Mark McDonald has today (6 September 2024) been announced as Lucy Letby's new barrister. This interview was recorded before this announcement. My thanks to Mark again for taking him time to be interviewed about the case.
@@matthewdale5838 I agree in part. But the real lure is in pitting their knowledge against the prosecution, and challenging the system. Imagine bringing down the longest trial in British criminal history, as a miscarriage of justice. This is beyond big, but it could be a once in a century chance to seriously alter our awful legal system forever.
This is a grave miscarriage of justice. As a nurse, I find it impossible to understand how Lucy could have committed mass murder in a busy neonatal unit where parents and a multidisciplinary team are constantly in and out, 24/7. No one witnessed her causing harm. The evidence is entirely circumstantial. Six of the seven post-mortems were initially classified as natural causes, and the seventh didn’t happen at the request of the parents. Dr. Dewi Evans, the prosecution's expert, overruled all the original post-mortem findings. Those post-mortems were conducted by a neonatal pathologist who physically examined the bodies, yet Dr. Evans, who never saw the bodies, built his case on a hypothesis. It's also crucial to note that Lucy had a grievance filed against four consultants, which were upheld. These same consultants testified against her at trial, raising questions about their impartiality. The list of concerns surrounding this case goes on, and the deeper you dig into the details and evidence, the more it becomes clear that this conviction is far from safe. Many nurses I know have serious doubts about the integrity of this verdict, and it’s hard to see how justice was truly served here.
My name is Michael McConville I’m part of the podcast “ We need to talk about Lucy Letby” with Peter Elston on Apple and Spotify. I’ve practiced medicine for 40 years including Paeds and neonatal medicine. The so called expert evidence is utter crap. The post-mortems tell the stories of these deaths. All by natural causes. The obvious cause of death was early onset neonatal sepsis, likely in each case. There was a systematic failure to maintain oxygenation and respiration in every case. Ventilation of many of these very preterm babies is phenomenally difficult with the equipment they had. They couldn’t sustain central lines, couldn’t insert arterial lines. Pulse oximetry and perfusion monitoring in these babies is very difficult, it’s rarely possible to say a baby was stable. But the worst evidence given against Letby was the diagnosis of air embolism. The most common sources of air emboli ( for which there is zero evidence) are central lines and CPR and there is no way to distinguish the source. The insulin “ science” is junk. Preterm neonates metabolise glucose entirely differently from adults and can easily produce blood results like these cases of poisoning. Hindmarsh calculated the dose wrongly. Milan said she was measuring insulin- she wasn’t- she was measuring antibodies to insulin which is fraught with technical and biological problems. One test in never sufficient to draw a valid conclusion. I could, and will, go on. I disagree with one thing, it won’t take 10 years. This is the post office scandal on steroids. The level of negligence and incompetence on that unqualified unit was breathtaking. That is the only crime committed.
A lot of the information about Letby implies she was very competent, and someone who was seen as very reliable. I work in healthcare - not all nurses are created equal. When the nurse in charge is distributing patients to nurses at the start of a shift, they don't do this randomly or pick names out of a hat. The most complex and ill patients would typically be given to the nurse they think is most appropriate - one of the more competent and experienced nurses. It begs the question - is it that Letby was killing her patients, or Letby is being given patients that are much more likely to die? Do statisticians take this into account when they do analysis?
@@xpinkhurricanex Yes, I think she did a lot of bank shifts. That chart the police made with her & all the checkboxes - for it to be useful, you'd need all baby deaths, or only exclude the ones you 100% know are natural deaths. And crucially, you'd need some sort of measuring or weighting for how often that person is on shift. There are some staff that do a lot of bank shifts, if a place is poorly staffed sometimes management are practically begging for people to do bank. And include HCAs and doctors as well, not only nurses.
Excellent point. For want of a better analogy, and please forgive this as I mean no offence to the poor babies that died, but it is like convicting the State Hangman on the basis of his presence at so many deaths.
Dr. Evans may be a highly qualified pediatrician, but he is not a pathologist. As someone from the US, I find it very bizarre that he is able to testify as an expert on causes of death. Doctors who treat live patients have very different training from pathologists who are educated on causes of death and body chemistry after death.
This was true with Roy Meadows his claims were finally destroyed and his past statements who got women jailed were then questioned, if this Dr Evans is making claims without the knowledge of pathology then his claims should never been taken as evidence in the Lucy Letby case as the so called expert from MORRISTON HOSPITAL in Wales who offered his expert views again this evidence should again never been allowed? Does it mean that the case review board will take so many years to prove one way or the other, and if she is innocent what another cockup, but if proven to be guilty it's too late in coming?
I am a doctor I bring handover sheets home in my bag several times a month. I end up throwing them out days or weeks or sometimes months later. I have looked up family members of people who have died on the ward. I have had thoughts of doubt in my mind when someone deteriorates or dies, such as have I done something wrong, was I not caring enough? Did I fail this person? Their family? Am I not empathetic enough? Somedays you doubt yourself you feel down on yourself or criticise yourself harshly. Thats the nature of the job. Especially if someone is pointing a finger at you as in the LL case. I would be more concerned if she had not expressed any sort of self hate or doubt. I have had weeks on end where it seems like I get only cases that end up not having good outcomes and then weeks on end in the opposite where everything seems to be going well. If I were investigated on only those certain cases over the course of a year and pointed me as the common denominator (although obvs many people were caring for these people over days and weeks) I am sure you could somehow paint a sinister picture, just depends how you analyze the evidence and patterns. There is nothing scientific about this case. I think the nail on the coffin were her diaries and the spreadsheet which is completely unnacceptable. She deserves a new fair trial. If the evidence is overwhelming to foul play then okay keep her in prison if not let her go. Its as simple as that. This has very obvs turned from a medical cover up now into a justice cover up (bc this was the longest murder trial in UK history) there isnt any interest in exposing the real facts and foul play in this case.
@Grapefruit991 But as a doctor, have you ever had suspicions that colleague has deliberately harmed a patient? Have you ever reported them to management?
I was in St Barts in London and I found that filthy the bathroom on ward 7A smelt of BO, and the cleaner was in and out of there in a couple of minutes each day I counted on one hand once ,and the toilets were bad some of them I refused to use, there was blood and stuff dried on the Toilet seat
I have noticed this problem in hospitals over the last decade or so and hearing that more people are dying in hospitals due to catching infections not related to the illness that they went in for. So i thought is a lot of this down to bad cleaning and then why have cleaning standards dropped. As i am aware hospital cleaning is contracted out to a company who offers the lowest bid to get the contract and in turn these company's want to profit as much as they can by over stretching the staff working in these hospitals. Plus i can only imagine they have a regular turn over of staff quitting these jobs due to the bad conditions and getting new cleaners in that have no experience in the delicate work of cleaning a hospital. Do you think that this could be the main factor to it?
I found it really interesting that Mark McDonald said that it is difficult/impossible to get medical experts to testify for the defence in cases like these that involve children because of the consequences they face. I felt that listening to the trial transcript Lucy Letby was expected to be her own medical expert and comment on matters that were completely outside her scope of knowledge
I don’t agree - I’ve been a medical expert witness for over 2 decades and we are required to simply be impartial and objective regarding the issues we are asked about. We aren’t expected ‘take sides’ or support the defendant or vice versa.
@@ameliafatface7995 Dewi Evans was not impartial as he was paid by the prosecution. He runs a company offering his services as an 'expert witness' and in a previous case a senior judge severely criticized Evans saying a report he'd written was worthless. Evans is a discredited 'expert witness'
Lucy Letby is not reviled by me and I am sure by reasonable people who seek Justice for all, find a serious miscarriage of justice. My wife is a Doctor and knows how Doctors and the management within the NHS will be willing to accuse a lower employees such as a nurses to protect Doctors and management from any prosecution, or accusation. We followed the court case and found it incredulous to say the least, that Lucy Letby was found guilty! Remember these were premature babies, and one only weighed one pound! The odds are against survival, not survival under normal conditions. Yet Lucy Letby and the staff were expected to perform miracles, each and every time! Total miscarriage of justice! Now we are seeing people with no previous convictions, sentenced to long prison sentences after being basically blackmailed into pleading guilty, for a social media comment! So not surprized with the UK political big wigs Justice System not giving Justice but biased prosecutions and sentences; yet allowing criminals out early to make room. How far the UK Justice system has fallen! Very sad indeed!
One of my uncles decided to bring the case up at an extended family lunch after a funeral, and with several former NHS nurses in the family and the majority of the family followed the reporting quite closely it wasn't surprising that nobody thought the case had legs, except for my Godmother, a retired policewoman, who took the frankly horrifying view that "there wouldn't be a trial if she wasn't guilty". I spent weeks trying to comprehend how anyone could take that view, but based on the outcome, I am now terrified of the perception gap between apparently reasonable people.
@@Soilfood365I've come to learn that if you take the most unreasonable perception, and multiply it by fifty, you're still not anywhere close to what someone with massive cognitive distortions will think. That being said, when you encounter someone who is totally logical, it's a relief beyond words.
@@Soilfood365it is terrifying 🤯 Trial by Jury is dodgy for this case I feel .. Talking about very young & poorly babies will possibly make some jurors prejudiced from the start 😨 My prayers for hard-working, innocent, lovely Lucy 🙏🏽 ❤ I wish Lucy’s close friend was able to be on the Jury; she speaks so very fondly of Lucy
I don't think the question that is asked should be is she innocent or guilty. The question that needs to be asked is, did she get a fair trial and did the evidence provided in court prove beyond reasonable doubt that she was guilty. Having followed this, I would say the answer is no to both of these questions. The media presented this as a guilty verdict from the start and throughout the trial - in the UK the legal process is a person does not need to prove they are innocent the court needs to prove they are guilty - somehow this has been forgotten.
well said...now its the newspapers who are convicting innocent people....bit of a joke really as the jury is reading these articles and by the time the trial comes they go with the story.
Fortunately she was found guilty by two juries, in two separate trials. Her appeal was rejected after a three day hearing. She has no real grounds for an appeal and she's never coming out.
@@S.Trades juries who were given completely flawed and biased statistical data with all the data that would have made the accusations seem flimsy removed. A questionable prosecution witness who was not an 'expert' whose case was based on one dubious study. a jury can only make a decision on the information they are presented with and if that is biased and dubious then so is there verdict
If she was as cold and calculating as people think. she could have made much more of her defense, turned on the tears, pleaded overwork.stress, childhood incident etc and even pleaded guilty and she would have gotten at least a much lighter sentence. But she didn't she played it with the dignity of an innocent person.
People need to remember there were 17 deaths on that unit in that time. How can it happen 17 times? Letby was charged with the 7 they could fit he up for. Air embilsom, from where there are multiple indistinguishable sources. Pumping air into a baby's stomach, this is the only time in medical history that this has been offered as a cause of death because without a pump fitted to the NG tube its impossible. Feeding a baby to death, again not possible. Trauma to the liver without leaving a mark on the skin, again impossible. All medicis know that sepsis and CPR cause liver haemorrhage in neonates, something else Evans lied about when he said under oath it never happens. Evan's chose the cases, and the incidents. We don't know why this seven, who all but one had a autopsy showing natural causes of death. These Post mortems never made it into court. Why? Becuase they explained the deaths which were all caused by multiple failures in the care of these neonates. All of this will come out and there will be no press restrictions to hide behind.
Possibly 19, or more, when one considers the potential for miscoding of early neonatal deaths as stillbirths. According to FOI, this would seem to (did) have happened for the deaths in August and October 2015.
RE: Nurses. My anecdotal evidence from relationships/friendships with female nurses is that those who choose/are able to look after sick/dying babies are a 'special breed'. Most nurses can't handle it and specialise in other areas. Lucy Letby's scrawled notes, internet searching for families of the deceased etc. are the actions of someone who is breaking down under the emotional trauma.
Having worked for the NHS for the whole of my career, and I'm now able to retire, I can say with absolute conviction that Lucy has been scapegoated for systemic failings of the CoC Hospital. The sewage that contaminated the pipes and sinks etc would have undoubtably left bacteria in the water that staff washed their hands in, prior to undertaking invasive procedures such as the insertion of an umbilical venous catheter. They were caring for babies that they weren't staffed or equipped to care for - babies that were severely premature with the odds of survival stacked against them. I'm still mystified as to why Ben Myers KC did not call the pathologists who conducted the postmortems to give evidence and challenge the presumptions of Dewi Evans - who only had the medical notes with which to draw his conclusions and dismiss the findings of several pathologists. And the statistical evidence only serves to prove that Lucy was 100% on duty when she was meant to be. Why, oh why, did the defence not call a statistician to the witness box? Imagine the litigation and the compensation, for all the families whose babies died, if Lucy had been rightly found innocent and an inquiry found the trust had been negligent and failed in its duty of care. The NHS couldn't allow that, now could it?
I seriously think the Dr Jayaram used her as a scapegoat for his and his senior colleagues failings and incompetence at that hospital,He had something against her apparently,His statements don't add up and are inconsistent,In my humble opinion She appears stunned by it all,And he actually looks the guilty one. Add that together with the medical/Scientific facts which have come out.i think she might be innocent. May all the little babies R.I.P
I agree, those consultants were only seeing these sick babies twice a week! Such very vulnerable sick babies needing such specialised care, didn’t receive it! So very tragic especially for parents who I can’t see how they can ever recover. Dr that gave evidence that eventually showed that baby shaking syndrome was being wrongly diagnosed. She lost her career! ( O he’s talking about it now😉)
I agree, those consultants were only seeing these very,vulnerable,sick babies twice a week! They needed such specialised care & didn’t receive it! So very tragic especially for parents who I can’t see how they can ever recover. Dr that gave evidence that eventually showed that baby shaking syndrome was being wrongly diagnosed. She lost her career! ( O he’s talking about it now😉)
I would argue that allowing this young nurse to not have a review of her case is a massive miscarriage of justice in the purist sense. It is shameful to convict her of something that maybe a case of filthy conditions in the hospital. That building is falling down, all you need to do is visit and see for yourself. How are nurses going to work in this climate? When matrons worked on wards they ensured the cleanliness and efficiency of the ward and were responsible for the welfare of the patients and nurses. All this was taken away on the grounds of cost and cleaning was contracted out, managers were brought in, it was the worst decision for hospitals imaginable.
As a former Detective I know how CID works. The conversation held between the Police and the two doctors from the hospital in question. who had already been told to apologise to Lucy, because of their allegations, went as follows - In April, 2017, with the permission of the Countess’s leadership, Jayaram and another pediatrician met with a detective from the Cheshire police and shared their concerns. “Within ten minutes of us telling the story, the superintendent said, ‘Well, we have to investigate this,’ ” Jayaram said. “ ‘It’s a no-brainer.’ ” In May, the police launched what they called Operation Hummingbird. A detective later said that Brearey and Jayaram provided the “golden thread of our investigation.” Now, the language used displayed a highly excited group of Police personnel that could see that Home Office targets could be easily achieved with an easy target of a young nurse! Beleve me, that' the way it works!
I believe you!! Hearing an interview with the “lead detective” saying “we could not believe our luck, when we found the “confession notes”” - I found, Hummingbird set the bar veeeery low!!
As a former Detetective, you thought home office figures is a motivating factor. REALLY. I suspect Detective you were not very good at your job. If you can't see the evidence in this case, there is absolutely no hope for policing.
Why wernt the doctors names included in the list?? They were also going in treating patients , the ones calling her an angel of death!! They are the ones that give instructions for treatment aswell, one of those babies wasnt given antibiotics as soon as they were born, which was overlooked and then blame a poor nurse
I'm a former nurse and I've always felt really uneasy about this case. Can't put my finger on it so I'm interested to listen to this video. Something just doesn't feel right about her conviction.
I agree. It never sat right with me either. From day one, I thought she was innocent. I think she's vulnerable and socially awkward so they chose her well to institute a cover up. I think the hospital failed those babies majorly and they need someone to blame
I just heard the other day since she has been taken off the ward that there has been 2500 babies coming thru the unit and there has only been 1 death. Now look at how many deaths and near deaths there was when she was working there. That says A LOT too me.
@@chrissyknowsitall5170 The ward was downgraded not long after she was removed from it. The ward ceased to be an ICU for neonates and they stopped taking babies below 32 weeks gestation. You can probably work out for yourself the effect this would have on the death rate. No point comparing apples with oranges.
@@chrissyknowsitall5170 it's not that there were deaths it's that they were SUSPICIOUS deaths... Deaths of babies that were fully expected to pull through. Babies that the doctors had no concerns about. Babies that were making progress suddenly and unexpectedly deteriorated and died. And there was always the one staff member linked to their care... Lucy Letby.
I was never persuaded during the trial that Lucy is guilty, because the entire prosecutions case was circumstantial. Additionally, she doesn’t fit the profile of a serial killer and there is extensive research on this.
Whatever you think about the case, it’s important that we have this discussion. Look at the Post Office scandal, hundreds of innocent people convicted and sent to jail. Thank you Mark - I found your experience helpful. My thoughts are with all the parents who lost their babies.
@@S.Trades The conviction of Lucy Letby is certainly a miscarriage of justice. The flaws in the prosecution case are blatantly obviously to anyone capable of thinking for themselves.
@@S.Trades the point is about miscarriages of justice. Lucy du Burke was a nurse convicted of killing patients, she was acquitted and cleared several years later. Miscarriages of justice happen.
I was a career criminal most of my life and I have never been in the witness box in any of my own cases and only three times as a witness in other cases. I don't watch or hardly ever read mainstream news but I am well aware of how they work and definitely trial my media is a huge thing. During her trial, which I wasn't even paying attention to, I listened to someone speak online about her case and about the hospital prior to and even after she was accused. It led me to believe strongly that she may be innocent and with other evidence and the way her defence team never really gave her a good defence that has surfaced since I am even more convinced she is innocent and has suffered one, if not the biggest miscarriage of justice ever. I hope she doesn't have to wait a long time for her, and the parents of the babies to get proper justice and answers.
How do we know, Lucy Letby wasn't setup by Chester hospital and the doctors there, where their practices ever questioned, if not... Why not? I work in the NHS and there's plenty of Doctors who are guilty of mal-practice but they are able to "Band" together and present it in such away that it just never gets fully investigated. There's a trend at the moment whereby some Doctors close their practices one day a week to work as Locums in a hospital of their choice to be paid £500 per shift, where's the moral?
I agree with Barrister Mark McDonald. The conviction of Nurse Lucy Latby is wrong. After hearing and klistening to the pd cast made from day 1 of trial, I believed that said Lucy Letby was accused wrongly. I am not a lawyer and dont know how circumstancial evidence works with a jury,but my experieence as a neonatal nurse working in the Philippines, London England and Cardiff in South Wales I and presently still practicing in Neonaatal unit in Canada. think made me a credible person to attest that the sid nurse was innocent. No offense to the parents who lostbtheir babies that were involved in this case. Even if there are two nurse working in two different units let say an nurse work in adults ICU and a neonatal nuurdse would hardly understand how the dynamics is different from each others unit. What more when juries who are not even working in a medical field would understnd such dynamics working in the neonatakl unit. I think Lucy Letby was just made as a fall guy by those incompetent doctors involved in pointing the blame to the poor nurse. Its obvious how they should be responsible first by admitting babies outside their level of care. How such special baby unit have intensive care level being admitted in reklation to the staffing and skikl mix of the said unit. Each incidents sited can be explained fully by a nburse with experience working in neonatal unit in a very plain and easy way. Pulmonary embolism....commonm, tyhe years I worked I never encounteres such diagnosis as the cause of death of any neonateal death even when i was still working in UK. There are lots of questionable situations that were acconted to Nurse Lucy Letby that only an experience neonatal nurse can explain. Those doctors in their unit are just avoiding their responsibilities for being negligebnt and not considering the level of care that the unit can only accomodate. Anyhing abiove their level of care should be transferred to level 3 unit and these are decisions made by doctors and whoever the nursein charge were ob duty. Froma baby a-z.....the evidencess are framed poorly and i dunno how many more nurse will have to deal with such erroneous trial from the start. I feel sorry for nurse Lucy Letby, she's just made a fall guy for the incompetencies of her higher biosses such as the doctors and unit manager and nurse in charge. Really frustrating and disappointing how one innocent nurse will be convicted wrongly. I hope the truth will set her free.
When it comes to the NHS and NHS management they will cherry pick their so-called evidence to pin it on whoever they decide to pin it on “FACT”, NHS management would rather spend millions of TAX payers money on blaming anyone but themselves and have families believe that their innocent babies had been deliberately murdered rather than actually own up to the FACT these poor innocent babies actual died because of Management failings. NHS Management refuse to ever take any kind of responsibility on anything and especially deaths of babies due to poor management, Managers look after Managers and will lie cheat and false accuse anyone has long as it’s not them and their high paid salary isn’t at risk they really don’t care, They will hide and block evidence that ever contradicts them and use terms like on the odds of Probability you could of done It, They threaten anyone who would try to speak up for the innocent party with their Jobs, Lives and Mental Health. Lucy Letby is innocent no question and all the Managers from that hospital 100% know the truth.
@@S.Trades So the experiences of a neonatal nurse don't count if it goes against what you believe? These are the people we should listen to and the jury should have been composed of former neonatal nurses and doctors who could see through all the bogus evidence.
I have closely followed this trial and the retrial…. I believe she’s almost 100% likely innocent, and definitely had reasonable doubt….whole thing is scary for the UK nurses, imo.
@@S.Trades this is actually true, and something that wasn't given due consideration during the trial. It sounds counterintuitive, but in the absence of physical evidence of deliberate harm, the jury were asked to weigh the balance of probabilities, without considering that 'serial killer' is such an unlikely possibility that it is massively outweighed by other things, for example an undetected cluster of viral cases. Not the biggest hole in the case, just one of many.
I have no idea if Lucy Letby is guilty or innocent. But I think it is odd that there was zero forensics linking her to any crime. How can you be so efficient as to kill seven times and not make a single mistake with forensics. There was clear forensic evidence linking Shipman to his crimes and he was a clever (and cunning) doctor. The second issue is that criminal psychologists have said that Lucy does not fit the serial killer profile - so maybe that is because she is not a serial killer. Thirdly, complaints were made about the standards of care given to babies at Chester long before this case, so unexplained deaths could have been a result of poor medical care and poor resources.
shipman was not clever, actually one of the reasons he was caught was because of the multiple grammatical errors in the forged will! he couldn't even spell!! he was arrogant not clever
After reading the contradictory evidence of Dr Jayaram and the pseudoscience of 'expert' Dewi Evans I am convinced of Lucy Letby's innocence. There are several other factors that point to a MOJ.
The roster sheet shows the incidents when Lucy was on duty - hand picked by the quack evens It does not show the incidents when she was not on duty of which there was more
I’ve spent quite a few months over the last few years in different hospitals as a patient and I will agree with you about the hand washing thing. It’s worrying. x
I am a little puzzled. As far as I am aware, there were no inquests into these deaths There may have been post-mortem examinations but no inquests. So, if no inquests then no formal decision that anybody was murdered (a post mortem gives only cause of death, not whether or not suspicious/natural etc). So, if nobody was "officially" murdered, then how can someone be accused of the murders? At the age of 3, I had a personal experience of this sort of thing in 1950 when I woke up one morning and my 13 month old brother "refused" to wake up and play with me. I went and complained to my father who found he was dead. He had been fine the previous evening. The death cerificate says cause was "cappillary bronchitis" and was marked "after post-mortem without inquest". Fine. It didn't stop the local gossips accusing my mum (behind her back) of neglect. That may have been 74 years ago but the memories are seared into my brain. But the point is; there was no inquest so everything ended there. Whay is the Letby case different?
There were inquests into some of them. Cheshire police stopped the inquests of others. All but one of the "murders" had post-mortems which all showed common natural causes of death. Evans invented: Air embolism, air in the stomach, trauma to the liver, trauma to the upper GI. There is zero evidence for any of this. CPR in sepsis causes liver bleeding, CPAP belly causes air in the intestines, NG tubes and CPAP cause trauma to the upper GI and, sorry, bu you can't feed a baby to death. Its rubbish.
A very sad tail that you remember so vividly all those years later. In the 1950" only one in five children in the U.K. lived beyond the age of five. Your poor mother was subject to the same ignorance that all victims of circumstance suffer, somehow it was their fault. So much of the Letby trial is still a mystery. There were some inquests but we don't know for which babies. Not all deaths of course end with a coroners case. If the treating physician, the pathologist and the coroner agree on the cause of death they can issue a death certificate. However, if any other physician disagrees with the cause of death they can pretty much insist on an inquest. I've been told that Cheshire Police stopped some of the inquests because they were now criminal inquiries. However, all but one of the "Letby Babies" had post mortems and all were confirmed as death by natural causes.
@@1962strat1 I find it very hard to believe that in the 1950s four out of five UK children didn't live beyond the age of 5. Are you sure you don't have these figures the wrong way round, ie one in five didn't survive to the age of 5?
Their are 17 dead babies. They cherry picked that only the 7 they could frame (stich) her for to charge her with. Her l lawyers should be disbarred for incompetence
No they didn't. Go educate yourself about the case. All of the other deaths/collapses had natural causes or could be expected based on the child's condition at the time of the collapse. The 7 she's been convicted for were all suspicious deaths with no natural casuse identified. The only factor that was consistent in all of those deaths was Lucy Letby. If her defence was as simple as the simpletons in this thread think it was, she'd be walking free now.
@@andrewjack31 funny since the autopsies for the 'muders' foind sepsis pneumonia and baby a died cause a doctor inserted a tube wrong...the 'murders' were invented by breary and that gun for hire evans who'd sell his own mother down the river for a price
@@andrewjack31 except the autopsies foind those babies died from sepsis pneumonia and undetermined (I'm reality a doctor inserting a tube wrong iwhich he even admitted). No independent experts found foul play except for Evans, who is a known paid liar....hypothetical and theoretical murders being accepted by a jury is insane....
@@andrewjack31explain the autopsies that found natural causes? Explain how evans just changed the cause of death of 3 babies and has dumped one hypothetical theory for another?
This conviction is at least.unsafe, but Letby could well be completely innocent This seems a terrible miscarriage of justice, equal with the Birminham 6/ Guildford 4, though in Letby's case no crime may even have been committed. Thank you for this interview, let's hope Mark gets much more publicity for his devastating analysis. Lucy Letby can't be left to rot in prison for a crime that may not even have occurred.
I too have a very uneasy feel about this case. From the start of the trial she was poorly represented by fools who didn't cross question the witnesses...i believe lucy was a scapegoat .....why would anyone want to become a nurse today , when you can so easily end up behind bars and be totally innocent ...its shocking. Good luck lucy with your appeals. God bless 🙌 x x x
The whole trial was "Rigged" from the beginning. I never felt easy with this case, i live in the North West and used to hear of her Re-arrest every few months/years on the local news and was beginning to get fed up knowing how police work the multiple arrests, questioning & bail shows how little proven evidence they had. She was convicted in the court of public opinion in the years she kept getting arrested & bailed.
I am reminded of the famous Lindy Chamberlain ( Dingo took my baby) case in Australia, who was falsely accused of killing her baby, thankfully she was eventually exonerated though not before having spent several years in prison…
As far as the media are concerned, they’re only interested in bad news, or at least exaggerating controversy. That’s what sells, the truth doesn’t sell
I don't know if she is guilty but I do have concerns that the evidence used to convict her was not sufficient to reach that verdict beyond a reasonable doubt - which is, and should be the level of proof needed to convict someone for a crime.
9:55 That's key isn't it? Why can't we get a straight answer to the simple question: Why were no medical witnesses called to the defense? How biased and one-sided if not, for a jury to be overwhelmed with scientific argument only on one side of the debate. What a total travesty of justice. And the same with the statistical evidence, for that matter.
@@judewhitbread2394 I have no idea. That's more a function of the justice system in the UK. Maybe she didn't think he was poor. He's supposed to be the best. From the bits and pieces I've heard he did an OK job, but the lack of medical defence is just bizarre, given the case largely rested on medical interventions that were harmful!!! There's a lot that's perplexing about the case. The fact that she first of all attended her conveyancers that did her mortgage for legal advice as her first port of call on this case is another instance of where she didn't realise how badly she was about to get stitched up. I guess when she was then recommended the defence she got, she went with it a second time, even after she lost in the first. She seems a loyal person, so that doesn't surprise me. And getting good lawyers to work pro bono on legal aid is next to impossible. Believe me I've tried it. I guess she just stuck with someone that knew the case intimately, regardless. But I'm not sure. There's an awful lot about the case that is left opaque. That in itself is a concern.
@yggdrasil9039 Sorry, loyal? She threw just about every colleague including friends under the bus and outright claimed parents were lying, even on occasions when it was agreed evidence.
@@judewhitbread2394 She didn't actually. Her statements that have been publicised or released from interviews and trials continually show her supporting her team, and deferring to procedure. Unless you have the £30,000 transcript that shows otherwise, no-one I know has the transcript. Which in itself is an issue of transparency of the justice system I think. What she did take an issue with is some of the junior consultants that she thought were not very competent (intubating neonates 7 times is a big no-no.) That's not throwing under the bus, that's raising concerns.
Another problem with the famous spreadsheet is that it assumes that the wrong doing ( if there was any) was both initiated and had it's result within the same shift
When it comes to the NHS and NHS management they will cherry pick their so-called evidence to pin it on whoever they decide to pin it on “FACT”, NHS management would rather spend millions of TAX payers money on blaming anyone but themselves and have families believe that their innocent babies had been deliberately murdered rather than actually own up to the FACT these poor innocent babies actual died because of Management failings. NHS Management refuse to ever take any kind of responsibility on anything and especially deaths of babies due to poor management, Managers look after Managers and will lie cheat and false accuse anyone has long as it’s not them and their high paid salary isn’t at risk they really don’t care, They will hide and block evidence that ever contradicts them and use terms like on the odds of Probability you could of done It, They threaten anyone who would try to speak up for the innocent party with their Jobs, Lives and Mental Health. Lucy Letby is innocent no question and all the Managers from that hospital 100% know the truth.
I didn't follow the case, I don't know anything about her or the details but what I do know is that the day her trail started the newspapers had a picture of her face on the front page stating, "poisoner". That has to make the trail unfair.... And how were the systems not in place for this 'crime' not to be noticed as it progressed and but before it went too far?.. Statistics are a manipulators dream.
@@S.Trades Nope, she doesn't have to be innocent for her conviction to be unsafe. The UK legal system is supposed to operate on a principle that it is better for a guilty person to go free than for an innocent person to be convicted wrongly. Whether you like this or not, it is the case, and her conviction does appear to be unsafe.
I can’t find a single person who is convinced she actually did it. The evidence just wasn’t there. All circumstantial. I think the biggest problem is the jury aren’t medical professionals so rely solely on what they are being told.
When you think about a baby dying in a hospital most people would think thats fairly uncommon, if not rare. That was my thought until I Google'd the question how often do new babies die in UK hospitals? Sadly, the death of a baby is not a rare event. Around 13 babies die shortly before, during or soon after birth every day in the UK. That surprised me. That then raises the next question, how often do 6 babies die on the same ward in the space of 2 years?
@@S.Trades can you elaborate on how they determined which deaths were "unexpected". That seems to be one of many ambiguous and convenient terms used without any explaining exactly what makes them unusual vs others. Basically "trust me bro, these ones were dodgy AF"
@S.Trades, do you think a 25-week-old is expected to survive? With a 60-70% chance of survival, there can be no definitive expectations. The hospital to which baby K was transferred stated it might have survived with better care at Chester, without mentioning anything Lucy did or didn't do. No one witnessed her actions, and her inaction was in line with recommendations from various nursing publications of observing desaturations. Moreover, two nurses were present when Ravi Jayaram claims he entered, not considering that nurse Oakley had returned. Changing timelines from one trial to the next is what happens in clown courts, not serious forums of justice.
Of course ,you are correct, she was found guilty by a jury, but you miss the point, there is an increasing number who believe the jury got it wrong, which is where the “beyond reasonable doubt” issue is, in the interests of justice, another investigation would help, The recent Post Office scandal highlights the justice system failings,
If Dr Rav entered the Neo Natal Ward as described, then IF Letby walked away, HE would have given help - wouldn't he? As there is no such record, it throws doubt on the Doctor's claim,
He has a chip on his shoulder as she made a complaint about him. Anyone who knows how hospitals work recognise that consultant doctors don’t take kindly to management or being disciplined.
@@christineat3631We had a teacher at school who looked exactly like him spitting image. He was touchy feely and hung around the girls changing rooms at P. E. time. He was known as a total creep open secret at the school.
@@christineat3631Totally unrelated but we had a teacher at school who looked exactly like him. He was touchy feely and hung around the girls changing rooms at P.E time. He was known to be a creep it was an open secret.
The jury reached a verdict based on the waffle of the procecution, the truth did not come in to it. I feel she was a victim of the failings of a poorly managed hospital.
How do you know, you weren’t even there. There was testimony from parents, staff, many medical experts. And management protected Lucy don’t forget. They refused to believe she did anything. That’s why they made the doctors apologise to her and offered her a post graduate at a prestigious children’s hospital. That’s why there’s going to be an inquiry into their handling of this case. They did nothing and allowed her to kill more babies
I understand the possibility of using her as a scapegoat and that happens all the time but I believe she is guilty based on the evidence, it's not that easy to frame someone especially in this situation you would think the consultants have all the power but it doesn't work like that.
It's not like a parent sued and then they pointed the finger at her. Her own colleagues suspected her and the death rate dropped when she was removed. All I can say is, watch crime scene to courtroom before you make up your mind that she's innocent
I don't know whether she is innocent or guilty, but it seems as if the evidence is not enough for guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, it seems as if there is more than enough evidence for doubt. Even if she actually killed these children, as long as there is a reasonable doubt, she should be acquitted.
I have left a comment before on the the Lucy Letby case.I do feel she is not guilty the evidence is so vague and totally circumstantial I do feel for her.The police were so hell bent on getting a guilty verdict that they ignored so much information which could have proved her innocence.Keep fighting to open the cases please.Sincetely Jeremy Allfrey.
@@jeremyallfrey8547 it's never going to be reopened. The case is over. Her appeal was flatly rejected, on every point. There are no further avenues for her. Probably just as well.
The time period between her initial arrest in 2018 until she was charged in 2020 firmly indicates that the police investigation demonstrated confirmation bias, rather than an open mind. If she was truly guilty she would have been charged quickly, probably within 1-2 weeks of her initial arrest. The two years gap is a huge red flag
@@S.Trades And what do you think now after so many medical experts and statisticians have expressed grave concerns over the trial and verdict? Still feel the same?
To me, Lucy writing, "I'm evil" is almost tantamount to proving that she was nothing of the sort. If you've ever met an evil person, you know that they ALWAYS think they're doing good.
Exactly! To say she is a psychopath is to not understand how a psychopath thinks, they do not blame themselves and they wouldn’t say they are evil and then leave it lying around for the police to find. She felt all around her that people saw her that way and she could feel their hate. To blame yourself for the babies dying because you couldn’t save them doesn’t make you evil .
I think they need overseas input and complete retrial. Go fund Lucy letby page. It seems the junior doctors had the run of the shoe because old j ram wasn’t there and things went tits up blame the most qualified nurse
@@mrplod1616 Have you still not grasped the truth? She's been banged to rights, her appeal was thrown out and she's never leaving prison. Quite rightly!
The pond life in the country think she's innocent because they are too thick to understand the case. Let's hope she stays exactly where she is so she can't harm any more babies.
I do not think she murdered those little babies. I think she was made a scapegoat for inside failures at the hospital. It's all so sad. I believe the jury got it wrong. I don't blame the jury but the people responsible are the lawyers who fed the claims to them. 🙏 I hope justice prevails.
The problem in the UK is that it’s a totally adversarial system. What is required is for a very experienced investigator to be put in place to question all the evidence impartially to determine if a crime has been committed. Once the police are involved they are programmed to home in on guilt. In this case the accuser was a doctor who because of his position was likely to have been believed from the word go. I hope this case is re-investigated, there is a whiff of Salem surrounding it.
Please support Lucy Letby. This is an innocent woman. I'm glad others can see this now, and hopefully, we can over turn this madness and get her out of prison. To all of the friends and family and colleagues of Lucy and everyone who knows her, please don't give up, and please don't stop loving and believing even if at times you feel alone. You are not alone, and more and more people will stand with you and Lucy. My cousin was murdered by police, later I volunteered with the Anthony Walker Foundation who put a stop to police victimizeing me but after making complaint about the manager at MOLE and the Anthony Walker Foundation the criminal justices system here in Liverpool has been used as a sole destroying weapon.
As soon as someone comes to the conclusion that something untoward is going on regarding the death rate on a ward, then the ball is rolling and someone, a nurse not a doctor, is getting it
David Davis MP has taken a serious interest in this case, I do not think someone in his position would do that unless he has very serious doubts about the evidence and verdict. Would not be the first time a shoddy hospital administration has scapegoated somebody to save their own skins... A lot of things do not add up in this case..
I Believe This Nurse Is Innocent If You Were To Gather The Data Protection From All The High Dependency N N U I Would Say Most Of The Staff Have Lost More Than 10 Babies On Their Shifts Over The Years Lucy Letby Did Over The Same Period Of Time
Absolutely. Considering CCTV is pretty much everywhere (even on many people’s doorbells now) the fact that there was no CCTV when they became suspicious about Letby is ridiculous.
What shouts it out as a concern for me is the lack of direct witnesses to Lucy Letby killing babies, my own experiences in mental health care of corruption and self protection in the NHS such they are going to cover themselves to poor general practises, and the fact I just wondered what the motive is here.... Of course the prosecution don't have to show a motive, but this girl has no serious diagnosed mental health issues and there is no indication of 'Munchausen by proxy' as in the Beverley Allit case. The fact that it would be extremely rare for an event of a nurse killing this many babies.
I called out online immediately at the time of the trial that there was a complete lack of hard evidence . I got nothing but hate for being insensitive, and people calling me a dumb-ass for not understanding legal process
They did presume her guilty and that was the main concern. That’s why they dropped Professor Jane Hutton, she pointed out that other nurses elsewhere could come up with the same statistics and immediately she was told she was no longer needed. They didn’t look for other reasons for the babies deaths because they were intent in going after Lucy.
@@littleshubunkin7926 listen to what Mark says at the 36 minute mark, he acknowledged that the case was very prejudiced and one sided. It happens in many cases.
I think there’s another aspect to this case that nobody has touched on, and that’s one of human emotion. Put yourself in the position of the jury members, you’re probably not very well educated in the world of neonatal science or statistical analysis so you are heavily reliant on the information put to yourself by the prosecution, most of which makes very little to no sense whatsoever to yourself, you do know however that any crime committed against an innocent, harmless, defenceless baby is absolutely abhorrent and the perpetrators deserve to burn in hell for all eternity. It’s your naturally & instinctively formed human emotions that understandably make you feel this way about anyone who harms a child. Is it possible that jurors may have cast their verdict based on the gravity of their own human emotional feelings of such abhorrence rather than based circumstantial, beyond reasonably doubtable evidential facts. My reasoning for this is based on my own experience of jury service. I did jury service myself nearly 20 years ago now and half of our jury panel while deliberating, openly confessed to initially forming their verdict based on their own emotions rather than purely evidence known to be fact. Is it possible there may be an element of this in Letby’s case???
I came up against Pilgrim Hospital Management and the Doctors in Lincolnshire in 2014 and They all ganged up and lied through their high teeth to Protect their Reputations My Daughter could have died as she had a burst appendicitis and gangrene was pouring into her stomach at 4.30am in the early hours of the morning as the surgeon who was on call and at home refused to come back to the hospital until he started at nine the next day he started to operate at 9.30 am, so for four and a half hours she was vomiting what looked like Green Liquid which I later found out was her body trying to get it out of her system and it was gangrene , her major organs could of shut down at any minute and there would have bee no way they could of saved her, I brought a case against them and the Doctors lied and the NHS Management lied all through the hearing and PAL were of no use to me either and were in the Pocket of the Hospital ,So yes I can see the powers that be probably threw her under a buss to protect their own failings Doctor do and can lie and do not get me started on the NHS management they lie a lot The NHS management are full of liars
![Luigi Mangione pleads not guilty [RAW]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/JPf-vzvvWRI/mqdefault.jpg)
![Luigi Mangione pleads not guilty [RAW]](/img/tr.png)
Mark McDonald has today (6 September 2024) been announced as Lucy Letby's new barrister. This interview was recorded before this announcement. My thanks to Mark again for taking him time to be interviewed about the case.
You're ahead of the game, i'd call that a coup!
AI should give an opinion in parallel with juries as AI is more intelligent and would not be influenced by emotions and can ignore the media reporting
She is guilty these guys are after a payday simple as that
@@matthewdale5838 I agree in part. But the real lure is in pitting their knowledge against the prosecution, and challenging the system.
Imagine bringing down the longest trial in British criminal history, as a miscarriage of justice.
This is beyond big, but it could be a once in a century chance to seriously alter our awful legal system forever.
@@matthewdale5838 Anyone with a braincell can see that Lucy is innocent
This is a grave miscarriage of justice. As a nurse, I find it impossible to understand how Lucy could have committed mass murder in a busy neonatal unit where parents and a multidisciplinary team are constantly in and out, 24/7. No one witnessed her causing harm. The evidence is entirely circumstantial. Six of the seven post-mortems were initially classified as natural causes, and the seventh didn’t happen at the request of the parents.
Dr. Dewi Evans, the prosecution's expert, overruled all the original post-mortem findings. Those post-mortems were conducted by a neonatal pathologist who physically examined the bodies, yet Dr. Evans, who never saw the bodies, built his case on a hypothesis. It's also crucial to note that Lucy had a grievance filed against four consultants, which were upheld. These same consultants testified against her at trial, raising questions about their impartiality.
The list of concerns surrounding this case goes on, and the deeper you dig into the details and evidence, the more it becomes clear that this conviction is far from safe. Many nurses I know have serious doubts about the integrity of this verdict, and it’s hard to see how justice was truly served here.
Dew Drop Evans should be in prison - Not Lucy !
My name is Michael McConville I’m part of the podcast “ We need to talk about Lucy Letby” with Peter Elston on Apple and Spotify. I’ve practiced medicine for 40 years including Paeds and neonatal medicine. The so called expert evidence is utter crap. The post-mortems tell the stories of these deaths. All by natural causes. The obvious cause of death was early onset neonatal sepsis, likely in each case. There was a systematic failure to maintain oxygenation and respiration in every case. Ventilation of many of these very preterm babies is phenomenally difficult with the equipment they had. They couldn’t sustain central lines, couldn’t insert arterial lines. Pulse oximetry and perfusion monitoring in these babies is very difficult, it’s rarely possible to say a baby was stable. But the worst evidence given against Letby was the diagnosis of air embolism. The most common sources of air emboli ( for which there is zero evidence) are central lines and CPR and there is no way to distinguish the source. The insulin “ science” is junk. Preterm neonates metabolise glucose entirely differently from adults and can easily produce blood results like these cases of poisoning. Hindmarsh calculated the dose wrongly. Milan said she was measuring insulin- she wasn’t- she was measuring antibodies to insulin which is fraught with technical and biological problems. One test in never sufficient to draw a valid conclusion. I could, and will, go on. I disagree with one thing, it won’t take 10 years. This is the post office scandal on steroids. The level of negligence and incompetence on that unqualified unit was breathtaking. That is the only crime committed.
@1962strat1 Well said Michael and your podcast with Peter is excellent - I'm giving it as much circulation as I can.
@@1962strat1 whatever you are smoking, is probably illegal....
Thank you Michael for all you are doing. I, too, am sharing your podcasts and tweets as much as I can.
But they found insulin in the saline bags ,
Thanks Michael, and best of luck with your podcast
A lot of the information about Letby implies she was very competent, and someone who was seen as very reliable. I work in healthcare - not all nurses are created equal. When the nurse in charge is distributing patients to nurses at the start of a shift, they don't do this randomly or pick names out of a hat. The most complex and ill patients would typically be given to the nurse they think is most appropriate - one of the more competent and experienced nurses. It begs the question - is it that Letby was killing her patients, or Letby is being given patients that are much more likely to die? Do statisticians take this into account when they do analysis?
And she was regularly working more hours than any of her colleagues. She was also on nights which is the time that most natural deaths occur.
@@xpinkhurricanex Yes, I think she did a lot of bank shifts. That chart the police made with her & all the checkboxes - for it to be useful, you'd need all baby deaths, or only exclude the ones you 100% know are natural deaths. And crucially, you'd need some sort of measuring or weighting for how often that person is on shift. There are some staff that do a lot of bank shifts, if a place is poorly staffed sometimes management are practically begging for people to do bank. And include HCAs and doctors as well, not only nurses.
Statisticians do ... but none were called to give evidence.
Excellent point.
For want of a better analogy, and please forgive this as I mean no offence to the poor babies that died, but it is like convicting the State Hangman on the basis of his presence at so many deaths.
Neonates ie her patients are by their very nature "more likely to die", particularly in inefficient neonatal units.
Dr. Evans may be a highly qualified pediatrician, but he is not a pathologist. As someone from the US, I find it very bizarre that he is able to testify as an expert on causes of death. Doctors who treat live patients have very different training from pathologists who are educated on causes of death and body chemistry after death.
This was true with Roy Meadows his claims were finally destroyed and his past statements who got women jailed were then questioned, if this Dr Evans is making claims without the knowledge of pathology then his claims should never been taken as evidence in the Lucy Letby case as the so called expert from MORRISTON HOSPITAL in Wales who offered his expert views again this evidence should again never been allowed? Does it mean that the case review board will take so many years to prove one way or the other, and if she is innocent what another cockup, but if proven to be guilty it's too late in coming?
I respect Mark for putting his views out there. I don’t know if Letby is innocent or guilty, but I do know that this case just doesn’t add up
It does add up The evidence for her guilt is irrefutable
@@ruthadams6390 👍
@@ruthadams6390 It's far from it. It's weak at best, and misleading at worst.
She is 100% innocent. Look into the case.
Oh dear...
I am a doctor I bring handover sheets home in my bag several times a month. I end up throwing them out days or weeks or sometimes months later. I have looked up family members of people who have died on the ward. I have had thoughts of doubt in my mind when someone deteriorates or dies, such as have I done something wrong, was I not caring enough? Did I fail this person? Their family? Am I not empathetic enough? Somedays you doubt yourself you feel down on yourself or criticise yourself harshly. Thats the nature of the job. Especially if someone is pointing a finger at you as in the LL case. I would be more concerned if she had not expressed any sort of self hate or doubt. I have had weeks on end where it seems like I get only cases that end up not having good outcomes and then weeks on end in the opposite where everything seems to be going well. If I were investigated on only those certain cases over the course of a year and pointed me as the common denominator (although obvs many people were caring for these people over days and weeks) I am sure you could somehow paint a sinister picture, just depends how you analyze the evidence and patterns. There is nothing scientific about this case. I think the nail on the coffin were her diaries and the spreadsheet which is completely unnacceptable. She deserves a new fair trial. If the evidence is overwhelming to foul play then okay keep her in prison if not let her go. Its as simple as that. This has very obvs turned from a medical cover up now into a justice cover up (bc this was the longest murder trial in UK history) there isnt any interest in exposing the real facts and foul play in this case.
@@Grapefruit991
This sounds highly unlikely.
@@S.Trades What sounds highly unlikely?
@@paulrichards6894
T r o l l.
@@Grapefruit991
OK, you clearly aren't smart enough to be a doctor. Troll!
@Grapefruit991 But as a doctor, have you ever had suspicions that colleague has deliberately harmed a patient? Have you ever reported them to management?
Most NHS hospitals are filthy. I work in one.
I was in St Barts in London and I found that filthy the bathroom on ward 7A smelt of BO, and the cleaner was in and out of there in a couple of minutes each day I counted on one hand once ,and the toilets were bad some of them I refused to use, there was blood and stuff dried on the Toilet seat
I have noticed this problem in hospitals over the last decade or so and hearing that more people are dying in hospitals due to catching infections not related to the illness that they went in for. So i thought is a lot of this down to bad cleaning and then why have cleaning standards dropped.
As i am aware hospital cleaning is contracted out to a company who offers the lowest bid to get the contract and in turn these company's want to profit as much as they can by over stretching the staff working in these hospitals. Plus i can only imagine they have a regular turn over of staff quitting these jobs due to the bad conditions and getting new cleaners in that have no experience in the delicate work of cleaning a hospital. Do you think that this could be the main factor to it?
I found it really interesting that Mark McDonald said that it is difficult/impossible to get medical experts to testify for the defence in cases like these that involve children because of the consequences they face. I felt that listening to the trial transcript Lucy Letby was expected to be her own medical expert and comment on matters that were completely outside her scope of knowledge
The press had already demonised her so any medical expert defending her would be taking a huge risk.
Yes, that was one of my main takeaways from Mark as well - really interesting point
I don’t agree - I’ve been a medical expert witness for over 2 decades and we are required to simply be impartial and objective regarding the issues we are asked about.
We aren’t expected ‘take sides’ or support the defendant or vice versa.
@@JoshuaPerryParkerua-cam.com/play/PL2byzt3tQjyaKTVSkI8vXUL8vS-D6D7DY.html&si=i6RA880DP_kNxBmU
@@ameliafatface7995 Dewi Evans was not impartial as he was paid by the prosecution. He runs a company offering his services as an 'expert witness' and in a previous case a senior judge severely criticized Evans saying a report he'd written was worthless.
Evans is a discredited 'expert witness'
Lucy Letby is not reviled by me and I am sure by reasonable people who seek Justice for all, find a serious miscarriage of justice. My wife is a Doctor and knows how Doctors and the management within the NHS will be willing to accuse a lower employees such as a nurses to protect Doctors and management from any prosecution, or accusation. We followed the court case and found it incredulous to say the least, that Lucy Letby was found guilty! Remember these were premature babies, and one only weighed one pound! The odds are against survival, not survival under normal conditions. Yet Lucy Letby and the staff were expected to perform miracles, each and every time! Total miscarriage of justice! Now we are seeing people with no previous convictions, sentenced to long prison sentences after being basically blackmailed into pleading guilty, for a social media comment! So not surprized with the UK political big wigs Justice System not giving Justice but biased prosecutions and sentences; yet allowing criminals out early to make room. How far the UK Justice system has fallen! Very sad indeed!
One of my uncles decided to bring the case up at an extended family lunch after a funeral, and with several former NHS nurses in the family and the majority of the family followed the reporting quite closely it wasn't surprising that nobody thought the case had legs, except for my Godmother, a retired policewoman, who took the frankly horrifying view that "there wouldn't be a trial if she wasn't guilty". I spent weeks trying to comprehend how anyone could take that view, but based on the outcome, I am now terrified of the perception gap between apparently reasonable people.
@@Soilfood365I've come to learn that if you take the most unreasonable perception, and multiply it by fifty, you're still not anywhere close to what someone with massive cognitive distortions will think. That being said, when you encounter someone who is totally logical, it's a relief beyond words.
@@Soilfood365it is terrifying 🤯 Trial by Jury is dodgy for this case I feel .. Talking about very young & poorly babies will possibly make some jurors prejudiced from the start 😨 My prayers for hard-working, innocent, lovely Lucy 🙏🏽 ❤ I wish Lucy’s close friend was able to be on the Jury; she speaks so very fondly of Lucy
@@Soilfood365😨
God Bless lovely Lucy, protect her and give her back her life and eventually happiness AGAIN 🙏🏽😔
I don't think the question that is asked should be is she innocent or guilty. The question that needs to be asked is, did she get a fair trial and did the evidence provided in court prove beyond reasonable doubt that she was guilty. Having followed this, I would say the answer is no to both of these questions. The media presented this as a guilty verdict from the start and throughout the trial - in the UK the legal process is a person does not need to prove they are innocent the court needs to prove they are guilty - somehow this has been forgotten.
Does not need to prove their innocence. In theory, yes, but in practice?
well said...now its the newspapers who are convicting innocent people....bit of a joke really as the jury is reading these articles and by the time the trial comes they go with the story.
Fortunately she was found guilty by two juries, in two separate trials. Her appeal was rejected after a three day hearing. She has no real grounds for an appeal and she's never coming out.
@@S.Trades juries who were given completely flawed and biased statistical data with all the data that would have made the accusations seem flimsy removed. A questionable prosecution witness who was not an 'expert' whose case was based on one dubious study. a jury can only make a decision on the information they are presented with and if that is biased and dubious then so is there verdict
She is guilty and have been found guilty of murder
If she was as cold and calculating as people think. she could have made much more of her defense, turned on the tears, pleaded overwork.stress, childhood incident etc and even pleaded guilty and she would have gotten at least a much lighter sentence. But she didn't she played it with the dignity of an innocent person.
People need to remember there were 17 deaths on that unit in that time. How can it happen 17 times? Letby was charged with the 7 they could fit he up for. Air embilsom, from where there are multiple indistinguishable sources. Pumping air into a baby's stomach, this is the only time in medical history that this has been offered as a cause of death because without a pump fitted to the NG tube its impossible. Feeding a baby to death, again not possible. Trauma to the liver without leaving a mark on the skin, again impossible. All medicis know that sepsis and CPR cause liver haemorrhage in neonates, something else Evans lied about when he said under oath it never happens. Evan's chose the cases, and the incidents. We don't know why this seven, who all but one had a autopsy showing natural causes of death. These Post mortems never made it into court. Why? Becuase they explained the deaths which were all caused by multiple failures in the care of these neonates. All of this will come out and there will be no press restrictions to hide behind.
17 deaths in what time period? And how does that compare to periods before and after Letby?
@@Themystergamerrsame time period.
@@1962strat1 she was charged for the deaths in which the evidence met the threshold for cps to prosecute.
Possibly 19, or more, when one considers the potential for miscoding of early neonatal deaths as stillbirths. According to FOI, this would seem to (did) have happened for the deaths in August and October 2015.
The trial was a big crock of shit.
I have just seen that Mark has been appointed as Lucy’s new lawyer…. Good luck Mark, well done for sticking my your principles
RE: Nurses.
My anecdotal evidence from relationships/friendships with female nurses is that those who choose/are able to look after sick/dying babies are a 'special breed'. Most nurses can't handle it and specialise in other areas.
Lucy Letby's scrawled notes, internet searching for families of the deceased etc. are the actions of someone who is breaking down under the emotional trauma.
Having worked for the NHS for the whole of my career, and I'm now able to retire, I can say with absolute conviction that Lucy has been scapegoated for systemic failings of the CoC Hospital.
The sewage that contaminated the pipes and sinks etc would have undoubtably left bacteria in the water that staff washed their hands in, prior to undertaking invasive procedures such as the insertion of an umbilical venous catheter.
They were caring for babies that they weren't staffed or equipped to care for - babies that were severely premature with the odds of survival stacked against them.
I'm still mystified as to why Ben Myers KC did not call the pathologists who conducted the postmortems to give evidence and challenge the presumptions of Dewi Evans - who only had the medical notes with which to draw his conclusions and dismiss the findings of several pathologists.
And the statistical evidence only serves to prove that Lucy was 100% on duty when she was meant to be. Why, oh why, did the defence not call a statistician to the witness box?
Imagine the litigation and the compensation, for all the families whose babies died, if Lucy had been rightly found innocent and an inquiry found the trust had been negligent and failed in its duty of care. The NHS couldn't allow that, now could it?
@@SmugSallie
what planet are you on?
@@S.Trades Well that was a well-balanced, thoughtful and constructive argument. Well done.
@@SmugSallie I've been practicing. 😊 Now stop spouting such nonsense.
@@S.Trades "Planet has a grasp on Biomedical Statistics?" "Planet Have Operational experience in the Organisation"?
@@cupofteawithpoetry it's OVER. She's never coming out.
I seriously think the Dr Jayaram used her as a scapegoat for his and his senior colleagues failings and incompetence at that hospital,He had something against her apparently,His statements don't add up and are inconsistent,In my humble opinion She appears stunned by it all,And he actually looks the guilty one.
Add that together with the medical/Scientific facts which have come out.i think she might be innocent.
May all the little babies R.I.P
I agree, those consultants were only seeing these sick babies twice a week!
Such very vulnerable sick babies needing such specialised care, didn’t receive it!
So very tragic especially for parents who I can’t see how they can ever recover.
Dr that gave evidence that eventually showed that baby shaking syndrome was being wrongly diagnosed.
She lost her career!
( O he’s talking about it now😉)
I agree, those consultants were only seeing these very,vulnerable,sick babies twice a week!
They needed such specialised care & didn’t receive it!
So very tragic especially for parents who I can’t see how they can ever recover.
Dr that gave evidence that eventually showed that baby shaking syndrome was being wrongly diagnosed.
She lost her career!
( O he’s talking about it now😉)
I would argue that allowing this young nurse to not have a review of her case is a massive miscarriage of justice in the purist sense. It is shameful to convict her of something that maybe a case of filthy conditions in the hospital. That building is falling down, all you need to do is visit and see for yourself. How are nurses going to work in this climate? When matrons worked on wards they ensured the cleanliness and efficiency of the ward and were responsible for the welfare of the patients and nurses. All this was taken away on the grounds of cost and cleaning was contracted out, managers were brought in, it was the worst decision for hospitals imaginable.
As a former Detective I know how CID works. The conversation held between the Police and the two doctors from the hospital in question. who had already been told to apologise to Lucy, because of their allegations, went as follows - In April, 2017, with the permission of the Countess’s leadership, Jayaram and another pediatrician met with a detective from the Cheshire police and shared their concerns. “Within ten minutes of us telling the story, the superintendent said, ‘Well, we have to investigate this,’ ” Jayaram said. “ ‘It’s a no-brainer.’ ”
In May, the police launched what they called Operation Hummingbird. A detective later said that Brearey and Jayaram provided the “golden thread of our investigation.”
Now, the language used displayed a highly excited group of Police personnel that could see that Home Office targets could be easily achieved with an easy target of a young nurse! Beleve me, that' the way it works!
I believe you!! Hearing an interview with the “lead detective” saying “we could not believe our luck, when we found the “confession notes”” - I found, Hummingbird set the bar veeeery low!!
What about examining other alternatives for these babies deaths? Was that looked into?
As a former Detetective, you thought home office figures is a motivating factor. REALLY. I suspect Detective you were not very good at your job.
If you can't see the evidence in this case, there is absolutely no hope for policing.
Why wernt the doctors names included in the list?? They were also going in treating patients , the ones calling her an angel of death!! They are the ones that give instructions for treatment aswell, one of those babies wasnt given antibiotics as soon as they were born, which was overlooked and then blame a poor nurse
I'm a former nurse and I've always felt really uneasy about this case. Can't put my finger on it so I'm interested to listen to this video. Something just doesn't feel right about her conviction.
I agree. It never sat right with me either. From day one, I thought she was innocent. I think she's vulnerable and socially awkward so they chose her well to institute a cover up. I think the hospital failed those babies majorly and they need someone to blame
I just heard the other day since she has been taken off the ward that there has been 2500 babies coming thru the unit and there has only been 1 death. Now look at how many deaths and near deaths there was when she was working there.
That says A LOT too me.
@@chrissyknowsitall5170 The ward was downgraded not long after she was removed from it. The ward ceased to be an ICU for neonates and they stopped taking babies below 32 weeks gestation. You can probably work out for yourself the effect this would have on the death rate. No point comparing apples with oranges.
@@chrissyknowsitall5170 it's not that there were deaths it's that they were
SUSPICIOUS deaths... Deaths of babies that were fully expected to pull through. Babies that the doctors had no concerns about. Babies that were making progress suddenly and unexpectedly deteriorated and died. And there was always the one staff member linked to their care... Lucy Letby.
@S.Trades yes I do believe she totally killed all those babies. I was responding to the comments saying she wasn't gulity of killing babies.
I was never persuaded during the trial that Lucy is guilty, because the entire prosecutions case was circumstantial. Additionally, she doesn’t fit the profile of a serial killer and there is extensive research on this.
@@carolinemayet4046
most serial killers dont work in NICUs. Maybe that's why?
As an nhs worker I can tell you the amount of times nurses went home with handover sheets is very common
So I've heard. I guess it makes sense as you know where they are, given nurses don't have their own offices afaik.
@@yggdrasil9039 I think they did in the NICU
I am so glad that Lucy's new Barrister is Mark McDonald . He will prove that Lucy's 100% Innocent.
Well said she is innocent
I hope if she is innocent it won't take 20 years of her life to find out
@@user-jp9qt1ys3u
she's now stuck there until she dies. No sympathy!
I’ve got many friends who work in the NHS, none of them believe she is guilty
Do they think Shipman is innocent as well?
@@WillLarge76 🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉
@@itsmeagain7825 The evidence against Shipman was clear. The flaws in this case are obvious to anyone who can think for themselves.
@@ruthbashford3176 what flaws, She has been found guilty by 2 different juries. Are you saying that they ALL got it wrong?
@@WillLarge76
are you as honest as Lucy?
Whatever you think about the case, it’s important that we have this discussion. Look at the Post Office scandal, hundreds of innocent people convicted and sent to jail. Thank you Mark - I found your experience helpful. My thoughts are with all the parents who lost their babies.
@@Henrynow
so shocking miscarriages of justice can and do happen. For sure. But LL isn't one of them.
@@S.Trades The conviction of Lucy Letby is certainly a miscarriage of justice. The flaws in the prosecution case are blatantly obviously to anyone capable of thinking for themselves.
@@Henrynow
what's a dodgy computer system in the Post Office, got to do with a wicked nurse, killing babies?
@@S.Trades the point is about miscarriages of justice. Lucy du Burke was a nurse convicted of killing patients, she was acquitted and cleared several years later. Miscarriages of justice happen.
@@Henrynow
they certainly do. But this wicked witch isn't one of them.
I was a career criminal most of my life and I have never been in the witness box in any of my own cases and only three times as a witness in other cases. I don't watch or hardly ever read mainstream news but I am well aware of how they work and definitely trial my media is a huge thing. During her trial, which I wasn't even paying attention to, I listened to someone speak online about her case and about the hospital prior to and even after she was accused. It led me to believe strongly that she may be innocent and with other evidence and the way her defence team never really gave her a good defence that has surfaced since I am even more convinced she is innocent and has suffered one, if not the biggest miscarriage of justice ever. I hope she doesn't have to wait a long time for her, and the parents of the babies to get proper justice and answers.
Id rather shovel shit than be a nurse if this can happen!! No wonder theyre short staffed. This is a massive cover up.
@@paulrichards6894From personal experience quite a few doctors don't even seem qualified.
It’s a stitch up.
How do we know, Lucy Letby wasn't setup by Chester hospital and the doctors there, where their practices ever questioned, if not... Why not?
I work in the NHS and there's plenty of Doctors who are guilty of mal-practice but they are able to "Band" together and present it in such away that it just never gets fully investigated.
There's a trend at the moment whereby some Doctors close their practices one day a week to work as Locums in a hospital of their choice to be paid £500 per shift, where's the moral?
I agree with Barrister Mark McDonald. The conviction of Nurse Lucy Latby is wrong. After hearing and klistening to the pd cast made from day 1 of trial, I believed that said Lucy Letby was accused wrongly. I am not a lawyer and dont know how circumstancial evidence works with a jury,but my experieence as a neonatal nurse working in the Philippines, London England and Cardiff in South Wales I and presently still practicing in Neonaatal unit in Canada. think made me a credible person to attest that the sid nurse was innocent. No offense to the parents who lostbtheir babies that were involved in this case. Even if there are two nurse working in two different units let say an nurse work in adults ICU and a neonatal nuurdse would hardly understand how the dynamics is different from each others unit. What more when juries who are not even working in a medical field would understnd such dynamics working in the neonatakl unit. I think Lucy Letby was just made as a fall guy by those incompetent doctors involved in pointing the blame to the poor nurse. Its obvious how they should be responsible first by admitting babies outside their level of care. How such special baby unit have intensive care level being admitted in reklation to the staffing and skikl mix of the said unit. Each incidents sited can be explained fully by a nburse with experience working in neonatal unit in a very plain and easy way. Pulmonary embolism....commonm, tyhe years I worked I never encounteres such diagnosis as the cause of death of any neonateal death even when i was still working in UK. There are lots of questionable situations that were acconted to Nurse Lucy Letby that only an experience neonatal nurse can explain. Those doctors in their unit are just avoiding their responsibilities for being negligebnt and not considering the level of care that the unit can only accomodate. Anyhing abiove their level of care should be transferred to level 3 unit and these are decisions made by doctors and whoever the nursein charge were ob duty. Froma baby a-z.....the evidencess are framed poorly and i dunno how many more nurse will have to deal with such erroneous trial from the start. I feel sorry for nurse Lucy Letby, she's just made a fall guy for the incompetencies of her higher biosses such as the doctors and unit manager and nurse in charge. Really frustrating and disappointing how one innocent nurse will be convicted wrongly. I hope the truth will set her free.
When it comes to the NHS and NHS management they will cherry pick their so-called evidence to pin it on whoever they decide to pin it on “FACT”, NHS management would rather spend millions of TAX payers money on blaming anyone but themselves and have families believe that their innocent babies had been deliberately murdered rather than actually own up to the FACT these poor innocent babies actual died because of Management failings. NHS Management refuse to ever take any kind of responsibility on anything and especially deaths of babies due to poor management, Managers look after Managers and will lie cheat and false accuse anyone has long as it’s not them and their high paid salary isn’t at risk they really don’t care, They will hide and block evidence that ever contradicts them and use terms like on the odds of Probability you could of done It, They threaten anyone who would try to speak up for the innocent party with their Jobs, Lives and Mental Health. Lucy Letby is innocent no question and all the Managers from that hospital 100% know the truth.
@@mrpogilondon1
please go and troll somewhere else!
@@S.Trades So the experiences of a neonatal nurse don't count if it goes against what you believe? These are the people we should listen to and the jury should have been composed of former neonatal nurses and doctors who could see through all the bogus evidence.
I have closely followed this trial and the retrial…. I believe she’s almost 100% likely innocent, and definitely had reasonable doubt….whole thing is scary for the UK nurses, imo.
Most nurses, tbf, aren't serial killers.
@@S.Trades exactly
@@S.Trades this is actually true, and something that wasn't given due consideration during the trial. It sounds counterintuitive, but in the absence of physical evidence of deliberate harm, the jury were asked to weigh the balance of probabilities, without considering that 'serial killer' is such an unlikely possibility that it is massively outweighed by other things, for example an undetected cluster of viral cases. Not the biggest hole in the case, just one of many.
🎉🎉2aw is 3
@@Hawaiian6-pack she's certainly been caught out. She thought she was untouchable.
I have no idea if Lucy Letby is guilty or innocent. But I think it is odd that there was zero forensics linking her to any crime. How can you be so efficient as to kill seven times and not make a single mistake with forensics. There was clear forensic evidence linking Shipman to his crimes and he was a clever (and cunning) doctor. The second issue is that criminal psychologists have said that Lucy does not fit the serial killer profile - so maybe that is because she is not a serial killer. Thirdly, complaints were made about the standards of care given to babies at Chester long before this case, so unexplained deaths could have been a result of poor medical care and poor resources.
shipman was not clever, actually one of the reasons he was caught was because of the multiple grammatical errors in the forged will! he couldn't even spell!! he was arrogant not clever
After reading the contradictory evidence of Dr Jayaram and the pseudoscience of 'expert' Dewi Evans I am convinced of Lucy Letby's innocence. There are several other factors that point to a MOJ.
@@TrevorLee-x2f where would we be, without naughty trolls stirring up debate?
@@S.Trades Where would we be if people were forever being jailed on circumstantial evidence and pseudoscience from a so called 'expert'
@@S.Trades I assume you're referring to yourself.
@@TrevorLee-x2f save your breath... She's toast. And rightly so.
@@S.Trades It will take time but she will be free sooner than you think.
The roster sheet shows the incidents when Lucy was on duty - hand picked by the quack evens
It does not show the incidents when she was not on duty of which there was more
Some of the hospitals are not clean,especially if they are short of staff.
I've even seen Dr's not washing their hands!
I’ve spent quite a few months over the last few years in different hospitals as a patient and I will agree with you about the hand washing thing. It’s worrying. x
I believe 💯 percent she's innocent, if she is my heart go's out to her, pore women she must be terrified..
I am a little puzzled. As far as I am aware, there were no inquests into these deaths There may have been post-mortem examinations but no inquests. So, if no inquests then no formal decision that anybody was murdered (a post mortem gives only cause of death, not whether or not suspicious/natural etc). So, if nobody was "officially" murdered, then how can someone be accused of the murders? At the age of 3, I had a personal experience of this sort of thing in 1950 when I woke up one morning and my 13 month old brother "refused" to wake up and play with me. I went and complained to my father who found he was dead. He had been fine the previous evening. The death cerificate says cause was "cappillary bronchitis" and was marked "after post-mortem without inquest". Fine. It didn't stop the local gossips accusing my mum (behind her back) of neglect. That may have been 74 years ago but the memories are seared into my brain. But the point is; there was no inquest so everything ended there. Whay is the Letby case different?
That is a good question. I'm so sorry about your brother, it must have been a terrible experience.
There were PM investigations
There were inquests into some of them. Cheshire police stopped the inquests of others. All but one of the "murders" had post-mortems which all showed common natural causes of death. Evans invented: Air embolism, air in the stomach, trauma to the liver, trauma to the upper GI. There is zero evidence for any of this. CPR in sepsis causes liver bleeding, CPAP belly causes air in the intestines, NG tubes and CPAP cause trauma to the upper GI and, sorry, bu you can't feed a baby to death. Its rubbish.
A very sad tail that you remember so vividly all those years later. In the 1950" only one in five children in the U.K. lived beyond the age of five. Your poor mother was subject to the same ignorance that all victims of circumstance suffer, somehow it was their fault. So much of the Letby trial is still a mystery. There were some inquests but we don't know for which babies. Not all deaths of course end with a coroners case. If the treating physician, the pathologist and the coroner agree on the cause of death they can issue a death certificate. However, if any other physician disagrees with the cause of death they can pretty much insist on an inquest. I've been told that Cheshire Police stopped some of the inquests because they were now criminal inquiries. However, all but one of the "Letby Babies" had post mortems and all were confirmed as death by natural causes.
@@1962strat1 I find it very hard to believe that in the 1950s four out of five UK children didn't live beyond the age of 5. Are you sure you don't have these figures the wrong way round, ie one in five didn't survive to the age of 5?
Their are 17 dead babies. They cherry picked that only the 7 they could frame (stich) her for to charge her with. Her l lawyers should be disbarred for incompetence
No they didn't. Go educate yourself about the case. All of the other deaths/collapses had natural causes or could be expected based on the child's condition at the time of the collapse. The 7 she's been convicted for were all suspicious deaths with no natural casuse identified.
The only factor that was consistent in all of those deaths was Lucy Letby. If her defence was as simple as the simpletons in this thread think it was, she'd be walking free now.
@@andrewjack31 funny since the autopsies for the 'muders' foind sepsis pneumonia and baby a died cause a doctor inserted a tube wrong...the 'murders' were invented by breary and that gun for hire evans who'd sell his own mother down the river for a price
@@andrewjack31 except the autopsies foind those babies died from sepsis pneumonia and undetermined (I'm reality a doctor inserting a tube wrong iwhich he even admitted). No independent experts found foul play except for Evans, who is a known paid liar....hypothetical and theoretical murders being accepted by a jury is insane....
@@andrewjack31explain the autopsies that found natural causes? Explain how evans just changed the cause of death of 3 babies and has dumped one hypothetical theory for another?
This conviction is at least.unsafe, but Letby could well be completely innocent This seems a terrible miscarriage of justice, equal with the Birminham 6/ Guildford 4, though in Letby's case no crime may even have been committed. Thank you for this interview, let's hope Mark gets much more publicity for his
devastating analysis. Lucy Letby can't be left to rot in prison for a crime that may not even have occurred.
I too have a very uneasy feel about this case.
From the start of the trial she was poorly represented by fools who didn't cross question the witnesses...i believe lucy was a scapegoat .....why would anyone want to become a nurse today , when you can so easily end up behind bars and be totally innocent ...its shocking. Good luck lucy with your appeals. God bless 🙌 x x x
Her defence were appalingly inadequate and should be sued.
@@knitsofold disbarred...or whatever they call taking away the right to practice in the uk
@@scottaznavourian3720 absolutely agree.
Guilty or innocent lucy was poorly represented and was not given a fair trial
The whole trial was "Rigged" from the beginning. I never felt easy with this case, i live in the North West and used to hear of her Re-arrest every few months/years on the local news and was beginning to get fed up knowing how police work the multiple arrests, questioning & bail shows how little proven evidence they had. She was convicted in the court of public opinion in the years she kept getting arrested & bailed.
A point that is rarely raised. If they'd had evidence, they wouldn't have kept releasing her, they''d have only arrested her once.
I am reminded of the famous Lindy Chamberlain ( Dingo took my baby) case in Australia, who was falsely accused of killing her baby, thankfully she was eventually exonerated though not before having spent several years in prison…
As far as the media are concerned, they’re only interested in bad news, or at least exaggerating controversy. That’s what sells, the truth doesn’t sell
I think the media should be put on trial. Oh yeah…
I don't know if she is guilty but I do have concerns that the evidence used to convict her was not sufficient to reach that verdict beyond a reasonable doubt - which is, and should be the level of proof needed to convict someone for a crime.
@@paulbrightwell3621 the judge and the jury, beg to differ.
@@S.Trades And trolls.
9:55 That's key isn't it? Why can't we get a straight answer to the simple question:
Why were no medical witnesses called to the defense?
How biased and one-sided if not, for a jury to be overwhelmed with scientific argument only on one side of the debate.
What a total travesty of justice.
And the same with the statistical evidence, for that matter.
So why did she have the same barrister for the 2nd trial if she thought he was so poor?? Defendants can choose their own lawyer on legal aid.
@@judewhitbread2394 I have no idea. That's more a function of the justice system in the UK. Maybe she didn't think he was poor. He's supposed to be the best. From the bits and pieces I've heard he did an OK job, but the lack of medical defence is just bizarre, given the case largely rested on medical interventions that were harmful!!! There's a lot that's perplexing about the case. The fact that she first of all attended her conveyancers that did her mortgage for legal advice as her first port of call on this case is another instance of where she didn't realise how badly she was about to get stitched up. I guess when she was then recommended the defence she got, she went with it a second time, even after she lost in the first. She seems a loyal person, so that doesn't surprise me. And getting good lawyers to work pro bono on legal aid is next to impossible. Believe me I've tried it. I guess she just stuck with someone that knew the case intimately, regardless. But I'm not sure. There's an awful lot about the case that is left opaque. That in itself is a concern.
@yggdrasil9039 Sorry, loyal? She threw just about every colleague including friends under the bus and outright claimed parents were lying, even on occasions when it was agreed evidence.
@@judewhitbread2394 She didn't actually. Her statements that have been publicised or released from interviews and trials continually show her supporting her team, and deferring to procedure. Unless you have the £30,000 transcript that shows otherwise, no-one I know has the transcript. Which in itself is an issue of transparency of the justice system I think.
What she did take an issue with is some of the junior consultants that she thought were not very competent (intubating neonates 7 times is a big no-no.) That's not throwing under the bus, that's raising concerns.
“Beyond Reasonable Doubt”and I including many other learned individuals are having doubts
But it’s the jury that counts.
Another problem with the famous spreadsheet is that it assumes that the wrong doing ( if there was any) was both initiated and had it's result within the same shift
Of course she is innocent, no actual real evidence all circumstantial and hearsay
When it comes to the NHS and NHS management they will cherry pick their so-called evidence to pin it on whoever they decide to pin it on “FACT”, NHS management would rather spend millions of TAX payers money on blaming anyone but themselves and have families believe that their innocent babies had been deliberately murdered rather than actually own up to the FACT these poor innocent babies actual died because of Management failings. NHS Management refuse to ever take any kind of responsibility on anything and especially deaths of babies due to poor management, Managers look after Managers and will lie cheat and false accuse anyone has long as it’s not them and their high paid salary isn’t at risk they really don’t care, They will hide and block evidence that ever contradicts them and use terms like on the odds of Probability you could of done It, They threaten anyone who would try to speak up for the innocent party with their Jobs, Lives and Mental Health. Lucy Letby is innocent no question and all the Managers from that hospital 100% know the truth.
@@voice.of.reason Same as with OJ "The Juice" Simpson. He was clearly innocent.
@@S.Tradesthe Simpson case was entirely different
I didn't follow the case, I don't know anything about her or the details but what I do know is that the day her trail started the newspapers had a picture of her face on the front page stating, "poisoner". That has to make the trail unfair....
And how were the systems not in place for this 'crime' not to be noticed as it progressed and but before it went too far?..
Statistics are a manipulators dream.
Trial
How was that Judge allowed to influence the jury?
He wasn't. It's a lie
They didn't. It's a lie
ua-cam.com/video/ITH6y0ovzSU/v-deo.htmlsi=PnCWHjh9Oe5CM_mb
@@lesley9989 Modern day witch hunt🤷♂️
Goss said a baby was "stable" then changed his mind andsaid it was "good"...which is it?
Lucy Letby is innocent, her conviction is unsafe and there has been a terrible mistake being made.
@@MRJADAVIES
the only mistake has been made by you.
@@S.Trades Nope, she doesn't have to be innocent for her conviction to be unsafe. The UK legal system is supposed to operate on a principle that it is better for a guilty person to go free than for an innocent person to be convicted wrongly. Whether you like this or not, it is the case, and her conviction does appear to be unsafe.
I can’t find a single person who is convinced she actually did it. The evidence just wasn’t there. All circumstantial. I think the biggest problem is the jury aren’t medical professionals so rely solely on what they are being told.
I couldn’t agree with you more 👍
I'm convinced.
Maybe because you live in a bubble. Anyway you've found one now.
You found one more.
When you think about a baby dying in a hospital most people would think thats fairly uncommon, if not rare. That was my thought until I Google'd the question how often do new babies die in UK hospitals?
Sadly, the death of a baby is not a rare event. Around 13 babies die shortly before, during or soon after birth every day in the UK.
That surprised me. That then raises the next question, how often do 6 babies die on the same ward in the space of 2 years?
@@paullangton-rogers2390
all unexpected and all under the "care" of the same nurse. 🤔 Fortunately, she's never coming out of prison. Just as well!
@@S.Trades can you elaborate on how they determined which deaths were "unexpected". That seems to be one of many ambiguous and convenient terms used without any explaining exactly what makes them unusual vs others. Basically "trust me bro, these ones were dodgy AF"
Yes count the amount of hospitals thats accross, this amount of deaths on one unit is not normal and letby was there for all of them
@S.Trades, do you think a 25-week-old is expected to survive? With a 60-70% chance of survival, there can be no definitive expectations. The hospital to which baby K was transferred stated it might have survived with better care at Chester, without mentioning anything Lucy did or didn't do. No one witnessed her actions, and her inaction was in line with recommendations from various nursing publications of observing desaturations. Moreover, two nurses were present when Ravi Jayaram claims he entered, not considering that nurse Oakley had returned. Changing timelines from one trial to the next is what happens in clown courts, not serious forums of justice.
@felicitymc8200
Very well put
In my opinion, Jayaram should've been toast on that witness stand.
He's worse than Dewi Evans
If GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT is not PROVED, which is what is being questioned, then a retrial is needed
Guilty beyond reasonable doubt is exactly what was proved in multiple cases.
Of course ,you are correct, she was found guilty by a jury, but you miss the point, there is an increasing number who believe the jury got it wrong, which is where the “beyond reasonable doubt” issue is, in the interests of justice, another investigation would help, The recent Post Office scandal highlights the justice system failings,
No one looks at the people and circumstances around Lucy who may have set her up because they are guilty themselves.
If Dr Rav entered the Neo Natal Ward as described, then IF Letby walked away, HE would have given help - wouldn't he? As there is no such record, it throws doubt on the Doctor's claim,
He has a chip on his shoulder as she made a complaint about him. Anyone who knows how hospitals work recognise that consultant doctors don’t take kindly to management or being disciplined.
I don't trust that Dr Rav. I have a bad feeling about him.
@@christineat3631We had a teacher at school who looked exactly like him spitting image. He was touchy feely and hung around the girls changing rooms at P. E. time. He was known as a total creep open secret at the school.
@@christineat3631Totally unrelated but we had a teacher at school who looked exactly like him. He was touchy feely and hung around the girls changing rooms at P.E time. He was known to be a creep it was an open secret.
@@christineat3631 ditto
The jury reached a verdict based on the waffle of the procecution, the truth did not come in to it. I feel she was a victim of the failings of a poorly managed hospital.
Totally agree with you
How do you know, you weren’t even there. There was testimony from parents, staff, many medical experts. And management protected Lucy don’t forget. They refused to believe she did anything. That’s why they made the doctors apologise to her and offered her a post graduate at a prestigious children’s hospital. That’s why there’s going to be an inquiry into their handling of this case. They did nothing and allowed her to kill more babies
@@johnkeating4221 by "waffle", you mean 10 months of evidence?
@@S.TradesEvidence based on bogus pseudoscience and supposition.
@@Relugusnope, it was evidence that convicted her, some of it her own.
Iv always said she didn’t do it ‘ the hospital was at fault and the top consultants and they used her as a scapegoat
I understand the possibility of using her as a scapegoat and that happens all the time but I believe she is guilty based on the evidence, it's not that easy to frame someone especially in this situation you would think the consultants have all the power but it doesn't work like that.
@@DeanLynn-v4e it’s definitely a hard one to know for sure
@@clareoconnor5648 yup. And the Earth is flat!
It's not like a parent sued and then they pointed the finger at her. Her own colleagues suspected her and the death rate dropped when she was removed. All I can say is, watch crime scene to courtroom before you make up your mind that she's innocent
@@clareoconnor5648 Too bad the jury didn't agree. Never mind.
The longer the criminal justice system upholds Lucy's conviction the more damage will be done to its reputation in my opinion.
@@ruthbashford3176 🥱
I don't know if she's innocent or or guilty but there definitely needs to be a re-trial!
I personally do not believe she's a killer. I think she is innocent of all charges.
me too
I don't know whether she is innocent or guilty, but it seems as if the evidence is not enough for guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, it seems as if there is more than enough evidence for doubt. Even if she actually killed these children, as long as there is a reasonable doubt, she should be acquitted.
I’m not convinced she’s guilty and I’ve said it for a long time.
‘Once you see it, you can’t unsee it’ 🎉 Thank you Mark
I'm worried about the way the statistics were used -- very worried.
@@snirge
don't worry. The jury understood them perfectly.
@@S.Trades Statistical experts didn't
yes where were the other 10 deaths and collapses on that bogus spreadsheet.
Statistics were barely used in the case. People fixate on them because they understand them, but they really weren’t a reason that she was convicted.
The sky is blue , you might want to get that verified if that's confusing
If she’s a fall guy for something she hasn’t done they can land it onto anyone watch your backs
I have left a comment before on the the Lucy Letby case.I do feel she is not guilty the evidence is so vague and totally circumstantial I do feel for her.The police were so hell bent on getting a guilty verdict that they ignored so much information which could have proved her innocence.Keep fighting to open the cases please.Sincetely Jeremy Allfrey.
@@jeremyallfrey8547 it's never going to be reopened. The case is over. Her appeal was flatly rejected, on every point. There are no further avenues for her. Probably just as well.
The time period between her initial arrest in 2018 until she was charged in 2020 firmly indicates that the police investigation demonstrated confirmation bias, rather than an open mind. If she was truly guilty she would have been charged quickly, probably within 1-2 weeks of her initial arrest. The two years gap is a huge red flag
@@S.Trades And what do you think now after so many medical experts and statisticians have expressed grave concerns over the trial and verdict? Still feel the same?
Lucy Letby is Innocent
So is Ian Brady and Myra hindley I suppose
@@KarenThomas-h8l You're a paid monitor 🤷♂️
Yep you're right
@@KarenThomas-h8ldon't forget the Wests, the Bulger killers, and Colin Pitchfork. All a stitch up, obviously... 😑🙄
To me, Lucy writing, "I'm evil" is almost tantamount to proving that she was nothing of the sort. If you've ever met an evil person, you know that they ALWAYS think they're doing good.
Exactly! To say she is a psychopath is to not understand how a psychopath thinks, they do not blame themselves and they wouldn’t say they are evil and then leave it lying around for the police to find. She felt all around her that people saw her that way and she could feel their hate. To blame yourself for the babies dying because you couldn’t save them doesn’t make you evil .
@@clairedavison5607 Well said.
I think they need overseas input and complete retrial. Go fund Lucy letby page. It seems the junior doctors had the run of the shoe because old j ram wasn’t there and things went tits up blame the most qualified nurse
She wasn't the most qualified
Transcript from the trials ua-cam.com/play/PL2byzt3tQjyaKTVSkI8vXUL8vS-D6D7DY.html&si=i6RA880DP_kNxBmU
I’m thinking of taking her cause to the US early next year.
I believe she is innocent.
No, you don't.
@@S.Trades Yes he does And so do I, Modern day witch hunting🤷♂️
@@christianhuxtable247 well letby is one witch who deserves to be hunted.
@@daviddavidsen907 really doesn't matter what you believe. She's toast.
@@S.Trades You'd feel at home in the 17th Century, you could join all the other witch hunters.
Excellent video and interview, I've always thought she's innocent, after watching this I'm almost convinced
Thank you 🙏
RIGHT....... Most of us know/think that Lucy is not guilty. YEP?
What are we gonna do to get her out of the hell she is in?
@@mrplod1616
Have you still not grasped the truth? She's been banged to rights, her appeal was thrown out and she's never leaving prison. Quite rightly!
Theae experts coming forward need to do more then just talk about it
The pond life in the country think she's innocent because they are too thick to understand the case.
Let's hope she stays exactly where she is so she can't harm any more babies.
Free Lucy i thought this stunk at the time Nhs scapegoat
Excellent interview. Very interesting listening to Mr McDonald, I learnt a lot from this video. Thank you
Thank you! 🙏 glad you found it interesting
I do not think she murdered those little babies. I think she was made a scapegoat for inside failures at the hospital. It's all so sad. I believe the jury got it wrong. I don't blame the jury but the people responsible are the lawyers who fed the claims to them. 🙏 I hope justice prevails.
There is no doubt people working in the NHS are frightened to lift their heads! They all know the consequences!
The problem in the UK is that it’s a totally adversarial system. What is required is for a very experienced investigator to be put in place to question all the evidence impartially to determine if a crime has been committed. Once the police are involved they are programmed to home in on guilt. In this case the accuser was a doctor who because of his position was likely to have been believed from the word go. I hope this case is re-investigated, there is a whiff of Salem surrounding it.
I never believed she was guilty just like the post office worker's they just blame someone else for there mistakes
Excellent video - thank you for making it.
Thank you 🙏
Please support Lucy Letby.
This is an innocent woman.
I'm glad others can see this now, and hopefully, we can over turn this madness and get her out of prison.
To all of the friends and family and colleagues of Lucy and everyone who knows her, please don't give up, and please don't stop loving and believing even if at times you feel alone.
You are not alone, and more and more people will stand with you and Lucy.
My cousin was murdered by police, later I volunteered with the Anthony Walker Foundation who put a stop to police victimizeing me but after making complaint about the manager at MOLE and the Anthony Walker Foundation the criminal justices system here in Liverpool has been used as a sole destroying weapon.
@@delasculpture
the police murdering your cousin (sorry to hear it), has nothing to do with letby. Please, let's not conflate the two.
@@delasculpture
what is it they have against flatfish?
What if you were that good at your job you were expected to care for the most vulnerable babies.
@@Bartwon
most of the time, they just sleep!
As soon as someone comes to the conclusion that something untoward is going on regarding the death rate on a ward, then the ball is rolling and someone, a nurse not a doctor, is getting it
I don't think she's guilty either.
David Davis MP has taken a serious interest in this case, I do not think someone in his position would do that unless he has very serious doubts about the evidence and verdict. Would not be the first time a shoddy hospital administration has scapegoated somebody to save their own skins... A lot of things do not add up in this case..
I Believe This Nurse Is Innocent If You Were To Gather The Data Protection From All The High Dependency N N U I Would Say Most Of The Staff Have Lost More Than 10 Babies On Their Shifts Over The Years Lucy Letby Did Over The Same Period Of Time
There appears to be proof of perjury in both trials for her new defence team to consider.
Having no cameras in that unit didn't help
Absolutely. Considering CCTV is pretty much everywhere (even on many people’s doorbells now) the fact that there was no CCTV when they became suspicious about Letby is ridiculous.
@@JoshuaPerryParkerAnd perhaps pretty significant in the grand scheme of things.
@@stephenkissane4268 nor did having a babykilling nurse, working there....
@@S.Trades would have been better proof to have cameras there instead of saying oh she wasnt there when the babies were fine
@@stephenkissane4268 kind of makes no difference now. She's done for.
What shouts it out as a concern for me is the lack of direct witnesses to Lucy Letby killing babies, my own experiences in mental health care of corruption and self protection in the NHS such they are going to cover themselves to poor general practises, and the fact I just wondered what the motive is here.... Of course the prosecution don't have to show a motive, but this girl has no serious diagnosed mental health issues and there is no indication of 'Munchausen by proxy' as in the Beverley Allit case. The fact that it would be extremely rare for an event of a nurse killing this many babies.
FREE LUCY LETBY
Lucy is not Guilty
😂 Modern day witch hunt 😂
lucy letby is inocent
I called out online immediately at the time of the trial that there was a complete lack of hard evidence . I got nothing but hate for being insensitive, and people calling me a dumb-ass for not understanding legal process
The presumption of guilt is not good enough
No one presumed guilt. The presumption was innocent until proved guilty. She was in fact proved guilty.
They did presume her guilty and that was the main concern. That’s why they dropped Professor Jane Hutton, she pointed out that other nurses elsewhere could come up with the same statistics and immediately she was told she was no longer needed. They didn’t look for other reasons for the babies deaths because they were intent in going after Lucy.
@@littleshubunkin7926 listen to what Mark says at the 36 minute mark, he acknowledged that the case was very prejudiced and one sided. It happens in many cases.
I think there’s another aspect to this case that nobody has touched on, and that’s one of human emotion. Put yourself in the position of the jury members, you’re probably not very well educated in the world of neonatal science or statistical analysis so you are heavily reliant on the information put to yourself by the prosecution, most of which makes very little to no sense whatsoever to yourself, you do know however that any crime committed against an innocent, harmless, defenceless baby is absolutely abhorrent and the perpetrators deserve to burn in hell for all eternity. It’s your naturally & instinctively formed human emotions that understandably make you feel this way about anyone who harms a child.
Is it possible that jurors may have cast their verdict based on the gravity of their own human emotional feelings of such abhorrence rather than based circumstantial, beyond reasonably doubtable evidential facts.
My reasoning for this is based on my own experience of jury service. I did jury service myself nearly 20 years ago now and half of our jury panel while deliberating, openly confessed to initially forming their verdict based on their own emotions rather than purely evidence known to be fact. Is it possible there may be an element of this in Letby’s case???
You have a point, sir
I came up against Pilgrim Hospital Management and the Doctors in Lincolnshire in 2014 and They all ganged up and lied through their high teeth to Protect their Reputations My Daughter could have died as she had a burst appendicitis and gangrene was pouring into her stomach at 4.30am in the early hours of the morning as the surgeon who was on call and at home refused to come back to the hospital until he started at nine the next day he started to operate at 9.30 am, so for four and a half hours she was vomiting what looked like Green Liquid which I later found out was her body trying to get it out of her system and it was gangrene , her major organs could of shut down at any minute and there would have bee no way they could of saved her, I brought a case against them and the Doctors lied and the NHS Management lied all through the hearing and PAL were of no use to me either and were in the Pocket of the Hospital ,So yes I can see the powers that be probably threw her under a buss to protect their own failings Doctor do and can lie and do not get me started on the NHS management they lie a lot The NHS management are full of liars
Circumstantial evidence. Yes. I followed trial every day but I still would wonder
From the start I didn't believe Lucy Letby was guilty. I hope she gets justice and the families get answers.