Is there systemic failings and she was the fall victim as a lowly nurse? I don't know but my 77 years experience in life suggests she may be the victim of establishment failure on a grand scale. seen it too many times before. Post office scandal is a brilliant example.
On the original spreadsheet there were other medics - a doctor and another nurse present for many of the cases. But by the time the spreadsheet was shown to the police only Letby's name remained. The question is who removed the other names and why? It is looking increasingly like Letby was framed or at least singled out.
That's laughable. Those who say Letby is innocent are literally saying that those babies actually died from medical incompetence. They claim hospital staff then suggested the cause was in fact murder and tried to pin it on an innocent nurse. Not only is this theory on a par with lizard people ruling the planet but it is in fact the very definition of a conspiracy. Those who claim Letby is innocent are, therefore...LITERAL CONSPIRACY THEORISTS.
Well said Peter. There are clearly doubts about the fairness of the Lucy Letby trials and more and more people are feeling that this could be a miscarriage of justice. How can everyone, expert and non-expert, be a conspiracy theorist. Its just the easiest way to write everyone off. I doubt any of us are heartless people who feel no empathy for the babies and their families. We just feel that if there's a chance an innocent person may have been sentenced to die in prison, then the high emotion of the case shouldn't stand in the way of a fair trial.
It'll never be sorted out 'once and for all' - Whatever verdict they come to there will be others wanting a re-trial. Like Brexit, the losers will want it done again.
@@DeneMonkey Perhaps, but extremely unlikely. The reason she is in prison at all is because her defence team were either incompetent or deliberately threw the case.
They are frightened to have this whole case looked into because they know what will be exposed.A European court looking at this case would throw these convictions out without hesitation.
If they are reasonable parents then I’m sure they wouldn’t want someone in prison wrongly convicted for their child’s murder. We have to be able to allow challenge where necessary to protect freedom and democracy.
Something very iffy about this prosecution.. wether she's guilty or not, there should definitely be a re-trial and she should definitely have a defence who knows their arse from their elbow
@@DeneMonkey You appear to the first person during this whole legal process to categorically state there were actual eye witnesses to her alleged deeds. The trial seemed to be unaware of this. Where did you obtain this information from as it would have been a major pivotal factor in the whole trial as it was alleged there were no witnesses yet you are claiming there were. This is extremely important
@@hazzard8760 There were eye witnesses. There was a doctor who saw her standing over a baby who was on a respirator with the breathing pipe removed from the baby's mouth and the alarm which goes off when a breathing pipe comes loose had been silenced. Letby was the only person who could have silenced the alarm. Letby was doing nothing to help the baby who would die without the breathing tube. There was also a mother who witnessed blood coming from her babies mouth with screams of agony. Letby denied there was blood coming from the babies mouth and claimed the baby was not in agony. This baby died hours later. If you want the best access to evidence on this case, try the youtube channel: CrimeScene2Courtroom has the court transcripts, which probably make up 100s of hours of listening time.
100% correct again Peter. The right person must be held accountable beyond all reasonbable doubt. We know our judicial system is not beyond failure and must be checked at every step. It's ever more important now in an age when the law and judiciary can be appropriated and weaponized.
@@nifralo2752 I didn’t say a jury can be weaponised, I said the law can be weaponised. Evidence can be misconstrued, misleading or simply missing and therefore a jury may find in favour of the prosecution incorrectly. Hope you can see sense in that.
I’m so grateful for people like Peter who are willing to do what he’s doing. He doesn’t have to stick his neck out so to speak. He could just get on with his life. I feel Lucy Letby at least deserves an appeal and was appalled that she didn’t get one. Imagine if it was yourself and you were innocent to be stuck in prison for all of your life.
You clearly didn't follow the trial and have not the ability to process information. Hitchens has no problem doing this as he is attention seeking and thinks this will be a way to put himself in history books. It won't.
I agree with Hitchens. There is so much contrary ‘evidence’ even if the finding is that there was no murder. Then it has to be negligence. And whose negligence? And that girls life is finished anyway. I feel awful for her as much as the parents
You know she wrote a sympathy card for 3 dead triplets she was caring for, but she only managed to kill two. She didn't send the card after failing to kill the surviving triplet.
@@paulis8107 I used to be a sceptic myself, but as hard as I tried, I can't convince myself any longer that she's innocent. That said, it's true that stats are massively misunderstood. I'm a data analyst, I deal with statistics as part of my job. However, while people misunderstand and misuse statistics all over the place, it doesn't make her innocent.
one has to admire peter hitchens, his arguments are always so reasoned and he utterly refuses to join in with any kind of mob, he will say what he genuinely believes regardless of how 'unpopular' that makes him, the discourse in this country now is so polarised and intransigent and cases such as the Letby one are extremely sensitive but nonetheless if there is any reasonable doubt existing concerning her conviction then it has to be pursued
Doesn't stop him being wrong though does it. Give the jury some credit, they sat through weeks of trial. Which the rest of us didn't. And the stuff coming out of the current inquiry should give any skeptics pause for thought
@@superted6960 Agreed , but on that basis any one of us including the jury , trial, lawyers, barristers and witnesses may have got it wrong. That is the inherent weakness of the jury based system. This case is somewhat different and highly unusual to most other murder cases ( but not all) in that all the evidence is anecdotal and based on hypothesis with not a shred of objective evidence. . The coroner even stated that there was no conclusive evidence that anyone was actually murdered. How crazy is that? It does somewhat boil down to personal feelings ie. emotions.
@@nifralo2752 that is a very interesting point. In 1995 I went through a horrible emotionally charged divorce and was denied access to my children by a horrid ex.. (Ultimately they came to live with me of their own volition). So what's my point? I went to a solicitor and counsellor for advice as it was seriously affecting my health.Interestingly both the solicitor and counsellor (independent of each other) recommended I write down my deepest, worst most hateful emotions I felt for my ex, who was causing so much pain by denying me access to people I adored. The caveat was, do not send it to your ex but use it as a way of venting your deepest innermost anger and emotions and then throw it in the bin, but never send it as you would simply raise the stakes and make matters far worse. The point being it was an opportunity to vent my feelings of loathing for the damage she was causing and it did help me come to terms with the situation. That was 30 years ago. Many counsellors recommend this course of action. I never sent that letter and still have it in the loft. I came across it a few years back and remember the anguish and pain I felt at the time.. A stranger reading it may express concern at how I felt
Many years ago my wife did a locum role at the Countess of Chester in the post of Consultant anesthetist with a view to applying for a substantive post. She found the culture toxic. Equipment was very dated and so were many of the working practices ...Needless to say she did not apply.
You know, I do too. Not every day if I'm honest but something has troubled me about all this and I feel burdened to lift her up to the Lord. Maybe God knows she is innocent and he stirs his people to pray.
I don’t usually agree with Peter Hitchens but he is bang right here. There are so many doubts in this case as shown by the New Yorker article and private eye etc.
That's true, the MP David Davies tried to get the full trial transcript and was told it would cost that much. The journalist who wrote the New Yorker article had to pay 10,000 USD for a partial transcript.
One guy has the transcripts. He's been reading them on his RUclips channel. Transcripts are expensive, so what? Hitchens is talking garbage; he is ignoring the real evidence, not the only person.
They know what happened. Letby murdered their babies. It's just a shame these clowns are getting to those poor parents. I hope they can relax a bit and know that the campaign to free Letby is stupid and that no intelligent person buys into this moronic cover up bullshit.
Letby was a specialised neonatal nurse. She was one of only two on the unit. So, in the main, she was allocated more severely pooly babies. Below is a cursory list of neonatal complications : Bronchopulmonary dysplasia Necrotizing enterocolitis Neonatal encephalopathy Patent ductus arteriosus Retinopathy of prematurity Infection Digestive problems Growth failure Intraventricular hemorrhage Respiratory distress syndrome Apnea and bradycardia Blood problems Cardiac dysfunction Developmental and/or cognitive delays Metabolism problems Intracranial ischemic and hemorrhagic injuries, Sepsis Sudden death baby syndrome Neonatal extravasation injury
Seeing these pictures of the hospital ward I question is this a professional health care environment or a disorganised, cluttered room full of “stuff”? The risk of infection must be huge!
Looks like a cover up with a large helping of confirmation bias. Both managers and doctors desperately looking for a scapegoat to avoid blame themselves. The hate she speaks of in the notes is for those trying to pin the blame on her.
I have never been comfortable with this conviction. It’s a cover up for NHS incompetence. Deaths occurred when she wasn’t around too but they are not mentioned.
The difference here is the number of babies that died under her watch and the fact that she injected them with insulin and air, and force-fed them milk. At best it was criminal negligence on her part, and yes, the hospital should be blamed for not noticing it before it was too late.
@@cun7us There's no evidence she injected any babies, that's part of the problem with the trial. It's all just a theory about how they could possibly have died. There's no evidence those babies were injected with anything at all.
@@cun7usOnly there is ZERO medical, forensic or pathology evidence that shows there was air injected in to any baby. So that rules that out. Which then calls in to question the other evodence.
She’s obviously innocent. Anyone who has had a few interactions with any NHS service could easily see how it could fail in this way then scapegoat someone
How can you say that she's "obviously" innocent if the facts haven't been presented in the retrial yet? Do you know something the rest of us don't? Not even Peter Hitchens knows if she's innocent as he's admitted in this interview.
@@cun7us What I mean is it seems obvious to me and likely to anyone else whose relatives has been murdered through negligence or malfeasance by the NHS
I don't think she's "obviously" innocent but it is shocking that she was found guilty with such a low standard of evidence. The one doctor who proposed the "air embolism" theory clearly approached it thinking he was some sort of tv DI whose job was to figure out how the babies were murdered, not IF there was evidence of murder (imo there isn't, the whole case is a house of cards and the jury were told false statistics like there was a miniscule chance there wasn't a murderer on the ward).
Didn’t Lord Lane say - 30 or more years ago - that the longer “this appeal” (an appeal by the Birmingham Six to the C of A presided over by Lord Lane) “went on, the more this Court became convinced that the convictions were sound” ? Some years later - a differently constituted C of A - on a further appeal by the Birmingham Six - quashed their convictions !!!!!
Agree entirely with Peter Hitchens who spotted the flaws in the case earlier than almost anyone else. It needs to be investigated independently by genuine experts. Hopefully this can still be achieved through the CCRC mechanism. However, as David Davis has pointed out, a better one, similar to that used in the airline industry, which overall has an excellent safety record, should be developed to investigate complex medical cases, rather than criminal trials which are known to be prone to false assumptions where detailed scientific analysis of the data is required.
Another miscarriage of justice by the crown prosecution service, it wasn’t that long ago that this poor woman would’ve been hung for crimes she didn’t commit, you just wouldn’t think that it would happen in this day and age, Lucy Letby needs to be released ASAP.
How do YOU know that this case was a miscarriage of justice? Why would YOU release Letby? Simply on YOUR views of the judicial sytsem? Without a re-trial??😵💫
@KernowekTim If she is innocent then it was unfortunate for the defence that their client is a compulsive liar who conveniently can only remember details until difficult questions are put to her.
@@KernowekTim there seems a few medical professionals saying that if they gave evidence at her trial they would’ve said that in their opinion could’ve been innocent also didn’t babies die when she wasn’t even at work, I don’t know if you have been involved in a court trial but let’s have it right there’s been enough cases where the prosecution have lied through their teeth to sway a jury over to their way of thinking and once the prosecution has done that you’re gonna get a guilty verdict wether they are innocent or not, maybe me saying that she should be released straight away was a bit strong but she should be given a retrial at least and let’s hear from these professionals and see what they have to say because they were kept quiet in the first trial by the crown prosecution service, that’s also down to bad representation by her defence barristers, what the prosecution said that they read in her diary wasn’t exactly true and that’s come from the prosecution and not her defence, like I said at least give the woman a retrial and let her defence bring these professionals into court, she could be still be found guilty but, it’s debatable until we’ve heard what these so say medical professionals have to say in my opinion. I’ve been reading some of the replies that you have sent people and you definitely come across as a very judgmental fool.
Allowing the expert to give evidence was stupid enough. Im convinced hes deranged and a dangerous attention seeker,.. Hes been called out previously by a judge, for his tendency to tailor evidence, to the narrative of whover is paying him. In fact, his evidence was called worthless by one judge... Worth noting he wasnt looked up by the police or the CPS, he went to them and pitched for the job, which in itself is kinda kinky.. Im disturbed by the evidence the so called expert gave, relating to the rashes, which, the jury were told, were clear indicators of air having been injected into a tube, yet a world renowned expert, ironically on whos work the offered evidence was based, refutes this and has made clear the rashes were not the same .. We also find after the trial that the notes Lucy wrote and which were presented to the jury as her secret diary, were actually part of psycological therapy work she was undergoing.. The stats presented to the jury were at best ridiculous and if it werent so serious, would be laughable.. Weve seen this before with other oddball experts often leading to huge misscarrirgaes of justice. Dr Meadows was a legal nightmare, as were so many others Tthe shaken baby nonsense or the brittle bone saga etc .. Experts need to be more closely looked at We have dishonest people in the church, the police and all other agencies and demographics, so to assume nobody dishonest, prone to flights of fantacy or with ego issues, couldnt turn up in the shape of an expert witness, would be naive and dangerous The jury werent told of the number of babies that died when Lucy was not there and plenty of other evidence was deliberately missleading and according to a huge number of very specialised experts across the World , much of the evidece presented to the jury as factual, were scientifically wrong.. Much to worry about here
Also the jury was told that the number of baby deaths fell after Lucy was removed from the ward, so it must have been her, conveniently failing to mention that after Lucy was removed, that ward was downgraded so that far less seriously unwell babies were there now anyway.
That world renowned expert testified at her appeal. He didn't even read the medical notes. He did say there was would be a rash. But pink on a blue or purple background. Something like that.
She is 100% innocent and i have said this since the case was first on the news. She is the victim of a crappy police force and useless judicial system! The police have basically gave her the old guildford 4 treatment and the outdated court and jury system have swallowed it whole and locked her poor ass up forever and not even gave her a chance to fight it!! Everyone involved in her case should be locked up 6 babies died at times when she wasnt even there and theyve still pinned it on her Absolute disgrace
@@KernowekTim not quite the same somehow ... Rosemary West ultimately pleaded guilty and there was very convincing physical and witness evidence to back it up where there was none in Lucy's prosecution. No-one saw her murdering anyone and it was all based on anecdotal evidence. Indeed the question was raised, "was any baby actually murdered at all" as the coroners report following the autopsies categorically stated that all the babies appeared to die of natural causes
Hitchens is absolutely correct in questioning the case. I commented early on in the trial that relying on circumstantial evidence is unacceptable. I know that the legal system is flawed, the role of police has too much power, are believed when the opposite should be the case. With police officers trained to fit the evidence to the charge, being rewarded for arrests/convictions, as in any reward system it is set up for people to ensure that it is successful, when the test should be is this a benefit to society. Officers routinely collude, write false statements, lose evidence, fail to look at evidence they already have, perjure themselves in court, yet the judicicary let it go, when such a case should be dismissed and the officer(s) immediately held on remand. The courts are pressured to ensure adequate conviction rates. In the Letby case, perhaps the problem lies with the CPS, I don't have enough knowledge of the case to say. However it does seem that the police/CPS operate on a 'do we have a chance with this' basis, particularly for the low standards of magistrates courts. Overall, the public should know far more about the processes that the legal system operates. The should including arrests, charges, convictions for matters that arose out of interactions with the police or other agencies. The huge impact on individual's and their families lives forever, regardless of the offense, is disproportionate and with ever wide ranging legislation, the government have too much discretion. So whilst Hitchens is right to doubt the case, his trust in the Criminal Cases Review Commission or the Court of Appeal are misplaced. Fundamentally, legislation, the legal system no longer serve society, it is one of the biggest internal risks the country faces, but is connected to agreements, treaties, etc. where issues are determined externally.
Lucy is 100% innocent, and I believe the babies' deaths were caused by the gross failings of incompetent Drs and NHS managers. Lucy was made a scapegoat to cover those failings at any cost.
@lennymice2261 This was never about a murderer in plane sight . that's just what the NHS wants you to believe . Why else do you think them at the very top made sure the jury the police and the judge never got to see the second list with Doctors on, A list that also shows the same Doctor on duty when these poor babies died, they are covering their own failings by framing once again a nurse.
The Letby Public inquiry is presented with new things she is alleged to have done. Was this presented at the trial ?, no because it's hearsay, the inquiry is open to allegation and speculation because it has nothing to do with the outcome of the trial. It's job is to discover the circumstances surrounding the murders and ask if e.g. governance contributed to the failure to protect the babies. In opening remarks Justice Thirwell rejected questions that raised by a range of experts about Letby’s convictions, "THE PEOPLE COMMENTING", experts, "WERE NOT FULLY INFORMED". “In the months since the court of appeal judgment there has been a huge of outpouring of comment from a variety of quarters on the validity of the convictions,” “SO FAR AS I'M AWARE, IT HAS COME FROM PEOPLE WHO WERE NOT AT THE TRIAL". Dr Michael Hall who was at the trial and provided medical reports, as an expert witness says SHE'S WRONG, and that he e.g. had attended the trial throughout. Given Lady Justice Thirwalls comments it sounds like some things have already been decided before being heard before the inquiry !
Well Said. As you say many medical and statistical experts have doubts about Letby's guilt. However, I'm not aware that any medical experts have come forward to support Dr Dewi Evans' theories
Anybody who has ever had any contact with or experience of the judicial system in this country has had their eyes opened as to what a very poor and inadquate manifestation it is of what all those who have never had such experience think it is. I have had such interaction and from following the initial details of this particular case thought that something was very wrong. Cases, as a former QC once told me, are decided on emotion not facts. And as Aldous Huxley once said, most people are not very bright.I have always thought that these are oftentimes fundamental flaws present in the concept of jury trials especially concerning such emotive subjects.
Give that man a tinfoil hat and stick him in a corner. Opinion. Peter Hitchens I don’t try to live by values. I don’t think that would describe the way I approach it at all. But I think I get angriest at attempts to pervert either truth or justice. Ask yourself if Lucy was a different colour would he be trying to stay relevant with this case? I think not. Conservative types are very predictable.
That is racism if ever I heard it! Why do you have to make this about colour? She's not a different colour. She's white British. So why do you say, 'if she was...'? I can ask you the same question in reverse. If Peter Hitchens were a different colour would he care that she may have been victim of a miscarriage of justice? But why would I ask such a question in the first place unless I myself was rascist? You absolute hypocrite? You make me want to vomit.
Apparently the consultants in that unit only do ward rounds twice a week. I was told usually they should do ward rounds twice a day or more as it is an intensive care unit. Is there a problem with this unit’s setup?🧐
You have a very valid point.. UK history is littered with incidences of innocent people being "hanged" only to be totally exonerated after their deaths.. BTW.......the word is actually "hanged"... Meat is "hung" , people were "hanged". Its like the word Scots and Scotch. Scots are people from Scotland,whereas Scotch is a form of whiskey... just saying...
@@hazzard8760 thankyou for the correction . When I was young my mother was against the death penalty however my father was for . When I grew up I was against simply because we don't have an incorruptible police force ,now a service . The man who was arrest and went to prison for the Jill Dando murder,would have been hanged and there are other cases too .
@@barbaraallen435 One of the greatest legal injustices of all time in the UK was the hanging for murder by simpleton and tenant Timothy Evans. . As a tenant, he was alleged to have murdered his wife and baby and hid them in the coal shed in the outbuildings of10 Rillington Place West North Kensington London in 1950. He claimed it was his landlord that "did it". The landlord Reginald Christie even appeared as a prosecution witness. However a few years later a building surveyor at the property came across a foul smell and called in the police and they once again found several bodies bricked in outbuildings. These were found to have been committed after Evans had been hanged. The finger was pointed at Landlord Christie who pleaded guilty and was himself hanged in 1953. It was not until 1966 that the Home secretary awarded Evans a "Royal Pardon" and his body was exhumed from Pentonville Prison to a private cemetery to rest with his family. 19 year old Derek Bentley was also wrongly put to death by hanging in 1953 for a murder he never committed but only fully pardoned in 1998. British justice does sometimes get it terribly wrong and innocent people who were found guilty are locked up for something they never did. The press and media today don't help as heinous murders make ghoulish headline news, further vilifying and debasing those committed to prison
Once again impressed by the shared idiocy of people that watch TalkTV that are now convinced she’s innocent when the families and the jury had absolutely no doubt about her guilt. An inquiry being done into it all right now is saying the exact same thing but I’m sure you all know better.
To be absolutely sure of her guild, you'd have to have been a fly on the wall, closely watching her every move. The evidence she was convicted on is called circumstantial, by the Courts, for a reason. It's the level of doubt that makes for a conviction or acquittal. Beyond reasonable is the standard, if Peter H has doubt, then it obviously wasn't beyond reasonable.
Three huge red flags in this conviction 1. The so called expert witness for the prosecution was totally discredited by a judge in another case. 2. The pathologist's report indicated all deaths from natural causes bar one which could not be explained but was not unnatural. 3. The case rested on incorrect interpretation of statistics, circumstantial evidence and medical hypotheses but no proof. How many decades will it take before the case is reexamined ? 10, 20 or 30 years perhaps judging by other appeals and overturned convictions ?
Many independent doctors, including consultant neonatologists have come forward to condemn the evidence of the discredited Dewi Evans. However no independent medical expert has come forward to support the claims of Dr Evans. Only the defence can answer as to why no medical experts were called, the only one, consultant neonatologist, Mike Hall was not used although he had grave doubts about the guilty verdict.
I work within medicine in a capacity I'd rather keep vague for professional reasons, and whilst obviously I'm not aware of what clinical evidence may have been presented to ascertain her guilt, even during the trial I had the uncomfortable feeling there was the possibility that, either intentionally or unintentionally, she had been assigned the blame for collective failures on the unit. - but it is important to underline that none of us looking at this from the outside were in court and aware of the evidence, nor are most of us pathologists and able to understand what clinical evidence was presented even if we read it. We - including myself - are operating from a position of ignorance. So one should be very cautious to jump to conclusions.
Only if people of high profile like Peter and David Davis etc support the innocence of Lucy L will she ever be cleared! Please keep the profile going!!!!
And thank God it’s not 1945 as people like you and most of those here on this forum would be saying that Dr Mengele was innocent and that he was such a caring and nice doctor and there is no way he murdered and tortured all those people and that he was a compassionate doctor trying to keep all those children alive and those who said otherwise was due to Jewish/British/American propaganda 🤢🤮
The court transcripts are read in full on youtube. By more than one channel.. you don't have to pay anything to read them. you can access it right here. f you want the evidence its not hard to come by. The evidence is beyond damning. I'm really now wondering .. this man isn't stupid.. he knows damn well she's guilty, What's his angle here. This man
I do not view it as dissent. It is dreadful to say if one thinks it is a miscarriage of justice to comment and be vocal. Especially if you are a nurse or professional medical person. I think Dewi Evans is not deserving of respect, he has put the evidence to a jury to say this is how it was. Not this is my hypothesis. This is a fact. That is wrong. Also yes, the doctor and nurse removed from the chart, such as it was, only serves to highlight how awful it was to point the finger at Lucy Letby.
Not familiar enough with the case to make a judgement but if there's any indication she might have been scapegoated I shudder to think what is being hidden from the public. Maybe something so horrific that the public is incapable of accepting or even comprehending.
We really must get away from thinking that just because 12 people picked out of a hat say someone is guilty that it's always correct. This case was dodgy from day one. Our 'justice' system is diabolical. I could not sit on a jury. I have no right to decide someone's fate.
Dan Hodges was on twitter making basic errors and absolutely no clue about the case. I hope they have got the verdict right because the alternative vista is almost as horrible as what she has been convicted of.
Have these idiots ever once thought how it affects the babies families? If it was Lucas Letby no ine would cliam hes inocent. How many times do you write confession notes to crimes you didnt comit?
The judge-whatever their personal opinion-should have set the verdicts aside based on the principle that a criminal trial must be decided on the basis of guilt "beyond reasonable doubt" while the jury decision was based on "balance of probabilities". That is all statistics have to offer, literally balance of probabilities, no matter what the probabilities are/were. The result is wrong in law. We must assume from the way the case was run that it was a political trial rather than a criminal one.
No I believe he questions the whole case. Were the babies actually murdered or were there hospital failings? The statistical evidence. The evidence provided by clinical experts. The list goes on.
spoke to this Guy yesterday ! ! That Guy needs to explain why he worried, Concerned about what others say .....🤔 Peter Hitchens i honour your view ..Babies i believe were not Murdered
I agree with the comments made at the end- say one thing and do another. They don't care about the parents or the victims -its all about looking after the coin.
Even if Letby is found not guilty in future the haters will continue to hate. We have seen similar in New Zealand, most notably the Arthur Thomas trial (double murder, eventually pardoned), but more recently that of Peter Ellis (child sex abuse, who served seven and died before the convictions were eventually quashed). We have a stack more such cases.
There WAS evidence of multiple crimes it wasn’t just theoretical. Eg. There was acute bleeding observed around the mouth and in the gi tract of babies that died with no previous gi issues. So that indicates trauma in the same way a dead adult found with lacerations and bleeding would indicate foul play. It had to be due to trauma of some sort, other possibilities were excluded in court - there was no vomiting in the the baby with blood around the mouth prior- the mother came in, noticed it and Letby explained it away as due to inserting an NG tube. Which she now denies because it’s not possible/plausible. So yeah, if you think it’s all hypothetical or statistics listen to the court transcripts.
Listen to what the statisticians and mathematians say, not the journalists and politicians. You wouldnt listen to them questioning DNA evidence if genetric scientists agreed
This resembles the "trial" about the Port Arthur carnage in Tasmania, where the accused never had a trial. Just the same, there is a good chance he is guilty.
Is there systemic failings and she was the fall victim as a lowly nurse? I don't know but my 77 years experience in life suggests she may be the victim of establishment failure on a grand scale. seen it too many times before. Post office scandal is a brilliant example.
On the original spreadsheet there were other medics - a doctor and another nurse present for many of the cases. But by the time the spreadsheet was shown to the police only Letby's name remained. The question is who removed the other names and why? It is looking increasingly like Letby was framed or at least singled out.
@@magenta6754 I wouldn't be surprised in the least.
Great interview by Peter as always on this case. Well done to the presenter for letting him speak.
The presenter has to. It is Peter Hitchens.
NO investgations into the baby deaths while Lucy L was not on duty??
When you need to call people you disagree with 'conspiration theorists', it says more about you than them.
That's laughable. Those who say Letby is innocent are literally saying that those babies actually died from medical incompetence. They claim hospital staff then suggested the cause was in fact murder and tried to pin it on an innocent nurse. Not only is this theory on a par with lizard people ruling the planet but it is in fact the very definition of a conspiracy.
Those who claim Letby is innocent are, therefore...LITERAL CONSPIRACY THEORISTS.
Love this! You are so right.
I love a good conspiracy. But i've read the evidence and this woman is guilty as sin. It's not in question.
Narrative would be different if she wasn’t white
I prefer to call people who comment on a trial they haven't properly studied to be ignorant.
Well said Peter. There are clearly doubts about the fairness of the Lucy Letby trials and more and more people are feeling that this could be a miscarriage of justice. How can everyone, expert and non-expert, be a conspiracy theorist. Its just the easiest way to write everyone off. I doubt any of us are heartless people who feel no empathy for the babies and their families. We just feel that if there's a chance an innocent person may have been sentenced to die in prison, then the high emotion of the case shouldn't stand in the way of a fair trial.
Keep fighting the good fight, Peter.
Let justice be done, there seems to be more to this than meets the eye. It needs looking at again. 😢
No it does not. She was given a fair trial and convinced in a court of law by a jury of her peers. She's guilty, deal with it
@@josiewallace7968 apparently not. There was evidence withheld. An appeal can deal with it.
@spaceskipster4412 What basis for an appeal does she have.
Let's have this case re examined and sorted it out once and for all
It'll never be sorted out 'once and for all' - Whatever verdict they come to there will be others wanting a re-trial. Like Brexit, the losers will want it done again.
Yes to get the same result
It's sorted she's guilty. It took 10 months worth of evidence
@@DeneMonkey Perhaps, but extremely unlikely.
The reason she is in prison at all is because her defence team were either incompetent or deliberately threw the case.
@@ultrademigodSays who? Wtf are you people going on about?
They are frightened to have this whole case looked into because they know what will be exposed.A European court looking at this case would throw these convictions out without hesitation.
🤣🤣🤣🤣
If they are reasonable parents then I’m sure they wouldn’t want someone in prison wrongly convicted for their child’s murder. We have to be able to allow challenge where necessary to protect freedom and democracy.
That's right. Why would they want to see an innocent person imprisoned for life? It sounds like someone doesn't want the case reopening
Exactly the point I thought of.
Something very iffy about this prosecution.. wether she's guilty or not, there should definitely be a re-trial and she should definitely have a defence who knows their arse from their elbow
Lucy had evidences and eyewitnesses say she guilty
@@DeneMonkey You appear to the first person during this whole legal process to categorically state there were actual eye witnesses to her alleged deeds. The trial seemed to be unaware of this. Where did you obtain this information from as it would have been a major pivotal factor in the whole trial as it was alleged there were no witnesses yet you are claiming there were. This is extremely important
@@hazzard8760 it was all over the news so hard to miss the details
There was nothing iffy about any of it unless you're a low IQ attention seeking arse like Hitchens.
@@hazzard8760 There were eye witnesses. There was a doctor who saw her standing over a baby who was on a respirator with the breathing pipe removed from the baby's mouth and the alarm which goes off when a breathing pipe comes loose had been silenced. Letby was the only person who could have silenced the alarm. Letby was doing nothing to help the baby who would die without the breathing tube. There was also a mother who witnessed blood coming from her babies mouth with screams of agony. Letby denied there was blood coming from the babies mouth and claimed the baby was not in agony. This baby died hours later. If you want the best access to evidence on this case, try the youtube channel: CrimeScene2Courtroom has the court transcripts, which probably make up 100s of hours of listening time.
100% correct again Peter. The right person must be held accountable beyond all reasonbable doubt. We know our judicial system is not beyond failure and must be checked at every step. It's ever more important now in an age when the law and judiciary can be appropriated and weaponized.
How can a jury be weponised ? Talk sense
@@nifralo2752 I didn’t say a jury can be weaponised, I said the law can be weaponised. Evidence can be misconstrued, misleading or simply missing and therefore a jury may find in favour of the prosecution incorrectly. Hope you can see sense in that.
I’m so grateful for people like Peter who are willing to do what he’s doing. He doesn’t have to stick his neck out so to speak. He could just get on with his life. I feel Lucy Letby at least deserves an appeal and was appalled that she didn’t get one. Imagine if it was yourself and you were innocent to be stuck in prison for all of your life.
Yes take no notice of the eye witnesses and the evidences
The trial latest 10 months and cost the country millions. Anyone who's read all of the evidence knows she's 100% guilty.
She deserves jailtime
You clearly didn't follow the trial and have not the ability to process information. Hitchens has no problem doing this as he is attention seeking and thinks this will be a way to put himself in history books. It won't.
@@DeneMonkey What eye witnesses, no-one saw Letby do anything wrong? And the vast majority of evidence collected had no worth whatsoever.
The case is obviously unsound. This must be reopened and looked at. The injustice of jailing her on these horrific charges cannot be allowed to stand.
Well said Peter. The whole thing is an outrage.
Someone needs to tell this Peter Hitchens guy that Lucy Letby is guilty and that this does not concern him
I agree with Hitchens. There is so much contrary ‘evidence’ even if the finding is that there was no murder. Then it has to be negligence. And whose negligence? And that girls life is finished anyway. I feel awful for her as much as the parents
You know she wrote a sympathy card for 3 dead triplets she was caring for, but she only managed to kill two. She didn't send the card after failing to kill the surviving triplet.
@Diamonddavej
Letby will rot in jail until her last pathetic breath.
@@victoriahigman6802
Like??
@@paulis8107 I used to be a sceptic myself, but as hard as I tried, I can't convince myself any longer that she's innocent. That said, it's true that stats are massively misunderstood. I'm a data analyst, I deal with statistics as part of my job. However, while people misunderstand and misuse statistics all over the place, it doesn't make her innocent.
@@DiamonddavejLucy was set up as the scapegoat
So very well spoken Peter.
Lucy Letby is guilty, she was given a fair trial and found guilty. Just ignore Peter Hitchens and he'll go away, he'll give up
one has to admire peter hitchens, his arguments are always so reasoned and he utterly refuses to join in with any kind of mob, he will say what he genuinely believes regardless of how 'unpopular' that makes him, the discourse in this country now is so polarised and intransigent and cases such as the Letby one are extremely sensitive but nonetheless if there is any reasonable doubt existing concerning her conviction then it has to be pursued
well said
Doesn't stop him being wrong though does it. Give the jury some credit, they sat through weeks of trial. Which the rest of us didn't. And the stuff coming out of the current inquiry should give any skeptics pause for thought
@@superted6960 Agreed , but on that basis any one of us including the jury , trial, lawyers, barristers and witnesses may have got it wrong. That is the inherent weakness of the jury based system. This case is somewhat different and highly unusual to most other murder cases ( but not all) in that all the evidence is anecdotal and based on hypothesis with not a shred of objective evidence. . The coroner even stated that there was no conclusive evidence that anyone was actually murdered. How crazy is that? It does somewhat boil down to personal feelings ie. emotions.
@@hazzard8760how many fake confession notes do you write ?
@@nifralo2752 that is a very interesting point. In 1995 I went through a horrible emotionally charged divorce and was denied access to my children by a horrid ex.. (Ultimately they came to live with me of their own volition). So what's my point? I went to a solicitor and counsellor for advice as it was seriously affecting my health.Interestingly both the solicitor and counsellor (independent of each other) recommended I write down my deepest, worst most hateful emotions I felt for my ex, who was causing so much pain by denying me access to people I adored. The caveat was, do not send it to your ex but use it as a way of venting your deepest innermost anger and emotions and then throw it in the bin, but never send it as you would simply raise the stakes and make matters far worse. The point being it was an opportunity to vent my feelings of loathing for the damage she was causing and it did help me come to terms with the situation. That was 30 years ago. Many counsellors recommend this course of action. I never sent that letter and still have it in the loft. I came across it a few years back and remember the anguish and pain I felt at the time.. A stranger reading it may express concern at how I felt
Many years ago my wife did a locum role at the Countess of Chester in the post of Consultant anesthetist with a view to applying for a substantive post. She found the culture toxic. Equipment was very dated and so were many of the working practices ...Needless to say she did not apply.
The Brjtish justice system never makes mistakes, ask the post masters and mistresses.
Stefan Kisko.
Conveinient NHS scapegoat....
@scabthecat 🤣🤣🤣🤣
Is Lucy guilty ? That’s the wrong question. The right question is “ who stands to benefit from Lucy being found guilty ? “
Excellent reframing of the question.
@@cachinnation448it’s a very hard one because if she did do this its
sickening but if she’s innocent it’s also sickening
I think she's innocent and i pray for her safety everyday 🙏
Shut up you thick c*nt
Thanks for being the humanitarian among us 😇
You know, I do too. Not every day if I'm honest but something has troubled me about all this and I feel burdened to lift her up to the Lord. Maybe God knows she is innocent and he stirs his people to pray.
I don’t usually agree with Peter Hitchens but he is bang right here. There are so many doubts in this case as shown by the New Yorker article and private eye etc.
And the channel 5 documentary
The fact that the court transcripts are only available if you pay GBP 100,000 tells us they don't want the public actually knowing what happened.
That's true, the MP David Davies tried to get the full trial transcript and was told it would cost that much. The journalist who wrote the New Yorker article had to pay 10,000 USD for a partial transcript.
I agree.
Blah blah blah.
Apparently, the guy who does Crime Scene 2 Coutroom RUclips channel has the transcripts 🤷🏼♀️
No idea if true but his followers keep stating this.
One guy has the transcripts. He's been reading them on his RUclips channel. Transcripts are expensive, so what? Hitchens is talking garbage; he is ignoring the real evidence, not the only person.
I think the parents would want to know what happened.
They know what happened. Letby murdered their babies. It's just a shame these clowns are getting to those poor parents. I hope they can relax a bit and know that the campaign to free Letby is stupid and that no intelligent person buys into this moronic cover up bullshit.
I would especially if the nhs covered up and made her a scapegoat to protect themselves in fact THAT IS WORSE
They do. She murdered their children.
There seems to be an element of doubt.@@AnnStahley
@@AnnStahleyexactly 💯
Letby was a specialised neonatal nurse. She was one of only two on the unit. So, in the main, she was allocated more severely pooly babies. Below is a cursory list of neonatal complications :
Bronchopulmonary dysplasia
Necrotizing enterocolitis
Neonatal encephalopathy
Patent ductus arteriosus
Retinopathy of prematurity
Infection
Digestive problems
Growth failure
Intraventricular hemorrhage
Respiratory distress syndrome
Apnea and bradycardia
Blood problems
Cardiac dysfunction
Developmental and/or cognitive delays
Metabolism problems
Intracranial ischemic and hemorrhagic injuries,
Sepsis
Sudden death baby syndrome
Neonatal extravasation injury
What is worse? Jail for life because you are innocent, or jail for a whole life order for a crime that never happened?
sounds like a cover up & Lucy is a convenient scapegoat, hopefully the truth will come out with a different govt
Seeing these pictures of the hospital ward I question is this a professional health care environment or a disorganised, cluttered room full of “stuff”? The risk of infection must be huge!
So? Who asked you? Shut your face!!!!!!!
Looks like a cover up with a large helping of confirmation bias. Both managers and doctors desperately looking for a scapegoat to avoid blame themselves. The hate she speaks of in the notes is for those trying to pin the blame on her.
Thanks utubb !!!
I have never been comfortable with this conviction. It’s a cover up for NHS incompetence. Deaths occurred when she wasn’t around too but they are not mentioned.
The difference here is the number of babies that died under her watch and the fact that she injected them with insulin and air, and force-fed them milk. At best it was criminal negligence on her part, and yes, the hospital should be blamed for not noticing it before it was too late.
@@cun7us There's no evidence she injected any babies, that's part of the problem with the trial. It's all just a theory about how they could possibly have died. There's no evidence those babies were injected with anything at all.
@@cun7usOnly there is ZERO medical, forensic or pathology evidence that shows there was air injected in to any baby. So that rules that out. Which then calls in to question the other evodence.
soz dolly u expert u cant even spell evidence btw
Hi Daniel, perhaps when you can type in English and not ‘Ghetto’ then your observation would be welcome.
She’s obviously innocent. Anyone who has had a few interactions with any NHS service could easily see how it could fail in this way then scapegoat someone
I believe so. What is their explanation for babies that died when she wasn’t around?
Absolutely.
How can you say that she's "obviously" innocent if the facts haven't been presented in the retrial yet? Do you know something the rest of us don't? Not even Peter Hitchens knows if she's innocent as he's admitted in this interview.
@@cun7us What I mean is it seems obvious to me and likely to anyone else whose relatives has been murdered through negligence or malfeasance by the NHS
I don't think she's "obviously" innocent but it is shocking that she was found guilty with such a low standard of evidence. The one doctor who proposed the "air embolism" theory clearly approached it thinking he was some sort of tv DI whose job was to figure out how the babies were murdered, not IF there was evidence of murder (imo there isn't, the whole case is a house of cards and the jury were told false statistics like there was a miniscule chance there wasn't a murderer on the ward).
What Hitchens said. The greatest space doctor of all time once declared “you can’t risk your life on a theory Jim”.
🤣🤣🤣🤣
Keep pushing Peter Hitchens we need people like you
I hope Lucy does not have to wait years for the CCRC to refer the case to the appeal court. She is obviously innocent.
Didn’t Lord Lane say - 30 or more years ago - that the longer “this appeal” (an appeal by the Birmingham Six to the C of A presided over by Lord Lane) “went on, the more this Court became convinced that the convictions were sound” ? Some years later - a differently constituted C of A - on a further appeal by the Birmingham Six - quashed their convictions !!!!!
Agree entirely with Peter Hitchens who spotted the flaws in the case earlier than almost anyone else. It needs to be investigated independently by genuine experts. Hopefully this can still be achieved through the CCRC mechanism. However, as David Davis has pointed out, a better one, similar to that used in the airline industry, which overall has an excellent safety record, should be developed to investigate complex medical cases, rather than criminal trials which are known to be prone to false assumptions where detailed scientific analysis of the data is required.
Another miscarriage of justice by the crown prosecution service, it wasn’t that long ago that this poor woman would’ve been hung for crimes she didn’t commit, you just wouldn’t think that it would happen in this day and age, Lucy Letby needs to be released ASAP.
Why should she be released if you don't even know whether she's innocent or not?
How do YOU know that this case was a miscarriage of justice? Why would YOU release Letby? Simply on YOUR views of the judicial sytsem? Without a re-trial??😵💫
@KernowekTim If she is innocent then it was unfortunate for the defence that their client is a compulsive liar who conveniently can only remember details until difficult questions are put to her.
@@jimmynich4791There's no need to bring Nicola Sturgeon into the conversation.
@@KernowekTim there seems a few medical professionals saying that if they gave evidence at her trial they would’ve said that in their opinion could’ve been innocent also didn’t babies die when she wasn’t even at work, I don’t know if you have been involved in a court trial but let’s have it right there’s been enough cases where the prosecution have lied through their teeth to sway a jury over to their way of thinking and once the prosecution has done that you’re gonna get a guilty verdict wether they are innocent or not, maybe me saying that she should be released straight away was a bit strong but she should be given a retrial at least and let’s hear from these professionals and see what they have to say because they were kept quiet in the first trial by the crown prosecution service, that’s also down to bad representation by her defence barristers, what the prosecution said that they read in her diary wasn’t exactly true and that’s come from the prosecution and not her defence, like I said at least give the woman a retrial and let her defence bring these professionals into court, she could be still be found guilty but, it’s debatable until we’ve heard what these so say medical professionals have to say in my opinion. I’ve been reading some of the replies that you have sent people and you definitely come across as a very judgmental fool.
She is a scapegoat for the failure of the NHS
100%
She's a murderer with a doubt
Many in the legal profession are expressing doubts now.
Allowing the expert to give evidence was stupid enough. Im convinced hes deranged and a dangerous attention seeker,.. Hes been called out previously by a judge, for his tendency to tailor evidence, to the narrative of whover is paying him. In fact, his evidence was called worthless by one judge... Worth noting he wasnt looked up by the police or the CPS, he went to them and pitched for the job, which in itself is kinda kinky.. Im disturbed by the evidence the so called expert gave, relating to the rashes, which, the jury were told, were clear indicators of air having been injected into a tube, yet a world renowned expert, ironically on whos work the offered evidence was based, refutes this and has made clear the rashes were not the same .. We also find after the trial that the notes Lucy wrote and which were presented to the jury as her secret diary, were actually part of psycological therapy work she was undergoing.. The stats presented to the jury were at best ridiculous and if it werent so serious, would be laughable.. Weve seen this before with other oddball experts often leading to huge misscarrirgaes of justice. Dr Meadows was a legal nightmare, as were so many others Tthe shaken baby nonsense or the brittle bone saga etc .. Experts need to be more closely looked at We have dishonest people in the church, the police and all other agencies and demographics, so to assume nobody dishonest, prone to flights of fantacy or with ego issues, couldnt turn up in the shape of an expert witness, would be naive and dangerous The jury werent told of the number of babies that died when Lucy was not there and plenty of other evidence was deliberately missleading and according to a huge number of very specialised experts across the World , much of the evidece presented to the jury as factual, were scientifically wrong.. Much to worry about here
Also the jury was told that the number of baby deaths fell after Lucy was removed from the ward, so it must have been her, conveniently failing to mention that after Lucy was removed, that ward was downgraded so that far less seriously unwell babies were there now anyway.
That world renowned expert testified at her appeal. He didn't even read the medical notes. He did say there was would be a rash. But pink on a blue or purple background. Something like that.
@stephenbland7461 I'm not surprised about that really as babies were allegedly killed there.
She is 100% innocent and i have said this since the case was first on the news.
She is the victim of a crappy police force and useless judicial system!
The police have basically gave her the old guildford 4 treatment and the outdated court and jury system have swallowed it whole and locked her poor ass up forever and not even gave her a chance to fight it!!
Everyone involved in her case should be locked up
6 babies died at times when she wasnt even there and theyve still pinned it on her
Absolute disgrace
Set her free!
Set Rosemary West free!
@@KernowekTim not quite the same somehow ... Rosemary West ultimately pleaded guilty and there was very convincing physical and witness evidence to back it up where there was none in Lucy's prosecution. No-one saw her murdering anyone and it was all based on anecdotal evidence. Indeed the question was raised, "was any baby actually murdered at all" as the coroners report following the autopsies categorically stated that all the babies appeared to die of natural causes
Why would we set free a convicted killer ?
Keep her where she is please. She is guilty
@@hazzard8760so ur saying that murderers who are clever enough to not get caught red handed should be free
Hitchens is absolutely correct in questioning the case. I commented early on in the trial that relying on circumstantial evidence is unacceptable. I know that the legal system is flawed, the role of police has too much power, are believed when the opposite should be the case. With police officers trained to fit the evidence to the charge, being rewarded for arrests/convictions, as in any reward system it is set up for people to ensure that it is successful, when the test should be is this a benefit to society. Officers routinely collude, write false statements, lose evidence, fail to look at evidence they already have, perjure themselves in court, yet the judicicary let it go, when such a case should be dismissed and the officer(s) immediately held on remand. The courts are pressured to ensure adequate conviction rates. In the Letby case, perhaps the problem lies with the CPS, I don't have enough knowledge of the case to say. However it does seem that the police/CPS operate on a 'do we have a chance with this' basis, particularly for the low standards of magistrates courts.
Overall, the public should know far more about the processes that the legal system operates. The should including arrests, charges, convictions for matters that arose out of interactions with the police or other agencies. The huge impact on individual's and their families lives forever, regardless of the offense, is disproportionate and with ever wide ranging legislation, the government have too much discretion. So whilst Hitchens is right to doubt the case, his trust in the Criminal Cases Review Commission or the Court of Appeal are misplaced. Fundamentally, legislation, the legal system no longer serve society, it is one of the biggest internal risks the country faces, but is connected to agreements, treaties, etc. where issues are determined externally.
Hitchens instincts are normally spot on. I’m sure he’s right about this trial.
If the wrong person is behind bars? Than the real killer is out there free? Where’s the justice in that?
Lucy is 100% innocent, and I believe the babies' deaths were caused by the gross failings of incompetent Drs and NHS managers. Lucy was made a scapegoat to cover those failings at any cost.
@@HENNAtabasun1990
How does incompetence lead to insulin being injected into a feed bag?
@lennymice2261 it doesn't. it doesn't mean she did either,
@@HENNAtabasun1990
So is your position that there was some other mysterious murderer on the unit and they got the wrong person?
@lennymice2261 This was never about a murderer in plane sight . that's just what the NHS wants you to believe . Why else do you think them at the very top made sure the jury the police and the judge never got to see the second list with Doctors on, A list that also shows the same Doctor on duty when these poor babies died, they are covering their own failings by framing once again a nurse.
The Letby Public inquiry is presented with new things she is alleged to have done. Was this presented at the trial ?, no because it's hearsay, the inquiry is open to allegation and speculation because it has nothing to do with the outcome of the trial. It's job is to discover the circumstances surrounding the murders and ask if e.g. governance contributed to the failure to protect the babies. In opening remarks Justice Thirwell rejected questions that raised by a range of experts about Letby’s convictions, "THE PEOPLE COMMENTING", experts, "WERE NOT FULLY INFORMED". “In the months since the court of appeal judgment there has been a huge of outpouring of comment from a variety of quarters on the validity of the convictions,” “SO FAR AS I'M AWARE, IT HAS COME FROM PEOPLE WHO WERE NOT AT THE TRIAL". Dr Michael Hall who was at the trial and provided medical reports, as an expert witness says SHE'S WRONG, and that he e.g. had attended the trial throughout. Given Lady Justice Thirwalls comments it sounds like some things have already been decided before being heard before the inquiry !
Well Said. As you say many medical and statistical experts have doubts about Letby's guilt. However, I'm not aware that any medical experts have come forward to support Dr Dewi Evans' theories
Anybody who has ever had any contact with or experience of the judicial system in this country has had their eyes opened as to what a very poor and inadquate manifestation it is of what all those who have never had such experience think it is. I have had such interaction and from following the initial details of this particular case thought that something was very wrong. Cases, as a former QC once told me, are decided on emotion not facts. And as Aldous Huxley once said, most people are not very bright.I have always thought that these are oftentimes fundamental flaws present in the concept of jury trials especially concerning such emotive subjects.
Give that man a tinfoil hat and stick him in a corner. Opinion.
Peter Hitchens
I don’t try to live by values. I don’t think that would describe the way I approach it at all. But I think I get angriest at attempts to pervert either truth or justice.
Ask yourself if Lucy was a different colour would he be trying to stay relevant with this case? I think not. Conservative types are very predictable.
That is racism if ever I heard it! Why do you have to make this about colour? She's not a different colour. She's white British. So why do you say, 'if she was...'? I can ask you the same question in reverse. If Peter Hitchens were a different colour would he care that she may have been victim of a miscarriage of justice? But why would I ask such a question in the first place unless I myself was rascist? You absolute hypocrite? You make me want to vomit.
Vote Reform - you know it makes sense!
To those who believe letby is guilty what is your definition of a conspiracy theory?
You can smell the cover-up.
Worse, Richard Baker KC said that anybody questioning the conviction should be ashamed of themselves. Pathetic language.
They compared her to harold shipman today at the hearing ,scandalous .
looking at lucy letby face its to imagine she done these crimes i hope she gets a appeal
Apparently the consultants in that unit only do ward rounds twice a week. I was told usually they should do ward rounds twice a day or more as it is an intensive care unit. Is there a problem with this unit’s setup?🧐
Good summary by Peter Hitchens.
Had we had the death penalty,Lucy Letby would have already hung .
You have a very valid point.. UK history is littered with incidences of innocent people being "hanged" only to be totally exonerated after their deaths.. BTW.......the word is actually "hanged"... Meat is "hung" , people were "hanged". Its like the word Scots and Scotch. Scots are people from Scotland,whereas Scotch is a form of whiskey... just saying...
@@hazzard8760 thankyou for the correction . When I was young my mother was against the death penalty however my father was for . When I grew up I was against simply because we don't have an incorruptible police force ,now a service . The man who was arrest and went to prison for the Jill Dando murder,would have been hanged and there are other cases too .
@@barbaraallen435 One of the greatest legal injustices of all time in the UK was the hanging for murder by simpleton and tenant Timothy Evans. . As a tenant, he was alleged to have murdered his wife and baby and hid them in the coal shed in the outbuildings of10 Rillington Place West North Kensington London in 1950. He claimed it was his landlord that "did it". The landlord Reginald Christie even appeared as a prosecution witness. However a few years later a building surveyor at the property came across a foul smell and called in the police and they once again found several bodies bricked in outbuildings. These were found to have been committed after Evans had been hanged. The finger was pointed at Landlord Christie who pleaded guilty and was himself hanged in 1953. It was not until 1966 that the Home secretary awarded Evans a "Royal Pardon" and his body was exhumed from Pentonville Prison to a private cemetery to rest with his family. 19 year old Derek Bentley was also wrongly put to death by hanging in 1953 for a murder he never committed but only fully pardoned in 1998. British justice does sometimes get it terribly wrong and innocent people who were found guilty are locked up for something they never did. The press and media today don't help as heinous murders make ghoulish headline news, further vilifying and debasing those committed to prison
Once again impressed by the shared idiocy of people that watch TalkTV that are now convinced she’s innocent when the families and the jury had absolutely no doubt about her guilt. An inquiry being done into it all right now is saying the exact same thing but I’m sure you all know better.
So you ignore the other side to the argument?
What about Stefan Kisko.
You have obviously never heard of the Andrew Malkinson case.
How long did it take the jury to come to a majority decision? Doesn't sound like 'absolutely no doubt'.
To be absolutely sure of her guild, you'd have to have been a fly on the wall, closely watching her every move. The evidence she was convicted on is called circumstantial, by the Courts, for a reason. It's the level of doubt that makes for a conviction or acquittal. Beyond reasonable is the standard, if Peter H has doubt, then it obviously wasn't beyond reasonable.
what happens if it turns out Letby is guilty? How will the parents feel???
interesting selection of photo's you are using
Innocent!
Exactly right its hypothesis. The actual examination of the babies showed natural causes.
Three huge red flags in this conviction 1. The so called expert witness for the prosecution was totally discredited by a judge in another case. 2. The pathologist's report indicated all deaths from natural causes bar one which could not be explained but was not unnatural. 3. The case rested on incorrect interpretation of statistics, circumstantial evidence and medical hypotheses but no proof. How many decades will it take before the case is reexamined ? 10, 20 or 30 years perhaps judging by other appeals and overturned convictions ?
Many independent doctors, including consultant neonatologists have come forward to condemn the evidence of the discredited Dewi Evans. However no independent medical expert has come forward to support the claims of Dr Evans. Only the defence can answer as to why no medical experts were called, the only one, consultant neonatologist, Mike Hall was not used although he had grave doubts about the guilty verdict.
I work within medicine in a capacity I'd rather keep vague for professional reasons, and whilst obviously I'm not aware of what clinical evidence may have been presented to ascertain her guilt, even during the trial I had the uncomfortable feeling there was the possibility that, either intentionally or unintentionally, she had been assigned the blame for collective failures on the unit.
- but it is important to underline that none of us looking at this from the outside were in court and aware of the evidence, nor are most of us pathologists and able to understand what clinical evidence was presented even if we read it. We - including myself - are operating from a position of ignorance. So one should be very cautious to jump to conclusions.
How dare anyone question anything in modern day's controlling society ? Shame on anyone who does .
Only if people of high profile like Peter and David Davis etc support the innocence of Lucy L will she ever be cleared!
Please keep the profile going!!!!
If parents would wongly want to believe thier babies were murdered i dont know what to say
And thank God it’s not 1945 as people like you and most of those here on this forum would be saying that Dr Mengele was innocent and that he was such a caring and nice doctor and there is no way he murdered and tortured all those people and that he was a compassionate doctor trying to keep all those children alive and those who said otherwise was due to Jewish/British/American propaganda 🤢🤮
I knew something wasn’t right the nano second i heard ‘no appeals’. I mean wtf is that all about
This is so important for everyone of us
LOL. These people will be telling us soon that Hitler just got a bad press.
The court transcripts are read in full on youtube. By more than one channel.. you don't have to pay anything to read them. you can access it right here. f you want the evidence its not hard to come by. The evidence is beyond damning. I'm really now wondering .. this man isn't stupid.. he knows damn well she's guilty, What's his angle here.
This man
Apart of me thinks she is guilty and another part thinks she isn't guilty. I really don't know what to think 🤔.
I do not view it as dissent. It is dreadful to say if one thinks it is a miscarriage of justice to comment and be vocal. Especially if you are a nurse or professional medical person. I think Dewi Evans is not deserving of respect, he has put the evidence to a jury to say this is how it was. Not this is my hypothesis. This is a fact. That is wrong. Also yes, the doctor and nurse removed from the chart, such as it was, only serves to highlight how awful it was to point the finger at Lucy Letby.
Shocking... Case to be reopened for what??
Not familiar enough with the case to make a judgement but if there's any indication she might have been scapegoated I shudder to think what is being hidden from the public. Maybe something so horrific that the public is incapable of accepting or even comprehending.
This could shake the NHS to its core if she is found to be innocent.
Peter Hitchens is a clever bloke but he's bang wrong on this one.
We really must get away from thinking that just because 12 people picked out of a hat say someone is guilty that it's always correct. This case was dodgy from day one. Our 'justice' system is diabolical. I could not sit on a jury. I have no right to decide someone's fate.
Dan Hodges was on twitter making basic errors and absolutely no clue about the case. I hope they have got the verdict right because the alternative vista is almost as horrible as what she has been convicted of.
Have these idiots ever once thought how it affects the babies families?
If it was Lucas Letby no ine would cliam hes inocent. How many times do you write confession notes to crimes you didnt comit?
The judge-whatever their personal opinion-should have set the verdicts aside based on the principle that a criminal trial must be decided on the basis of guilt "beyond reasonable doubt" while the jury decision was based on "balance of probabilities". That is all statistics have to offer, literally balance of probabilities, no matter what the probabilities are/were.
The result is wrong in law.
We must assume from the way the case was run that it was a political trial rather than a criminal one.
So Peter are you claiming two different juries are wrong?
No I believe he questions the whole case. Were the babies actually murdered or were there hospital failings? The statistical evidence. The evidence provided by clinical experts. The list goes on.
spoke to this Guy yesterday ! ! That Guy needs to explain why he worried, Concerned about what others say .....🤔 Peter Hitchens i honour your view ..Babies i believe were not Murdered
Curious to know the rate of death of babies once LL was suspended.
I agree with the comments made at the end- say one thing and do another. They don't care about the parents or the victims -its all about looking after the coin.
A reasonable British journalist? what on earth
Even if Letby is found not guilty in future the haters will continue to hate.
We have seen similar in New Zealand, most notably the Arthur Thomas trial (double murder, eventually pardoned), but more recently that of Peter Ellis (child sex abuse, who served seven and died before the convictions were eventually quashed). We have a stack more such cases.
There WAS evidence of multiple crimes it wasn’t just theoretical. Eg. There was acute bleeding observed around the mouth and in the gi tract of babies that died with no previous gi issues. So that indicates trauma in the same way a dead adult found with lacerations and bleeding would indicate foul play. It had to be due to trauma of some sort, other possibilities were excluded in court - there was no vomiting in the the baby with blood around the mouth prior- the mother came in, noticed it and Letby explained it away as due to inserting an NG tube. Which she now denies because it’s not possible/plausible. So yeah, if you think it’s all hypothetical or statistics listen to the court transcripts.
I wonder how much money was spent on the persecution compared to the defence.
“ doesn’t normally take place except in cases of national security”. Hmmm.
Dan Hodges sounds like a prat with that conspiracy theory article he wrote.
Listen to what the statisticians and mathematians say, not the journalists and politicians.
You wouldnt listen to them questioning DNA evidence if genetric scientists agreed
So much sympathy for a baby killer...
This resembles the "trial" about the Port Arthur carnage in Tasmania, where the accused never had a trial. Just the same, there is a good chance he is guilty.
She's as guilty as sin
Sound man.!! Peter...
The uk judicial system resembles that of China