• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

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

Reading comprehension fail, as usual. Nowhere did I say or imply that it was "subverting the legal system". It's the legal system that is being criticised, because it doesn't respond well to legitimate claims of actual innocence, and instead hides behind "procedure".


What 'legitimate claim'? The reports released by McDonald are sadly laughable in that they have their facts completely wrong. For example, it claims Baby 1 (Baby A) died of thrombosis. A leading UK haemotologist, who had access to the medical records, under cross-examination, said neither Baby A or B (twins) had inherited their mother's genetic condition of a blood-clotting syndrome. Another of McDonald's 'world renowned experts' Professor Chase of Canterbury, NZ, who is a bioengineer, and his partner, a chemical engineer (note, they are not specialist haemotologists, like the aforementioned Dr, Kinsey) claim the insulin level is high because the baby had an infection, hence high antibodies caused the reading. Errrr, no!!! The baby did NOT have an infection. The hospital records and charts clearly shows this. McDonald asked people in his contacts lists to come up with 'alternative explanations' to murder or attempted murder. And they have come up with totally unverified 'what-if' stuff, which if it had any merit would have been introduced at trial.

If you think this indicates 'actual innocence' then you are easily led. But then again. McDonald has hired a PR marketing firm to convince the public so it is clearly money well-invested by Letby if people are storming parliament to get her freed.



.
 
Last edited:
So will you also be campaigning for the release of Beverley Allitt and Benjamin Geen, another of Mark McDonald's clients, as well, or are they different? If so, how does their case differ from Letby's?

.
WHATABOUTISM.jpg
 
Nobody has opined at all on whether it differs from any other, apart from you, because you can't cope with staying on topic.


I thought you or others were arguing it was a 'miscarriage of justice'? If not, then all that remains of the topic is the outcome of the Thirlwall Inquiry and its recommendations. Plus whether there will be further charges re Letby and the executives.

There is no evidence of a 'miscarriage of justice'. If there is, please explain it. Otherwise it is just worthless timewasting tabloid-style sensationalism.

.
 
Last edited:
Nobody has opined at all on whether it differs from any other, apart from you, because you can't cope with staying on topic.
Indeed. There notable similarities between the Letby case and several other UKian miscarriages of justice. Though the Lucia de Berk is probably the closest; there the Dutch managed to reverse the wrongful conviction reasonably quickly.
 
Indeed. There notable similarities between the Letby case and several other UKian miscarriages of justice. Though the Lucia de Berk is probably the closest; there the Dutch managed to reverse the wrongful conviction reasonably quickly.


What 'notable similarities'..? In which way does Letby have any similarity whatsoever to de Berk (but presumably, not to Allitt or Geen)?


"It's just a gut feeling' seems to be the only response.




.


.
 
I'd quite like to know who, at any point, has justified their belief that Letby may have been the victim of a miscarriage of justice by declaring that "It's just a gut feeling."
Exactly.
 
True. In fact many of the classic logical fallacies are in evidence in this thread.
How many can you spot in just this one post?

According to the trial court, those babies in the list DID suffer deliberate harm, so its not an assumption, its an established fact, and there is much corroborating evidence

FACT: She was caught on occasions in the actual act of harming some of those babies, on other occasions, doing nothing while medical sensors and equipment were clearly indicating the baby was in distress.

FACT: She performed Facebook searches of the parents of the babies who died. A clear breach of medical ethics.

FACT: She took the step of unofficially contacting grieving parents, sending them personal notes, which is not only a very creepy thing to do, but also another violation of medical ethics.

FACT: She had 257 confidential medical documents, many related to the victim babies, in her bedroom, stuffed into shopping bags. Another violation of medical ethics (and many serial killers collect trophies).

FACT: She wrote notes to herself, saying "I don't deserve to live. I killed them on purpose because I'm not good enough to care for them." and “I AM EVIL I DID THIS” shows a consciousness of guilt.

FACT: In all the incidents she was charged with, not only was she on the ward, she was physically in the rooms with the victims, and in nearly every case, she was seen to be interacting with the babies shortly before their collapses.

FACT: Letby was the only person, doctor or nurse, who was on duty in that ward at the time all those babies were harmed.
[IMGw=800]https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/404c...?rlkey=kqzshnqcbtv1n9q6oe7d6xubm&raw=1[/IMGw]

This is basically a complete list of collapses where the prosecution says deliberate harm was involved. Yes, there were a few other deaths and collapses on the ward (six in all) but none of them showed any evidence of foul play or deliberate harm, so those incidents are not relevant to the case. The defense knew this. Its why they didn't spend much time attacking the veracity of the chart itself, or trying to bring in a statistical expert to undermine it, and instead, chose to attack the causes of deaths and collapses in order to question whether they were really result of foul play.

This chart points very strongly towards her being the only one responsible - "Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action". I wonder what Fleming would have called 25 times?

FACT: The suspicious deaths and collapses stopped when she was finally removed from the ward. There was a change to the ward after she was removed. They reduced the number of babies in the ward by increasing the minimum gestation for premature babies they would accept from 27 to 32 weeks. While this would result in a fall anyway due to them taking on less complicated cases, Dr Gibbs (a retired consultant pediatrician who worked at the Countess of Chester Hospital) said the fall in suspicious collapse numbers was much greater than these changes account for.

Lucy Letby is as guilty as sin. There is absolutely zero doubt in my mind that she did was she was accused and found guilty of. 24 jurors agree.

NOTE: Disturbingly, she may even be responsible for more deaths. Police are investigating at Liverpool Women's Hospital where two babies died while Letby was training. There was also another suspicious baby death at Countess of Chester Hospital in 2014, previous to the cluster of deaths and collapses in 2015/16.
 


Dear oh dear. DM has shot itself in the foot. You do know these juicy snippets designed to inflame the minds of the plebs are put out as press releases by McDonald's hired marketing agency?

It is absolute rubbish that 'there is a bombshell email from Dr. Jay Jayaram' saying that Letby called him after spotting Baby K desaturating rapidly.

The email in question was already produced during the trial, and in addition, the defence had it in their possession prior to the Appeal. Thus, it is not 'new evidence' that will could* 'free Letby'.

The following clearly indicates that it refers to the THIRD occasion Baby K's tube was found dislodged. On the THIRD occasion, Letby did indeed 'call' Dr. Jayaram - if only to try to cover her tracks - in order to 'demonstrate' Baby K dislodged her own tubes on the previous two occasions (actually, an event that would be highly unlikely to have been done 'accidentally by the baby, as per statistical frequency of any such thing happening in a neonatal).

Here are the documented facts:

1744563199856.jpeg





1744563474622.jpeg

So for those who enjoy tabloid clickbait and fairytales, sorry to disabuse you of the notion of an imminent 'miscarriage of justice'. I am sure Mark McDonald, junior barrister and his PR agency will be along with another 'bombshell' piece of evidence that 'blows Letby's convictions apart' soon.

*The gutter press' favourite word for unsubstantiated headlines.
 
Last edited:
Over 400 healthcare workers call for a review of Letby's case.


They claim Letby’s “unsafe” conviction has triggered a “climate of fear” in the NHS and that they have been “gagged” and prevented from speaking out on behalf of Letby by their trusts.

The nurses argue that Letby’s conviction was based largely on circumstantial evidence and contested medical opinions. They said it had sent a “chilling message” across the NHS: that any nurse working in a strained, high-risk environment could face criminal charges for systemic failures beyond their control.
 
Over 400 healthcare workers call for a review of Letby's case.


They claim Letby’s “unsafe” conviction has triggered a “climate of fear” in the NHS and that they have been “gagged” and prevented from speaking out on behalf of Letby by their trusts.

The nurses argue that Letby’s conviction was based largely on circumstantial evidence and contested medical opinions. They said it had sent a “chilling message” across the NHS: that any nurse working in a strained, high-risk environment could face criminal charges for systemic failures beyond their control.
... and this is the sort of fear that will cause people to leave nursing, and lower recruitment numbers, exacerbating a situation which is already in crisis with regard to human resources.
 
Another good piece in The Guardian detailing the case and it's problems.

 
It seems obvious to me that "bright pink vessels against a generally cyanosed cutaneous background" is very much not the same thing as "flitting patches of pink areas on the background of bluey-grey skin".

There's no mention of photographs of either phenomenon, and Dr Lee's paper only seems to be describing his observation in a single case. Linking the two observations would be tentative in a case conference, and it absolutely beggars belief that a conviction could be founded on this.
 
Has Letby waived client privilege yet?


Aren't any of these journalists hired by her PR agency bothered by this, one a sports writer in the GUARDIAN and another, a political writer for the DAILY MAIL, (Owen). Do they get a commission for churning out their unbalanced opinion pieces dressed up as 'news'?
 
Has Letby waived client privilege yet?


Aren't any of these journalists hired by her PR agency bothered by this, one a sports writer in the GUARDIAN and another, a political writer for the DAILY MAIL, (Owen). Do they get a commission for churning out their unbalanced opinion pieces dressed up as 'news'?
According to the Guardian, David Conn is an investigations reporter, and while he may have been a sports writer, he’s also won awards for his investigative coverage of the Hillsborough legal case and Tory PPE scandal during Covid. So your attack is a pretty cheap shot.
 
According to the Guardian, David Conn is an investigations reporter, and while he may have been a sports writer, he’s also won awards for his investigative coverage of the Hillsborough legal case and Tory PPE scandal during Covid. So your attack is a pretty cheap shot.


With all due respect, if David Conn 'investigated' the Hillsborough legal case, he more than anybody should know better than to disrespect the families of the victims. If you recall, the Hillsborough victims were painted in certain publications as being a bunch of thieves and pickpockets and most likely brought the tragedy upon themselves. Dr Shoo Lee is an open advocate (i.e., acting for the defence) of Letby and thus, Conn should have realised that his claim the babies all died of natural causes is a typical defence soundbite because Lee's ego was crushed by the Appeals Court when it deemed his points of appeal were irrelevant and immaterial to the case against Letby. After a lengthy trial it was proven in a criminal court of law that Letby was guilty as charged on those cases where such a verdict was returned. Her victims died in great pain and agony, some with their throats filled with blood, others screaming unnaturally. I dare say Conn cannot believe a woman with a normal appearance and a vocation as a caring neonatal nurse could do such a thing, and he is impressed that there are 'many' doctors and [insert your own numbers here] nurses throughout the UK who disbelieve Letby harmed any child in her care. In addition, the idea that these were babies who were high risk and would have died anyway. To claim this as 'news' rather than his personal opinion means he is doing little more than what tabloid hacks did to the families of Hillsborough victims, just for prurient clicks. It is victim blaming and making an uncalled for assumption that GUARDIAN readers have a soft spot for convicted killers if some hack comes along and describes their rightful convictions as a 'miscarriage of justice'. Stick to politics, Mr. Conn!


.




.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom