Lucy Letby Case #79

[Tofino]

She only applied 3 weeks into the inquiry (23rd September). Very late. Worth noting the comments about tubes dislodged on 40% of shifts happened on 12th September, so before she applied to be a core participant.

Looks to me like she only applied to be core participant so she could have access to all the evidence and get ahead of the police investigation. You get full disclosure as core participant.

 

[Tofino]

I'm not sure many are accusing them of being malign.

If you cast your mind back to the now long-forgotten December press conference the presenting physician Dr Taylor said that he had concerns about the conviction as soon as he saw first reports in the media because he didn't believe a nurse could do this (or words to that effect). The report presented was from 2 doctors who had reported the prosecution expert witnesses to the GMC on the basis of what they'd seen in the media.

Malign? Who knows. But they clearly formed biases before they had the full information.

Yes most likely not intentional but they are not immune to confirmation bias / group think / conflicts of interests - all the things the police investigation, CPS, Dewi Evans have all been accused of. Yet this panel are arguably starting from the point they have already decided there are other explanations before even seeing any evidence for themselves. They are easily the least impartial out of any of the experts involved in this case.

 

[MavisBeacon]

Revolting attention-seekers. OK, you've put your application in. Now fuck off.

 

[AllieBee]

Goodness me looks like Chambers and Harvey have kept almost everyone in the dark. Boy are they in trouble

 

[IGiveUp22]

Yeah they were suggesting mum actually came down at 10pm as it’s fits their version of events better. And that whilst the phone records say the call she made was just after 9pm, it was just after 10pm as the records were 1hour out.

Honestly these people are genuinely mental aren’t they. As @MmmB777 has just said, LL herself has said none of it even happened so you’ve got actual phone records, regardless of times, proving it did in fact happen and LL said it didn’t…so she lied. Which brings us back full circle to what I always talk about and that’s how significant it is for someone to lie, under oath, on the stand

 

[MavisBeacon]

Listening to the podcast now. He's infuriating. What an absolute cunt he is.

 

[Aberscot]

Well Ian Harvey did say if they could find them when he buggered off to France with his fat pension.
i hope Rees is included as she was the one that left LL on ward when she was asked not and said she would take full responsibility.

 

[Apostate]

Thanks @Tofino your point by point post has settled me further. It’s been a long week and my brain isn’t working enough to go back over and see what they may/may not be inferring to and also thank you @oldjamfan i really hope that is the case.
I firmly believe the right decision was made by the jury, especially when you get reminded of things such as the pattern all being very late into the night shifts, with no issues on day shifts and then as soon as she’s switched it stops happening on a night but starts happening on days..that was another huge one for me that swung it to be more than “bad luck”.
would just HATE for there to have been an error in disclosure giving them an “in” when there shouldn’t be one

The disclosure claims are worthless. Lots of material doesn't get disclosed because it's not deemed relevant. McDonald was always going to dig some of this out and try to portray it as something that it isn't - it's just part of his strategy of trying to create false narratives.

 

[cokeyoakey]

Why do they say she's a whistleblower? Even in their own narrative of events, in what way did she "blow the whistle"?

(I mean, other than in Cockington . . .)

 

[Tofino]

Funny isn’t it, that Gill was one of the earliest to speak about MoJ, claim innocence, so many on Twitter listened to what the ‘expert statistician’ who was involved in the RSS report had to say.

Such a fatal error that people would fall for the words of a man who is now taking pilgrimages to Letby’s former home and places of interest in Chester. Funny how little it took to go from ‘I’m not saying she’s innocent’ to ‘I’m going to blow up the court with an AK47’ to ‘stalking her former home’. Yeah I’m sure everyone can be confident with his impartiality.

the big question is… has he been to Cockington yet?

 

[Apostate]

When your Letby supporter goes to one of these gatherings, looks at those around them, do they think to themselves "you know my life hasn't turned out the way I hoped it would"

 

[sebanna]

Somebody linked earlier to some of the court transcripts, the post has now been deleted. There was a heartbreaking transcripts about babies G, M and Q brain scans. How those children are paying the price everyday for Letby's crimes. Some people need to think of them before writing and producing these attention seeking pieces. If there is a concern about the medical evidence then by all means let the CCRC investigate properly but let's stop the pantomime.

 

[Pulltheotherone]

Oh dear oh dear …
Finally - the chickens are coming home to roost.

 

[Tofino]

No, it's not a set up and she's not a scapegoat. She's a murderer. I don't think harbouring a serial killer is a good look for an NHS trust so not sure why they would have chosen this route to cover anything up. Also not sure who is meant to have scapegoated her seeing as management actively protected her at every step. Hope this helps you get off the fence.

And now they are most likely the suspects of the gross negligent manslaughter investigation, which if convicted could be facing a life sentence.

But at least they saved the hospital from blame huh?

 

[O'lee]

the letter from Letby's solicitors

https://thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk/wp-content/uploads/thirlwall-documents/Letter%20from%20Bhandal%20Law%20to%20Lady%20Justice%20Thirlwall%20dated%2017%20March%202025.pdf

the statisticians seem heavily involved again

"Two reports from the United Kingdom’s leading statisticians refuting the premise of
the prosecution case of an unexplained spike in deaths and a coincidence of Letby
being present when babies are said to have died or collapsed. This has been done not
by relying on unproven anecdotal evidence but with the use of extensive research and
data analysis. The experts conclude that the jury were misled as to accurate status of
the data. In short, there was no unusual spike, it was not an outlier, and the staff rota
presented to the jury was incomplete, selective and, therefore, meaningless."

One is likely to be Jane Hutton - the other could be Richard Gill but his tattered credibility makes it unlikely he would be used.

Do they honestly think that anyone can be persuaded that 13 deaths in just over a year when the norm was 3 is not "unusual"? They are living in cloud cuckoo land.

When McDonald tried the claims about statistics with Ben Geen's case, the Court of Appeal judges laughed it out of the building

One of the discloses refers to the third insulin case, saying BM could have used this to prove Letby innocent is ridiculous.

Ben Myers would rather have walked from Manchester Crown Court to Blackpool and back barefoot than have had the jury informed of yet another high insulin, low c-peptide and low blood sugar incident when Letby was present

 

[Wellthisisinteresting]

OMG BROKE MY ANKLE RUNNING HERE

🥹🥹🥹🥹🥹🥹🥹🥹🥹🥹

 

[Tofino]

Most these people just have no idea what they are talking about, both with the details in Letby’s case, the inquiry and also more generally with the law. And today’s news makes it glaringly obvious. Yet their ignorance and stupidity means they are going out of their way to defend a baby killer.

 

[Refracton]

I feel so bad for Dr.B.

 

[sebanna]

https://www.abc.net.au/listen/programs/the-radio-national-hour/lucy-letby-s-barrister/105078644

He can’t help himself, can he? He must love the sound of his own voice! Why is he talking directly to news channels in Australia? Hasn’t he got anything better to do?

He’s still saying he doesn’t know why no defence experts were called in the trial.

He’s collected another 10 experts on top of the panel of 14 in Feb. “The Best” he says. People who wrote the books. Not read them (dig at Dewi). He says.

He says: evidence is overwhelming. 1000 pages of reports. Hard for the CCRC to refuse. Expects to be in CoA. That is the hard work and he’s not complacent. Heavyweight judges. Asking why it wasn’t called at trial. Hurdle he’s got to overcome.

He says: UK media - tide has turned. 90% journalists are questioning safety of convictions. 1 or 2 holding out. Guardian, times, telegraph questioning which Filters to general public. They will say ‘I thought she was guilty at start but got troubled by it’. Will always be those think very guilty. On whole people questioning

He says: Long chat with Letby last night. Met a person broken with no hope. Experts have given her hope. <<<of course! A guilty person would feel this way too.

He says: Experienced, passionate nurse. Worked more shift hours than any other nurse. One of the most experienced which is why she always got the sick babies. She’s on the ball. They talk about the expert reports, sees and reads them and if parts have been interpreted correctly. <<< this is fascinating. So does she go back and tell them the experts got something wrong?! Sounds reliable.

Do you think Mark Mcdonald realises he talking utter crap?

Lucy wasn't one of the most experienced nurses on the unit. She says herself, on the the stand, that baby K wasn't given to her as she didn't have the experience of Joanne Williams. The unit was giving her the low dependency babies to give her a break from the stresses of all the collapses.

No babies had blood results suggesting harm? What about the low c peptide high insulin ratio? Or baby O's liver injury?

It doesn't matter how many pages the experts have written if their report is full of errors and doesn't make sense. How can the CCRC refer it back when there's no new evidence?

 

[Hazara04]

Wow he’s a vile, disgusting POS. How
fucking dare he try and play dirty PR games. But the more he speaks the more he exposes himself.

He has a nerve accusing anyone of "trying to control the narrative" when that is literally what he has been trying do with the PR stunts.