This is an absolutely ridiculous discussion. These people don’t understand anything. “Lucy Letby is weird”! So what? So am I. I display many of her behaviours. “She was impassive in court”, so? Probably because she’s emotionally muted by anti depressants. “She searched people on Facebook”, Wow 😯…how bizarre. Utter nonsense
Autism I bet she had her behaviour is autistic and she was searching for the patients family because she was interested in them. What they were getting up to. And couldn't switch off.
@Humananimalchannel. Agreeded - But, "A rose by any other name" - It still is what it is - gas lighting with threats - a god send to every lazy and/or incompetent doctor.
The evidence against her was 100% circumstantial. There are no witnesses that saw her do harm. For some of the incidents there are reports that she wasnt on duty.
False. One of the parents caught her when they found blood around the babies mouth. Letbyvsaid "Trust me, I'm a nurse." The baby died a short while after. Also a consultant found her standing over a baby that was collapsing, and she was doing nothing. So that's your detective career over and done with!
@@UKVeteran2024 That evidence is subjective, the parents had no complaints against Lucy until they were told by police she was responsible for harming their babies. In fact, most of the parents liked Lucy and thought she was a caring and competent nurse.
@@ruthbashford3176 you are obviously under the impression that 1. new born babies can tell people what's ahppening and 2. victims are always dispatched when their are witnesses. Letby is a serial killer, and ruthless in her methods. She knew it was going to be virtually impossible to detect her. Just leave it to the experts, sleep tight.
"Just because it's not there, doesn't mean it doesn't exist." FFS!!! It also doesn't mean it does. These two so clearly want their pound of flesh and more out of LL at any cost. Absolute ghouls, both of them.
Was she displaying weird behaviour when babies died or collapsed when she was off duty and not in the Hospital? Dr Horton a neo natal specialist said 13 of the cases were due to separate causes, that evidence was not presented at trial and was withheld from the Jury. Was she weird around those 13 cases? Was it not weird of Dr Ravi after having caught her “virtually” but not actually red handed, that he said or did nothing for months and reported it to nobody not even in the disciplinary interviews related to Letby. Was it not weird no investigation was held into the raw sewage coming up through the sinks on the ward?
Why didn't her defence team help her defend this case? Why put her on the stand? Why did she take hundreds of handover sheets home (including notes for babies she wasnt looking after and some of them she wasn't on the shift for and dug them from bins!!!). Why search for babies parents on Facebook on Christmas day.....these are parents of the babies she killed and wasn't assigned to care for? Guilty guilty 😩
@@JaneboG lol….so looking up patients who died on her ward is evidence of guilt now. Who cares if she took loads of paper home, maybe she was looking for answers. I noticed that you deflected and avoided why dr Ravi failed to mention the old smoking gun.
@@MrTreacletime no. She said is that baby going to leave here alive and was considered lacking in empathy on her training. Unsure why you're talking about separation of behaviour at work and out of work.
@@lesley9989 you still haven't established a motive - there's no clear evidence of a crime - but loads of reasons why the deaths might have occurred in that unhygienic and poorly managed environment. and they were very sick babies.
@@lesley9989 I think she is refering to the word "weird". What if we replace it with unusual or unprofessional...doesn't sound so daming. Gutter press likes to work on the emotional scale with it's headlines, particularly the one's that quicken readers/listeners appetites. so they come back for more. Surely by now you know how this section of the press works unless you have desensitised yourself with overuse!
@S.Trades INNOCENT Lucy was in no fit state to be in the witness box and I shouldn't think many of us would be if we were treated the way she's been treated by police, media, doctors etc
To date, and with innumerable posts. No one has ever challenged me on me, saying that she was convicted on nothing but hypothesis, circumstance, and inference. This video ( and all I have seen on RUclips) exemplifies this.
I research my clients online (I am encouraged to do so by my management) to understand them better in order create stronger relationships. Part of my job. I am not a serial killer. If she researched someone online to me it means she took her job close to her heart. She is a young nurse who cared and as all younger people is curious. As she would be come older she would gradually stop. Nothing weird about this. Everyone does search at some point. Thats what social media are for.
@@bobbyknox9258 of course not, but that`s not the point. I`ve only scratched the surface and the whole thing stinks, the "official" narrative falls apart and leaves more questions than answers. Do a bit of thinking for yourself and it becomes clear that this is a very unsafe verdict.
Yes, weird behaviours got witches burned too, back in the day, back in the 15th century. Weird kids at school also get ganged up on at school. And once Lucy put out the grievance, which would necessarily involve all consultants on the ward, which she was poorly advised to do, the entire body of consultants were unsurprisingly against her from that point on.
@@niriop No conspiracy ... Letby criticized two consultants ... the two consultants wanted her off the unit ... the managers investigated and found no wrongdoing ... made the consultants apologise ... this got their back up and they went to the police ... Dr Evans got himself involved and came up with his theories ... the jury was comprised of laymen with no medical experience who had to accept what Evans told them ...
It was the evidence around each attack that found Letby guilty, not a witch hunt. The hospital is at fault for allowing any investigation to be shut down by a grievance in response to the concerns.
@@niriop The courts would probably naturally trust in the accounts of a group of senior doctors which certainly has the potential to make for an unbalanced case.
She had to be cool and calm. She was one of the nurses who was a desegnated and certified "mentor" to junior nurses. It was part of her job role - jeez, why omit that fact from this video
She was jailed based on circumstantial evidence. Dr Dewi Evans, one of the prosecution’s expert witnesses, has since changed his mind on some of his evidence. This conversation is utterly pointless and not helpful, to anyone.
Being weird does not equate with being a serial killer. There is absolutely nothing in her past to suggest that. She is clearly somewhere along the spectrum with Asbergers or even functioning autism, but again that does not mean she's a serial killer. No one ever saw her do anything, the 'evidence' that was used to convict her was clearly manipulated and has crumbled in the face of examination by real experts. This is shoddy journalism. Very poor. This pair just trying to flog their book. Cashing in on this scandalous conviction like a couple of vultures.. The CJS is broken.
@@UKVeteran2024 She was just a very dedicated but slightly odd nurse. That's why she was convicted - for not being normal. All the nice things about her nature, and there were many, were twisted into sinister characteristics by the prosecution. The actual evidence against her has been demolished by real experts.
@@joebish6629 she was failed on her final year of nursing college for being cold with patients. It all went downhill from there. I suppose Peter Sutcliffe was a misunderstood cheeky screwdriver delivery man?! 😂😂
Can someone explain why there was no CCTV on the ward? It seems hard to believe in this day and age where CCTV is everywhere why they wouldn’t have it on a ward for seriously ill infants.
@@caz4961that's interesting. I didn't know. I think if they are going to have CCTV it's got to be everywhere. I appreciate it's difficult in a clinical setting
Yes is strange as after a couple of baby snatching, a policy was made that baby wards to be covered by cctv and door entry systems be installed on all units.
It's astonishing that a BBC reporter who is supposed to be impartial is able to ignore all the medical and scientific evidence and instead have a ghoulish fascination with Lucy Letby's appearance in court. As was stated at the trial, Letby was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder because of the trauma of the arrests and the time spent in prison. She was on anti-depressants and was suicidal. In the circumstances it was a remarkable achievement to stand up in court and withstand the bullying line of questioning from the prosecution with ridiculous questions such as "Do you remember being born?" It's hard to understand how a journalist can have a ringside seat at the trial of the century and not have the instinct to recognise that they were witnessing one of the worst miscarriages of justice in British history.
@@DebbieKennettAm I missing something? The journalists in this clip are appearing on Times Radio, not the BBC. So they work for Times Radio, not the BBC.
Ohh, she was searching the parents 2 years later? That actually might make some sense if she was under so much suspicion, that she could have been trying to go back over events. People do have a tendency to do that under stress. Although the searches may seem unusual, how many of us can remember what we have searched for online, even today, especially for those of us who spend a lot of time online?
Why would anyone do that. It's beyond unusual. I don't how anyone can think stalking parents of babies that died is OK in any way . Because it isn't ok. She was stalking parents frequently. She denied it to the police until she saw they knew and she couldn't explain why she'd done it. She wasn't searching them 2 years later she was stalking their pages on certain dates. The babies birthdays . When they died. She's a ghoul.
@@judithwilliams3147 If the so-called stalking evidence is believed to be valid I think people don't know what "stalking" is. I have been stalked and if you believe it is simply looking up people on-line then you have a grave misapprehension on the whole subject.
@@LawrenceHyett nothing to do with stalking. It shows she had no boundaries. It showed she was hugely unprofessional and the reasons she came out with in relation to handover sheets was laughable. All these things don't go down well with a Jury.
The unit was dilapidated, but deciding that the written note meant a confession is misleading. It stated she wasn't good enough and she killed them. A sensitive person would feel more could have been done. A real killer would be far more emotionally harder. Strange, that her friends all stand beside her, plus experts doubt her conviction. The hospital doesn't want to admit negligence on their part. You only have to consider her behaviour after arrest, to see that her reactions weren't the result of being caught. They were from a person from a person totally terrified. She was being pursued by a doctor, so others had grudges towards her.
We might also come to the realisation that babies are not suicidal and great work was undertaken by the authorities to arrest, charge and convict. My sympathy is with the babies and their families. We now learn there are other deaths at other hospitals where she worked. These too are under investigation. I say no more
She was under massive stress,anyone working under that pressure is bound to act different.It affects people in different ways,so this is no way evidence of guilt .
People stalk people on fb all the time, and it makes sense a nurse would be interested in seeing how the families were getting along. I don't think this is weird behaviour at all .
@@jonnybigpants She took home 257 handover notes, only 21 of them related to dead babies. Scores of nurses have posted on social media that they take home handover notes.
@@ruthietube absolutely not true in relation to a Nurse. I can't believe you've even used the word stalking, when I wouldn't use that term. You do realise that medical or health & social care staff aren't supposed to use the data they have to search social media? The data is only in their possession to complete specific tasks
@@paulgibbons2320 it's not about it being tenuous. She couldn't give reasonable explanations. I worked with families far more closely for decades and I never dreamed of looking them up on social media. It's highly unprofessional and breaks ethical boundaries. It's the minimising that gets me angry. Would you be happy for a hospital worker to search for you on-line? I certainly wouldn't
I don’t think it’s weird for a nurse to look into the families online. It depends what interpretation you put on it - you could view it as prying and taking voyeuristic satisfaction of relations suffering and putting a name to a face in that sense, or you could view it as - I’ll check them out online as I really hope they don’t look like the people who could suffer and because it’s hard for me psychologically, I want to take satisfaction they won’t be the types to suffer excessively. I watched this doctor Judith in an interview with KC Mark McDonald, Letby’s barrister, and each time McDonald put forward mitigating evidence including the fact she didn’t confess to the murders, the doctor was - ‘what about this’. It struck me her mind is just immutably made up. I think lots of these doctors have huge bias to take this stance because of the NHS, for whom they work, and it hugely protects allegations against itself because otherwise it’s an affront to them as part of the organisation.
There's only one interpretation of them. What was she looking for by searching the parents a few hours after their baby had died? Why did she repeat those searches, days, weeks, months, years later? Why couldn't she offer an explanation in court?
It’s interesting how someone who searched for parents on-line, has no search history for Air Embolism or Insulin poisoning. She must be one very clever cookie!
On top of that, there was an article in the BMJ where they found that a significant number of doctors had been googling their patients online. For some reason we have not heard anything about the search histories of the doctors involved in these cases.
Judith, you really are adding nothing except hot air to the question of Lucy Letby. I’ve heard you talk about being in court a thousand times. So what? You are basically judging a young woman under unprecedented ongoing stress on her appearance. The whole process , including your facile commentary is nothing but a modern day witch hunt. Congratulations on fooling the BBC into giving you airtime to publicise your wretched book.
Mmmm. These two are trying to sell a book. Can anyone imagine how a young single dedicated woman could possibly cope under the 8 years of scrutiny and accusations this poor woman has been subjected to. Odd behaviour- my God how could anyone be expected to behave under this sort of pressure??? Judith and Jonathan should try and give a bit more balance to the avalanche of information about the errors presented by the prosecution rather than passing comment about somebodys odd or unexplained behaviours. Look at the weight of evidence - then look in the mirror satisfied that you are giving her a fair trial!!!
@@markwhite3958 There’s oodles of evidence. Letby’s falsifications of medical reports. Witness reports of her actions. All that stuff she said. What she kept under her bed.
@@aaronhaywood5007 it's absolutely not normal and if you're a health or social care professional then you need to stop this behaviour. Absolutely not normal and it's disgusting people are minimising it.
@@aaronhaywood5007 this is what really annoys me with people who think she's innocent. They total minimise everything. It doesn't make her a murderer, but the absolute denial is boardering on ridiculous. No professional boundaries and no confidentiality. Her reason saying they were confidential in her garage! Absolutely ridiculous.
The hospital may have been involved and used her as the victim, from what I understand some experts opined during an earlier TR broadcast🙏. Besides there is a small chance that that this case should not be seen in isolation...
@@WellbeingToPeace This is conjecture that can only be confirmed by careful collection of hard evidence. Just as Letby may be a victim of circumstances beyond her control, we have to concede that without any hard evidence it's possible that the hospital itself may be the victim of circumstances beyond its control. Which set of circumstances should the court favor? I'm glad I'm not a judge!!!
Even low wattage journalism keeps the case in the limelight. Basically they don't know anything new. If Letby is a bit odd (Asperger's? compulsive-obsessive? over-emotionally involved in her patients? over-worked? - she was working ridiculous hours to keep the unit going, as were the other permanent nursing staff - I don't know any more than anyone else) this may explain why the doctors at her hospital picked on her. It's likely she's sedated to cope with the ordeal she's going through. All very meaningless, but a fair attempt at plugging their book, and they are careful not to say they are convinced she is guilty given the torrent of expert criticism being aimed at the prosecution case now.
yeah like you would know . Did you sit through the trials ? Read the transcripts of both trials ? Seen all the evidence ? Did you sit through the inquiry or read. the transcripts of the inquiry ? I would advise you to be quiet as you are relying upon second and third hand knowledge .
Could she have been searching online to make sure the baby is alive and well, proving to herself that she had done everything right. Of course she couldn't admit this or the police would turn the statement into searching to see if the child was deceased
@joebloggs LL searched for the parents of babies whom she had killed, to see if they had posted something in regards to the anniversary of their babies' deaths.
This is shocking ! This presenter seems to have found LL guilty 'cos of her demeanor ! This country needs a serious conversation around the whole concept of what they call "circumstantial evidence". One of the reasons so many people are interested in this case is because they have no experience of the criminal justice system and were under the impression that people were sent to prison on evidence, not someone's opinion ... and this has appalled people. If it can happen to LL it can happen to you, me or anyone else.
@@tezbee6815 The people who are convinced of her guilt don't do research. Not one single criminologist or psychologist who has spoken about this case gives any credence to that post it note and this has been covered in the more serious media many, many times.
yeah like you would know . Did you sit through the trial ? Read the transcripts of both trials ? Seen all the evidence ? Did you sit through the inquiry or Red the transcripts of the inquiry ? I would advise you to be quiet as you are relying upon second and third hand knowledge .
yeah like you would know . Did you sit through the trial ? Read the transcripts of both trials ? Seen all the evidence ? Did you sit through the inquiry or Red the transcripts of the inquiry ? I would advise you to be quiet as you are relying upon second and third hand knowledge .
@@joycejnn You're just so desperate for her to be guilty, aren't you. Sensible, intelligent experts have looked at the main evidence now and the whole case has just fallen apart. The conviction is clearly unsafe.
@@joebish6629you’re wrong, there is more to come from the ongoing police investigation and when more and more deaths and harm come to light , youl be the one who will have egg on your face about supporting a baby serial killer 🤦♂️
Tell me why it would be such an issue to do a retrial and have more expert opinion? Who does it hurt? Wouldn’t it be better to be sure you caught a killer than to sentence an innocent to life in prison? No brainer surely. Pride, arrogance and snobbery is whats stopping this from being reviewed
This case reminds me of the Lindy Chamberlain (dingo) case in Australia. I lived in Darwin at the time. Both Lindy and Lucy have experienced negative and vitriolic public reaction based purely on their supposed demeanor. No actual evidence and what turned out to be flawed forensic evidence in Lindy's case. I suspect the same will be found in Lucy''s case at some point.
Absolutely nothing in common between these case. A dingo taking 1 baby in remote Au vs a nurse killing 7 maybe more babies in UK hospital. Nothing wrong with LL evidence. Circumstantial evidence is Real admissible evidence always will be. Someone who kills multiple babies probably not a nice person.
Lindy lost 3years of her life to incarceration, lost her marriage and her family torn apart. 4 coronial inquests, 1 trial, eventually exonerated, massive compensation payout from NT Govt
@@MichaelReidy-q1g Nothing in common between these two cases -period. Circumstantial evidence is real & valid and was presented over no less than a 10 month period.
The only 'weird' thing about this case is why Lucy Letby is in prison for murders she didn't commit. In fact, no-one committed any murders as the babies died from natural causes and sub optimal care.
Which emotions are you supposed to display after workplace bullying, the bullies following through on their threat to retaliate, years of investigation, multiple arrests, incarceration and in no case did they prove anything was done to harm any infant. Instead it was presentation of claims like when they inserted 3 chest drains in, one definitely not inserted in the correct place and then going she must have done something, or instead of ruling out all the common or even less common causes of hypoglycaemia, they allege insulin added to TPN with absolutely no evidence that happened. Hence the focus on how they behaved instead of the facts and what multiple experts are now saying now the suppression order is off. There is no one way a person might behave in this situation but it creates a nice distraction.
The evidence against Lucy Letby is overwhelming. She was assigned to Room 3 but repeatedly went to Room 1, where the incidents occurred, despite being told to focus on her own patients. She later told police she "didn't care for those babies," yet she searched for their parents on social media without explanation. The overfeeding cases, deliberate air embolisms, and insulin poisoning all point to intentional harm. These aren’t accidents; they require deliberate actions. If you were on the jury, how could you see this as anything but guilt? Cases like this make you wish the UK had the death penalty.
It's all circumstantial. An overwhelming amount of nothing. And the dubious medical evidence for Overfeeding, air embolism and insulin have all been disproven. Aside from that there is not a single internet search she did of these sophisticated methods of killing without being noticed, yet using such complex multiple MOs is unheard of in a serial killer. And she was a genius killer yet she leaves a confession note? Use your brain.
With all due respect what you've written is a load of b*llocks! The babies Lucy was supposed to have murdered had post mortems and were found to have died from natural causes. If there had been any suspicion of foul play at the time the Coroner would have been informed and the bodies re-examined by a forensic pathologist. It was only after consultants were the subject of a damning report from The Royal College of Paediatrics & Child Health and were also forced to apologise to Lucy for bullying her that they decided to report her to the police for harming babies although they had no evidence of wrongdoing.
It sounds like they are unsure of her guilt and the guy seems to think she’s innocent. What’s worrying is how long it takes to end a miscarriage of justice. I really hope this whole case gets re-examined somehow and soon. If Lucy Letby is innocent, then this is a horrible thing to happen to someone who is probably a very good person.
The most frightening think in all of this is there doesn’t to be a Paediatrician or Neonatologist that were there to give a definitive diagnosis and a care plan going forward. That is quite apparent. The hospital appeared to be poorly managed. There was bullying, poor care, unqualified people. If I was a mother now. I would be terrified to have a baby that required any amount of special aftercare. You have Consultants gossiping in corners, nurses in important management positions-who have no experience whatsoever to do the job and would be better kept in the jobs as nurses which they were trained for. Poorly managed wards were the nurses spent most of their time txting and gossiping then looking after the babies. If Letby did this and that is an IF then it is down to the consultants care, the ward managers, the nurses on the ward who all failed in their duties and to do no harm. It’s outrageous. Im so sorry to the parents and to the poor vulnerable little babies that were so vulnerable and relied on these people.
Wouldn't it be funny if it turned out she was completely innocent and all of those so-called "weird behaviors" were the result of the traumatic stress of being constantly assigned the sickest babies by everyone else? You know, because they gave the sickest babies to the nurse with the most experience of being around sick babies? I think it's called a positive feedback loop?
@lazarus. Lucy herself would seek to look after the sickest babies, or specific ones. She would text friends from work saying she was bored. I don't know how she had the time to text on duty, and as a former ward nurse there's no chance to be bored either, usually doing 10 things at once. There are oddities in her behaviour as a nurse, skilled nurses may make occasional errors but don't take home and hoard carrier bags of confidential patient records, nor stand by a patient be it a baby or adult watching their oxygen levels fall with the alarm switched off. They definitely would not return to their units on their nights off. Something is really wrong. Her nurse tutors and assessors when she was training had picked up instinctively something lacking in her empathy. I don't know if she once made an error which went un noticed which sort of fired her to almost experiment, leading up to babies dying. She became 2 Lucy's in a way. Just feel its there in her face when she is arrested, its the shock and acceptance the other Lucy has caught up with her. That's the only way I can make sense of a nurse, neonatal nurse especially, listening to babies going through huge suffering themself has caused, and the agony of the poor parents.
@@user-qh8nh7oe6d I'm sorry, but all I'm seeing here is hindsight leading to altered recollections from people who are being told- repeatedly by the authorities- that she is being investigated as a serial killer and who are being asked whether they noticed any odd behavior. That, and I have the glaring example of an Italian nurse who was prosecuted for more or less the exact same thing, found guilty, and later exhonerated.
In every miscarriage of justice someone was convicted, and there's far too many miscarriages to ever feel complacent about the British criminal justice system.
And what would the reaction be if Lucy had displayed the emotion they wanted to see from her: 'Lucy Letby had the audacity to cry in front of the parents - callous and inappropriate.' 'Lucy Letby hysteria and tantrums in courtroom.' 'Lucy Letby not only sought attention from colleagues - she turned on the tears to gain attention from the court'. That poor girl could not do right for doing wrong. She was completely trapped in the courtroom and completely trapped by the media. What hope did she have.
Which makes the case for a re-trial or review of the case all the more strong. Reasonable doubt after 6 years of following and investigating. So not guilty beyond REASONABLE DOUBT. Possibly guilty, but not on the evidence presented thus far.
@@d-rex8223 Their book started off based on the assumption that Letby was guilty. It would also have gone to press before a lot of the new evidence supporting the innocence case has come out.
I suspect she may have wanted to share her concerns about the unit's substandard operations with the bereaved parents. Perhaps she was looking for witnesses to back-up her possible whistleblowing?
ok, so she's searching for parents... so she's strange... maybe emotionally caught up in the situation... for psychological reasons.. but all that really tells us is she's unhinged and not suitable for the profession she was in... right? But is she.. a killer? .. or more to the point, do they have cast iron evidence she's one? Because being strange and unhinged isn't necessarily proof of the fact.. They really need more monitoring in hospitals and process to deal with situation where there is suspicion.
I don't even think she's unhinged. If anything she's too hinged. This woman was a workaholic. She volunteered extra shifts, took worksheets home, had posters on the walls of her home like at work. She clearly took her job home with her.
@@John-p7i5g yes... but you can be a workaholic and still unhinged and unsuitable. That kind of job.. you have to do the job and not become emotionally too connected and bring it back.. plus taking confidential docs out with her.. so I understand from what was said.. its possibly sackable anyway. Behavior wasnt right for the job, but all being said, still doesnt prove she should be in jail for being one of the worse killers. Maybe she still is... or maybe she isn't.. but we shouldnt send people to jail for that on maybe's. if it was in the past she'd get the rope on maybe..
@@joecater894 Agreed. Although I do believe she was actually very good at her job. She was commended by the hospital inspectors as well as numerous colleagues. Her friends also confirmed that she had a caring nature. She was also very dedicated and efficient. But she was weird. So's Elon Musk. So are lots of people who are good at what they do.
Searching for parent's of dead babies, sometimes a few hours after their deaths. Some repeatedly. What was she looking for? Misery? It's more than odd and her reasoning for it in court was pathetic. Like her excuse for taking home 250 + handover sheets and documents - I collect paper. Hmm.
If weird behaviour was any sort of indicator of guilt of a crime.. a lot more innocent people would be in jail right now. It must be so frustrating to the lynch mob crowd of Lucy Letby ...to have no smoking gun or clear evidence that murders even took place.
I’m sure the journos here have done a lot of that searching too!!! Making money from misery and of course being slightly weird themselves if you look at Coffee 😮
@ but it doesn’t have to be done in public. There’s a lot of politicians and journalists running their mouth without really having any insight. I realize this is a bit hypocritical of me because I’m watching the RUclips video fascinated by the case.
Judith Moritz sat in court, and i agree she may have a bit more info, but most days were covered by the Chester Standard (unfortunately the info on child L there is meagre). I can’t understand why her most compelling arguments seem to be the way (a certainly traumatised) LL looked in court. The only FB search that raised a red flag for me was the one for child K, since it happened a few months before her arrest. But Nicolas Johnson solved this: a few weeks earlier her colleague had been questioned about this child. The fact Judith doesn’t seem to even make the connection makes you wonder about her observational skills and/or critical thinking. Did she never consider the possibility LL had absolutely no idea who this child was and tried to jog her memory?
No doubt weird, occasionally negligent and serious misdemeanours plus looking up parents and getting animated about deaths etc - perhaps some kind of penalty but rest or life sentences for serial murders? Get real.
The theory that she's calm in chaos is ignoring the unconscious human psychology/biology reacting to deaths. A parent describes her as cold/robotic, and then when his baby dies she's devastated. You see how that calmness goes just like that. She's in a flight or fight response, or survival mode where she withdraws from the trauma, this would explain her behaviours to stress/emotional distress. The head nurse described her distressful reactions as though acting that out is not likely.
@@VikkiMcGuire you should be able to pick up the situation itself from the narrative and realise that it's taken out of context but I can also understand why this channel has you believing her guilt. If Lucy is going into the family room with a cold cot, it's suggested as if she sneaked in without being noticed, she's a band 5 nurse so is still under instructions to an extent in a busy ward. Then she's suggested to have been inappropriate for doing that (by a nurse and parent). It's not unusual to offer a cold cot to a family even if the baby is living as they are transferred in cold cots when alive. The only thing I've seen yet that had confirmed this reality, is an inquest document labelled sensitive about transfer of a baby. In a recent student report Lucy is criticised for not knowing or applying distraction techniques to calm a grieving family. That supports the belief that offering a cold cot is a standard of care but also a distraction technique, but has the nurse outside explained it or have they tried to avoid looking supportive or accountable for possible instruction by saying they didn't see or hear a nurse in the family room, and thinks it's inappropriate to talk to the family in that way (the distraction technique). I do wonder if you will brush it off and keep to what you believe from this channel. The channel doesn't bring issues together like I have, perhaps I'm wrong to do so, but does it make sense to you?
@@user-ur9es1wl2u you’re missing a big aspect of your hypothesis, she was not the designated nurse and had been asked to stay out of the room by her shift leader. Read up on the TI, it’s all in there. Nurses should never intrude in a situation like this when they are not the designated nurse. She was neglecting the child she was supposed to be to looking after and her shift leader escalated this issue. Why was she so fascinated with being around death?
@@VikkiMcGuire do you agree that Lucy might be the most experienced nurse on the ward? if that baby is poorly then isnt she going to be concerned about that patient following a handover? fascination is one possible explanation, or recognition that she might be best in that nursery following a number of baby deaths. Is she away all the time? neglect is an odd word when the nursing team are outside the nursery at the nursing station. Where's everyone else? What's missing is that babies cry and the likelihood of a nurse hearing them is part of this idea of neglect.
@@user-ur9es1wl2u no I don’t agree. Again if you listened to the TI there’s a witness who discusses Letby’s qualifications. She’s a band 5 and had done a course to look at intensive care babies, but in fact many of the nurses were band 6, and some were band 7 and 8. Many had 15-30 years experience. She had 3 years. Perhaps read the TI inquiry documents, it’s rich in information.
Still waiting for a new report from both of you. Its been crickets! Write a new book and be a little more factual this time. People around the world are waiting. This is never going away!
The 2016 CQC Inspection Report revealed many issues on the Neonatal Ward. Was Lucy Letby the original Whistleblower? Where are the tape recordings? Page 113 of the CQC Inspection Report is a good place to start.
The Thirlwall Inquiry revealed some of CQC Inspector Helen Cain's notes. Guess who had a meeting with the CQC Inspector Helen Cain on February 17, 2016?
Further to my last , just have a look at what a Judge Jackson said about Dr Dewi Evans in a previous case as well as the doctor's behaviour in the case of Linda Lewis (Bonnie Lea Lewis).
A proper neonatal doctor has just broken cover because he no longer lives in this country but worked in the NHS. He said, in variance to Dr Jayram's evidence, breathing tubes can be vary easily dislodged either by doctors or nurses or the baby itself. It is very common.
It's not weird to be a maternity ward nurse. To conect with people and care about people who come onto the ward. As a practising Christian girl, it would not be unshual to pray for parents who have lost a child on the ward. I bet if you investigated the ward doctors, you would find mich stranger circumstances. Hi, Functioning psycopaths are drawn to high-performance jobs like being a doctor. She issued complaints about them. Wanting to impress people at work is a strange motivation. That's just not strong enough to assume someone is a murderer.
It's very telling how Jonathan Coffey caviats his responses. I've lost count already of how many times he's referred to "assuming she's guilty". Not defending herself well does not prove guilt Judith. The presenter is doing a good job here. They seem to be trying to defend the book rather than promote it. Wouldn't surprise me if her new defence use the book to help her case!
Beverly Allit, Lucy Letby, which nurse is the next victim? How strange that it already happened twice in England. Both convictions lacked sufficient evidence.
Correct decision . Richard Baker KC said “those questioning Lucy Letby’s guilt should be ashamed …those individuals who offer superficial opinions based upon second and third hand accounts then expressing conclusions . Those supporting Lucy Letby , as repeatedly pointed out , have not seen the evidence of the trial, the babies medical notes or have spoken to any of the consultants who have raised concerns or seen any of the evidence that will go before the inquiry over the coming months but that there is some relevance in this background noise as it highlights how society is sometimes too quick to make judgements and assumptions on first impressions.” She is still under investigation for her time at the Liverpool’s women hospital when incidents of dislodge intubation tubes rose from 1% to 40% then returned to previous levels after Lucy Letby had left the hospital . Tuned
@@turquoiseblue228 Absolutely, why WOULDN'T you trust any of these experts in their field. What makes you think they have a reason to lie in this case?
@@heycidskyja4668 I wouldn't trust Dr Evans 'cos of his past history and I wouldn't trust Dr Jayaram 'cos he's changed his story at least three times. If you trust experts in their field, then why aren't you trusting the dozens of highly qualified people who dispute Dr Evans ?
Assuming that’s the case that you needed to be at a trial of that length of nearly a year to have an opinion, isn’t it just as bad in that sense that if Letby really is innocent then the length of the trial and complexity of evidence is a barrier to an appeal and perpetuating a possible miscarriage of justice. Also how do we expect jurors of average intelligence to cope with the pure volume of information over 10 months to reach a judgement. Justice needs to be transparent in the UK - the whole case should have been televised and released after the trials and the public should be entitled to all and any information about the trial. As it stands the court service were asking £10k for the transcript and even MPs can’t access it. Crazy.
"No witnesses" Apart from the other staff and parents who noticed her attending to babies she had no business treating and her bizarre behaviour around grieving parents.
No-one saw Lucy do anything wrong. Of course she was attending other babies she was one of the most senior nurses on the ward and would obviously go and help when an alarm was sounded. The parents had no complaints about Lucy, in fact, many of them liked her. It was only when they were told by Cheshire police that she had harmed their babies that opinions changed. From then on their opinions were biased and should not have been allowed in court.
@@ruthbashford3176 She stood by a baby watching the oxygen levels fall with the alarm switched off. Attending to alarms? Yes, this alarm hadn't gone off, she had switched it off and then observed the effect on the baby not receiving oxygen any more. A very odd way to respond to alarms
Judith reiterates what Jon of Crimescene courtroom said of her. He was also at the trial and points out it was her chance to defend herself. And she did not come out well because of being caught out in lie after lie. If you still believe she is innocent then go to crime scene courtroom for the whole narrated version of her time on the stand.
Judith says that she was one of only 4 reporters allowed in the trial ... the BBC, Daily Mail ... I don't know who the others were, but I'm sure it wouldn't be a RUclipsr ! 'Crime Scene 2 Courtroom' is very opinionated and has a heavy bias to the 'guilty' side. It's like getting your information from 'The Sun'. We should be finding people guilty on facts and evidence, not on the 'opinion' of RUclipsrs.
I'd bet London to a brick her lying was discretion. That discretion was torn apart by Johnson's skillful cross examination, that created the necessary contradictions to establish her as a 'lier'. That and her guardedness and eccentric personality didn't do her any favours.
@Cora-and-Marley. Why on earth do people put so much faith in a pound-shop RUclips channel that claims to be a fountain of knowledge yet focuses almost entirely on the prosecution case? And just to ensure that everything remains on course, the oh so knowledgeable Jon deletes posts which challenge his views.
A attention seeker,seeking praises from other staff. A power hungry,seeking attention off a particular doctor,in the hope she could have power from being with him. Attention seeking at its worst,longing for love,a man,a man with power,a doctor100%.Some reasons,why she did it.
Last time, the nurse who was in a position of huge responsibility and refused to remove Lucy of the ward and was txting support messages to her. Why isn’t she held accountable. It would have protected both Lucy and herself had she done that. Why are consultants gossiping on TV. They were called or the SHO’s to a number of those babies whilst they could have survived if they had been managed properly. Why have you a SHO messaging nurses. Why have the nurses been able to miss off data on forms. Txt consistently to friends gossiping about Drs and nurses I’m charge
Judith Moritz seems obsessed with LL. It’s quite odd behaviour especially for a professional journalist.
This is an absolutely ridiculous discussion. These people don’t understand anything. “Lucy Letby is weird”! So what? So am I. I display many of her behaviours. “She was impassive in court”, so? Probably because she’s emotionally muted by anti depressants. “She searched people on Facebook”, Wow 😯…how bizarre. Utter nonsense
I'm one of these people that have 'flat affect' most of the time. I promise I'm not a socio/psychopath
Autism I bet she had her behaviour is autistic and she was searching for the patients family because she was interested in them. What they were getting up to. And couldn't switch off.
@@ChristopherAdrien-zt7tb How do you know you have a flat affect and how do you feel with it?
well said!
if weird is a sign of criminality...we would all spend time in prison
"Assuming" she is guilty, what if she's innocent?
Judith Moritz should be ashamed of herself - a bandwagon clown - falsely accusing Letby of MSBP.
It is not called thay.
It is now FDIA
Agree,another so-called expert!
@Humananimalchannel. Agreeded - But, "A rose by any other name" - It still is what it is - gas lighting with threats - a god send to every lazy and/or incompetent doctor.
Doctors all stick together like sheep when thers a court case ther pathetic
Learn to spell.
The evidence against her was 100% circumstantial. There are no witnesses that saw her do harm. For some of the incidents there are reports that she wasnt on duty.
The fatality rate dropped the moment she was arrested and removed 🤔
@@johnhawthorn5393 exactly because the unit stopped accepting any risky babies so not at all surprising. You are not comparing like with like
False. One of the parents caught her when they found blood around the babies mouth. Letbyvsaid "Trust me, I'm a nurse." The baby died a short while after. Also a consultant found her standing over a baby that was collapsing, and she was doing nothing. So that's your detective career over and done with!
@@UKVeteran2024 That evidence is subjective, the parents had no complaints against Lucy until they were told by police she was responsible for harming their babies. In fact, most of the parents liked Lucy and thought she was a caring and competent nurse.
@@ruthbashford3176 you are obviously under the impression that 1. new born babies can tell people what's ahppening and 2. victims are always dispatched when their are witnesses. Letby is a serial killer, and ruthless in her methods. She knew it was going to be virtually impossible to detect her. Just leave it to the experts, sleep tight.
To be fair she also looked up parents of children who were not "attacked"!
Exactly. And many, many searches for people that were nothing to do with the hospital or work.
"Just because it's not there, doesn't mean it doesn't exist." FFS!!! It also doesn't mean it does. These two so clearly want their pound of flesh and more out of LL at any cost. Absolute ghouls, both of them.
I'm not convinced she did it loads of stuff is coming out that explains a lot
Ridiculous conviction
Was she displaying weird behaviour when babies died or collapsed when she was off duty and not in the Hospital? Dr Horton a neo natal specialist said 13 of the cases were due to separate causes, that evidence was not presented at trial and was withheld from the Jury. Was she weird around those 13 cases? Was it not weird of Dr Ravi after having caught her “virtually” but not actually red handed, that he said or did nothing for months and reported it to nobody not even in the disciplinary interviews related to Letby. Was it not weird no investigation was held into the raw sewage coming up through the sinks on the ward?
Yep ... a lot of people in this case displayed weird behavior. In fact, we're all a bit odd ... doesn't make us guilty of a crime.
Why didn't her defence team help her defend this case? Why put her on the stand? Why did she take hundreds of handover sheets home (including notes for babies she wasnt looking after and some of them she wasn't on the shift for and dug them from bins!!!). Why search for babies parents on Facebook on Christmas day.....these are parents of the babies she killed and wasn't assigned to care for?
Guilty guilty
😩
@@JaneboG lol….so looking up patients who died on her ward is evidence of guilt now. Who cares if she took loads of paper home, maybe she was looking for answers. I noticed that you deflected and avoided why dr Ravi failed to mention the old smoking gun.
@@MrTreacletime no. She said is that baby going to leave here alive and was considered lacking in empathy on her training. Unsure why you're talking about separation of behaviour at work and out of work.
@@lesley9989 you still haven't established a motive - there's no clear evidence of a crime - but loads of reasons why the deaths might have occurred in that unhygienic and poorly managed environment.
and they were very sick babies.
Terrible headline by the way worthy of the gutter press
Then go to uploads which state she's innocent. Some people find those offensive
@@lesley9989 I think she is refering to the word "weird". What if we replace it with unusual or unprofessional...doesn't sound so daming. Gutter press likes to work on the emotional scale with it's headlines, particularly the one's that quicken readers/listeners appetites. so they come back for more. Surely by now you know how this section of the press works unless you have desensitised yourself with overuse!
@LawrenceHyett that's fair enough. I'm not desensitized. I don't read tabloids.
It is as atrocious as their discussion was
Lucy Letby does have the answer - she told us all - "I'm innocent"
And maybe she is.carefull,I get a feeling she's gonna get another trial.....not all black and white,something not right about this case.
Her behaviour in court says quite a lot. Just look at how she answered questions... "potentially this", "potentially that"....
Guilty.
@S.TradesThat is more or less what Lord Denning said about the Birmingham Six. You know nothing.
@S.Trades INNOCENT Lucy was in no fit state to be in the witness box and I shouldn't think many of us would be if we were treated the way she's been treated by police, media, doctors etc
@S.Trades This is by far the stupidest comment I've read about this trial so far. Shut up and stop embarrassing yourself.
To date, and with innumerable posts. No one has ever challenged me on me, saying that she was convicted on nothing but hypothesis, circumstance, and inference. This video ( and all I have seen on RUclips) exemplifies this.
I research my clients online (I am encouraged to do so by my management) to understand them better in order create stronger relationships. Part of my job. I am not a serial killer. If she researched someone online to me it means she took her job close to her heart. She is a young nurse who cared and as all younger people is curious. As she would be come older she would gradually stop. Nothing weird about this. Everyone does search at some point. Thats what social media are for.
She also searched up babies who were not "attacked"! Not saying she is innocent, but context matters.
Why not publish material that "could" explain the reasons why the NHS "might" want a scapegoat for massive failings in their business model.
Just because there are failings in the system (and there clearly is) doesn't mean she's innocent
@@bobbyknox9258 of course not, but that`s not the point. I`ve only scratched the surface and the whole thing stinks, the "official" narrative falls apart and leaves more questions than answers. Do a bit of thinking for yourself and it becomes clear that this is a very unsafe verdict.
@@Tellhimhesdead-m1y I know the ins and outs of the whole case
@@bobbyknox9258ok- Why did the consultant wait for months before doing anything?
@@bobbyknox9258 So you already know that there was a civil case started against the hospital before the criminal case against L. Letby.
Classic case of journalists hyping up mediocrity to sell stories and make a quick buck as an innocent nurse languishes in jail
I have a feeling that these kind of "News" pieces are going to age very badly for all involved in them.
Yes, weird behaviours got witches burned too, back in the day, back in the 15th century.
Weird kids at school also get ganged up on at school. And once Lucy put out the grievance, which would necessarily involve all consultants on the ward, which she was poorly advised to do, the entire body of consultants were unsurprisingly against her from that point on.
@@John-p7i5g So this is all a vast c o n s p i r a c y of medical staff? And the courts are in cahoots with the staff because…?
@@niriop You deny the grievance motion?
@@niriop No conspiracy ... Letby criticized two consultants ... the two consultants wanted her off the unit ... the managers investigated and found no wrongdoing ... made the consultants apologise ... this got their back up and they went to the police ... Dr Evans got himself involved and came up with his theories ... the jury was comprised of laymen with no medical experience who had to accept what Evans told them ...
It was the evidence around each attack that found Letby guilty, not a witch hunt.
The hospital is at fault for allowing any investigation to be shut down by a grievance in response to the concerns.
@@niriop The courts would probably naturally trust in the accounts of a group of senior doctors which certainly has the potential to make for an unbalanced case.
She had to be cool and calm. She was one of the nurses who was a desegnated and certified "mentor" to junior nurses. It was part of her job role - jeez, why omit that fact from this video
She was jailed based on circumstantial evidence. Dr Dewi Evans, one of the prosecution’s expert witnesses, has since changed his mind on some of his evidence. This conversation is utterly pointless and not helpful, to anyone.
Being weird does not equate with being a serial killer. There is absolutely nothing in her past to suggest that. She is clearly somewhere along the spectrum with Asbergers or even functioning autism, but again that does not mean she's a serial killer. No one ever saw her do anything, the 'evidence' that was used to convict her was clearly manipulated and has crumbled in the face of examination by real experts. This is shoddy journalism. Very poor. This pair just trying to flog their book. Cashing in on this scandalous conviction like a couple of vultures.. The CJS is broken.
Nothing in her past!?!? She killed one after the other. That's a past!
@@UKVeteran2024 Thank you for your considered and eloquent appraisal of the situation.
@@UKVeteran2024 She was just a very dedicated but slightly odd nurse. That's why she was convicted - for not being normal. All the nice things about her nature, and there were many, were twisted into sinister characteristics by the prosecution. The actual evidence against her has been demolished by real experts.
@@joebish6629 she was failed on her final year of nursing college for being cold with patients. It all went downhill from there. I suppose Peter Sutcliffe was a misunderstood cheeky screwdriver delivery man?! 😂😂
@@UKVeteran2024 So she was a bit cold? Then she definitely must be a serial killer. Damning evidence. Banged to rights.
Can someone explain why there was no CCTV on the ward?
It seems hard to believe in this day and age where CCTV is everywhere why they wouldn’t have it on a ward for seriously ill infants.
@paulgreen. Its because of patient privacy, but feel there is a need for some cctv, also in elderly and learning disability care homes.
@@user-qh8nh7oe6d patient safety should override privacy. If CCTV had been present there wouldn’t be any question mark about this case.
It's debatable if it would make much difference. Allit was caught on a camera from the hallway but she turned her back to it.
@@caz4961that's interesting. I didn't know. I think if they are going to have CCTV it's got to be everywhere. I appreciate it's difficult in a clinical setting
Yes is strange as after a couple of baby snatching, a policy was made that baby wards to be covered by cctv and door entry systems be installed on all units.
It's astonishing that a BBC reporter who is supposed to be impartial is able to ignore all the medical and scientific evidence and instead have a ghoulish fascination with Lucy Letby's appearance in court. As was stated at the trial, Letby was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder because of the trauma of the arrests and the time spent in prison. She was on anti-depressants and was suicidal. In the circumstances it was a remarkable achievement to stand up in court and withstand the bullying line of questioning from the prosecution with ridiculous questions such as "Do you remember being born?" It's hard to understand how a journalist can have a ringside seat at the trial of the century and not have the instinct to recognise that they were witnessing one of the worst miscarriages of justice in British history.
She appears to be completely lacking in her understanding of the human condition.
That's why they're known as 'hacks' 😅They go for the story that's going to further their careers, not to find out some truth that might damage them.
@@keithbessant But they work for the BBC who ought to know better.
@@DebbieKennettAm I missing something? The journalists in this clip are appearing on Times Radio, not the BBC. So they work for Times Radio, not the BBC.
@@stickytapenrust6869 Yes, but they were also in a recent documentary about the case for BBC's 'Panorama'.
Ohh, she was searching the parents 2 years later? That actually might make some sense if she was under so much suspicion, that she could have been trying to go back over events. People do have a tendency to do that under stress. Although the searches may seem unusual, how many of us can remember what we have searched for online, even today, especially for those of us who spend a lot of time online?
I think she searched for some before. I read 2016. Believe me, the Defence would have said this
Why would anyone do that. It's beyond unusual. I don't how anyone can think stalking parents of babies that died is OK in any way . Because it isn't ok. She was stalking parents frequently. She denied it to the police until she saw they knew and she couldn't explain why she'd done it. She wasn't searching them 2 years later she was stalking their pages on certain dates. The babies birthdays . When they died. She's a ghoul.
@@judithwilliams3147 If the so-called stalking evidence is believed to be valid I think people don't know what "stalking" is. I have been stalked and if you believe it is simply looking up people on-line then you have a grave misapprehension on the whole subject.
@@LawrenceHyett nothing to do with stalking. It shows she had no boundaries. It showed she was hugely unprofessional and the reasons she came out with in relation to handover sheets was laughable. All these things don't go down well with a Jury.
The unit was dilapidated, but deciding that the written note meant a confession is misleading. It stated she wasn't good enough and she killed them. A sensitive person would feel more could have been done. A real killer would be far more emotionally harder.
Strange, that her friends all stand beside her, plus experts doubt her conviction.
The hospital doesn't want to admit negligence on their part.
You only have to consider her behaviour after arrest, to see that her reactions weren't the result of being caught. They were from a person from a person totally terrified.
She was being pursued by a doctor, so others had grudges towards her.
We might through time come to the realisation that this is a terrible miscarriage of justice
I think not
It wasn't. She looks innocent, so you think she's innocent. She's guilty on all charges.
We might also come to the realisation that babies are not suicidal and great work was undertaken by the authorities to arrest, charge and convict. My sympathy is with the babies and their families. We now learn there are other deaths at other hospitals where she worked. These too are under investigation. I say no more
She was under massive stress,anyone working under that pressure is bound to act different.It affects people in different ways,so this is no way evidence of guilt .
People stalk people on fb all the time, and it makes sense a nurse would be interested in seeing how the families were getting along. I don't think this is weird behaviour at all .
And keeping all the records of the dead under her bed as trophies years later? Oh yes very normal 😅
Agreed. It's tenuous at best.
@@jonnybigpants She took home 257 handover notes, only 21 of them related to dead babies. Scores of nurses have posted on social media that they take home handover notes.
@@ruthietube absolutely not true in relation to a Nurse. I can't believe you've even used the word stalking, when I wouldn't use that term. You do realise that medical or health & social care staff aren't supposed to use the data they have to search social media? The data is only in their possession to complete specific tasks
@@paulgibbons2320 it's not about it being tenuous. She couldn't give reasonable explanations. I worked with families far more closely for decades and I never dreamed of looking them up on social media. It's highly unprofessional and breaks ethical boundaries. It's the minimising that gets me angry. Would you be happy for a hospital worker to search for you on-line? I certainly wouldn't
I don’t think it’s weird for a nurse to look into the families online. It depends what interpretation you put on it - you could view it as prying and taking voyeuristic satisfaction of relations suffering and putting a name to a face in that sense, or you could view it as - I’ll check them out online as I really hope they don’t look like the people who could suffer and because it’s hard for me psychologically, I want to take satisfaction they won’t be the types to suffer excessively.
I watched this doctor Judith in an interview with KC Mark McDonald, Letby’s barrister, and each time McDonald put forward mitigating evidence including the fact she didn’t confess to the murders, the doctor was - ‘what about this’. It struck me her mind is just immutably made up. I think lots of these doctors have huge bias to take this stance because of the NHS, for whom they work, and it hugely protects allegations against itself because otherwise it’s an affront to them as part of the organisation.
It is weird, and completely unprofessional. Searching for parents of dead babies, one dead babies family after the other IS ghoulish behaviour.
There's only one interpretation of them. What was she looking for by searching the parents a few hours after their baby had died? Why did she repeat those searches, days, weeks, months, years later? Why couldn't she offer an explanation in court?
@@caz4961 even on Xmas day…
@@VikkiMcGuire irrelevant
@@LawrenceHyettit’s really not and you know it.
It’s interesting how someone who searched for parents on-line, has no search history for Air Embolism or Insulin poisoning. She must be one very clever cookie!
good point!
You do realise she is a nurse don't you, so has medical training. She would have known this.
On top of that, there was an article in the BMJ where they found that a significant number of doctors had been googling their patients online. For some reason we have not heard anything about the search histories of the doctors involved in these cases.
@@angelanorton5975 I think you underestimate the technicalities involved.
Judith, you really are adding nothing except hot air to the question of Lucy Letby. I’ve heard you talk about being in court a thousand times. So what? You are basically judging a young woman under unprecedented ongoing stress on her appearance. The whole process , including your facile commentary is nothing but a modern day witch hunt. Congratulations on fooling the BBC into giving you airtime to publicise your wretched book.
Mmmm. These two are trying to sell a book. Can anyone imagine how a young single dedicated woman could possibly cope under the 8 years of scrutiny and accusations this poor woman has been subjected to. Odd behaviour- my God how could anyone be expected to behave under this sort of pressure???
Judith and Jonathan should try and give a bit more balance to the avalanche of information about the errors presented by the prosecution rather than passing comment about somebodys odd or unexplained behaviours. Look at the weight of evidence - then look in the mirror satisfied that you are giving her a fair trial!!!
@@markwhite3958 There’s oodles of evidence.
Letby’s falsifications of medical reports. Witness reports of her actions. All that stuff she said. What she kept under her bed.
The odd behaviour was keeping handover sheets and searching for ex-patients families. I really don't want to hear it's normal, because it isn't.
@@lesley9989 It is normal.
@@aaronhaywood5007 it's absolutely not normal and if you're a health or social care professional then you need to stop this behaviour. Absolutely not normal and it's disgusting people are minimising it.
@@aaronhaywood5007 this is what really annoys me with people who think she's innocent. They total minimise everything. It doesn't make her a murderer, but the absolute denial is boardering on ridiculous. No professional boundaries and no confidentiality. Her reason saying they were confidential in her garage! Absolutely ridiculous.
If Letby is found innocent on appeal, then the question remains: Why did the spike in infant deaths occur? Pure chance? Planned?
The hospital may have been involved and used her as the victim, from what I understand some experts opined during an earlier TR broadcast🙏. Besides there is a small chance that that this case should not be seen in isolation...
@@WellbeingToPeace This is conjecture that can only be confirmed by careful collection of hard evidence. Just as Letby may be a victim of circumstances beyond her control, we have to concede that without any hard evidence it's possible that the hospital itself may be the victim of circumstances beyond its control. Which set of circumstances should the court favor?
I'm glad I'm not a judge!!!
@@CONNELL19511216 What should the court favor ? If there is reasonable doubt, they should aquit.
for starters there was 9 still births between June 2015 and October 2015. That narrows down the possibilities a little.
Statisticians have shown that there wasn't a spike. The number of deaths was within statistical norms.
She’s been accused of it what a lonely place to be! Thing is she would look as she’s been cut off from everything
Blatant bookselling - appalling.
Even low wattage journalism keeps the case in the limelight. Basically they don't know anything new. If Letby is a bit odd (Asperger's? compulsive-obsessive? over-emotionally involved in her patients? over-worked? - she was working ridiculous hours to keep the unit going, as were the other permanent nursing staff - I don't know any more than anyone else) this may explain why the doctors at her hospital picked on her. It's likely she's sedated to cope with the ordeal she's going through. All very meaningless, but a fair attempt at plugging their book, and they are careful not to say they are convinced she is guilty given the torrent of expert criticism being aimed at the prosecution case now.
yeah like you would know . Did you sit through the trials ? Read the transcripts of both trials ? Seen all the evidence ? Did you sit through the inquiry or read. the transcripts of the inquiry ? I would advise you to be quiet as you are relying upon second and third hand knowledge .
@@joycejnn as are you !
She is not autistic, she's a sadistic Narcissist
If she’s so un-guilty then why do her appeals keep failing?
@@joycejnnHave you?
Could she have been searching online to make sure the baby is alive and well, proving to herself that she had done everything right.
Of course she couldn't admit this or the police would turn the statement into searching to see if the child was deceased
@joebloggs LL searched for the parents of babies whom she had killed, to see if they had posted something in regards to the anniversary of their babies' deaths.
So if it she had been someone from a broken home or someone with a 'mental illness', would that have made her even more guilty, would it???
This is shocking ! This presenter seems to have found LL guilty 'cos of her demeanor ! This country needs a serious conversation around the whole concept of what they call "circumstantial evidence". One of the reasons so many people are interested in this case is because they have no experience of the criminal justice system and were under the impression that people were sent to prison on evidence, not someone's opinion ... and this has appalled people. If it can happen to LL it can happen to you, me or anyone else.
100% they are covering each other's backs , Lucy is innocent unlike the Evil that stitched her up.
In the words of LL “I killed them on purpose because I’m not good enough to care for them” “I am EVIL, I did this”
@LauraC-xc1cb Do more research, this is not the clincher you think it is
@@tezbee6815 The people who are convinced of her guilt don't do research. Not one single criminologist or psychologist who has spoken about this case gives any credence to that post it note and this has been covered in the more serious media many, many times.
Exactly.
I think sometimes people can get addicted to behaviours that act as a sort of stress release for some reason.
Free Lucy letby
Read the book, very good. Lays everything out in chronological order, very helpful in understanding all of the evidence in each case.
i agree
Where can I get it? The title?
@@mrsminnatk3992 unmasking lucy letby
@@mrsminnatk3992 The book is called " Unmasking Lucy Letby ", it says this at the top.
She was set up imo
Scandalous that her appeal was refused. Future payout when it’s finally established that the evidence the process was mismanaged etc
yeah like you would know . Did you sit through the trial ? Read the transcripts of both trials ? Seen all the evidence ? Did you sit through the inquiry or Red the transcripts of the inquiry ? I would advise you to be quiet as you are relying upon second and third hand knowledge .
yeah like you would know . Did you sit through the trial ? Read the transcripts of both trials ? Seen all the evidence ? Did you sit through the inquiry or Red the transcripts of the inquiry ? I would advise you to be quiet as you are relying upon second and third hand knowledge .
@@joycejnn You're just so desperate for her to be guilty, aren't you. Sensible, intelligent experts have looked at the main evidence now and the whole case has just fallen apart. The conviction is clearly unsafe.
@@joebish6629you’re wrong, there is more to come from the ongoing police investigation and when more and more deaths and harm come to light , youl be the one who will have egg on your face about supporting a baby serial killer 🤦♂️
Tell me why it would be such an issue to do a retrial and have more expert opinion? Who does it hurt? Wouldn’t it be better to be sure you caught a killer than to sentence an innocent to life in prison? No brainer surely. Pride, arrogance and snobbery is whats stopping this from being reviewed
This case reminds me of the Lindy Chamberlain (dingo) case in Australia. I lived in Darwin at the time. Both Lindy and Lucy have experienced negative and vitriolic public reaction based purely on their supposed demeanor. No actual evidence and what turned out to be flawed forensic evidence in Lindy's case. I suspect the same will be found in Lucy''s case at some point.
Absolutely nothing in common between these case. A dingo taking 1 baby in remote Au vs a nurse killing 7 maybe more babies in UK hospital. Nothing wrong with LL evidence. Circumstantial evidence is Real admissible evidence always will be. Someone who kills multiple babies probably not a nice person.
Lindy lost 3years of her life to incarceration, lost her marriage and her family torn apart. 4 coronial inquests, 1 trial, eventually exonerated, massive compensation payout from NT Govt
It's nothing like that hat case at all
@@VeeBee-ht8nu The handling of the cases are very similar.
@@MichaelReidy-q1g Nothing in common between these two cases -period. Circumstantial evidence is real & valid and was presented over no less than a 10 month period.
The only 'weird' thing about this case is why Lucy Letby is in prison for murders she didn't commit. In fact, no-one committed any murders as the babies died from natural causes and sub optimal care.
Then why do her appeals keep failing?
@@niriop She's been denied leave to appeal !
@@niriop Ask her defence team. Or maybe research why there were so many stipulations on this court case.
@@KingBee24 Her appeal just failed. Again.
@Minimmalmythicist Yeah judges don’t convict or acquit, juries do.
I guess you just don’t understand English law…
Which emotions are you supposed to display after workplace bullying, the bullies following through on their threat to retaliate, years of investigation, multiple arrests, incarceration and in no case did they prove anything was done to harm any infant. Instead it was presentation of claims like when they inserted 3 chest drains in, one definitely not inserted in the correct place and then going she must have done something, or instead of ruling out all the common or even less common causes of hypoglycaemia, they allege insulin added to TPN with absolutely no evidence that happened.
Hence the focus on how they behaved instead of the facts and what multiple experts are now saying now the suppression order is off. There is no one way a person might behave in this situation but it creates a nice distraction.
Lucy has already told the world 'her answer' - she turned to the judge and proclaimed 'I'm innocent!'.
@@cupofteawithpoetry D e l u s i o n a l.
"Well she would, wouldn't she?" - Mandy Rice-Davies
Well, if she said she's innocent there's no doubt about it then. Back under your bridge troll!
The jury didn't agree with her.
@@BlueBeard-wo5fmI don't even think they're a troll!
The evidence against Lucy Letby is overwhelming. She was assigned to Room 3 but repeatedly went to Room 1, where the incidents occurred, despite being told to focus on her own patients. She later told police she "didn't care for those babies," yet she searched for their parents on social media without explanation. The overfeeding cases, deliberate air embolisms, and insulin poisoning all point to intentional harm. These aren’t accidents; they require deliberate actions. If you were on the jury, how could you see this as anything but guilt? Cases like this make you wish the UK had the death penalty.
No, it isn't, which is why the conviction is unsafe.
It's all circumstantial. An overwhelming amount of nothing. And the dubious medical evidence for Overfeeding, air embolism and insulin have all been disproven.
Aside from that there is not a single internet search she did of these sophisticated methods of killing without being noticed, yet using such complex multiple MOs is unheard of in a serial killer.
And she was a genius killer yet she leaves a confession note?
Use your brain.
With all due respect what you've written is a load of b*llocks! The babies Lucy was supposed to have murdered had post mortems and were found to have died from natural causes.
If there had been any suspicion of foul play at the time the Coroner would have been informed and the bodies re-examined by a forensic pathologist.
It was only after consultants were the subject of a damning report from The Royal College of Paediatrics & Child Health and were also forced to apologise to Lucy for bullying her that they decided to report her to the police for harming babies although they had no evidence of wrongdoing.
Personally l believe that she is another political victim in the governments incompetence within the NHS. I hope the truth comes out and she is freed.
It sounds like they are unsure of her guilt and the guy seems to think she’s innocent. What’s worrying is how long it takes to end a miscarriage of justice. I really hope this whole case gets re-examined somehow and soon. If Lucy Letby is innocent, then this is a horrible thing to happen to someone who is probably a very good person.
The most frightening think in all of this is there doesn’t to be a Paediatrician or Neonatologist that were there to give a definitive diagnosis and a care plan going forward. That is quite apparent. The hospital appeared to be poorly managed. There was bullying, poor care, unqualified people. If I was a mother now. I would be terrified to have a baby that required any amount of special aftercare. You have Consultants gossiping in corners, nurses in important management positions-who have no experience whatsoever to do the job and would be better kept in the jobs as nurses which they were trained for. Poorly managed wards
were the nurses spent most of their time txting and gossiping then looking after the babies. If Letby did this and that is an IF then it is down to the consultants care, the ward managers, the nurses on the ward who all failed in their duties and to do no harm. It’s outrageous. Im so sorry to the parents and to the poor vulnerable little babies that were so vulnerable and relied on these people.
It’s terrifying really
Close your eyes and listen to these two interviewees talk. Neither of them sound truly convinced of her guilt.
No they are only watching their words because they have to remain impartial while sticking to the facts.
Yes. And they raise Allitt and Shipman who both had clear red flags in their behaviour, background and early childhood interactions.
@John-p7i5g Yes you're right
Wouldn't it be funny if it turned out she was completely innocent and all of those so-called "weird behaviors" were the result of the traumatic stress of being constantly assigned the sickest babies by everyone else?
You know, because they gave the sickest babies to the nurse with the most experience of being around sick babies?
I think it's called a positive feedback loop?
@lazarus. Lucy herself would seek to look after the sickest babies, or specific ones. She would text friends from work saying she was bored. I don't know how she had the time to text on duty, and as a former ward nurse there's no chance to be bored either, usually doing 10 things at once. There are oddities in her behaviour as a nurse, skilled nurses may make occasional errors but don't take home and hoard carrier bags of confidential patient records, nor stand by a patient be it a baby or adult watching their oxygen levels fall with the alarm switched off. They definitely would not return to their units on their nights off. Something is really wrong. Her nurse tutors and assessors when she was training had picked up instinctively something lacking in her empathy. I don't know if she once made an error which went un noticed which sort of fired her to almost experiment, leading up to babies dying. She became 2 Lucy's in a way. Just feel its there in her face when she is arrested, its the shock and acceptance the other Lucy has caught up with her. That's the only way I can make sense of a nurse, neonatal nurse especially, listening to babies going through huge suffering themself has caused, and the agony of the poor parents.
@@user-qh8nh7oe6d I'm sorry, but all I'm seeing here is hindsight leading to altered recollections from people who are being told- repeatedly by the authorities- that she is being investigated as a serial killer and who are being asked whether they noticed any odd behavior.
That, and I have the glaring example of an Italian nurse who was prosecuted for more or less the exact same thing, found guilty, and later exhonerated.
@user-qh8nh7oe6d my God! Did you have ambitions to become a psychiciatrist. Thankfully you're no longer on the wards.
@@Lazarus1095 Exactly. I'm shocked by people's ignorance. It's basic psychology ... 'O' level stuff.
Or that she's a unique individual with unique traits that could be called weird. Fancy that.
Assuming she is guilty? She’s been convicted twice!
So?
In every miscarriage of justice someone was convicted, and there's far too many miscarriages to ever feel complacent about the British criminal justice system.
And what would the reaction be if Lucy had displayed the emotion they wanted to see from her: 'Lucy Letby had the audacity to cry in front of the parents - callous and inappropriate.' 'Lucy Letby hysteria and tantrums in courtroom.' 'Lucy Letby not only sought attention from colleagues - she turned on the tears to gain attention from the court'. That poor girl could not do right for doing wrong. She was completely trapped in the courtroom and completely trapped by the media. What hope did she have.
Well that's an interview makes eveything perfectly clear. She may have done, she may not have done it....thanks for that insight.
Which makes the case for a re-trial or review of the case all the more strong. Reasonable doubt after 6 years of following and investigating. So not guilty beyond REASONABLE DOUBT. Possibly guilty, but not on the evidence presented thus far.
You have to buy the book - where they also don't come to any conclusions.
@@d-rex8223 Their book started off based on the assumption that Letby was guilty. It would also have gone to press before a lot of the new evidence supporting the innocence case has come out.
Why did she alter documentation and lie about the presence or absence of medical staff consistently that’s not normal nursing behaviour
A doctor is hiding.
What did they do?
Search for Olly Stopforth.
I have looked up names of people I worked with/for. - just out interest or inquisitiveness
Normal tbh. many people dont, many people do.
I suspect she may have wanted to share her concerns about the unit's substandard operations with the bereaved parents. Perhaps she was looking for witnesses to back-up her possible whistleblowing?
ok, so she's searching for parents... so she's strange... maybe emotionally caught up in the situation... for psychological reasons.. but all that really tells us is she's unhinged and not suitable for the profession she was in... right? But is she.. a killer? .. or more to the point, do they have cast iron evidence she's one? Because being strange and unhinged isn't necessarily proof of the fact.. They really need more monitoring in hospitals and process to deal with situation where there is suspicion.
I don't even think she's unhinged. If anything she's too hinged. This woman was a workaholic. She volunteered extra shifts, took worksheets home, had posters on the walls of her home like at work. She clearly took her job home with her.
@@John-p7i5g yes... but you can be a workaholic and still unhinged and unsuitable. That kind of job.. you have to do the job and not become emotionally too connected and bring it back.. plus taking confidential docs out with her.. so I understand from what was said.. its possibly sackable anyway. Behavior wasnt right for the job, but all being said, still doesnt prove she should be in jail for being one of the worse killers.
Maybe she still is... or maybe she isn't.. but we shouldnt send people to jail for that on maybe's. if it was in the past she'd get the rope on maybe..
@@joecater894 Agreed. Although I do believe she was actually very good at her job. She was commended by the hospital inspectors as well as numerous colleagues. Her friends also confirmed that she had a caring nature. She was also very dedicated and efficient.
But she was weird. So's Elon Musk. So are lots of people who are good at what they do.
Searching for parent's of dead babies, sometimes a few hours after their deaths. Some repeatedly. What was she looking for? Misery? It's more than odd and her reasoning for it in court was pathetic. Like her excuse for taking home 250 + handover sheets and documents - I collect paper. Hmm.
@@caz4961 being odd and being a murderer are two different things. Lucy is harmless, but odd. She's also fixated on her job.
What pointless waffle by these two unqualified people
“Just because it’s not there doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist”
So speakerh the Stasi state.
If weird behaviour was any sort of indicator of guilt of a crime.. a lot more innocent people would be in jail right now.
It must be so frustrating to the lynch mob crowd of Lucy Letby ...to have no smoking gun or clear evidence that murders even took place.
Yep ... if it was a criminal offence to be odd, half of the 'guilty' crowd would be in jail !
Searching for people on Facebook is very common. Why make such a big deal about LL doing it?
Is it? Searching people you don't know on Facebook is common? It's very unusual for a nurse to do it after their child has died, that's why.
I’m sure the journos here have done a lot of that searching too!!! Making money from misery and of course being slightly weird themselves if you look at Coffee 😮
All the nurses I know keep medical records under their bed too...........
It must be excruciating for the parents of the babies to have everything raked up.
Truth matters
@ but it doesn’t have to be done in public. There’s a lot of politicians and journalists running their mouth without really having any insight. I realize this is a bit hypocritical of me because I’m watching the RUclips video fascinated by the case.
Judith Moritz sat in court, and i agree she may have a bit more info, but most days were covered by the Chester Standard (unfortunately the info on child L there is meagre). I can’t understand why her most compelling arguments seem to be the way (a certainly traumatised) LL looked in court. The only FB search that raised a red flag for me was the one for child K, since it happened a few months before her arrest. But Nicolas Johnson solved this: a few weeks earlier her colleague had been questioned about this child. The fact Judith doesn’t seem to even make the connection makes you wonder about her observational skills and/or critical thinking. Did she never consider the possibility LL had absolutely no idea who this child was and tried to jog her memory?
No doubt weird, occasionally negligent and serious misdemeanours plus looking up parents and getting animated about deaths etc - perhaps some kind of penalty but rest or life sentences for serial murders? Get real.
You don't get WHY she did it. Check up HG Tudor to watch his analysis of her
@Minimmalmythicist I am amd I just came across the Beverly Allitt case. Look at how much alike the women and their ways of murdering children are.
Ah Judith know better than anybody because she was at the trial.
This won't age well.
The theory that she's calm in chaos is ignoring the unconscious human psychology/biology reacting to deaths. A parent describes her as cold/robotic, and then when his baby dies she's devastated. You see how that calmness goes just like that. She's in a flight or fight response, or survival mode where she withdraws from the trauma, this would explain her behaviours to stress/emotional distress. The head nurse described her distressful reactions as though acting that out is not likely.
So explain why she was so excited after the deaths, said really inappropriate things and her behaviour was so concerning to parent and staff?
@@VikkiMcGuire you should be able to pick up the situation itself from the narrative and realise that it's taken out of context but I can also understand why this channel has you believing her guilt. If Lucy is going into the family room with a cold cot, it's suggested as if she sneaked in without being noticed, she's a band 5 nurse so is still under instructions to an extent in a busy ward. Then she's suggested to have been inappropriate for doing that (by a nurse and parent). It's not unusual to offer a cold cot to a family even if the baby is living as they are transferred in cold cots when alive. The only thing I've seen yet that had confirmed this reality, is an inquest document labelled sensitive about transfer of a baby. In a recent student report Lucy is criticised for not knowing or applying distraction techniques to calm a grieving family. That supports the belief that offering a cold cot is a standard of care but also a distraction technique, but has the nurse outside explained it or have they tried to avoid looking supportive or accountable for possible instruction by saying they didn't see or hear a nurse in the family room, and thinks it's inappropriate to talk to the family in that way (the distraction technique). I do wonder if you will brush it off and keep to what you believe from this channel. The channel doesn't bring issues together like I have, perhaps I'm wrong to do so, but does it make sense to you?
@@user-ur9es1wl2u you’re missing a big aspect of your hypothesis, she was not the designated nurse and had been asked to stay out of the room by her shift leader. Read up on the TI, it’s all in there. Nurses should never intrude in a situation like this when they are not the designated nurse. She was neglecting the child she was supposed to be to looking after and her shift leader escalated this issue. Why was she so fascinated with being around death?
@@VikkiMcGuire do you agree that Lucy might be the most experienced nurse on the ward? if that baby is poorly then isnt she going to be concerned about that patient following a handover? fascination is one possible explanation, or recognition that she might be best in that nursery following a number of baby deaths. Is she away all the time? neglect is an odd word when the nursing team are outside the nursery at the nursing station. Where's everyone else? What's missing is that babies cry and the likelihood of a nurse hearing them is part of this idea of neglect.
@@user-ur9es1wl2u no I don’t agree. Again if you listened to the TI there’s a witness who discusses Letby’s qualifications. She’s a band 5 and had done a course to look at intensive care babies, but in fact many of the nurses were band 6, and some were band 7 and 8. Many had 15-30 years experience. She had 3 years. Perhaps read the TI inquiry documents, it’s rich in information.
Still waiting for a new report from both of you. Its been crickets! Write a new book and be a little more factual this time. People around the world are waiting. This is never going away!
What was in the book that wasn't factual?
@lesleyd9969 The CQC report was left out entirely!
@@lesleyd9969 Remember tape recordings on the Ward?
@@OperationMerlinFalcon
Ahh, so it's about lies by omission, rather than inaccuracies that are actually in the book. Fair enough.
@@lesleyd9969
Ommition of certain names....anonymous witnesses.
This is disgusting. Shes innocent and it doesnt take much research to see it
What evidence is there that she's innocent?
@@lennymice2261
Why are so many witnesses anonymous?
She was weird??? 😂 What does that even mean ? I'm weird. Many people are weird. You journalists are weird. Weirdly unprofessional!
What utter pond life journalists are nowadays.
Most murderers get profiled, but not Letby.
The 2016 CQC Inspection Report revealed many issues on the Neonatal Ward.
Was Lucy Letby the original Whistleblower?
Where are the tape recordings?
Page 113 of the CQC Inspection Report is a good place to start.
The Thirlwall Inquiry revealed some of CQC Inspector Helen Cain's notes.
Guess who had a meeting with the CQC Inspector Helen Cain on February 17, 2016?
Prevarictors.
Further to my last , just have a look at what a Judge Jackson said about Dr Dewi Evans in a previous case as well as the doctor's behaviour in the case of Linda Lewis (Bonnie Lea Lewis).
A proper neonatal doctor has just broken cover because he no longer lives in this country but worked in the NHS. He said, in variance to Dr Jayram's evidence, breathing tubes can be vary easily dislodged either by doctors or nurses or the baby itself. It is very common.
He was in it for the money I’m afraid. Not a qualified witnessu
I love the idiots queuing up to defend her 😂😂 Oh yeah, you should be in New Scotland Yard tomorrow!
Only an idiot would think Lucy was guilty.
@@ruthbashford3176 2 juries unanimously find you to be an idiot too 😅
Thank you for your thoughtful and well researched analysis. I'm impressed by your acumen.
Ignore he’s easily influence by media if he goes off you war😮
Sorry to war
It's not weird to be a maternity ward nurse. To conect with people and care about people who come onto the ward.
As a practising Christian girl, it would not be unshual to pray for parents who have lost a child on the ward.
I bet if you investigated the ward doctors, you would find mich stranger circumstances.
Hi, Functioning psycopaths are drawn to high-performance jobs like being a doctor.
She issued complaints about them.
Wanting to impress people at work is a strange motivation.
That's just not strong enough to assume someone is a murderer.
It's very telling how Jonathan Coffey caviats his responses. I've lost count already of how many times he's referred to "assuming she's guilty". Not defending herself well does not prove guilt Judith. The presenter is doing a good job here. They seem to be trying to defend the book rather than promote it. Wouldn't surprise me if her new defence use the book to help her case!
Beverly Allit, Lucy Letby, which nurse is the next victim? How strange that it already happened twice in England. Both convictions lacked sufficient evidence.
Allit later confessed.
Lacks sufficient evidence?? How many serial killers get caught in the act?
Correct decision . Richard Baker KC said “those questioning Lucy Letby’s guilt should be ashamed …those individuals who offer superficial opinions based upon second and third hand accounts then expressing conclusions . Those supporting Lucy Letby , as repeatedly pointed out , have not seen the evidence of the trial, the babies medical notes or have spoken to any of the consultants who have raised concerns or seen any of the evidence that will go before the inquiry over the coming months but that there is some relevance in this background noise as it highlights how society is sometimes too quick to make judgements and assumptions on first impressions.”
She is still under investigation for her time at the Liverpool’s women hospital when incidents of dislodge intubation tubes rose from 1% to 40% then returned to previous levels after Lucy Letby had left the hospital . Tuned
So you trust the consultants 100%? And the police 100%? And the justice system 100%?
@@turquoiseblue228 Absolutely, why WOULDN'T you trust any of these experts in their field. What makes you think they have a reason to lie in this case?
@@heycidskyja4668 I wouldn't trust Dr Evans 'cos of his past history and I wouldn't trust Dr Jayaram 'cos he's changed his story at least three times. If you trust experts in their field, then why aren't you trusting the dozens of highly qualified people who dispute Dr Evans ?
@heycidskyja4668
Dewi Evans was not an expert in neonotologism, he was a retired peuadtrition, seeking to make money
Assuming that’s the case that you needed to be at a trial of that length of nearly a year to have an opinion, isn’t it just as bad in that sense that if Letby really is innocent then the length of the trial and complexity of evidence is a barrier to an appeal and perpetuating a possible miscarriage of justice. Also how do we expect jurors of average intelligence to cope with the pure volume of information over 10 months to reach a judgement. Justice needs to be transparent in the UK - the whole case should have been televised and released after the trials and the public should be entitled to all and any information about the trial. As it stands the court service were asking £10k for the transcript and even MPs can’t access it. Crazy.
They should donate the proceeds of this book to a suitable charity IMHO.
A whole lot of nothing. I expect the book reflects that too.
"No witnesses"
Apart from the other staff and parents who noticed her attending to babies she had no business treating and her bizarre behaviour around grieving parents.
No-one saw Lucy do anything wrong. Of course she was attending other babies she was one of the most senior nurses on the ward and would obviously go and help when an alarm was sounded. The parents had no complaints about Lucy, in fact, many of them liked her. It was only when they were told by Cheshire police that she had harmed their babies that opinions changed. From then on their opinions were biased and should not have been allowed in court.
Exactly! Apart from all the evidence, what evidence is there?!
@@ruthbashford3176 She stood by a baby watching the oxygen levels fall with the alarm switched off. Attending to alarms? Yes, this alarm hadn't gone off, she had switched it off and then observed the effect on the baby not receiving oxygen any more. A very odd way to respond to alarms
@@ruthbashford3176Except when she was observed above an infant in respiratory distress doing nothing.
@@UKVeteran2024I'm sure you meant to say circumstantial evidence. DOH
@flum. As far as I'm aware the alarm hadn't actually sounded to begin with. Why also stop the oxygen supply too?
Allegedly...🥱
where have all those people gone who were calling for her release just a few months ago?
They're still here .
Jay slater vibes killuminati vibes all over this
Judith reiterates what Jon of Crimescene courtroom said of her. He was also at the trial and points out it was her chance to defend herself. And she did not come out well because of being caught out in lie after lie. If you still believe she is innocent then go to crime scene courtroom for the whole narrated version of her time on the stand.
Jon Wedger is a lunatic
That's only because anything she mis-remembered after 7-8 years was cast as a lie by the prosecutor.
Judith says that she was one of only 4 reporters allowed in the trial ... the BBC, Daily Mail ... I don't know who the others were, but I'm sure it wouldn't be a RUclipsr ! 'Crime Scene 2 Courtroom' is very opinionated and has a heavy bias to the 'guilty' side. It's like getting your information from 'The Sun'. We should be finding people guilty on facts and evidence, not on the 'opinion' of RUclipsrs.
I'd bet London to a brick her lying was discretion. That discretion was torn apart by Johnson's skillful cross examination, that created the necessary contradictions to establish her as a 'lier'. That and her guardedness and eccentric personality didn't do her any favours.
@Cora-and-Marley. Why on earth do people put so much faith in a pound-shop RUclips channel that claims to be a fountain of knowledge yet focuses almost entirely on the prosecution case? And just to ensure that everything remains on course, the oh so knowledgeable Jon deletes posts which challenge his views.
A attention seeker,seeking praises from other staff.
A power hungry,seeking attention off a particular doctor,in the hope she could have power from being with him. Attention seeking at its worst,longing for love,a man,a man with power,a doctor100%.Some reasons,why she did it.
Their are lies ,damn lies and Times Radio.
Last time, the nurse who was in a position of huge responsibility and refused to remove Lucy of the ward and was txting support messages to her. Why isn’t she held accountable. It would have protected both Lucy and herself had she done that. Why are consultants gossiping on TV. They were called or the SHO’s to a number of those babies whilst they could have survived if they had been managed properly. Why have you a SHO messaging nurses. Why have the nurses been able to miss off data on forms. Txt consistently to friends gossiping about Drs and nurses I’m charge
She didn't remove her because there was no evidence. You can't just make baseless accusations about people and get them fired.
I remember times at school there was some nasty pieces of work, none of them I would think be capable of Letby's crimes
Your point?
And?
Trash journalism.
As ever 🥲
Enjoying the book is what they want. Weird you would find any enjoyment in that misery