• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

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

Vixen said:
No it's not, because the evidence never hinged on his 'Lee's Sign' as he now likes to call it. Skin discoloration DID happen and was noted on the medical records at the time. The father of one of the babies saw the skin discoloration coursing around the baby's body, so it WAS being coursed along by the baby's blood circulation.
Click to expand...
You clearly do not understand the nature of the objections.

Discolouration that is not Lee's Sign could be an embolism, but it could also be the result of any of a number of different conditions. It was for the prosecution to prove that the discolouration was from an embolism but their proof was another doctor just asserting it.

You can get skin discolouration just by hitting part of your body on a hard object. It's called a bruise, not an air embolism.
 
Vixen said:
Look, presumably I would have been arrested and questioned under caution. It is for the prosecution to prove its case. For me to be found guilty by a jury means it succeeded in doing so. So someone claims I was elsewhere at the time. Well, they need to prove it. This would entail explaining to the CoA why they only just came forward now, and given the prosecution proved its case, why their 'proof' trumps the prosecution's. It simply doesn't happen because if the prosecution proved I was there and did it, I can't have been elsewhere.
Click to expand...
It's a hypothetical situation.

Let's say instead that the witness has video evidence, finger prints and DNA evidence. And the prosecution didn't prove you were at the scene of the crime but testified you failed to provide an alibi and also they have a diary entry that you wrote in which you claim to have killed the victim.

With all these irrelevant objections you are just trying to evade the central truth which is that there is very good evidence that Letby's conviction was unsafe and your only argument against it is that it hasn't been accepted by the British judicial system.
 
Rolfe said:
In Jeremy's scenario, you have been denied permission to bring this new evidence back to the Court of Appeal, on the grounds that the evidence was available at the time of your original trial.

ETA: Perhaps we should firm up the scenario a bit.

You know you didn't commit the murder, and you know you were 100 miles away at the time. These are facts. Your problem is proving them.

The police have circumstantial evidence that leads them to the conclusion that you committed the crime. Let's say you had some apparent motive. Let's say that an eyewitness (who never saw you in his life) made a photofit that someone thought looked a bit like you. Then that eyewitness picked your photo out of a photospread ID exercise. Then he picked you yourself out of an ID parade.

You know that you were 100 miles away at the time, but you have no evidence to prove it. Your protestations to that effect are not believed by the police, or the prosecution, or the jury. The eyewitness evidence is believed to be conclusive. You are convicted.

But get this. You didn't do it. You know you didn't do it. You are legally guilty but factually innocent.

Then another eyewitness comes forward, someone who knows you personally and is in no doubt at all that the person he saw 100 miles away was you. However, the CCRC rejects your application for leave to appeal on the grounds that this second eyewitness could have been discovered at the time of the original trial, and the evidence is therefore not admissible.

Did you commit the murder?
Click to expand...
Thank you. You have put that much more clearly than I did.
 
Vixen said:
This illustrates why I rarely bother answering hypothetical questions; suddenly more and more 'what if's' appear. Whilst JeremyP's scenario is a reasonable one, your adding in the 'gotcha' of, 'you are not allowed to appeal' makes it unreasonable.
Click to expand...
It's not a gotcha. This is exactly what has happened in Letby's case.
 
smartcooky said:
Lets up the ante a bit....

Suppose you are on trial for murder. During the trial, a newspaper publishes an article in which they state you were captured on a surveillance camera buying petrol in a petrol station two hundred miles away from the scene of the crime at the moment you were supposed to be committing the murder. The video is clear, there no question that its you - the make, model and registration plate matches you car, and your credit card shows a timestamped transaction at the time on the video. Your defence counsel fails to get that video surveillance and present it in court, or to call the forecourt attendant as a witness - and you get convicted. Their evidence is disallowed at your appeal because it was available at the time of your original trial.

Does that make you guilty of the crime?

NOTE: I think is is a gross injustice that evidence is not valid because it was available at the time of the trial. If it is exculpatory, evidence ought to be available under any and all circumstances.
Click to expand...
So, Person A is accused of shooting Person B.

Person A denies it or that there was any murder.

Britain's top medical doctors and pathologists testify under gruelling cross-examination witnessed by a jury of twelve drawn randomly from the electoral register (i.e., Person A's peers). The expert medics all swear under oath Person B died of a gunshot wound.

Person A has their own defence experts listed to challenge this view. Person A instructs their top drawer silk not to let their experts take the witness box.

Having heard all of the evidence presented in the hearing - and ONLY in the hearing, not a columnist in PRIVATE EYE or a propagandist writing sub judice articles in foreign newspapers to get around the CONTEMPT OF COURT, or some bimbo MP with a crush on BoJo writing a column in a clickbait tabloid - the jury after weeks of deliberation comes to its verdict.

Let's stop being fanciful and start being factual.

The court appointed experts in the Letby case are UK top endocrinologists, haematologists et al.

A whole selection of defence experts were lined up. Letby INSTRUCTED BEN MYERS, KC., a top silk, not to call them.

We can infer they were not called because it would become glaringly obvious that either (a) they couldn't disagree with the other medics, or (b) they would be forced to admit under oath and cross examination that (i) the death/s was unnatural and unexpected or (ii) a third party killed or harmed the baby in question.

Failing to send the case back to trial, along comes a PR agency to flood the media with an 'innocence' campaign to prey on the people's sympathies and gullibility, like the scammers they are.

Retired Canadian Dr. Shoo Lee is a mountebank and actually announced he was rewriting his paper for the purpose of helping Letby to evade justice.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
So, Person A is accused of shooting Person B.

Person A denies it or that there was any murder.

Britain's top medical doctors and pathologists testify under gruelling cross-examination witnessed by a jury of twelve drawn randomly from the electoral register (i.e., Person A's peers). They all swear under oath Person B died of a gunshot wound.

Person A has their own defence experts listed to challenge this view. Person A instructs their top drawer silk not to take the witness box.

Having heard all of the evidence presented in the hearing - and ONLY in the hearing, not a columnist in PRIVATE EYE or a propagandist writing sub judice articles in foreign newspapers to get around the CONTEMPT OF COURT, or some bimbo MP with a crush on BoJo writing a column in a clickbait tabloid - the jury after weeks of deliberation come to it's verdict.

Let's stop being fanciful and start being factual.

The court appointed experts in the Letby case are UK top endocrinologists, haematologists et al.

A whole selection of defence experts were lined up. Letby INSTRUCTED BEN MYERS, KC., a top silk, not to call them.

We can infer they were not called because it would become glaringly obvious that either (a) they couldn't disagree with the other medics, or (b) they would be forced to admit under oath and cross examination that (i) the death/s was unnatural and unexpected or (ii) a third party killed or harmed the baby in question.

Failing to send the case back to trial, along comes a PR agency to flood the media with an 'innocence' campaign to prey on the people's sympathies and gullibility, like the scammers they are.

Retired Canadian Dr. Shoo Lee is a mountebank and actually announced he was rewriting his paper for the purpose of helping Letby to evade justice.
Click to expand...
This is rubbish.
 
smartcooky said:
Lets up the ante a bit....

Suppose you are on trial for murder. During the trial, a newspaper publishes an article in which they state you were captured on a surveillance camera buying petrol in a petrol station two hundred miles away from the scene of the crime at the moment you were supposed to be committing the murder. The video is clear, there no question that its you - the make, model and registration plate matches you car, and your credit card shows a timestamped transaction at the time on the video. Your defence counsel fails to get that video surveillance and present it in court, or to call the forecourt attendant as a witness - and you get convicted. Their evidence is disallowed at your appeal because it was available at the time of your original trial.

Does that make you guilty of the crime?

NOTE: I think is is a gross injustice that evidence is not valid because it was available at the time of the trial. If it is exculpatory, evidence ought to be available under any and all circumstances.
Click to expand...
Exculpatory evidence would come under the point of law of a mistrial and the verdict rendered unsafe. An exculpatory occasion would be one in which police hold back evidence which they know would exonerate you from the crime or at least would provide doubt below the threshold of CPS standards.
 
Last edited:
jeremyp said:
You clearly do not understand the nature of the objections.

Discolouration that is not Lee's Sign could be an embolism, but it could also be the result of any of a number of different conditions. It was for the prosecution to prove that the discolouration was from an embolism but their proof was another doctor just asserting it.

You can get skin discolouration just by hitting part of your body on a hard object. It's called a bruise, not an air embolism.
Click to expand...
Professor Arthurs provided an X-ray showing a clear line of air bubbles along the baby's spine.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
No it's not, because the evidence never hinged on his 'Lee's Sign' as he now likes to call it.
Click to expand...

You never miss an opportunity to get one of your rude, bitchy, ill-informed little digs into Dr Lee, do you?

Firstly, the term "Lee's sign" is not a recent thing. It has been known as that for almost 40 years, ever since Dr Lee first observed it 1988 - BEFORE he published his original paper... in 1989.

Secondly, it was not Dr Lee who coined the term, it was his boss, Dr Graham Chance, Professor Emeritus of Pediatrics at Schulich Medicine & Dentistry, London, Ontario, Canada.

But we know you well enough by now to understand that this is one of your modi operandi - attempting to assassinate the character of experts that disagree with your worldview - never let the facts get in the way of your bull-◊◊◊◊ story!
 
Last edited:
jeremyp said:
It's a hypothetical situation.

Let's say instead that the witness has video evidence, finger prints and DNA evidence. And the prosecution didn't prove you were at the scene of the crime but testified you failed to provide an alibi and also they have a diary entry that you wrote in which you claim to have killed the victim.

With all these irrelevant objections you are just trying to evade the central truth which is that there is very good evidence that
Letby's conviction was unsafe and your only argument against it is that it hasn't been accepted by the British judicial system.
Click to expand...
This is the part that concerns me. I don't know if she did murder babies or didn't but there is enough evidence for me to consider that her conviction was unsafe.

Lets not forget that even if her conviction is overturned and at some point she is released she can still be prosecuted again for murdering babies if a strong case that avoids the pitfalls of the initial prosecution can be made.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
...snip...

Having heard all of the evidence presented in the hearing - and ONLY in the hearing,
not a columnist in PRIVATE EYE or a propagandist writing sub judice articles in foreign newspapers to get around the CONTEMPT OF COURT, or some bimbo MP with a crush on BoJo writing a column in a clickbait tabloid - the jury after weeks of deliberation comes to its verdict.

...snip...
Click to expand...
They have a good track record in exposing unsafe convictions and the likes.
 
smartcooky said:
You never miss an opportunity to get one of your rude, bitchy, ill-informed little digs into Dr Lee, do you?

Firstly, the term "Lee's sign" is not a recent thing. It has been known as that for almost 40 years, ever since Dr Lee first observed it 1988 - BEFORE he published his original paper... in 1989.

Secondly, it was not Dr Lee who coined the term, it was his boss, Dr Graham Chance, Professor Emeritus of Pediatrics at Schulich Medicine & Dentistry, London, Ontario, Canada.

But we know you well enough by now to understand that this is one of your modi operandi - attempting to assassinate the character of experts that disagree with your worldview - never let the facts get in the way of your bull-◊◊◊◊ story!
Click to expand...
Lee explained this in the video. However.....
 
Darat said:
This is the part that concerns me. I don't know if she did murder babies or didn't but there is enough evidence for me to consider that her conviction was unsafe.

Lets not forget that even if her conviction is overturned and at some point she is released she can still be prosecuted again for murdering babies if a strong case that avoids the pitfalls of the initial prosecution can be made.
Click to expand...
My take is there in negligible evidence of Letby's guilt and declining evidence of actual murders being carried out at all.
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
You never miss an opportunity to get one of your rude, bitchy, ill-informed little digs into Dr Lee, do you?

Firstly, the term "Lee's sign" is not a recent thing. It has been known as that for almost 40 years, ever since Dr Lee first observed it 1988 - BEFORE he published his original paper... in 1989.

Secondly, it was not Dr Lee who coined the term, it was his boss, Dr Graham Chance, Professor Emeritus of Pediatrics at Schulich Medicine & Dentistry, London, Ontario, Canada.

But we know you well enough by now to understand that this is one of your modi operandi - attempting to assassinate the character of experts that disagree with your worldview - never let the facts get in the way of your bull-◊◊◊◊ story!
Click to expand...
Wow, sexist much?
 
Rolfe said:
It was an article in Private  Eye by Paul Foot which started me off on my Lockerbie investigations. Foot put his finger on the main issue, but didn't have access to the primary evidence. I was given access to it.
Click to expand...
I've no problem with either Private Eye or Paul Foot, who was a really nice guy. I can't see how they substitute for a criminal court of law.

Letby had a near bottomless pot of funds for her defence; she had access to the most learned, experienced and expensive medical experts, who turned up day after day, waiting to be called, experts probably beyond the means of most wealthy people, all free of charge, funded by we the UK taxpayers.

We can infer she didn't call them because she was guilty as hell and didn't have a leg to stand on. Either, they would have been in agreement largely with the prosecution or they weren't called because Letby admitted culpability of some sort and Myers was professionally unable to present his client to the court (to whom his first duty lies) as 'innocent' but could step back and let the prosecution prove its case, as was its onus.

Sentimentality and fanciful notions should have no place in determining a case.

Facts are sovereign.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom