Це відео не доступне.
Перепрошуємо.
“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.
I don't say Lucy is innocent - but the Post Office scandal is fresh in my mind and large public institutions clearly sometimes have no interest in innocence or guilt just protection of their business interests and reputation.
Even it's definitely proven their computer system was faulty still they are dilly dallying to pay the accused staff their due compensations. What kind of greedy pigs are these ?
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.
The Lucy Letby case is going to be one of the biggest miscarriages of justice this country has seen.
"The Post Office scandal on steroids"
@@ruthbashford3176 I ATTENDED MATERNITY SCANS AT CHESTER HOSPITAL, EXACTLY SAME TIME THESE "MURDERS" ALLEGEDLY HAPPENED.
MATERNITY WARD NOT FIT FOR PURPOSE STUNK OF DRAINS. FORCED TO SWITCH HOSPITALS BECAUSE OF IT
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
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 am so happy to hear a person brave enough to question this
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.
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
You mean like a majority of people commenting on here ??? 😂😂😂😂
@@justinneill5003 True, but I am not a fan of the idea of these things being decided by one person either.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
@@lesley9989 It works both ways. Your logic also indicates that because someone is fond guilty it means that there was no miscarriage of justice.
@@noelpucarua2843 I never said that. I've explained there are miscarriages of justice. It's exactly what I put! Read my comment and logic again. There are miscarriages of justice but it it doesn't mean every case is. Unsure how it isn't clear.
@@lesley9989 You are unclear because you brought up "every case". "Every case" includes those cases where the miscarriage of justice has not yet been recognised by the courts.
There are still miscarriages of justice and people are in jail because of it.
No one is claiming that "every case is", as you put it, a miscarriage of justice.
If I am wrong please tell me who said "every case is". I can't find it in the video or the comments.
I think your argument is a Red Herring.
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!
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.
Since the Fiasco of Boris Johnson turning his back on the Nurses during COVID.
Britain’s NHS has lost a massive count of Ethically good Nurses & other medical Staff.
It’s too obvious that the Rich can skate out to private medical companies & leave ordinary working Class people to endure endless suffering.
If this Murder case was taking place in America- This young Nurse would be given the Death Penalty without question.
After reading SCIENCE ON TRIAL rexvlucyletby I am convinced Lucy Letby is innocent.
Good old women and their feelings and emotions eh? How about looking at the facts that are all suspicious when put together.
Why did she write incriminating notes in her journal? Why was she talking like she was guilty in text messages? Why was she looking up parents on FB? Why did babies get better when she was on holiday? Each on their own is not enough to convict her but when you put ALL those suspicious pieces together, it adds up. I've done jury service twice and both times the judge directs you on how to find someone guilty or not guilty by following the facts and logic and piecing it all together.
Let's take the text messages to friends. Yes she could well be feeling guilt as she was responsible for those babies care, but surely in those texts there'd be context like "I know it wasn't my fault but I just can't help but feel responsible, they were in my care." If not, if it's just ramblings of guilt, then it looks suspicious. Then add that to the journal notes of being evil, of seeing what parents post on FB in the wake of their childs death etc and that's pretty weird, creepy and not normal behaviour. She said she didn't remember doing it but the evidence was on her computer. No explanation also looks suspicious. Babies that were healthy suddenly got sick for no reason. She worked night shift a lot so there's less people around. Babies recovering from an illness suddenly got sicker in her care. Healthy babies suddenly suffered low blood sugar levels on her watch, these were the subject of insulin injections. Now add all that up together and tell me she still looks totally innocent.
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?
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!
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.
@@solomansoundstotally 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,
The interviewers argument is 'the jury said she's guilty so there' - by that logic you can never have a miscarriage of justice
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!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hospital Trusts Management teams are more concerned about their reputations than Patient safety.
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
B.S. @paulroberts7544
I have no idea whether she is guilty or not. All I know is that when I read through the newspaper reports of the trial I immediately felt very uneasy and thought "There's no real evidence against her here." Random events occur in clusters - that's what they do. And it's quite possible that if a lot of random deaths occur on your watch that you would feel that it was your fault - even though it wasn't - and feel guilty about it.
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
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?
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.
As a 40 year experienced lawyer, I agree with the guest. There was actually no evidence against her
... very complex ... based on excess mortality too ... these probably weren´t the only losses in the neonatal unit ... in prison based on coincidence ...
@@wn9861 It's specifically unexplained and unexpected deaths not simply deaths, and compounded by Letby being the only member of staff always present when suspicious deaths happened.
@@nighttrain1236 sounds simple doesn't it, it's not. Watch 'Norman Fenton', interview with Dr Scott McLachan
Paul what's your lawyer link
@@nighttrain1236 OK what are the the actual statistics
She didn't take home babies notes, she took home handover sheets which almost every nurse has probably taken home by mistake because you keep them in your pocket whilst on shift.
Good point, but there is more than that.
There is an interview of Dr Scott McLachan by Prof Norman Fenton on the latter's UA-cam channel. Dr McLachan is an academic in charge of nurse training, and Prof Fenton is a very prominent statistician. Mclachan explains that many of the things Letby did that are being treated as suspicious _are best practice_ as taught in nursing colleges. The court, not to mention the press, seem totally ignorant of this.
In particular, he says that nurses are _supposed_ to take handover-notes home with them, in case they need to be phoned about a patient while off-duty. Some don't bother, some destroy them after some delay that they decide for themselves, and some, like Letby, just let them accumulate. The police tell you about all the hand-over notes on the babies they claim she killed, but they don't tell you about all the others she had.
Retired nurse of over 25 years in nursing. I have NEVER EVER taken any nursing notes, care plans treatment sheets, discharge plans etc etc home in my career. They are legal documents and should be treated as such and kept at ward level.
Additionally, no handover notes either. Anything written about a patient can be used in a court of law.
@@user-ff6ks5mg2t Obviously practices may vary. Are you saying that a prominent academic in charge of nurse training courses is lying about what is in the curriculum? Do you think that the point of handover notes is to be used in future trials rather than to improve patient outcomes?
@@user-ff6ks5mg2tthat’s not true. Nursing notes are regularly used in a trial. Indeed, nursing notes were closely examined in this trial.
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
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
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
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!
Ladies and gentlemen this is why TalkTV is not on tv lol
The police should have been contacted from the start. Then if anything these children would be alive
@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.
Police are to busy eating coffee and donuts and more interested in expired car insurance unfortunately
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!!?
Scapegoated to save the NHS from negligence claims by the babies’ families. So those families can’t sue and NHS negligence is covered up. Lucy has been a good kid for many problems it seems.
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.
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?
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
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+
This whole thing stinks of an NHS cover up. Lucy Letby must be given a fair and proper appeal. If you're going to give someone a WHOLE life tariff, you have to be 100% certain. This is way too dodgy and fooling less and less people by the day.
24 Hour Video Cameras would make it safer in all maternity Units….this must never happen again.
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?
At first I thought she was absolutely guilty but listening to all the evidence, I’m not so sure.
Use your head man , if you were innocent , you’d be screaming bloody murder , not Lucy. 🤔
@@debraisherwood9985there is no 'one way science, hon' and I have watched those claiming that 1 way science to justify what they say. The problem is it is not science just bs and I say that as a scientist (social psychology, ecology and demography), statistician, and a person with 40+ years of investigations of suspicious deaths-partivukarly child deaths under my belt.
@@dazlivepoolkop5717 What if your council told you to keep your mouth shut? These comments are depressing. The fact that people like you, are maybe eligible for jury duty scares me.
You know why they would tell you to keep your mouth shut , because the evidence is overbearing 🤦🏼♂️
They are covering up a huge mistake I bet. They know it will cost them billions and their own freedom. They find a meek woman and place it all on her by cooking up a juicy story they know the public will eat up. Remember what Dave chappelle once said? They are geniuses at turning nothing into something to turn everyone against you
She was obviously a Patsy for the ante natal unit problems we have in many NHS units.
She obviously had a very poor representation in court.
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 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.
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.
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.
Source for that claim please?
I think lucy Letby was thrown under the bus by the consultants and doctors.
Great to hear an alternative view on this rather than the dramatic outrage
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?
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!!!!!
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
@@Andrea-ld9cyWhy he do nothing?
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
@@michaelb2388 your point?? hes done his research and is a speacialist in the field. Let's remember the witch trials in 15th and 16th century heavily relied on circumstantial evidence.
I went out with a nurse who would come home crying when one of her patients had died - it's entirely normal that Lucy Letby was upset at the death of a baby and write down how she feels evil and guilty probably because she feels if she had less of a work load she could have spent more time with each of the babies in her care - Lucy Letby is more than likely the hospitals scape goat and not guilty at all.
100 % she has been scapegoated
Yes, Andy, you have it…..Lucy, lodging complaints against more senior Staff - the perfect “Fall Guy”. Lucy’s only “fault”, if you can call it that, is that she put herself in harm’s way, in the direct line of fire, for a classic “fit - up”. 😊👶
@@andyryan3756and why scapegoated? The hospital wouldn't have suffered anyway so what's the motive for the scapegoat, a poor CQC report?
@@christopherlloyd98I don't agree and there was no reason to scapegoat anyone.
@@lesley9989 that trust was one of the worst performing trusts and the death rate amongst neonates was even higher in 2018 and 19 then when Lucy letby was there. ONS data proves that. I’m not looking to start and argument Lesley. The data shows it all. That’s not me just spouting off. X
I agree with this barrister. There are many things about this case that troubles me. I believe she deserves a retrial at the very least.
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.
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.
@@TOM-TOM-TOMExcept nobody is talking about the system, we are talking about a specific case. For this guy to come on here speaking like this when he obviously doesn't know the minutiae of the evidence and reasoning used to convict is as irresponsible as your attempt to deflect from the ops point is strange.
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
So according to David Bull she was found guilty by a jury and that’s it. End of. Absolute rubbish mate. jury’s of got convictions wrong many times of the years. just because they say guilty doesn’t mean they are always right.
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.
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.
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
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
The more i look into it the more i worry that there has been a huge miscarriage of justice.
@@ScottyDnB i literally agree
I’m a retired nurse, I have never thought that she did it, and if they were so concerned about her, why leave her on that ward? Or were they setting her up, by using the other babies as bait.
Hard to admit that a woman could be so evil. Infanticide exists as a word because it happens
I've seen some of the line of interaction between the consultants and the higher-ups, multiple doctors raised warning signs, their managers forced them to apologise and put her back on the ward. So the line about if they were so concerned about her, why leaver her on that ward doesn't really apply. It was managers making that call and in fact basically threatening the doctors with disciplinary actions if they made more complaints.
More likely that she was being used as a scapegoat and fall guy.
@@stephenfollows1scapegoat for what exactly?
@@leen1q84 Systemic failings that the managers knew about all along. So much better to drown the witch.
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.
Mark put up a good argument with those 2 clowns who refuse to look at it objectively.
A jury did
@@markwalker4142 A jury is comprised of regular people ... lorry drivers, accountants, plumbers, managers etc ... not people with medical experience ... so they have to come to a decision based on what the medical 'expert' tells them. In this case, the 'expert' turned out to not be an expert at all. So, they came to a verdict based on incorrect information.
@@markwalker4142 jury were not given all the evidense defence was shocking
I don't want to claim that Lucy Letby was innocent. My point is that most of the clue leading to a conviction were circumstantial. For the mainstream media she was guilty from the start and they are very powerful on directing the general public opinion. All I'm saying is that any sentence that carries a life imprisonment should not be based on circumstantial evidence.
'@federicobattistetti3108 And the obvious lack of a fair trial.
She suffered trial by media, as a result of which it was difficult, if not impossible, for the trial she eventually had to be fair. There should be restrictions on what the media can say about a case that is awaiting trial.
As a doctor, I don’t accept this barrister’s argument. He is presenting the idea that it is reasonable to hold the expectation that direct evidence should exist and that it is unconscionable for a jury to convict on anything short of direct evidence. He also claims to have worked in a hospital environment for several years amongst doctors of various specialties and grades in order to convey some legitimacy to his argument. I suspect his clinical understanding is not as robust as he is making out. Diagnosing an air embolism in a child is very difficult. The definitive diagnosis of air embolism is done by a CT scan, however, CT scans are seldom done on children owing to risks of ionising radiation. It was only when the air embolism caused central cyanosis (blue discolouration of the abdomen) that the doctors realised the diagnosis. If this barrister was clinically experienced then he would know this. Undoubtedly, this helped conceal Letby’s crimes. I suspect there were several deaths where Letby caused an air embolism which caused death without causing any signs. Furthermore, even if you could radiologically/clinically diagnose air embolism, you would have to physically see Letby injecting air into the cannula/central line/TPN line in order to get ‘direct evidence’. This is an almost impossible expectation to hold. Again, the barrister would know this if he was clinically experienced. Doctors/nurses put in cannulas all the time and it is standard practice to flush the cannula with isotonic saline fluid after it is placed. It is extremely easy for someone to pretend like they are flushing saline when they could be injecting air and it is testimony to the treachery of Letby that she chose this method of killing which left absolutely zero paper trail. I am sorry but I do not accept his arguments. I know what is and isn’t reasonably possible and the medical experts when providing their reports would have regard, perhaps even excessive regard, to the possibility that these were negligent as opposed to deliberate acts.
Any views on the strange rash found on the babies, that couldn’t be explained. Do you know what I mean?
Is it possible that a virus could of caused the deaths?
I do share Marks views on the case (at this point in time). The way things have played out does suggest that it is not known that Lucy Letby did this crime. Like the length of time the case has taken and the fact that the police arrested her three times for it.
I’m not defending her, just simply adding up the facts.
@@daviddavis7665 That strange rash is the blue discolouration I mentioned earlier. This is known as cyanosis and this happened because the air in the blood caused the blood flow to stop to the abdominal skin (and subcutaneous tissue). It was intermittent because there were times when the blood flow would temporarily reinstated and temporarily suspended due the nature of the occlusion to blood flow caused by the air embolism. However, this abdominal cyanosis will not happen in every single baby that Letby would inject air into. The way the embolism kills is by blocking blood flow to the heart or to the brain. If you put enough air into the blood, you will cause one of these events to occur. When blood to the heart/brain is interrupted, all you will observe is that the baby will become unresponsive and die. Maybe some preceding crying also. However, you will only observe central cyanosis when the blood supply to the abdominal skin is interrupted and this probably happened in a select number of cases of babies where she injected air into the blood. Hence, there is very good reason to think that she probably killed a lot more by this method.
Secondly, a virus or any kind of bug would not cause the blue/purple discolouration rash on the abdomen. Whenever you see blue/purple discolouration you are dealing with cyanosis which means blood supply to that part of the body has been interrupted. Viral/bacterial infections will typically cause an erythematous (red) rash. The intermittent nature of the rash is also in keeping with cyanosis due to the periodic occlusion/reinstating of blood flow to abdominal skin as explained above.
I can see why people agree with Mark MacDonald. In my view, he is presenting an unacceptably high threshold of proof. The difficulty in this case is that the murders occurred in a clinical environment which is a very different environment to where most murders occur. In order to have some idea of what is and isn’t reasonably possible you have to work in the clinical environment which most people haven’t done. This is why Letby had the backing of the (non-clinical) managers. If the legal system followed Mark MacDonald’s unacceptably high threshold of proof, Letby would never go to jail and justice would never be served.
@@MillieBeal The only way I could ever know is if I ever saw her injecting air in the blood or saw her harm a child by inserting metal instruments into its mouth. However, there are times when the circumstantial evidence is so incriminating that you can say it’s good enough for you to be satisfied that it couldn’t possibly have occurred without any impropriety on Letby’s part.
Letby was very cunning. She chose methods like air embolism which left zero paper trail and were hard to diagnose. She also selected her victims very well by choosing to kill babies who were already unwell (as many premature babies are). This way, when the baby died suddenly, there would be a very plausible reason for the death owing to physiological complications of prematurity which meant that no post mortem would be carried out which could implicate her. She also varied her method of killing employing a range of techniques involving the injection of air, the injection of insulin and also the injection of excessive milk into feeding tubes going into the stomach which would cause the diaphragm to stop working resulting in cardio-respiratory arrest. She did all of this to evade detection and there was significant planning and preparation in her activity.
The problem people have in accepting her crimes is because these murders have occurred in a clinical environment which most people aren’t familiar with. If you were walking down the street at 0200 and saw a man profusely bleeding from the abdomen with multiple stab wounds you would be pretty sure that his injuries would be the result of a stabbing. Similarly, if you saw a neonate born at 25 weeks gestation, who was on oxygen supplementation suddenly drop his oxygen saturation on the monitor within moments of Letby entering his bay then it would be obvious that Letby had manipulated the tubes. This exact scenario was described by one of the consultants in an interview. She was never charged on this particular case…..
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.
Well a barrister would say that, wouldn't he. Not a medical expert or psychologist. Letby knew exactly what she was doing and like many serial killers, kept going because nobody stopped her. And she knew that it's easier to cover up the death of premature babies than full term babies.
Why would this particular barrister, who on his own admission was not involved in the LL case make a statement regarding his doubts that she had a free trial be motivated by anything other than strong personal conviction? Clearly he had no financial motive. He is a KC and an expert on law and forensic evidence, giving his opinion on the conduct of the trial. He had absolutely no need to speak out and could have remained silent. It is to his credit that he did not do so.
Have to keep an open mind , moms we’re put in jail for cot deaths , and over baby deathS .
Yes, exactly. Poor Sally Clarke
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.
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.
patterns aren't evidence, they are only a reason for further investigation
I thought she was guilty but recently I've started to have my doubts about the strength of evidence. It would be a terrible thing if we convicted an innocent person of this.
I followed the case and the transcripts of the court . Don’t have doubts she is guilty . This barrister and there’s like him are cherry picking
Im surprised more people arent feeling a little bit surprised at how little evidence there was against Lucy.
Taking home notes isnt murder?
Being on duty isnt murder?
Then there was all that stuff about the married doctor- I mean what on earth was that supposed to be about?
Then the press are going on about her bedroom and cats as if somehow any of that is relevant.
As more and more of this slush was reported I started feeling really uncomfortable about how little of it seemed to have any meaning.
Same. I'm also impressed how the cherry picking of words in a paper that sound more like what a depressed person would write can count as a confession.
Surely you cannot be for one second naively dismissing the fact she had records of the very babies who died, searched up the parents and messaged, wrote in the notes I am evil I did this, evil, hate, I killed them… wake up
@@Deleted11100 She had lots of other material from work as well, none of which was relevant to the case. As with other aspects of this, the police have cherry-picked tiny details from a wealth of evidence and used it to claim that everything points to her.
How would you feel about Nurse Letby looking afer a baby of yours.
@@jillhornby5604 Entirely happy, thanks, because there's not a shred of evidence against her.
I'm with the Barrister on this one, the evidence was simply not substantial enough.
So is it lacking or is there no evidence these are Two completely different things?
Oh my good god where is this guy coming from. A criminal lawyer defending Lucy letby please stop trying to explain this to us. If Lucy letby was innocent she would be vigorously voicing her innocence I’m not guilty I did not kill those poor innocent defenceless babies. My conscience is clear I’m not guilty of these horrible crimes. I’m not a baby killer
How can you assume this? Everyone reacts differently. Besides, so few people will have ever been in a situation where they've been (perhaps falsely) accused of such heinous crimes and had to endure several years of torment involving arrest and rearrest while the general condemnation and hatred grows exponentially even before any trial commenced. I'd wager that most people's mental health would be shot to pieces well before the time they appeared in court.
She literally has been protesting her innocence for years.
you have a very simplistic narrow mind if this is how you think complex cases are solved.
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
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.
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.
When she was off or went on holiday, no deaths hmmmm.
@@charlytaylor1748Her confession note isn't circumstantial though.
Let us also talk about all those Post Office employees that were imprisoned for embezzlement, when they were totally innocent!
As a former employee of Australia Post, I can remember a couple of posties who were found guilty of mail theft. Both were guilty as sin.
@@deanpd3402 the U.K. Post Office scandal involved the criminalisation of hundreds of sub postmasters and postmasters (or should I say post people) who were wrongly criminalised, lost their jobs, put in prison only to be proved years later to have been totally innocent.
@@NoPeaceForNazis how does someone equate wanting to get a Dr’s love interest with murdering babies? Sounds so bizarre, oh look at me Dr here’s another dead baby ask me out for a date!
Uh, whats that got to do with this case? Or are you pulling a whataboutism like Johnnie Cochran?
You missed the point!@@TDKiller415
if she felt she was innocent why didnt she go along to court for sentencing and cry out she had been a victim of a miscarriage of justice? Her silence and absence speaks volumes !!! Correct verdict was reached.
Absolute rubbish!!!
If she is innocent, after years of being accused of being a baby murderer, and sitting through a 10 month trial, where she knows she is being used as a scapegoat, she falls at the last hurdle, which proves her guilt.
After YEARS of screaming NOT GUILTY, her last screams have been screamed, she can’t face what could be a complete travesty that puts an innocent woman in prison for the rest of her life, never mind the rubbishing of her and her parents name for the rest of their lives, and because she is spent, you think this prover guilt.
As I said before absolute rubbish!
That suits your agenda . If I had been found guilty while innocent would be stuff this kangaroo court I'm not sitting through their nonsense ..
you are in the minority, majority says she is guilty. not one newspaper is defending her. @@wazz1154
So who injected the insulin into those two babies? Letby even said it had to be on purpose. Only her and one other nurse were present when both of events happened. Letby also was the only nurse present for all 7 murders and a further 10 attempted murders. The only one. There were also post mortems on some of the babies who were judged, by two independent experts, to have died from air embollis. These show up in xrays. There was also toxicology reports showing exogenous insulin that got missed. So there was evidence. She also had notes from the victims, facebooked the families of the victims, wrote she was ‘evil’ and ‘she did this’, she behaved strangely in front of the parents grieving with their dead baby; one parent is adamant she caught her in the act of killing her child. Two consultants became increasingly suspicious of her. Again, one caught her alone with a baby whilst it was crashing, alarms not bleeping, and said she was doing nothing. He went in there to check as he had a bad feeling about her when he learned one nurses asked letby to look after the child when she was on a break. He needs to look through the trial. There was toxicology and autopsy reports showing they were murdered.
The insulin is the only piece of evidence that I would want answers to had I been a juror .
Apart from that I believe she could be innocent ....
All purely circumstantial ....
There was errors in some of the babies care since day 1 ....
Letby had medical notes in her room dating back to 2011.
Nobody turns into an evil psychopath overnight
Someone was there for the highest number of deaths and that person happened to be Letby. She was there for 13 of the 31 babies who died.
How can she be the only one when there were 18 babies in the unit and the ratio is at least 1 nurse to 2 babies?
Everyone facebooks, possibly less now we know this can be traced. I think the consultant being interviewed almost crying as he talks about the deaths was more suspicious. These sad demises were a good while ago now. I can talk about loved ones I miss dreadfully without emotion in my voice. He himself must be used to babies dying. There are still many still births. Vets become hardened to putting down animals even though they would prefer to help them. It’s all rather confusing but one has to keep a level head.
I believe the hospital has long suffered from poor management, under staffing and poor hygiene amongst many issues highlighted in inspections over the years. The latest i think was as recently as 2021 or 2022 . It was also reported that the neonatal department was so bad at one point, that the number of babies being treated had to be reduced by treating them at neighbouring hospitals. It is reported that despite the lower numbers, the death rate remained high.
The fact that there are questions over the conviction, must mean that "beyond doubt" has not been achieved.....
A search of CofC hospital brings lots of info and reports, that the ONS, hospital and NHS have released.
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!
Just because someone have been found guilty in a court of law by a jury doesn’t mean they are. There are cases that have had the greatest forms of evidence against them and have been found innocent years later. I’m not saying she’s innocent,I’m saying there’s many,many cases of innocence being proven in some cases decades later
She fucking did it and you know it.
@@TheRedPerilnobody really knows but her. She probably did it though
YOU just want to have sec with her
This is funny it’s like when men defend a man accused of rape. Women are trying to make a case for a woman not killing little babies.
stevengoddard7685. Try to keep some perspective. And be rational. And polite. The poster was only stating a fact.
Listening to what has come from FOIA requests from the hospital I’m sickened to think this poor young woman was a scapegoat for incompetence by the hospital being understaffed and taking on severe cases they weren’t staffed for. The baby deaths were higher the months after she was taken off the ward. No outside investigation by epidemiologist for a bacterial or viral infection outbreak due to broken sewage pipes in the unit over several weeks. And now she’s been denied an appeal. Justice is dead.
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.
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....
Just nonsense, she contradicted her statements, falsified records, collected confidential documents she shouldn’t have had access to and speculated on police involvement when no one had accused her of anything yet. She acted guilty from the moment she was transferred. The failings of the hospital merely provided a convenient smoke screen for her to become more audacious each time.
All that may be true but none of it is proof that she murdered anyone.
@@holycannoli64 the jury spent a month on deliberation. I’ll take their considered opinion over your gut feel
@@nicksherreard1215 not a gut feeling. Just linking evidence to conclusions. An intellectual endeavour. It's not an article of faith for me that juries are infallible. They're made up of people just like you.
@@holycannoli64 people who have been present at a trial for ten months. So not like me at all in fact
@@nicksherreard1215 whoosh!
Ummm it’s not a coincidence if the same person is on duty EVERY time a baby died. The interview of the guy who actually investigated this is worthwhile listening to. He didn’t investigate her, he investigated the causes of death of all the babies. This lawyer is full of BS.
She wasn't there for all cases claimed, and at times there were multiple other consultants and nurses in the same room at the same time as her!. Do you think if you wanted to unalive a baby, you would attempt to do it in a room with more than 4 people in?.
If you only look at cases where babies died AND where she was on duty, then that's what you'll find! There's lies, damned lies, and then there's statistics! What if the police were trying to catch a shoplifter and was convinced it was you because you looked shifty. First they looked at JUST the days YOU visited Tesco AND THEN a took subset of that data of all of THOSE days that shoplifting occurred, then presented ONLY the evidence where shoplifting and your attendance coincided; ignoring all the days where shoplifting occurred when you weren't in store AND ignoring the days where shoplifting didn't occur when you were in store. Would that prove you were the shoplifter? You're obviously guilty! There are lots of stats that show a significant rise in infant mortality NOT associated at all with Lucy Letby and a drop when other staff left the hospital, too. Also ALL the evidence is circumstantial. No post mortems occurred at the time that proved anything other than natural deaths and these were reversed years later WITHOUT any new evidence. The issues with this case go on and on. Even the notes make total sense when you consider when they were written, and the immense pressure and guilt she was made to feel from being accused of these crimes. I genuinely feel that she's been tried by social media and hysteria, and that she's 100% innocent. This is huge miscarriage of justice. They DO happen in the UK, regularly! Look at the post office scandal, Andrew Malkinson - look at the evidence that was supressed there! Think about how our institutions protects themselves too - Hillsborough, Steven Lawrence, Government PPE for example. This is NOT a safe conviction at all. Now just for a moment imagine if she genuinely is innocent!
not one baby has died since she was sacked
I agree and I think she is guilty but if it wasn't her but another nurse you would stop once Letby had gone otherwise the attention would focus back on your group of nurses again.
The hospital wasn't allowed the sick babies after she left so less deaths. They were all taken to a more experienced hospital. I also have my doubts but don't know all the facts
@@rebeccalloyd3098Fewer deaths
She is guilty as the day is long, bring back the death penalty
She was on a desk job and also medical leave due to leg surgery prior to her arrest. This leaves ample time to scrutinise between her being off the ward and being arrested!
These two presenters have already made their minds up about her guilt when many of the jury couldn't.
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....
Do you know i actually feel uneasy about her conviction this could easily be a really poor hospital off loading blame.
Same.! The time frame too, surely deaths would have occurred over a longer period too? The just randomly started one day, then they stopped the next year? Never heard of a serial killer murdering for a year of their life then quitting 🤔
Me too.
Ok. You feel uneasy. But did you sit through the months of evidence presented in court? No, neither did I.
"evidence", crap that the cops say
You’ll be saying we never landed on the moon which we all know never happened considering Russia crashed a rocket into the moon the other day
I agree with this lawyer 100%
This is an unsafe conviction which an ignorant jury with no expertise judged her to be guilty on flimsy circumstantial evidence rather than actual evidence!
Where is the proof? This poor woman is the victim of an outrageous miscarriage of justice!
I am bravely calling it out now.
I hope she wins her appeal.
So how is it that in one year 7 babies died and 6 almost died when the average baby deaths in a year is 3? So what they were having a bad year? Those 7 consultants who all said they suspected letby, they were all wrong? The fact she was at each incident in some cases she was the first person there. How exactly is this not pointing to guilty?
I cannot believe you actually wrote that comment...are you an NHS manager ???
@@michaelclatworthy8364 people believed Ted Bundy. I'm not surprised there are still gullible people like this around.
@@aishaarshadalam3412 and Harold Shipman was held in high regard !
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.