Merged Concerns over baby killer ignored? / Nurse Lucy Letby killed babies in her care

[Vixen]

Where does Hammond say this? The Private Eye articles are here.

Why would these articles be sub judice when the trials are over?

It was held over at the time. It is only now the trial is over they have published it.

 

[catsmate]

We are not told how many declined to sign it.

So now there is going to be a sympathetic-to-Letby Netflix documentary. Because the victims were granted anonymity, people forget there are real people and families involved in this make believe innocence project for entertainment. The conviction met Criminal Law standards so the agitators should spend more time understanding the impact of Letby's crimes on the surviving twins and other children, who are now missing a sibling or siblings, not to mention the poor little mite who has to live with the equivalent of Cerebral Palsy for the rest of her life. The aim of the innocence campaigners seems to be to keep the issue in the news, with a new article almost daily in the mainstream press. If the GUARDIAN keeps up this nonsense, I will cancel my subscription.

So you're going to ignore the experts who consider there are serious failings in the investigation?

 

[Vixen]

So you're going to ignore the experts who consider there are serious failings in the investigation?

Dr Phil Hammond describes himself as a comedian, investigative reporter and contributor to PRIVATE EYE.

Dr. Richard Gill, PhD, is a professor in mathematics and statistics at Leiden Uni in the Netherlands.

Both decided Letby was subject to a miscarriage before the trial was even finished, Dr. Gill right from the start. Dr. Hammond had his article subject to a subjudice injunction so he, too, didn't wait to hear all of the evidence and actually tried to prejudice the trial in the middle of it, with his article..

Neither of them are neonatal healthcare specialists. Neither of them was involved in the case or was present during the hearing.

They are entitled to express their opinion but imagine if Netflix, PRIVATE EYE, the DM and the GUARDIAN ran a campaign 'sympathetic' to Wayne Couzens or Ian Huntley, yet Lucy Letby killed far more people than they did. It is grossly offensive to their victims.

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

David Davis thinks Letby is innocent. He raised a point that half the deaths were when she was not on duty. How does that work? Were there a whole load of murders identified, which have been ignored and there are more killers working at the hospital? Or were they not identified as murders, so they don't count as murder?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/lucy-letby-david-davis-innocent-appeal-b2605610.html

In many serial cases, not just murder, not all crimes are identified or provable. There will be a disconnect between how many crimes were actually committed and how many are tried or convicted. It is also possible to falsely convict someone of one or more crimes, out of a series of crimes, but get it right for the rest.

They weren't identified as murders by the two doctors who first dobbed her in to the cops, a perfect example of the Texas sharpshooter fallacy.

These were the same two doctors who, if you remember, ended up in hot water over making false accusations against Ms Letby.

Edit: and it now turns out that the notes which were the prosecution's biggest "evidence" against Ms Letby, alleging that they were confessions to murder, were done on the advice of the hospital's head of occupational health and wellbeing as therapy for the extreme levels of stress Ms Letby was experiencing from being overworked in an underfunded and out of date hospital along with being criminally investigated. And those notes were heavily edited and redacted before being admitted as evidence with the prosecution only ever showing very partial snippets of the notes. Again, if an guilty person is in jail over this, I'm a monkey's uncle.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...essions-were-written-on-advice-of-counsellors

 

[catsmate]

Dr Phil Hammond describes himself as a comedian, investigative reporter and contributor to PRIVATE EYE.

Dr. Richard Gill, PhD, is a professor in mathematics and statistics at Leiden Uni in the Netherlands.

Both decided Letby was subject to a miscarriage before the trial was even finished, Dr. Gill right from the start. Dr. Hammond had his article subject to a subjudice injunction so he, too, didn't wait to hear all of the evidence and actually tried to prejudice the trial in the middle of it, with his article..

Neither of them are neonatal healthcare specialists. Neither of them was involved in the case or was present during the hearing.

They are entitled to express their opinion but imagine if Netflix, PRIVATE EYE, the DM and the GUARDIAN ran a campaign 'sympathetic' to Wayne Couzens or Ian Huntley, yet Lucy Letby killed far more people than they did. It is grossly offensive to their victims.

So you're going to ignore the, literally, dozens of experts who have spoken out about the problems in the Letby investigation and trial?

 

[catsmate]

They weren't identified as murders by the two doctors who first dobbed her in to the cops, a perfect example of the Texas sharpshooter fallacy.

These were the same two doctors who, if you remember, ended up in hot water over making false accusations against Ms Letby.

Edit: and it now turns out that the notes which were the prosecution's biggest "evidence" against Ms Letby, alleging that they were confessions to murder, were done on the advice of the hospital's head of occupational health and wellbeing as therapy for the extreme levels of stress Ms Letby was experiencing from being overworked in an underfunded and out of date hospital along with being criminally investigated. And those notes were heavily edited and redacted before being admitted as evidence with the prosecution only ever showing very partial snippets of the notes. Again, if an guilty person is in jail over this, I'm a monkey's uncle.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...essions-were-written-on-advice-of-counsellors

Yes, I saw that. A supposedly major plank in the case (which no-one with a knowledge of psychology took seriously) disintegrates.

 

[smartcooky]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...essions-were-written-on-advice-of-counsellors

Yes, I saw that. A supposedly major plank in the case (which no-one with a knowledge of psychology took seriously) disintegrates.

Utter rubbish

Firstly, there is a colossal difference being between a therapist telling you to write down your thoughts, and one telling you to write down admissions to killing people. Any therapist telling their patient the latter needs to have their practicing certificate yanked immediately.

Secondly, even if what this article says is true it does not make the fact that she wrote down "I killed them on purpose because I’m not good enough to care for them and I am a horrible evil person" and "I am evil I did this" simply go away. These were admissions of guilt - there is no way to handwave them away.

So you're going to ignore the, literally, dozens of experts who have spoken out about the problems in the Letby investigation and trial?

So you're going to ignore the experts who consider there are serious failings in the investigation?

I cannot speak for Vixen, but I can tell you that as long as those co-called "experts" are just comedians, journalist crime writers and mathematicians, I will continue to ignore them. When you can come up with actual experts in the relevant fields, such a pediatric, care experts specializing in premature babies to deal with those issues, and criminologists and forensic scientists to argue for a flawed investigation, then I might take some notice.
‎
‎

 

[Vixen]

So you're going to ignore the, literally, dozens of experts who have spoken out about the problems in the Letby investigation and trial?

David Davis MP is not an expert, he is a moron, as are Nadine Dorries, Barbara Vine and Peter Hitchins. They are people of feeble intellect, unable to keep up or grasp the most basic of simple legal principles. Who do you prefer to trust, someone with decades of experience and expertise in ensuring an absolutely fair trial, such as Justice Goss...or someone who chomped on baked ostrich anuses on national TV?

 

[Matthew Best]

I found this blogpost quite interesting and informative:

https://duncanlaw.wordpress.com/2024/09/02/the-lucy-letby-case/

 

[Vixen]

Yes, I saw that. A supposedly major plank in the case (which no-one with a knowledge of psychology took seriously) disintegrates.

It is an amateur mistake to treat evidence in a trial in a piecemeal fashion. This consists of taking a checklist of each evidence in turn and placing a tick against it as you go along. So for example, of the Letby campaigners are doing is taking one piece of evidence at a time and dismissing it with an alternative explanation. In the case of the scribbled notes, the amateur offers the alternative explanation that she was 'just doodling' and expressing the frustration, and she was also under psychological counselling and was advised by the psychotherapist to jot down her negative thoughts in a creative and journalled fashion. Tick. 'You can't PROVE the notes mean anything, therefore it is a miscarriage of justice!'

The correct method of weighing up evidence in a criminal trial is to hear all of the evidence from all of the people and look at the evidence IN TOTALITY before coming to a verdict.

In the case of the scribbled post-it notes, the point it was written by an anguished person WAS put to the jury. Top drawer defence silk Ben Myers made that very point, so it is untrue there was a miscarriage of justice regarding the notes. We don't know whether the jury accepted the notes were of little evidential merit or whether they thought them relevant as we are not allowed to know how the jury deliberated. But they certainly were given the psychological explanation during the trial, so it is utter nonsense to say the verdict was based solely on the notes and that the jury were too stupid to realise that people doddle rubbish under stress. For all you know, the notes might not have been much of a factor in the jury's verdicts at all. If they were a factor, then that is because the jury was looking at that one piece of evidence together with all of the other evidence and coming to a conclusion that they were sure that Letby was guilty as charged in fifteen of each individual cases.

 

[catsmate]

Utter rubbish

Firstly, there is a colossal difference being between a therapist telling you to write down your thoughts, and one telling you to write down admissions to killing people. Any therapist telling their patient the latter needs to have their practicing certificate yanked immediately.

Secondly, even if what this article says is true it does not make the fact that she wrote down "I killed them on purpose because I’m not good enough to care for them and I am a horrible evil person" and "I am evil I did this" simply go away. These were admissions of guilt - there is no way to handwave them away.





I cannot speak for Vixen, but I can tell you that as long as those co-called "experts" are just comedians, journalist crime writers and mathematicians, I will continue to ignore them. When you can come up with actual experts in the relevant fields, such a pediatric, care experts specializing in premature babies to deal with those issues, and criminologists and forensic scientists to argue for a flawed investigation, then I might take some notice.
‎
‎

Sigh. So you're going to ignore all the physicians and scientists because they don't suit your narrative?
And your dismissal of "mathematicians" is just idiotic. Who better to comment on the dubious use of statistics?

 

[catsmate]

I found this blogpost quite interesting and informative:

https://duncanlaw.wordpress.com/2024/09/02/the-lucy-letby-case/

That is an excellent summary of the situation. Too bad certain people will ignore it.

 

[catsmate]

David Davis MP is not an expert, he is a moron, as are Nadine Dorries, Barbara Vine and Peter Hitchins. They are people of feeble intellect, unable to keep up or grasp the most basic of simple legal principles. Who do you prefer to trust, someone with decades of experience and expertise in ensuring an absolutely fair trial, such as Justice Goss...or someone who chomped on baked ostrich anuses on national TV?

So, like you fellow traveller, you're going to continue to ignore the excoriation of the case by scientists and physicians, and deny they exist.
Pathetic, but hardly unexpected.

 

[Vixen]

That is an excellent summary of the situation. Too bad certain people will ignore it.

The writer of the blog relies very heavily on Nadine Dorries and Peter Hitchins. I wonder if he even followed the trial but prefers to rely instead on the gutter press.

The trial is over. A panel of experienced judges found no grounds for appeal. I now look forward to the Public Inquiry into the NHS bosses who tried to cover up for Letby and who threatened the careers of a dozen concerned doctors.


The conspiracy theorists will run and run until Letby pops her clogs in prison.


It is quite disgusting really. I saw the names of Letby's victims on a Court Listing sheet and I can assure you they were all real people with real families, who had their whole lives cruelly snatched away from them. But people prefer to mischievously pretend there was a miscarriage of justice for the murderer and abuser of little vulnerable and helpless children.

 

[Vixen]

So, like you fellow traveller, you're going to continue to ignore the excoriation of the case by scientists and physicians, and deny they exist.
Pathetic, but hardly unexpected.

I note you are unable to articulate what it is you believe to be a miscarriage and seem unable to name the 'experts' you claim to be in awe of nor able to provide any reasoning for your belief. Instead, you lean heavily on 'what the DM says' and a rolling eyes emoji.

 

[Matthew Best]

It is quite disgusting really. I saw the names of Letby's victims on a Court Listing sheet and I can assure you they were all real people with real families, who had their whole lives cruelly snatched away from them.

What a weird thing to say. Has anybody suggested they weren't real people?

 

[Matthew Best]

The writer of the blog relies very heavily on Nadine Dorries and Peter Hitchins.

Relies heavily?

Here's what he says about Hitchens:

"(The one notable, and commendable, exception that I am aware of in the national press is the Daily Mail columnist Peter Hitchens, who used his column to express worries about the safety of the Letby verdicts right from the start.)"

And Dorries?

"Former ministers David Davis and Nadine Dorries have both made ‘interventions’ expressing concern about the prosecution."

If these two brief mentions count as "relying heavily" in your world view, no wonder you never get anything right. You are incapable of reading and making sense out of what you read.

 

[Vixen]

What a weird thing to say. Has anybody suggested they weren't real people?

Imagine if people started campaigning that Ian Huntley was innocent: he claims the girls died by accident. Where are all the defence experts to say yes, indeed it could have been accidental? Or is it grossly offensive to the families of the two little girls who died? How is this case any different, just because there are no cute pictures of Letby's victims, so people sympathise with Letby instead, based on mere sentimentality AFAICS as there is zero evidence the trial was unfair?

 

[Matthew Best]

Imagine if people started campaigning that Ian Huntley was innocent: he claims the girls died by accident. Where are all the defence experts to say yes, indeed it could have been accidental? Or is it grossly offensive to the families of the two little girls who died? How is this case any different, just because there are no cute pictures of Letby's victims, so people sympathise with Letby instead, based on mere sentimentality AFAICS as there is zero evidence the trial was unfair?

Can you resist the temptation to post drivel for one day?

 

[gabeygoat]

Imagine if people started campaigning that Ian Huntley was innocent: he claims the girls died by accident. Where are all the defence experts to say yes, indeed it could have been accidental? Or is it grossly offensive to the families of the two little girls who died? How is this case any different, just because there are no cute pictures of Letby's victims, so people sympathise with Letby instead, based on mere sentimentality AFAICS as there is zero evidence the trial was unfair?

I can not tell what you mean by this post. However, I'm pretty sure a person can simultaneously believe the accused not guilty without deciding the victim(s) don't exist.