Lucy Letby Case #74

Status
Thread locked. We start a new thread when they have over 1000 posts, click the blue button to see all threads for this topic and find the latest open thread.
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
I think she was only training at Liverpool was she not?
Yes and she also had a lot of handover sheets from Liverpool. Despite the fact that in her own testimony she admitted that handover sheets are never given to students. So the notion of her having accidentally taken them home in her pocket is impossible. She must have gone out of her way to steal the notes from Liverpool Women's. Why would she do that?

Maybe they were her first souveniers. It would be very interesting to see someone compare the names of those babies whose notes she had obviously stolen with the names of babies on those units who had unusual or unexpected collapses. I am deeply disturbed by her text messages talking about "At Women's we were always put straight back into the same room with another critically ill baby to help us get over it"
"Always" Really? How many times did that happen then, Lucyfer?

Of course Neonatal units are places where very ill babies are cared for yet the survival rates for premmie babies improve every year as the science and practice of neonatal ICU is evolving at a rapid pace.
20 years ago being born at 26 - 30 weeks of age made death a very real risk but these days more of them survive than are lost.

So how many babies died while she was at Women's and how does that compare to the rates before and after her tenure there?
 
  • Like
  • Heart
Reactions: 12
The "statisticians" infuriate me as they seem to assume every baby in the CoCH had the same odds of survival (including multiples), which obviously they don't. Ie every baby in there has a 1/10 chance of collapsing or dying before the day is over, smaller for more prem babies, bigger for older ones (I'm making the number up as i don't know the exact stats, but you know what I mean) But that simply isn't true from a medical perspective. Every child was unique in its medical and physiological condition, and the point of the investigation and trial was that these days and collapses were UNEXPECTED, hence she wasnt charged for every single death or collapse on the unit. They were stable (ie 90% chance of making it through the day or whatever) and collapsed for no obvious medical reason. When you look at the fact that Letby was there for all the times that apparently stable babies crashed for no obvious medical reason, the stats start to look very bad for her indeed.
 
  • Like
  • Heart
Reactions: 17
The "statisticians" infuriate me as they seem to assume every baby in the CoCH had the same odds of survival (including multiples), which obviously they don't. Ie every baby in there has a 1/10 chance of collapsing or dying before the day is over, smaller for more prem babies, bigger for older ones (I'm making the number up as i don't know the exact stats, but you know what I mean) But that simply isn't true from a medical perspective. Every child was unique in its medical and physiological condition, and the point of the investigation and trial was that these days and collapses were UNEXPECTED, hence she wasnt charged for every single death or collapse on the unit. They were stable (ie 90% chance of making it through the day or whatever) and collapsed for no obvious medical reason. When you look at the fact that Letby was there for all the times that apparently stable babies crashed for no obvious medical reason, the stats start to look very bad for her indeed.
This is one of the reasons why i don’t think they were used by the defence too. Because they literally lack the capacity to see these babies for anything other than 1 number which isn’t, even by hospital stats, how they’re viewed. Imagine how that would go down over cross examination? Imagine how the jury would view these “experts” when they’re making unfounded claims of these babies being so sick they’d die anyway.
Despite anything about their work, they’re not “likeable” because they’ve completely dehumanised the babies in all of this - this would have gone down horrendously in court.

They’re so heavily driven by numbers/data that they genuinely can’t see/look at any qualitative data.
Stats and quantitative data is useful and does have its place…but usually when it’s accompanied by other supporting data too. Numbers can be manipulated to give a certain result…exactly how they’re claiming it to have already been done, well they’re wanting to do the same just with a different outcome.

They’re too far up their own arses of their own importance to take a step back and realise this case wasn’t and was never built on statistics 🙄
 
  • Like
  • Heart
Reactions: 20
I hate the statistics argument because it's irrelevant. Statistics weren't used in the trial. It's a prime example of the saying "if you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth". Even people who believe she's guilty are repeating it as if it's true, in the vein of "yeah, the statistics argument was bad, but" - it literally didn't happen! Stop it!

I've started challenging Letbyists to find a single example of statistics being used in the live reporting. So far they keep banging on about the bloody shift table, and NJ saying Letby was "the common denominator" in his opening statement. That's it. They don't even know what statistics means.
---
I've just had another thought: several parents reported the rudeness and hostility of the nurses and being made to feel unwelcome. This could be why the many accounts of Letby's rude, abrupt, or outright inappropriate behaviour didn't cause as much concern as it should.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Heart
Reactions: 23
Hold the front page. Drunky Mark uploaded half an hour ago and he's solved it.

Every death can be easily accounted for as a vaccine injury. His evidence for this is that all the babies who died were vaccinated.
I mean I see his point. Stands to reason really. What other explanation could there be?

I truly do think he's in the throes of alcohol induced dementia.
 
  • Haha
  • Angry
  • Like
Reactions: 20
Hold the front page. Drunky Mark uploaded half an hour ago and he's solved it.

Every death can be easily accounted for as a vaccine injury. His evidence for this is that all the babies who died were vaccinated.
I mean I see his point. Stands to reason really. What other explanation could there be?

I truly do think he's in the throes of alcohol induced dementia.
I know he talks a load of rubbish but where's he getting " They were all vaccinated" from? they don't usually vaccinate babies straight after birth.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 13
I know he talks a load of rubbish but where's he getting " They were all vaccinated" from? they don't usually vaccinate babies straight after birth.
He actually refers to it as "Innoculation" too. Which is adorable of him. My Great Auntie Molly used to call them that.

He had his mood lighting on which I always suspect means either he's fallen over pissed and the place is a state or he hasn't fed the leccy meter and so is sat in the dark.

ETA: I only watched the first three minutes of him. I mean I'm up for a laugh but I'm not suffering that fool for any longer. I don't like to link him here but it's easy enough to find if you can stomach the droning voice and the repetition. He did really upload it within the last hour so it's just the latest one. Called A Matter of Innoculations or something similiar with loads of #Lucyneverdunnuffin type hashtags.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 8
He actually refers to it as "Innoculation" too. Which is adorable of him. My Great Auntie Molly used to call them that.

He had his mood lighting on which I always suspect means either he's fallen over pissed and the place is a state or he hasn't fed the leccy meter and so is sat in the dark.

ETA: I only watched the first three minutes of him. I mean I'm up for a laugh but I'm not suffering that fool for any longer. I don't like to link him here but it's easy enough to find if you can stomach the droning voice and the repetition. He did really upload it within the last hour so it's just the latest one. Called A Matter of Innoculations or something similiar with loads of #Lucyneverdunnuffin type hashtags.
Thanks. I found him. Its about child G, who was immunised and survived but was left severely disabled. Like the rest of the truthers the evidence doesn't fit the theory but they argue it anyway.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
  • Sad
Reactions: 11
New to posting here, I've been a fascinated lurker for a while.

The talk of vaccines is straight from America, where the anti-vaxxers seem to believe the vitamin k supplement given shortly after birth is a vaccine/innoculation. Many refuse it.

I'm just stunned that there are actually people that exist, who think she is completely innocent and didn't do ANYTHING wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 16
I hate the statistics argument because it's irrelevant. Statistics weren't used in the trial. It's a prime example of the saying "if you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth". Even people who believe she's guilty are repeating it as if it's true, in the vein of "yeah, the statistics argument was bad, but" - it literally didn't happen! Stop it!

I've started challenging Letbyists to find a single example of statistics being used in the live reporting. So far they keep banging on about the bloody shift table, and NJ saying Letby was "the common denominator" in his opening statement. That's it. They don't even know what statistics means.
Ben Myers had a statistician waiting in the wings possibly in case a blatantly statistical argument was used. The BBC say that Letby was present at another 6 deaths in addition to the 7 murders. This is possibly why faulty use of statistics is a favourite amongst uninformed internet sleuths but hasn't been used in legal argument.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 12
Channel have another documentary about Letby on next Sunday, obviously desperate for content

1000003566.jpg
 
  • Angry
  • Sick
  • Haha
Reactions: 16
Ben Myers had a statistician waiting in the wings possibly in case a blatantly statistical argument was used. The BBC say that Letby was present at another 6 deaths in addition to the 7 murders. This is possibly why faulty use of statistics is a favourite amongst uninformed internet sleuths but hasn't been used in legal argument.
Richard Gill is pushing hard that the babies all died of sepsis. Trying to convince people that overwhelming infection and sepsis often leaves no clinical signs. The statistics argument needs all the babies to have died of natural causes.
The documentary will be a rehash of all the old drivel as there is no new ground. Any proper evidence would surely be need to be kept secret for the appeal.
The insulin evidence is stronger then the media thinks. The problem is most people don't understand how insulin is produced, that's why there was an expert at the trial to explain it to the jury.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 17
Richard Gill is pushing hard that the babies all died of sepsis. Trying to convince people that overwhelming infection and sepsis often leaves no clinical signs. The statistics argument needs all the babies to have died of natural causes.
Gill doesn't understand the basics of what sepsis is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 19
interesting to see how much we have been paying as taxpayers for her defence so far, however I am glad we have this in UK as it makes sure she’s been given a fair defence too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 12
Status
Thread locked. We start a new thread when they have over 1000 posts, click the blue button to see all threads for this topic and find the latest open thread.