is valid evidence. The question is- has the State proven her guilt beyond reasonable doubt and has this been done over the course of a fair Trial?
Can't wait for this one. 😂😂😂 The amusing but scary thing is. You don't know. And that's the problem, every single one of you who have blinkers on are only going off of what you've heard, zero ability to implement critical thinking, literally zero.
@@iammeats6743 no babies on the entire ward were prescribed insulin,at the time baby nearly died of insulin poisoning...she got to careless trying out new methods of killing,she new it was obvious but still tried to kill 2 babies with insulin....
Hi there, on both counts that is untrue. She was there for every death deemed 'suspicious' years later by an expert witness when she was already a suspect. Uncontroversially there were more deaths - I think 10 more. Have you read the note in full and understood the context?
Come on, Peter. You don't need to be a contrarian on everything under the sun. Letby had a notepad of mental scribblings saying she did it and other horrible things. You're falling off the apple cart here old chap.
If you are so sure that she is guilty surely she will be found guilty again, why are you so afraid of re-trial if you are sure the evidence proves her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?
@@lawrencehaynes6408 No one is afraid of a retrial. Most people's concerns is that the families of the victims will have to go through this whole thing again and put under unnecessary distress when a verdict has already been reached.
@@pumpactionturbolad1002 she wasn't 'proven' guilty, she was 'found' guilty entirely on circumstantial evidence. Who said I didn't like the result?? Did you read it somewhere that I didn't like the result? Or are you just assuming??
need to do stats on ALL staff who cared for the kids . see if there is a significant difference between correlation with THEIR shifts and deaths compared to her correlation .. statistically.
That's what they did. It was a table with the suspicious events down the left, and all 37 staff members across the top, with Lucy being the only one with a tick in every single box. So she was the only staff member that was present at all events.
It's infuriating and insulting to the families and staff involved. Can't believe he's basing this on an article he's read somewhere by an "expert in microbiology" - I found the article, and the man who wrote it is not even a clinician.
@@joee8278read science on trial. It is solid, peer reviewed science that methodically explains possible reasons for the ALL the deaths that were not considered nor explored by the doctors at the time. Which leads to the worrying question- why were they so quick to conclude criminal causes of death?
It's ridiculous to suggest that Lucy Letby is going to enable people to get to Birmingham any quicker. And as for HS2, how can a railway track murder babies? Ridiculous.
Circumstantial evidence is not evidence enough to convict. And it's not considered enough for a reason. I can be in several places where robberies have occurred. It doesn't mean that I robbed them,as an example.
@@Trebor74 A better example would be: you appear in every single location where a robbery has taken place within 2 years. The police then raid your house and find a written confession. Now yes, this isn't proof with 100% certainty that you robbed all these places, but it's pretty compelling evidence nonetheless and in most people's view, enough for conviction.
@@Trebor74but it is! In your opinion it may not be. The police, CPS and Jury don't agree. We've just become so wrapped up now on forensics. What about Shipman and Allitt or even Peter Sutcliffe? It's evidence and the Jury decided it was compelling. Why didn't the defence call an expert witness to refute the Prosecution? Because they couldn't
@@Trebor74in your opinion and yet the Police, the CPS, the Jury think it is and that's why Shipman, Sutcliffe, Allitt, Genene Jones and Norris and loads of other people have been convicted beyond reasonable doubt. One piece of evidence isn't enough. Holding a trial for 10 months shows there was a wealth of evidence. Why didn't the defence call an expert witness?
Yes, and the evidence of a sharp instrument having been pushed down the throat of one of the infants, which caused major blood loss. The child later died.....
Is this because you believe that the insulin must have been injected, or have you read a few dozen studies on the subject, to arrive at an educated conclusion? I think you believe what you were told to believe, and you haven't even read one single study on the subject. Please correct me if i am mistaken.
@@robinhood4640after listening to the trial, I believe the insulin was delivered through an extension set that was already attached to the cannulas. It would actually be very easy and fast to do if she had the insulin already prepared in a syringe.
What a bore! Everyone jumping in NOW and not on the behalf of the babies and their families. Lucy wpuld stalk the families. Turn up on their doorsteps. She is utterly guilty
It's not a 'post-it note' go look at the court documents. Its pretty damning evidence against her. dont just listen to a narrative. Look at the transcripts etc. its all there.@@joebish6629
It does. She is getting a retrial on one charge, attempted murder. Not a retrial over the full span of offences. She still guilty of all the rest. @@DancingAmaya
@@LuluJessNZ being found guilty is not the same as being guilty. Sally Evans and Andrew Malkinson can attest to that. Can you source her diary 'pretty much' admitting to it? Put it this way- are you so absolutely certain that all of the babies were murdered rather than alternative explanations for their deaths? And if so, is there enough to prove it could only have been LL who killed them? If not, could you live in a country that keeps a possibly innocent person locked up for the rest of her life?
Peter Hitchens doesn't get much wrong, but on this occasion he is regarding Lucy Letby. The evidence put before the court, including her own written admission, proved she was guilty. End of.
He rides his brothers fame... he himself is a total grifter... always getting things wrong always supporting right wing conspiracy theories, rapists and now baby killers
@draconianfrog Of course her written admissions don't mean anything. Neither does the King's speech at the opening of parliament does it. Don't believe anything you read. She probably didn't write it anyway. It was planted on her wasn't it.
Kevin proves that people have a skewed perception of evidence. RB can behave any way he wants, that itself is not evidence that he engaged in non-consensual stuff. Evidence is to bring the receipts that a certain person did a certain thing, beyond reasonable doubt. To be clear, without DNA or videos from that time, or maybe even witnesses to what went on behind closed doors, it will be hard to prove anything. Unless, of course, the definition of evidence and proof have been changed along the way.
The prosecution freely admits that such trials based on highly technical evidence are above the pay-grades of average jurors. Thus prosecution teams look for evidence that juries can relate to, such as diaries or poetry that might demonstrate a deviant personality. disorders. It's the same problem with fraud trials, they go on for a long time and most jurors struggle to keep up with the technical jargon and in the end just become tempted to reach a verdict on anecdotal evidence and the testimony of character witnesses. Such highly technical trials probably need to select jurors from professions related to the case. After all, there are plenty of retired doctors, surgeons, nurses that could be called upon for jury service.
I think any decent lawyer could have utterly destroyed the prosecution's case Remember there is no evidence of any kind that a single baby was harmed by anyone on that ward The prosecution's 'expert' is extremely dubious and has a ludicrous hypothesis that countless other experts believe is total nonsense One of these experts is the writer of the paper that the defense expert based his hypothesis upon The statistical 'evidence' is embarrassing - a sixth former could destroy it in 10 minutes with a couple of power point slides The accused has a near endless list of coworkers who believe she is innocent and are willing to say so I really don't see it as being a complicated case at all - all the defending lawyer has to do is raise some doubt in the minds of a few jurors She had an inexplicably horrific defense - so horrific that it begs the question whether something else is going on with this very bizarre case
Because you don’t want to see other evidence. You’ve made your mind up snd there it ends! Well if she is innocent then a massive crime has been committed .
The witch finder general is looking for an assistant would you be interested ?. Based on the fact you are happy with a conviction with No direct evidence No witness No confession No motive ,just bogus narrative Oh and a expert witness was paid in excess of 10,000 pounds for nonsense science . Yes I think you and the WF will get along fine
I have no idea whether she is guilty or not but I have always had doubts.
She may have made mistakes but I don't think she deliberately tried to murder those babies, like you, I have my doubts. There's a lot of evidence that the hospital had some serious failings at the senior management level and Lucy was a convenient scapegoat that shifted attention away from them and onto her.
This hospital needs to be subject to a thorough public inquiry by the government and all the senior staff (some contracted who have since left and gone on to work at other babies hospitals) need to be held to account. If they had called in the police after the 2nd death, the rest could have been avoided maybe, regardless of the causes. They chose not to bring in the police after two suspicious deaths which is in and of itself a CRIME. You ALWAYS bring in the police in ANY suspicious sudden death. That's the law.
Who cares what you think? A jury found her guilty and that’s enough
😂😂😂
Lucy Letby is in my mind most certainly innocent. She was a dedicated nurse who took extra shifts and that explains the only common factor between all the baby deaths. That she was on shift during the seven deaths. And her journal details not a confession but anguish that she must be to blame for her incompetence when in fact many factors such as understaffing, inexperienced junior doctors, general levels of cleanliness, and condition, or lack, of certain equipment provide more compelling explanations than an angel of death stalking the wards. None of her nursing colleagues or friends think she did this. And her conviction mirrors similar miscarriages of justice where nurses were wrongly convicted of harming patients and later exonerated.
Most of the deaths were outside her shifts apparently.
Another overlooked details - besides the misinterpretation of statistics - is that people do tend to die in the earlier hours - exactly when she happened to be working. It happens worldwide. It is a statistical fact.
@@None-y2f That's because they only selected deaths she was present for. Cherry picked. See "Texas sharp shooter". Simple.
@@aldecruz9146 Correct. And especially if they are premature, low birthweight babies. One could argue its amazing that some of these tiny fragile and vulnerable babies ever survive. Thank God they do ... but don't blame a hardworking dedicated nurse if they dont - first look at the care provided by TV celebrity doctors.
What's needed in the Lucy Letby case is a dedicated investigative journalist to look into this huge travesty of justice. Something like Panorama. Irrespective of her innocence or guilt, what is strikingly apparent - to any objective observer - is that her trial was an absolute fiasco from the start to the finish. I find it downright scandalous that this could happen in the UK. Lucy Letby seems like a younger version of myself. I'm now retired after working as a senior clinical nurse for decades in hospital environments. I have a Masters Degree in Nursing and a PhD in Psychology (I feel the need to state this to show Im not stupid as some critics of my view would no doubt suggest). I was a hardworking and dedicated nurse who put in a lot of unpaid overtime for decades. Our adversarial legal system does not differentiate between truth and lies. Here, an ageing judge, a weak defence team and a police/prosecution team allowed absolute garbage (so-called "evidence") to be put forward to convince that Lucy Letby was a mass murderer!!! It beggars belief!!!. If you are at all convinced of the guilty verdict, you really do need to go and look at the problems with the evidence as judged by experts in their respective fields (statisticians, biochemists, pathologists, nurses, psychologists, doctors and the like) - check out "scienceontrial" website. For anyone who really does believe Lucy Letby has been proven guilty, you owe it to your yourself to be better informed, And, please, don't accuse people like me of causing further grief to grieving parents, not unless you spent more time in your life than I did caring for and supporting such people. I too have great compassion for the parents. They, above all others, deserve the truth.
Absolutely
That’s the best response Iv ever read on Lucy and the trail. As a nurse myself I think she needs a retrial. My heart breaks for the parents of the poor babies but they deserve the truth too. This is the most accurate answer/opinion Iv read!! 🙌
How do you explain the witnesses who saw her not rendering aid to babies that were dying?
not quite true@@mdaddy775
@@mdaddy775 Quite simply. The doctors targetted an innocent nurse to cover up the baby injuries and deaths - to protect themselves. This nurse had complained about them.
They certainly did not prove she was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Citizens of England should be concerned that she was put in prison without a chance to appeal.
I've always had my doubts about this conviction. I know it's not scientific, but l just don't get the evil vibe like l do from Rose West or Myra Hindley. Also l totally believed her friend in the BBC documentary who said she just knew Lucy was not capable of such abhorrence. Either she's genuinely mistaken or she is correct. She was in no way trying to cover up anything.
When someone doesn't seem to fit the crime especially when they are women the police and press simply say aha that proves they were cunning psychopaths as I have said from day one Witch Trial of the 21st Century
I certainly got an evil vibe from Dr Dewi Evans
The evil vibe comes from the NHS itself.
She's just been called to a retrial in the case of one of the babies. Not granted a retrial - called to a retrial. It is totally unrelated to any appeal she might be granted.
He can't talk about Lucy's trial any more because of the retrial of one case of attempted murder, so that means no news channels can talk about all the other cases which are keeping her in prison.
@@pattieboyd2832 interesting timing from the courts.... they don't seem to want people looking at this case too deeply.
@@MrAn0n Face palm.
@@MrAn0n She didn't write a letter or confession! It's crazy how many people think that. It's actually embarrassing. Do your research! Preferably away from mainstream media articles.
@@MrAn0n She confessed to nothing. The words, 'baby' and 'babies, weren' tmentioned in her scribblings. If they had, they would have been made much of it in court, which they weren't.
2:01 as a plumber I find it offensive that the presenter laughs at the fact a plumber gave evidence.
especially as he cant even change a plug. id put money on it.
His evidence was actually crucial except the jurors were to stupid to realize the implications of sewage present in the wards next to the babies ...
@@changwillneverdie9378 His evidence was actual crucial except the illiterate jurors didn't see the relevance of it ....
It always amazes me that ordinary people decide the outcome of a trial which is about the law, is it not? To prove my point, get a bunch of random people and put them in charge of a ship going from UK to the US. See how far they manage to get.
@@ryand141 The law says that you are to be judged by your peers, folk of your standing in life, for fairness. You can’t have your mum m8 😂
Lucy is innocent! The more I look into the details surpunding this case the more sertain I get.
certain*
Dr Evans is an author for hire, willing to reinterpret any story to fit the requested narrative.
Whats your basis for saying this if you dont mind me asking?
@@Bon1ta. Should he be in jail?
He entered the case with all knowledge of nurses and so on redacted from him. He looked at every single case and was asked to find red flags, which he did. He had no prior knowledge of who was on shift, who was caring for what baby or any details other than the medical notes and in some cases post mortem notes and coroner reports.
You're changing the facts to suit your illogical beliefs.
@@BoshSoldierCarphe used a 1989 paper to diagnose a GAS embolism as opposed to an air embolism. His advice seems shaky at best when far more established and specialised medical researchers cannot corroborate his theories.
@@BoshSoldierCarp
No, he was caught out changing is opinion when he found out Letby was or was not on shift.
A Contrarian.
An objective person.
Yes, contrary to logic and reason.
I admire Peter very much for his very eloquent and reasoned view. If you are to be put away for life then the process and evidence needs to be 100pc correct. In this case it needs to be reviewed.
Utter rubbish. 100% proof is not the law- if it were then no one would ever be convicted. The Jury were SURE of her guilt and that is enough
Its impossible for Russell Brand to have a fair legal trial now.
so we should just forget about it.....
No it isn't.
There will be no trial
Hes not even been charged with a crime, all thats happened is an ex girlfriend from decades ago has accused him of rape. It disgusts me that the press and state are acting so aggressively on something that hasnt even got enough evidence to take to court.
dont mean he is innocent@@gantorisdurran710
The more I look into this case, the more convinced I am that Lucy Letby is completely innocent of any wrong doing. Surely if there is this much doubt, then it needs looked at again, if Lucy is otherwise going to spend the rest of her life in prison.
The Russel Brand /Jonathan Ross event was simply dreadful. Poor Mr Sachs died not terribly long after that - imagine the horror that a true, gentle man would suffer, knowing his granddaughter was being trolled as a loose young woman on mainstream radio/telly- and they thought it was hilarious. Simply inexcusable.
So we’ll said, Mr. Hitchens…..thank you for your courage in standing up for Miss Letby ( Lucy).
This case is about as safe as crack house.
Peter us the ULTIMATE contrarian … he is a pain in the ar$e
I do have to ask why one doctor was granted anonymity?
Indeed, that was a big red flag for me during the trial. How can you have a doctor and central witness anonymous. Apparently the reason for that was because he was married and romantically involved with Lucy, so presumably to protect his family from the media publicity. He decided to have an affair though so he shouldn't be afforded any special treatment. The public, and families who used that hospital and the victims families in particular, have a right to know that doctor's name and identity. It's in the public interest.
@@paullangton-rogers2390 she didn't have an affair though
@@paullangton-rogers2390 she didn't have an affair though
@@blueskye7962 Maybe not? But that was certainly what Dr A was after. Disgusting treacherous coward betrayed Lucy!
Worth mentioning that the once also wayward Sach's granddaughter forgave Brand (though not Ross who has not apologized) for that granted shameful episode.
He apologized profoundly and later paid for her to enter rehab. An act which she believes likely saved her life.
Yes, and Brand resigned immediately whereas Ross had to be sacked. I’ve never been able to stomach Ross since.
He payed for her rehab for his own benefit. If she had died from a drug overdose or suicide he would have been blamed. An entirely selfish act by Brand.
I have always had concerns about the fact that there was never any proof that this girl was guilty of ending these, what were always, very fragile lives.
She's innocent. No motive and normal background. The science the prosecution came up with to back their arguments was dire.
They even tried numerology "so many days after..." "The anniversary of..." A tsunami of Flimsy circumstantial evidence
Well said. The case was purely circumstantial evidence that the prosecution used. The burden of proof fell well short IMO on her conviction. Like you say, no motive was established, no real scientific evidence linking her to every death beyond any doubt, and the 'evidence' from her home the so-called 'diary confessions' were ambigious, taken out of context to fit their time-line and narrative and were wide open to intepretation as many professional experts have commented.
I have an interest and background in criminal prosecution trials and followed the Lucy Letby trial with great interest and have been following the retrial.
The evidence that she was prosecuted on and found guilty on was circumstantial. I don't believe burden proof was sufficientlly met in the court.
Interestingly, the prosecution used Lucy's diary's and scrawled writings on post-it note and pages found in her diary AFTER the events which were presented in court as key evidence of her guilt. And whilst on the surface it does look like an admission of guilt by Lucy where you see her write "I did this, I am evil" and similar remarks she made, when you look at the writings in a proper context you can see they are not the writing of a woman in her right mind. She was clearly under tremendous stress, conflicted and probably having some kind of psychotic mental breakdown episode at the time of those writings. She writes on the same page, "I'm not good enough" "I will never have a husband, a family or children" and other remarks which suggest guilt and regret. Those writings are irratic and seem to be written over the top of her original writing about her being cleared of any wrong-doing and expressing her sadness that the babies died.
I read with an interest a professional psychiatrist's analysis of those writings (independent not part of the trial proceedings) who expressed the valid professional mental health opinion that just because Lucy (and people in general accused of crimes) write things that appear to be an admission of guilt, it doesn't automatically follow they are admissions of guilt or evidence in itself that a person committed any crime. And really, in Lucy's case it would have been wise to spend more time on those writings in the original trial (and now in the re-trial) to get a professional witness on the defense side to analysis the writings from an evidence prospective in proper context. ie to assess Lucy's mental health state at the time of the writings, and the events that happening in her life at the time she made the writings. And from the prosecution side, they need to show a jury that the writings are an admission of guilt beyond any doubt and that Lucy's motivation for writing those things wasn't due a psychotic episode or stressful external factors leading her to basically conclude that she MUST somehow be guilty and so evil because everyone was saying she was.
Another interesting thing from an evidence prospective the prosecution relied on is the fact Lucy looked up babies names on Facebook and social media, together with the names of parents, as the deaths occurred and after. The prosecution asserts this is evidence Lucy was getting some perverse pleasure from seeing the grief of the babies parents and/or monitoring their reactions and what was being said by the parents, relatives and friends online, perhaps so she could see if she was being accused or suspected. The media reporting and the prosecution asserted Lucy's behaviour was strange behaviour and sinister in doing those searches and monitoring the victims social media posts. I would argue it would be strange if a nurse DIDN"T do that. Of course, as a nurse on a ward where babies have died she's going to be very interested in what the parents think and are saying, particularly since she herself and all the other staff were being investigating through disciplinary hearings in the hospital to find out what caused the deaths and if the staff or hospital were negligent in their duties of care or made mistakes.
I personally think a lot of mistakes were made in that hospital and on that ward in particular. We know beyond any doubt the hospital's senior management is at least partially responsible for some of the deaths (irrespective of whether Lucy or someone else deliberately or accientally caused the babies deaths) because they had NUMEROUS warnings and opportunities after the first 2-3 deaths to bring in the police and carry out a proper thorough criminal investigation and chose not to. And they allowed Lucy Letby to remain on the ward again after she had previously been removed from it. So to me, the hospital's management has a lot to answer for and shares a significant amount of responsibility and blame for not acting earlier and in the appropriate manner.
We know the NHS is under-staffed, lacks sufficient funding and there's some serious problems with the running of NHS hospitals and facilities both in front-line services and at the senior management level. It's entirely possible Lucy could be a scapegoat here for a catalogue of mistakes and errors made by the hospital.
Coming back to the evidence that returned a guilty verdict on one count for Lucy (based purely on circumstantial evidence) not only do I think the burden of proof hasn't been met on such a serious charge which carries a severe prison sentence, but that Lucy has also been found guilty in the court of public opinion due to the intense and sensationalised media coverage of this.
Lucy is hardly likely to get a fair re-trial now in this country as I doubt any juror hasn't been exposed to the media coverage and portrayal of Lucy as some evil baby serial killer and criminal mastermind who came up with all these different ways of killing babies and making it look like accidents.
It's a pity the UK doesn't have the lie detector tests the US court system uses. Although lie detection tests are not infalible and can't be relied upon to secure convictions in a court, they are none the less useful in establishing the honesty and credibility of witnesses and defendants. It would be interesting to see if Lucy could pass a series of lie detector tests on each of the allegations she's accused of and been charged with. If she passed a number of those tests it would create cracks on the prosecutions argument and lend her some credibility that she's been scapegoated and stitched up for failings of the ward, doctors and hospital.
And finally, one interesting thing for me was the TV doctor who was at the center of this trial and who gave a recent interview in which the interviewer claimed families of the victims were saying he was a hero for being persistent in complaining about Lucy. Interestingly, that doctor broke down suddenly in the interview and started crying. Then quickly composed himself and said he's not a hero and only doing what was right and that he wished he could get the government to carry out a proper inquiry into the hospital and the failings with senior NHS contracted management. People should make of that what they will.
who was the tv doctor?
@@changwillneverdie9378 Ravi Jarayam who in a proper investigation should have been considered suspect. Not saying he was guilty. Just a suspect like the rest. Experts have said.
@@bitabyte I absolutely agree after reading every single court trial transcript now which are available on UA-cam in audio format.. The whole thing stinks of a cover up by the doctors and hospital. Imagine if the hospital had just installed CCTV cameras in each ward over the babies cots and monitored them with weekly reviews on nurse and staff performance, probably none of this would have happened! They also had no proper procedures in place regarding supervision of nurses, ie two nurses (one senior always) present when procedures were carried out on babies often documents for meds/readings not being co-signed by two nurses, the wrong size tubes used in babies, some serious mistakes made including 1 baby left without fluids for 4 hours which Lucy herself raised as an official complaint! No weekly nursing/staff meetings to establish any problems in the team or wards etc.. it just looks like very poor management.
WEF and mainstream media want Brand.
Talk to comedians or ex comedians. The Triggernometry guys said two years ago why they would never have Russel brand on their show. Everyone in the entertainment industry knew.
And why’s that?
@@CatherineX-ph3onwho's saying that then? First I've heard of it
Yes, but let's not talk about that. Let's just argue about whether he's guilty or innocent. If we stick to debating the merits (or absence thereof) of the allegations that have been made against Brand, we can ignore the much bigger and more important issue of the legality (or absence thereof) of British Intelligence orchestrating a smear campaign against an independent broadcaster with the sole object of preventing him from exposing government and corporate corruption.
He was regarded as a sex offender years before his UA-cam channel which at first actually critiqued conservative policies
Until proven guilty… and yet they’ve just been talking about someone being exonerated after being found guilty??? 🤔
Headline was wrong but he did say on appeal a retrial etc
it was a dubious guilty decision against lucy!!
No, she is now guilty until proven innocent. She has had her day in court, and an appeal does not give her innocent status once again. She can only try to prove the guilty verdict was wrong
Exactly…the amount of people who don’t understand what an appeal
Is is shocking….generally GB News followers
@@thecarpetman7687Well I listen to GB news and I understand the process , It is a waste of time they are not going to reverse on this case ,
in any way shape or form ,
@@thecarpetman7687I understand what the person is saying. She's been convicted, so her just applying for an appeal does not suddenly mean she is innocent until proven guilty again. I think this is what the other person meant to convey. Although everyone is innocent until proven guilty, it's completely different if you have already been convicted, irrespective of whether you have lodged an appeal. The onus now is actually to prove her innocence as she's been convicted and an appeal would only be successful if there was a law technically, or new and compelling evidence. Exceptionally unlikely since she's already got another Court date for next year
@@thenoahzacky1 I don't understand people's problems with circumstantial evidence. Shipman was convicted on circumstantial evidence. Loads of people are convicted purely on circumstantial evidence because it is evidence. Even if the prosecution has any foresnic evidence a case is still built with circumstantial evidence.
@@thenoahzacky1 I'm not saying this doesn't happen, but the police would not have investigated for years and the trial would not have lasted as long as it did. I've had colleagues lie in statements. I wasn't send down for countless who life tarrifs. Her appeal will be rejected, unless their is "new and substantial evidence", or a law technicality
It was the longest trial in British history… I think they had a good look at the evidence in that time?
@@MrAn0nno she didn't!!
That was because each of the 17 accusations was examined separately. A jury is composed of 12 people ... they could be bricklayers, accountants, whatever ... not scientists. Hence, there is an 'expert witness' who explains things to the court. The 'expert witness' in this case wasn't a scientist, he was a doctor who retired in 2009 and whose 'opinions' in a previous case were thrown out by the judge as worthless. She was convicted primarily on the 'opinion' of this man and some very dubious statistics. Scientists ( including phd's and professors ) are expressing very serious doubts regarding the information that the jury were presented with and therefore based their verdict on.
Perhaps it was because the evidence was weak and convoluted and relied heavily on 'expert' witness testimony that it took so long to decide? After a 5 year investigation, the best evidence they could come up with was a rota, a post it note and some handover notes.
It's a logical fallacy that you had to be there. I wasn't there at Fred West's trial, but as they dig up 12 bodies from his back yard it was conclusive. We don't have to be present at any trial to get the details because they're widely reported. Of course I don't know what the jury discussed ! But I do know that their verdict was based at what information they were presented with ... and that information has been challenged by some very eminent people. For precision, the trial was in Manchester, not Scotland. @phoebecaulfield4062
@phoebecaulfield4062 because a great deal of the evidence now available was not heard, for example the extensive statistical and scientific analysis available on science on trial. Feel free to read through that, it might give you a more balanced perspective. I was adamantly in camp guilty until I read it. As a legal professional, once I have seen something I am unable to argue against I have to hold my hands up. And I could not argue with the science. Hope that answers your question.
Letby a victim of circumstances 7 times? That's some bad luck.
She's the Larry David of Nurses 😂
17 deaths over the period of time. Lucy was on duty for under half. Fact. But youve been told by the media trial there was 7 deaths and she was on duty for 7. So wrong its criminal. Two other nurses were on duty for 6 each of the deaths. Did they do it? No. She's 100pc innocent.
@@Gavin48There's absolutely nothing funny about that.. these are babies lives your laughing about!
There was trouble with pipes and sewerage on the ward, but I don’t know how that would cause insulin OD or air bubbles
@@IanGammer-vj9cband you are 110% senile
"Innocent Until Proven Guilty!"
Erm, she was found guilty.
Yep, but not proven.
@@flyinyamaha She was proven on all counts of murder by a jury who examined in great detail the evidence that was presented to them. Just because you don't like a verdict that doesn't mean you can deny its legitimacy.
Big difference between 'found' guilty (a guess) and proven guilty (which requires proof).
@@user-up2mo1xq7z Someone recently got released from prison 17 years after been incorrectly convicted of rape. I'm sure at the time everyone was convinced he was guilty.
Yeah, so perhaps Ian Huntly is innocent...according to you and Peter.@@user-up2mo1xq7z
BTW it is "presumed innocent until found guilty", the implication being that you wouldn't have been accused if you were innocent. Also, what if Russel Brand is innocent? It turned out that Johnny Depp was.
depp bought the innocent decision!!
I've always found Peter Hitchins a bit odd and lacking empathy. People had an open mind, Peter, which is why they found it hard to believe that Lucy was guilty and took great pains to examine the evidence.
So an you explain how a nurse with previously unblemished record was convicted of murdering babies who's autopsy reports showed 'natural causes'?
The evidence against her was cherry picked circumstantial evidence.
Her friends and nursing colleagues still maintain she's innocent.
The police took 5 years and a massive unprecidented extra budget to make their very weak case stick. How does it take 5 years and a special tax payer funded 70 man team to convict someone if there's evidence of their guilt?
So much wrong with this case. Anyone that takes the time to actually look at the detail has concerns.
What if she's innocent?
@@paulroberts7544 ”unblemished record” - like that matters 😂 that’s like saying Harold Shipman’s record was unblemished …. until he killed someone. She put up very little/to no defence and said nothing when she had a chance to in the face of all the evidence. That’s damning enough to me. If you were innocent you would protest that until the end.
you don't even know the meaning of words like empathy. It's precisely because Hitchens has empathy that he hates the idea of an innocent spending life in prison. And lets list what PH has been right about: iraq wmd, covid lockdown and mask mandates, drug laws. Three huge issues where he was right and the majority were wrong. Letby may be guilty but 'solely circumstantial evidence' and 'only a plumber as expert witness' should make us question things. Unbelievable!
The biggest miscarriage of justice in British history. Fact.
@@ABC-dw7pe not true, Harold Shipmans record was EXTREMELY blemished prior to his first murder. Was he not stealing drugs and self medicating?
Is this take just to be provocative?
No. It’s to protect future situations where innocent people are persecuted.
At least he sticks to his values by defending Russell Brand's rights. But let's think about "Innocent until proven guilty". Hmm, if he really believes in that value, then surely Lucy Letby is no longer innocent, she's been proven to be guilty
There is no inconsistency.
His concern is that there may have been a miscarriage of legal justice in the Letby case and he has no opinion of her actual guilt or innocence.
RB was a scumbag as a younger man when he was much loved by the Establishment.
He repented and is anti-Establishment now on the COVID jab among other matters.
Mysteriously now the Establishment media is doing a hit job on him.
Again none of us actually know whether or not he ever actually raped a young woman.
I think if you asked him to nuance it a bit he would.
Lucy letby is now a product, just like ted bundy, shes now someone they can make money off 😏
He’s just playing devil’s advocate, he doesn’t actually stand for anything
You may give him some credit by reading the article in the Daily Sceptic about Lucy Letby. Then you would be able to actually comment something worthwhile.
It's an easy equation - babies are dying in a hospital in unusual numbers. The nurse responsible for overseeing their safety is removed and what happens?
Babies stop dying.
Such limited thinking !
How ever if it was me and someone else is getting the blame I would stop doing it so it takes everything off me🤔
@@runswithwindz9875more forward thinking than yours. Poor effort.
@@runswithwindz9875 the only reason she is being defended is because she's a nice young white English girl.
There were 17 deaths. She was accused of 7 of them. After she'd left ... in 2017 / 18 there were even more deaths than before.
She wrote “I did this”. Would Hitchens address that point please?
On the same post it note, she also wrote "I haven't done anything wrong". Even the prosecution didn't see that note as a confession ... it's the media who have jumped on it.
If everyone around her for months is saying she did it she may have had a breakdown and written it. This is not evidence.
'this' can refer to anything, do you not know English?
I wish people wouldn't say it's "just circumstantial" evidence. Even cases with forensics, they're is always circumstantial evidence as well. Circumstancial evidence is evidence
But there was no forensic evidence found in this case.
Well obviously. The point is that circumstantial evidence is not inferior evidence. Everything is circumstantial unless the perpetrator is seen or filmed committing the crime.
If it had been a male nurse you would be asking for all males to be sacked
Who would be asking for that?
If she was black ..it would be the race card ...
The feminist journalists in the mainstream certainly would be.
@@neilsun2521 How do you know that?
There HAS been a male killer nurse - Charles Cullen.
Whoever the mysterious "you" is, that didn't happen after Charlie Cullen.
All the doctors who worked with her thought it was her. She was the only one there at all of the times the babies died
They were also on the verge of being reported for professional misconduct, so after two years and 3 internal investigations clearing Letby of any wrongdoing, they decided to go to the police.
A few of her old colleagues in The Countess of Chester hospital have also been interviewed and say they think she’s innocent 🤯
And Doctor A in the trial didn’t believe she was guilty either. It’s believed she was having an affair with the married doctor, he was kept anonymous and only referred to as Dr A through the trail and media reporting.
Your wrong
@@andys441 Who?
coincidence & accidental or bad medicines!
Harold Shipman pleaded innocence, and some of his then patients (those that he didn't kill) still believe he was innocent.
So did Andrew Malkinson
What's your point? That a different person pleaded innocent so everyone who does myst secretly be guilty? You aren't convincing us skeptics with this I'm afraid, we like hard facts.
In Harold Shipmans case he was alone and there was evidence of stealing the estate of some of the patients his motive was deemed financial gain with evidence.
well the fact she wrote "I killed them on purpose because I'm not good enough. I will never have children or marry or know what it's like to have a family. " in her diary kind of points you in the right direction Pete,deary me
On the same sheet of paper she wrote, " I have done nothing wrong".
Those writings / musings are not good evidence of guilt
@@Sara-jp2nq In her mind , she may have thought that.
She didn't write that, you need better reading comprehension. She was quoting what the police were accusing her of
@@Sara-jp2nq in her head she doesnt think shes done anything wrong ,have you read all the things she wrote? she was namimg babies and dates.
That actually doesn't mean anything. Written words do not equal a murderer!
What about her note saaying that she did it in purpose, she killed them?
@albin2232 There was a post it note shown with her saying, I did it in purpose, I killed them. Was that a forgery?
@@normafarmer3254 Without saying who it was she killed, it's worthless legally, There was no mention of a baby or babies. That means it isn't a confession in the eyes of the law. That's why little was made of her scribblings in court.
She didn't say that. She wrote "they said ..."
Has Mr Hitchens started smoking weed
His spiel is to be controversial to attract attention.
So, every one one who is convicted of murder is absolutely guilty.
No I do not agree that she is innocent but I have no issues with an enquiry or things being looked at again, IMO the evidence is too compelling
With all due respect, just from reading your shocking comment, lol I can tell you've done zero fact finding, literally zero. Even the media criminal reporting of the case state she been found guilty on circumstantial evidence, and basically two parts of that despicable evidence is what got her the guilty verdict and lifelong sentence. Both are absolute case law violations, actually criminal which when you actually hear the truth and the omitted details or the darn right waffle by so called expert should open your eyes. This poor woman is innocent, been stitched up massively.
@@IanGammer-vj9cb how do you know she is innocent you are being a hypocrite, you are free to support killers all you want just leave me alone 🤣 lol
@@dmvvideos7672 haha. Please. Let's not cuss eachother, lets be adults.
I wasn't being horrible with my last message. I just know that from your comment that you havent looked at the actual fact. The ones that matter. Please just take you emotions out of it for a while. Just for a moment, think about this.
A human being has been sentenced to life without parole. Now usually in a court of law theres evidence that proves someone's guilt. Actal hard evidence. Cctv, DNA, phone triangulation, witnesses, and along with that there may be a few sprinkles of circumstantial evidence to help nail the person on trial.
But I'm this case there is zero evidence. Absolutely Zero.
@@dmvvideos7672 I'm waiting. Lol
@@IanGammer-vj9cb cuss? where? 🤣 there was like 10 months of evidence and I agree with the verdict and not with you which you seem to have a problem with 🤣
What if she was a black male nurse? Would he be backing her then?
Whas all that about. Nonsense.
if I thought he was innocent (as I do Lucy) I would be there yelling from the rafters to retrial and release. to put my money where my mouth is I am part of a group called 'the innocence project' that campaign to get many black men on death row who have had unfair trials and are potentially innocent exonerated. we sometimes succeed - we sometimes dont - but thank god the group will never stop trying. there were several prisoners freed this year by the group who have disgustingly been on death row for 25 years. sickening. sounds like a story from Iran and its Oklahoma or Texas.
the only statistics used was the fact that she was the only one on duty each time there was a collapse or death. The plumber gave evidence about the plumbing, no evidence to suggest that any of the babies died from infections that could have been caused by sewege, she had a first class defence , no doubt if they could have called any other witnesses they would have ,that speaks volumes
@jetster785 17 deaths were covered over the said period of time. The absolute fraudulent graph used to convict her was a fit up. Of the 17 deaths she was on duty for under half. 7. There were two other staff members on duty for 6 each too. The graph used to fit her up and presented to to jury pertained to only 7 of the deaths. Or 100pc of the time she was on duty. Tottally ignoring the actual fact thatvthe graph should of been impartial and shown 17 deaths and all the rota of staff which were on duty for all 17. This would then not be worth the paper it printed on
And you're wrong. The babies showed signs exactly of viral infections. Please do some actual research.
She wasn't the only one on duty. There were 17 deaths and she was present at 7 of them.
You simply don't know the details of the case. The defence refused assistance from several experts who freely offered information. Hitchens also explained in the interview why it's difficult to get defence experts for major cases involving children.
@DARKOvibrations What's it got to do with 'simps' who 'don't have gf's'? Do you realise how silly you sound?
“Think of how stupid the average person is,
and then realise half of them are even stupider than that.”
― George Carlin
'On what basis do you ask if she might be innocent?
Hitchens: 'I had some doubts about it from the start..'
Well, we'd better let her out, then.
A bit like that twilight zone episode , the howling man. It was really the devil locked up🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉
I wonder how much of the trial he sat through compared to the jury? I should imagine very little if anything. According to him the toilets did it….
He only said it needs to be looked at again, I suspect he's probably looked into it more than you have otherwise he wouldn't have said such a thing. Unlike you he does have a public reputation to think about and wouldn't be flippant in making such a statement.
@@lamehogshit3730are you serious? He regularly comes out with complete nonsense in a desperate attempt to get attention, he is a narcissist who believes he knows better than anyone about areas he has experience or knowledge of
@@lamehogshit3730 who studied all the evidence more - the members of the jury or Hitchens?
Listening to Peter Hitchens, I feel I know less at the end of the interview than when I started. This is mind-bogglingly devoid of information.
Best left to the courts rather than Hitchen's and his pontifications.
That is just what he said!, listen again
There were over 100 miscarriages of justice in England in the last three years. In many of those cases, people outside of the court system had to fight for their freedom. We cannot just 'leave things to the courts'.
@@RTAC_1234 yeah Andy Malkinso, Luke Mitchell, 1500 sub postmasters ...all wrongly convicted and Luke Mitchell was only 14 when accused of murder he has been in prison for twenty years and the police have being destroying the forensic samples just when his legal team got permission from the CCRC for samples to be retested . Much like in Andy Malkinson's case
Hitchens wasn't in court for ten months and therefore didn't hear the mountain of evidence against Letby.
The Jury weren't allowed to hear the mountain of evidence that cast huge doubt on her guilt.
The worlds smallest mountain
@@paulroberts7544 Troll account alert. The ONLY witness for the defence was some plumber, ffs. That was the best they had.
10 months is a lot of time for mud to stick. An open and shut case which takes 10 months? Get real
@@guitarman4which bandwagon? No evidence of a bandwagon. Thats the trouble with evidence, dont you see?
It had nothing to do with faulty plumbing. These babies were given lethal doses of insulin, air injected into their tubes, excess amounts of milk found in their little bodies and trauma.
There is no proof of that. Just one man's opinion. The autopsy's showed they died of natural causes.
So who did these things ? Do you trust the medical establishment ? Do you trust doctors who have behaved with cowardice and psychopathy over recent years ?
Might she be an easy scapegoat ? I don't know personally - but so many sheep think they know the truth, because they are spoon fed by the media !
Wake up fools - What if this girl is innocent ? At least think about it...
The autopsy reports say otherwise.
If you do some actual research and not just cast judgment and are happy for the so called justice system to basically end peoples lives on zero evidence then I hope the system never ends up in your kingdom. Also a side note. Plumbing has saved more lives than medicine. Excrement coming up through basin wastes where nurses, mum's, dad's, wash their hands and then hold poor little sick babies will in no time at all fight and end the little mights lives. And you have that same excrement dripping from pipework abive the most sensitive ward in any hospital above the babies cots. Well, need I say more?
@@RC-gh7osand you have read all of them and understood everything they said of course…
Well done Peter for daring to question this case.
I absolutely believe that Lucy is innocent. Circumstantial evidence only. The verdict was not unanimous. Cheshire police have a history of putting the accused in an assumption of guilt and then building their case around that instead of looking at the evidence as a whole and then deciding whether there is guilt. their investigation methods are fundamentally flawed. They start with ‘Lucy is being investigated for multiple murders’ not a way to get an untainted view or opinion from anyone. If they didn’t get letby the others would be sh1t scared they’d come for them after. The whole thing was bad investigation from start to finish. Bad things happened and they needed a scape goat.
I do too. I think she's been scapegoated by a hospital who's senior management tried to cover up the first two deaths and prevented a police investigation early on which absolutely SHOULD have been done as is normally done with ANY suspicious death. The hospital's managment bears DIRECT responsibility for the other deaths in failing to do that. Regardless of whether the deaths were accidental failings or deliberate murders, the hospital could have prevented further deaths if they had reported them to the police and allowed a full foresnic police investigation early on.
The fact Lucy faced a disciplinary hearing by management after the first deaths and then was put BACK on the same ward does raise a lot of questions, given that the doctor and other staff expressed serious concerns about her. Whether those concerns were justified or whether Lucy was being scapegoated for general failings, the fact the disciplinary hearing cleared her of any wrong-doing and decided to put her back on the ward with the lives of vulnerable babies in her care does raise some questions both over Lucy's innocence possibly and also the hospital's negilgence and failings by senior staff.
Most police seem to operate like that in the uk
Not even circumstantial! Statistical and they got the statistics completely wrong! Ask Professor Emeritus Richard D Gill for details (website) There is also two very good, recent investigation articles published by the Guardian and the Telegraph yesterday (9 July 2024). Google and you shall find.
Why can't ppl like you comprehend that curcumstantial evidence is admissable in court for a reason 🙄
I cannot compare Lucy Letby to Russell Brand. It is beyond probability that all these babies died unnaturally when only she was there. Also her notes saying she did it
So what evidence can you provide to prove she killed any of the babies, apart from your opinion?
@@pattieboyd2832 1. Every single unexpected death happened under her care 2. she wrote a confession. What more evidence do you need?
@@joee8278Neither of those things are evidence that she killed the babies
@@pattieboyd2832 I don't have to: she was judged by trial and jury and found guilty. Brand has not been brought to trial yet.
1.There were plenty of unexpected deaths in that unit when she wasn't on duty. 2. She did not write a confession. She simply wrote that she felt responsible. Read the notes and her explanation. Easy to read it as a confession without the right context. 3. I'm not saying she's innocent, just not as clear cut as you're claiming @@joee8278
Why didn’t Lucy Letby’s legal team call in medical expert witnesses. Because they knew the prosecution would tear them apart. It’s simple, the case was heard over 10 months. A jury found her guilty. Move on.
Peter explained there's a reluctance in medical trials by experts to appear on the defense. I imagine being a defense witness at a trial like this is career suicide if the defendant loses the case
The circumstances and results of one case have absolutely no bearing on another.
@@guitarman4 Be my guest.!
The plumbing only went faulty when she was on duty - now that's just bad luck. 😜
Is that a fact that you know for sure?
@@helenwilliams6366 I'm pretty sure that it was bad luck but not 100%
How much do you need attention?
So who injected these poor babies with insulance and air - a ghost??
None were injected with air or insulin total conjecture ...many had e coli from being in the unfit unit
Wondering what L.L's own explanation is for the notes she wrote?
She said "that was me trying to process my feelings"" or words to that effect. It is called in Psychoanalysis catharsis. A method developed by Freud and called "free association".
Ive been waiting for this😂😂
modern justice is very affected by public emotion.
The underlying problem being the Media acting as a cheerleader for the justice system instead of acting as a check on it - as they should ...
Why are these idiotic opions . She's guilty . Pity you didn't question the miscarriage of justice on Alex belefield instead of supporting a serial killer .well O'Sullivan will support that as he a Pratt .
Bellfield is a weirdo…defo no miscarriage of justice there
@@deano007 ye right whatever . You listened to him in you tube did you
A reasonable person would question both convictions. And many others.
I used to listen to Alex Bellfield, before he started doing homophobic content and talking in sexually derogatory ways about women. I stopped listening then. And then the evidence of all the emails he sent to people harassing them. He is clearly guilty and he was open on his UA-cam channel about hating the people he was convicted of harassing.
@@CatherineX-ph3on homophobic how when he gay
The Truth will out
The truth being that Lucy Letby is innocent
Oh for goodness sake Peter. What has happened to you?
Nothing? He's always taken unpopular views. And quite often been right.
Go and read the articles he is quoting or are you too lazy too do do that?
Because you don't agree with him something must have happened?
This man aint worth the time. He's the definition of someone who is so out of touch with the real world. I cant believe he gets so much time to drivel on in public
A parent walked in to see her baby & this 'nurse' yelled at the parent to get out!
That must mean that she killed babies then - very clever of you
@Regororbeen so you support a woman who murdered babies, seek help mate! I just hope to god you haven't got children
I can't believe there are people on here doubting if letby did this or not, WOW.
There are many people including top forensic psychologists who can't believe that the public have been brainwashed into thinking she did do it😂
@@caroleknight4686 Are you familiar with the Kathleen Folbigg saga. 20 years in gaol and recently pardoned. Or Lindy Chamberlain?
It's the "halo" factor. He parents steadfastly believe she is innocent too, which of course is to be expected.....
That is some thing to do perhaps with an understanding of just how corrupt the press , police and legal system is . The press lie and exaggerate to sell papers . The police select facts that secure convictions ignoring evidence that proves innocence . As for the courts it makes no difference if you are guilty or innocent .in the right or in the wrong , you just have to convince 12 idiots that are probably thick as planks ,this is done by emotion and deception . Happens all the time . The same week LL was convicted a man was released after serving 17 years for a crime he did not commit ,worse the courts judges suppressed evidence that could have released him 10 years sooner
Yes its so obvious Lucy is innocent
I very rarely listen to any mainstream media nowadays, 20 mins in the car now and then maybe and this clip reminds me exactly why. Pure crap.
The health status of these babies was known, they were considered stable. Other babies the doctors and nurse can predict they may require medical assistance due to being unwell...None were in that category that died..that is why the staff were so alarmed. I would think many hospitals have faulty plumbing, it has not led to deaths. Delia Morris
They're the most vulnerable things on the planet. They're in that very ward because they're fighting for their lives.
So what about the sewage leaks into SCBU.
so leaking sewage in a babies ward is nothing to worry about, then?
That is simply not the case, a new hospital in NHS had pathogens in the cold water system killed nine babies , Viruses pathogens are often hard to detect there was sewage on the floor so it would vaporise in a warm building into the air.People who dry wet clothes on rads with the windows shut risk infection esp among children there was a case 2 years ago when tenants did this killing their child . The press and the left tried to blame housing association. Don't believe me try it . She was fitted up
@@IanGammer-vj9cbthey were stable and not expected to die. Someone put insulin into their bodies and stick a tube down one's throat and gave them air bubbles. They were vulnerable, but these were not natural deaths
Thank goodness judges aren’t priests!! Imagine the complete injustice 😮💨
I don't understand
She has been found guilty on all counts of murder by a jury who listened to the evidence in great detail from start to finish over a long period of time. This depraved woman is exactly where she should be and anyone protesting her innocence is either uneducated on the case or have ulterior motives.
Uneducated?
Don't be so ridiculous
So there has never been any miscarriages of justice then.
If you are so sure that she is guilty surely she will be found guilty again, why are you so afraid of re-trial if you are sure the evidence proves her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?
@@DavidSmith-fs5qj But that doesn't mean this particular case is one though. That is a completely straw man argument.
@@lawrencehaynes6408 Oh don't worry if this goes through she will be found guilty again.
Absolutely ridiculous position for Hitchens to take.
OK I'm embarrassed to live in Oxford. Peter Hitchens clearly rejects science. He is mad.
Rejects science!
Apparently you don't even know what science is.
She wrote a note preempting that all 3 triplets died but one was saved by being moved to another hospital.
She wrote in her own words that she did it and she was evil.
She displayed bizarre behaviour around the grieving parents and stalked them on Facebook.
This is before we even look at the statistical points.
Why is it so hard to believe that a woman can be this evil?
Read science on trial. It answers your question brilliantly and explains in a highly logical way (most of this trial was stretch and speculation, very little logic when you look at it objectively - the insulin bags being perhaps the best example of this) it basically demonstrates that it was actually likely the deaths were attributed to other, natural causes which were not investigated at the time. The criminal causes were never satisfactorily established by the proper investigatory means (a home office forensic pathologist, the testing unit at Liverpool etc).
It's worth your time if you do care about a fair justice system.
No, she wrote notes saying she was evil and didn’t deserve to work with babies. That is someone who hates themself. People who hate themselves don’t believe they are worthy of seeing a beautiful day, a stunning sunset etc.
As for stalking patients’ families on facebook, again, mental illness but there are also care workers and nurses known as “mourners” who go to all the patients’ funerals and take an unhealthy interest in patients and their families. Again, mental illness and no social life or boundaries. Sad people basically. I’ve worked with quite a few in hospitals and care homes.
It isn’t evidence of criminal behaviour, just a sad life.
@@CatherineX-ph3on Yes she did write those notes. The first one I refer to was a draft of a sympathy card that she was planning to send after she had killed all 3 children. The details of the case are widely available, I suggest that you spend the hours reading or listening to them before passing comment. She is evil and you are a little bit for defending her without taking the time to look into what you are saying.
@@RC-gh7os I do care. With respect I think you and Peter Hitchins are taking small aspects of the case rather than looking at the totality of the evidence.
@@DH-uq1zw with respect, could you elaborate on your certainty of guilt? I'm open minded to either out come, but I am yet to see any evidence that has convinced me of a criminal cause of death. That's the point in the case where the house of cards falls, and I can point you in the direction of the science that convinced me of this. If you can point me in the direction of evidence that proves a number of murders took place, and that LL was responsible, I will certainly align to that way of thinking. But a shift rota, a distressed post it note, 250 handover notes only a few of which were used as evidence, facebook searches and a sympathy card are not good enough.
Please, fire away with your 'totality of evidence' if you have anything more to add? I would sleep better at night if someone could convince me, but so far the only thing that has is the exonerating science.
Why can't we criticise the jury, because they're volunteers?
What happened to without reasonable doubt. If these questions are being asked then surely the case needs to be investigated. I’m not saying she is innocent but without real proof it needs investigation
She admitted her guilt in writing. No injustice, just a bunch of sick, deluded Conspiracy nuts say otherwise.
Have you read the note in full? You simply can't have done or understood the context to believe it a confession
@@christopherthomas5333It's crazy. Even though you've just asked him directly. Basically pointing him to the truth. He won't go seek it. 99pc of the world has lost the ability to think critically. Madness.
Oppositional defiance disorder.
This from the man that thinks all addicts should be in prison.
Well he doesn’t as he doesn’t believe in the fantasy of addiction.
So one would seem to cancel out the other.
@@adambritain5774 you’ve not seen enough of him
well he is right on some things and wrong on others - just as medhi Hasan and Christopher hitchins and George Galloway and rula jubreal and tucker Carlson are right on some things and wrong on others.
She has been found guilty of several deaths. She had a top defence team. I suspect the reason she did not have any expert medical witness support was because nobody could be found to provide helpful evidence for her because there wasn't any.
She is going to appeal anyway.
As for HS2, if it had been started at Manchester it would be full steam ahead for Euston by now.
"A top defence team"? Really? Millions are needed when pitted against a state, to have a cat in hell's chance of equilibrium. Do you know something we don't? Have you for a moment considered the sheer SCALE of the financial compensation which would have been sought (and achieved) by the victims families were the deaths/injuries found to be resultant of malpractice by the neo-natal clinic? The astronomical cost of both the internal, and particularly external inquiries? The level of compensation sought by parents whose children either died or suffered injury in other neo-natal clinics? The potential costs would measure in BILLIONS. Catastrophic to a floundering, perhaps already fatally wounded Conservative government.
Have any more murders taken place at the hospital since Letby was arrested, or at any other workplace where a member of staff that worked with Letby has moved to? It seems not. Also if the plumbing was faulty then wouldn’t other staff members look guilty as well? Seems strange the plumbing went wrong when only when Letby was on duty with those babies. I think Hitchens looks foolish with that argument.
Lucy Letby blocked my sink. She's a menace to plumbing.
Jemma that is not an argument for if she is guilty or not. Ffs. Sort it out.
@@staytrue5307 Thanks for the advise and bonus swearing!
@@jemmajames6719 Sometimes people get riled up when they hear inane nonsense.
Actually the number of perinatal deaths at the Countess of Chester in 2017 and 2018 was higher than in 2015 and 2016 (ONS statistics), but Lucy Letby was not on the ward in these years. It is very uncertain as to whether any 'murders' took place.
They are still accusations he has not been charged with any crimes yet Mr Hitchens
No she isn’t innocent would you be saying this if she was a man instead of a fairly pretty looking woman ? Honestly you types of people absolutely disgust me how dare you!
Oh. Chanelling Greta. I'm sold.
I wonder if he questioned Harold Shipman's verdict as well... This man lacks imagination. Women's crimes can be a bad as men's. Look at the mother and baby homes in Ireland.
So, once again, we have a TV anchorman & a newspaper columnist, do not understand the workings of healthcare. She is guilty.
What part of the health care system are they not understanding? How are you so certain of her guilt? Could you clarify?
Circumstantial evidence is valid evidence and what's usually used to convict people. There were 9 months if it and up to 100 witness testimonies including parents'.
The police investigated each case with separate teams and every team came to same conclusions. Her attitude and appearance on the stand shouted guilt.
What part of that do you doubt?
@@RC-gh7os I'm an RN & Midwife in Australia's equivalent to the NHS. The hierarchy of healthcare is fraught with problems, she was trying to impress Doc A, She'd work back after she sould have been finished, she had a huge sense of self-importence & felt 'superior' to others. But she really is an introvert. But I truly think she attacked the most innocent & helpless of patients, just because she could/ It gave her heaps of attention. Taking the pics of one newborn with their breathing tube. Taking home notes & handover sheets with confidential patient details. Every nurse knows this is unacceptable. She would infiltrate the parents/babies lives in their grieving process. She'd look up parents on social media, probably to see how the mourning process was going. Another no-no. It's hard to explain but having worked in these areas for years, her guilt is very apparent to me..
@@passionfruitprincess much of what you have said is your opinion based on speculation which is fine, but obviously for a whole life tariff forensic evidence is required. Your theories are based only on your interpretation of ideas put forward (absolutely no evidence of her being in love with a doctor) and your own experience. Many logical thinkers need more objective evidence which is not being offered.
@@judewhitbread2394 Saying circumstantial evidence is valid evidence is like saying hearsay is valid evidence.
The question is- has the State proven her guilt beyond reasonable doubt and has this been done over the course of a fair Trial?
No expert witness on her behalf because they would get asked,did this baby suffer insulin poisoning? Answer yes who was caring of the baby ermmm LL
No babies died of insulin poisoning, the two cases that was pertaining to the babies were fine. Alive an well
@@IanGammer-vj9cb sorted mate 👌 edited
Oh dear. This insulin poisoning you talk of? Please state the facts? Eagerly waiting your response. X
Can't wait for this one. 😂😂😂 The amusing but scary thing is. You don't know. And that's the problem, every single one of you who have blinkers on are only going off of what you've heard, zero ability to implement critical thinking, literally zero.
@@iammeats6743 no babies on the entire ward were prescribed insulin,at the time baby nearly died of insulin poisoning...she got to careless trying out new methods of killing,she new it was obvious but still tried to kill 2 babies with insulin....
Lucy Letby was there at every death, and the deaths stopped once she was suspended. End of. Also she wrote 'I did it.' what more does anyone need?
Deaths apparently continued after her suspension. !!
One death in seven years!
Hi there, on both counts that is untrue. She was there for every death deemed 'suspicious' years later by an expert witness when she was already a suspect. Uncontroversially there were more deaths - I think 10 more. Have you read the note in full and understood the context?
The hospital stopped taking high risk babies after she was suspended
She only attended 8 of 17 deaths in that period!!!
Come on, Peter. You don't need to be a contrarian on everything under the sun. Letby had a notepad of mental scribblings saying she did it and other horrible things. You're falling off the apple cart here old chap.
We know he wouldn't be doing this if the nurse was an immigrant!
Innocent until proven guilty? I'm sorry to break it to you mate but she's already been found guilty. 😂
Found guilty. Not proven guilty
If you are so sure that she is guilty surely she will be found guilty again, why are you so afraid of re-trial if you are sure the evidence proves her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?
@@flyinyamaha She was proven guilty on all counts of murder. Just because you don't like the result it doesn't mean you can deny its legitimacy.
@@lawrencehaynes6408 No one is afraid of a retrial. Most people's concerns is that the families of the victims will have to go through this whole thing again and put under unnecessary distress when a verdict has already been reached.
@@pumpactionturbolad1002 she wasn't 'proven' guilty, she was 'found' guilty entirely on circumstantial evidence. Who said I didn't like the result?? Did you read it somewhere that I didn't like the result? Or are you just assuming??
need to do stats on ALL staff who cared for the kids . see if there is a significant difference between correlation with THEIR shifts and deaths compared to her correlation .. statistically.
That's what they did. It was a table with the suspicious events down the left, and all 37 staff members across the top, with Lucy being the only one with a tick in every single box. So she was the only staff member that was present at all events.
Does this man vehemently defend every single person ever found guilty of a crime ? This is strange.. I think he fancies letby, cheeky old codger.
It's infuriating and insulting to the families and staff involved. Can't believe he's basing this on an article he's read somewhere by an "expert in microbiology" - I found the article, and the man who wrote it is not even a clinician.
Hahaha that’s funny
@@joee8278read science on trial. It is solid, peer reviewed science that methodically explains possible reasons for the ALL the deaths that were not considered nor explored by the doctors at the time. Which leads to the worrying question- why were they so quick to conclude criminal causes of death?
@@DancingAmaya where can I read it? I went to the website and couldn't get far without signing up with all my details
@@joee8278 type in rex vs Lucy 2023. You don't have to sign in for the information just the forum.
It's ridiculous to suggest that Lucy Letby is going to enable people to get to Birmingham any quicker. And as for HS2, how can a railway track murder babies? Ridiculous.
There's so much circumstantial evidence that it becomes a very strong case.
Circumstantial evidence is not evidence enough to convict. And it's not considered enough for a reason. I can be in several places where robberies have occurred. It doesn't mean that I robbed them,as an example.
@@Trebor74 A better example would be: you appear in every single location where a robbery has taken place within 2 years. The police then raid your house and find a written confession. Now yes, this isn't proof with 100% certainty that you robbed all these places, but it's pretty compelling evidence nonetheless and in most people's view, enough for conviction.
I agree. Circumstancial evidence is credible evidence and it's not just one piece of it
@@Trebor74but it is! In your opinion it may not be. The police, CPS and Jury don't agree. We've just become so wrapped up now on forensics. What about Shipman and Allitt or even Peter Sutcliffe? It's evidence and the Jury decided it was compelling. Why didn't the defence call an expert witness to refute the Prosecution? Because they couldn't
@@Trebor74in your opinion and yet the Police, the CPS, the Jury think it is and that's why Shipman, Sutcliffe, Allitt, Genene Jones and Norris and loads of other people have been convicted beyond reasonable doubt. One piece of evidence isn't enough. Holding a trial for 10 months shows there was a wealth of evidence. Why didn't the defence call an expert witness?
Peter Hitchins has grown so handsome in his older years. I always admired his comments and views.
It was the insulin that made me think she did it
Was made up. Not found at time of post mortem, and the test to prove or disprove it was not carried out.
Yes, and the evidence of a sharp instrument having been pushed down the throat of one of the infants, which caused major blood loss. The child later died.....
Is this because you believe that the insulin must have been injected, or have you read a few dozen studies on the subject, to arrive at an educated conclusion?
I think you believe what you were told to believe, and you haven't even read one single study on the subject.
Please correct me if i am mistaken.
@@robinhood4640after listening to the trial, I believe the insulin was delivered through an extension set that was already attached to the cannulas. It would actually be very easy and fast to do if she had the insulin already prepared in a syringe.
There is no proven direct link between LL and the insulin.
What a bore!
Everyone jumping in NOW and not on the behalf of the babies and their families.
Lucy wpuld stalk the families. Turn up on their doorsteps. She is utterly guilty
Her diary, pretty much admits it
Do you mean her post-it note? Well no, it doesn't. It's contradictory and confused. The scribblings of a young woman under intense pressure.
It's not a 'post-it note' go look at the court documents. Its pretty damning evidence against her. dont just listen to a narrative. Look at the transcripts etc. its all there.@@joebish6629
No, it doesn't.
It does. She is getting a retrial on one charge, attempted murder. Not a retrial over the full span of offences. She still guilty of all the rest. @@DancingAmaya
@@LuluJessNZ being found guilty is not the same as being guilty. Sally Evans and Andrew Malkinson can attest to that. Can you source her diary 'pretty much' admitting to it?
Put it this way- are you so absolutely certain that all of the babies were murdered rather than alternative explanations for their deaths? And if so, is there enough to prove it could only have been LL who killed them?
If not, could you live in a country that keeps a possibly innocent person locked up for the rest of her life?
Peter Hitchens doesn't get much wrong, but on this occasion he is regarding Lucy Letby. The evidence put before the court, including her own written admission, proved she was guilty. End of.
Not End of. Because large numbers of experts in multiple fields have produced evidence that casts doubt on the conviction.
He rides his brothers fame... he himself is a total grifter... always getting things wrong always supporting right wing conspiracy theories, rapists and now baby killers
@@paulroberts7544 Probably. But we all know about "experts" don't we. This is precisely why Britain is broken. It's because we keep listening to them!
@draconianfrog Of course her written admissions don't mean anything. Neither does the King's speech at the opening of parliament does it. Don't believe anything you read. She probably didn't write it anyway. It was planted on her wasn't it.
@@DavidA-ps1qr not saying she is or not guilty...but those post it notes were a big reason why she was found guilty.
Kevin proves that people have a skewed perception of evidence. RB can behave any way he wants, that itself is not evidence that he engaged in non-consensual stuff. Evidence is to bring the receipts that a certain person did a certain thing, beyond reasonable doubt. To be clear, without DNA or videos from that time, or maybe even witnesses to what went on behind closed doors, it will be hard to prove anything. Unless, of course, the definition of evidence and proof have been changed along the way.
The prosecution freely admits that such trials based on highly technical evidence are above the pay-grades of average jurors. Thus prosecution teams look for evidence that juries can relate to, such as diaries or poetry that might demonstrate a deviant personality. disorders.
It's the same problem with fraud trials, they go on for a long time and most jurors struggle to keep up with the technical jargon and in the end just become tempted to reach a verdict on anecdotal evidence and the testimony of character witnesses.
Such highly technical trials probably need to select jurors from professions related to the case. After all, there are plenty of retired doctors, surgeons, nurses that could be called upon for jury service.
I think any decent lawyer could have utterly destroyed the prosecution's case
Remember there is no evidence of any kind that a single baby was harmed by anyone on that ward
The prosecution's 'expert' is extremely dubious and has a ludicrous hypothesis that countless other experts believe is total nonsense
One of these experts is the writer of the paper that the defense expert based his hypothesis upon
The statistical 'evidence' is embarrassing - a sixth former could destroy it in 10 minutes with a couple of power point slides
The accused has a near endless list of coworkers who believe she is innocent and are willing to say so
I really don't see it as being a complicated case at all - all the defending lawyer has to do is raise some doubt in the minds of a few jurors
She had an inexplicably horrific defense - so horrific that it begs the question whether something else is going on with this very bizarre case
I think Peter has lost it this time
Because you don’t want to see other evidence. You’ve made your mind up snd there it ends! Well if she is innocent then a massive crime has been committed .
The witch finder general is looking for an assistant would you be interested ?. Based on the fact you are happy with a conviction with No direct evidence No witness No confession No motive ,just bogus narrative Oh and a expert witness was paid in excess of 10,000 pounds for nonsense science . Yes I think you and the WF will get along fine
Try reading what he suggests and you will clearly see the entire trail is a farce (unless it goes over your head).