Now the court order is lifted, I can finally tell you what REALLY happened.
Вставка
- Опубліковано 2 лип 2024
- Why was the New Yorker article suppressed; and how did an email nearly derail the trial?
#artoflaw #lucyletby
Disclaimer: Neither this nor any other video, may be taken as legal advice. I accept no liability whatever for any reliance placed upon it.
Founded by Alan Robertshaw and @Blackbeltbarrister
ua-cam.com/users/blackbeltbarriste...
From an article I just read in the 'Daily Telegraph', the prosecution showed the Letby jury a chart which demonstrated she was present when every one of the babies she was charged with killing had died. You might say "so what, it would, wouldn't it? That's why she was in the dock". What the prosecution did NOT produce was a chart of the many other instances of infant death (they were all, after all, very sick babies) when Letby WAS NOT on duty. In other words, they cherry-picked the data. That does not prove that she did NOT kill those infants but it does highlight how little people understand about statistics. The defence should have been all over that cherry-pick... but they weren't.
Yes, why aren't the police investigating all deaths all the time ?
And of course you sat in the court for every day and absorbed every scintilla of evidence and witness before deciding you knew better than the court.
@@andys5841spot on! These people have no more credibility than flat earthers.
That was not all they were shown. It was demonstrated that the excess deaths were statistically extremely unlikely to be the result of random chance, and that the only profile of duty which, when removed, returned the rate to normal, was Letby's.
And when I say "extremely unlikely" I don't mean winning a EuroMillions roll-over jackpot unlikely, I mean winning 3 jackpots in a row unlikely. It simply is not going to happen, the sun will die out before it occurs, that's how unlikely it is. The excess deaths are only explained through an examination of Letby's work schedule, she is the only key which turns the lock.
And this is all in addition to all the other evidence given by multiple doctors and staff who independently went to police well before the arrest because they suspected that Letby was attacking infants. It had even become a source of dark humour in the ward.
@@user-xs1yx9tc9m Because it's a stitch up.
The staff who expressed serious concern and worked very hard all through this terrible case are all still working very hard, using their very high level of skills to continue to provide care to tiny sick babies and look after their parents.
I salute all you hard working. focused and dedicated NHS staff. I do hope that positive changes have been made in your work environments and that there is a possibility of a culture shift within HR and management.
I salute you all
I have done jury service three times. Once was dismissed by the judge before trial, once was guilty plea last minute. Once was a surreal experience with ( ficticious example as I can not give direct details) jury members saying thing like "I know we have just seen CCTV of the defendant shooting the victim in the head, but they're only 18 so we can't find them guilty and ruin their lives".
How absurd and frustrating! I've been a witness in an assault case, but I'm very glad that I've never been a juror. If I ever get the letter they send, I will get a doctor's note to get out of doing it. I am legitimately too sick to do it, because I'm disabled by MS. Thank goodness!
I sat on a jury once too. Some of the crazy things the jurors said was unbelievable!! There was an old lady who had sat on 2 other jury’s and found them both guilty and without listening to the evidence she said “so I’m going for the hat-trick on this one”!!
Your surreal experience, exactly that happened in the case where I served as a juror. Went to retrial, new jury, unanimous gulity verdict. Person received 26years custodial sentence.
@ruthjones7121 I was amazed at the way some jurors were just ignoring the evidence and making stuff up "I think it was a drug deal gone wrong"... erm, based on what?
@@colettebishop2173 I didn't write that quote you accredited me with. You may wish to respond to the correct poster if you wish to receive a response.
I believe that a lot of people are feeling very guilty about what they originally thought was the small part they played in covering up the incompetence of the NHS. I'm sure many of them never thought it would go this far. One day, the truth will come out.
Inquiry starts on 10 September, much will be revealed.
@@judewhitbread2394 The parents request to have the inquiry live streamed has been refused. Why? Lady Thirwall has said the media will be the eyes and ears of the public.Is this the same media that operated a witch-hunt against Lucy and mis-reported facts about the case?
@@judewhitbread2394 No it won't.
@terrynpiper7667 Agreed
💯 everyone sees how shady this is
So let me get this straight. Someone attempted to pervert the course of justice? Is this being persued? The Jury member may be easily able to prove they were elsewhere at which point the person making the claim is a defacto liar and has made an attempt to have a trial overturned.
Yes. But the email was sent anonymously from a burner email address. The email wasn't sent by the girlfriend; the emailer said they worked at the cafe, but there's nobody working there with the name given. They _claimed_ their name was the same name as someone who worked for Tescos, but it wasn't them. It might as well be an anonymous paper letter sent to the court. Who would you go after?
@@michaelstreeter3125 unless they've sent it via a VPN there is going to be logs of IP addresses in the email and at the mail service provider, that can then be cross referenced with data held by the internet supplier. These are readily available with a warrant. Yes, it may end up a wild goose chase but ultimately someone has tried to derail a major criminal case here and an example needs to be made. The other alternative is that the cafe owner has motive, a warrant to seize and access their devices could potentially turn up data that links them, small things such as cookies from the burner email website may be resident on the device.
@@michaelstreeter3125there will be a forensic trail on any device used to connect t to that email account. I suggest warrants for the bosses and partner's phones, it'll be one of them.
@@michaelstreeter3125 a member of the jury’s girlfriend worked at the cafe and she pissed off the owner who tried to get his own back by getting the boyfriend into trouble. The COA looked at it and threw it out
@@michaelstreeter3125 Even if they know who sent the letter, if they can't prove it, they should just drop it. They have far more important things to spend our money on than investigating that to death.
I'm a retired nurse...
Something seems wrong here....
I think more questions need to be asked..
Absolutely!
Agreed!!!
Such as?
something's wrong indeed. The all case actually rests on what one doctor's "gut feeling" ability to convince his own team that she is guilty. he's the one noticing more death, then he's the one thinking about the nurse, then he's the one witnessing the nurse not reacting to an alarm, and he's the one blowing the wistle but not calling the cops, then he's the one who gets to be called a hero, and there is another death spike after she's arrested. I wonder if the cops investigated other members of that team.
@@janlittle2148 The fact that the babies Lucy was supposed to have murdered had post mortems and were found to have died from natural causes. Unless of course you prefer to believe the long retired, discredited paediatrician, Dewi Evans who fantasized about air embolisms and insulin poisoning.
Having had first-hand experience of the incompetence of the NHS; having seen the duplicity of bureaucrats in the post office case and having been in a jury, I don't have much confidence in the conviction. This is a bad thing for justice in the UK; if only the courts would allow cameras in so we can see justice being done and make up our own minds
I personally know how utterly incompetent the NHS can be . I was suspended for almost a year , had to face a tribunal, and was eventually given a 2 year probation ( which I found out was not legal ) and returned to work, for something I had not done. I worked in the NHS for almost 20 years before I eventually had enough and retired. The NHS are ruthless when they need a scapegoat. This could easily be the case for Lucy Letby, and she won’t be the last.
@@lynnbargewell3833Well said👍
You don't need to make up your own mind since 2 juries have now convicted her. Because she's guilty.
@@intruder313 You should have kier starmer's job, you would make a great labour prime minister 🤣
you just need to look at the tribunals of nhs staff who do wrong ,plenty of them get away with stuff for far too long.. it takes too long and too much money is wasted which is typical of public services.
"A criminal trial is not a search for the truth". I expect that you as a barrister see nothing wrong with that, but to we normal people it explains everything that is wrong with the British Justice system.
Yes, that's why the cops will conceal evidence of innocence from the defence, and when challenged they'll claim that they're not in the business of helping the defendant be acquitted; this is why something like 20% of people convicted are actually innocent. Also, stupid people who are desperate that someone be convicted and aren't too bothered if the person is innocent or not. Look at _The Lost Honour of Christopher Jefferies_ for one among a multitude of such cases.
I'm also sick of the way people make excuses for female criminals and nit-pick the prosecution case to try to find some totally-meaningless factoid to then claim that the conviction was somehow unsafe. For example "Someone saw a white van in the area at the time; have the police cleared the driver?" If the answer is "No" then they'll claim that the case hasn't been properly investigated and the conviction should be quashed. On the other hand if the answer is "Yes" then it'll be "A man was seen walking in the area; has he been cleared?" and so on. I firmly believe that women commit more than half of all murders, but the cops rarely investigate properly. Most children that are murdered are killed by their mothers, yet the police almost always focus on the father.
@devonfuse There is no way to find the truth. Only the one person knows the truth, and you can never be certain she has ever told it even if she completely spills the beans.
We substitute proof for truth because that is possible. What can be proved based on all the available evidence.
All of the evidence is available to the defence, even that unhelpful to the prosecution. We make it as hard as possible for the prosecution and give the defendant the benefit of any reasonable doubt.
This is the best any system could ever achieve. A search for truth is an impossible aim.
Spoken like a barrister. Out of touch. As I said, this highlights the problem. It is not about truth, but who has the deepest pockets
That's the adversarial system of justice, in which the judge is the referee of a game. The inquisitorial system, found in most of Europe, is rather different. Apart from that, the other major difference was that one of the first things the French revolutionaries did was to abolish the doctrine of precedent. How different from the American practice of asking themselves, "How would a group of 18th century landowners have thought about this ?"
I am no expert, but there have been many reports over the years that British victims of crime have found the French inquisitorial system to be wanting, although a similar system seems to work effectively in Scotland. The French system doesn't really seem to have benefitted anyone but Madame Guillotine during "La Terroire".
It appears she was convicted on statistical evidence, without evidence of commitmenting murder
You have got the 'appearance' wrong.
@@momeara7482 well done, you spotted my dyslexia
@@paulyoung1172 In fact, I was kind enough to avoid the evidence of your dyslexia.
chips for breakfast a true northerner i am proud of you
You obviously never lived in Sussex.
It appears that no-one on the unit ever saw her causing any patient harm.
and that the causes of death of the majority of these infants is open to doubt.
Air embolism is not a cause of death that any of the Drs had seen... and relied on a 30yr old scientific paper which has no corroboration.
Patients on intensive care and SCBU are ill... otherwise they would be elsewhere. And sadly some of them die, sometimes for reasons which remain hidden.
The reaction of the consultants to the prospect of their unit having a bad reputation and that they are ultimately responsible for this, can vary. But one reaction is to look for a scapegoat. It occurs over and over in the NHS, and I've seen it before.
Juries are human. Some of them won't be very bright, and they certainly will have little grasp of the medical niceties of ICU.
My experience as a juror, was that a proportion of the folk there were willing to convict, almost on the basis that the accused had been arrested and charged, and therefore must be guilty.
To convict this nurse of serial killings on the basis of a time sheet, which shows she was doing a lot of shifts and was always around, seems to me to be a little forward. is this really beyond all doubt...
I don't think so.
Everyone wants to feel sympathy for parents of children who have died. its only natural. However to jump on a band wagon... because "she must be guilty" is an easy assumption.
For folk who have no background in the NHS and it's Byzantine internal politics, its simple to say she must have done it especially when the jury were shown the time sheet with the crosses on it showing that nurse Letby was present at all the incidents on the unit. What they weren't shown was the full list of incidents over the same time period, during which there were 17 not 10 deaths, and correspondingly more near misses, at which nurse Letby was absent.
The unit itself had been upgraded to a local referral centre a year or so before, and during its inspection prior to any of the Letby drama, had been rated as chaotic.
Obviously that reflects very poorly on the consultants in charge, and when things continued to be chaotic and more mistakes were made, by an understaffed overstressed unit, some of the consultants rather than accepting responsibility looked for a scapegoat.
Since then the unit has been downgraded, and several of the consultants have been on tv trying to repair their reputations by emphasizing their amateur sleuthing.
No-one wants to admit that this conviction is unsafe, and its much easier, for everyone concerned to simply say she did it and not face the difficult questions that this case raises.
I didn't see a single case of air embolus in 40yrs as a Dr, and neither have any of the experts called, or the doctors on the unit either.
Her private journal, which was found by police, doesn't help her either though, right? All that stuff like Letby herself writing "I killed them on purpose because I'm not good enough to care for them", "I am a horrible evil person", "I am evil I did this". She didn't offer this up, it was seized in a search. The defence says this was all a traumatised person acting out. Maybe. But let's not pretend the only thing on jurors' minds was a timesheet.
You yourself jump to massive, unsafe conclusions, and would be just as dubious a juror as those you deride (saying some won't be intelligent, etc). You state, as though it's established, proven fact 'some of the consultants rather than accepting responsibility looked for a scapegoat.'
Putting this aside, what did you think of Letby on the stand? She was chronically evasive, and - a cynic would say - said she couldn't recall X,Y or Z endlessly, when to do so would muddy timelines or cast some doubt as to everything from her whereabouts to her duties to events to interactions etc etc etc. I'm not saying the conviction is 100% airtight, but do you feel that Letby helped or hindered her case?
Apart from her seized private journal as highlighted by @trevorbyrne4668 what do you say about her rather bizarre social media searches on grieving parents?
You clearly know nothing about the case. There was nothing to scapegoat, as no one in management believed anything was wrong or suspicious. The consultants had to fight for an investigation. If they hadn't pressed the issue, no one would've been any the wiser. So you're saying that guilty consultants spent months and effort drawing attention to their mistakes in the hope a heretofore pleasant hardworking nurse could be blamed? And have the parents go through more agony? You know nothing.
She has been found guilty by 2 juries. I also worked in the NHS for 20 years. I knew a Theatre Sister who got all her sheets and towels from there....corruption, even on a small scale, is rife as are nurses and doctors with poor attitudes to care.@@trevorbyrne4668
You need to listen to 'crime scene to court room'...he reads every word out...and he was there. It will put you in no doubt of her guilt! There are many hours of podcasts
Lucia De Berk is a Dutch nurse, who was charged with ending 13 patients in 2003. She was found guilty of four murders & again, as in the Letby case, the only evidence presented was that she was on duty when they passed. She was eventually cleared in 2010, because the statistics were cherry picked, misrepresented & grossly exaggerated. It's a mirror image of the Letby case.
And Letby's defence didn't even try to discredit the manipulation of data.
@@pedazodetorpedoBecause they couldn't.
Very doubtful that it's a 'mirror image'. Why do you invent these things?
The sender of the email should face some sort of charges. They may not have meant to impact the trail but could well have done.
they absolutely meant to derail the trial and have the blame placed on an innocent juror. This is a very serious matter and should be passed to cybercrime specialists to track down where that email came from. I'll also be looking for warrants to seize devices from suspects with motive.
no one seems to talk about the doctor she reacted to when she saw him in court.
Dr A betrayed Lucy, he is a treacherous coward
@@ruthbashford3176 He was a player and flirted with nurses and he betrayed his wife. He is for #1, himself.
@@ruthbashford3176
He certainly led her on. To say it was unrequited on his part was laughable after the infantile hearts and chocolate etc
Funniest thing is the first release of the Appeal Court ruling left Dr A' real name in, so the Court of Appeal broke the reporting restrictions the Trial Judge had been threatening everyone else with for months. You couldn't make it up!!
He did not deserve anonymity
I have wondered why they have protecred the name of her married doctor friend but named all the other witnesses.
Because Dr A didn't want his wife to find out about his 'friendship' with Lucy.
If it was a "normal" citizen I doubt they would have protected the identity.
There were other witnesses whose names were withheld but, they didn’t even allow the people in court to see her boyfriend. He had a screen in front of the stand when he testified. It’s bc of his association with her being more intimate (we all know they had an affair) and the potential for his being blamed for being involved or targeted bc he was cheating on his wife with a murderer.
Yeah, seems very suspicious.
They are setting a precedent where someone can accuse someone of the most serious crime, with no direct evidence, and they don't even have to reveal their name.
Also, they weren't even the victim. It's very strange.
I read that a parent or parents had engaged a lawyer to sue doctor(s) for negligence/malpractice. If true, the Drs had one heck of a motive to testify against Lucy - and Dr A's identity may have been protected because he had been named in a Civil Court case.
It totally stinks of fish that his entire identity was concealed.
Worth noting that he's already been established as a liar by carrying on with Lucy behind his wife's back.
14 babies died. The staff who witnessed the situation suspected Lucy Letby. The death rate was normal before Lucy arrived. It returned to normal after she was removed. Does that sound as if Lucy Letby was some kind of scape goat? I think not.
False. She arrived long before death rate rose. It rose in 2015 when hospital became a level 2 instead of a level one and was then downgraded in 2017. Do your homework don’t rely on main steam media reports
The death rate remains the same according to the New York article who requested the info under the official information act.
Correlation does not imply causation. I can't say what the truth is but I'd be incredibly cautious about believing this sort of thing.
Letby was removed on the 30th june.
7th of July they downgraded the unit. Soon after they refitted all the pipework. Either of these could explain the slowing, although not consistent or considerable slowing, of the death rate
This stinks of "there's no smoke without fire" which is an awful way of conducting justice. People can have their opinions, but our law shouldn't and hasn't been based on that for a long time. Hence beyond reasonable doubt, and your own supposition is full of reasonable doubt.
The New Yorker article is still blocked. The key to this is the ‘sift’ as it’s referred to in the appeal judgement. No one has verified this, no reports were made for the other cases, it’s solely Evans opinion with the assumption he was working independently, despite him touting for the position in an email.
Agreed - as far as I can see motive and means were not established beyond reasonable doubt. My prediction - this will turn out to be an enormous scandal.
@@lcship1905 I agree
Accessible here in Australia. Reading it now.
is this the article that came early in may.?
✌🏻🇦🇺🌏🤘🏻
A lot of people die in hospitals … Nurses are there when it happens.
If I was a nurse, after this case, I would never work on a ward again.
I think Letby's problem was that she was there every time it happened.
Some clowns on here
@@gordonshewan9892 Nurses don’t have to work on the front line - on a ward.
There are loads of ‘back room’ jobs that don’t carry the risk.
Let us the suppose the probability of being accused of murder is tiny, tiny, tiny … fine.
But if, by some incredibly unfortunate situation, it happens … Then you get imprisoned for life.
What are you gonna do ???
Well that was 11 minutes I'll never get back
I’m glad I’m not the only one who feels like this !! 🙄
And the time it took to post this
Excellent, articulate and professional summary - thank you!
Ta for providing such clear and simple exegesis of legal doctrines. I can’t recall any of my lecturers ever offering such clean and clear lessons during my law degree. ❤
My biggest concern about the original trial was the lack of any substantial evidence that the children had been killed. We know that they had died, they were all very sick, being in an ICU facility, but no evidence beyond more had died than statistic said should have.
Lots of speculation, but little actual evidence.
9 months of trial - pretty sure there was a LOT of evidence
@@potr6461 You’re wrong. Circumstantial and hearsay.
Have you read or listened to the court transcripts? There was lots of damning evidence.
@@potr6461stop being daft.
You are right to be concerned. The case is very concerning indeed,
As to the statistics, in fact it is worse because the statistics were affected by upgrading the facility to incle a higher level of serious cases, which meant more didn't die than statistically to be expected.
The evidence in fact points very strongly to her innocence and deaths from another cause, sepsis, infection or something to do with the facility. The statistics used to allege guilt against her were fiddled and a proper analysis links another nurse equally and others nearly equally. In other words the statistical evidence is fatally flawed and of no value whatsoever. Furthermore she was alleged to have been involved in 7 deaths but there were in fact 17 deaths and no enquiry into the other 10 was made.
Almost certainly she is innocent and certainly she did not receive a fair trial.
Glad you managed to cram in this video, Alan. Very interesting and informative as always. Thank you 🙏🏻
Many thanks. I love hearing your insight on these matters.
I thing she’s Not Guilty …. Something about this Case don’t sit right with Me
Agree
Yeah but what about the evidence - it’s a pity about all the evidence then
@@scarletred8888 what evidence? Everything presented has been either ‘he said, she said’ or ‘she was on duty when…’
The statistical evidence presented by the prosecution showing she was ‘ever present when…’ wouldn’t have even been admissible in a Dutch court after the wrongful conviction of Lucia de Burk, a nurse who was acquitted of murdering patients after six years in prison and who was sentenced on the same evidence that Letby’s been sent down on.
They had to change large parts of the legal system following her acquittal.
In fact, I read of one statistician who presented evidence that wasn’t used in the Letby case showing that, based on the statistical analysis used to convict Letby they could equally accuse 38 other nurses of the same crimes!
@@scarletred8888what evidence? Cite one single piece of forensic evidence and I'll donate £10,000 to the NHS staff fund.
@@kymmoore853 She was on duty for all 27 incidents, most others were only on duty for 3 or 4 and one for 7. That can't be explained by coincidence alone.
But then there is eye-witness evidence of her behaviour around children as they suddenly deteriorated. You're calling that "he said she said", you're effectively saying that eye witness evidence doesn't count.
There is also the hard evidence that she sent a photo of a baby in intensive care without its breathing tube in, to the parents. Are you claiming someone else took the tube out, then she happened to come in and take the photo quickly before putting the tube back in and then somehow didn't report it?
Brilliant analysis as always, thank you.
I live in France and read the New Yorker magazine article weeks ago. It raises many legitimate questions and their conclusion was compelling. There is very little evidence for a conviction and many doubts that any crimes actually happened at all. Certainly the unit she worked in was understaffed and badly led with many sub standard outcomes. She may well be guilty but so far I have seen little evidence to convict her over any other member of the staff.
During the trial, the prosecuting barrister would ask Lucy about a particular shift he was interested in questioning her about. Without fail he ALWAYS asked her 3 questions- one pertained to staffing and if the staffing numbers contributed to the collapse/decline/death of the baby. I have yet to hear her say “yes” during her cross examination with the KC. So it really wasn’t a huge contributing factor. Have you listened to Lucy’s cross examination in its entirety? If not I suggest you do.
@@katerinakaye2228 doctors and nurses work numerous shifts and I can assure you after a couple of years (sometimes even months) of repetitive and often nocturnal work your memory becomes far from perfect. The prosecution had an easy task in making her look guilty. How was she supposed to answer that question? If she said yes, she would look arrogant and trying to avoid guilt by shaming her workplace. If she said no, then...well you answered that yourself.
@@katerinakaye2228 You have missed the point entirely. Read the New Yorker and then tell me the evidence against was forensically solid and compelling, it wasn't. It could have applied to any number of other staff including some very senior doctors.
Whilst I have no doubt given what you have reported in probably the case, in terms that the Juror did perorm his duties professionally; I do find incredulous that the boyfriend had never been in the cafe his girlfriend works in.
I read all 13k words of the New Yorker article and there's definite grounds for an appeal here and the ruling forbidding one is astonishing
And what of the notebooks found at Letby's home with words like "I am EVIL!" and "I did this!"? And these were just two of the many heavily incriminating scribblings of Letby.
Don't you think that's rather incriminating?
@@winningjubbly9712I agree, but there is additional evidence to question the safety of the conviction
@winningjubbly9712 it was a note of things people were saying about her, written after the accusations.
@@winningjubbly9712 that is not my point.. my point is that there appears to be no grounds to deny the appeal. Yet they denied it. I don't know whether she is guilty or innocent because there are significant holes in the conviction that suggest it needs another look.
i don't if its true in her case but the idea that doctors would frame nurses and lower staff for thier mistakes to protect thier career and through their extreme arrogance is totally plausible and i bet its happened many many times
Im a Brit living in the US. I read the article in the New Yorker - it was very detailed and does cast doubt on the conviction of Lucy Letby.
The New York era knows more about a case in the UK than the jurors? Right.😅
@@notyourordinarygran it's called investigative journalism. Read the article
Is that cafe worker not attempting to pervert the course of justice?
I would say so. It needs to be investigated further though before charges can be brought.
@@Boudicca-the-musical whoever sent that email absolutely are. They are seeking to alter the course of the trial.
don't you mean the boss? is sounds like the boss was pissed with the girlfriend so tried to get the boyfriend in trouble.
Was Dewi Evans instructed as an Expert Witness in the way we have all seen as being important in the Post Office SCandal?
Gareth Jenkins of Fujitsu was never an Expert Witness but a Witness of Fact. No Letter of Instruction or educational instructions of specific duties.
There were rumours that Dewi Evans was 'self-appointed' and no Letter etc etc.
The cafe thing is plain weird.
That was really interesting-thank you!
Always interesting. Thank you. 👋
How many people have never visited their partners place of work if it’s a pub, supermarket, coffee shop, or any other work place that’s openly accessible to the public.
How interesting, I am surprised there wasn't further investigation into the email and charges brought against the person who sent it. Imagine trying to scupper such an important trial, putting the grieving parents through the wringer, wasting Court time and costing the take payer a lot of money because you are miffed that you were forced to pay for a second hand phone you had stolen from an employee. That cafe owner needs to be clear their behaviour is unacceptable. I'm not sure what charges, if any, could be brought against them. Wasting police and court time perhaps? Attempt to pervert the course of justice maybe? At the very least they need a stern talking to. Or possibly psychiatric care. It's fascinating to get a peek behind the curtain of the court though, so thank you
I doubt I could have been certain of her guilt, wanting someone to pay for the poor baby's death is human nature but I'd want to be 100% sure I got it right before locking someone up for life.
That’s not how things work though is it. We don’t convict on 100% certainty
@vvvictoriav5958 If you're on the jury, i.e. if I was on the jury, I would have to be 100% convinced she did it. The evidence would need to be solid. Someone's life is at stake, you don't convict a life away on a hunch or a maybe. I think the technical term is "without a shadow of a doubt" i.e. 100%
@@donny121able You mean you'd have ben the one single juror who failed to find Ian Huntley guilty , sure the girls both accidently drowned in his bath ? All the transcripts.evidence points to Letby-investigative magazines such as Private Eye reported the Post Office scandal over 15 years ago, they do a lot of miscarriage of justice investigations that often see convictions quashed. For people like Bamber-who has his fan club-no chance; guilty as convicted, Unless these sorts of hard hitting real investigative jourbals take up her case and show huge faults in evidence etc etc-which on the face of it is unlikely-I'd say its a safe conviction. The social media "facts" that Letby didn't do it, it was a Dr on duty, loads of babies died before and after Letby are totally false and do more to underline her guilt than anything and w ill prove a huge hinderance to any sort of sane defence if there is one.
@@vvvictoriav5958 our system is "beyond a reasonable doubt".
What is reasonable doubt in simple terms?
Reasonable doubt exists when you are not firmly convinced of the Defendant's guilt, after you have weighed and considered all the evidence. A Defendant must not be convicted on suspicion or speculation. It is not enough for the State to show that the Defendant is probably guilty
Yeah, that's a worrying part of this; there are absolutely people in the world who would say 'guilty' even if they're not certain. And some countries still have the death penalty.
This email incident smells of an attempt to pervert the course of justice. Will charges be laid?
Your world view as a barrister is really refreshing. The world of legal professionals appears to be separate from the the rest of the world. Understandable, on the basis that some form of administration and process needs to be followed to "ensure" consistency. But, difficult for the non-professionals working on the basis of "common-sense" to appreciate and comprehend. Your content is excellent in it's simplicity and regularity.
PS: I am not a robot.
Neither am I.
Only a robot would deny it was a robot.
@@andrewcarter7503damn. You got here first !
@@andrewcarter7503affirmative
When you talk about 'non-professionals' I presume you're referring to all the social media 'experts' with their conspiracy theories, who seem to think they know more than those who were actually involved in the case. This item is a perfect example of that, and if the courts were to take any notice of this sort of nonsense nobody would ever get convicted of anything.
I'm kind of shocked the jury wasn't sequestered. Unless they don't do that in the UK.
This was such a high profile, important and complicated case I am sure the jury would have been sequestered in the U.S.
Thanks! It’s interesting to learn about law in the UK 🇬🇧
I still think she was used as a scape-goat to cover up more serious crimes.
People do admit to crimes that they didn't commit. We had two brothers in Wakefield who had done just that, and spent years in custody. A future video topic perhaps Alan?
Soviet style show trial. Welcome to communism.
Check out the Wikipedia article on "False confession".
I just learned about a story of 5 separate people who all falsely confessed to a crime. Later DNA evidence showed they were innocent.
The two brothers were set up and eventually were freed. They were not full shillings and the police needed a suspect.
I believe this girl is innocent
Eye witnesses are *not* the best witnesses. Im constantly surprised by just how different witness statements of the same event are.
Appreciated that very much! Gratitude, liked & subscribed.
As soon as I heard this Lucy Letby stuff coming out, with the arrest, the stuff she wrote, the searches she did on the internet, writing letters to the family, I thought the whole thing stinks. There is something strange going on when your colleagues accuse you of murdering babies, you are put on administrative duties, then a year later there is a Police investigation, a year later Letby is arrested for the first time, a year later Letby is arrested for the second time, a year later Letby is arrested for the third time, then charged a month later. There seemed to be a lot of coincidences and her colleagues put two and two together. The most damning evidence were the "confessions," but she was directly accused of the worst possible crimes by her colleagues. I'm not saying she is innocent, but it's not easy investigating incidents from 7-8 years ago. Should there not be an investigation every time someone dies?
We are talking about the NHS and its covering up CULTURE. Speaking from experience having worked in wards.
There should at least be a "Morbidity and Mortality" conference/ review (hekd regularly multidisciplinary) to review these incidents. At least that's what happened where I used to work.
Every single baby had an autopsy done at the time by forensic pathologist Dr. George Kokai. He found the babies to have died of natural causes. He was not called to give evidence at either trial. Odd.
Very interesting, thank you very much, xx
I’m confused about this case. I fail to see what evidence they actually have that she killed these babies. Do they have any?? The whole thing doesn’t sit well with me.
Totally agree
Lots of babies seemed to die when she was around so they decided she did it.
@@sonyavincent7450 it seems so
The Guardian ran an article in this case today, thought provoking.
As did the telegraph, really interesting.
@@kymmoore853what were your thoughts?
@@suzannep8371 truthfully, from the beginning, I always felt something wasn’t right with this case but would get literal abuse from people anytime I raised suspicions about it anywhere online; I was reminded of Christopher Jefferies, where it seemed so many people were out to condemn the person before there’d even been a trial.
So I diligently watched the trial through, expecting there to be some ‘smoking gun’ that never appeared, and the longer things went on the more the evidence against her seemed more and more circumstantial.
In short, whilst I don’t know that she is wholly innocent of all and every wrongdoing, I do think that the NHS trust involved has used the opportunity to cover up other internal failings by using her as a scapegoat.
The T’graph article summed it up very well I thought when it said “was justice served, probably, but she certainly didn’t receive a fair trial.”
@@kymmoore853 If anything, her place of work covered it all up for too long, rather than 'used her as a convenient scapegoat'. It took ages for her even to be suspected by her immediate managers.
That's really interesting. Thanks for sharing.
It did throw me for a moment, seeing The Cornish Arms in the background.😂
Could it be that a serial killer causing sick babies to die was preferable to the sick babies dying from Hospital negligence? If it was really Hospital negligence there would be potential lawsuits amounting to £millions.
she was made a scapegoat.
Very interesting and useful. Thank you
Very well articulated and interesting point that probably most of us don’t know but are curious about the workings of the law.
really, really interesting video! Thanks
I have a big problem with the judges directions he asked them to ask themselves is lucy innocent of ALL the previous convictions when that jury didnt sit on the previous jury. Regardless of the verdict they should like the judge said at the begining of the trial ONLY the evidence in this trial matters then he asked them to consider the outcome of the previous trial!
They should Disbar him for that alone.
thank you
Are you kidding waffling on without any conclusion,
There were two conclusions, relating to the two embargoed points.
He's never been to the cafe his girlfriend WORKS at? 🤦🏻♂️
Always interesting, useful ,accurate thankyou
"Vaguely accurate", an oxymoron if I ever saw one
I heard that Alec Baldwin’s request for his case to be dismissed has been granted” with prejudice “. What does this mean exactly?
I'm goingt to do a video on the baldwin case today
It means he can't be tried again.
Anecdotal and personal eye-witness evidence is the lowest quality of evidence in science but of higher quality evidence in law, which is a bit mind-blowing to me.
Science is all about making general statements. Criminal trials are usually about establishing what happened on a particular occasion. That's "anecdotal" by definition.
that's because you have a poor mind that can't tell what the difference is.
Appreciate ya. Thanks for sharing.
I do like our barrister, so nice to hear such clarifications.
Me too !! Fascinating chap ... So many other various interests, plus these "mind bending rules of Law" he manages to explain in simple terms to 'reluctant listeners'. I reckon it's his soothing 'Northerner' accent voice.
I’ve met Dr Ravi. He’s one of the nicest people I’ve ever met. He would not accuse someone of murder unless he was 100% positive
He would if his job depended on it
There has been reference to Shifts worked BUT for Every day showing Letby Present, she was off site for 12 hours of EACH OF THOSE DAYS
.
Vaguely very fascinating. Thanks for sharing.
I enjoy your videos very much. Beer and chips: the breakfast of champions...
Difficult to believe that he has never ever visited the cafe his girlfriend works in?
I've never visited the travel agents my missus works in and I've worked nearby for 10 years. I simply have no reason to go there.
@@TheChodaxtravel agents don't have the option of giving you free tea/breakfast!
Personally I like to keep professional and personal life's separate and wouldn't want a partner to visit me in my workforce and vice versa.
Great vid, thanks.
Thank you
Good video, a lot is covered there.
As well as s78, s82 prejudicial vs probative is an interesting topic.
Yes, that was interesting. The twisted things people get up to never ceases to amaze me.
The entire trial was based on the theories of that expert witness. That expert witness over turned pathology report and crafted new theories gleaned from reviews of the notes.
Hes not a pathologist or neonatologist, but somehow from reading the notes he knew exactly what happened despite no one else having a clue. It beggars belief.
The expert witness wasn’t just a witness, he was the prime source for the trial.
He also had a financial interest in the trial as he was a professional witness. He wasn’t an expert in his field as such, He was just a hack retired general paediatrician hawking his services to the courts. Massive conflict of interest.
The other thing to note is the reporting restrictions were only in place around the time of the appeal due to the retrial . Given the 14 life sentences a retrial for one count of attempted murder was not particular necessary. The reporting restrictions were convenient for the appeal though
Thing is, that since her arrest, infant mortality at the hospital she worked for has fallen very significantly, down to normally expected levels from an alarmingly high level. Such a high level that it did raise alarms in some of her colleagues and managers but such suspicions given to higher hospital administrators were ignored and nothing was done, costing many other babies their lives and possibly their mental faculties. There should no be an investigation into possible negligence by hospital administrators and possibly some consultants.
The unit was downgraded - meaning it no longer was allowed to look after seriously ill babies. Remember Letby was one of only two nurses that were trained in certain areas of specialist care (this likely explains why she was present for so many incidents)
Parents had complained of the poor care - some even saw Doctors Googling on how to perform certain tasks.
Senior staff had raised safeguarding concerns for years - claiming inadequate staff levels, untrained staff, tired staff, lack of equipment, cramped conditions, and sewage overspills.
Conversely the Maternity Ward at the same hospital had a spike in incidents at the same time Letby was working in the neonatal ward - leading to a spike in stillborns - total coincidence?
@@garyphisher7375 That was a good while after she was removed and there was plenty of time between her removal and downgrading of the unit to prove that baby deaths dramatically declined during her absence.
@@garyphisher7375 "Conversely the Maternity Ward at the same hospital had a spike in incidents at the same time Letby was working in the neonatal ward - leading to a spike in stillborns - total coincidence?"
I hadn't heard of that part before. Is that true? Extremely interesting if it is.
The very same type of statistical “evidence” could be used to work out what else has changed.
Which doctors are now not common, which drugs, which procedure?
Something doesn’t quite add up on the beyond reasonable doubts elements of this case. I look forward to greater minds than mine proving either way.
@@BRMCaptChaos The case has been proven in Court beyond reasonable doubt. There is no doubt about it even though it is hard to believe that a young attractive nurse could be a mass murderer. They come in all shapes and sizes.
Good morning to you. Lovely to get another video from you. Greatly interested in the content, as usual. Beer and chips, smashing! Thank you. 😊.
Very interesting video. I have always thought there might have been a miscarriage of justice in this case as I could never really quite understand the motive.
@@hannahreynolds7611In the cases you mention, the motive was that these people were deranged mentally, killing gave them joy, it met one of their pathological needs. Lucy is not mentally deranged. She had no motive. Because she didn't do anything wrong. She was the best nurse on the ward who sometimes argued with the consultants. THAT'S her guilt.
Flies sorted 👌
These ultra high profile criminal cases can be a nightmare...cranks ringing in phony evidence, police under huge pressure to charge "someone" & therefore pursuing a limited line of enquiry & ignoring a wider set of leads, jury exposure to media accounts, social media noise etc.
Bit odd if the jurors girlfriend works in the cafe yet he claims he's never been in it....never popped in for a coffee and a chat, never dropped in for a visit???
The prosecution really made use of the previous convictions are allowed law by calling her a murderer at every opportunity they could!
yes shocking. no interest in truth , just winning :(
As always, really enjoyed the vid and found it both useful and interesting. I'd love to see a video of your opinion on the accuracy of courtroom movies. I'm not thinking of the well known classics like Witness of the Prosecution, but perhaps some lesser known gems like The Man who Wouldn't Talk, Hostile Witness or The Boys (1962).
A late breakfast - chips and a pint! Brilliant. 😀
I was summoned for Jury service in a north Suburb of Chicago dealing with a civil case over a defective ladder. One of the lawyers ask if I had any opinion about ladder manufacturers. I did, I told him I had many ladders fail under load. Immediate dismissal from the case, that was over 40 years ago never summoned again.
I had before this visited a Fire Engine production company who made their own ladders due to the poor quality offered for fire service use by other companies.
well explained thank you
Ok, from the jump I felt something was severely off about this whole case. I believe this is a huge cover up - and the hospital pined it on someone who they deemed weak and an easy target.
There doesn't appear to be much evidence that she did it but she "probably" did statistically.
Actually what I read in the New Yorker and heard from Norman Fenton was that statiscally others were just as likely to be a culprit as her.
@@BrianJones761-wc4hu yes I agree. I was being a little sarcastic.
Im 50/50, she either did it or didnt but “evidence” either way is not present.
Exactly.
I think that name for empanelling additional jurymen off the street is praying a tales not paying a tailsman, this power is now contained in s6 of the Juries Act 1974.
Yet another case that I don't have much faith in the legal system,,,
I don't believe there's enough real evidence for the conviction,,
Aside from the other goings on at the hospital,,
Thanks that was super interesting. I'd be keen to know your opinion in the rejection of the appeal with regards to the expert witness. In the judgement it says that they didn't think he could be considered as biased because they didn't think he was being used as an "investigator" (just doing a sift review) but also they commended him for identifying the two alleged poisonings by insulin OD. Which seems somehwat contradictory to me. (It's always been a cause for concern for me that the two consultants who made the allegations were the same people the police asked to find the evidence too). The appeal review pointed out that the jury had to decide on the credibility of the expert but that seems like duff logic given they're not qualified to judge the level of expertise.
FWIW I don't really have an opinion on the truth of LL's guilt but the evidentiary aspect is worrying to me. Given how we've seen only recently with Horizon how a slapdash approach from investigators, lawyers, barristers and (I'm sorry to say) defence barristers and judges has lead to a huge miscarriage of justice I find it bizarre how many consider *this* decision to be impeachable
Who reads the New Yorker in Britain anyway?
I do. So do a good few other people. That’s why it sells here. That’s who. Since you ask.
Probably like those of us in Australia who read The New Yorker, NYTimes, The Times of London, The Guardian, The Daily Mail, The Straits Times...
i think the jury system in this country works quite well, the american system is terrible, mainly too many lawyers tripping over each other for work. in the letby case, she should not have on her own, we have seen cases in the past where peoples mind flips and carry out dreadful crimes
This was a very interesting video
It's a miscarriage of justice
It’s funny as I can remember that article a few weeks ago, unsure where I saw it. Was it on Apple News?
Alan I love your videos; I love them equally for their content, honesty, straightforwardness and on occasion comedy. But please do not go down the route that Dan has taken by just using UA-cam as an advertising platform for 3rd party tools like VPN switchers, Incogni and all that daft nonsense. Keep it real as you always have done. Thank you for this insight into the Letby case:
#AlwaysInteresting
#AlwaysUseful
#AlwaysInformative
#AlwaysAccurate
I hope the cops are putting pressure on the email writer. To those who doubt the boyfriend... it's not unusual to ask/expect partners not to come into place of work if avoidable/not an emergency as it's super embarrassing when you're on a professional shift and can't pay partner attention... actually it would be a bit "stalky" and, presumably, juror had a job that would prevent him from egg and chips at the greasy spoon during opening times?
I know that pub! Thought I saw you outside a couple of weeks ago 🍺🍻
This absolutely stinks . Surely any critically thinking person can see this