@@melgrant7404 All the 7 babies Lucy was supposed to have murdered died from natural causes. If there had been suspicion of foul play the Coroner would have been informed and the bodies examined by a forensic pathologist.
The guy comes across as the type of bloke who assumes you are guilty and you have to prove you are innocent. Laughing at hanging miscarriages doesn’t look good!
Shame you didn't think it appropriate to mention the 7 babies that died at the same time on the same ward but when Lucy Letby was not on shift, who killed them then? Also the courts have found a lot of innocent people guilty down the years the Birmingham 6 and Guildford 4 springs to mind.
People like this should not be allowed in the judicial system. Why not even recognize that there is doubt in the efficacy of the evidence that was presented at the original trial.
The statistical evidence is notoriously complex and easy to misinterpret. The written note of a so called “ confession “ is dodgy and can be disputed or understood in a different way. The two main pillars of the case against her are built on sand. He said about the “ confession” note “ what more do you need ? “ He’s wrong. I know a Psychologist and I’m told that people can put all sorts of things in their diaries that aren’t actually factual , especially when they are depressed and in a dark place. It’s not the “ confession “ you might think it is. One more thing……organisations / Governments can be very good at scapegoating individuals in order to cover over some other systematic failing. What if that baby Unit was badly run , under funded , under staffed ? Convicting Lucy makes all that fade away. I seem to remember there was a similar recent case where systematic failings were blamed on individuals instead , but they were innocent…….something to do with the Post Office I believe?
Just because there are grieving parents that want to grieve...it doesn't make the evidence against LL as solid. This person who is being interviewed is spinning against the case for innocence...Who knows why? Is he mates with the prosecution team? Or mates with the CPS? Trying to slant Public opinion against a retrial using this "Tax payers pocket" palaver...he begins by dismissing her new barrister as some kind of Kook...dismissing the appeal as trite (1000 cases a year)....we then get the jury's decision argument...er...Juries are not always right!! I would trust this guy as far as I could throw him.
I don't see how it makes it easier to grieve, if the verdict gives you someone to hate and resent forever. If it was me, I'd rather it was systemic failures in the health system, because then it makes it more like an accident that couldn't be helped. But I'm not in their position.
It doesn't matter how often juries get it wrong at all, the fact that it is proven they do is enough. Now, look at all the incorrectly presented evidence in this case.
the presenter was an absolute clown and the lawyer thinks that once you have a chance at trial the government shouldnt pay any money for your defence even if you are innocent
My god. What a disgrace of an interview .GB News should be ashamed .I can't say any more as it has all been said by many more expert than me as well as thousands of concerned intelligent knowledgeable members of the public.One thing I will say is that I dont believe that Mark McDonald will be receiving any public funds for his representation. He has been defending other cases for years without funding because the CCRC have not been doing their job properly.I believe he is a genuinely good man and can recognise a dodgy case when he sees it. He knew before the end of the original trial that there were similarities with other miscarriages of justice . These two seem determined to hide and deny the evidence which has now come to light. Shameful.
Exactly! The medical evidence has been so thoroughly discredited it almost seems as if Evans plucked it out of thin air. Also the bogus spreadsheet has been debunked by eminent statisticians from The Royal Statistical Society
@@melgrant7404absolutely. Let's look at other medical cases with witnesses. None, because DNA fingerprints etc useless. In fact, not even just medical cases. People want her to pose for a photo while she was adding insulin 😊
@@lesley9989I do, and there was more than one explanation for each babies collapses/deaths, but because the prosecution expert witnesses were inferring that only one explanation could be left, ( that Letby killed them), the jury imo, had no alternative , but to convict. But even then, they were numerious alternative medical explanations that the jury was not aware of. Dont belive me? Look in Google scholar!
@@jmckeev765 Nothing to do with pseudo expert. He said the trial was 4 weeks ( it was 10 months ), he said 12 jurors found her guilty ( it was 10 ), he said only 2 or 3 doctors had expressed doubts ( it's 30+ ), he said the taxpayer would have to pay for her new barrister ( he's working for free ) ...
@@lesley9989 i dont think this case is as clear cut as michael stone...i am almost certain he is innocent ....but he has spent 25 years in prison because as you said he has had his chance and the money run out..........
@@Pmrace1960 I didn't think CCRC submission money ran out, so I apologise. I've probably come to the comments too quickly! Are they saying money runs out? I wouldn't worry about it in this case. There's plenty of people sending money left right and centre to grifters who don't even explain what the money is being used for. Unfortunately, there was never the same about of public interest into Stefan's case. The public weren't interested enough and Stefan should have been supported by an appropriate adult
stefan klitscho was fitted up by the police but because he didnt have the money to spent 16 years in prison while the real killer carried on with his life
It’s worthy of note that the confession evidence could be open to interpretation and Dewi Evans’ evidence may well have been subject to striking out had another judge considered it.
They fail to mention that no medical expert would risk their career for a defence case focused on babies. As for the arguement of listening to the doctors at the countess. One of those guys loves the media limelight just a little bit too much. Maybe if he had been at the hospital a little bit more instead of swanning off to do tv work for this morning and others, the hospital might have done better.
@@coleuk8817 then why didn't Myer's call him? Please don't say such a bad Defence, which I know you will. Explain how she will get a "fair trial" when all these experts are coming out of the woodwork now? Have they all retired, but weren't called? I really wish she would get a retrial, but of course, you're hoping that the fresh Jury with believe the New Yorker etc. because everything was just so biased in the original trial. I'm off to watch Spooks so won't reply for a while. Take care
@@lesley9989 What a ridiculous question! How on earth would I know why Myers didn't use Mike Hall? The point I'm making here is that you've mentioned Hall in an attempt to debunk the very valid point about medical practitioners being unwilling to testify on Lucy Letby's behalf because of the potential for their career to be negatively affected. Indeed, this was referenced in the Channel 5 documentary. But with Hall being retired, you don't achieve that aim.
@@coleuk8817 then I stand corrected. It doesn't change the fact the Letby cases have not been proved a MoJ. It's obvious my comment meant what is your opinion in relation to why Myers didn't call Hall. I didn't realise I had to spell it out I was asking for your opinion on why he didn't. That's what I meant. I must go now. Watching Spooks. Check my notifications tomorrow. Night
Are you sure the Lawyer is an authority on the case - Ben Myers is continuing with Appeal for the retrial - Mark MacDonald is preparing the case for the CCRP. I always thought the Money stopped post leave to or appeal rejected. It is okay though for the Crown prosecution to spend undisclosed amounts on a retrial - retrials should only be brought when it is in the public interest - The Woman was given 14 whole life terms , no chance of parole, death in prison. Why did the retrial even happen, more cost to the taxpayer which does not change the outcome. Please give a more balance interview
Now, there is reciprocal confirmation bias playing out. It was like an echo chamber of a conversation. This is not out the bounds of possibility she may be innocent, and I'd suggest you remove both your clear bias.
The problem is we do not have all of the evidence to hand due to not being there during the trial. A jury is required to convict someone it is proven beyond all reasonable doubt that committed the alleged crime. The issue with that it is transpiring that there were a lot of baby deaths in the unit even when Letby was not working. Which creates reasonable doubt. Personally I think if the things that are coming out are true then Letby was scapegoated and there is a foul play higher up the food chain in that hospital
if the letter had been considered as a confession then by law it automatically would warrant that lucy be assessed by a psychiatrist otherwise it would be considered an unsafe confession...this case is nearly identical in many aspects to Asta Juskauskiene (mother of three children) who was also found guilty and is currently serving 24 years in prison despite being innocent......she was not even at the murder which is not contested by the police. Prosecution used a lot of fantasy and the defence rolled over as evidence was created against her during trial....it’s disgusting actually and a full investigation needs to happen around unsafe trials in the UK as they move away from evidenced based convictions to fantasy. It is not at all funny and one day they will have to answer for their actions. A university has worked on her case for four years now and has not found one piece of evidence which connects her to the murder yet the prosecution the CPS and police all managed to convict her with no evidence...all unsafe circumstantial evidence.
Dear oh dear. Mr Britton wasn’t even qualified as a solicitor when Letby was first arrested before, incidentally, being released three days later. Not even a tip of the hat to historical miscarriages of justice - eg Guildford Four, Birmingham Six and, latterly, Andrew Malkinson, who were victims of a judicial process whose practitioners are so proud of themselves that time after time when, often after very many tortuous years, when errors of process, of fact and interpretation have been exposed, they scuttle away, out of the public glare that at the time of the false conviction they were desperate to embrace in order to take the applause of a society grateful that monsters had apparently been caught and incarcerated. In the Letby case, the prosecution evidence has been challenged by experts in the fields of medicine, medico-legal and statistical, including one whose work the prosecution relied on and who has said it been mis-applied. It is a case where multiple autopsies at the time did not reveal any suspicion of foul play and where after the fact speculation by a small cohort of doctors invested in turning attention away from their own professional shortcomings later confirmed by multiple findings of inadequacy in the management and running of the infant ICU where Letby worked, caused the police to become involved in these matters.
Happy to correct an error. Lucy Letby was first arrested on 3rd July 2018. Paul Britton was admitted as a solicitor by the Law Society on 15th September 2017, a little over ten months earlier. He was however not admitted and therefore not qualified at the time of the deaths of the babies Letby has been convicted of murder for, or the alleged incidents leading to her convictions for attempted murder.
quite bizarre and incoherent analysis. the notes, for example, are utterly meaningless and contradictory, and this guy is saying 'what else do you need?'. amateur !
Remember colin stagg wrongly convited of murder , barry george, the birmingham four, the guildford six, and sally clark whos case mirrors the case of lucy letby in some respects
Yep. Are we going to keep reeling out MoJ? Stagg wasn't convicted, but the police were wrong to do that and it was thrown out of Court and the guy suffered. That doesn't suddenly make someone else innocent
Unbelievably poor reporting reporting here. The families need to know the truth. All evidence not just that used in court so far should be available to bring deeper understanding. Just why did expert witnesses working for the defence, not have the opportunity to defend her? Why were facts misrepresented by the prosecution within an overwhelming amount of circumstantial and questionable scientific evidence. How was a case built on hypothesis and speculation? Why were doctors known to be bullying Lucy taken so seriously, when the medical management of the babies by the doctors was reported as sub optimal and unchallenged. I think this commentator could do with a little more situational awareness. Including about the state of the NHS and extremely difficult circumstances nurses are working in. It's time to be honest for everyone's sake.
Letby is innocent, it’s an uncomfortable truth. Yes, the families are suffering. But Letby is suffering too, paying for a crime she has not committed with her life. Justice must be done.
@@Germania22 Exactly - the torture she must be going through is unimaginable to be charged with these crimes when you are innocent. It is awful for the families but surely they would want the truth and not have an innocent person blamed. You know there is a petition going around among nursing and medical staff - I believe it’s in the 100s. They are petitioning because of fear for themselves because of dreadful problems in wards and hospitals as they believe Lucy Letby was used as a scapegoat and it could happen to other staff. Also colleagues wanted to speak out about things and standby Lucy but were warned to be quiet in case of losing their jobs. The truth must come out.
I suppose I shouldn't presume to speak on behalf of the families. But I think if I was in their position, I'd much rather it turned out that the babies had died through systemic failures, rather than the senseless and cruel acts of one individual, who I would then have to hate and feel resentful towards for the rest of my life. I would be able to grieve more easily then. I don't know if that was the case, I hope it was.
Of course mp’s should be involved if strong convictions around miscarriages. That’s how many of the miscarriages sorted themselves out including Chris Mullin for the Birmingham six. Maybe the lawyer being interviewed is too poorly informed about that case to recognise this.
@@martineyles my question was I thought legal aid was provided for a CCRC submission. I've read it's funded, so what have I missed? I can't post screenshots on RUclips. So a CCRC submission isn't funded under legal aid? That's the first I've ever heard it isn't. Is it possible to clarify. I'm interested to know if it's changed and when, because it was funded
It was not a unanimous verdict. By the end of the trial there were only 11 jurors left. Only two verdicts were unanimous - the two alleged insulin poisonings. There was one dissenting juror for the other charges. She was exonerated of two of the charges and there were also a number of charges where the jurors could not reach a verdict.
Before commenting on this case this pair should actually do some research and then they might know why so many people believe the guilty verdict is unsafe.
Cirtumstansital evidence is never fact, The fact is though she was the only one concentrated on.....Look at the Stepping Hill Hospital In Stockport... Nurse locked up then found not to have done it. only 14 years ago
This was not a normal criminal case in our ADVERSARIAL system. She got umpteen whole life terms after a 10 month long trial heavy with medical detail in which the defence CALLED NO EXPERT WITNESSES. Was that because the defence was under resourced and overwhelmed, or had some KC much too much faith in his ability to combat prosecution experts with cross examination alone?. I don't think the evidence advanced by the prosecution was sufficiently tested in court so from what Paul Britton says it will forever remain an enigma whether there is such a strong a case against Letby,
Back in the day I got done in a magistrates Court. I had done a bad thing by taking another girl to a friend's 40th. When she asked me if I'd taken her and I told her the truth she hit me so hard I nearly lost consciousness, she fractured my cheekbone, broke a tooth, and covered me in scratches. This all in My home. 2 police arrived at this point she had gone upstairs where she was joined by an officer. She had no injuries, nothing. When he came downstairs they asked me if I wanted to press charges. As a man who had done wrong by taking someone else to the party, I said no. The one from upstairs said OK then you're under arrest for assault. I said why he said she said you hit her which I hadn't and wants to press chatges, she had no injuries, nothing. I replied saying ok i do want her arresting but was told no youre only saying that becauseshe wants to press charges. I was sent to the cells overnight and bailed the next day. So it ended up in court which I could have admitted guilty and slapped with a £50 fine. She had been prosecuted before for hitting previous partners. So in court I'm armed with a cheap lawyer whilst she was granted a barrister. When on the stand she was asked a question and she just went into robotic mode and stated 'I used to hit Grant but learnt from it'. We lost a bad character application and so could not mention the numerous times she had hit me in front of friends and could not bring up her record for beating other partners so for her to say that when not even asked was a huge red flag to any magistrate. My lawyer should have said 'sorry what was that you said? But he stayed quiet. Her lawyer then grilled me allowing only yes or no answers. A question was put to me to the tune of 'have you stopped hitting your partner yet' a yes or no reply would make me look guilty. Yes I have, (so you have hit her before) or No, (so you still hit her). I refused to answer and got annoyed because I was being railroaded to say yes or no. The magistrate told me to leave the courtroom with my lawyer for council. When I returned she asked again, I refused to answer and threatened with contempt of court. I still wouldn't answer and so he immediately found me guilty and slapped me with a £700 fine and 100 hours of community service. That is what can happen in modern justice. That girll got away with serious assault, and I with a record. The judges are an absolute disgrace as is the system.
Reading all the comment and seeing what the majority say...gives me hope in people. Now, the things bohe gentlemen say here in the video are not facts...not supported...how often the jury gets it wrong? not often?...show the evidence! the same issue here again...scientific rational, factual knowledge, stats...lacking here aplenty...dangerous...perhaps lawyers should have training on this during their degree...
Witnesses? No one witnessed anything ive listened to the cross examination and not at ANY point did anyone witness her doing anything. The time scales are also an issue!
The way the police got admissions against her own interests out her about whether there was insulin poisoning of babies just shows why lawyers advise against talking to the police. She said words to the effect of 'if you say so' and that got her appeal denied because it was deemed she admitted there was a murderer at work in the unit.
@@seancidy6008 Exactly ... the prosecution pressed and pressed until she conceded "If that's what the expert suggests", which is most definitely not an admission. What other response could she have given ?
@@KingBee24unfortunately the legal system operates on this literally twisted basis. Common sense and intended meaning count for nothing, unless it's what the authority wants it to mean. Trick questions are used all the time and for some reason it's fine.
If you’re handing out sentences like that, you have to have all the evidence and all the expert evidence as possible. It’s hard to believe her defense didn’t want experts to appear on her behalf. Why wouldn’t they want that? It’s easier to believe that they just didn’t want to appear for fear of reprisals from people who think she is guilty. It must be difficult to stick up for someone in court in front of those babies parents who think she’s guilty and want her to be guilty because they want justice and someone to blame, and who were given no other reason for it happening, like infections, staff shortages etc, so it must be her, because the hospital and trust can’t possibly be to blame. No experts on her behalf is the jury not being given all the facts and evidence. There were more words on those post it notes than incriminating ones. When someone writes a confession in an interrogation room, it hardly contains all those other words does it? Indeed we’ve seen confessions written in the diaries of killers, which were much more matter of fact and straight to the point than her notes. IF she is innocent, should she have to rot in jail til she dies just because she can’t afford a defense? We’ve also seen appeals denied simply because judges and prosecutors don’t want to be proved wrong, only for them to be proved wrong eventually, after someone has been wrongly imprisoned for years. Or so as not to upset the victims parents? Other babies died on the same ward pretty close to the ones that she was convicted for, but she wasn’t investigated for them because she wasn’t on shift then. Were they natural deaths or due to infection that couldn’t possibly have made its way to the babies she was convicted for? What about their parents? Who do they get to blame? Are the parents of those babies thinking ‘why do we have to accept that there was no wrongdoing in our babies deaths?’ IF YOU were in jail for something you didn’t do, would you just accept it? More so if you knew you had to be in there until you die. I’m saying IF of course, because I don’t know, but it is the harshest sentence in British law and should be made sure it is safe. And, is finding out someone was innocent of the crime they were convicted of, much too late, or ha ha ha after they were hanged, a laughing matter? Like he did in the video. Nope. It’s something the British justice system, and prosecutors who go for a conviction at any cost and let the truth fall where it may, to be ashamed of.
I agree Greg. Much like Jim Swire, the father of a Lockerbie victim who defended convicted bomber Megrahi, if one of the parents wants to get involved and probe this hospital, it could add considerable weight if this is, as it seems, a miscarriage.
@@KingBee24 yeah I don’t know if like on American court movies they pass evidence around the jury for them to look at, but those post it notes to me, look like the ramblings of an overwhelmed and completely stressed out and depressed brain. Like an mri scan of my brain in written form. I wouldn’t have read it as a confession, even if 5 of the words were ‘I did it on purpose’.
@@13thnotehifireviews7 well.. I suppose one of the other nurses on shift when one of the other babies died could get sent down, instead of the hospital admitting fault. Or all of the hospitals failings, and the possible presence of infection etc could come out. Things are a bit different when there’s no one person to lay the blame on. Although I have worked in places where if they can’t blame anyone, they pretend nothing is wrong. Which leads to them searching for scapegoats if there is no way of hiding it. I haven’t worked there for ages now, but I really hope they wouldn’t stoop to sending a scapegoat down for whole life though.
If there is any evidence that may suggest a miscarriage of justice beyond speculation , money should not hinder any application to review that evidence.
The frightening thing is that if Lucy is innocent and is scapegoated, how can we learn from the institutional failings done by the NHS, and the British law and justice system? Will these institutions allow the failings and public scrutiny to be directed to them, or will they do whatever they can to point the finger at Lucy?
The statistical analysis of acuity vs predicted and actual neonatal deaths leaves a large question mark hanging over the safety of Letby's conviction that has yet to be addressed
There’s a lot of innocent people been sent to jail Luke Mitchell springs to mind. The real question should be how many times do they admit they got it wrong , going on that question she’ll never get out of jail.
I'm sorry, but what you may hear from 3>32 to 3>56 is insurpassable in its cogency. Whatever other comparable cases or attenuating circumstances you may cite.
She looked surprised and someone with nothing to hide. She left the house in cuffs with a very different expression. I would advise you to compare the 2. As it is, using emotions as evidence is highly problematic. How one person may react is completely different to how another person might react (or even the same person under differing circumstances. Personally, I would hold no importance to it if I were a juror.
@@scottaznavourian3720 I think they're talking about the length of the retrial, which was much shorter than the original, because it was only for one case.
What explains a 600% increase in the likelihood of an incident occuring when LL was present? None of the other 37 staff memebers are anywhere near those figures. I'd accept it being a coincidence if we were talking about a small handful of cases over a few weeks, but this was a total of 34 incidents over 14 months. I just cant think of any other explanaition other than LLhaving some kind of involvement in the incidents?
@@scotty1004 I'm refering to the period of time between June 2015 and July 2016. Why was the unit 600% more likely to see an incident when LL started her shifts during that time period?
@@sunway1374 you know the probability of winning the lottery is 1 in 14 million right? But ok let's say it's just a 1 in 14,000,000 coincidence, we havent even yet touched on all the other evidence that's stacked up against her yet. Once you factor everything in we're easily in the 'beyond reasonable doubt' territory.
Rather than admit they had a dirty filthy hospital understaffed those 2 idiot doctors had to believe it was something so sinister when it wasn't. They thought they were so good that it had to be Lucy but it wasn't!!! Those 2 ignorant doctors are the reason that innocent girl is locked up. Its a dirty filthy understaffed hospital.
@@joshb7326 ,,, she caused people to lose their homes, life savings and their jobs, how many ended up with a criminal record, she's the one that should be in prison
@@DepakoteMeister I know more than the con artists Gill and SOT just out for donations ,even Letby doesn't want them ,got a friend who lives near Sarrita Adams, not a nice person
As hard as it is to accept, but it doesn't actually matter whether she is guiltily or not. There was simply not enough evidence to convict her.
How can babies that had post mortems and were found to have died from natural causes suddenly become murder victims?
Not all of them.
Bullshit, you are crazy 😂😂😂😂😂
@@MarleyHarris-ko2ir i believe anyone is crazy who still believes Lucy Letby is guilty.
@@melgrant7404 All the 7 babies Lucy was supposed to have murdered died from natural causes. If there had been suspicion of foul play the Coroner would have been informed and the bodies examined by a forensic pathologist.
@@ruthbashford3176 it's ok. We all think people are crazy who thinks she's innocent
The guy comes across as the type of bloke who assumes you are guilty and you have to prove you are innocent. Laughing at hanging miscarriages doesn’t look good!
like derek bentley
basically said money is more important than justice
Exactly. She could be innocent and facing life in a cell. Not funny at all.
These two are so bias. Their smug arrogance and limited objective arguments are very irritating
the presenter is an idiot and the lawyer is everything thats wrong with the justice system
So smug, yet so unsophisticated - intellectually subpar. This is such a bad representation of Britain to me.
Shame you didn't think it appropriate to mention the 7 babies that died at the same time on the same ward but when Lucy Letby was not on shift, who killed them then? Also the courts have found a lot of innocent people guilty down the years the Birmingham 6 and Guildford 4 springs to mind.
people like this guy is one of the reasons why stefan klitscho spent 16 years in jail....dont upset the gravy train
Yes innocent people are scapegoated for institutional failings
People like this should not be allowed in the judicial system. Why not even recognize that there is doubt in the efficacy of the evidence that was presented at the original trial.
Where is the proof.
This guy's a clown.
Stupid lawyer saying stupid things to protect his friends and the CPS
if this guy is defending you in the next few months sack him now or look forward to spending the next decade in prison
The statistical evidence is notoriously complex and easy to misinterpret. The written note of a so called “ confession “ is dodgy and can be disputed or understood in a different way. The two main pillars of the case against her are built on sand. He said about the “ confession” note “ what more do you need ? “ He’s wrong. I know a Psychologist and I’m told that people can put all sorts of things in their diaries that aren’t actually factual , especially when they are depressed and in a dark place. It’s not the “ confession “ you might think it is.
One more thing……organisations / Governments can be very good at scapegoating individuals in order to cover over some other systematic failing. What if that baby Unit was badly run , under funded , under staffed ? Convicting Lucy makes all that fade away. I seem to remember there was a similar recent case where systematic failings were blamed on individuals instead , but they were innocent…….something to do with the Post Office I believe?
Just because there are grieving parents that want to grieve...it doesn't make the evidence against LL as solid. This person who is being interviewed is spinning against the case for innocence...Who knows why? Is he mates with the prosecution team? Or mates with the CPS? Trying to slant Public opinion against a retrial using this "Tax payers pocket" palaver...he begins by dismissing her new barrister as some kind of Kook...dismissing the appeal as trite (1000 cases a year)....we then get the jury's decision argument...er...Juries are not always right!! I would trust this guy as far as I could throw him.
Excellent analysis and comment. I concur. Thank you for sharing.
Excellent analysis and comment. I concur. Thank you for sharing.
I don't see how it makes it easier to grieve, if the verdict gives you someone to hate and resent forever. If it was me, I'd rather it was systemic failures in the health system, because then it makes it more like an accident that couldn't be helped. But I'm not in their position.
Exactly!
It doesn't matter how often juries get it wrong at all, the fact that it is proven they do is enough. Now, look at all the incorrectly presented evidence in this case.
He said twice that the trial lasted four weeks.He doesn't have a clue.
What a farce of 2 supposed 'news' professionals. They haven't got a clue.
the presenter was an absolute clown and the lawyer thinks that once you have a chance at trial the government shouldnt pay any money for your defence even if you are innocent
This case should never had got to court, it should have been thrown out. It will be the biggest miscarriage of justice this country has seen.
My god. What a disgrace of an interview .GB News should be ashamed .I can't say any more as it has all been said by many more expert than me as well as thousands of concerned intelligent knowledgeable members of the public.One thing I will say is that I dont believe that Mark McDonald will be receiving any public funds for his representation. He has been defending other cases for years without funding because the CCRC have not been doing their job properly.I believe he is a genuinely good man and can recognise a dodgy case when he sees it. He knew before the end of the original trial that there were similarities with other miscarriages of justice . These two seem determined to hide and deny the evidence which has now come to light. Shameful.
Convicted with ZERO EVIDENCE.
Exactly! The medical evidence has been so thoroughly discredited it almost seems as if Evans plucked it out of thin air. Also the bogus spreadsheet has been debunked by eminent statisticians from The Royal Statistical Society
She would hardly be caught red handed.
Plenty of evidence. You don't don't understand circumstancial evidence
@@melgrant7404absolutely. Let's look at other medical cases with witnesses. None, because DNA fingerprints etc useless. In fact, not even just medical cases. People want her to pose for a photo while she was adding insulin 😊
@@lesley9989I do, and there was more than one explanation for each babies collapses/deaths, but because the prosecution expert witnesses were inferring that only one explanation could be left, ( that Letby killed them), the jury imo, had no alternative , but to convict. But even then, they were numerious alternative medical explanations that the jury was not aware of. Dont belive me? Look in Google scholar!
These two don't know much about this case. There are many factual inaccuracies in this clip. Very poor.
ok mr psuedo expert
@@jmckeev765
*pseudo
The guest is extremely biased. And the host just echoing him. No good argument from them in my opinion.
@@jmckeev765 Nothing to do with pseudo expert. He said the trial was 4 weeks ( it was 10 months ), he said 12 jurors found her guilty ( it was 10 ), he said only 2 or 3 doctors had expressed doubts ( it's 30+ ), he said the taxpayer would have to pay for her new barrister ( he's working for free ) ...
@@KingBee24totally. Those two guys are a good argument against jury trials full stop. Imagine getting 6 like that in every one.
Regardless of the amount of time and money spent, the flaws in the case have to be addressed. She deserves a new trial
this guy actually said money is more important than justice
@@Pmrace1960well she had over £2m
@@lesley9989are you saying when stefan klitshos money run out it was ok for him to spend 16 years in prison
@@lesley9989 i dont think this case is as clear cut as michael stone...i am almost certain he is innocent ....but he has spent 25 years in prison because as you said he has had his chance and the money run out..........
@@Pmrace1960 I didn't think CCRC submission money ran out, so I apologise. I've probably come to the comments too quickly! Are they saying money runs out? I wouldn't worry about it in this case. There's plenty of people sending money left right and centre to grifters who don't even explain what the money is being used for. Unfortunately, there was never the same about of public interest into Stefan's case. The public weren't interested enough and Stefan should have been supported by an appropriate adult
Very bias discussion!
If Letby had paid for her defence I think she would be justified in asking for her money back; it was like her lawyers were not even trying.
stefan klitscho was fitted up by the police but because he didnt have the money to spent 16 years in prison while the real killer carried on with his life
How can a shit- show help anyone!
It’s worthy of note that the confession evidence could be open to interpretation and Dewi Evans’ evidence may well have been subject to striking out had another judge considered it.
They fail to mention that no medical expert would risk their career for a defence case focused on babies. As for the arguement of listening to the doctors at the countess. One of those guys loves the media limelight just a little bit too much. Maybe if he had been at the hospital a little bit more instead of swanning off to do tv work for this morning and others, the hospital might have done better.
Untrue. Hall was willing to take the stand
@@lesley9989He is retired so that is irrelevant to the valid point being made.
@@coleuk8817 then why didn't Myer's call him? Please don't say such a bad Defence, which I know you will. Explain how she will get a "fair trial" when all these experts are coming out of the woodwork now? Have they all retired, but weren't called? I really wish she would get a retrial, but of course, you're hoping that the fresh Jury with believe the New Yorker etc. because everything was just so biased in the original trial. I'm off to watch Spooks so won't reply for a while. Take care
@@lesley9989 What a ridiculous question! How on earth would I know why Myers didn't use Mike Hall? The point I'm making here is that you've mentioned Hall in an attempt to debunk the very valid point about medical practitioners being unwilling to testify on Lucy Letby's behalf because of the potential for their career to be negatively affected. Indeed, this was referenced in the Channel 5 documentary. But with Hall being retired, you don't achieve that aim.
@@coleuk8817 then I stand corrected. It doesn't change the fact the Letby cases have not been proved a MoJ. It's obvious my comment meant what is your opinion in relation to why Myers didn't call Hall. I didn't realise I had to spell it out I was asking for your opinion on why he didn't. That's what I meant. I must go now. Watching Spooks. Check my notifications tomorrow. Night
Are you sure the Lawyer is an authority on the case - Ben Myers is continuing with Appeal for the retrial - Mark MacDonald is preparing the case for the CCRP. I always thought the Money stopped post leave to or appeal rejected. It is okay though for the Crown prosecution to spend undisclosed amounts on a retrial - retrials should only be brought when it is in the public interest - The Woman was given 14 whole life terms , no chance of parole, death in prison. Why did the retrial even happen, more cost to the taxpayer which does not change the outcome. Please give a more balance interview
Now, there is reciprocal confirmation bias playing out. It was like an echo chamber of a conversation. This is not out the bounds of possibility she may be innocent, and I'd suggest you remove both your clear bias.
The problem is we do not have all of the evidence to hand due to not being there during the trial.
A jury is required to convict someone it is proven beyond all reasonable doubt that committed the alleged crime.
The issue with that it is transpiring that there were a lot of baby deaths in the unit even when Letby was not working. Which creates reasonable doubt.
Personally I think if the things that are coming out are true then Letby was scapegoated and there is a foul play higher up the food chain in that hospital
if the letter had been considered as a confession then by law it automatically would warrant that lucy be assessed by a psychiatrist otherwise it would be considered an unsafe confession...this case is nearly identical in many aspects to Asta Juskauskiene (mother of three children) who was also found guilty and is currently serving 24 years in prison despite being innocent......she was not even at the murder which is not contested by the police. Prosecution used a lot of fantasy and the defence rolled over as evidence was created against her during trial....it’s disgusting actually and a full investigation needs to happen around unsafe trials in the UK as they move away from evidenced based convictions to fantasy. It is not at all funny and one day they will have to answer for their actions. A university has worked on her case for four years now and has not found one piece of evidence which connects her to the murder yet the prosecution the CPS and police all managed to convict her with no evidence...all unsafe circumstantial evidence.
Dear oh dear. Mr Britton wasn’t even qualified as a solicitor when Letby was first arrested before, incidentally, being released three days later. Not even a tip of the hat to historical miscarriages of justice - eg Guildford Four, Birmingham Six and, latterly, Andrew Malkinson, who were victims of a judicial process whose practitioners are so proud of themselves that time after time when, often after very many tortuous years, when errors of process, of fact and interpretation have been exposed, they scuttle away, out of the public glare that at the time of the false conviction they were desperate to embrace in order to take the applause of a society grateful that monsters had apparently been caught and incarcerated. In the Letby case, the prosecution evidence has been challenged by experts in the fields of medicine, medico-legal and statistical, including one whose work the prosecution relied on and who has said it been mis-applied. It is a case where multiple autopsies at the time did not reveal any suspicion of foul play and where after the fact speculation by a small cohort of doctors invested in turning attention away from their own professional shortcomings later confirmed by multiple findings of inadequacy in the management and running of the infant ICU where Letby worked, caused the police to become involved in these matters.
Happy to correct an error. Lucy Letby was first arrested on 3rd July 2018. Paul Britton was admitted as a solicitor by the Law Society on 15th September 2017, a little over ten months earlier. He was however not admitted and therefore not qualified at the time of the deaths of the babies Letby has been convicted of murder for, or the alleged incidents leading to her convictions for attempted murder.
quite bizarre and incoherent analysis. the notes, for example, are utterly meaningless and contradictory, and this guy is saying 'what else do you need?'. amateur !
Remember colin stagg wrongly convited of murder , barry george, the birmingham four, the guildford six, and sally clark whos case mirrors the case of lucy letby in some respects
I don't think Colin Stagg was convicted of murder, but he was accused of murder.
Yep. Are we going to keep reeling out MoJ? Stagg wasn't convicted, but the police were wrong to do that and it was thrown out of Court and the guy suffered. That doesn't suddenly make someone else innocent
It's the Guildford four and Birmingham six ......talk about making mistakes !
@@peterfraney7931 we all make them so it proves that mistakes can happen
@@lesley9989As usual, you're refusing to acknowledge a valid view that doesn't align with yours.
Unbelievably poor reporting reporting here. The families need to know the truth. All evidence not just that used in court so far should be available to bring deeper understanding. Just why did expert witnesses working for the defence, not have the opportunity to defend her? Why were facts misrepresented by the prosecution within an overwhelming amount of circumstantial and questionable scientific evidence. How was a case built on hypothesis and speculation? Why were doctors known to be bullying Lucy taken so seriously, when the medical management of the babies by the doctors was reported as sub optimal and unchallenged. I think this commentator could do with a little more situational awareness. Including about the state of the NHS and extremely difficult circumstances nurses are working in. It's time to be honest for everyone's sake.
Not 12 and not unanimous.
Letby is innocent, it’s an uncomfortable truth.
Yes, the families are suffering. But Letby is suffering too, paying for a crime she has not committed with her life.
Justice must be done.
I don’t know if she is innocent. But I certainly believe she wasn’t proven guilty.
Who done away with the other children that passed when she wasn't there ?
@@Germania22 Exactly - the torture she must be going through is unimaginable to be charged with these crimes when you are innocent. It is awful for the families but surely they would want the truth and not have an innocent person blamed. You know there is a petition going around among nursing and medical staff - I believe it’s in the 100s. They are petitioning because of fear for themselves because of dreadful problems in wards and hospitals as they believe Lucy Letby was used as a scapegoat and it could happen to other staff. Also colleagues wanted to speak out about things and standby Lucy but were warned to be quiet in case of losing their jobs. The truth must come out.
@@George-v5c5n think people are not saying they were murdered but just as their post mortem indicated died a natural death
I suppose I shouldn't presume to speak on behalf of the families. But I think if I was in their position, I'd much rather it turned out that the babies had died through systemic failures, rather than the senseless and cruel acts of one individual, who I would then have to hate and feel resentful towards for the rest of my life. I would be able to grieve more easily then. I don't know if that was the case, I hope it was.
Of course mp’s should be involved if strong convictions around miscarriages. That’s how many of the miscarriages sorted themselves out including Chris Mullin for the Birmingham six. Maybe the lawyer being interviewed is too poorly informed about that case to recognise this.
To say, you can have an appeal, but you must pay, is a very dangerous argument.
Not just "pay", but pay an absolute fortune!
Because it isn't true. A CCRC submission is paid by the tax payer
@@lesley9989 If it requires a lawyer and there isn't legal aid, it isn't free.
@@martineyles my question was I thought legal aid was provided for a CCRC submission. I've read it's funded, so what have I missed? I can't post screenshots on RUclips. So a CCRC submission isn't funded under legal aid? That's the first I've ever heard it isn't. Is it possible to clarify. I'm interested to know if it's changed and when, because it was funded
@@martineyles why are you saying it isn't funded? Just Google it. It's funded under public funding.
It was not a unanimous verdict. By the end of the trial there were only 11 jurors left. Only two verdicts were unanimous - the two alleged insulin poisonings. There was one dissenting juror for the other charges. She was exonerated of two of the charges and there were also a number of charges where the jurors could not reach a verdict.
Before commenting on this case this pair should actually do some research and then they might know why so many people believe the guilty verdict is unsafe.
Everyone knows the case.
@@melgrant7404
Except the jury.
@@twatmang1 disagree.
@@twatmang1 disagree.
Cirtumstansital evidence is never fact, The fact is though she was the only one concentrated on.....Look at the Stepping Hill Hospital In Stockport... Nurse locked up then found not to have done it. only 14 years ago
These cases are rare.
900 sub postmasters might disagree.
This was not a normal criminal case in our ADVERSARIAL system. She got umpteen whole life terms after a 10 month long trial heavy with medical detail in which the defence CALLED NO EXPERT WITNESSES. Was that because the defence was under resourced and overwhelmed, or had some KC much too much faith in his ability to combat prosecution experts with cross examination alone?. I don't think the evidence advanced by the prosecution was sufficiently tested in court so from what Paul Britton says it will forever remain an enigma whether there is such a strong a case against Letby,
Unreliable evidence ? The so called evidence was a joke
Back in the day I got done in a magistrates Court. I had done a bad thing by taking another girl to a friend's 40th. When she asked me if I'd taken her and I told her the truth she hit me so hard I nearly lost consciousness, she fractured my cheekbone, broke a tooth, and covered me in scratches. This all in My home. 2 police arrived at this point she had gone upstairs where she was joined by an officer. She had no injuries, nothing. When he came downstairs they asked me if I wanted to press charges. As a man who had done wrong by taking someone else to the party, I said no. The one from upstairs said OK then you're under arrest for assault. I said why he said she said you hit her which I hadn't and wants to press chatges, she had no injuries, nothing. I replied saying ok i do want her arresting but was told no youre only saying that becauseshe wants to press charges. I was sent to the cells overnight and bailed the next day. So it ended up in court which I could have admitted guilty and slapped with a £50 fine. She had been prosecuted before for hitting previous partners. So in court I'm armed with a cheap lawyer whilst she was granted a barrister. When on the stand she was asked a question and she just went into robotic mode and stated 'I used to hit Grant but learnt from it'. We lost a bad character application and so could not mention the numerous times she had hit me in front of friends and could not bring up her record for beating other partners so for her to say that when not even asked was a huge red flag to any magistrate. My lawyer should have said 'sorry what was that you said? But he stayed quiet. Her lawyer then grilled me allowing only yes or no answers. A question was put to me to the tune of 'have you stopped hitting your partner yet' a yes or no reply would make me look guilty. Yes I have, (so you have hit her before) or No, (so you still hit her). I refused to answer and got annoyed because I was being railroaded to say yes or no. The magistrate told me to leave the courtroom with my lawyer for council. When I returned she asked again, I refused to answer and threatened with contempt of court. I still wouldn't answer and so he immediately found me guilty and slapped me with a £700 fine and 100 hours of community service. That is what can happen in modern justice. That girll got away with serious assault, and I with a record. The judges are an absolute disgrace as is the system.
😴😴😴
It's frightening how not having enough money for decent defendant make the innocent guilty
Reading all the comment and seeing what the majority say...gives me hope in people. Now, the things bohe gentlemen say here in the video are not facts...not supported...how often the jury gets it wrong? not often?...show the evidence! the same issue here again...scientific rational, factual knowledge, stats...lacking here aplenty...dangerous...perhaps lawyers should have training on this during their degree...
who is Paul Britton? poor quality, I wouldn't employ him
Witnesses? No one witnessed anything ive listened to the cross examination and not at ANY point did anyone witness her doing anything. The time scales are also an issue!
The way the police got admissions against her own interests out her about whether there was insulin poisoning of babies just shows why lawyers advise against talking to the police. She said words to the effect of 'if you say so' and that got her appeal denied because it was deemed she admitted there was a murderer at work in the unit.
@@seancidy6008 Exactly ... the prosecution pressed and pressed until she conceded "If that's what the expert suggests", which is most definitely not an admission. What other response could she have given ?
@@KingBee24unfortunately the legal system operates on this literally twisted basis. Common sense and intended meaning count for nothing, unless it's what the authority wants it to mean. Trick questions are used all the time and for some reason it's fine.
Well, it is GB News. Try not to invest too much in what these two say it will only spoil your day.
Not going to waste any more time with this rubbish
If you’re handing out sentences like that, you have to have all the evidence and all the expert evidence as possible. It’s hard to believe her defense didn’t want experts to appear on her behalf. Why wouldn’t they want that? It’s easier to believe that they just didn’t want to appear for fear of reprisals from people who think she is guilty. It must be difficult to stick up for someone in court in front of those babies parents who think she’s guilty and want her to be guilty because they want justice and someone to blame, and who were given no other reason for it happening, like infections, staff shortages etc, so it must be her, because the hospital and trust can’t possibly be to blame. No experts on her behalf is the jury not being given all the facts and evidence. There were more words on those post it notes than incriminating ones. When someone writes a confession in an interrogation room, it hardly contains all those other words does it? Indeed we’ve seen confessions written in the diaries of killers, which were much more matter of fact and straight to the point than her notes. IF she is innocent, should she have to rot in jail til she dies just because she can’t afford a defense? We’ve also seen appeals denied simply because judges and prosecutors don’t want to be proved wrong, only for them to be proved wrong eventually, after someone has been wrongly imprisoned for years. Or so as not to upset the victims parents? Other babies died on the same ward pretty close to the ones that she was convicted for, but she wasn’t investigated for them because she wasn’t on shift then. Were they natural deaths or due to infection that couldn’t possibly have made its way to the babies she was convicted for? What about their parents? Who do they get to blame? Are the parents of those babies thinking ‘why do we have to accept that there was no wrongdoing in our babies deaths?’ IF YOU were in jail for something you didn’t do, would you just accept it? More so if you knew you had to be in there until you die. I’m saying IF of course, because I don’t know, but it is the harshest sentence in British law and should be made sure it is safe. And, is finding out someone was innocent of the crime they were convicted of, much too late, or ha ha ha after they were hanged, a laughing matter? Like he did in the video. Nope. It’s something the British justice system, and prosecutors who go for a conviction at any cost and let the truth fall where it may, to be ashamed of.
A confession note saying "I haven't done anything wrong" is unique in the history of crime.
I agree Greg. Much like Jim Swire, the father of a Lockerbie victim who defended convicted bomber Megrahi, if one of the parents wants to get involved and probe this hospital, it could add considerable weight if this is, as it seems, a miscarriage.
@@KingBee24 yeah I don’t know if like on American court movies they pass evidence around the jury for them to look at, but those post it notes to me, look like the ramblings of an overwhelmed and completely stressed out and depressed brain. Like an mri scan of my brain in written form. I wouldn’t have read it as a confession, even if 5 of the words were ‘I did it on purpose’.
@@13thnotehifireviews7 well.. I suppose one of the other nurses on shift when one of the other babies died could get sent down, instead of the hospital admitting fault. Or all of the hospitals failings, and the possible presence of infection etc could come out. Things are a bit different when there’s no one person to lay the blame on. Although I have worked in places where if they can’t blame anyone, they pretend nothing is wrong. Which leads to them searching for scapegoats if there is no way of hiding it. I haven’t worked there for ages now, but I really hope they wouldn’t stoop to sending a scapegoat down for whole life though.
it will stop when the truth comes out!
the truth has already come out, thats why she's in jail
@@jmckeev765 Do a little research on the Dutch nurse Lucia de Berk. One would have said there that the truth was out but...
@@amyp66the cases are very different... This one is evil
@@amyp66 She was guilty ,got away with it on a technicality
@@amyp66oh please! Not the do research!
If there is any evidence that may suggest a miscarriage of justice beyond speculation , money should not hinder any application to review that evidence.
A CCRC submission is paid for by the state
I think she is innocent and I think Juries are stupid and I care about the truth while not caring about how people feel.
Juries are not stupid.
@@nathaliegrieves3859 Random strangers with no legal knowledge and biased by their ideology. hell NO!
@@MohamedSamyAlRabbani they are a good thing. You have barristers for that. Defence and prosecution .
Was the trial not the longest in British legal history
one of the longest
Her defense didn't call any expert witnesses other than the plumber apparently
Lucy's defence was abysmal, even agreed with the prosecution that babies had been poisoned with insulin when there was no evidence this had happened.
Mr McDonald has said it will take up to a decade for this to be heard by the CCRC so the public questioning will go on for many years more.
Trial by journalists.
Well how often do they' umm didnt someone just get xonerated after 17 years in prison?
those guys are usually black, the guys who actually get locked up for being innocent.
@@MrPerfect-mo1xrthis won't go down well! Completely right though. Can you imagine this coverage if she as a male and black working-class nurse!
The frightening thing is that if Lucy is innocent and is scapegoated, how can we learn from the institutional failings done by the NHS, and the British law and justice system? Will these institutions allow the failings and public scrutiny to be directed to them, or will they do whatever they can to point the finger at Lucy?
The likes of these lawyaaaas are why this country is in such a state. Cant wait for the truth to come out.
The statistical analysis of acuity vs predicted and actual neonatal deaths leaves a large question mark hanging over the safety of Letby's conviction that has yet to be addressed
We fund enough immigrants legal defences!
Overall regarding the UK system Paul Britton is regrettbly correct. As to good values, like heart, truth, fairness. doing the right thing..welll..
What load of croc !!!!
Tax payers want to make sure that justice is done. If she is innocent then there is another failing, which then needs to be looked at
There’s a lot of innocent people been sent to jail Luke Mitchell springs to mind. The real question should be how many times do they admit they got it wrong , going on that question she’ll never get out of jail.
Come on Paul do you seriously believe shes guilty?
L.L. and her appointed public defender vs a below par, under staffed, supported and performing hospital trustb and their £3m legal team......
Answer Simple - LUCY IS BLAMELESS AND HAD BEEN FROM DAY 1.
Free Juicy Lucy now
I'm sorry, but what you may hear from 3>32 to 3>56 is insurpassable in its cogency. Whatever other comparable cases or attenuating circumstances you may cite.
Most likely klebsiella with the evidence given from the plumber the KC must have had his suspicions.
When the police went to arrest Lucy at her house she didn't look surprised or shocked, she seemed like she was expecting it.
She looked surprised and someone with nothing to hide. She left the house in cuffs with a very different expression. I would advise you to compare the 2.
As it is, using emotions as evidence is highly problematic. How one person may react is completely different to how another person might react (or even the same person under differing circumstances. Personally, I would hold no importance to it if I were a juror.
@@twatmang1 We will agree to disagree.
She looked as guilty as sin when she saw those police.
@@luckystripe672Too true , zero emotion , cold and calculating
@@luckystripe672 Another follower of "Crime Scene 2 Courtroom" ...
Bunch of knobs
Based on her evidence and the court transcript, she's as guilty as sin.....
There was NO solid evidence against Lucy Letby and the circumstantial evidence was far from convincing.
@@ruthbashford3176 There rarely is a smoking gun.....
'This was only a 4 week trial'
Wut?
10 months, one of the longest in UK history. This guy is a moron.
10 months, one of the longest trials in UK history.
@@reildren7173 love it when they have no clue what they are talking about
@@scottaznavourian3720 I think they're talking about the length of the retrial, which was much shorter than the original, because it was only for one case.
Fix your volume. Impossible to hear.
What explains a 600% increase in the likelihood of an incident occuring when LL was present? None of the other 37 staff memebers are anywhere near those figures.
I'd accept it being a coincidence if we were talking about a small handful of cases over a few weeks, but this was a total of 34 incidents over 14 months. I just cant think of any other explanaition other than LLhaving some kind of involvement in the incidents?
@@scotty1004 I'm refering to the period of time between June 2015 and July 2016. Why was the unit 600% more likely to see an incident when LL started her shifts during that time period?
The whole thing is based on statistics and probability.
The numbers to win the Euro jackpot has a minuscule probability but there are often winners.
@@sunway1374 you know the probability of winning the lottery is 1 in 14 million right?
But ok let's say it's just a 1 in 14,000,000 coincidence, we havent even yet touched on all the other evidence that's stacked up against her yet. Once you factor everything in we're easily in the 'beyond reasonable doubt' territory.
Read it! She is innocent 😢
Rather than admit they had a dirty filthy hospital understaffed those 2 idiot doctors had to believe it was something so sinister when it wasn't. They thought they were so good that it had to be Lucy but it wasn't!!! Those 2 ignorant doctors are the reason that innocent girl is locked up. Its a dirty filthy understaffed hospital.
Did he get a result with the post office workers ? Why is Vennells still walking free
vennels didn't murder anyone
@@joshb7326 , how many post office workers lost their lives due to her, she caused it
@@jimoconnor2594 Not by her hands or intentionally. I don't like Vennels but it's stupid to compare her to Letby
@@joshb7326 ,,, she caused people to lose their homes, life savings and their jobs, how many ended up with a criminal record, she's the one that should be in prison
@@jimoconnor2594 Both of them should be prison.
Clutching at straws.not grasping.100%guilty
100% INNOCENT
She should pay, she sold a house
i kinda feel a bit bad for the people who believe she's innocent. i imagine they're gonna be very angry when she's guilty for a second time :(
Oh please don't waste your time feeling bad for me, I'm a big girl.
were you upset when you heard the post office workers were INNOCENT ?
@@jimoconnor2594 What? 🤷
Read ALL of it! She is innocent
Yet there is no evidence she is guilty.
Paul Britton's 5 mins of fame.
Lot of high profile individuals looking into this conviction.
Being interviewed on a joke channel like GB News won't enhance this lawyer's reputation. By the way, Letby's guilty.
Oh, do you actually have some credible evidence, because none has been presented so far.
Guilty and evil
Do you have any evidence?
@@DepakoteMeister Plenty if you listen and read the case
@@CharlieCharlie881 I did read the case, and so did the experts that are saying the evidence presnted is wrong. You know more than the experts?
@@DepakoteMeister I know more than the con artists Gill and SOT just out for donations ,even Letby doesn't want them ,got a friend who lives near Sarrita Adams, not a nice person
Agree ,evil