Lucy Letby: Debate on the case and conviction of serial killer nurse | The Reaction
Вставка
- Опубліковано 26 вер 2024
- Lucy Letby: A Reaction Special.
In a Reaction special, Peter Hitchens and writer and economist Christopher Snowdon debate the merits for the case brought against and the conviction of serial killer Lucy Letby.
Hitchens has repeatedly called for the case to be re-examined, arguing there are grounds Letby could be the victim of an unsafe conviction, while Snowdon has in the past referred to the voices doubting the veracity of Letby’s guilt, as ‘a gaggle of armchair detectives, armchair pathologists and armchair barristers.’
Over the space of an hour, Snowdon and Hitchens attempt to find some middle ground in a case that has divided and shocked a nation.
To get in touch email Reaction@dailymail.co.uk, you can leave a comment on Spotify or even send us a voice note on WhatsApp - on 07796 657512 start your message with the word 'reaction'
Presenters: Peter Hitchens & Christopher Snowdon
Producer: Philip Wilding
Editor: Sam Chisholm
Production Manager: Vittoria Cecchini
Executive Producer: Jamie East
A Daily Mail production. Seriously Popular
Daily Mail Website: www.dailymail....
Daily Mail Facebook: / dailymail
Daily Mail IG: / dailymail
Daily Mail Snap: / daily-ma. .
Daily Mail Twitter: / mailonline
Daily Mail Pinterest: pinterest.co.u...
Get the free Daily Mail mobile app: dailymail.co.u...
![Would We Be Better Off Without Religion? - Christopher Hitchens [2007] ✝️ | Intelligence Squared](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/DIR7_X-ahy4/mqdefault.jpg)
we won't get tired we want justice
It wasn't a NG tube on baby k.it was a ET tube which a nurse would not move
A man who is not a professional statistician dismissing out of hand professional statisticians' assessment of the statistical evidence? That about sums up the quality of the prosecution's case.
Peter, Christopher let you make your opening statement without interrupting and you should have granted him the same curtesy.
Peter should learn to listen
@@jemimapowell It is actually something he has unlearned over time
Courtesy
Christopher doesn't convince me that Lucy is guilty.
He didn't spend a single sentence on explaining why he thinks Lucy is guilty.
It's about the unsafe nature of this conviction. Lucy Letby did not receive a fair trial. That should be of concern to everyone !
@@SuperHuia She had one of the fairest trials in legal history. Newspapers weren't even allowed to report on it until the trial had started and only then could say what the jury had heard.
@@8964TS nothing fair in using dodgy statistical data. Nothing fair in conveniently leaving out evidence that could point the jury in another direction. Nothing fair in a jury provided with allegations of murder when no one is actually sure any murders took place. This is the sort of trial that would take place in Russia
Trial transcript in full, minus privacy redactions, should be free. Justice should be transparent and democratic.
As taxpayers we've already paid for it. Anything in Court should be public record.
@@idi0tdetectioninprogress
I think you’re right
Agreed. Democracy for the people!
Can't you just make a freedom of information act claim? Like any government document that's not classified, any citizen in a western country can just ask for and get.
@@Prometheus4096 we don't have an unlimited right to even non-classified information. It wouldn't change anyone's minds anyway. Most people commenting haven't read the trial reporting or even the Court of Appeal judgment. They're not going to read 10 months worth of verbatim transcripts. Also, the public having access is not going to help LL, who can only appeal on the basis of a point of law and/or "fresh evidence".
Thank you Hitchens. A brave intervention. Justice should never be taken for granted. So many unanswered questions here.
Really ?? Disregard statistics and coroners work in its full?? What a world!!
Statistics are not evidence. How can you determine whether or not you’ll die in a car crash on your way to work just by statistics?
Wow Christopher Snowdon was extremely arrogant.
It's not arrogant to lay out the realities of the legal system to those that don't want to hear it. To paraphrase the man, "you're going to need a lot more than that"
@@steveblundell7766 A lot more than what? The medical evidence has been so thoroughly discredited its almost as if Evans plucked it out of thin air.
The bogus spreadsheet has also been comprehensively debunked and even ridiculed by eminent statisticians from The Royal Statistical Society.
What is left is just 'noise' to quote Lady Thirwall.
@@steveblundell7766 But that's not what he is saying, though. Most people will feel this trial was unfair. If you think this trial was properly done, then your view is that the entire UK justice system is broken.
Not true. I think the trial was as meticulous as it could possibly be
@@Vicr-m4x Not true at all. The defence didn't even have expert witnesses. In a jury trial, that's actually like making a confession. There is no way in any trial that a jury is going with the side that has 0 medical experts when the other side had 6. Especially in a trial with only circumstantial evidence that is all medical in origin. In a trial where we can't even be sure if an actual murder was committed, you can't with a straight face say that running a de facto admission of guilty defence, is a fair trial. Calling the trial 'meticulous' is also a stretch. It would be better to call the trial 'messy' and 'convoluted' and 'confusing to any jury'. The problem was that the trial was so long and that there were so many lines of evidence that the judge should probably have thrown out.
"All this Nonsense" he says...dismissing the questions...dismissing the concerns of us all...meanwhile an innocent young woman festers in Prison for a crime that she didn't commit...this whole case is disgusting.
The chart wasnt statistics? What?
I take it this was recorded prior to the last few days of statements to Thirwell inquiry - specifically Christopher's dismissal out of hand of the state of hygiene and care at the Neo-nat ward, by all fair assessment the unit was not up to scratch - also curious that none of the cases of deaths were due to infection? but sepsis was critical in a number of cases, typically caused by infection - so could Christopher explain his comments, or point to details in the court proceedings that are publicly available? How was infection categorically ruled out?
Great debate by the way
1. The audio version was published on 17 September, so it was recorded on or before then. 2. There was no evidence at trial that any of the infants had infections.
.kre intresting is the inquiry has shown massive incompetence from people not named lucy letby...but the inquiry is just ignoring it
@@scottaznavourian3720 most of that incompetence being from people who refused to remove Letby from her duties till far too many babies had been murdered.
@@Vicr-m4x well u haven't been paying attention to the inquiry cause uts about the personnel on duty for the 'victins'
Uts not actually
Christopher Snowdon reminds me of a Labour MP Keir Stamer !
Keep looking into this Peter it was a witch hunt from the start !
I think at some point PH might regret spearheading this campaign
I don't think so as since reporting restrictions have been lifted the prosecution case has fallen apart. It is now obvious Lucy Letby is innocent.
Well done, Peter Hitchens. Stay strong.
Well done for having the mental capacity of a plank of wood...
@@FitziCal 😂😂😂😂😂😂
@@JC-tn7ow She's guilty get over it already
@@joshb7326 Lucy is innocent
@@ruthbashford3176 No she's not you're delusional
"Dr Dewi Evans requests all the details, all the clinical records of the deaths that had taken place between January 2015 and July 2016 and also any clinical records of strange or unexplained collapses."
What I'm wondering is who was it that determined which records contained a strange or unexplained collapse. Was this done by someone who knew Lucy, maybe even someone with a bias against her? If it was done by someone who knew Lucy then that destroys the claim that the study was blind.
Great debate from Peter Hitchens. Lots of important points made. Christopher Snowdon really doesn't seem to know what statistics are.
The doctors and nurses at the hospital, with combined decades of experience and medical knowledge, are more than qualified to recognize strange and unexplained collapses. These are people who can diagnose on sight and from asking targeted questions, and then draw on an encyclopaedic knowledge of medicine to determine the course of treatment. They're not you and me, groping around in the dark. It's their area of expertise.
the judge and the jury are lay persons. that's why they took so long to figure something out.
the nurse is a passionate career person
&she frowns upon mismanagement in the nhs system .
she becomes a pariah and she has to be removed from the hospital and therefore a scenario is created:-
1. she's got to be removed out of here, from the unit. asap to cover our incompetence
2. the number one police whistleblower is a tv star with eloquence with an amazing memory of things emblazioned into memory two years later. an actor of skill.
3. there are two huge issues here with the above:- non contemporaneous note keeping by the primary witness, the tv star. gmc will frown upon that. secondly :- no mention of primary anatomy:/ -an iv injection how ( the f...)could it reach the arterial circulation, to reach the skin to cause a rash??
this whole story is much like the middle ages burning of witches at stake.
Weirdo
@@Swansong321 read para 3
Absolutely 👍👍 FREE Lucy Now
unfortunately innocent pwople have been wrongly accused of guiltiness , unfairly /often which is because police, can be very rude / not listen / as when I had right or road /was nearly killed / knoced of my bicycle by a wicked man who did not stop as he came out of a side road into the main roaad as i signalled to turn right,.I was talen to hospital with serious injuries!!!!1
Sorry?
After listening to someone on UA-cam doing hours of the trial transcript and anti Lucy. From this it seem apparent that the only things that she seemed guilty of, is working hard and working extra hours. By all accounts the babies where very ill to be there in the first place, and as a result you would expect the death rate, would be higher than say on the ward that had healthy babies. If you look hard enough you can find professional and competent medical staff that can argue both ways, an example of this was the child abuse case in Newcastle and satanic practices which were false in the end. I ask myself is this another case where the professionals have got it wrong.
Have you listened to courtroom number 2’s transcript of the prosecution’s summing up, also on youtube? Its forensic and thorough and the weight of evidence is absolutely enormous. It’s 10 hours long btw
‘Working hard’ 🙄
@@Vicr-m4x There is no solid evidence and the circumstantial evidence is not remotely convincing. Quantity does not mean quality. The evidence is just opinion and speculation.
@@Vicr-m4xyes I have and it’s come from his preconceived bias of the whole case which he is now inciting others to believe
Um he's the prosecution lawyer, doh! The point is she couldn't come up with any defence in the face of such mountains of - yes - circumstantial evidence
'
It's not just about statistics but that certainly is the first step. When you are suspicious of committing a crime, the investigators have to prove that you were present at the time of crime. If you were not present, then you have an alibi and can be cleared. If you don't have an alibi, authorities have to look for other evidence that can either clear or convict the person who is under suspicion that does not have an alibi. There was too much other evidence that Letby killed them. She was not convicted solely on statistics. You did not follow the trial Hitchens, I followed the entire trial. She is guilty as sin.
Snowden debating here reminds me of school where you're put on the opposing debate side that you don't believe in and have to spout a load of nonsense just to keep talking.
I'm sorry that happened to you, I do hope you recover from it
@@steveblundell7766I love this
Snowdon's criticism of the statisticians is unfair. Letby came under suspicion in the first place because Dr Brearey noticed what he regarded as a correlation between Letby's shifts and the deaths, since described by them as 'scientifically worthless'. He makes statistical assertions of his own (from his armchair even) about the likelihood of certain events, precisely the points addressed by Richard Gill, Jane Hutton and others. Also he seems very dismissive of the criticisms by other highly qualified and regarded medical and scientific experts (not ghouls and armchair critics) of the trial evidence who were not consulted at the time, and those who were but were not called. Where he makes detailed assertions these should be answered by such experts. If anything there seem to be very few of them (any?) coming forward to express support for the interpretations presented to the jury. Once a healthcare professional has been identified as a potential serial killer, particularly on spurious statistical grounds, the quality of the medical evidence will be critical and it should not be left to the prosecution alone to present this, using whoever they can find. It is not surprising so many are worried the same thing may happen to them. That there is so much detailed scientific debate about the evidence in this case in itself suggests the convictions are less than safe. It is at least encouraging that at the end some partial agreement on this point was reached.
The deaths weren't investigated on these grounds, as this conversation explains. Oh i can't be bothered. If you want to ignore the facts, you will anyway. Its like snowdon says, round and round in circles
And that is no kind of agreement at the end - apart from an agreement to disagree
Exactly. The whole case is build around the idea that babies died on Lucy Letby's shift. It is how the entire thing started. And how, under the theory that she is innocent, everyone else convinced themselves that the babies were murdered and that she did it. If this entire idea is faulty, which it seems to be, then that is extremely damning. So far, it seems babies died very often before she came to work in that hospital. And that by chance, which is actually perfectly normal, she just happened to be on many of those shifts, but not even all. And they just made up that the babies that died on her shifts were 'harmed' and thus 'murdered'. And those babies that died before she started to work there, or were not on her shifts, died of illness. The fact is that if I go into a a casino and watch a poker hand, literally every hand that I see is extremely unlikely to happen. And if I decide those hands are 'special', then I can't explain why unlikely it is that I just happened to get that one special hand. But the actual answer is, I constructed the entire thing. So what we need is statistical evidence by an actual medical or forensic statistician that shows that given all 29 million nurses world-wide, it is extremely unlikely that a nurse just happens to be present on shifts every single time a baby dies of illness. And that it can't possible by Lucy Letby that is the most unlucky nurse in the world. But they didn't do that. Which is why the trial is unfair. Because it is all conformation bias, even if Letby actually murdered the babies.
Have you compared this case with Lucia De Berk in Netherlands - now labelled Netherlands largest miscarriage of justice - where the same sort of evidence was presented, the same preventative approach was asserted to challenge - and eventually was overturned? It's very, very similar in the prosecution case build..
I would not say "the same sort of evidence was presented." In Lucia de Berk’s case, her conviction relied heavily on statistical analysis that was later discredited. In contrast, Letby’s case is based on direct allegations involving specific incidents
@@steveblundell7766no that is not true. It was based on statistics, but also on what she wrote in her diary ( I gave in to my compulsion again, which later turned out to be tarot card reading) and medical information that later turned out to be incorrect. She is said to have given babies certain medication because this would have been proven by blood tests. This was later undermined by various doctors. Do you see the similarities with Lucy Letby? It is really eerie
@@schippersfamilie3213 The fact that Lucia de Berk was exonerated does raise questions about potential outcomes for Letby but does not directly suggest that she will experience a similar fate. Each case is unique: The legal systems in which these cases are prosecuted differ significantly (UK vs. Netherlands), which can affect how evidence is evaluated and what constitutes reasonable doubt. Exoneration typically occurs when there is clear evidence proving wrongful conviction; until such evidence emerges regarding Letby’s innocence or guilt, you cannot predict her outcome based solely on Lucia de Berk’s experience.
@@steveblundell7766 Not true. The entire reason the Lucy Letby case was created it that people thought it was very statistically unlikely for her to be present during each baby deaths. The way Lucy Letby did her job, or how the babies died, nothing of any of that suggested to anyone that babies were being murdered and that Lucy was doing it. After that, everyone convinced themselves that Lucy murdered the babies, and every other fact about her was then re-interpreted. And that's what everyone talked about during the trial. Which is why in countries were rule of law actually matters, rather than countries were people are king because of whose vagina they craw out of, or where judges wear wigs, hearsay is not allowed in court.
It's not at all accurate to say the same sort of evidence was presented. Where are you getting your misinformation?
How many times should it be retried, until the doubters get the result they want?
Give it a. Independe t set of medical experts and they will destroy dewi evans hypothetical garbage..
As many times as is needed until the prosecution come up with hard physical indisputable factual evidence that a single murder was in fact committed at all.
@@hazzard8760 that will never happen
They can retry it as many times as they want. But until there is actually direct evidence, probably physical, that the babies were indeed murdered, you can't decide 'beyond a reasonable doubt' that she murdered those babies. The sad fact is that even if Lucy Letby did murder the babies, because there was no investigation, there is no way to have any evidence. And therefore no way to prove her guilty in court beyond a reasonable doubt. We will have to let her walk free. We will don't know if any murders were committed. And the jury was just bamboozled twice by a very unfair trial, a ton of circumstantial and doubtful evidence pushed by medical experts. Evidence that the judge shouldn't even have allowed. And the defence that basically ran a 'I plead guilty-type of defence by not calling their own medical experts. Questioning Lucy Letby for 60 hours is completely crazy as well. It doesn't mean anything. There is no point in putting her in cross for several days to prove her guilt. It is crazy that the judge even allowed that. If you can't prove your case of murder beyond a reasonable doubt by interrogating the suspect for in 1 hour, then you simply don't have a case. After 3 hours, the judge should stop the interrogation. Letby was interrogated for SIXTY HOURS! That alone proves the trial was unfair.
@@scottaznavourian3720 Dewi Evans wasn't the sole expert who looked at the case. There were half a dozen others who either peer reviewed his analysis and agreed with it, or did their own specialist analysis based on their area of expertise. They're all named in the appeals judgement:
i) Dr Andreas Marnerides, forensic pathologist and histopathologist;
ii) Professor Owen Arthurs, consultant paediatric radiologist;
iii) Professor Sally Kinsey, consultant paediatric haematologist;
iv) Professor Peter Hindmarsh, consultant paediatric endocrinologist;
v) Professor Stavros Stivaros, consultant paediatric neuroradiologist;
vi) Dr Simon Kenney, consultant paediatric surgeon.
In addition, Dr Sandie Bohin did a peer review of Dr Evans' report.
Christopher Snowden ignores the possibility of statistical clusters.
Get a proper statistician on this subject. PLEASE.
This would be interesting to listen to if they didn’t talk over one another, and one more than the other
Of course Dewi Evans knew who the suspect was. In Cheshire Constabulary's Hummingbird propaganda film Paul Hughes admitted at the beginning of the film that everyone knew who the suspect was as she had been removed from the ward. It was even in the media.
Is it correct that Dr Evans was assisted in his investigations by one of the consultants ?
All we do know in the first instance is that he was not approached but offered his services claiming to be an expert. The definition of"expert" is highly questionable. In the UK, anyone can put themselves forward claiming to be an expert. Its up to the prosecution, defence or judge as to whether they accept their expert evidence. In the US the ability to be an expert in a particular field is far more rigorous and meticulous
It wasnt. She wasnt arrested until after his investigation was completed. Lies lies lies. Get real folks!
But how would Evans know which incidents Letby was present for?
It wasn't in the media. She wasn't named until much later. All the early reports just say "a nurse".
Has Ms Letby been psychologically/psychiatrically evaluated?
Not necessary as this is a political NHS trial so no need! The result is to be expected and is contrived! Why would 19 neonatal support the innocence of Lucy Letby! Defence should have called expert evidence!
Whatever you think, this was a super entertaining conversation.
It is quite simply WRONG to talk about "the scene of crime" when there is no proof that any crimes were committed. Misleading language due to muddled thoughts. Shame on you Christopher Snowdon. SHAME.
So babies not prescribed insulin had life threateningly low blood sugars which could only be caused by injection of synthetic insulin which even letby agreed they must have been. And no crime has been committed?
I was one who thought Lucy was guilty but now I'm not sure.imagine going to prison for these terrible crimes and your innocent.
If you were would you say in your police interview " I just think we as a nursing team were concerned" or would you say " yes I was so worried and no I didn't f ing do this" etc. I wish they'd release more of the police interviews.
its not for armchair detectives to argue the case. it should be done by professionals, in a court of law, which it seems it wasn't as LL essentially had no defence. that is a grand error and oversight which should never have happened. this will need to be gone back on and redone.
She had one of the top barristers in the country. He engaged experts too. The fact that he chose not to call them speaks volumes.
@@rachell7682 on the surface of it, yes, it would be easy to say that but I think there's something more to it myself.
Shocking! Unfortunately, we see far too often in UK legal system that there is huge pressure on police and others to close cases and prosecute. If the case is entirely circumstantial, isn’t by default there an element of uncertainty and dare I say, a reasonable doubt??
No. The standard of proof is that the jury must be sure the defendant is guilty. The standard of proof is not that there must be N people who directly witnessed the defendant commit the crime.
@@arfurascii2232 Isn’t part of their instruction from the judge that they must find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? I can’t fathom how this is possible in an ENTIRELY circumstantial case. Of course I don’t know if she is guilty or not, we won’t really know until the transcript is available.
@@customisedfitness 1. For several decades the criminal standard of proof has been that the jury must be "sure" the defendant is guilty.
2. If you demand only direct evidence, i.e. witnesses to the defendant doing the crime, then you are freeing a lot of criminals. There is nothing inherently wrong with circumstantial evidence. What matters is the quality of the evidence. (By the way, witnesses can be mistaken.)
3. The "transcript" is not a mind-reading device, it won't be able to tell you whether LL is or isn't guilty.
UK system also has 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. Apparently, that is what a jury decided two times. Not a surprise if one side has medical experts, the other side does not, and all the evidence is circumstantial medical evidence that you need to be an expert in to even know what it means. If you can't have your own medical expert cast doubt on what the experts of the prosecution are asserting, it is like not even having a trial at all.
Christopher Snowden kept talking over Peter Hitchens, who doesn’t speak clearly anyway.
Really irritating!
*Snowdon
He has to, to get a word in
Peter is absolutely brilliant he knows she's innocent 😎🙏🙏🙏Free Lucy Now
I have a problem with bringing multiple cases together in circumstantial evidence cases where each case is supported by the 'weight of evidence' of the existence of the other charges which are also unsettled at that time. Each case should be heard separately on it's own merits. After all - they get sentenced separately...
Air embolism never happens! They chose air embolism to to weaponize their political mission to get a conviction!
That’s such a mad idea when the evidence is so interconnected. A new jury sworn in each time? A new judge? And imagine being letby in remand on all these charges - the trials would have dragged on for years and years and years!
Large amounts of non-probative evidence are no more convincing than small amounts. The prosecution had no proof of guilt. The scenarios in which she is innocent are far more likely to be true than the scenario of her being a serial killer.
The more circumstantial evidence you need to prove your case. An 8 month trial in total The longer you need to put the murder suspect on the stand, 60 hours over a 14 day period. The more likely the suspect is innocent. And the more likely the trial was unfair even if the suspect was guilty.
@@Prometheus4096 The more charges there are, the longer a person stays on the stand. It's that simple. She was charged with 22 murders and attempted murders, and each one was looked at in turn. It's pretty easy to see why that could take 60 hours. It's not even 3 hours per charge.
She did it but evidence is terrible ...cctv should be put in all these units to avoid this in future.
Lucy did what? The babies she was supposed to have murdered had post mortems and were found to have died from natural causes. Baby E did not have a post mortem but he died from natural causes and sub optimal care.
Evidence is nom existant...babies were murdered 'hypothetically' not in reality
Snowdon says he gets his information from podcasts and has minimal knowledge of the case but is still unwavering in his belief in Letby's guilt.
Peter, on the other hand, believes there was a miscarriage of justice but does not necessarily proclaim Letby's innocence, and is open to changing his mind if he sees unequivocal evidence of guilt.
Take your pick.
snowdon knows a great deal more than hitchens and wipes the floor with him
@@Vicr-m4x He certainly thinks he does but gets a lot wrong.
Such as?
@@Vicr-m4x He thought Baby K was desaturating (low blood oxygen) because of a nasogastric (feeding) tube having been removed and it could simply be put back in by a nurse. But it was actually a breathing tube and hadn't been removed, it had become dislodged and it's only doctors who insert these.
But who dislodges them? Letby, thats who
I don't charge Lucy Letby was innocent. I'm challenging some - some -of the way the case was brought and presented. For example early in the case, long before trial, the parents were told Lucy had killed their babies and were smothered by the family liaison officers such that the parents became part of the prosecution team - even ferried to and from court. This made them no longer independent witnesses.
This is absolutely untrue - in fact the inquiry heard last week from two mothers who never learnt that there was even a remote suspicion until letby had been questioned several times or even maybe arrested. Why are you making things up? Why???
It is insane that the parents of the babies were even allowed to be witnesses in front of the jury. Like they have anything meaningful to say, guilty or innocent.
@@Vicr-m4x You didn't even read what he wrote. I suggest you stop replying to comments in this video. Because I saw you reply to several people. You are clearly bamboozled and tricked by this trial. And you shouldn't spend any more time on it.
Extremely irritating to hear these intelligent men debating a topic neither have full knowledge of.
Listening to them, I felt I had more knowledge about the case than both of them. I haven’t read the transcript, but then neither have they. All of us have had to rely on journalists for information.
I’m wondering how much more we’ll find out about the conditions at the hospital from the Thirlwall Investigation.
@@bevturner2258 I agree with your first point. Regarding the conditions at the hospital it does seem this hospital was performing satisfactorily up until the excess deaths , a major achievement given the state of the NHS.
@@charlottefox1105
Thanks for the update 😊
Like a jury trial?
Their lack of knowledge is part of the problem, aa Hitchens said: the trial transcripts are behind a serious paywall.
This case against Lucy Letby is a complete joke. Beyond Reasonable Doubt replaced with On The Balance of Probabilities (at best). This is NOT justice and there needs to be a retrial.
Definitely there is a possibility that something could be wrong but I suspect any appeals will arrive at the initial conclusion of guilty
There is literally no evidence that a murder was even committed.
It needs an approach that will circumvent our korrupt appeal system. Notice how people like Snowdon have an element of glee in the 'she won't get a retrial' statement. They take satisfaction in our retarded appeal process, knowing its only really designed to protect the judiciary and block people.
Let's see what the CCRC come up with, or even if there's a route through the ECHR.
The voice of reason from Christopher Snowdon.
I miss Christopher Hitchens
He makes a great point about the jury jumping on the simple evidence (eg rota and scribbles) and ignoring the complex evidence presented over months and months!
No-one but the members of the jury (and perhaps their confidants) know what they considered to be more or less important. We can only speculate.
@@arfurascii2232 As the jury were unlikely to be medical professionals, it's highly likely that the spread sheet and post-it notes were influential ... which is why the prosecution presented them.
@@KingBee24 You have imagined that the jury "ignored" - not even paid less attention to, but "ignored" - the complex evidence.
@@arfurascii2232 Absolutely, you’re right. Only the jury knows exactly what weighed most heavily in their decision, and anything beyond that is just speculation. It’s fascinating to think about how different pieces of evidence may have influenced them differently.
What aspects of the case do you think might have been particularly persuasive, either from the statistics or the broader evidence presented?
We know from US cases that the jury often didn't decide their ruling on the things that the journalists thought they responded to during the trial.
I've just read that current inquiry has found that an important piece of machinery for monitoring blood oxygen levels in the unit was malfunctioning during the time period LL was accused of murder...this is crucial as it shows that staff could have easily missed when babies were deteriorating which would make their collapse appear unexpected and the machine was giving incorrect reading which can lead the staff making the wrong treatment decisions...this throws everything up in the air!!!
In early May 2023 the jury heard from the defendant about this.
@@arfurascii2232 it says the jury were NOT informed of this faulty piece of equipment...
@@arfurascii2232 look up the article by Cieran McGrath in the express headlined - lucy letby baby monitor at hospital 'was broken' when babies died on ward
@arfurascii2232 look up the article lucy letby baby monitor at hospital 'was broken' when babies died on ward
@@pixiedragon83 The Daily Express article seems to be based on the Daily Telegraph article on the same matter. Headline, "Critical baby monitor at Lucy Letby hospital was broken during infant death spike". The Daily Telegraph issued a correction to its claim that the jury was not told. "CORRECTION: In an earlier version of this article it was incorrectly stated that the jury at Letby’s trial was not told about faulty equipment. In fact, in her evidence on 2 May 2023 Letby told the court that occasionally if the blood gas machine in the neonatal unit was broken, an alternative machine on the labour ward would be used. We are happy to correct the record." The Daily Express has not issued a correction.
I can see where all the talent went in that family. Sorry Peter.
Don't be sorry, Marty *I* am sorry for your wounded feelings after your hero endorsed the stupidest war in modern history and beieved in WMD, whereas i did the opposite. . It must be a perpetual sorrow to you.
@@peterhitchens4240he might have been referring to the mother
Guilty guilty guilty
Dr serum said he had no suspicion in the beginning. he changed his story...
Christopher Snowden is being disingenuous when he says that he got involved because he had doubts about Lucy Letby's guilt, I believe he became involved because he had no doubts about her guilt.
How would you know and why would he lie?
@@Vicr-m4x When I made my comment I didn't know, I only suspected, but after watching the whole conversation I believe I was correct in my original assumption. At no point has Christopher Snowden ever had doubts about Lucy Letby's guilt. He lied so that he would appear as reasonable objective and participant in the conversation.
@@kossfan Why does he need to "appear as reasonable objective", surely his arguments should stand on their own merit, should they not?
@@steveblundell7766 Most people would like to appear reasonable and objective even though sometimes they are are not. Peter Hitchens obviously doesn't think that his arguments stand on their own merit so presumably he would like to appear reasonable and objective to Peter and his supporters. I really shouldn't need to explain this.
@@kossfan You don't need to "explain" anything, you need to prove it. Saying "most people would like to appear reasonable and objective even though sometimes they are are not" is just irrelevent nonsense. How would you know how most people would like to appear anyway? Christopher Snowden is sure of his facts and his arguments, just as the prosecutor was, why would they concern themselves with how they "appear"?
Christopher Snowdon showing that hes knows very little about the case and that hes excellent at talking over people
I am deeply concerned about this conviction, the evidence is garbage. Kat LLB
Its pure politics-the whole mess!
It is extremely arrogant of Snowdon to say flat out that he wouldn't move on his opinion. What if new evidence comes about that proves he is wrong? Wasn't there a doctor that was also present at all the deaths? Maybe that was incorrect information as Hitchens didn't raise it.
No, there wasn’t a doctor present at all the deaths. That’s the whole point, Lucy was often the only person in the room when a baby collapsed.
I really hope Lucy’s current legal team comes up with new evidence. It’s literally the only hope now.
Hopefully the CCRC will get involved.
What evidence could prove him wrong?
But he says the opposite. He says if new evidence emerged suggesting her innocence he would change his mind. He cant imagine what that could be though
What is the position when a cast iron alibi proves that the victim wasnt at the crimescene ? Yet complaint to that effect gets a High Court entry on to the list of vexatious litigants in 2003 and praps in parallel to Lee Castleton with timeline and same solicitor Mandy Talbot
Anyone that believes Peter to be a rational thinker, please go and watch his interview with Cosmic Sceptic.
Agree. He lives in the shadow of his brother who was a true rational thinker and intellect. While trying to emanate him, he regularly makes a fool of himself.
@@chris220480
*Emulate
Are you talking about the interview when Peter stormed out, after making sure that Alex knows he doesn’t like him? 😂
No, he's not entirely rational. But he's also not one to just bend over and take whatever a court or incompetent lawyer decides to mete out.
Is MrHitchens available to establish why police colluded with Post Office solicitor to avoid offered evidence by embarrassed counsel Ian Groom for Post Office Sept 7th 1998 Sheffield Tribunal which would have halted postmaster jailings in single figures in 1999. Could the now known access to 390 million pounds prosecution funding have had any influence over the flawed evidence recovery ?
Is it suspicious if a cwu leader takes a 40 k wage drop to enter politics before a restorative cabinet post having historically excluded a whistleblow member of 20 years and refused legal advocact against post office counsel and a resulting 700 postmaster justice miscarriages which were preventable if member had a rep on Sept 7th 98.? Further particulars C/o recused chairman or embarraßed counsel.
Christopher Snowdon seems not to have caught up with the evidence that has been leaked after the trial, which was never shown to the jury. It makes everything he says sound like nonsense. When Lucy gets released his comments will live on. Will he then admit that he was totally unprepared and too ignorant to participate in any sort of debate on this subject
*If* there was evidence leaked after the trial that wasn't used during the trial or application for leave to appeal then what is its value?
@@arfurascii2232don’t ask me, ask the people who have leaked it to the newspapers and the Thirlwall Inquiry
@@cperkins4114 What is this evidence that seems so important?
@@arfurascii2232you can Google it but I’ll give you one nugget. It has been disclosed to the Thirlwall Inquiry that the chart that was created (I believe on an Excel Spreadsheet) showing which staff were working when babies crashed/ died had the column showing doctors on duty deleted before it was submitted to the police as evidence. It is stated that there is a doctor who was also on duty in the neonatal unit on all of the shifts where Lucy Letby is accused of killing babies
Such as the discovery that babies’ tubes were displaced during 40% of letby’s shifts but only during 1% of shifts in general? 🤔
The prosecution has no obligation whatsoever to share their data sets or transcripts with us? Fair enough, and we have no obligation to blindly accept any of their conclusions.
No one said you did have such an obligation. It doesn’t matter what you believe! The case is over!
They do because they work for the government and those documents are government documents that belong to all Uk citizens.
‘a gaggle of armchair detectives, armchair pathologists and armchair barristers.’________ Snowdon is talking nonsense.
I suspect he is talking about people like you
@@steveblundell7766 I suspect that you are just like him.
@@FINEFELINE333 Thanks very much
@@steveblundell7766 Don't thank me.
Snowden keeps referring to inflicted harm... what is this so called "inflicted harm and where is the evidence of it.. the pathologist during the post mortems surely would have identified harm if harm had been caused and they failed to discover any evidence of harm. Death by natural causes does not include evidence of harm being done.... Surely the first and most important factor before a case for murder can be brought to trial is to identity categorically by examination of the deceased whether any murder has actually been carried out and the method used...the post mortems in all cases examined came up with a blank. and one assumes that if Ms Letby murdered all 7 babies she did it in such a way as to leave no evidence of any murder having been committed.
"what is this so called "inflicted harm" - If you're unaware of what LL is accused of doing then why are you commenting?
I suggest you re-read my comment. I repeat again, what hard, physical evidence (not anecdotal or presumptive evidence) was presented at the trial that any baby was categorically murdered (or intentionally harmed) as opposed to died of natural causes. None...To suggest otherwise would be to challenge the report produced by the pathologist that they could find no evidence of any baby having categorically murdered (or harmed). Yes she was found guilty by the 12 man jury but that still doesn't answer my question of absolute unequivocal proof that any baby was "murdered" . The whole trial was based on anecdotal evidence which to many people makes the verdict potentially unsafe
@@hazzard8760 You've chosen a longwinded way to say something like "I don't conclude what the prosecution wants us to conclude from the evidence they presented." If you had simply said that, I woudn't have responded.
Nurses could theoretically kill very sick babies without leaving any evidence. The prosecution has several theories as to how Lucy murdered the babies. And somehow they call this 'causing harm'. If a nurse makes mistakes, she could potentially result in a higher rate of death under her baby patients. That wouldn't be murder either. This case is just very strange.
@@Prometheus4096 murders and attempted murders
You just want viewers 😮 it is so disgusting, well we all have read or hear the court transcripts n clearly guilty. Enough is enough
You’ve read the transcripts? May I ask where? They are quite expensive. Where did you hear it?
Another 'Crime Scene 2 Courtroom' follower !
At £100,000 for the transcript, you’ve read it?
If, like most of us, you’ve relied on journalists for your information, how do you know the reports are correct and complete?
Nonsense-its NHS politics-it stinks!
curious too !!
Why are you platforming this. Think of the families
A bizarre comment. The police (rightly) did not refrain from investigating the allegations against Ms Letby (which was most distressing to the parents involved). Lady Justice Thirlwell is not refraining from a lengthy public inquiry. You cannot use the bereaved as an excuse to prevent open debate.
Justice should take precedent over the families sensibilities.
Why are you saying this? Think of the families? They still may falsely believe their babies were murdered by a nurse. Also think of all the families who have patients under the care of a nurse right now. They may falsely think a nurse may harm their loved one. And also think of all the nurses out there. Who fear to be falsely accused of murdering their patients. And then not get a fair trial.
@@Prometheus4096 Because they were murdered!
@@peterhitchens4240 it's more bizarre that conspiring theorists are delusional a out Lucy Letby being innocent. She's definitely guilty, get over it
Strikes me like the crowd calling for her innocence are conspiracy theorists who can explain away any evidence that doesnt suit them. Sometimes the truth is just the truth.
Twenty-four expert neonatologists and statisticians have written to the justice minister, voicing their concerns over the prosecution evidence. Do you think they are conspiracy theorists, as well?
@@philipholding and an equal number of experts testified during the case. If the defence thought bringing these experts into the trial was going to help they would have done so.
The experts who have, and are raising concerns, are of a far higher level than anyone presented by the prosecution.
Dewi Evans is not a neonatal expert and should never have been near the case. He misused/misrepresented a paper by Dr Shoo Lee, and was slated in a previous trial for his poor work.
The Royal Statistical Society met only last week, as "statistically worthless" evidence is clearly a cause for concern when used in Court.
Sometimes a trial is just a set up.
@@brownhairydog6472 Who chose the experts who testified during the case ? The 'Court of Appeal Judgement' Point 24 says it was Dr Dewi Evans. Did he know these people ? Were they friends of his ? Did he only approach these 6 ... or did he approach 20 experts and choose the ones who agreed with him ? Did they do their own research and came to the same conclusions as Dr Evans ? Or did they rubber stamp his report ?
@@brownhairydog6472 An equal number? It was one crackpot whose opinion had been deemed worthless by another judge and one who didn't disagree with him but certainly didn't add any credibility to him. Many, many experts with legal or medical knowledge who followed the trial had massive concerns when seeing the quality of the evidence.
@pixiedragon83 I will try here outside the thread. My replies to you are being deleted. In Chrome hit stop before the paywall appears. In Firefox the paywall doesn't load.
Seems a particular website must not be mentioned.
🤔Belgiqoue.1420