- Notice
That woman gave up the right to a life when she murdered and inflicted life changing injuries on those babies. Prison is too good for her.
MmmB777
VIP Member
I can’t believe what I’ve just read. Two of three triplets have just suddenly died taking the mortality to staggering levels. She’s told the doctors think they were murdered. She’s trying to downplay the seriousness of that situation? In front of the parents? Honestly. I wish they had gone for a retrial for baby Q because that baby was irreparably injured by Letby in the days after this and her and Karen should be looking at prison for their decision.
Orange lilly
Chatty Member
My heart breaks for all parents and extended family of every baby that was killed or harmed by her. Throughout trial they've maintained dignity and decorum. I've said in previous post if you have a baby needing neonatal care you hand over all care and keeping your baby alive to the professionals. Never would you even contemplate that anyone in their profession would harm them.
Couldn’t be clearer really. 12th May 2017 was when they met with police but just before the police met with the consultants alone (15th May) and formally launched the investigation
They really thought the police would back their position.
---
Oh. Not his notes so it didn’t happen
---
Richard Baker KC not holding back
“Utterly reprehensible behaviour and unfitting for a CEO in the NHS”
They really thought the police would back their position.
---
Oh. Not his notes so it didn’t happen
---
Richard Baker KC not holding back
“Utterly reprehensible behaviour and unfitting for a CEO in the NHS”
Last edited:
Futtrit
VIP Member
I know Dr B and Dr J aren't perfect but my fucking goodness could you imagine trying to work in any way effectively with this bunch of absolute self satified fuckwitted wankers.
Especially when all you are trying to do is understand why/how these babies have died. They have integrity even if they made mistakes.
Especially when all you are trying to do is understand why/how these babies have died. They have integrity even if they made mistakes.
MavisBeacon
VIP Member
And is this fresh evidence in the room with us now, Mark?
He knows it’s very unlikely the court of appeal will look at this. So he’s hoping the press conference and revealing their ‘fresh/not fresh’ evidence will stir up enough discourse from the general public that it will put pressure on the judges to make an exception (I don’t know if they have any legal discretion to even do so.)
However I really can’t see it reopening the case at all. Are convicted criminals allowed to just keep finding new experts with new opinions in the hope eventually it will be enough? Because this is all this is.
And it’s also only about babies C and O. Whilst all these other experts work on further reports for the other babies. So what’s the plan here..to do it piecemeal, repeated press conferences on a couple of babies at a time so it is constant pressure on the courts and keep the public engaged with them? Because if they disappeared for a year and waited until they had completed all reports on all babies, most of the public wouldn’t be giving Letby a second thought anymore.
This is nothing but a PR exercise. A sick one and I’m absolutely furious for the families.
However I really can’t see it reopening the case at all. Are convicted criminals allowed to just keep finding new experts with new opinions in the hope eventually it will be enough? Because this is all this is.
And it’s also only about babies C and O. Whilst all these other experts work on further reports for the other babies. So what’s the plan here..to do it piecemeal, repeated press conferences on a couple of babies at a time so it is constant pressure on the courts and keep the public engaged with them? Because if they disappeared for a year and waited until they had completed all reports on all babies, most of the public wouldn’t be giving Letby a second thought anymore.
This is nothing but a PR exercise. A sick one and I’m absolutely furious for the families.
PositivelyVonnegutesque
Active member
Chambers says that Letby's father was "very angry" and "he was making threats" at their meeting in December 2016. He adds that "he was threatening guns to my head."
Chambers acknowledges that he might not have gotten the handling of the meeting right, adding that he was just trying to "take the heat out of the situation" with Letby's father.
Wow.
Chambers acknowledges that he might not have gotten the handling of the meeting right, adding that he was just trying to "take the heat out of the situation" with Letby's father.
Wow.
FastAndTheCurious7
VIP Member
Why is she on my TikTok advertising blinds 
AllieBee
VIP Member
This is what I can't understand. Surely a hugely increased death rate on its own, would trigger a safeguarding concern? Total incompetence if not deliberate cover up
Secretbrillopad
VIP Member
At this point I want bloody Ma and Pa Letby up there to give evidence, maybe then we'd find out why they're so prominent in all of it.
Cack_Conroe
Well-known member
Quick thoughts before today starts:
Tony Chambers is an absolute abomination. I honesty think he has diagnosable narcissistic personality disorder. Coming straight afterwards, Ian Harvey was bound to look sympathetic by simply being normal!
I think Ian Harvey has studied Tony Chambers and Alison Kelly and learned how to not look like a total cunt. Hence giving a half-decent apology, trying to answer questions directly, not pretending he was too important to do his own job etc.
But he had his moments. Twice he rudely refused point blank to give any answer, Letby style. There was also a lot of I don’t recalls, and pretending to not answer the questions.
He was happily launching the consultants under the bus for missing the insulin babies, and for not telling him about Baby K.
He stubbornly refused to listen to the barristers point that all the reviews they commissioned were categorically not designed and not likely to find wrongdoing.
Ian Harvey stubbornly kept saying that the reviews should have found *something*. He kept saying ut should have found the insulin babies - missing the point that as non-forensic investigations the reviews were limited to things that were known about. The insulin victims didn’t even collapse! No wonder they weren’t reviewed.
And the little that the reviews did find (like Jane Hawdon saying four babies needed forensic investigation), he still treated it as no evidence of Lucy doing harm.
I wasn’t sure if Ian Harvey is truly as ignorant as he seems (bearing in mind he was a surgeon!) or cleverly putting on a realistic show of ignorance.
But a lady who knows him sitting next to me has just confirmed Ian Harvey is a nasty arrogant prick who is just making himself look good. So I suspect he’s just very good at answering the questions and making himself look as reasonable as possible. He’s much more intelligent than the other cunts.
Tony Chambers is an absolute abomination. I honesty think he has diagnosable narcissistic personality disorder. Coming straight afterwards, Ian Harvey was bound to look sympathetic by simply being normal!
I think Ian Harvey has studied Tony Chambers and Alison Kelly and learned how to not look like a total cunt. Hence giving a half-decent apology, trying to answer questions directly, not pretending he was too important to do his own job etc.
But he had his moments. Twice he rudely refused point blank to give any answer, Letby style. There was also a lot of I don’t recalls, and pretending to not answer the questions.
He was happily launching the consultants under the bus for missing the insulin babies, and for not telling him about Baby K.
He stubbornly refused to listen to the barristers point that all the reviews they commissioned were categorically not designed and not likely to find wrongdoing.
Ian Harvey stubbornly kept saying that the reviews should have found *something*. He kept saying ut should have found the insulin babies - missing the point that as non-forensic investigations the reviews were limited to things that were known about. The insulin victims didn’t even collapse! No wonder they weren’t reviewed.
And the little that the reviews did find (like Jane Hawdon saying four babies needed forensic investigation), he still treated it as no evidence of Lucy doing harm.
I wasn’t sure if Ian Harvey is truly as ignorant as he seems (bearing in mind he was a surgeon!) or cleverly putting on a realistic show of ignorance.
But a lady who knows him sitting next to me has just confirmed Ian Harvey is a nasty arrogant prick who is just making himself look good. So I suspect he’s just very good at answering the questions and making himself look as reasonable as possible. He’s much more intelligent than the other cunts.