“You’re Saying She ISN'T Guilty” Dr David Bull Challenges Barrister on Lucy Letby
Вставка
- Опубліковано 18 сер 2023
- Neonatal nurse Lucy Letby was arrested in July 2018 and questioned about the unexplained rise in deaths and near fatal collapses of premature babies in the Countess of Chester Hospital's neonatal unit.
Criminal barrister Mark McDonalds joins Dr David Bull and Dr Renee Hoenderkamp to discuss the trial before the nurses sentencing on Monday.
#lucyletby #crime #police #talktv #talkradio
As a senior NHS nurse, I will wholeheartedly say the management within the NHS is corrupt. They should be removed and replaced by clinicians.
All of you should be replaced
As a NHS consultant, I totally agree with you. They don’t have any idea of anything about health care and they have all the power in their hands.
As a lay person, I agree wholeheartedly with you both. Remove the pen pushers!
As a retired consultant, I chucked the towel in early as did most of my cohort. The NHS really is useless and we need a return to clinically guided health care. Having a business manager is just ludicrous.
So many people agree with you but will the gov listen. Nope.
Whistleblowers will not be tolerated in the nhs….ask anyone who has worked for them and tried to make a complaint about anything 🤷♀️
Absolutely true!
Your right it's been on the radio last few days,useless NHS closing ranks,and this idiot NHS barrister just backs it up
Well that’s becus we are meant to feel scared if we do report, we will be questioned a 100 of questions make us feel nervous….
What r u on. She didnt expose anything. She killed babies. Thats it
I agree. Although I was told when I started in the nhs you're as bad as what you walk past. But if you open your mouth be prepared for the backlash you will face. Managers in the nhs are the biggest problem. Too many managers on a lot of money doing not a lot of work
So in the eyes of the presenter, a miscarriage of justice never happens nor has ever happened.
No one is saying there never are, but it doesn't mean every case is
Imagine being convicted of murdering seven babies with no evidence presented of killing any one of them, no motive and no confession. Why are people so keen to bay for blood, as this presenter is doing? It's as if people want a hate figure and when they have one they will not allow reasoned doubt to get in the way.
She was found guilty by a Jury and a Judge, who were not swayed by her looks!
Colin Stagg was found guilty by judge and jury too.
No, why are people baby killer sympathisers? Callous. There was a confession and yes a motive- just because you don't know it, doesn't mean there wasn't. Onviously was.
@@heddaszczepanski9210 Lucy was found guilty on flawed evidence. Read SCIENCE ON TRIAL rexvlucyletby
Yes Presenters should really be neutral in my opinion but he wasn t having any of it.
A end of life nurse tried starving and dehydrating an old lady my mother was helping, my mother gave her some water after she was begging for a drink! This was 6 years ago and this old lady is still going strong!
I find it hard to trust anyone these days 😢
Your mum IS A TOTAL HERO.
I tried doing that for my dad (3 days before he died) - and was barred from the hospital, along with having false accusations made about “interference” in the protocol.
I hope you reported her. That's neglect, abuse, and murder.
I am medically retired, but wanted a simple part-time job, so became a hospital cleaner for a few years. I have also helped patients who were begging for drinks. Several times I've shouted at the nurses who are usually sitting chatting at the nurse's station, completely ignoring their patients and they all just stare at me blankly as though they're surprised a cleaner can actually hold an intelligent conversation! I got to see what was really going on, because I was invisible and they didn't care....honestly, you'd be horrified.
Bring back proper old fashioned Matrons!
@@tonkabeancat1117you were doing what the staff should have been doing
Cctv is needed over all hospital cots and beds of vulnerable people especially babies and children.
1000% agreed. Tbh i thought they did. Whole case is troubling
I thought CCTV is standard equipment in maternity wards and throughout hospitals in general
Everyone in hospital is vulnerable.
Especially when they knew something was going on .
Never going to happen….the unions would have a field day with that one.
To be fair, I feel this barrister is being misrepresented. He didn't say - as the texts coming in suggested he did - that she wasn't guilty. He said the evidence on which she was convicted and the way in which she was investigated was very concerning and didn't *convince* him that she was guilty. He never said she was definitely innocent.
You are right. I think there is reasonable doubt.
and that other parties were not making mistakes, so she may not have been liable for all of the babies. Having said that, the culling of one baby is very bad if deliberately done.
@@sunway1374 I actually don't know enough about the case to comment - I just felt the barrister made a point that was then misrepresented.
@@nutrition182 no question. 💔
You’re absolutely right!! Most people don’t listen properly.
I was in hospital once for a few days and one nurse took a disliking to me for no apparent reason, in the night when her shift changed, I could hear her slagging me off to the next nurse when she briefed her, seemingly forgetting that I could hear everything she was saying. There are some very bad apples lurking in the shadows.
British: I've found the vast majority of nurses to be arrogant, nasty and hateful. And a good few doctors too.
Welcome to the "caring profession" 🤒🤕😥🤧
Since everyone has Internet access these long-established institutions the government,police, N.H.S, TV and sports. Now they can't hide things so easily. The police in my opinion are one of the most corrupt institutions there is. No freedom of speech,no common law rights,no justice . Everything is secretive,dark and sinister. The government,the police,solicitors,judges,bailiffs,debt collectors,councils are just organised gangs and totally untrustworthy.
I am sure she had good reason to dislike you.
@@MrGranfield
Why are you being so spiteful? You might have to go into hospital one day!!!
@@MrGranfield None. I minded my own business and never really spoke to her. At the time I was in an isolation room because I was positive for covid, but that wasn't why I was in hospital.
Let's not forget the role of the senior hospital management. They were fully aware of the accusations and not only failed to investigate, but actively tried to quash those who were attempting to speak out.
They should also be in the dock for gross criminal negligence.
Arrest them today.
Exactly! Saying now you had significant concerns isn't saving anyone of them innocent babies!
I feel NHS as become way to open, they don't question the obvious, they just kept ignoring it with nonsense! What we see in many cases today within many of our services.
Too keen to cover up, all too, I’m afraid.
no manager in the nhs every gets sacked or prosecuted......meanwhile they attack women at every turn and break the equality acts laws...they dont care because if it gets worse they get a golden hand shake and then move to another job in the nhs
We have guilty by association laws, accomplices laws, aiding and abetting laws, conspiracy laws. These managers are by definition as guilty for the crimes as letby is.
What the fuck has happened to our country? Really, what has happened and how did we allow it?
I hope all the managers that tried to cover up this scandal face manslaughter charges for all the babies that died because of their negligence.
No offence but you obviously don't know what manslaughter is
@testudohorsfieldii7052 your clever,I'm not a legal expert in anyway, but their actions are responsible for the deaths of them poor babies due to their woeful neglect in pursuit of the Trusts reputation
They're guilty of corporate manslaughter
@@testudohorsfieldii7052nor do you. If your actions directly causes someons death it can be classed as manslaughter.
Yeah it's literally called gross negligent manslaughter that they could be charged with due to gross failure of their position of care.
Mark put up a good argument with those 2 clowns who refuse to look at it objectively.
No post mortems were done on all the elderly that died of covid. The shipman law was repealed for covid and has not been reinstated. This to protect Hancock and co from prosecution.
And what has this to do with Letby's mass murder convictions?
As soon as there was suspicious, she should not have been left alone with babies. At the very least they could have put up hidden cameras in the baby wards.
now you're thinking about it....
Yes, easy to do with today's technology. They probably feared some sort of 'invasion of privacy' infraction !!! NHS, Police, Education, Civil Service ... Knock them down and start again!
it sounds like a cover up &someone above lucy is guilty of the deaths of the children!! i don't think anybody meant to kill the babies
lucy has become the scapegoat!! she is as guilty of murder as much as kate & gerry mccann!!!!
or the camera would have filmed the real 'murderer'!!!!!!!
I have had Complaint with Liverpool Hospital! No one is interested!
Those in management positions who overlooked the Doctors warnings should be charged with misconduct or aiding and abetting such crimes she was getting away with.
Pashaw! Before you know it senior government and BBC staff that enabled Jimmy Savile to operate for decades despite it being an open secret ... should be charged?
Corporate Manslaughter! They failed to act to avoid criticism of the hospital.
They have all retired on massive pensions I'm sure
They didn’t have any evidence that why they couldn’t remove Lucy. They still don’t have hard evidence till now.
Manslaughter!
I'm afraid this conversation is going to age badly for the presenters.
The death rate rose to above the levels when Letby worked there as litte as 1-2 years later ; I'd have thought that on its own is evidence that the verdict was unsafe.
My late mother tried to report bullying by her boss when she was a nurse, and the higher ups were not even remotely interested. And this was in 1995. NHS has been corrupt for decades. It's not getting any better.
It not just the NHS, though. The level of corruptions in these services are just out of control.
*Sorry for your loss. One possible factor in that treatment is that the PHSO (which handles NHS complaints) is corrupt - see Trust Pilot reviews.*
That’s dreadful, your poor Mum! What on Earth are they up to? X❤️
And it'll continue as long as there is no accountability for NHS managers.
All they care about is the bottom line - the reputation of the trust. End of. Everything else is secondary, including patient lives and consultants' careers.
I suffered the misfortune of working for the NHS around 1995, the ward managers (ex nurses themselves) bullied every nurse on that ward. I handed my notice in and told them in no uncertain terms that their management skills (or lack of) were disgusting and terrible for staff morale and that they desperately needed retraining. One of the bullies couldn't handle my direct approach and she bawled her eyes out. It makes me laugh to this day.
The whole NHS system needs to change. I once made a complaint about a procedure I had done. The hospital manager said they would 'investigate'. This comprised of asking the person I complained about if anything had gone wrong. The said no, so that was the end of the matter!!! It's like criminals policing themselves.
This tragically happens to most who complain about the nhs. This explains why the nhs is a breeding ground for serial killer.
@@siljevege7283 The whole mentality has to change. It's become like some kind of religious organisation where you can never question them.
@@63mckenzieoverpaid managers behaving like the mafia.
*That's because the PHSO (which handles NHS complaints) is corrupt - see Trust Pilot reviews.*
You should have 'lawyered up'. The NHS tends to fold when litigation is threatened.
It’s amazing they never put cameras in after the first 2 deaths -they do it if they think a mother is harming a child m by proxy
I hope they make it protocol to install cameras in all baby wards from now on.
Well, it definitely should've happened after suspicion, because now, it's just fuelling speculation she's innocent. There's no real evidence.
@@ryand141theirs no evidence.
@@soloman6156totally agree mate.
As an ex nurse I am amazed that Lucy Letby could have been left alone on a 12 hour shift this alone must have been illegal,
I can't believe there was no camera in any of those hospitals she worked in.
Good point.
Firstly it's not hospital policy, due to privacy laws. Secondly the expense of fitting cameras to every ward up and down the UK would be unfathomable.
It it expansive for the system, but if a parent want to set up their own camera (having the the hospital provide WiFi and electricity), it it possible?
Thats a difficult one, at present although there is nothing stopping people from filming in the wards, technically they would require the permission of any person that was captured on film, so shared wards would be a no, and if nurses or healthcare professionals did not grant permission then the filming would be extremely limited. Thats to the best of my knowledge in terms of current privacy laws. In public it is completely different and a person can film whatever they choose to, but a hospital ward is not a public space.@@user-eg2wt1xj2t
@@ElementsMMAfair enough... But when there are suspicions and many deaths on an icu unit, there are incredibly cheap and small and undetectable cameras that can be placed in a room.
Nobody checking her work , left to her own devices , managers in the building on 6 figure sums
You propose everybody that works needs to be under constant supervision?
@@donny121able Most people in most jobs have supervisors. Not constantly, but they are there or should be.
@@roymills9334 yes that right, Lucy had a supervisor too.
@donny121able yes my work is as a carpenter for social housing
@@stephenclarke8864 So you have helpers and you are constantly watching them work? At no time are they free to work on their own initiative?
Hospital Trusts Management teams are more concerned about their reputations than Patient safety.
I think the police should have carefully traced back through all the cases of dead babies in the hospitals prior to her time at the Countess of Cheshire. It’s not acceptable that all the evidence is circumstantial when someone is jailed for life without parole. Most of the psychologists being interviewed are labelling her as a psychopath - and yet the post notes scribbling were filled with declarations of panic, fear, despair and need. Isn’t part of being a psychopath the fact that one has no emotions or guilt? In fact it is not entirely clear that she was saying in her scribbling that she was guilty and evil because she murdered them or because she was a poor nurse who didn’t care for them properly. Her attitude in the Court was criticized as cold and indifferent…but, how is one expected to act in those circumstances - plus she was heavily medicated. I’ve also read…though I don’t know if this true…that after she left the unit, the hospital immediately stopped accepting very sick babies.
I’m not saying she is not guilty because - she may well be. I am simply stating that I think this case needs further review in terms of hard evidence and background history.
Of course they reviewed all the deaths and she was present in every single one! There were no more deaths when she was removed
@heddaszczepanski9210 and it apparently started back up again when she returned from Ibiza.
@@heddaszczepanski9210nope she wasn’t.
There were 30 deaths over the time period and she was present at 8 of them@@heddaszczepanski9210
Why is it not acceptable that all evidence is circumstantial? This is how shows like CSI is misleading people about how evidence work. Not every case need a DNA sample or finger print. Circumstantial evidence are still evidence. The babies were definitely murdered, they found artificial insulin and air bubbles in them that couldn’t have been there accidentally (there’s your physical evidence), she was the only one who could have done it given that she was there every single time, she was even witnessed by people of doing something to the babies seconds before they collapsed. That’s evidence enough. You also have a misunderstanding of what psychopath is… seriously people need to stop defending her
The interviewers argument is 'the jury said she's guilty so there' - by that logic you can never have a miscarriage of justice
The police should have been contacted from the start. Then if anything these children would be alive
the police can't treat each and every hospital death as a crime, they'd never leave the hospitals and be able to focus elsewhere. The hospitals do have processes in place for this sort of thing, it's just in this case that procedure wasn't carried out by management to protect the reputation (and probably; jobs and budgets) of the hospital
@@darthpepe2994 Yes they should, even if it is a tragic and natural death yes the police should 100% always attend the death of a new born child to rule fowl play out to begin with. The fact we don't do this is a huge part of the reason a lot of things like this happen. The deaths of the other six were easily preventable if the police had just been called for the first to rule it out as standard practice to in fact find out something was off. It only takes for the police to suspect one case of fowl play to prevent even more deaths.
Management refused to involve police
@@meredithisme3752 that is disgusting and this person ended up killing how many more before being charged? It's a sick way people know days.
@@darthpepe2994 As if the hospitals have any good reputations at all! After covid, all hospitals are guilty of crimes against humanity.
Unless we were in court and had access to all of the evidence put forward by the prosecution and defence, we can't say the jury made the wrong decision.
12 people agreed
@nrw34260 They were majority decisions and not unanimous and the final jury was of 11.
With the evidence presented, the notes, the text messages(sus as F to refer to them living and dying being "Fate") I'd say they made the right call, oh yeah lets not forget that babies actually SURVIVED WHILE SHE WAS ON HOLIDAY AND STARTED DYING AGAIN WHEN SHE CAME BACK.
Its not rocket science, the signs and evidence are there. You all wouldn't be saying "we can't say if its actually true" if a man was being convicted right? but because its a woman oh she gets a free pass its ok.
@@nrw34260 see film 12 just men
@@therighthonsirdoug OK, 11 out of 12 then
I worked at a senior level in a sheltered housing division and later in a medical charity. I inherited NHS staff in the first and worked with the same in the latter.
In both situations the NHS staff, all female, were lacking in empathy, care and professionalism. In my first job i got rid of them ..with very swift improvements for the residents. In the latter i had no direct influence but did my hest to raise concerns and after a long time staff changes and management structures were changed.
Frankly i think the NHS is very deeply flawed. Most people have horror stories about their own experiences and of loved ones.
Frankly???
@@dianeshannon7988Yes frankly. What is your problem?
And your point is🧐???
@@heddaszczepanski9210 They stated their point. You stated Lucy is guilty elsewhere. What's your source, for your reason to state that!?🧐
Good on you for getting rid of those ones lacking in empathy, care & professionalism. In the latter, when you raised concerns, I noticed that staff changes & management structures were changed. But, were your concerns acted upon in any way? Did you have the same management & same staffs, in the same place still, where you are? What was the change please?
I think this kind of discourse is important. None of us knows the extent of the evidence but all major cases like this should be highly scrutinised, in the interest of the public.
At what cost? Already cost the tax payer 3 million+
I understood that insulin was found in at least 2 without C peptide, which is indictaive of deliberate addition. Also the fact that the death rate has reverted to the norm since her removal , is rather significant.
Yes, that's correct, this barrister is talking bollocks.
no he isnt - he is saying that there was no evidence other than circumstantial which is shaky - i agree she likely was guilty but you cant say 100% without DNA for example@@uniquerebeljaney3639
He doesn't understand the medical evidence
👍👍👍
Since her removal, it is believed that the hospital stopped taking babies with highly complex needs!
I didn’t like the way the media kept focusing on how ‘normal’ she was and from a middle class family and educated etc it’s disingenuous . I wonder if this barrister would be so quick to dismiss the months of evidence gathering and hours of deliberation the jury went through if Letby was from a single parent family living on a council estate.
True... cannot count the number of smiling ..angelic looking photos of her in the press... portrayal of an English Rose...very normal... lovely nurse...😮
She would be more likely to get off if she was from a broken home because remember we're all woke now. Throw evidence and meritocracy out the window in favour of the disadvantaged or perceived disadvantaged.
@@olivegrove5215Did you listen to this Barrister he is an example of the criminal justice system, he clearly spouts misinformation about this case, he admits he didn’t sit through the trial he is making his conclusion based on what he thinks rather than the evidence presented. When you look at statistical data people who are more likely to be found guilty of a crime and serve custodial sentences are not the middle classes but the working classes. Just consider what the government have done in response to this case, decided not to have a public inquiry this protects those at the top of this hospital trust. We see the blatant cover up when a crime is committed by a politician or the head of some multinational corporation who often have political connections they are protected and this is what we have seen more recently with King Charles in the cash for honours inquiry that the Met have decided to drop. The people who are more likely to ‘get off’ are those with the most to lose
Well the very same barristers fought for the Guildford 4 who were all very working class . The class argument is nonsense for those with a chip on their shoulder .
Whether we like it or not, 'looking normal' and background do play a part in who we are. How many times do we say that the eyes are the windows of the soul. Having worked in schools from more affluent areas and then in poorer areas, I know firsthand that our surroundings and upbringing 'can' sadly have an effect on our development and ultimately our character. How many times do we see photos of caught criminals on our TVs showing faces that look evil. Their eyes are not sparkly, pure looking, but dead looking. In laymans terms, they look rough. It's sad but true.
There have been unsafe murder convictions the courts have overturned before. The NHS is in disarray. It’s entirely possible she’d been used as a scapegoat and thrown under the bus to cover NHS negligence.
I agree with you
So do I tbh
hear hear
Science on trial..... check out
Then the police would have unearthed that! The investigation took months
Oh boy! I am thinking of Lindy Chamberlain here in Australia, sent to prison for a year for murdering her baby daughter. She was proved innocent, and that indeed a dingo had taken her baby. Her life was ruined, her marriage destroyed. A very sad case.
cannot be compared at all. The Chamberlain case was police stuff up and prejudice against Chamberlain's personality and religion, and general ignorance of the capabilities of dingoes.
1 child. Completely different
@@darrenporter1850 not quite. Three other children: 2 small boys and a daughter born to her in prison, subsequently taken from her.
@@darrenporter1850one child killed so it’s not as important?
Wow
@@cordeliav3055 All eaten by Dingo's?
Mr McDonald is in error when he says Letby's case mirrors the others he cites - Letby had all manner of documentation at home with her relating to the deaths and documents where she wrote about her involvement in these deaths. A confession obtained under police questioning may be questionable as individuals are open to duress, but this writing was her own free reflections on her behaviour.
everything is circumstantial though, and her "confession" was argued to have been written under stress, blaming herself etc. All the evidence does point to her, but what bothers me the most is that it is still all circumstantial. If this hadn't been such a public trial I doubt she'd have given a clear guilty verdict
It's open to interpretation. Either she was confessing to murder in those notes, or she felt so much remorse and guilt over their deaths that she felt responsible for the fate of these babies. I just don't know.
How convenient
no there was one letter actually
@@Ardwick-Crome he is correct they are too emotional to hear it
My baby fell on delivery and landed on her face. The midwife was new and should not have been alone. The umbilical cord broke on delivery and I had to have it manually removed. When I complained a few months later they denied it all… they said that there had been two midwives there and my daughter had never fallen. This was in Australia… they cover their mistakes.
That's terrible and traumatic for both you and your little baby. I hope your daughter was ok.
Is the baby alright??
@@druvadava9080 read it above again x
Wow that's awful! So sorry. I hope your daughter had no lasting damage?
May I ask how long ago this was? I will be having a baby is AUS soon.. very nervous
I’ve been watching everything about the trial that I can find and I can’t say that I find anything that proves guilt. I scratch my head and wonder if this was a witch hunt. I pray to god they got the right person for the sake of all the babies.
agreed
Are you insane? She has notes she wrote saying she is evil and did this.
lol c'mon. Look at her face and look at her notes. She's a nutter in any case.
The notes also say 'i did nothing wrong'.
Apparently only the incriminating notes were presented, whereas the many, many other notes that could have provided a counter balance, were not disclosed. This is blatant, cherry picking, which is a crimes in itself. Same with the attendance mandate, deliberate manipulation of one staff member present on the ward but way of exclusion of the others. Norman Fenton interview with Dr Scott McLachan, gives an open, experience alternative to the verdict & what the MSM are forcing on us to believe.
Having done Jury duty, it would terrify me standing trial while being innocent. Remember that half of the jury are likely to be below average intelligence.
@@gpw203 indeed, the less smart people in the case I was involved in seemed to treat it as a TV drama where they were trying to guess the plot twist. Despite being instructed to base it on the evidence.
Trial by jury seems such an antiquated system, it’s like a relic from a more primitive age. Think about it… evidence is painstakingly gathered and forensically analysed by experts, specialists are consulted, experienced lawyers trawl through every aspect of the case… but in the end, the defendant’s fate is decided by the butcher, the baker & the candlestick maker.
100 % agree and I bet nearly all had no medical background or knowledge. I trial by your peers should be just that. In Lucy case doctors and nurses who know what the terminology means. How this woman was found guilty should scare everyone, it’s as plan as the nose on one’s face that the evidence was so weak. The case never should of come to court. A pure coverup has took place and the chosen sacrificial lamb was slaughtered to
Appease the gullible masses. Ie Joe Public
24 Hour Video Cameras would make it safer in all maternity Units….this must never happen again.
If he’s so convinced let him do the defence on her appeal on a no win no fee basis, see how convinced he is then.
The barrister at no time said she was innocent but that the evidence had all the makings of a miss trial.
Barristers will never commit even if they are on your side . They discuss the evidence and its strengths . It is not unusual .
Most of the poor circumstantial evidence was as bent as a nine bob note.
@@billybonds4449 well actually it wasnt! If this wasnt a thorough investigation taking years, then I dont know what is. She was found guilty, end of.
@@heddaszczepanski9210 exactly, complete load of conspiratorial cr4p people are coming up with here. “Lucy didn’t do anything- that’s why she hasn’t spoke up in her own defence, didn’t come to sentencing to make her mark etc etc “ all the holes in their arguments are laughable
@@heddaszczepanski9210 Doesn't matter how long the investigation took Knob Head. 4 weeks or four years, the evidence was manufactured to suit the narrative of a scapegoat that had to be found to divert attention from the real evil tw*ts who contributed to those unfortunate deaths. END OF!!!!!!!!!!!!
Have to keep an open mind , moms we’re put in jail for cot deaths , and over baby deathS .
Yes, exactly. Poor Sally Clarke
He says nothing found in the system BUT they found insulin in a baby who was NOT prescribed it!
Lots of Lucy Letby 's friends and family here.
One of the babies mother had gestational diabetes and it’s shown that insulin can and does pass via the placenta to baby’s blood stream and for the other baby in question they were administered insulin 5 days prior to the blood tests - also the levels of insulin found were so high as to kill two grown men yet both of these babies recovered? How is that possible if it was in fact synthetic insulin? There are other medical explanations for these blood test results that exclude it being added via a glucose or feeding bag - they actually point more to it not being administered at all but being present in blood tests results for other reasons - ie transmitted via placenta for one and for the other being in the blood stream for a longer than the usual half life due to other processes when it was documented as being administered 5 days before the blood tests- there simply is not any evidence that synthetic insulin was maliciously added to feed or glucose drip or at all
Differentiate between insulin and synthetic insulin. You can't.
You can. @@projectObject247
Doesn’t mean she administered it though.
Could those notes of been her writing down her bad beliefs about herself? Rather than a confession?
Well, regardless, they were notes of a very disturbed person and she certainly didnt look disturbed but she was! I think she was 100% guilty. The management protected her until they couldnt any more!
👏
@@jeanettedevereux7664another sheep who always believes the media. Because you’ve been told she is guilty you automatically think she is and can’t/ won’t believe maybe she is innocent. 🐑 🐑🐑🐑🐑
Sounds like a Freudian cathartic exercise. It's not proof of anything to anyone with a functional intellect.
Yes, possibly. There's absolutely no evidence. Why weren't autopsies done?
The two babies who were poisoned with insulin did have evidence that they were deliberately poisoned and she herself agreed that a deliberate act was the only way that they could have had that much insulin in their system. So it’s not true that there is no toxicology screenings at all. He should have sat through the trial if he was going to comment on it.
Well said !
The insulin issue is certainly not cut-and-dried. Different experts offer up perfectly plausible other potential explanations for its presence that do not involve being them deliberately injected.
I'm afraid that a deliberate act is not the only way the two babies could have died from insulin poisoning. Both infants who reportedly showed increased concentration of insulin were at significant risk for the production of autoantibodies to insulin. Child F was treated with insulin in the days prior, which is related to the production of autoantibodies, while Child L was born to a mother who was seriously unwell and had a diagnosis of gestational diabetes.
Gestational diabetes is associated with hyperinsulinemia The production of maternal antibodies to insulin in response to maternal insulin treatment can result in insulin readily crossing the placenta.
As for Lucy Letby agreeing with the prosecution that they were deliberately poisoned, if you are presented with so called irrefutable evidence that it was a deliberate act then any sensible person would be bound to agree.
The point I'm making is that unless the defence has access to scientific experts the jury have only a blinkered view. This case is complex. Two of the babies were removed from mechanical ventilation with no apparent reasoning and later collapsed. One was removed three times!
Even if the insulin was deliberately introduced into the babies ( and I agree this is not proven) how is not known and neither is who did it. There was a case here in Australia where a woman was convicted of murder after 3 of her 4 children died over a period of about 4 years. How they died was not known, there was no motive (she was described as a loving mother by people who knew her). She was convicted on the basis of her having opportunity. It was subsequently found that all her children had a rare genetic condition which could bring about sudden death. Only after a public outcry was she "pardoned" and release - the conviction remains.
@@davidowen2859 Thank you for this. One of the huge flaws in the case is the fact such critical evidence was seemingly not submitted in court. Dr Scott McLachan is among those pointing fingers at her defence team, while also acknowledging her King's Counsel was restricted in what he was allowed to ask and submit in court.
If a lifeguard sees someone drowning they CALL FOR HELP, then jump in to rescue. LL did not call for help while a child was in distress; the monitoring system held the time, date, the fact that the alarm did NOT SOUND, and a doctor witnessed her standing over the child watching after she had sabotage the tubing.
Yet that same doctor did not report it or even make a note of it.
For someone convinced of her guilt he said and did nothing. Which is very odd.
@@Andrea-ld9cyThe administration was supportive of and I believe aggressively defending her to the point of threatening the medical staff who would not shut up. They should be fired and sued.
A nurse witness in one of the baby cases spoke how her and Letby were in one of the rooms together, and one of the babies was desaturating, and you would wait to see if they would self-correct before managing further as it was so common. If that was standard practice, then Dr J (not being a ward nurse and not knowing this was how all the nurses monitored things) then took LL looking over one of the cots and not ‘reacting’ completely out of context. He potential ‘made a murderer’.
@@iknowaletheia well said
@@beverlyw6881 there is no proof the babies were murdered. There is no proof letby did anything wrong. It's quite possible that they did the right thing and the police/courts got it wrong.
Mr McDonald is simply wrong when he claims there was no statistical analysis done in this case. The case came about because seven consultants could see a clear correlation between a rocketing mortality rate in the neonatal unit and Lucy Letby being on duty. The key statistic here is that once she was removed from the unit, the deaths stopped. That one fact is damming.
No bother Taggart.
That's not What Mr McDonald said. A hospital consultant is not capable of carrying out a statistical analysis. We live in a time when we are constantly bombarded with messages to trust science. If statistical analysis was not carried out by statisticians then a statistical analysis was not done. How can a jury convict beyond a reasonable doubt if they are told that unqualified consultants conducted a statistical analysis? Let me be clear. The loss of these babies is a tragedy and I know virtually nothing about this case because I don't consume news. But, if what Mr MCDonald is saying is in fact true then we must have juries that have clear evidence put before them, not a narrative.
@@nickwaughman5514 oh look…another conspiracy theory nut job…this must be like Christmas for you
No. That's not how statistical significance works. This kind of thinking is probably why jury found her guilty. Post hoc ergo propter hoc..
clearly you know more than Dr David Bull and clearly you have seen all the evidence right!!?
I've got my doubts now too
This case did smack of no real evidence.
25000 pages of evidence is not 'no evidence'.
@@Friendofstfrank That is not relevant how many pages. It's what evidence those pages contain. Not the amount of pages.
Some people might be under the impression that this Barrister is auditioning his services for an appeal. Some people might think that.
For a man that didn't sit through the presenting of evidence he seems quite sure that there are flaws, a real columbo.
People are entitled to appeal, and often cleared on appeal to. are you saying that this woman should be denied that?
That's exactly what I thought.
@@MarkJones-gt2qdthe comment didn't say anything about taking her right to appeal away. It pointed out that it came across to some like he was auditioning his services... and it did.
@@MarkJones-gt2qdpity that didn't work for Andy Malkinson.
I’ve smelt a rat from the start . None of this stacks up under scrutiny
They found over 300 medical hand over reports of the babies she murdered in a Tescos bag under her bed . Why would you take them home . She searched 290 time 3 parents of the dead babies why . I listen to the court hearing word for word yesterday
Were any handover notes found of babies that she didn't "kill"? That question has to be asked.
Not Tescos, it's Tesco.
Morrisons, Sainsbury’s but not Tesco’s I’m intrigued. Is it because it is not named after a person?
@@Alan-ss3xp because there is no supermarket by the name of Tesco's.
Can you re-write this it's bizarre how u writed thiss!!!!!
As a nurse, I’m not convinced there was any direct evidence that Lucy let by did anything. She didn’t take baby note home either… it was handover notes and I don’t know one nurse who hasn’t done this, purely by accident.
Purely be accident she had all the handover notes of babies affected and others yet to be affected?
You don't have to believe it. You're right. It's a fact there was no direct evidence of her guilt. Just stacks and stacks and stacks and stacks of indirect evidence she had no retort for. But hey, if she's as innocent as you all are making out then I am certain one of the many innocence projects will come to her aid.
@@Kaioken20
Where did you hear the notes only regarded deceased babies? It's not true. She had a load, student nurses are told to take them home as part of study. They have to document a lot.
This includes diaries.
The same goes for the Facebook searches - she looked up many happy former patients, too.
I'm sure, with a specialist paediatrician, statisticians, nurses and lawyers already kicking off about this a project will be incoming.
The level of manipulation and cherry picking with grievous omissions should scare anyone
It wasnt just the notes that convicted her. She was present at all the murders. I believe the case was thoroughly investigated.
@@Kaioken20 its not just her notes. I believe she is guilty as charged
Wtf are you all talking about, she had notes in her apartment that "i kill babies" "I'm evil" You are all out of your mind dumb females!
If what that barrister is saying is true and there’s no physical evidence and she was convicted on opinions then this is terrifying
It's true. There was not one piece of evidence that wasn't circumstantial or just someone's opinion.
@@commonlyheldsentiment819 I heard that. I do think she’s guilty but that is bullshit that they could even convict on hearsay
@@hismhs nothing new, men have been hanged on just hearsay evidence etc
@@hismhs which is truly terrifying. How many innocent people are in prison? Probabaly a lot.
B.S. @@paulroberts7544
The only thing I can be sure of is that the two presenters were nearly hysterical at the idea that this lawyer should see things differently. That worries me.
It just means they are having a vigorous debate!
I wouldn't worry too much. The criminal barrister is doing what lawyers do - debating/mooting is our thing.
@@AJ-kb9hfMade a complete arse of himself while omitting crucial evidence. His little anecdotal tirade of 'Doctors in toilets with their arms full of Fentanyl' to name dropping Shipman also screams Walter Mitty chasing the limelight here. Cue his reaction when called out.
FTFY
HissyMcHissyfit. What reaction? You mean his slightly bewildered but good-natured denial?
@@yvonnehayton6753 There was no denial whatsoever. He side stepped the claim while laughing out loud muttering something rather incoherently regarding money, then stroked his nose through nerves.
To stand on a soap box regurgitating fantastical claims of innocence in defence of a convicted female serial killer of babies, yes babies, while claiming he hadn't heard all the evidence yet screams absolute chancer with zero morals.
The guy being interviewed is correct. Anyone with a scientific, statistical, medical or even common sense background knows that this conviction is extremely unsafe.
Funny how it's only the men that think this "pretty" nurse is innocent
@@eddieshredder5740 No, it's people who are numerate, understand science, and are sensitive to logical and statistical fallacies. And have a strong sense of justice. Those properties may or may not be correlated with being a man.
@@eddieshredder5740 i'm a woman and believe she could well be innocent
@@eddieshredder5740
I’m a woman who works in a medical field and I’m not a 100%convinced. The evidence is shaky.
You've seen the evidence? How did you get a seat in court?@@alenagonzales9489
This is not true - they found high levels of synthetic insulin in the bodies of 2 babies.
And ? Who put it there? And the evidence as to how it got there is ?
Taking aside all the alternative explanations for that, not least that that only one test was taken/false positives etc etc, why would this mastermind murderer, supposedly so smart that she injects air into tubes so as to go undetected suddenly then change her method to injecting insulin, which she knows could be detected?
I agree.. I see this case is driven by emotion and a determination to close the lid on it! This country is in a very bad place..
At least one of those babies was prescribed insulin as part of an earlier treatment program. As an undisclosed doctor stated, accidental administration could not be ruled out.
The body can produce Insulin without injection
This case further supports the unprofessional role of hospital management, a root and branch reorganisation plus the reappraisal of the level of managers over health professionals.
Ooh you can’t say that…apparently if you listen to LBC there is no bullying in the NHS 😂
Yes, absolutely, but circumstances need to be factual, gotta look at everything babe, look at the nurses on other shifts..everyThing!
Spot on
What about the babies who had excessive levels of insulin? They were looked at right after death. Is there another explanation for the excess insulin? Also the baby who’s stomach content was measured after projectile vomiting over the nursery and still had the normal amount of milk in his/her stomach and it is testified to by witness that Letby was the only one with the baby and fed him/her.
The trust in the NHS is failing more & more each day .
I was actually told by a consultant that no one cares about patients in pain .
I always hear staff openly talk about patients private details they were unaware I was there .
This is not a one off and not just one hospital .
Yes by events like this. There would be absolutely no reason to make up a case like this to deliberately damage the NHS is there? 😂
@@DaleSteel not sure what you mean tbh
@polly6819 no, that's the problem with 95% of the population. Either stupid, ignorant or cannot see the wood for the trees.
@@Dinadino994 @DaleSteel is referring to yet another conspiracy theory where its all blamed on Big Brother as apparently were all sheep being hoodwinked from the ‘bigger picture’ ….yawn!
I agree. It's horrible what you hear behind the scenes.
What about the notes that Lucy left in her house
people with mental disorders write such notes all the time.
Train your mind to find evidence bruh, not to believe what is believable.
Great to hear an alternative view on this rather than the dramatic outrage
Did the deaths cease after she was taken off the ward ?
yes they did.
But my erection didn't.
Yes they did, when she had 2 weeks off holiday then attacked 2 of a set of triplets when she came 'back with a bang' in her words. As soon as she was taken off the ward, there has only been 1 death in 7 years.
That is not correct. The hospital was downgraded and no longer allowed that level of premature baby.
@@rebeccalloyd3098 Stop embarrassing yourself.
It appears Money paid to defence Barristers is paramount to anything else.
The thing that has to be recognised is that since Lucy Letby has ceased nursing. No further babies have died in the numbers they did when she was on duty on the Maternity Ward.
Who has said that no babies have died ?. You invented that comment .
The care unit does not permit babies at such a premature age anymore either which would naturally increase survival rate.
....and when she went on holiday - these conspiracy theorists (as usual) have their head in the clouds....
I witnessed my sister being badly treated by a nurse ,she had a tracky in she had in every hour or so a nurse would come in and clean it when full of mucas when a certain nurse come in she had fear on her face I knew she didn't like this nurse, one day arrived early and had to wait outside the room the nurse removed the tracky to clean but delayed putting it back in so my sister was panicking I rush in and the nurse quickly put it back in I was so angry I complained but was told she was doing her job I asked the same nurse how my sister was she was but in a reduced coma but I noticed she had tears running down her face I asked is she in pain can she feel pain she just said I don't know you can't say because she can't speak she then said well because she alcoholic it will have a effect on her, my sister had been in hospital for 3 months she had breast cancer and it went to her lungs she died two days later, may be the nurse didn't like the fact she had a drink problem but she didn't know was my sister like was like or may be it was because women don't drink in her country .
Should've reported it.
There are some bad nurses out there I agree, but I think Lucy took the can for all of them
@@voice.of.reason "Lucy took the can for all of them" I don't think a cold-blooded murderer of 7 babies is "Lucy taking the can" for all merely negligent nurses....
My baby son was overdosed on morphine on a ward following his heart surgery and recovery in cicu at Great Ormond Street, he recovered a day or so later and I was called into an office to be told it was an accident, the nurse had been spoken to and I should be grateful for the treatment he'd already received and if I made a fuss about it I'd be the one removed from the hospital and not alllowed back in. I dont know enough to say Lucy is innocent but wouldnt be surprised at all if ever the situation was revealed to be a cover up for poor practice or an unfortunate period on the ward.
I'm so sorry you had that awful experience 🤗
I agree with this barrister. Extremely worrying conviction!!
😳
What was said to you is appalling wickedness. Tell EVERYONE
The notes seal the deal. She knows she's evil.
Just what i thought..why write them
The jury heard all the evidence and was there for the whole trial. This man did not.
The police that did the investigation, AND the judge, admit that the case is based entirely upon conjecture and circumstantial evidence.
There is no proof that the babies were murdered. There is no proof that Lucy did anything wrong.
Yet Lucy will spend her life in prison because a) the police let potential suspects (the doctors) guide their investigation, b) the Jury didn't care that guilt hadn't been proven. They were prepared to risk condeming an innocent young nurse to life in prison.
Some people believe in the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Some of us believe that it's better for 10 guilty men to go free than one innocent man be convicted.
Others don't care - provided that justice is SEEN to be done. No matter how unjust it is in practice
After reading SCIENCE ON TRIAL rexvlucyletby I am convinced Lucy Letby is innocent.
Maybe those nurses who were exxonerated....werent actually innocent. And got away with it from lack of evidence.
Exactly
No they were exonerated after conviction.
indeed he doesn't apply his own logic.
@@ZaydDepaor yes he uses patterns of past crimes and then says all the proescution are doing is looking for patterns lol!
why have this lawyer on if he didnt sit through the entire case?...
Because talk tv is little more than GB news light and the guests they have are usually right wing conspiracy nut jobs
Ah good question, so let me educate on how the media works. This is a commercial channel whose person is to make money first and foremost. Its product is purportedly news, insights and commentary. But that product needs content that appeals to its audience, which for this show is ‘contentious debate’. It doesn’t matter if the guest speaker is an idiot talking gibberish so long as it generate audience interest. Sponsors love audiences. The channel loves sponsors’ money.
Because she could be innocent, the media have ears in the law inns of chancery lane, and they don't like it, there are lawyers out there who will go through all the notes and minutes of this case, and there was never a smoking gun that she did it, remember Barry George was said to have killed Jill dando. How did that turn out
I think it goes against the code of conduct of barristers and judges to discuss details of a trial with the media after conviction or at any stage.
The barrister fails to address the fatality rate fell to nil after Lucy was removed off the ward.
Totally!
Doesnt prove anything 100%. The killer could have stopped after. I m not defending her i think she is guilty but what you said should not prove anything in court
@@happypill6195The fact that only 1 baby has died in the 7 years since Letby was removed from the ward doesn't prove her guilt but it adds to the evidence against her.
It can be explained by a change of management after the scandal of so many baby deaths became a thing, that changes were made to the baby care. The incompetent staff removed, or very sick babies cared for somewhere else. There is nothing to convict Lucy Letby
It didn't drop to nil and from 2017 the hospital reduced its risk and only took lower risk baby's not as premature .
This barrister is the worst, pontificating like an NHS exec. This weasel is probably after her legal aid promoting himself "I saw one once and so it must be true..." type attitude. If he bothered listening to the consultants and doctors interviewed, Letby's role was clear
Do you have a greater knowledge of the rules of evidence than a practising criminal barrister of some 20 years standing? Or does your feelings outweigh his knowledge and experience ?
His point is that there is literally no evidence and the most basic statistical analysis points to innocence. How is it possible that there was not a single witness? There is no way I would have convicted with purely circumstantial evidence.
None of this guy’s arguments make any sense. Imagine defending a prolific baby killer without being able to state any specific evidence other than “other cases in the past have been miscarriages of justice” My favourite bit is when he keeps mentioning these other names of wrongly convicted people and then when the presenter says “Harold Shipman” he says “what’s Harold Shipman got to do with this” lol He also mislead them about the notes, there were two not one as he said and it clearly said “I did it” not “I feel guilt” Total fraud.
It makes perfect sense if you listen to what he’s actually saying.
@@Ayat78 it doesn’t, he just says there have been other miscarriages of justice and that some of the evidence wasn’t 100%, but you can apply that logic to pretty much any conviction. Its especially dubious here because there was so much evidence against her. Maybe you can give one other example of his counter evidence if it’s just that I missed something?
@@Emcfree2084 you haven’t listened very carefully. Maybe just listening to the punchlines. If you can Google “Chino Investor Lucy Letby “. It is quite and interesting and impartial overview …. I am not here to say she is innocent. However it doesn’t fully stack up regards the critical evidence. In my opinion it is most definitely circumstantial, which it shouldn’t be.
He did what any good lawyer does, make you question everything. I actually thought he was convincing. TBH, I just don't know with this case.
@@ryand141 ah so he didn’t actually provide any evidence, he just made you “feel” that he was “convincing” Interesting.
i do not think she’s guilty and it’s eating away at me each day. I am horrified by this
Same here. And nhs nurses killed my daughter and covered it up. I’m certain she’s being framed because they frame people all the time. She probably was part of the cover up and then tried to turn on the group and whistleblow
Glad to hear it is not just me that feels like this or thinks like this
Being a criminal barrister for twenty seven years doesn’t impress me one iota.
Being emotional doesn't impress me...
the guys a paid dissembler ..
People at the top or near the top can be just as criminal as anybody, all human.
So you are calling his professional credentials into question because his opinion doesnt align with yours?
@@Sctch_Egg professional credentials, hmmm. I seen three different doctors a few years ago who all said I was suffering from migraines and not to worry for six weeks until it was discovered it was actually subdural brain blood clots, just a little true story regarding professional credentials . .
Thank you for letting the guest talk.
Lucy went through hell being blamed for this. She began to think maybe i did! What if i dont know im a psycho. The notes lucy wrote was her seeing if she was going mad. If i write it, will i remember doing it! She was thinking if i did kill these babies, im evil! She was trying to spark a memory because she thought s going mad. She really could be innocent.. Was there other staff on the majority of these shifts. How many hours did lucy work compared to others. If she worked extra on top of full time, then she would be on the ward most days. She could be innocent 😢
The post it notes in her writing are the deciding evidence. They are close to a confession.
It's not at all, it even looks like the note was doctored with another person writing the it was me bit in another handwriting.
As others have said, this could have been taken out of context. And why were so many of her other notes ignored?
They were not ignored. A Jury of 12 ordinary people sat through months of evidence and gave it all fair consideration before a final decision was made. There will be many other cases where she was not caught up with and there were many where the crown did not prove her guilty. She had a fair trial.@@993Redveg
She had the chance to raise those issues in the trial. The Jury were able to consider that. The idea that someone sneaked in and altered the note is madness. @@voice.of.reason
The evidence against Letby is so flimsy and circumstancial that she might as well have been strapped to a ducking stool to see if she floats or sinks. A national scapegoat for a health service that is broken and in terminal decline. Neonatal deaths at Chester hospital actually went UP in the two years after this nurse was removed, and in the note mentioned she also said she was innocent, the incoherent ramblings of someone who had been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder because of all the finger pointing. She wrote elsewhere "I killed them. I don't know if I killed them. Maybe I did. Maybe this is down to me." This is someone in a state of shock and depression, not a confession of guilt.
I suspect we are going back to the days of witch burning. Such jolly fun.
You should have a bit more trust in all the doctors and co workers who worked with her and came to the conclusion after years of disbelief and fight with the management that yes she really is what she seems to be.
Trust in a herd agreeing on a scapegoat is not a good thing. And this video was disingenuous too in the way they quickly closed it with that lady smugly saying that the nurse left lots of notes and that the lawyer said it was only one. No, the lawyer said there was one where she called herself evil, and not hundreds where she literally said she committed the crime as the lady said before. The lawyer didn't say there was only one note; that was squirmy nonsense. It doesn't prove her not guilty either, but if your evidence is as solid as some people have been insisting then you don't need to stretch it and distort criticisms of it like that.
Defending an obvious baby-killer and undermining all the witness testimonies from people who worked with her. Absolutely disgusting. You've obviously got no clue about PTSD either, if you think it makes people ramble incoherently and confess to something that never happened.
@@OngoGablogian185and those who claimed nurse beck was innocent were also accused of undermining witness testimony. It happens.
Nonsense the statistical evidence is overwhelming, much higher death rate than could be expected and she was on duty for every case.
Only a crooked lawyer would think that post-natal abortions for babies with asthma and hair lips could _ever_ be defended. These two deserve grenades in each orifice.
Not only was she on duty for every case, the crises began the moment she was left alone on a shift.
This is all true, but 100% of the evidence is circumstantial. It's a horrible trap.
@@charlytaylor1748 It's the nature of the case. You could also say that 100% of the evidence against say Jimmy Savile is circumstantial and based on heresay and claims.
@@charlytaylor1748 I don't know why people continue to refer to "it was all circumstantial evidence" as if that is not valid evidence. Thousands of guilty people are found guilty on the basis of circumstantial evidence every day of the week, and it is a very valid form of establishing guilt. If a person enters a room, and CCTV picks up a second person entering the same room. And when the person exists they are bruised and beaten, it is "circumstantial evidence" that tells us person number 2 is guilty. The circumstances being - the person was seen entering the building, following person 1, they were there at the time and place when the wounding occurred, nobody else was around. All of that is "circumstantial".
Keep in mind that they tried this case for a year and poured over that much evidence. The barrister may have a point about cases in general, but he was not involved in this case at all which is something he does admit at the start. So don't be too swayed by his alternate perspective.
Exactly! Its just his opinion, based only on other cases
Exactly! Tell it to the Birmingham 6. Or the Guildford 4.
You’re acting like people don’t get off on appeal. They do.
@@user-dh6sl1hz7m well, only time will tell. None of us armchair criminologists have any say in the matter!
She was also seen standing over babies doing nothing when babies were struggling and did not call for help. More babies were killed by air embolism after she went on a course that would have instructed her on how to avoid causing this.
Were you there......
@@barriewilliams4526where you there? 100 percent the answer is no!
@@halomultiplayermoments3651I highly doubt anyone in this comment section was there
Based on Hearsay, alleged statements, circumstansial evidence, no post mortems & no proper defence.
@@halomultiplayermoments3651Difference being, Barriewilliams was not making accusations because he was not there.
I agree with the Barrister you have to have the evidence, not speculation, this is someone’s life. It’s frightening.
It’s frightening that so many babies died, it was their life’s that were lost. They were also someone
I am with you patriciakelly. I think this is a very unsafe conviction. I think the press love the monster narrative and are creating a mob. Imagine what would happen to the NHS tomorrow if the press wrote about both sides of this case… masses of nurses would walk out as it could simply be unsafe to work. Who’s next for the dock ey?!?!?
But surely he's the one speculating? As he admitted at the beginning of the clip, he didn't sit through the months of evidence presented in court.
men have been hanged on the same type of evidence
@@lensflash so all you care about is someone paying the price - it doesn't matter whether they're guilty?
There isn't even proof that these babies were murdered. At the time the deaths werre thought to be natural causes. It's only years later (and without postmortem) that 'expert witnesses' GUESSED that they were in fact murders.
There was a mountain of evidence gathered together over two years.. 2 things stand out for me the fact that when these catastrophic incidents happened Letby was the only one who was on duty in every case and that when she was not present for any length of time the incidence of these events dropped dramatically. And the fact that she had in her home medical notes for these babies which had been altered. It is a well known fact that insulin overdose and air pumped into the body are exceptionally difficult to detect post mortem. Overfeeding would also be difficult to determine. The fact that 2 previous babies under her care did have blood tests and produced the result of exceptional high insulin levels at the time but were ignored. They survived so were not part of the investigation. It is no good this barrister saying you cannot say there was a pattern so it does not prove her guilt. It happened too many times so does show a pattern. No one has that many coincidences. Murderers often kill in the same manner targeting the same kind of victim again and again as Letby has apparently done. 7 doctors had their suspicions about her so it is not just one doctor who didn't like her. It is very common for psychopaths to have 2 completely different personalities which they use to manipulate and hide their darker side. One appearing really nice, normal, quiet, appearing benevolent, kind and helpful whilst hiding a truly evil persona which has no feelings whatsoever. Which is why people cannot believe that this person is capable of such evil. But they are.
Narrcissist too cluster b personalities over lap.
Narcissistic Personality disorder
Incredible that all the evidence is circumstancial. Odd that the mainstream media have not mentioned this fact. We're told that the accused was extremely skillful at covering up her tracks. Now where have I heard that before?
@@gainsbourg66 Most criminal convictions are based on circumstantial evidence, although it must be adequate to meet established standards of proof. Just because evidence is circumstantial doesn’t mean it doesn’t meet standards of proof it’s why the judicial system has to be robust : you must piece it all together and then determine whether or not it leads to a reasonable conclusion about the fact which is to be proved. When people are falsely found guilty because of circumstantial evidence there are always other factors at play such as the actions of the Police. In Letby’s case I understand that 257 handover sheets were found at her home documents that should not have left the hospital. A note of medications given to a baby boy was among items found under Letby's bed after her arrest. The record of emergency drugs provided to the infant was written on a paper towel found in her home these are just a few pieces of circumstantial evidence. Letby can appeal if she claims a miscarriage of justice but what shouldn’t happen is that the deaths of the babies are just passed off as nothing. Is Letby saying she didn’t have the handover notes at home why did she have them why did she write that she did it?
@@deeperlife5689did the police put the handover sheets into context by investigating how many other nurses had taken handover sheets home?, no they didn’t so we don’t know whether this is a common practice or not but just on its own it looks bad for the suspect, the police want it to look bad for the suspect. The barrister pointed out that the context in which the damming note had been written had not been emphasised, again making it look really bad. There doesn’t appear to have been any suggestion that the police investigated what had occurred in the way of suspicious incidents on Letby’s days off, focusing only on when she was there, it’s all a picture, a pattern portrayed by the police who found no direct evidence that anyone had actually been murdered only speculation and hypothesis. Maybe they ought to investigate the abnormally high morbidity rate in baby deaths at Staffordshire hospital and see if they can build a circumstantial case around anyone there or get Letby accused of committing those on her days off, there might be a pattern. Mr Malkinson has just been freed after spending 17 years in prison for a rape he did not commit, he maintained his innocence and was only freed because of a dna sample otherwise he’d still be locked up an innocent man, I’m sure there was also claimed overwhelming evidence against him at the time of his conviction, he was labelled as a monster. Mr McDonald is just saying that a sense of caution needs to applied as things aren’t always as they appear.
patterns aren't evidence, they are only a reason for further investigation
They might have found more than one note but it was only one note that was used as evidence, therefore the number of notes has no bearing on this case if the others are not being used to convict her. The barrister is right - it was only one note in this context. I also agree, that this looks like a miscarriage of justice
I don’t think so !
The number of notes notwithstanding, how do you explain the insulin level of a newborn which can only he artificial and the testimony of Dr Ravi who said he saw Letby stand by a 25 week old baby with a disconnected tube and dropping oxygen levels on the monitor?
Absolutely correct. Miscarriage of Justice.
@@stella9624 No. Look it up. Insulin can be produced in the body
WITHOUT INJECTION.
The only miscarriage of justice is that what she did to those innocent babies we can't do to her
I thought I was on my own in wondering if she is not guilty because the evidence is shakey. If she is not guilty then its a complete tragedy to destroy a soul like this surely more robust evidence is required.
Yes. It’s all conjecture. I can only hope she IS guilty, considering what’s ahead of her. But I’m not convinced. It will put ppl off being a nurse.
Lucy Letby is 100 percent guilty and there is strong evidence. She has also killed babies in past hospitals where she worked in, there are ongoing investigations into that too.
True.
@@sheireland3737 Exactly my thoughts. Becoming a nurse seems to be a risky career choice.
The courts and juries don't always get it right. Everybody should know that by now
Come on, now. In this case?
It wrote notes confessing to it's actions,what is it that you want?
Like on soaps for instance
@@figgyfox8465 she could have just been saying it was her fault because she wasn't a good enough nurse to save them. Lots of people say someone's death is their fault when they can't save someone. That's not the same as saying you murdered someone. That's not strong enough evidence to convict someone for murder.
@@Fireglo have you actually read the notes it wrote? Did you listen to the testimony of the parents? Read the testimony of the witnesses who worked with it? You're delusional if you think it is innocent
I am so happy to hear a person brave enough to question this
With the rate of infant mortality when she was around is of itself highly suspicious. She paid unusual interest in the families on FB. Consultants reported their concerns about her. Management wanted to brush those concerns aside to protect themselves and the reputation of the hospital.
She looked up many more families on fb, not just those whose babies died
Maybe she looked the families up because she blamed herself and became mentally unstable. She wrote "I'm not good enough".
It’s definitely her. These videos are disrespectful to the poor babies and their parents
Oddly, at the SAME time Lucy Letby was taken off duty(June 2016), the neonatal unit was also downgraded and stopped admitting severely ill babies, henceforth there were fewer deaths. But despite the departure of Lucy from the unit and the fact severely ill babies were no longer being admitted to the unit, the death rate was STILL regarded as 'high' two years AFTER LL left.
People need to do their research before sharing their ill-founded, prejudiced opinions. There's NO evidence against Lucy Letby.
@@AethelwulfOfNordHymbraLand2333 Doesn't make her more or even less guilty.
Police have a hypothesis and gather evidence to prove it.
Yep
The exact opposite of the Scientific Method.
@@kgbgb3663What is the 'scientific' method pray tell for your one way science. Are you talking inductive vs deductive or perchance how you rule out other hypothesis or maybe you don't actually know science. See I happen to be one and all the 'there is only one science's people make me shake my head. My fields of specialty are social psychology, neuroscience, environmental science. Oh, and I have 4 decades of investigating suspicious deaths.
@@Friendofstfrank Pity you haven't learnt in your four decades of (presumably professional?) investigations how to make a pertinent and coherent argument rather than depending on personal attacks and appeals to (claimed) authority.
I won't list the ways I might claim to have authority, as you did. Instead, I'll just say that if you really think that the proper way to investigate a hypotheses is to look only for evidence that is _consistent_ with it rather than to _test_ it, I hope never to have to depend on the products of your "science". And I will have only limited sympathy with you when the police come up with the hypothesis that you are guilty of some heinous crime, and look only for confirmation.
@@Friendofstfrank the scientific method is to try and disprove the hypothesis not prove it.
The jury took a very long time to reach their verdicts. To me that indicates that after many months of hearing evidence it still wasn’t an easy or obvious decision on each charge. Either way the doctors and management of that hospital need to be looked at very closely.
Speaking from experience,yes!!!!!!!
It's a miscarriage of justice. The prosecution failed to prove beyond all reasonable doubt the defendant guilty.
I think the jury felt such empathy with the parents that they wanted closure for them. I can’t believe how little evidence there is.
Only reason they took so long beacuse it’s such a big case wasn’t just one baby they would of had to discuss and agree on every case.
No, it was correct. Sh e was found guilty!
When I first read about this story I wondered how she was convicted. Glad I'm not alone on that
I feel like the hosts could have been more polite and less judgemental to their guest. He explains very clearly why he has doubts about the case, the lack of direct evidence and statistical evidence. There have been scientists speaking out and expressing doubts for exactly these reasons.
The jury deliberated for a hell of a long time, and they found her not guilty on some charges. Found guilty by a jury of her peers. Justice prevailed.
Yep, I'm tired of people trying to defend bad people effectively with the lens of "but we didn't see them physically do it!!". If it were up to those people we would never see next to anyone in jail and in instances like this multiple babies/people would continue to die.
Her colleagues themselves had called out this risk again, and again, and again - the people who worked with her and saw her effectively the most out of anyone else in her life and they themselves identified a pattern. I don't know how on earth people expect to protect other people when they hold the belief that multiple forms of evidence should be disregarded because they don't provide 100% proof - you're never going to get 100% proof unless you've got video or audio evidence and even then the same people would still argue that it's doctored. It's not cluedo - it's real life and we damn well know if it walks and quacks like a duck then 99.9% of the time it's probably a duck.
I'm tired of stupid people putting other people's lives at risk through their astounding ability to deny evidence that isn't 100% conclusive while they themselves have no evidence to offer in defence. It's a stupid approach focusing on exception to rules and there are ALWAYS exceptions to rules - it doesn't mean we should never have any rules out of concern we may get it wrong on the 0.001% of occurrences. That percentage is justified if it results in thousands of lives (if not more) protected and is why we have levels of proof within the court system.
so did the jury for louise woodward
@@james970027so do you honestly believe that Andrew Malkinsons conviction was justifiable given the evidence was not a 100%? That man spent 17yrs behind bars for a rape he did not commit, would you accept a conviction of that length if you didn't do the crime but were convicted on evidence that was not 100% and just chalk it up to the 0000.1% of wrongful convictions.
@@mrsthatcher9815 it’s the only system we have.
Were they really her peers? Do you actually understand what peer means?
Interesting that despite multiple previous cases getting a mention, a couple were notably absent. I didn't hear the case of Isabel Amaro get a mention - the nurse convicted of gross negligence manslaughter alongside Dr Bawa Garba. That doctor, incidentally, is back working in our hospitals despite being convicted of the grossly negligent manslaughter of Jack Adcock - a former paediatric patient of hers. Our medical regulation really is great, isn't it?!
Also, everybody reaches for the Harold Shipman example, but I'm still waiting for the name Dr Jane Barton to take his place. She's responsible for far more unlawful deaths at Gosport War Memorial hospital according to the most recent of several inquiries, yet still she walks free and not a single charge has been brought against her.
Yes, God knows how she has got away with it!
Why is that do you think.
@@anyatranter5588 I think you're asking why certain cases didn't get a mention? If so I can only speculate, but having been privileged to be given access to court transcripts on the cases I mentioned, I suspect it's because the barrister knew they didn't support his argument for wrongful conviction of medical staff being common. That in itself would be interesting though, because the global medical world tried to claim those convictions were a total miscarriage of justice for years - until those transcripts emerged and we went public with some of the detail. It's a huge rabbit hole, this one. We all know doctors cover for each other and lawyers like this guy play a big part in that endeavour.
@thedearjohnblog The Dr Jane Barton case was allegedly going to easily surpass Shipman's death count. Then silence. I mentioned this in another hospital 300 miles away and the Ward Sister just said she thought too many important heads would end up on proverbial chopping blocks if that rabbit hole was opened. She didn't expand on that or speak about it any further. I took it to mean that it was either a case of friends in very high places or it was the kind of shockingly nefarious conspiracy that only comes to life when certain people leave this mortal coil!!
Even a 27 year Barrister can get it wrong
So true .Anyone remember Professor Meadows who convicted a mother of killing her 2 babies ,which were proven afterwards to be natural causes .The poor mother spent years in prison and never recovered .The prof was struck off .These medical cases are notoriosly difficult always
Absolutely. To truly understand WHY she is guilty can easily be seen by those that have worked in healthcare. This is not to diminish the opinions of those who haven't. For instance, NO, it's not OK to take home handover sheets & patient notes. She knew this but did it anyway. Also the way she stayed past her shift, volunteered to do extra shifts, had a crush on the married doctor & appeared to be trying to impress him. Or at least have him come to the unit. It all makes.sense to me. She is guilty & where she deserves to be.
Clearly she was guilty. The death rate dropped when she was removed from the unit, not just dropped, but almost disappeared as a measurable statistic. The only explanation is that she was, in fact, murdering those poor babies. It's beyond comprehension how someone could perform such heinous acts, but the facts are clear for everyone to see.
31 babies dead in 12 months. She was on duty for 8. The rate increased and peaked in 2019. Long after she left...
A miscarriage of justice. Re trial and investigation required.
@@folkstoneblues Nice try! This is about unexplained deaths not just any death that occurred at the hospital. She was present for all UNEXPLAINED deaths of babies in that unit, where the death was not expected, anticipated or could therefore be explained. It blows my mind that people are clutching at straws to find her innocent. You weren't in court, you did not hear all or even most of the evidence against her. She got found guilty in a court of law and as a result will remain in prison for the rest of her natural life, regardless what anyone believes. IMO she is where she belongs.
@@bakeyardpatties I never said she was innocent . But facts are important. 31 deaths..no post mortems on most of them bar five and the death rate peaked in 2019.... The management stinks.
There wasn't any evidence against her to say she administered any drugs. Just being on shift for eight of 31 deaths doesn't stack ...look up Lucia debeurk, the Dutch nurse accused of 7 babies deaths on the probability of statistics. That case mirrors this one.. and look up sandy Clark and her conviction of killing her own 2 kids .. British justice is deeply flawed. This case stinks of a miscarriage
This barrister knows what he’s talking about. She’ll be proven innocent
Not a chance
@@janlittle2148 She is absolutely innocent. There is no evidence. Rather than looking for anybody to blame, why don't you have your heart set on finding the real killer.
@@davesmith3526 she has been convicted. End of.there is no one else.
And yet he admitted to not following the trial or hearing all the evidence. He even accused one of this panel of exaggerating the evidence and saying she only wrote one note saying’I did this’. In fact one of the notes also said ‘I killed them on purpose because I am not good enough’.
So there was 22 deaths and she was found guilty of the murder of 7. Who killed the other 15 ? 🤔
In a neo natal ward it is common that naturally premature babies could die because they are seriously unwell and have complications
She did.. most likely.
But they can't necessarily prove them all. Yet!
Why would she have continued after suspicion was raised , unless she was was want to tarnish her name and her family reputation and ruin her parents life. She would need to be evil and stupid , if she was evil I don't believe she would have been thst stupid
@artsy38 being stupid doesn't come into it.
Serial killers are ultimately obsessed and get great pleasure or relief from killing.
Simply getting away with it, time and again, probably made her feel untouchable.
shipman kept killing people too even tho people started getting suspicious. i think people dont want to believe a young pretty woman could be so vile
I don’t get it. If he is working for justice for people who have been wrongly convicted, why is he not super thorough and careful not to imply someone might be innocent when he clearly has not seen nor heard all in this case? Seems counter productive to his mission…
A miscarriage of justice isn't necessarily on the basis someone is innocent.
You could have someone who's guiltyofa serious crime, but if they were lied about, their guilt exaggerated, things other people did covered up, they didn't get a fair chance to explain mitigating factors or these were deliberately obscured, or they were subject to collusion by authorities/agencies, they still did not have a fair trial
@@Ida_Dunne_Moore true. Yet what i mean is it seems he has not looked into THIS case enough.