|
Post by Rick Grimes on Sept 12, 2024 13:55:06 GMT
An absolutely withering takedown of the recent Guardian article which said the notes were written on the advice of councillors and her GP. This guy has the police interview transcripts from all 3 arrests and recorded the entire cross-examination. She’s asked time and time again what’s led her to write such things down, not once does she say it was on the advice of a therapist or occupational help like the article suggests, she confirms multiple times the notes are her own way of dealing with things. The closest she gets at any point is when confirms she went to her GP for help and and just had some antidepressants. I know people with mental health issues who have been advised to use postal notes for their feelings as well as for writing down things they should feel positive about. A good friend of mine who took an overdose regularly did it and amongst those notes were some disconcerting things which she thought about herself which were absolutely not true. I find the video and the tone of the narrator to be quite distasteful to be honest. I couldn't really listen to it for too long but maybe it's just the exert which I listened to. The narrator doesn’t criticise or mock people who are advised to write their feelings down though, that’s not the point at all so I don’t understand your point when you say you find it distasteful.
|
|
|
Post by Rick Grimes on Sept 12, 2024 14:26:03 GMT
Rick I'm open minded about Letby's Guilt or innocence You and I are reading different interpretations in Trial and Appeal evidence That Doctor Lee disagrees with Evans conclusions is a fact, he doesn't say they are wrong but wrong to look for other causes At least 24 Eminent Doctors, Nurses and Statisticians are so perturbed about how some of the evidence was presented that they wrote to the Heath Secretary That in itself doesn't constitute evidence as i pointed out Ravi Jayaram one of the key prosecution witnesses against Letby some years earlier signed an open letter in support of Dr Roy Meadow The Jury were tasked with deciding on very complex Medical and Statistical evidence, some of the latter has now been found to be incorrect What im suggesting and have always done is that CCRC review all the Trial and Appeal evidence to ensure the Verdict is safe. I also think the Thirwell enquiry is starting from the wrong place but I suspect it will be difficult to change the terms of reference now. No hard feelings mate No hard feelings from me either, your comprehension of why the judges have declined the evidence from Dr Lee is just flat out wrong but I give up. If you come across any barristers or judges that disagree with the grounds for dismissing the Dr Lee part of the appeal then I’d be very interested to hear their take.
|
|
|
Post by Ariel Manto on Sept 12, 2024 14:50:23 GMT
An audit carried out by Liverpool Women's Hospital after Lucy Letby's conviction has found that whilst Lucy Letby was on work placements there there was a huge increase in breathing tube dislodgements. The Thirlwall Inquiry, set up to understand how serial killer Letby was able to attack and murder babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital, was told today by Richard Baker KC that an audit subsequently carried out by the Liverpool hospital recorded endotracheal tubes were dislodged on 40% of shifts she worked.
The dislodgement of the endotracheal tubes, used to aid breathing, is uncommon and generally occurs in less than 1% of shifts. One may wonder why there was a sudden rise in dislodgement incidents when Letby completed two work placements at Liverpool Women's Hospital in 2012 and 2015.
(https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/inquiry-told-huge-increase-breathing-29921143)
|
|
|
Post by numpty40 on Sept 12, 2024 16:20:05 GMT
An audit carried out by Liverpool Women's Hospital after Lucy Letby's conviction has found that whilst Lucy Letby was on work placements there there was a huge increase in breathing tube dislodgements. The Thirlwall Inquiry, set up to understand how serial killer Letby was able to attack and murder babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital, was told today by Richard Baker KC that an audit subsequently carried out by the Liverpool hospital recorded endotracheal tubes were dislodged on 40% of shifts she worked. The dislodgement of the endotracheal tubes, used to aid breathing, is uncommon and generally occurs in less than 1% of shifts. One may wonder why there was a sudden rise in dislodgement incidents when Letby completed two work placements at Liverpool Women's Hospital in 2012 and 2015. (https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/inquiry-told-huge-increase-breathing-29921143) Interesting quote from Richard Baker KC as well😉. www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2g20rpr78o.amp&ved=2ahUKEwjlu8D23b2IAxVXhf0HHdeLKasQ0PADKAB6BAgUEAE&usg=AOvVaw0_nq73yyeRflqKPVfcrUJG
|
|
|
Post by RedandWhite90 on Sept 12, 2024 16:53:19 GMT
How dare you! *they were excellent for me. And Steve Backshall.. and plenty of other successful people. The list of open university alumni is actually quite impressive, I've just looked.. Does the list note me? 😁
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Sept 12, 2024 16:56:52 GMT
Rick I'm open minded about Letby's Guilt or innocence You and I are reading different interpretations in Trial and Appeal evidence That Doctor Lee disagrees with Evans conclusions is a fact, he doesn't say they are wrong but wrong to look for other causes At least 24 Eminent Doctors, Nurses and Statisticians are so perturbed about how some of the evidence was presented that they wrote to the Heath Secretary That in itself doesn't constitute evidence as i pointed out Ravi Jayaram one of the key prosecution witnesses against Letby some years earlier signed an open letter in support of Dr Roy Meadow The Jury were tasked with deciding on very complex Medical and Statistical evidence, some of the latter has now been found to be incorrect What im suggesting and have always done is that CCRC review all the Trial and Appeal evidence to ensure the Verdict is safe. I also think the Thirwell enquiry is starting from the wrong place but I suspect it will be difficult to change the terms of reference now. No hard feelings mate No hard feelings from me either, your comprehension of why the judges have declined the evidence from Dr Lee is just flat out wrong but I give up. If you come across any barristers or judges that disagree with the grounds for dismissing the Dr Lee part of the appeal then I’d be very interested to hear their take. I have said several times the Appeals Court rulings may follow legal president on admissibility but it may not follow natural Justice Obviously Ben Myers KC for a start believes there has been a miscarriage of Justice. As does Mark McDonald KC Letby's new Legal representative. Adam King KC has written extensively on the reasons he believes a Miscarriage of Justice has taken place. Justice should not be about whether Legal Protocols have been observed but whether justice has been done and seen to be done. That is why the CCRC was set up to take it out the Political Realm of Home Secretary The Letby Trial was about Medical Evidence and Statistical Probability There are many Eminent Medical and Statistical Experts who dispute both of these evidences presented at Trial as to fact. One such person is Richard Gill who rubbished the Statistical Evidence even before CPS admited at Letby retrial that the statistical evidence presented at her original trial was factually wrong and not just how it was presented excluding other babies deaths when Letby wasn't present The factually wrong presentation of evidence by CPS would obviously have been part of the grounds for appeal but was not disclosed by CPS until after Court of Appeal had made their Judgement and is now only an option for CCRC You are probably aware that Richard Gill was instrumental in overturning the wrongful conviction on Statistical Evidence of Lucia de Berk a Pediatric Nurse in Netherlands wrongfully convicted of the murder of four children and attempted murder of three others. It has been described as the biggest Miscarriage of Justice in Netherlands
|
|
|
Post by mickeythemaestro on Sept 12, 2024 16:58:22 GMT
And Steve Backshall.. and plenty of other successful people. The list of open university alumni is actually quite impressive, I've just looked.. Does the list note me? 😁 Pretty sure you were on there chief 😃 👍
|
|
|
Post by numpty40 on Sept 12, 2024 17:30:46 GMT
No hard feelings from me either, your comprehension of why the judges have declined the evidence from Dr Lee is just flat out wrong but I give up. If you come across any barristers or judges that disagree with the grounds for dismissing the Dr Lee part of the appeal then I’d be very interested to hear their take. I have said several times the Appeals Court rulings may follow legal president on admissibility but it may not follow natural Justice Obviously Ben Myers KC for a start believes there has been a miscarriage of Justice. As does Mark McDonald KC Letby's new Legal representative. Adam King KC has written extensively on the reasons he believes a Miscarriage of Justice has taken place. Justice should not be about whether Legal Protocols have been observed but whether justice has been done and seen to be done. That is why the CCRC was set up to take it out the Political Realm of Home Secretary The Letby Trial was about Medical Evidence and Statistical Probability There are many Eminent Medical and Statistical Experts who dispute both of these evidences presented at Trial as to fact. One such person is Richard Gill who rubbished the Statistical Evidence even before CPS admited at Letby retrial that the statistical evidence presented at her original trial was factually wrong and not just how it was presented excluding other babies deaths when Letby wasn't present The factually wrong presentation of evidence by CPS would obviously have been part of the grounds for appeal but was not disclosed by CPS until after Court of Appeal had made their Judgement and is now only an option for CCRC You are probably aware that Richard Gill was instrumental in overturning the wrongful conviction on Statistical Evidence of Lucia de Berk a Pediatric Nurse in Netherlands wrongfully convicted of the murder of four children and attempted murder of three others. It has been described as the biggest Miscarriage of Justice in Netherlands Is this the Richard Gill you are referring to? www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/lucy-letby-activist-who-argues-32151666&ved=2ahUKEwjXtpeO9r2IAxXjhf0HHaIrJpMQFnoECC8QAQ&usg=AOvVaw0vR3djX-Qji5JpGMuVDWMj
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Sept 12, 2024 18:44:22 GMT
I think it's also important to acknowledge the continued decline of maternity units over the last few years as well as the increase in infant mortality rate which is now amongst the worst in Europe. www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-67238868Whether Lucy Letby is guilty of these crimes or not. That doesn't give an explanation for the increase in infant mortality across the UK as well as the majority of maternity units being inadequate. I just don't understand how we can have near 20 children die as well as apparently a history of air tubes dislodging when she was on placement (bbc article made claim today) before someone notices something. If only 10 children died, and she is guilty of it, would she have got away with it? Are the conditions allowing this behaviour to thrive and if so what's being done to address that? And what other unexplained deaths could have been prevented and were potentially caused by NHS staff?
|
|
|
Post by RedandWhite90 on Sept 12, 2024 19:10:27 GMT
Pretty sure you were on there chief 😃 👍 Game recognising game 🤝
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Sept 12, 2024 19:19:49 GMT
Pretty sure you were on there chief 😃 👍 Game recognising game 🤝 Didn’t realise they did qualifications in sarcasm😉
|
|
|
Post by Rick Grimes on Sept 12, 2024 19:39:41 GMT
No hard feelings from me either, your comprehension of why the judges have declined the evidence from Dr Lee is just flat out wrong but I give up. If you come across any barristers or judges that disagree with the grounds for dismissing the Dr Lee part of the appeal then I’d be very interested to hear their take. I have said several times the Appeals Court rulings may follow legal president on admissibility but it may not follow natural Justice Obviously Ben Myers KC for a start believes there has been a miscarriage of Justice. As does Mark McDonald KC Letby's new Legal representative. Adam King KC has written extensively on the reasons he believes a Miscarriage of Justice has taken place. Justice should not be about whether Legal Protocols have been observed but whether justice has been done and seen to be done. That is why the CCRC was set up to take it out the Political Realm of Home Secretary The Letby Trial was about Medical Evidence and Statistical Probability There are many Eminent Medical and Statistical Experts who dispute both of these evidences presented at Trial as to fact. One such person is Richard Gill who rubbished the Statistical Evidence even before CPS admited at Letby retrial that the statistical evidence presented at her original trial was factually wrong and not just how it was presented excluding other babies deaths when Letby wasn't present The factually wrong presentation of evidence by CPS would obviously have been part of the grounds for appeal but was not disclosed by CPS until after Court of Appeal had made their Judgement and is now only an option for CCRC You are probably aware that Richard Gill was instrumental in overturning the wrongful conviction on Statistical Evidence of Lucia de Berk a Pediatric Nurse in Netherlands wrongfully convicted of the murder of four children and attempted murder of three others. It has been described as the biggest Miscarriage of Justice in Netherlands I was only referring the Dr Lee part of the appeal rather than the much wider view of the potential for any miscarriage of justice. Ben Myers is a given but his argument for not having Dr Lee is give evidence in the trial is complete bollocks. The cynic in me thinks he was only chancing his arm by including Dr Lee in the appeal because there was nothing to lose by doing so after Letby had been found guilty. I don’t know what Mark McDonald thinks but I have looked up the views of Adam King in this article, he has bits to say about the appeal decision but stops well short of saying the judges came to the wrong conclusion. unherd.com/2024/07/the-questions-haunting-the-lucy-letby-trial/As a side note I picked up that he references the New Yorker article and says the Crowns witness (Evans) says there’s a third insulin case with similar blood results, not attributed to Letby. This isn’t correct, the New Yorker article does say Evans identified a further insulin case amongst other suspicious cases but they were passed onto the police without knowing if Letby was present for any of them. As for Richard Gill I’m completely uninterested in anything statisticians have to say on this case, particularly after hearing Jane Hutton get skewered for having plenty of concerns but knowing next to nothing about the case. The bulk of the evidence is also quite clearly medical.
|
|
|
Post by RedandWhite90 on Sept 12, 2024 20:44:42 GMT
Didn’t realise they did qualifications in sarcasm😉 They don't; that comes from the university of life. Although the sarcasm has now dissipated for pity for your mob 😉
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Sept 12, 2024 20:45:50 GMT
Didn’t realise they did qualifications in sarcasm😉 They don't; that comes from the university of life. Although the sarcasm has now dissipated for pity for your mob 😉 It’s called a clan numb nuts😉
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Sept 12, 2024 22:55:50 GMT
I have said several times the Appeals Court rulings may follow legal president on admissibility but it may not follow natural Justice Obviously Ben Myers KC for a start believes there has been a miscarriage of Justice. As does Mark McDonald KC Letby's new Legal representative. Adam King KC has written extensively on the reasons he believes a Miscarriage of Justice has taken place. Justice should not be about whether Legal Protocols have been observed but whether justice has been done and seen to be done. That is why the CCRC was set up to take it out the Political Realm of Home Secretary The Letby Trial was about Medical Evidence and Statistical Probability There are many Eminent Medical and Statistical Experts who dispute both of these evidences presented at Trial as to fact. One such person is Richard Gill who rubbished the Statistical Evidence even before CPS admited at Letby retrial that the statistical evidence presented at her original trial was factually wrong and not just how it was presented excluding other babies deaths when Letby wasn't present The factually wrong presentation of evidence by CPS would obviously have been part of the grounds for appeal but was not disclosed by CPS until after Court of Appeal had made their Judgement and is now only an option for CCRC You are probably aware that Richard Gill was instrumental in overturning the wrongful conviction on Statistical Evidence of Lucia de Berk a Pediatric Nurse in Netherlands wrongfully convicted of the murder of four children and attempted murder of three others. It has been described as the biggest Miscarriage of Justice in Netherlands I was only referring the Dr Lee part of the appeal rather than the much wider view of the potential for any miscarriage of justice. Ben Myers is a given but his argument for not having Dr Lee is give evidence in the trial is complete bollocks. The cynic in me thinks he was only chancing his arm by including Dr Lee in the appeal because there was nothing to lose by doing so after Letby had been found guilty. I don’t know what Mark McDonald thinks but I have looked up the views of Adam King in this article, he has bits to say about the appeal decision but stops well short of saying the judges came to the wrong conclusion. unherd.com/2024/07/the-questions-haunting-the-lucy-letby-trial/As a side note I picked up that he references the New Yorker article and says the Crowns witness (Evans) says there’s a third insulin case with similar blood results, not attributed to Letby. This isn’t correct, the New Yorker article does say Evans identified a further insulin case amongst other suspicious cases but they were passed onto the police without knowing if Letby was present for any of them. As for Richard Gill I’m completely uninterested in anything statisticians have to say on this case, particularly after hearing Jane Hutton get skewered for having plenty of concerns but knowing next to nothing about the case. The bulk of the evidence is also quite clearly medical. Not surprisingly I take a different view as the expert witness at trial for defense was not Dr Lee but Dr Michael Hall who for some reason wasn't called to give rebuttal evidence He is now on record as saying he deeply regrets not being called to give evidence which would have challenged Evans evidence We may never know why Hall wasn't called, one theory being that Evans had been discredited enough during the Trial that even during it the defense had asked for his evidence to be thrown out. While the defense didn't dispute all of Evans evidence the theory was that it was tactically sound not to call Hall to dispute some but not all Evans evidence. Remember as I have said previously an "Expert Witness" called by prosecution must act impartially and the defense contended he didn't which was grounds to exclude his evidence and also Appeal. It is not a requirement for Defense to prove innocence but prosecution to prove guilt. I'm not aware of any specific reason Myers didn't call Lee as an Expert Witness at Original Trial he did have Hall available but chose not to call him. What Bollocks did Myers proffer? I do know that when Lee disputed the prosecution’s claims ( Evans) that the skin discoloration observed in the babies was diagnostic of air embolism (citing his and Tanswell as confirmation) Lee stated that only one specific type of skin discoloration was diagnostic, and none of the babies in the Letby case exhibited this exact characteristic. In other words Evans was chatting Bollocks However, the Court of Appeal ultimately ruled that his testimony was not admissible, citing that the defense could have called him as an expert witness during the original trial. I'm surprised you are unaware of what Mark McDonald KC has said as it has been widely reported in recent days The point both the New Yorker Article and King were making is that the presence of a third insulin case may indicate a broader issue with insulin management on the ward, rather than in the F and L cases where Letby was convicted It is simply incongruous and biased that you dismiss as invalid the conclusions of an eminent and honoured Mathematician who was instrumental in proving the innocence of a Pediatric Nurse in a case very similar to Letby's because of your dislike of what someone else in the same profession, not cited, has said something you disagree with. Your whole final paragraph demonstrates your basic misunderstanding of the the Letby Trial which was centred on the How - the Medical Evidence and the Who - the Statistical Evidence of who had the opportunity of being present, nothwithstanding that the Police completely botched this by misinterpreting the shift pattern of who was entering and existing the Neonatal Unit. A classic example being the evidence of Ravi Jayaram who was "chilled" when he testified that Letby was doing nothing to help a baby in distress and was alone in the Neonatal Unit completely false as a different Nurse had been assigned to that Baby and was present but the Police got there comings and goings totally wrong and placed her outside.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Sept 12, 2024 23:07:18 GMT
I have said several times the Appeals Court rulings may follow legal president on admissibility but it may not follow natural Justice Obviously Ben Myers KC for a start believes there has been a miscarriage of Justice. As does Mark McDonald KC Letby's new Legal representative. Adam King KC has written extensively on the reasons he believes a Miscarriage of Justice has taken place. Justice should not be about whether Legal Protocols have been observed but whether justice has been done and seen to be done. That is why the CCRC was set up to take it out the Political Realm of Home Secretary The Letby Trial was about Medical Evidence and Statistical Probability There are many Eminent Medical and Statistical Experts who dispute both of these evidences presented at Trial as to fact. One such person is Richard Gill who rubbished the Statistical Evidence even before CPS admited at Letby retrial that the statistical evidence presented at her original trial was factually wrong and not just how it was presented excluding other babies deaths when Letby wasn't present The factually wrong presentation of evidence by CPS would obviously have been part of the grounds for appeal but was not disclosed by CPS until after Court of Appeal had made their Judgement and is now only an option for CCRC You are probably aware that Richard Gill was instrumental in overturning the wrongful conviction on Statistical Evidence of Lucia de Berk a Pediatric Nurse in Netherlands wrongfully convicted of the murder of four children and attempted murder of three others. It has been described as the biggest Miscarriage of Justice in Netherlands Is this the Richard Gill you are referring to? www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/lucy-letby-activist-who-argues-32151666&ved=2ahUKEwjXtpeO9r2IAxXjhf0HHaIrJpMQFnoECC8QAQ&usg=AOvVaw0vR3djX-Qji5JpGMuVDWMjYes Numpty that is the same Dr Richard Gill who was instrumental in proving the innocence of Pediatric Nurse Lucia de Berk in a case very similar to Letby's which has been described as the Netherlands greatest Miscarriage of Justice. Dr Gill received his primary degree in Cambridge University before completing his Doctorate at Utrecht University.
|
|
|
Post by Ariel Manto on Sept 13, 2024 8:12:58 GMT
I was only referring the Dr Lee part of the appeal rather than the much wider view of the potential for any miscarriage of justice. Ben Myers is a given but his argument for not having Dr Lee is give evidence in the trial is complete bollocks. The cynic in me thinks he was only chancing his arm by including Dr Lee in the appeal because there was nothing to lose by doing so after Letby had been found guilty. I don’t know what Mark McDonald thinks but I have looked up the views of Adam King in this article, he has bits to say about the appeal decision but stops well short of saying the judges came to the wrong conclusion. unherd.com/2024/07/the-questions-haunting-the-lucy-letby-trial/As a side note I picked up that he references the New Yorker article and says the Crowns witness (Evans) says there’s a third insulin case with similar blood results, not attributed to Letby. This isn’t correct, the New Yorker article does say Evans identified a further insulin case amongst other suspicious cases but they were passed onto the police without knowing if Letby was present for any of them. As for Richard Gill I’m completely uninterested in anything statisticians have to say on this case, particularly after hearing Jane Hutton get skewered for having plenty of concerns but knowing next to nothing about the case. The bulk of the evidence is also quite clearly medical. Not surprisingly I take a different view as the expert witness at trial for defense was not Dr Lee but Dr Michael Hall who for some reason wasn't called to give rebuttal evidence He is now on record as saying he deeply regrets not being called to give evidence which would have challenged Evans evidence We may never know why Hall wasn't called, one theory being that Evans had been discredited enough during the Trial that even during it the defense had asked for his evidence to be thrown out. While the defense didn't dispute all of Evans evidence the theory was that it was tactically sound not to call Hall to dispute some but not all Evans evidence. Remember as I have said previously an "Expert Witness" called by prosecution must act impartially and the defense contended he didn't which was grounds to exclude his evidence and also Appeal. It is not a requirement for Defense to prove innocence but prosecution to prove guilt. I'm not aware of any specific reason Myers didn't call Lee as an Expert Witness at Original Trial he did have Hall available but chose not to call him. What Bollocks did Myers proffer? I do know that when Lee disputed the prosecution’s claims ( Evans) that the skin discoloration observed in the babies was diagnostic of air embolism (citing his and Tanswell as confirmation) Lee stated that only one specific type of skin discoloration was diagnostic, and none of the babies in the Letby case exhibited this exact characteristic. In other words Evans was chatting Bollocks However, the Court of Appeal ultimately ruled that his testimony was not admissible, citing that the defense could have called him as an expert witness during the original trial. I'm surprised you are unaware of what Mark McDonald KC has said as it has been widely reported in recent days The point both the New Yorker Article and King were making is that the presence of a third insulin case may indicate a broader issue with insulin management on the ward, rather than in the F and L cases where Letby was convicted It is simply incongruous and biased that you dismiss as invalid the conclusions of an eminent and honoured Mathematician who was instrumental in proving the innocence of a Pediatric Nurse in a case very similar to Letby's because of your dislike of what someone else in the same profession, not cited, has said something you disagree with. Your whole final paragraph demonstrates your basic misunderstanding of the the Letby Trial which was centred on the How - the Medical Evidence and the Who - the Statistical Evidence of who had the opportunity of being present, nothwithstanding that the Police completely botched this by misinterpreting the shift pattern of who was entering and existing the Neonatal Unit. A classic example being the evidence of Ravi Jayaram who was "chilled" when he testified that Letby was doing nothing to help a baby in distress and was alone in the Neonatal Unit completely false as a different Nurse had been assigned to that Baby and was present but the Police got there comings and goings totally wrong and placed her outside. "nothwithstanding that the Police completely botched this by misinterpreting the shift pattern of who was entering and existing the Neonatal Unit."In fairness to everyone else, with factually incorrect statements like that it's no wonder people are questioning you. The Police were GIVEN incorrect evidence from the hospital at the outset - they didn't misinterpret it at all. During the retrial all parties in the court accepted that the shift pattern evidence given to the Police was incomplete which is why the judge and court accepted the revised schedule at the retrial, and which is why the Police were not reprimanded for providing false and misleading evidence. It's clear from your post that you have a conspiratorial agenda based solely on online hyperbole which won't do anything for your argument. Unless and until new evidence (physical or procedural) comes to light so there can be a CCRC review of the case, Lucy Letby is guilty. There are a cacophony of mistakes - almost exclusively by healthcare providers. Just before Letby’s crimes began, Victorino Chua was sentenced for murdering patients at Stepping Hill Hospital. It is difficult to understand why events at Stepping Hill did not at the very least provide a red flag to those at the Countess of Chester from the start that a cluster of unexpected deaths at another hospital had been the direct result of potential criminality and that active steps were needed to rule out that possibility. Cheshire Police and the Coroner should have been alerted at the outset but were not, which could have had a “profound effect” on the course of events. Equally, families of the babies were not informed that the deaths were being investigated with a view to finding out why they occurred. If anything, whilst Lucy Letby is guilty, senior management at the Countess of Chester Hospital deliberately misled the families in order to hide the truth so as to protect their own reputations and those of the hospital.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Sept 13, 2024 8:32:21 GMT
Not surprisingly I take a different view as the expert witness at trial for defense was not Dr Lee but Dr Michael Hall who for some reason wasn't called to give rebuttal evidence He is now on record as saying he deeply regrets not being called to give evidence which would have challenged Evans evidence We may never know why Hall wasn't called, one theory being that Evans had been discredited enough during the Trial that even during it the defense had asked for his evidence to be thrown out. While the defense didn't dispute all of Evans evidence the theory was that it was tactically sound not to call Hall to dispute some but not all Evans evidence. Remember as I have said previously an "Expert Witness" called by prosecution must act impartially and the defense contended he didn't which was grounds to exclude his evidence and also Appeal. It is not a requirement for Defense to prove innocence but prosecution to prove guilt. I'm not aware of any specific reason Myers didn't call Lee as an Expert Witness at Original Trial he did have Hall available but chose not to call him. What Bollocks did Myers proffer? I do know that when Lee disputed the prosecution’s claims ( Evans) that the skin discoloration observed in the babies was diagnostic of air embolism (citing his and Tanswell as confirmation) Lee stated that only one specific type of skin discoloration was diagnostic, and none of the babies in the Letby case exhibited this exact characteristic. In other words Evans was chatting Bollocks However, the Court of Appeal ultimately ruled that his testimony was not admissible, citing that the defense could have called him as an expert witness during the original trial. I'm surprised you are unaware of what Mark McDonald KC has said as it has been widely reported in recent days The point both the New Yorker Article and King were making is that the presence of a third insulin case may indicate a broader issue with insulin management on the ward, rather than in the F and L cases where Letby was convicted It is simply incongruous and biased that you dismiss as invalid the conclusions of an eminent and honoured Mathematician who was instrumental in proving the innocence of a Pediatric Nurse in a case very similar to Letby's because of your dislike of what someone else in the same profession, not cited, has said something you disagree with. Your whole final paragraph demonstrates your basic misunderstanding of the the Letby Trial which was centred on the How - the Medical Evidence and the Who - the Statistical Evidence of who had the opportunity of being present, nothwithstanding that the Police completely botched this by misinterpreting the shift pattern of who was entering and existing the Neonatal Unit. A classic example being the evidence of Ravi Jayaram who was "chilled" when he testified that Letby was doing nothing to help a baby in distress and was alone in the Neonatal Unit completely false as a different Nurse had been assigned to that Baby and was present but the Police got there comings and goings totally wrong and placed her outside. "nothwithstanding that the Police completely botched this by misinterpreting the shift pattern of who was entering and existing the Neonatal Unit."With factually incorrect statements like that it's any wonder people are questioning you. The Police were GIVEN incorrect evidence at the outset - they didn't misinterpret it at all. During the retrial the court accepted that the shift pattern evidence given to the Police was incomplete which is why the judge and court accepted the revised schedule at the retrial. With your grasp of legal conspiracy theories I'm only wondering why Lucy Letby's new legal team hasn't consulted you. Oh wait.... Why let facts get in the way eh .... Oh wait Door swipe data showing which staff entered and exited baby unit was ‘mislabelled’ until retrial, CPS says Evidence presented in the first trial of Lucy Letby showing which staff came in and out of the baby unit she worked on was incorrect, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has acknowledged. A retrial at Manchester crown court last month found the 34-year-old from Hereford guilty of the attempted murder of another child, known as Baby K. During the retrial, Nick Johnson KC, prosecuting, told the court that door-swipe data, showing which nurses and doctors were entering and exiting the intensive care ward, had been “mislabelled”. A spokesperson for the Mersey-Cheshire Crown Prosecution Service said: “The CPS can confirm that accurate door-swipe data was presented in the retrial.” In the initial trial, the prosecution said Dr Ravi Jayaram, a consultant, had discovered Letby standing over Baby K at 3.50am on 17 February 2016. The baby was deteriorating and its breathing tube had been dislodged.
The prosecution said door-swipe data showed that the baby’s designated nurse had left the intensive care unit at 3.47am. But the data was amended in the retrial to show the nurse had returned at that time, meaning Letby was not alone.www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/aug/16/evidence-in-first-lucy-letby-trial-was-incorrect-cps-admits
|
|
|
Post by Rick Grimes on Sept 13, 2024 8:49:21 GMT
I was only referring the Dr Lee part of the appeal rather than the much wider view of the potential for any miscarriage of justice. Ben Myers is a given but his argument for not having Dr Lee is give evidence in the trial is complete bollocks. The cynic in me thinks he was only chancing his arm by including Dr Lee in the appeal because there was nothing to lose by doing so after Letby had been found guilty. I don’t know what Mark McDonald thinks but I have looked up the views of Adam King in this article, he has bits to say about the appeal decision but stops well short of saying the judges came to the wrong conclusion. unherd.com/2024/07/the-questions-haunting-the-lucy-letby-trial/As a side note I picked up that he references the New Yorker article and says the Crowns witness (Evans) says there’s a third insulin case with similar blood results, not attributed to Letby. This isn’t correct, the New Yorker article does say Evans identified a further insulin case amongst other suspicious cases but they were passed onto the police without knowing if Letby was present for any of them. As for Richard Gill I’m completely uninterested in anything statisticians have to say on this case, particularly after hearing Jane Hutton get skewered for having plenty of concerns but knowing next to nothing about the case. The bulk of the evidence is also quite clearly medical. Not surprisingly I take a different view as the expert witness at trial for defense was not Dr Lee but Dr Michael Hall who for some reason wasn't called to give rebuttal evidence He is now on record as saying he deeply regrets not being called to give evidence which would have challenged Evans evidence We may never know why Hall wasn't called, one theory being that Evans had been discredited enough during the Trial that even during it the defense had asked for his evidence to be thrown out. While the defense didn't dispute all of Evans evidence the theory was that it was tactically sound not to call Hall to dispute some but not all Evans evidence. Remember as I have said previously an "Expert Witness" called by prosecution must act impartially and the defense contended he didn't which was grounds to exclude his evidence and also Appeal. It is not a requirement for Defense to prove innocence but prosecution to prove guilt. I'm not aware of any specific reason Myers didn't call Lee as an Expert Witness at Original Trial he did have Hall available but chose not to call him. What Bollocks did Myers proffer?I do know that when Lee disputed the prosecution’s claims ( Evans) that the skin discoloration observed in the babies was diagnostic of air embolism (citing his and Tanswell as confirmation) Lee stated that only one specific type of skin discoloration was diagnostic, and none of the babies in the Letby case exhibited this exact characteristic. In other words Evans was chatting Bollocks However, the Court of Appeal ultimately ruled that his testimony was not admissible, citing that the defense could have called him as an expert witness during the original trial. I'm surprised you are unaware of what Mark McDonald KC has said as it has been widely reported in recent days The point both the New Yorker Article and King were making is that the presence of a third insulin case may indicate a broader issue with insulin management on the ward, rather than in the F and L cases where Letby was convicted It is simply incongruous and biased that you dismiss as invalid the conclusions of an eminent and honoured Mathematician who was instrumental in proving the innocence of a Pediatric Nurse in a case very similar to Letby's because of your dislike of what someone else in the same profession, not cited, has said something you disagree with. Your whole final paragraph demonstrates your basic misunderstanding of the the Letby Trial which was centred on the How - the Medical Evidence and the Who - the Statistical Evidence of who had the opportunity of being present, nothwithstanding that the Police completely botched this by misinterpreting the shift pattern of who was entering and existing the Neonatal Unit. A classic example being the evidence of Ravi Jayaram who was "chilled" when he testified that Letby was doing nothing to help a baby in distress and was alone in the Neonatal Unit completely false as a different Nurse had been assigned to that Baby and was present but the Police got there comings and goings totally wrong and placed her outside. Jesus Christ you're exasperating. The bit of your previous post that I've highlighted in bold is not just something that is clearly in the appeal judgement, it's not just in my direct responses to you in our back and forth, it's even in a section of an article that you previously quoted in a response to me. How, just HOW you can maintain such strong conviction that the judges have got it wrong when you blatantly don't even know 'any specific reason as to why Myers didn't call Lee' as an expert witness at the original trial. It's absolutely ludicrous. Myers claimed he didn't call Dr Lee at the original trial because it was only part way through the trial that he realised the prosecution had widened their case to other significant forms of skin discoloration. The judges said that most of the prosecution evidence that Myers appears to be claiming had blindsided him had been given before the trial was adjourned over Christmas, almost 3 months before Letby began giving her evidence. The defence were still obtaining and serving witness testimony whilst Letby was giving her evidence. To summarise, just in case what I've said in the previous paragraph somehow still eludes you, Myers had months and months to obtain and serve witness testimony from Dr Lee. It's complete bollocks that Myers was unable to call Dr Lee for his stated reason. We've gone over Dr Lee's actual evidence to death but you've never engaged with any of my posts where I'm pointing out the judges decision that, the defence went after a strawman argument of the prosecution evidence, rather than going after their actual evidence which included other ways of diagnosing air embolus. There was no prosecution expert evidence diagnosing air embolus solely on the basis of skin discolouration. Your response to this, as far as I've been able to deduce, is simply to say ' no Dr Lee says its wrong, so it is' which misses the point entirely. Just quickly on Dr Evans 'impartiality' etc, he was thoroughly cross-examined during the trial where all of the concerns were raised by the defence. It's then up to the jury to decide how much weight they give to Dr Evans evidence. It's also the case that almost all of his views were corroborated by a second expert Dr Bohin. Now here's why I don't care about statistics. If you accept that all 22 incidents involved deliberate harm inflicted on babies, Letby is clearly the prime suspect. This is not a statistical argument. It is about opportunity. Once the court had established that someone was killing children in the CoCH, it could only have been Letby because everybody else had the watertight alibi of not being in the hospital at the time. This logic holds even if you think that only half the incidents involved deliberate harm, since none of her colleagues was present even half the time. I'm going to post separately a Youtube video so that people can respond without having to quote all of this, where a narrator reads out exactly what was said in court during the insulin aspect of Letby's cross examination. The evidence is not just that they've found these insulin cases and established Letby was present at the time, there is plenty of legitimate evidence that points at Letby and was enough to convince the jury for a unanimous guilty decision. It's got nothing to do with statistics.
|
|
|
Post by Ariel Manto on Sept 13, 2024 8:55:00 GMT
"nothwithstanding that the Police completely botched this by misinterpreting the shift pattern of who was entering and existing the Neonatal Unit."With factually incorrect statements like that it's any wonder people are questioning you. The Police were GIVEN incorrect evidence at the outset - they didn't misinterpret it at all. During the retrial the court accepted that the shift pattern evidence given to the Police was incomplete which is why the judge and court accepted the revised schedule at the retrial. With your grasp of legal conspiracy theories I'm only wondering why Lucy Letby's new legal team hasn't consulted you. Oh wait.... Why let facts get in the way eh .... Oh wait Door swipe data showing which staff entered and exited baby unit was ‘mislabelled’ until retrial, CPS says Evidence presented in the first trial of Lucy Letby showing which staff came in and out of the baby unit she worked on was incorrect, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has acknowledged. A retrial at Manchester crown court last month found the 34-year-old from Hereford guilty of the attempted murder of another child, known as Baby K. During the retrial, Nick Johnson KC, prosecuting, told the court that door-swipe data, showing which nurses and doctors were entering and exiting the intensive care ward, had been “mislabelled”. A spokesperson for the Mersey-Cheshire Crown Prosecution Service said: “The CPS can confirm that accurate door-swipe data was presented in the retrial.” In the initial trial, the prosecution said Dr Ravi Jayaram, a consultant, had discovered Letby standing over Baby K at 3.50am on 17 February 2016. The baby was deteriorating and its breathing tube had been dislodged.
The prosecution said door-swipe data showed that the baby’s designated nurse had left the intensive care unit at 3.47am. But the data was amended in the retrial to show the nurse had returned at that time, meaning Letby was not alone.www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/aug/16/evidence-in-first-lucy-letby-trial-was-incorrect-cps-admitsThe evidence was not mislabelled by Police - as you've evidenced in your post. "The prosecution said door-swipe data showed that the baby’s designated nurse had left the intensive care unit at 3.47am. But the data was amended in the retrial to show the nurse had returned at that time"The Police were provided with incomplete door swipe data by the hospital, and the court accepted this was accidental. The hospital readmitted the corrected data to the court at retrial. Crikey you're bad at this.
|
|
|
Post by Rick Grimes on Sept 13, 2024 8:58:44 GMT
This is a narration of what was said with regards to the two insulin cases during Letby’s cross-examination and although it’s 40+ minutes long it’s well worth a watch.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Sept 13, 2024 12:46:47 GMT
Why let facts get in the way eh .... Oh wait Door swipe data showing which staff entered and exited baby unit was ‘mislabelled’ until retrial, CPS says Evidence presented in the first trial of Lucy Letby showing which staff came in and out of the baby unit she worked on was incorrect, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has acknowledged. A retrial at Manchester crown court last month found the 34-year-old from Hereford guilty of the attempted murder of another child, known as Baby K. During the retrial, Nick Johnson KC, prosecuting, told the court that door-swipe data, showing which nurses and doctors were entering and exiting the intensive care ward, had been “mislabelled”. A spokesperson for the Mersey-Cheshire Crown Prosecution Service said: “The CPS can confirm that accurate door-swipe data was presented in the retrial.” In the initial trial, the prosecution said Dr Ravi Jayaram, a consultant, had discovered Letby standing over Baby K at 3.50am on 17 February 2016. The baby was deteriorating and its breathing tube had been dislodged.
The prosecution said door-swipe data showed that the baby’s designated nurse had left the intensive care unit at 3.47am. But the data was amended in the retrial to show the nurse had returned at that time, meaning Letby was not alone.www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/aug/16/evidence-in-first-lucy-letby-trial-was-incorrect-cps-admitsThe evidence was not mislabelled by Police - as you've evidenced in your post. "The prosecution said door-swipe data showed that the baby’s designated nurse had left the intensive care unit at 3.47am. But the data was amended in the retrial to show the nurse had returned at that time"The Police were provided with incomplete door swipe data by the hospital, and the court accepted this was accidental. The hospital readmitted the corrected data to the court at retrial. Crikey you're bad at this. Where is the link that says that door swipe data was mislabelled specifically by the hospital and not by the police? I can't see one. What you've highlighted there, suggests that it could be either/or and doesn't suggest specifically, which one was at fault.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Sept 13, 2024 13:57:54 GMT
The evidence was not mislabelled by Police - as you've evidenced in your post. "The prosecution said door-swipe data showed that the baby’s designated nurse had left the intensive care unit at 3.47am. But the data was amended in the retrial to show the nurse had returned at that time"The Police were provided with incomplete door swipe data by the hospital, and the court accepted this was accidental. The hospital readmitted the corrected data to the court at retrial. Crikey you're bad at this. Where is the link that says that door swipe data was mislabelled specifically by the hospital and not by the police? I can't see one. What you've highlighted there, suggests that it could be either/or and doesn't suggest specifically, which one was at fault. There isn't one Paul because the CPS have only admitted the Door Swipe Evidence was "Mislabeled" in the retrial of Baby K. It doesn't look like they are going to release that information either because the Court of Appeal has already dismissed the Appeal without be aware of the faulty evidence The CPS have attempted to dismiss the Door Swipe Evidence being "Mislabeled" in the original Trial as being irrelevant even though much of the evidence presented against Letby was that she alone in many of the Counts she has been convicted and therefore the only one with an opportunity On Saturday, a CPS spokesperson said: “Two juries and three appeal court judges have reviewed a multitude of different evidence against Lucy Letby, and she has been convicted on 15 separate counts following two separate jury trials. “We confirm that accurate door-swipe-data was presented in the retrial. “We have been transparent in clarifying this issue and rectified it for the retrial. We are confident that this issue did not have a meaningful impact on the prosecution, which included multiple strands of evidence.” .... well that's alright then the CPS have decided that dodgy evidence presented to the Jury doesn't matter And in a related issue involving "Mislabeled" evidence now admitted in the retrial. In the original Trial Dr Ravi Jayaram had this to say Dr Ravi Jayaram, a consultant paediatrician, told Letby’s trial on Wednesday that he felt “very uncomfortable” leaving the nurse alone with the infant, known as Baby K, after doctors linked her to a series of “unusual incidents”. SHE WASN'T ALONE we now know the Nurse assigned to her was in the room. Was Dr Ravi Jayaram lying or misremembering. The who thing is a pile of poo that needs sorting
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Sept 13, 2024 14:04:53 GMT
Where is the link that says that door swipe data was mislabelled specifically by the hospital and not by the police? I can't see one. What you've highlighted there, suggests that it could be either/or and doesn't suggest specifically, which one was at fault. There isn't one Paul because the CPS have only admitted the Door Swipe Evidence was "Mislabeled" in the retrial of Baby K. It doesn't look like they are going to release that information either because the Court of Appeal has already dismissed the Appeal without be aware of the faulty evidence The CPS have attempted to dismiss the Door Swipe Evidence being "Mislabeled" in the original Trial as being irrelevant even though much of the evidence presented against Letby was that she alone in many of the Counts she has been convicted and therefore the only one with an opportunity On Saturday, a CPS spokesperson said: “Two juries and three appeal court judges have reviewed a multitude of different evidence against Lucy Letby, and she has been convicted on 15 separate counts following two separate jury trials. “We confirm that accurate door-swipe-data was presented in the retrial. “We have been transparent in clarifying this issue and rectified it for the retrial. We are confident that this issue did not have a meaningful impact on the prosecution, which included multiple strands of evidence.” .... well that's alright then the CPS have decided that dodgy evidence presented to the Jury doesn't matter And in a related issue involving "Mislabeled" evidence now admitted in the retrial. In the original Trial Dr Ravi Jayaram had this to say Dr Ravi Jayaram, a consultant paediatrician, told Letby’s trial on Wednesday that he felt “very uncomfortable” leaving the nurse alone with the infant, known as Baby K, after doctors linked her to a series of “unusual incidents”. SHE WASN'T ALONE we now know the Nurse assigned to her was in the room. Was Dr Ravi Jayaram lying or misremembering. The who thing is a pile of poo that needs sorting only letby knows if she did it she has been found guilty regardless of circumstantial evidence and lack of anything physical I do not think there is an apetite in the nhs or cps for an appeal. they are hoping through this inquiry it can be put to bed. that just fuels speculation as some of this circumstantial evidence and procedures seems a little bit suspect
|
|
|
Post by Rick Grimes on Sept 13, 2024 14:08:38 GMT
Where is the link that says that door swipe data was mislabelled specifically by the hospital and not by the police? I can't see one. What you've highlighted there, suggests that it could be either/or and doesn't suggest specifically, which one was at fault. There isn't one Paul because the CPS have only admitted the Door Swipe Evidence was "Mislabeled" in the retrial of Baby K. It doesn't look like they are going to release that information either because the Court of Appeal has already dismissed the Appeal without be aware of the faulty evidence The CPS have attempted to dismiss the Door Swipe Evidence being "Mislabeled" in the original Trial as being irrelevant even though much of the evidence presented against Letby was that she alone in many of the Counts she has been convicted and therefore the only one with an opportunity On Saturday, a CPS spokesperson said: “Two juries and three appeal court judges have reviewed a multitude of different evidence against Lucy Letby, and she has been convicted on 15 separate counts following two separate jury trials. “We confirm that accurate door-swipe-data was presented in the retrial. “We have been transparent in clarifying this issue and rectified it for the retrial. We are confident that this issue did not have a meaningful impact on the prosecution, which included multiple strands of evidence.” .... well that's alright then the CPS have decided that dodgy evidence presented to the Jury doesn't matter And in a related issue involving "Mislabeled" evidence now admitted in the retrial. In the original Trial Dr Ravi Jayaram had this to say Dr Ravi Jayaram, a consultant paediatrician, told Letby’s trial on Wednesday that he felt “very uncomfortable” leaving the nurse alone with the infant, known as Baby K, after doctors linked her to a series of “unusual incidents”. SHE WASN'T ALONE we now know the Nurse assigned to her was in the room. Was Dr Ravi Jayaram lying or misremembering. The who thing is a pile of poo that needs sorting People that think instances like this would have fundamentally changed the outcome of the trial are living in cloud cuckoo land. The ‘dodgy’ evidence was so dodgy that the corrected evidence still led to a guilty outcome in the retrial.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Sept 13, 2024 14:15:41 GMT
There isn't one Paul because the CPS have only admitted the Door Swipe Evidence was "Mislabeled" in the retrial of Baby K. It doesn't look like they are going to release that information either because the Court of Appeal has already dismissed the Appeal without be aware of the faulty evidence The CPS have attempted to dismiss the Door Swipe Evidence being "Mislabeled" in the original Trial as being irrelevant even though much of the evidence presented against Letby was that she alone in many of the Counts she has been convicted and therefore the only one with an opportunity On Saturday, a CPS spokesperson said: “Two juries and three appeal court judges have reviewed a multitude of different evidence against Lucy Letby, and she has been convicted on 15 separate counts following two separate jury trials. “We confirm that accurate door-swipe-data was presented in the retrial. “We have been transparent in clarifying this issue and rectified it for the retrial. We are confident that this issue did not have a meaningful impact on the prosecution, which included multiple strands of evidence.” .... well that's alright then the CPS have decided that dodgy evidence presented to the Jury doesn't matter And in a related issue involving "Mislabeled" evidence now admitted in the retrial. In the original Trial Dr Ravi Jayaram had this to say Dr Ravi Jayaram, a consultant paediatrician, told Letby’s trial on Wednesday that he felt “very uncomfortable” leaving the nurse alone with the infant, known as Baby K, after doctors linked her to a series of “unusual incidents”. SHE WASN'T ALONE we now know the Nurse assigned to her was in the room. Was Dr Ravi Jayaram lying or misremembering. The who thing is a pile of poo that needs sorting People that think instances like this would have fundamentally changed the outcome of the trial are living in cloud cuckoo land. The ‘dodgy’ evidence was so dodgy that the corrected evidence still led to a guilty outcome in the retrial. what i never understand about trials is when the judge to instruct juries to disreguard somthing. i think its human nature for people not to be able to unsee or hear. i also think the first trial was so widely covered then its also going to influence the second trial. as such it still leaves questions about potentially flawed circumstantial evidence many people think that creates some reasonable doubt after the events. Im pretty sure her new defence team will get an appeal
|
|
|
Post by Rick Grimes on Sept 13, 2024 14:27:51 GMT
People that think instances like this would have fundamentally changed the outcome of the trial are living in cloud cuckoo land. The ‘dodgy’ evidence was so dodgy that the corrected evidence still led to a guilty outcome in the retrial. what i never understand about trials is when the judge to instruct juries to disreguard somthing. i think its human nature for people not to be able to unsee or hear. i also think the first trial was so widely covered then its also going to influence the second trial. as such it still leaves questions about potentially flawed circumstantial evidence many people think that creates some reasonable doubt after the events. Im pretty sure her new defence team will get an appeal People who think stuff like that creates reasonable doubt don’t know what they’re on about and definitlely don’t understand the size and scope of the evidence that was presented in court. It’s like taking a brick or two out of a massive wall. It doesn’t affect the integrity of the wall whatsoever. Her new defence will only get an appeal by going to the CCRC and for that they need new, fresh evidence. Not by flagging things like completely inconsequential door swipe data.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Sept 13, 2024 16:57:26 GMT
There isn't one Paul because the CPS have only admitted the Door Swipe Evidence was "Mislabeled" in the retrial of Baby K. It doesn't look like they are going to release that information either because the Court of Appeal has already dismissed the Appeal without be aware of the faulty evidence The CPS have attempted to dismiss the Door Swipe Evidence being "Mislabeled" in the original Trial as being irrelevant even though much of the evidence presented against Letby was that she alone in many of the Counts she has been convicted and therefore the only one with an opportunity On Saturday, a CPS spokesperson said: “Two juries and three appeal court judges have reviewed a multitude of different evidence against Lucy Letby, and she has been convicted on 15 separate counts following two separate jury trials. “We confirm that accurate door-swipe-data was presented in the retrial. “We have been transparent in clarifying this issue and rectified it for the retrial. We are confident that this issue did not have a meaningful impact on the prosecution, which included multiple strands of evidence.” .... well that's alright then the CPS have decided that dodgy evidence presented to the Jury doesn't matter And in a related issue involving "Mislabeled" evidence now admitted in the retrial. In the original Trial Dr Ravi Jayaram had this to say Dr Ravi Jayaram, a consultant paediatrician, told Letby’s trial on Wednesday that he felt “very uncomfortable” leaving the nurse alone with the infant, known as Baby K, after doctors linked her to a series of “unusual incidents”. SHE WASN'T ALONE we now know the Nurse assigned to her was in the room. Was Dr Ravi Jayaram lying or misremembering. The who thing is a pile of poo that needs sorting only letby knows if she did it she has been found guilty regardless of circumstantial evidence and lack of anything physical I do not think there is an apetite in the nhs or cps for an appeal. they are hoping through this inquiry it can be put to bed. that just fuels speculation as some of this circumstantial evidence and procedures seems a little bit suspect Completely agree with the first sentence and your conclusion Of the remainder in your first para to me it's not just the doubt that the Prosecution failed to prove Letby killed the babies but if they were murdered at all A cluster of deaths appeared in a period with an expected death rate of 4 to 13 premature and vulnerable babies. The original post mortems on the babies found no suspicion of foul play. Naturally when more deaths than expected occur clinicians talk amongst themselves to reach an answer and gossipy colleges began to refer to Letby negatively who was present at some but by no means all deaths because of understaffing at the Neonatal Unit. Eventually the Police were invited to undertake a Criminal review and Evans volunteered his services and directed much of the investigation including which other clinicians the Police should consult in their investigation. At some point an anguished Dr Ravi Jayaram had a light bulb moment and someone had mentioned air embolism and he went home and researched Lee and Tanswell 1989 Paper and had a Eureka moment. In Court he could remember seeing Pink Discoloration on some babies but when challenged why he didn't make note of it in his medical notes at the time - paraphrased - he was to busy doing other things at the time. Having established one of the reasons why some babies may have been murdered after all the Police established a chart of Shift Patterns of who may have had an opportunity to do it. The shift patterns presented in evidence only included when Letby was on duty and not when others were on duty and other babies died. Other causes of babies deaths like insulin injection have left some Medical Consultants baffled as to how it was even possible in the method described. In one of the cases Letby had been off shift for 10 hours and insulin couldn't have remained present. Several Staticians including Richard Gill who was instrumental in overturning the Miscarriage of Justice of Pediatric Nurse Lucia de Berk and the Royal Statistical Society are heavily critical of how the Police arbitrary prepared shift pattern and spikes using Letby's attendance only and this before the disclosure of when Letby may or may not have been alone in Neonatal Unit or even present at all because the data was "Mislabeled" but we only know how in the case of Baby K Yea, all perfectly normal, nothing to see here.
|
|
|
Post by Rick Grimes on Sept 13, 2024 19:01:23 GMT
only letby knows if she did it she has been found guilty regardless of circumstantial evidence and lack of anything physical I do not think there is an apetite in the nhs or cps for an appeal. they are hoping through this inquiry it can be put to bed. that just fuels speculation as some of this circumstantial evidence and procedures seems a little bit suspect Completely agree with the first sentence and your conclusion Of the remainder in your first para to me it's not just the doubt that the Prosecution failed to prove Letby killed the babies but if they were murdered at all A cluster of deaths appeared in a period with an expected death rate of 4 to 13 premature and vulnerable babies. The original post mortems on the babies found no suspicion of foul play. Naturally when more deaths than expected occur clinicians talk amongst themselves to reach an answer and gossipy colleges began to refer to Letby negatively who was present at some but by no means all deaths because of understaffing at the Neonatal Unit. Eventually the Police were invited to undertake a Criminal review and Evans volunteered his services and directed much of the investigation including which other clinicians the Police should consult in their investigation. At some point an anguished Dr Ravi Jayaram had a light bulb moment and someone had mentioned air embolism and he went home and researched Lee and Tanswell 1989 Paper and had a Eureka moment. In Court he could remember seeing Pink Discoloration on some babies but when challenged why he didn't make note of it in his medical notes at the time - paraphrased - he was to busy doing other things at the time. Having established one of the reasons why some babies may have been murdered after all the Police established a chart of Shift Patterns of who may have had an opportunity to do it. The shift patterns presented in evidence only included when Letby was on duty and not when others were on duty and other babies died. Other causes of babies deaths like insulin injection have left some Medical Consultants baffled as to how it was even possible in the method described. In one of the cases Letby had been off shift for 10 hours and insulin couldn't have remained present. Several Staticians including Richard Gill who was instrumental in overturning the Miscarriage of Justice of Pediatric Nurse Lucia de Berk and the Royal Statistical Society are heavily critical of how the Police arbitrary prepared shift pattern and spikes using Letby's attendance only and this before the disclosure of when Letby may or may not have been alone in Neonatal Unit or even present at all because the data was "Mislabeled" but we only know how in the case of Baby K Yea, all perfectly normal, nothing to see here. You haven’t properly engaged with the evidence at all. The prosecution haven’t just established where Letby or anyone else was via door swipe data. If you haven’t already I encourage you to take a look at the YouTube video which is a narration of the insulin cases cross-examination. The crimes all took place in a hospital setting so there’s a load of well documented information about who was doing what at and at what time. Obviously so, because that’s what hospitals are required to do. Nurses like Letby are assigned specific babies to look after, they have to provide constant charted updates on the wellbeing of the child, they have to document when and what time they have concerns and call doctors or consultants, any time they provide medication, any time they feed the babies. And clearly the prosecution cross-examine Letby to get her to confirm exactly where she was and what she was doing. The door swipe data being mislabelled doesn’t affect the evidence. You’ve got no idea what you’re on about and it’s beyond parody at this point Inspector Clouseau.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Sept 13, 2024 22:19:47 GMT
Completely agree with the first sentence and your conclusion Of the remainder in your first para to me it's not just the doubt that the Prosecution failed to prove Letby killed the babies but if they were murdered at all A cluster of deaths appeared in a period with an expected death rate of 4 to 13 premature and vulnerable babies. The original post mortems on the babies found no suspicion of foul play. Naturally when more deaths than expected occur clinicians talk amongst themselves to reach an answer and gossipy colleges began to refer to Letby negatively who was present at some but by no means all deaths because of understaffing at the Neonatal Unit. Eventually the Police were invited to undertake a Criminal review and Evans volunteered his services and directed much of the investigation including which other clinicians the Police should consult in their investigation. At some point an anguished Dr Ravi Jayaram had a light bulb moment and someone had mentioned air embolism and he went home and researched Lee and Tanswell 1989 Paper and had a Eureka moment. In Court he could remember seeing Pink Discoloration on some babies but when challenged why he didn't make note of it in his medical notes at the time - paraphrased - he was to busy doing other things at the time. Having established one of the reasons why some babies may have been murdered after all the Police established a chart of Shift Patterns of who may have had an opportunity to do it. The shift patterns presented in evidence only included when Letby was on duty and not when others were on duty and other babies died. Other causes of babies deaths like insulin injection have left some Medical Consultants baffled as to how it was even possible in the method described. In one of the cases Letby had been off shift for 10 hours and insulin couldn't have remained present. Several Staticians including Richard Gill who was instrumental in overturning the Miscarriage of Justice of Pediatric Nurse Lucia de Berk and the Royal Statistical Society are heavily critical of how the Police arbitrary prepared shift pattern and spikes using Letby's attendance only and this before the disclosure of when Letby may or may not have been alone in Neonatal Unit or even present at all because the data was "Mislabeled" but we only know how in the case of Baby K Yea, all perfectly normal, nothing to see here. Much against my better judgement I'll respond You haven’t properly engaged with the evidence at all. I shall skip over this piece of arrogance as being unworthy The prosecution haven’t just established where Letby or anyone else was via door swipe data. It's very likely they have just not presented it to the Jury in an accurate mannerIf you haven’t already I encourage you to take a look at the YouTube video which is a narration of the insulin cases cross-examination. I am not a Doctor but many Doctors and Consultants do not accept the method of delivery of Insulin introduced as evidence in Court is practically possible. Are you solely relying on some YouTube or do you have Medical Knowledge which supports the theory presented in CourtThe crimes all took place in a hospital setting so there’s a load of well documented information about who was doing what at and at what time. Obviously so, because that’s what hospitals are required to do. I start from the basis of IF crimes have been committed The initial autopsy's found no evidence of foul play. You are stretching credibility that an understaffed NHS Hospital had such detailed knowledge at all times. But I'll play along and accept your proposal why then wasn't that presented accurately to the Jury "unMislabeled" You're making shit up because the CPS have only confirmed the entry/exist in the case of Baby K was "Mislabeled" and in their view it was "irrelevant" It is not the realm of the CPS to decide if evidence presented to the Jury and/or Court of Appeal is "inaccurate but irrelevant" Thankfully this is not yet how trials are conducted in this Country where a Branch of the Judiciary decides whether evidence presented to a Jury needs to be accurate. You have absolutely no basis on current disclosure by CPS that any or all of the Entry/Exit Data as to who was present is accurate because the CPS are not yet prepared to disclose that. I have no doubt in the fullness of time they will when after years of fucking about the CCRC will order a mistrial or at a minimum refer it back to the Court of Appeal Nurses like Letby are assigned specific babies to look after, they have to provide constant charted updates on the wellbeing of the child, they have to document when and what time they have concerns and call doctors or consultants, any time they provide medication, any time they feed the babies. Theoretically yes, but it was introduced at Trial that the chronic understaffing made this impossible and in fact Baby K was assigned to a different Neonatal Nurse other than Letby but due to "Mislabeling" we now find that Nurse was present when in the testimony of Ravi Jayaram said Letby was alone and doing nothing to help Baby K who was in distressAnd clearly the prosecution cross-examine Letby to get her to confirm exactly where she was and what she was doing. I can barely remember what I was doing on any given day last week. I would be more confident in this cross examination is the records of who or who wasn't present at any given time wasn't "Mislabeled" You have to accept that this line of cross examination by Prosecuting Council was based on inaccurate "Mislabeling"The door swipe data being mislabelled doesn’t affect the evidence. You can't be Fucking serious based on the old pony you have written above how a Hospital works in a regimine knowing where everyone is at any given point in time.You’ve got no idea what you’re on about and it’s beyond parody at this point Inspector Clouseau. Ah, the last vestige, when all else fails, introduce insults to attack the messenger because your defense of the indefensible has crumbled to shit. I am not minded to say Letby is innocent, I am minded to say her trial was flawed simply because the evidence presented was flawed. The fact that you are so obtuse not to acknowledge that fact is more a reflection on your inability to grasp fairly routine questions of Law. You're Butt Clenching desire to hold fast to your opinion without an open mind is quite frankly pathetic.
|
|