| Lucy Letby; C5 docu last night, new evidence. Appeal has to be allowed surely .. 02:13 - Sep 22 with 5734 views | Ryorry |
1. Police thought there was no indication any crime had even been committed, till a doctor at the hospital informed them that he'd gone into the ward & discovered her standing over a baby in distress for whom the alarm had been been turned off, but she was doing nothing to help them.
Now turns out that he'd emailed colleagues at the same time saying it was her who called his attention to the baby in distress, and that the alarm was still working. Has admitted he's changed his mind re his original statement to police.
2. Key evidence for the prosecution (because the only extant scientific evidence) was totally flawed.
a) Info re baby O's blood sugar level for April 9th, which showed it to be normal - thus proving insulin couldn't have been administered that day by Letby or anyone else - was not presented to the trial, but it was presented for April 8th, 10th, 11th & 12th.
b) Consultant pulmonologist said it would have been impossible to kill babies via the air injection method cited at the trial. There was actually handwritten timeline evidence by one of the doctors at the hospital that it was his injection catching part of one baby's liver which had already been damaged during birth, which was likely to be the significant factor in their death.
3. One of the parents whose baby died said it was entirely due to faecal infection (there was faecal matter coming out of the taps on the ward on a regular basis), but similar to several other babies' deaths at the hospital when Letby was not present, this was not recorded - because although the infant contracted the infection at the Countess of Chester Hospital, they were bluelighted away to a bigger hospital in Manchester to be treated, but sadly died anyway, so the deaths were recorded there & not included in stats for the CoC.
4. The jurors and court were told that all the babies who died were well and stable, so the only cause of death could have been deliberate harm. A senior nurse working on the ward at the time said this was manifestly untrue - the babies were all 'category 3' - the highest level of prematurity/illness/vulnerability - which the CoC Hosp was totally unequipped to deal with, particularly in extraordinary levels of understaffing.
A newspaper which most on here understandably shun, said it set out to prove Letby guilty in this docu, but actually ended up finding the complete opposite,
https://www.channel5.com/show/
[Post edited 22 Sep 3:27]
|  |
| |  |
| Lucy Letby; C5 docu last night, new evidence. Appeal has to be allowed surely .. on 23:32 - Sep 22 with 568 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Lucy Letby; C5 docu last night, new evidence. Appeal has to be allowed surely .. on 23:29 - Sep 22 by balcombeblue |
Air embolism
Insulin poisoning
Shift chart statistics |
They are just words, not points, evidence or arguments.
The shift charts were not used as statistical evidence. Air embolism issues were considered at length in the appeal (as you know- having read it...). So is this new, new evidence? [Post edited 22 Sep 23:34]
|  |
| |
| Lucy Letby; C5 docu last night, new evidence. Appeal has to be allowed surely .. on 23:37 - Sep 22 with 553 views | balcombeblue |
| Lucy Letby; C5 docu last night, new evidence. Appeal has to be allowed surely .. on 23:32 - Sep 22 by redrickstuhaart |
They are just words, not points, evidence or arguments.
The shift charts were not used as statistical evidence. Air embolism issues were considered at length in the appeal (as you know- having read it...). So is this new, new evidence? [Post edited 22 Sep 23:34]
|
You can read in those three points. You don’t need my summary.
What was the presentation of the shift charts if not statistical evidence?
To the extent that even the Royal Society of Stats has challenged it |  | | |
| Lucy Letby; C5 docu last night, new evidence. Appeal has to be allowed surely .. on 23:49 - Sep 22 with 525 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Lucy Letby; C5 docu last night, new evidence. Appeal has to be allowed surely .. on 23:37 - Sep 22 by balcombeblue |
You can read in those three points. You don’t need my summary.
What was the presentation of the shift charts if not statistical evidence?
To the extent that even the Royal Society of Stats has challenged it |
You comment as if you have never read any of the arguments against your position. | |
| |
| Lucy Letby; C5 docu last night, new evidence. Appeal has to be allowed surely .. on 23:49 - Sep 22 with 521 views | The_Romford_Blue |
One final point from me as I’m nearly off the train now.. if they do have a retrial and again the jury who are in a much stronger position on it than anyone find her guilty.. and the same people say the same things in the media for attention and the same crazy-high number of documentaries come out, will people carry on with this crusade to defend her?
Example of this being Ryorry, a balanced and fair poster, has now made four threads from memory on sticking up for Letby. At what point would it be where it’s agreed actually the innocent looking girl is actually a crazed evil psychopath? Just food for thought as the desperation for a retrial suggests that no matter what the next jury verdict is, the ‘she’s innocent’ brigade will just carry on and on. |  |
| |
| Lucy Letby; C5 docu last night, new evidence. Appeal has to be allowed surely .. on 23:55 - Sep 22 with 499 views | King_ding_a_lin_g |
| Lucy Letby; C5 docu last night, new evidence. Appeal has to be allowed surely .. on 22:57 - Sep 22 by The_Romford_Blue |
Hold up a second. Hold up a fecking second. I absolutely did not say that her skin colour has anything to do with her actual guilt.
I very specifically said that it’s because she’s both privileged (privately educated) and a young pretty white woman, that combined, it means she has far more interest in the case. There absolutely wouldn’t be this many documentaries on the case if it was a weirdo in his 50s from abroad. And I stand by that.
That doesn’t mean because she is white I’m at all saying it means she’s more or less guilty.
And you know I never said that so don’t try and misinterpret my words three pages later so easily. |
I thought she was from a relatively humble background, went to a state comprehensive school and was the first in her family to go to University?
Is it the University that you mean when you say privately educated? |  | | |
| Lucy Letby; C5 docu last night, new evidence. Appeal has to be allowed surely .. on 00:38 - Sep 23 with 342 views | Ryorry |
| Lucy Letby; C5 docu last night, new evidence. Appeal has to be allowed surely .. on 20:54 - Sep 22 by The_Romford_Blue |
Nice of you to get personal because you disagree with my view.
Funny you should mention jury service though. Because if you get your wish and she gets a retrial due to the media obsession, and you were called up, she’d be getting not guilty from you without you needing to hear a word. Because obviously you’ve seen documentaries so now more than the jurors. In fact would you even listen as a juror to a new trial? As you already know everything about the case. Would be a waste of your time wouldn’t it |
I didn't get personal because I disagreed with you, I wrote what I did because you personally made assumptions, without any evidence whatsoever, about how & why other people were/are challenging the safety of the conviction. I can see that I worded it badly, so apologies for that.
But - you've done it again with this post - "she’d be getting not guilty from you without you needing to hear a word ..." etc. Again - sheer conjecture by you with zero evidence. Quite the opposite is in fact true, as I've said several times in this & other threads - none of us know if she's innocent or guilty, all those of us challenging the safety of the convictions want is a fair trial, with *all* the evidence presented (not just selective bits cherrypicked by the prosecution team skewed towards the result they wanted) - and a verdict that is *beyond reasonable doubt*.
Finally, coming to those other threads - you said I'd started four on this topic. Actually, of the four there have been, this is the only one I've started. The three others were started by three different individuals - one of whom was yourself! 😂
You making erroneous judgements like that, based on glib assumptions & conjecture without any evidence or facts, is why I said I would be worried about you sitting in a jury room. | |
| |
| Lucy Letby; C5 docu last night, new evidence. Appeal has to be allowed surely .. on 00:55 - Sep 23 with 323 views | Smoresy |
| Lucy Letby; C5 docu last night, new evidence. Appeal has to be allowed surely .. on 23:55 - Sep 22 by King_ding_a_lin_g |
I thought she was from a relatively humble background, went to a state comprehensive school and was the first in her family to go to University?
Is it the University that you mean when you say privately educated? |
Only relevant in gauging how well Romford knows the detail I guess, but yes his claim about her being privately educated is wrong. State comp educated throughout, grew up in a 3 bed semi. But in middle-class Hereford and her parents had enough saved to help her buy a £179K property in 2016, so a more financially comfortable upbringing than many (no mention if bought outright or mortgaged; gifted the deposit would be my reasonable guess). | | | |
| Lucy Letby; C5 docu last night, new evidence. Appeal has to be allowed surely .. on 07:10 - Sep 23 with 208 views | Bluemike31 |
| Lucy Letby; C5 docu last night, new evidence. Appeal has to be allowed surely .. on 14:56 - Sep 22 by J2BLUE |
Most people accept they have a chance of being wrong. Someone can be 99% sure she's innocent and still not take the ridiculous gamble you have invented to prove some bizarre point. |
Clearly it's not a gamble anyone would take is it, because for all the spouting off of she's innocent, miscarriage of justice etc, nobody truly believes it enough to be comfortable do they. It is only a bizarre point because it puts the innocent brigade into a situation that they are far from comfortable with. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Lucy Letby; C5 docu last night, new evidence. Appeal has to be allowed surely .. on 08:33 - Sep 23 with 146 views | DJR |
| Lucy Letby; C5 docu last night, new evidence. Appeal has to be allowed surely .. on 22:52 - Sep 22 by balcombeblue |
I poorly articulated my disbelief that her skin colour has anything to do with the fact she may or may not be guilty.
If this is a great injustice, it’s absolutely something worth debating and advocating for. Those who haven’t looked at the details should do so. It has chilling ramifications. |
I am more than happy for you to do all the donkey work. 
But I do have a couple of observations.
1. The uncertainty and constant airing of doubts in public can't be of much fun to the parents of the victims, not least because, say, the hospital, rather than Letby, being to blame for the deaths is hardly a win-win.
2. More generally, I am puzzled by the airing of so much in public by experts and others. I could understand it at the outset in order to get the case to the CCRC but that having been achieved, it seems to me to go against the interests of justice in the sense that it might be difficult to have a fair retrial with a jury which hadn't been influenced by the coverage (assuming a retrial is an option). I also wonder if it is appropriate professionally for experts to continue expressing doubts in public, when it would be much more appropriate for them to feed their concerns into the defence team or the CCRC, [Post edited 23 Sep 8:41]
|  | | |
| Lucy Letby; C5 docu last night, new evidence. Appeal has to be allowed surely .. on 09:10 - Sep 23 with 94 views | balcombeblue |
| Lucy Letby; C5 docu last night, new evidence. Appeal has to be allowed surely .. on 08:33 - Sep 23 by DJR |
I am more than happy for you to do all the donkey work.
But I do have a couple of observations.
1. The uncertainty and constant airing of doubts in public can't be of much fun to the parents of the victims, not least because, say, the hospital, rather than Letby, being to blame for the deaths is hardly a win-win.
2. More generally, I am puzzled by the airing of so much in public by experts and others. I could understand it at the outset in order to get the case to the CCRC but that having been achieved, it seems to me to go against the interests of justice in the sense that it might be difficult to have a fair retrial with a jury which hadn't been influenced by the coverage (assuming a retrial is an option). I also wonder if it is appropriate professionally for experts to continue expressing doubts in public, when it would be much more appropriate for them to feed their concerns into the defence team or the CCRC, [Post edited 23 Sep 8:41]
|
I am inclined to agree on point 2. It's with the CCRC, hopefully the outcome will be justice but I suspect that will take a long time to come.
On point 1, although I agree with the sentiment, it would be even more stressful if the conviction is unsafe and instead there were other reasons for the deaths.
Although there are a few amateur people making assertions (me included probably), that's the nature of debate isn't it? I hear lots of comment on issues such as economic, social or foreign policy from people who are not qualified in what they say. If we just had to stick to our own fields of expertise it would be a stilted environment. | | | |
| Lucy Letby; C5 docu last night, new evidence. Appeal has to be allowed surely .. on 09:11 - Sep 23 with 92 views | Wolfshead |
| Lucy Letby; C5 docu last night, new evidence. Appeal has to be allowed surely .. on 10:31 - Sep 22 by Ryorry |
For goodness sake - read the thread! In effect, you've ignored the evidence here. |
The evidence being a confession, for goodness sake.
RIP all those little babies. [Post edited 23 Sep 9:12]
| |
| |
| Lucy Letby; C5 docu last night, new evidence. Appeal has to be allowed surely .. on 09:22 - Sep 23 with 74 views | Swailsey |
| Lucy Letby; C5 docu last night, new evidence. Appeal has to be allowed surely .. on 09:11 - Sep 23 by Wolfshead |
The evidence being a confession, for goodness sake.
RIP all those little babies. [Post edited 23 Sep 9:12]
|
Yes, obviously RIP. It's horrendous that those lives have been lost, and that seems to get lost sometimes in these threads. However, the 'confession' appears to be more nuanced than it seems, which we have seen several times with cases over the years. |  |
| Who said: "Colin Healy made Cesc Fabregas look like Colin Healy"? | We miss you TLA |
| |
| Lucy Letby; C5 docu last night, new evidence. Appeal has to be allowed surely .. on 09:29 - Sep 23 with 60 views | DJR |
| Lucy Letby; C5 docu last night, new evidence. Appeal has to be allowed surely .. on 09:10 - Sep 23 by balcombeblue |
I am inclined to agree on point 2. It's with the CCRC, hopefully the outcome will be justice but I suspect that will take a long time to come.
On point 1, although I agree with the sentiment, it would be even more stressful if the conviction is unsafe and instead there were other reasons for the deaths.
Although there are a few amateur people making assertions (me included probably), that's the nature of debate isn't it? I hear lots of comment on issues such as economic, social or foreign policy from people who are not qualified in what they say. If we just had to stick to our own fields of expertise it would be a stilted environment. |
I am coming at it from the principle that once someone is charged, the media is not allowed to comment on cases because it might prejudice a case, and newspapers will weed online comments accordingly. Having said that, no doubt much discussion takes place on social media which is not well policed.
Potential miscarriages of justice cases are not quite on all fours, and there clearly isn't a similar rule, but so far as possible it seems to me that the same principle should apply because too much evidence in public seems to me to be prejudicial to any retrial. Putting it another way, this case seems to have produced pretty entrenched views on either side making it rather difficult to form a truly independent jury.
I might add that I never comment on the outcome of criminal cases because I have not sat through the whole trial. [Post edited 23 Sep 9:34]
| | | |
| Lucy Letby; C5 docu last night, new evidence. Appeal has to be allowed surely .. on 09:32 - Sep 23 with 46 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| Lucy Letby; C5 docu last night, new evidence. Appeal has to be allowed surely .. on 23:55 - Sep 22 by King_ding_a_lin_g |
I thought she was from a relatively humble background, went to a state comprehensive school and was the first in her family to go to University?
Is it the University that you mean when you say privately educated? |
I've already pointed out she wasn't privately educated or rich but he's just ignoring those points and ploughing on.
I've also pointed out no-one's saying she's definitely innocent.
This isn't a discussion, it's Rommers saying what he thinks, creating strawmen, making up narratives and motives, and no-one else is worthy of challenging those or being listened to. |  |
| |
| Lucy Letby; C5 docu last night, new evidence. Appeal has to be allowed surely .. on 09:54 - Sep 23 with 8 views | _CliveBaker_ |
| Lucy Letby; C5 docu last night, new evidence. Appeal has to be allowed surely .. on 09:32 - Sep 23 by The_Flashing_Smile |
I've already pointed out she wasn't privately educated or rich but he's just ignoring those points and ploughing on.
I've also pointed out no-one's saying she's definitely innocent.
This isn't a discussion, it's Rommers saying what he thinks, creating strawmen, making up narratives and motives, and no-one else is worthy of challenging those or being listened to. |
She went to state primary, state secondary and state 6th form, and grew up with her parents on a small housing estate in Hereford. I'd say she's the definition of 'middle England'. I'm starting to wonder if he's confusing this with a different case. |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
