Thankyou Dr Taylor. Your sharing of the reports at Mark McDonald's press conference, was utterly heart breaking but powerful. It is inevitable now that this miscarriage of justice will be overturned.
@@paulis8107 Because she is innocent, the medical evidence has been roundly discredited and even ridiculed by many consultant neonatologists. The bogus spreadsheet has also been comprehensively debunked by eminent statisticians from The Royal Statistical Society. What evidence is left in that awful trial, reminiscent of a 17th Century witch trial, is specious and worthless! FREE LUCY LETBY NOW - LUCY LETBY IS INNOCENT
There as so many variables in the whole case, I cannot see how any jury could have ever been convinced of her absolute and unequivocal guilt beyond all reasonable doubt. There has not been one single piece of hard factual evidence presented by the prosecution that is irrefutable throughout this whole court case. Every single piece of prosecution evidence that has been presented has a perfectly rational alternative explanation.
But that's not irrefutable evidence of a murder. I think it is now generally accepted that statistical charts can be manipulated to suit the required narrative.
@@ncooper8438 And I think not having any defence medical expert witnesses made the jury believe that the nonsense they heard from Evans was correct. I can't get over how the defence agreed with the prosecution that babies had been poisoned with insulin when that was nonsense too.
For a non-medic like me this was very informative - thank you! To my mind this demonstration just adds to the questions against the evidence given by Dr Ravi Jayaram. What did he really know about babies this premature?
Tomorrow is the request for Appeal for Baby K. It is extremely worrying that we all know it will be denied. Please continue to expose the truth until we reach a point they have to listen
If you see Carl Perkins video on this you will see that even though the appeal was denied it was noted that there were concerns over some of the evidence so there is actually a bit of hope going forward.
Brilliant video. You do have to feel for the parents. However, they need to know the truth. Some parents were in the process of taking legal action for medical negligence, but this trial and conviction put paid to that. I am reading the Thirwall Inquiry stuff and it is very worrying. I believe Lucy Letby is innocent from what I have seen and read.
Totally unreliable evidence what came out of Dr Jayaram's mouth. He said it for all to see..How many more mistakes is this guy gonna make. Thank goodness for these experts explaining what really and how quickly a neonatal tiny baby can dislodge ET tubes. Bravo🙏
In the interview he did about Baby K it really looks as if he had planned and rehearsed his answers rather than recalling actual events. Possibly even before the event took place. The whole situation looks as if it may have been a bit set up.
I agree. I was trying to talk about this case to a nurse friend of mine, she said she was offended by my questioning of this case, the debate was closed down. That is how society is being controlled, that is how the wrong person becomes the wrong doer.
There's a really good video that shows it probably wasn't even Lucy standing with this baby at the time of the incident. She was allocated to another room with a different baby. There were two other nurses allocated to baby K. Even if one left the room, the other would have been there. The doctor likely mixed the women up because they looked fairly similar. He was already preconditioned by his own suspicion, so assumed it was her. He didn't report the incident either. It could be completely made up as far as we know. There is absolutely no evidence to support his claim.
@@jacquelinetilly8300 Yes you'll see my comments all over pages dedicated to LL's innocence. A sense of humour is required, from time to time, in order to process the extraordinary claims made about Letby by her accusers.
But it is still obvious that anyone can accidently dislodge the tube, no? Presumably these experts would have taken the time to read whether the sedation would have really prevented the tube from dislodging?
The prosecution claimed that in first trial it was sedated but later it was shown that morphine was prescribed after the dislodgment so the idea that it was sedated no longer held at all
Why would you need to be at the trial to know that accidental dislodgement of a beathing tube is extremely common? Consultant neonatologist, Dr Mike Hall was at the trial and agrees with many other medical experts, including consultant neonatologists that the medical evidence in Lucy's trial was flawed.
If you think your precious Lucy is innocent you should direct your anger to her defence team because they are responsible for excluding anything from the trial. Don't blame the process because it absolutely was a fair trial
@@ruthbashford3176 Because they were given the same tools and same opportunity to include evidence and experts on both sides. If they chose to not utilise, that doesn't make it an unfair trial. Not difficult to understand! Can't just keep having trials until you get the outcome you want, doesn't work like that
@@joshb7326so you don’t care about the truth or that an innocent person is in jail for heinous crimes that never happened. Just ‘well, her defence had the opportunity…it was a trial…’
@@joshb7326 You are right, but on this occasion, the justice system itself has been shown to be 'not fit for purpose' because scientific evidence has been misrepresented by barristers and judges to a jury who are unable to evaluate the arguments. The defence strategy needs to be investigated.
@@SuperBoomslang And why is it you think your right compared to many highly intelligent people who beleive she's guilty. Are you just better than everyone else including the judges and jury, even though you weren't even at the trial so you don't have all the information and you never will
Thankyou Dr Taylor. Your sharing of the reports at Mark McDonald's press conference, was utterly heart breaking but powerful. It is inevitable now that this miscarriage of justice will be overturned.
Brilliant AMC, and Prof Colin Morley, and Dr Taylor. God bless you all! #LucyLetbyisInnocent
Excellent thank goodness for the courage of these true experts. Set this scapegoated Nurse free now!
🙏🏼👏🏼
Why?
@@paulis8107 Because she is innocent, the medical evidence has been roundly discredited and even ridiculed by many consultant neonatologists. The bogus spreadsheet has also been comprehensively debunked by eminent statisticians from The Royal Statistical Society. What evidence is left in that awful trial, reminiscent of a 17th Century witch trial, is specious and worthless!
FREE LUCY LETBY NOW - LUCY LETBY IS INNOCENT
agreed my friend
Thank you for your courage.
Just to echo others here, thank you both. I hope her new Barrister has seen this video too.
There as so many variables in the whole case, I cannot see how any jury could have ever been convinced of her absolute and unequivocal guilt beyond all reasonable doubt. There has not been one single piece of hard factual evidence presented by the prosecution that is irrefutable throughout this whole court case. Every single piece of prosecution evidence that has been presented has a perfectly rational alternative explanation.
Completely agree
Don't forget the on duty chart with the solid column of crosses, which would have swayed a jury.
But that's not irrefutable evidence of a murder. I think it is now generally accepted that statistical charts can be manipulated to suit the required narrative.
@@ncooper8438 And I think not having any defence medical expert witnesses made the jury believe that the nonsense they heard from Evans was correct. I can't get over how the defence agreed with the prosecution that babies had been poisoned with insulin when that was nonsense too.
@@ncooper8438she wasn't there fir 10 deathsover same period
Thank goodness for this video. 🌺
Excellent very informative
Thanks for sharing. Is this a clip from a longer video?
For a non-medic like me this was very informative - thank you! To my mind this demonstration just adds to the questions against the evidence given by Dr Ravi Jayaram. What did he really know about babies this premature?
What is obvious is that his evidence has been shown to be unreliable.
And the what does he know that he's not saying is bugging me too.
Wow! So intresting, thank you.
How much longer can the medical evidence be ignored in the Lucy Letby case?
Thank you 🙏🏼
Tomorrow is the request for Appeal for Baby K. It is extremely worrying that we all know it will be denied. Please continue to expose the truth until we reach a point they have to listen
If you see Carl Perkins video on this you will see that even though the appeal was denied it was noted that there were concerns over some of the evidence so there is actually a bit of hope going forward.
Thanks for this useful video, how those CoCH doctors were able to form a case against Lucy beggars belief
Brilliant video. You do have to feel for the parents. However, they need to know the truth. Some parents were in the process of taking legal action for medical negligence, but this trial and conviction put paid to that. I am reading the Thirwall Inquiry stuff and it is very worrying. I believe Lucy Letby is innocent from what I have seen and read.
When did they start doing that? Did any of this happen before Baby A?
I was shocked when I started reading into it and found out how thin the evidence was. They have nothing.
Totally unreliable evidence what came out of Dr Jayaram's mouth. He said it for all to see..How many more mistakes is this guy gonna make. Thank goodness for these experts explaining what really and how quickly a neonatal tiny baby can dislodge ET tubes. Bravo🙏
100%
In the interview he did about Baby K it really looks as if he had planned and rehearsed his answers rather than recalling actual events. Possibly even before the event took place. The whole situation looks as if it may have been a bit set up.
Are you a doctor
@HENNAtabasun1990nonsense letby dislodged the tubes she is a baby killer
@@Blacksquareableit’s you making things up
"its too simplistic to just blame the nurse"
I agree. I was trying to talk about this case to a nurse friend of mine, she said she was offended by my questioning of this case, the debate was closed down. That is how society is being controlled, that is how the wrong person becomes the wrong doer.
@@AJ-hi9fd😂 Society being controlled
Makes absolutely no sense
There's a really good video that shows it probably wasn't even Lucy standing with this baby at the time of the incident. She was allocated to another room with a different baby. There were two other nurses allocated to baby K. Even if one left the room, the other would have been there. The doctor likely mixed the women up because they looked fairly similar. He was already preconditioned by his own suspicion, so assumed it was her. He didn't report the incident either. It could be completely made up as far as we know. There is absolutely no evidence to support his claim.
Many Thanks 🙂
Thanks for sharing this.
good work experts, we keep praying
Now we know why breathing tubes became dislodged wherever and whenever Lucy Letby worked in a hospital.
Your comment does not make sense. Are you being sarcastic?
@@jacquelinetilly8300 Yes you'll see my comments all over pages dedicated to LL's innocence. A sense of humour is required, from time to time, in order to process the extraordinary claims made about Letby by her accusers.
@@SuperBoomslang Thank you - I hadn’t seen your earlier messages and was confused by the comment.
@@jacquelinetilly8300 No worries, it happens all the time, I really should give up sarcasm.
Yes, I reckon this was a miscarriage of justice as well.
The argument against the baby dislodging the tube is that the baby was sedated and so wasn't moving, supposedly.
But it is still obvious that anyone can accidently dislodge the tube, no? Presumably these experts would have taken the time to read whether the sedation would have really prevented the tube from dislodging?
@benyaminewanganyahu I think the tubes are taped in place to prevent them coming out if the baby moves.
The prosecution claimed that in first trial it was sedated but later it was shown that morphine was prescribed after the dislodgment so the idea that it was sedated no longer held at all
@@ncooper8438 Im told the ties dont hold well. When tied etc still very common
Baby k was not sedated at the time.
what i would ask.....yes i think she has been set up.....but....what makes one expert...more believable than another
At the very least there should be another trial with full disclosure of all available evidence.
Were these two blokes at the trial, or just shooting the breeze?
Why would you need to be at the trial to know that accidental dislodgement of a beathing tube is extremely common? Consultant neonatologist, Dr Mike Hall was at the trial and agrees with many other medical experts, including consultant neonatologists that the medical evidence in Lucy's trial was flawed.
Experts who have looked at the evidence post trial. The defence did not call any experts strangely
@@ruthbashford3176 The trial went on for many months, but armchair detectives who weren't there have cracked the case.
It's bullshit.
@@ruthbashford3176 Yeah, why bother hearing all the evidence?
@@ruthbashford3176 Well said Ruth, really good point.
Shame you couldn't talk about it when you were in the NHS. Freedom to speak up,?
It's amazing they can do this on a plastic baby .
They weren't there, they didn't administer the tube. It's bollox basically 😅
I think a neonatologist should know what he's talking about unlike discredited and dodgy paediatricians
@ruthbashford3176 oh, the baby is plastic & they weren't there 🫠
@@paulis8107 And Jyaram didn't see Lucy do anything wrong. Why don't you do some research on the subject, you might learn something?
If you think your precious Lucy is innocent you should direct your anger to her defence team because they are responsible for excluding anything from the trial. Don't blame the process because it absolutely was a fair trial
Lucy's defence was abysmal, I think everyone can agree on that. So if Lucy had a crap defence how could her trial have been fair?
@@ruthbashford3176 Because they were given the same tools and same opportunity to include evidence and experts on both sides. If they chose to not utilise, that doesn't make it an unfair trial. Not difficult to understand! Can't just keep having trials until you get the outcome you want, doesn't work like that
@@joshb7326so you don’t care about the truth or that an innocent person is in jail for heinous crimes that never happened. Just ‘well, her defence had the opportunity…it was a trial…’
@@joshb7326 You are right, but on this occasion, the justice system itself has been shown to be 'not fit for purpose' because scientific evidence has been misrepresented by barristers and judges to a jury who are unable to evaluate the arguments. The defence strategy needs to be investigated.
@@SuperBoomslang And why is it you think your right compared to many highly intelligent people who beleive she's guilty. Are you just better than everyone else including the judges and jury, even though you weren't even at the trial so you don't have all the information and you never will