@@adenwellsmith6908 the more the scratch the more paint peels off how many layers.... who knows, in my last job I was often told to stop scratching, and I replied, "It's my job to find and fix your errors!"
In at least some of those cases not only should they not have been found guilty, the judge should have thrown out the case before starting. The prosecution had nothing of any substance.
@@andrewparker8523 That whole situation blew my mind, the more I watched and heard about the lengths the PO were prepared to go to even when they knew they was in the wrong made my blood boil. I've experienced similar behaviour at work just not on that scale. There's managers in jobs all over the world making peoples lives a misery and getting away with .
The psyche of a nurse: well let me tell you. I once did a drug error, a patient who didn't sleep was prescribed a medication to help. I read the chart, I poured out the dose, I gave it. Then I went to record it, and noticed that the drug wasn't meant to commence for another night. I could see no clinical reason, ie a previous drug needing to stop and neither was the giving chart plotted out, which is normal for drugs that start, stop or have reducing dosages. I reported myself as this was the correct thing to do. IT WAS LIKE THE COURT OF THE INQUISITION - I worried, I didn't sleep, although many would support, the managers GLEEFULLY put the boot in! They have a system of scorning, so I got the lot thrown at me! weighted also because the patient was over 70. I could of just not recorded giving it, kept my mouth shut and no one would have been any the wiser. Nurses do have professional standards they also have consciences and worry ! And they are only human.
You were incompetent and suffered disciplinary action? A lot depends on the drug and the consequences of you giving it when you did. Mistakes happen but even considering not reporting it is frightening.
Hello Andrea! I’m a nurse too, and have committed a drug error, thank goodness my patient was okay! I can remember my horror and shame at thinking I could have injured the person under my care. You never forget that experience. Fortunately, my boss had a constructive way of dealing with errors. The error is written down, of course, but then there is discussion on how to prevent future errors. This discussion includes feedback from both nurse and manager on how the nurse can avoid making this same mistake again. Nurses are human, and we will make mistakes, no matter how hard we try to be our best for our patients. An old-time nurse once told me” if you make a mistake, tell the truth- because then you will be trusted”. So making a mistake and reporting it gives a chance to rectify the mistake, if possible. I personally would trust you, Andrea, to take care of my loved ones, as the conscientious professional you have shown yourself to be.
It's clear that is these levels of neglect can be easy to perform then there is an inherent problem with staff and management in general. This should not be happening!!
The calculation of odds needs to take into account the background rate of deaths. In particular, the avoidable death toll in English acute hospitals, is 20,000 a year. BMJ. You have to factor that in. How many expected instances would you expect purely by random chance? It's very high. It's almost certain that you will get numbers at that level just by chance. Now add on the other baby care units which have been disasterous. That again changes the random chance odds dramatically.
Given that they hadn't worked out how she was able to commit these crimes, there is a risk that the perpetrator is still at large. That is no justice for the families. Plus what does it say about our judicial system? How did the appeals not call for further investigation and presentation of physical evidence?
@@Zhang1000000 Imagine her life at present behind bars! Known to be a serial baby killer. If she's innocent and does eventually get released the damage may already have been done.
Anyone saying it is "in poor taste" to discuss this is really saying they would rather a potentially innocent woman spend the rest of her life in prison, because they are uncomfortable thinking about it.
It's in poor taste to comment if you haven't bothered to read the 10 months worth of court transcripts. The evidence is out there, you can read it but you prefer to be ignorant
She wasn’t on duty , yet the prosecution claim that she could have visited the hospital, is this for real, the words straw and clutching spring to mind.
@@philholding6905 she did, to see baby G after the first attack, late on at night, her texts showed this, she didn’t have her card, a colleague let her in. LISTEN TO HER TESTIMONY.
@@jamessykes3965 have you heard her testimony, she went into the unit late at night to see a baby she had attacked the day prior!! Her colleague let her in, as she didn’t have her card, her text messages proved this!!! “I’ve just checked his stats” she then denied this!! LISTEN TO THE COURT TRANSCRIPTS!!
Stefan Kiszko - In a nut shell, then Jeremy Bamber - any evidence that could prove he is innocent was destroyed, despite a court order saying that none should be destroyed, that case stinks
I think you could be right, everyone shouts it down when you say it, but the whole case seems like the 'system' wanted to find someone to blame for systemic failings in the NHS
I also think there was pressure to find her guilty to bring some sort of closure to those poor parents who've lived in limbo for years . A baby may be viable at 24 wks but still only has a survival rate of around 50% and that's with optimal care.
@@Sam-tx1tnthe absence of the more senior member of staff (a doctor) is criminal, the legal ramifications should be aimed at the senior doctor on shift, not some lowly nurse at the bottom.
When this case first hit the headlines my wife, a retired lead nurse, said there's something not quite right about this case, that's all I'm saying for now.
There seems to be far too much circumstantial evidence and not enough hard facts here. Her presence when so many deaths occurred, for example, is easily explained by the fact that she worked more overtime than anyone else, but it doesn't make her a killer. There was clearly a high degree of incompetence at senior level in the Countess of Chester and a suspicion of the establishment closing ranks. Definitely an unsafe conviction.
There’s not even circumstantial evidence if you understand the issues regarding the misleading statistical “evidence” that was presented by the prosecution, purportedly showing an improbable association between her presence on the ward and the deaths. Even my basic math skills show this to be nonsensical, let alone leading statisticians.
@@kipling1957 The problem with the justice system is it is stuffed full of people that have no more mathematical knowledge than a GCSE. Until they are willing to accept they don't know the first dam thing about statistics and defer to actual statistical experts we will be miscarriages of justice. We have seen this before in the SID's trials with Sally Clark and others. We need immediate reform where the *ONLY* people allowed to present evidence of a statistical nature in court have to be approved to do so by the Royal Statistical Society. If that was this situation with the case it probably would not have gone to trial because the knowledgeable experts would have refused to present the prosecution's statistical "evidence".
I dont think basic maths skills cann assess statistics. Statistics use complicated maths so if you dont know statistical maths you can really make a judgement using basic maths. Just as a basic knowledge of anything cant assess a complex issue. They would also have taken into acvount her hours. Thats what staitisticla analysis does ...it doesnt just conclude if somone is there more oftne they witness more deaths. @kipling1957
Statistical analysis would have taken into account the time she spent on the ward. They dont just see a person who's there more hours has seen more deaths. It's not simple primary school maths.
@@Merlin3189 yes we can. managers have no accountability like registered professionals. if the cock up they get moved or its covered up. put them on trial and if needed get them convicted and jailed. that simple measure will give them a wake up call and manage properly and truthfully. this is the reason why they have and continue to get away with such massive mistakes that cost lives
Well the CPS clearly isn’t fit for purpose and the worst lunatic at the CPS, ex head of CPS is now seriously endangering British citizens with an 8 year contract to run border force. Trouble in this country is coming down the path.
The trial and conviction were absolutely and completely unsafe. A proper trial whether guilty or innocent is required. Recent high profile trials in the UK have shattered the illusion that the criminal justice sytem in UK has the checks and balances we used to be famous for. Everyone involved in The Criminal Justice system in UK should be thoroughly ashamed. I have no emotional attachment to either guilt or innocence in this case.
@@MrSupplementSceneAre you not even watching the video breaking down what wasn't done properly with the evidence. He doesn't need to read 10 months of court transcripts, quite literally on the video you're commenting on, a video made by a lawyer and barrister.
David Davis has come from single parent on a council estate, Rose to a senior executive at Tate and Lyle. He has been a very good MP and has a first class reputation. One of my brother in laws is a consultant and has very serious concerns and has along with other seniors. I suppose you would have refused Stefan Kiszco's appeal as his mother who single handedly started his appeal was an old lady of a council estate. Oh Mr Poole what exactly is your expertise in this field? Professor? Barrister?
Carl Perkins, former fraud investigator for the police, and also father of a baby who was in a neonatal unit for an extended time, makes some very interesting points on YT. For example, the police failed to treat EVERYONE as a potential suspect, and instead effectively worked as an advocate for the hospital, and made LL the ONLY suspect, with all the associated biases. Please have a look for yourself.
@pelocitdarney5718 No they didn’t, watch the Operation Hummingbird documentary, they did the total opposite, each officer got a single case to review, independently, and looked for reasons it was anything but foul play. You are ill informed. Why would they pursue a case, at great cost, if they didn’t feel it would stand up to scrutiny or had any base. This innocence malarkey has to stop, listen to her cross examination, she repeatedly lied, contradicted herself and refused to give answers to questions about any topic that wouldn’t help her cause, refuted agreed evidence when it didn’t suit her, the three triplet babies with a mock sympathy card, “today’s your birthday but you aren’t here…” one of them was still alive, taking pictures of cards in front of cots where certain babies died, the shredder, the 1st handover sheet in a box in her bedroom at her parents house, lying about air embolus knowledge, despite the course two weeks earlier that would give her access to central lines…. I could go on, there’s loads
@@raeraelabouche I disagree, the entire case was circumstantial, they started at her being guilty and worked backwards. The evidence does not stack up , the girl is completely innocent and it was a stitch up from start to finish.
@@jamessykes3965 Yes it was circumstantial, most criminals try not to let people see them committing crimes. Can you offer an excuse as to why she would write a mock sympathy card for a child that wasn’t dead? Or take a photo of a sympathy card in front of the cot where the baby died? have you listened to her testimony? Or cross examination? or police interviews transcripts I was seriously doubtful of her guilt, until I listened to her evidence, interviews and closing statement on CS2CR. She ain’t getting out, ever. She should’ve put that Datix form in sooner, she obliterated ALL credibility pulling that stunt the minute she knew they were onto her.
The brilliant thing about this independant news channel is that you make us aware of both sides of the argument. This is something that the main news channels used to do, but rarely do now. Thankyou!
You have a short memory. I can remember Christopher Evans / John Halliday Christie and I understand that Dr Crippen was convicted on dubious evidence as well.
@@pjaj43 Gosh you must be really old to remember Christie & Crippen. Are you some sort of Vampire? I dont remember Christopher Evan being Convicted of anything but I think perhaps he should have been after the mess he made of Top Gear!
It horrifies me that so many people commenting on other sites, don’t understand what ‘beyond reasonable doubt means’, and are happy to convict her based on ‘it’s better to be safe than sorry’. They also think the prosecution is presenting the gospel truth, and don’t realise it’s the prosecutions job to convince you of guilt. They also don’t know the difference between being objective and subjective. Im delighted, and relieved to see that Black Belt Barrister is attempting to educate the public on these matters. I think it’s very important. These people could be called up for Jury Service one day. It’s important that they understand what is required of them, and are already familiar with thinking in a non prejudiced, non biased way.
Read Dale Nance 2016 book Burdens of proof It might change the decisions. It won't bring back people who have unalived themselves but it might help someone 🙏
People tend to fall into two camps.. When someone is introduced into their lives whether in person through social or business life or via the news media or some form of social network or comment column such as RUclips, we all instinctively form an opinion very quickly without even realising it based on that first contact. For the most part its really either a matter of liking them or disliking them: the problem then follows that it is very difficult to change that opinion despite evidence to the contrary. Many people were influenced by what they first heard about Lucy Letby having "murdered babies". They are likely to condemn her in these comment columns and remain that way even if supporting evidence is discovered that she might not be guilty after all.. that is the very nature of choices. It is actually very difficult for most proper to remain truly impartial.
I agree with your comment that the public does not in general understand how the law works, but ... I have sat on three juries. Two were for fairly short and simple cases, one was for a much longer and much more complex case. In each case I was extremely impressed by the desire of all the jurors to do their jobs properly, to understand fully what was said in court and to think carefully about what they could reasonably conclude, based only on the evidence. A good foreman makes a massive difference, as s/he will guide the jury in its' deliberations.
@@hb1338 there are 12 jurors at criminal court, all chosen for suitableness and all taking the rules seriously and not paid by the prosecution. In contrast, healthcare regulators are profit making businesses that rely on the civil balance of probabilities - for civil and criminal allegations - that pay one 'panel chair, one representative of the profession and one lay person' (prosecution pays the jurors). So of course the defendant healthcare professional has little chance of being listened to, let alone allowed to return to practice. It is fixed fixed fixed
There doesn’t need to be a motive, some people are just evil and murder because it boosts their narcissistic ego that they can decide if a baby will live or die. 40% more babies died when Letby was on the ward because their breathing tubes were dislodged. How much evidence do you need. She even wrote in her diary that she was evil. Those who protect her should be ashamed, as reported by the Judge. This case needs to be put to rest.
Come train to be a nurse. The pay is awful, the conditions are worse and, if it is expedient for your managers, you may spend the rest of your life in jail. God Bless R NHS!
Remember seeing her arrest. The look on her face was what's going on. She didn't look like she was guilty & caught. She looked like WTF is this all about.
And WHY were we shown her arrest? We don't usually get shown the arrest of people (even suspected or convicted murderers). It's like the media/system knew they had to force-feed the public the narrative on this case.
@@JulietCrowson I agree with Mark. Although I haven't qualified in psychology, I am a very experienced amateur and was taught by one of the very best. To most people, sociopaths and psychopaths (they are NOT the same thing, as many believe) are undetectable and to most people that's true. But to those who have trained in such matters it is quite easy to spot the 'tells'. You have to be VERY good at DELIBERATELY hiding it from trained analysts and I simply don't believe she has the experience or ability to do so. Give me a photo of 10 people who superficially look the same, but 1 is a sociopath or psychopath and 9 aren't and 99% any analyst will spot the odd one. NB the photo needs to be in the natural element, not staged such as a line up.
There was an 11 minute gap in the first arrest video. Between 0603 hours and 0614 hours. It appears the police took 11 minutes inside the house to calm her down. Letby's nose and eyes were pink-ish when she exited the residence. The full video should be released to the public.
As soon as I heard the natal ward was under special measures ,I soon realised the deaths was not due to nursing care, but the blame was with the doctors and management. Blaming nurses is always a convenient cover for incompetence!
I’m a medical clinician observing from Australia. In due course the UK justice system will be forced to admit that the babies were not murdered. They needed more experienced paediatricians in a more specialised and hygienic unit.
Haven't read the case file, wasn't there barely knows anything besides what he glimpsed from "sky news Australia" yet he's sure she's innocent. I feel for your patients. Not a bright one are you Doctor?
The case seemed very convincing until all the omitted evidence came out after trial. The fact that it was omitted from the trial implies that the prosecution did not allow for a fair trial. I also noted at the time that Letby's representation was extremely poor. There were minimal attempts to rebutt the claims made by the prosecution.
It would be interesting to find how buddy buddy they are with the prosecution. That's what I often see at my local courthouse- prosecutors, judges, and many of the defense lawyers are all friendly colleagues, swapping jokes and working together. I once observed a young, well presented female defendant whose attorney told her they were just going to do what the judge said and not question anything because it wouldn't do any good. The poor woman was so frustrated since she thought her lawyer was supposed to actually defend her.
If she is innocent, god help this lady as she has already been through HELL. If ANYTHING suggests that she is NOT GUILTY, even the smallest thing, she must at least have a RE-TRIAL !
You're a person on a comments section of a barrister who thinks we should just ignore and hand waive the established legal process.... do you not see the irony in any of this?
@@mrobo9037 I hear what you’re saying, but I’ve listened to all the doctors analysis, podcasts and videos and I’m convinced she’s innocent and every day she is locked up is a tragedy. I’m quite a strict person usually. A retrial will take years.
Something feels really off with the whole case. She seems to have been thrown under the bus for systemic failures, a big brush it all under the carpet and blame a Woman that cared too much.
@@happyjonn9242 I'm in a long term relationship bud, maybe you need to look beyond physical attributes and see the person inside. Have a great evening.
@@happyjonn9242 what's her appearance got to do with anything? Did you watch the video you're commenting on? Hope you are never picked for a jury otherwise every pretty blonde woman should worry as factual evidence is clearly not a thing for you.
Tampering with a very fragile premature baby's healthcare equipment seems a consistent action. As far as motive...many don't appear to have a clear motive. Harold Shipman?
The big question is why is nobody looking at the other excess deaths and collapses. Why is nobody looking at the documented poor standards of care at the hospital? You could be forgiven for thinking its all been quite convenient that the murder probe has obscured all the other failures. But where is the fairness for other families. Where it becomes really questionable is when you realise just how tenuous and hypothetical the 'evidence' was that Letby was convicted on. Its all assumption, hypothesis, possible explanations and no hard facts. Her defence seems to have failed because you cannot mount a factual defence against a prosecution that is non-factual. Maybe she's guilty. I wouldn't bet my life on it though.
Indeed. There were 17 deaths that year on the ward. In a normal year you would expect 3-5 based on historical data. Letby was charged with 7 murders. So what about the other 10? If you assume she was a murderer, then there are more than 2x as many cases than would be otherwise be expected. If you assume she is innocent, then there are questions about whether the standard of care there was actually good enough for the criticality of these children.
It is possible that it isn't murder, but strangled funding, negligence, mis managemnt, closing of ranks etc But yes, it does feel that Letby might have been scapegoated
Yes....the masonic responsible....and others ....she was present because she was on duty ...she was present because she was professional,she was present because others who where, didn't get mentioned.... She was guilty.. because...they had no evidence,just circumstantial.. She was guilty because they didn't want the true person (s(...put in spotlight... YES SHE IS THE FALL GUY...
They may not know and more, none of it may have 'been done to' any of them, they can all be error, accident, fluke of nature, etc. They are guessing! No basis to lock up anyone, even if they did do it, reasonable doubt is there to protect the innocent and we accept it will let off some guilty as a price that needs to be paid for justice, not a lynch mob on emotions and supposition, opinion.
The fact this woman was only convicted on convoluted technical and opinionated expert testimony, is terrifying. Surely, for such a conviction to occur, there should be a 'smoking gun'?
@@Focal_Paradox The legal system in the UK has been corrupted, and is suspect. From such a high, it has fallen so low. In the post office scandal, the corporate entity (a sold for scrap national treasure) who was the accuser effectively ran the trials. Summary convictions have been held previously for a list of defendants, signed off by a judge, sight unseen. I believe it to be an attack on the checks and balances this country sacrificed so much for over so many centuries, to put in place. And they've taken only a few years to do it.
I’m satisfied with this. Anyone should have the right to give evidence to court ,without their name being plastered to the media and suffer from expeculation . Anonymously to you is not anonymously to all involved in the court proceedings.
@@livingthedream8539 if you can't see who your accuser is how easy would it not bee to make things up. It is not a bout the what's written in law but what's technical possible to do when the accuser is hidden.
@@scottaznavourian3720if you think that then you should read some more law books which will show you that the outcome of trials are biased towards the prosecution winning every single argument.
Very interesting! I enjoy the comments from these type of videos regarding Letby, particularly from former NHS health workers. Overall, they imply that Doctors are never guilty but nurses are regarded as underlings and "Whistleblowers" are number 1 scapegoats. Juries will believe a doctor's evidence forgetting doctors are human too and can make mistakes.
@@S.Trades Questioning a verdict is perfectly reasonable. I totally get why prosecutions want every one to shut up, but that clearly is not acceptable. Verdicts should always be open to question - otherwise miscarriages of justice go uncorrected
The lawyer may not have done any statistics beyond middle school. I have two math degrees. I am pretty sure I'd sound arrogant faced with that lawyer pretending to be knowledgeable. As for which one of us was ignorant..... That said, BBL tells that that context is important and I have none.
The whole case was based on speculation. The experts speaking up since reporting restrictions were lifted are voicing their grave concerns, NOT speculation.
I once did an "introduction to Criminology" course at my local college. It was more of an "introduction to law" as the three tutors we had on that course were all solicitors and had no real knowledge of criminology as a subject. Still, it was a very interesting course to attend. Around the time of the course beginning, the case that was in the news was the case of the solicitor, Sally Clarke, who was sentenced to life imprisonment for the killing of her two infant sons. It was claimed that the two boys had died from Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS or Cot Death) but she was convicted on the evidence of an "expert" who claimed the chances of two babies dying so close together of SIDS was a 1 in 73 million chance. The court of appeal later heard that the "1 in 73 million" estimate was the expert doctors opinion, not scientific fact, and Sally's conviction was overturned. Basically, what we learned from that was that the experts can get it wrong and that even expert testimony should be tested to the hilt.
The biggest takeway from the Sally Clarke case is that the justice system is stuffed full of people whose STEM education stopped at GCSE level. Until the justice system is willing to accept they don't know jack about statistics and probability and move to a system where only those approved by the Royal Statistical Society can present evidence of a statistical nature in court we will get miscarriages of justice. Remember a letters were written by senior figures in the Royal Statistical Society saying the 1 in 73 million figure was garbage when Sally Clarke appealed and the judges dismissed it.
I also remember that case and some of my thoughts at that time. If a mother loses her baby to an event like SIDS, that must be awful (for want of better words to express it.) To then get convicted of murder and imprisoned for life - I can't imagine, nor think of words to say. In such a case there must be not the slightest shred of doubt. I thought that a mother losing her baby, even by her own hand, would be punishment enough. In Lucy L's case, though not a mother, she was a nurse dedicated to caring for these babies and their loss must have been a terrible burden for her.
I don’t these experts talking to the BBC are being paid to do so , in fact they are probably very worried about doing so because of the backlash. They say they feel compelled to because they are so concerned with how the medical evidence was presented at the trial .
I find it hard to believe anyone would commit this crime. I find it harder to believe the jury had no reasonable doubt. I have always believed Lucy is not guilty. I am pleased to see people are at least questioning what has gone on.
Your absolutely right - if you're gonna seriously punish someone then they better be guilty beyond reasonable doubt. If she isn't then someone has screwed up and more seriously brought the law into disrepute - and that is Not OK...
@@JulietCrowson Beyond any reasonable doubt. Beyond doubt that a reasonable person (Your average person sitting on a London bus) would consider is reasonable. Not the same as any doubt at all, not infallable without any margin of error but a reasonable doubt. As in reasonable, doubt.
@@JulietCrowson “A reasonable doubt is a doubt that is reasonable. These are ordinary English words that the law does not allow me to help you with,” Mr Justice Sweeney to the Jury in the case of Vicky Pryce. The judge in this case dismissed the Jury as they were too stupid to reach a verdict. I hope you never get called to serve on a Jury for this reason too.
Dan, you are absolutely doing the right thing in this case in the interest of true justice for these babies. As you so rightly say it's either one of the most heinous murder cases to ever come to trial in this country, OR it is one of the worst miscarriages of justice here in England and Wales ( for the benefit of overseas viewers the legal system works under different rules in Scotland since before the act of Union )
I absolutely think it was an unsafe conviction. I have seen multiple, very reputable experts in their own fields all have problems with the way the evidence was presented, from neonatologists, statisticians, biochemists, pathologists etc.
There was no evidence in the usual meaning of the word. That was no admission of guilt. She was a scapegoat for NHS incompetence. There were theories and speculations and she was convicted because of those.
Extremely brave talking about this. In a case involving things that I don't even want to type it is essential things are done correctly, and if they haven't been people cannot shy away from opening dialogue about the possibility a person may have been wrongly convicted. From experience working in NHS trusts I can assert they are not sufficiently professional not to make *repeated serious mishaps* and they are not sufficiently incorruptable to not scapegoat.
I spent five years working in the NHS. The appalling levels of incompetence and corruption in the management were absolutely staggering. Needless to say the people who suffer most as a result are the clinicians, the people who care for patients.
3 possibilities 1) Lucy is guilty 2) No individual is guilty because no crime took place and the cluster of deaths was just a statistical event 3) No individual is guilty but the standard of care was sufficiently bad that the NHS trust is guilty.
The answer is option 3. Management, but that includes senior clinical leadership, were criminally incompetent. Some deaths were preventable. Nobody deliberately harmed any baby. Lucy Letby is a scapegoat for a failed NHS.
The New Yorker article is the only record I have seen that went through the court transcripts to evaluate the evidence. Having read the article (as a 40-year veteran nurse) I have grave fears for the safety of this conviction.
I have from the first trial considered that she was guilty, however since the disclosures and doubt about the evidence after the appeal I am no longer convinced that she is guilty, rather that she is a victim of the system.
Baby C is utterly bizarre. The whole prosecution case is built around the gas seen in the x-ray on 12th June. Then it comes out that Letby wasn’t on the unit before the 13th and they come up with the ludicrous suggestion that she had somehow sneaked on the unit when no one was looking, sneaked into the nursery without it showing up on the door swipe, injected air into the stomach because she had invented a new method of killing babies, and then sneaked out again unnoticed. Why wasn’t this stupidity laughed out of court. It is utterly beyond comprehension.
@@adeptusmagiactually there was insignificant cctv footage for the ward and this has been published before. Even though there's ones there they may not be working properly. As for whether someone can "sneak" in, yes it's not that difficult if you are a member of staff.
I think someone commented on this further up. If it was just poor care or lack of funding for the hospital then they'd get sued back to the stone age. If there's a "killer" to blame then it's not their problem. Something really isn't right with this case.
you'll rarely if ever have incontrovertible proof - that's for mathematicians. However the evidence put forward seems circimstancial at best and even by that standard pretty flimsy
@@lisalupin1202 Oh absolutely, I'm agreeign with you - Iwas being a bit semntic regarding the difference between evidence and proof What has been put forward (I think) hardly even amounts to much more than finger pointing
I've worked in medical and casual pool and with TPN that was issued from the pharmacy with TPN in a bag, only the pharmacist was allowed to make any additions, and then you had lipids to infuse as well. If we were giving insulin IV, this would be via a separate infusion made up to be 1u of insulin per ml. In SCBU or paeds, they required all medications be checked by 2 RNs. So we're supposed to believe that in a open plan unit that somehow one of the nurses managed to get out the bag, find and add insulin with no one seeing. Also, this also after the first bag highly relied on another nurse purely by chance selecting the bag that had the insulin. Then there's that you are giving insulin which is countered by the infusion of products like dextrose which raise blood sugar? It doesn't make sense as an 'attack' really. There's also a third infant transferred and diagnosed with hyperinsulinaemia who wasn't brought up, unfortunately, they did not verify the test again nor do extra tests to confirm what was going on. In reality there would also be other plausible explanations, including the very common risk of medication error. Then there's all the other things, these babies were ill and at risk. There's no incident reports, despite many years later saying there were suspicious incidents? No event analysis of the collapse and resuscitation - they do that at hositals I've worked in and it's used as a tool to improve processes. There's also how the unit got downgraded or that critical equipment like blood gas analysers were broken. It must have been extremely hard for the jury to get to grips with that. More I hear, the more confusing it seems.
Thank you for your insights here. As a former career long nurse, I have much to say about this dreadful case. At every level and layer of professional involvement, something seems to be very wrong. When something doesn't make sense is it wise to start at the beginning and follow the money, remembering sometimes it really is the root of all evil? I'll try to keep it brief. -The Neonatal Unit had lost high grade nurses/nurse practitioners in rounds of effeciency savings in previous years. Replaced by newly qualified nurses and Nursery Nurses. A drive to save on salaries and final salary pension payments calculated on the last few years of service. It wasn't because these highly skilled nurses weren't needed. Did management consultants influence decision making in order to try to balance the books when chronic underfunding was the problem? -The Unit was running at 25% fewer nurses than it needed. -The Unit was a Level 2, taking babies who needed Level 3 care, and was downgraded to Level 1 due to not having trained staff, resources or a dedicated Neonatologist.? Additional funding for taking higher acuity babies. -Paediatricians adding Neonatal Unit in to their workload, only doing 2 ward rounds a week, leaving their medical management to junior doctors when babies needed continuous input from experts -Negligence litigation is reported to have been in the air, closed down by the case against Lucy. -Well documented evidence of 'sub optimal care'. -Lucy was one of few specialist trained nurses, competent to look after Level 2&3 babies who worked a lot of overtime when saving to buy a house. She was reported to be competent and clashed with doctors when things went wrong. At times formally reporting issues on the unit that could create, a risk to patients etc. -A consultant was absent for periods when filming, we don't know who was covering him, if it was unpaid leave etc. -When deaths increased there were also increased stillbirths, which suggests a possible connection. -Clinical Trials also took place at the hospital. Is this also an additional source of revenue? -The finger pointed at Lucy because she was always there when babies died. Doing overtime and looking after the most vulnerable patients, being specialist trained to assist with resuscitation put her at the scene. -The deaths perhaps weren't suspicious until long after they occurred and the doctors were coming under more scrutiny? -Police involvement before all internal and pathology investigations had seriously looked at the wider picture, including mother's health and evaluating the medical management. -The lead medical expert and consultants who should have been potential suspects, had access to medical notes and looked for suspicious events related to Lucy. -Lucy had a grievance against consultants for bullying her upheld. -The lead expert has a history that needs thoroughly investigating. (Bonnie Linda Lewis case for starters) -Once the police became involved the end game appeared to be securing a conviction. -I won't go into the science, more than to say I don't find it credible and wonder how it was taken seriously. -No expense was spared with the investigation and trial, with numerous witnesses called for the prosecution. -Why were Lucy's witnesses not called? -Why was Lucy treated so badly in court? -Is this a 'stitch up' or are there other explanations?
Thank you for your comment, I’m coming across more and more inconsistencies that point towards her being innocent by the day. Surely sooner or later she will have to have a retrial? To say that I find this hugely upsetting is an understatement!
@clairedavison5607 It is beyond belief and really distressing. The way Lucy was treated in court made me cry. Like you I really hope she can have a fair trial, or be exonerated completely by witnesses withdrawing flawed evidence and new evidence being too compelling to ignore.
Prosecution have favourable treatment in my experience !!! 'jury' is primed by the first to speak ie the 'prosecution'...system is fixed/biased/loaded against the defendants.
What nonsense. There is every reason to believe that the jury chose its' verdict based only on the evidence presented to the court - remember that juries are not allowed to access the media during a trial.
@@JulietCrowson All court proceedings in the UK are published. The problem is that in the vast majority of cases you have to pay a great deal of money to get hold of a trial transcript. Before Boris was in power, those documents were always free.
You only have to look at the failings of the neonatal ward where she worked to fully support her claims of innocence. As others have outlined, she is merely a scapegoat and it will ( one day ) be proven to be a catastrophic miscarriage of justice. I feel so sorry for all the victims here, notwithstanding Lucy herself.
I worry about this case. In some ways it reminds me of the witch trials of yesteryear. "Something terrible has happened. Somebody must be to blame. We must find A person responsible and punish them." Note the "A". The thirst for vengeance pushes reason to the outfield.
Wow.... I have just listened to the BBC file on 4 and I suggest everyone takes time to listen. I appreciate that most if not all the commentators on various RUclips channels (including myself) are nothing more than so called "armchair experts" but after listening to File on4 expert after expert offers their professional opinion and it almost brought tears to my eyes that based on their expert interpretation and other factors that have now since arisen (many of which the jury were never told) that this is heading towards the potential of a massive miscarriage of justice of almighty proportions..
A very good friend of mine, a nurse, lost EVERYTHING when they were falsely accused of something. Their, job, career, marriage, home, sobriety, sanity … Everything. The intimate and caring nature of nursing can easily lead to false accusations by its very nature. Nurses are not made aware of this risk, (doctors are to some extent). Nurses MUST do their own risk assessment ... You don’t have to work on that ward. You don’t have to work in that care home. And a nurse is ALWAYS entitled to have a chaperone present during patient examination … just like a patient is.
In cases like this I think the problem is that they're not tried by a "jury of peers" (is that just a US term?) the jury should have been made up of neonatal doctors and nurses so they understand all the evidence so neither prosecution or defence can manipulate it to their ends
@Lredfloss1 Then all the nurses would find not guilty and all the doctors guilty! No, the proper thing is to ensure the evidence is properly presented, no presentation of evidence that can fairly be described as attempting to pervert the course of Justice, the rules of evidence are fairly followed, the defence team is competent, the judge is not biased, there is a search for truth and not just a macabre game between the lawyers to emotionally sway the jury, etc., etc.
Pseudo courts like healthcare regulators are the same...incompetent, lazy, biased, dangerous to defendant healthcare professionals and dangerous to PTS as people are scared to defend PTS when the lawyers are so aggressive and dishonest
@@hb1338 The jury heard evidence from a discredited, long retired paediatrician whose evidence has now been thoroughly discredited. Dr Dopey Evans, the medical dunce should be charged with perjury and his NHS chums who agreed with his nonsense should face some serious questions. The bogus spreadsheet shown to the the jury has been debunked by eminent statisticians from The Royal Statistical Society. What is left is specious evidence that is worthless.
Daniel, I would like your opinion on the following: Having worked in the police and prison service for 20 years, it is my contention that there seems to be a widespread desire to achieve a conviction by prosecutors, rather than to establish the truth. This is highlighted by the suppression of witnesses and evidence which would harm a prosecutions case. This to me is endemic, in the criminal justice system, and very very troubling. This seems a textbook example, and I would welcome your thoughts.
I still can't understand how they satisfied the corpus delicti of murder if they could not show how the babies died? to prove death does not necessarily prove murder and being present at a death, even a murder, doesn't necessarily make you a murderer. The Crown should not have been allowed to present a theory for cause of death without evidence to support it.
@@davidhorsley2717 Not to mention that she was not in the hospital from the moment baby C was born to when the X-ray was taken showing his terminal condition. She was literally convicted of a murder when she wasn’t there … Some kind of witchcraft I guess.
I'm not stating an opinion of whether Lucy Letby is innocent or guilty. I will say that the motive could be as simple as getting a sick buzz from how powerful murdering babies could make a psychopath feel. Getting away with it once could prompt a habit of killing, as often demonstrated by serial killers. It's often difficult for sane people to perceive the motives of those touched by insanity. I remember how puzzled I was watching the Harold Shipman case, before I understood a bit more about psychology. 'Why would he murder all those women,' I thought, 'and yet only steal from the last one?' That made no sense to me back then, but now it does.
There is only a motive if there was a murders. As there seems to substantial doubt about that, any putting forward of potential motives would be empty speculation
@@richardpaine5923 regulatory lawyers call this ' having a second bite of the cherry' and portray corrections as unfair or wrong - in turn because lawyers are not and I repeat not interested in facts or the truth or God's Truth
I haven't seen the evidence that was presented but understand that there is only a theory as to how she killed them comprised of circumstantial evidence
Well, the way things are going in today's world, I would tend to err on the side of it being a gross miscarriage of justice, rather than one of the "gravest crimes of all time"! So many things (and people) are becoming "skewed", in every area of life!
This stinks of the nhs protecting themselves and throwing Lucy to the wolves to potentially cover up their own mismanagement. We need a new trial …. this is shameful.
The people who think discussion of the case is in poor taste are just moronic. They must believe that the British court system is incapable of mistakes. You just have to hope that such people never get asked to serve on a jury.
I’m no health or legal professional but people who’s opinions I respect have written articles and given presentations saying the convictions are not sound and that at least a retrial should be considered. That’s enough for me. You’d want to be sure with such a serious crime!
Except that none of the people who are claiming that the convictions are unsound are qualified lawyers, very few of them have read the trial transcript and very few of them understand what constitutes an unsound conviction. It is little more than the chatter of ignorant people coupled with the various opinions of those who are slightly better informed. The Court of Appeal has twice reused Letby leave to appeal. Why ? Because there are no grounds to grant such a request.
@@hb1338 If you did some research you would realise that medical experts, including consultant neonatologists, think the medical evidence in the trial is nonsense. And not one medical expert outside of the trial has agreed with Evans. Mark McDonald is a qualified lawyer and he has recently taken on the case of Ms Letby because he knows she is innocent. David Davis MP has been convinced for some time that Ms. Letby is innocent And he is joined by Nadine Dorries as well as doctors, statisticians, nurses, investigative journalists and prominent members of the legal profession who have serious doubts regarding the safety of the Letby trial. The guilty verdict is untenable and the longer Ms. Letby is in prison the more ridiculous the judiciary will look to the public of this country and to the world.
He mentions Mind Notes. If thats correct they are normally part of therapy and if I am correct in my thinking you are supposed to write down all your thoughts no matter how dark they may be - please correct me if I am wrong
That's exactly what it is. All sorts of different techniques can be used in therapy. My daughter was advised to do something called "the revenge protocol" after a traumatic event. Basically, you go over how you would plot revenge... She hasn't participated in it, but I wouldn't like to see the notes of that session be be shown outside of therapy. 😳
I lost a daughter in NICU in Plymouth in 2007, they inserted a feed line straight through her Liver which sadly cause it to rupture, it wasn't until the inquest that we understood what had happened, nothing was explained to us at the time, I can fully understand these Jury members not understanding any of the evidence, and a well trained medical Barrister for the prosecution could turn a jury with such medical evidence! I truly believe that there needs to be an inquiry which could lead to reopening Letby's convictions and a retrial. We made a complaint to the Care Quality Commission as it was, they investigated and upheld our complaint, a Professor from Bristol who specialised in Neonatal care even agreed, but at the inquest he changed his mind, because the hospitals defence barrister guided him, (they all went out for lunch, including the Neonatal Consultants from Derriford) our Barrister was aghast that the verdict was an open one, but further down the line I understand these things happen and these Nurses are Angels and should be supported, they are at the coalface every day and get very little support.
Dear me.... I used to be a nurse and I can assure you a lot of them are not angels. They get all the support they want from colleagues and unions (which most of them are in).
@@SkepticalTeacher Yes it was hard, but we had a surviving twin that we had to concentrate on for the next 3 months, it made the atmosphere unbearable at times, but we carried on, we were offered the option to move our surviving daughter to another hospital NICU unit, but the nearest was 30 odd miles away and would have caused so many issues with daily travelling :(
Expert witnesses ‘being swayed’ by other expert witnesses and changing their minds definitely goes on. I’m so sorry to read your post and for your loss. It would be difficult for anyone who hasn’t had first hand experience with hospital to understand some of the things that go on.
There seemed to be so much circumstantial evidence. I think she was vulnerable, possibly out of her depth lacking support. Some of the things they claim she did, injecting air etc. it’s not that easy. You’re also rarely on your own. Drugs are signed out of the cupboard with your passcode. All sorts of things could have shown reasonable doubt in my opinion. I don’t think the jury really understood the environment. Politically these units are often a nightmare. It would not make me surprised for a minute if there figures were bad and they wanted to out someone under the bus.
Interesting, thank you. In the case of baby A, in a 20 minute period: A small ward with open doors, glass windows the length of the ward and corridor, allowing anyone passing to see in. A doctor attending to a baby in a cot next to Lucy Letby and the baby A she was caring for. Two other nurses in the room and other nurses/staff coming in and out of the ward at any time. If she did sabotage the life of baby A, she was a big risk taker.
I've spent hours reading other people's Facebook accounts. Colleagues, customers, suppliers - Its fascinating ... Like reading a book , but real. Why would people put stuff on-line if they didn't want you to read it? I hope that doesn't make me a serial killer.
The conviction of Letby is unsafe. The prosecution were making all sorts of assumptions about how these babies were murdered. But it is far more likely that the babies died because they were very ill and possibly received substandard care from an understaffed ward.
It’s “interesting” to me, that she knew all about air embolisms, insulin and misplacement of medical equipment, without the need for Google even once!! However doctors needed google to find their way for an explanation!!
Nonsense. The jury found that the prosecution made its' case beyond reasonable doubt. What people who have heard almost none of the evidence think is irrelevant.
The forensic evidence is based on blood samples post mortem taken by a police surgeon in Chester.They appeared to show abnormally high insulin levels.There are technical issues with blood sampling post mortem in neonates.The analysis should be on MULTIPLE samples and concurred by several specialist forensic pathologists.Just one sample is insufficient.Dr Dewi Hughes is a retired general neonatologist. There were problems with infection?potential infection with bacteria E Coli and Pseudomonas Aeruginosa.(the first patient I saw die of infection died of Pseudomonas).Its documented the drains on the unit backed up.He is not a specialist in forensic pathology.I worked with Dr Hughes when I was a medical student in Liverpool.There is justifiable doubt about this conviction
I understand that both babies that had" high insulin levels" were discharged home within a few days of the blood tests completely well. The accusations of insulin overdoses were made months after the events by Dr Dewi Evans reviewing the files he claimed. However others of the Consultants have also made the claim that they detected the insulin overdoses from reviewing the files. No additional tests were carried out to confirm that artificial insulin was present because the medical staff at the time accepted these elevated levels as arising naturally. A number of studies have demonstrated that this occurs in up to 15% of neonates and the article in the NYT points out that there was at least one other incident of a neonate in this unit experiencing a similar blood result.
Experts????.... the medical evidence was very general non conclusive, and the jury was extremely ignorant ... the issue is that the statistical number gave to the jury was false and the ignorant judge did not understand math.... an innocent nurse is jn jail
@@creightonjason Solicitors are usually good at maths when it comes to bill time. They always add up the costs and know how much to put on top for extra.
@@LawrenceHyett Oh this one couldnt, with any civil cases I had with her in defence, Id use as many numbers as I could.... When she started adding up figures I used to tap my finger on the court desk, getting faster and faster then I stop and start again. Stopped that after a Judge told me off !
They are all guilty of aiding miscarriages of justices, it's what they do. The Wild West: The Magistrates Court "The truth is that the entire case in favour of magistrates courts as we currently run them, is a sham. There is little sustainable rationale for their existence in principle, and no justification whatsoever for the way in which these courts operate in practice. There is no excuse for the amateur, sausage-factory paradigm of Justice and "that'll do" complacency that pervades 94% of criminal cases, other than the most cynical political trinity: its cheap, it's the way we've always done it and no one who votes either knows or cares, and the more you experience magistrates' courts justice, and interrogate the base assumption of this system, the less explicable the whole pantomime becomes." The Secret Barrister
The post office scandal shows how bad the justice system is
Have you seen the latest on that? Not only was the Horizon system wrong, the previous system had the same errors and people were jailed for that.
@@adenwellsmith6908 the more the scratch the more paint peels off how many layers.... who knows, in my last job I was often told to stop scratching, and I replied, "It's my job to find and fix your errors!"
In at least some of those cases not only should they not have been found guilty, the judge should have thrown out the case before starting. The prosecution had nothing of any substance.
Not sure what a dodgy computer programme has to do with a nurse killing babies?
@@andrewparker8523 That whole situation blew my mind, the more I watched and heard about the lengths the PO were prepared to go to even when they knew they was in the wrong made my blood boil. I've experienced similar behaviour at work just not on that scale. There's managers in jobs all over the world making peoples lives a misery and getting away with .
The psyche of a nurse: well let me tell you. I once did a drug error, a patient who didn't sleep was prescribed a medication to help. I read the chart, I poured out the dose, I gave it. Then I went to record it, and noticed that the drug wasn't meant to commence for another night. I could see no clinical reason, ie a previous drug needing to stop and neither was the giving chart plotted out, which is normal for drugs that start, stop or have reducing dosages. I reported myself as this was the correct thing to do. IT WAS LIKE THE COURT OF THE INQUISITION - I worried, I didn't sleep, although many would support, the managers GLEEFULLY put the boot in! They have a system of scorning, so I got the lot thrown at me! weighted also because the patient was over 70. I could of just not recorded giving it, kept my mouth shut and no one would have been any the wiser. Nurses do have professional standards they also have consciences and worry ! And they are only human.
You are to be commended for being a consumate professional and having personal integrity. Thank you for sharing your experience here X
You were incompetent and suffered disciplinary action? A lot depends on the drug and the consequences of you giving it when you did. Mistakes happen but even considering not reporting it is frightening.
@andrearoyd. Your honesty was admirable.
Hello Andrea! I’m a nurse too, and have committed a drug error, thank goodness my patient was okay! I can remember my horror and shame at thinking I could have injured the person under my care. You never forget that experience. Fortunately, my boss had a constructive way of dealing with errors. The error is written down, of course, but then there is discussion on how to prevent future errors. This discussion includes feedback from both nurse and manager on how the nurse can avoid making this same mistake again. Nurses are human, and we will make mistakes, no matter how hard we try to be our best for our patients. An old-time nurse once told me” if you make a mistake, tell the truth- because then you will be trusted”. So making a mistake and reporting it gives a chance to rectify the mistake, if possible. I personally would trust you, Andrea, to take care of my loved ones, as the conscientious professional you have shown yourself to be.
It's clear that is these levels of neglect can be easy to perform then there is an inherent problem with staff and management in general. This should not be happening!!
As an ex nhs worker and a mother to a premmie that died in hospital.
I really believe theres more to the story and she may have been a fall guy.
NHS covering up, never!
Strange how many "nhs workers" claim to by doubting this conviction. Why not take your concerns to the ccrc?
@@S.Tradesbecause they know what happens to whistleblowers.
@S.Trades what's it to do with a research centre in Cambridge?
That is a brave comment from someone who sadly lost their child and someone who put her own life at risk during Covid.
Thank you for everything
15 whole life terms and they haven't worked out how she did it. That sounds a problem.
Couple that with the calculation of odds. That is more than dodgy, its just wrong.
The calculation of odds needs to take into account the background rate of deaths.
In particular, the avoidable death toll in English acute hospitals, is 20,000 a year. BMJ.
You have to factor that in. How many expected instances would you expect purely by random chance? It's very high. It's almost certain that you will get numbers at that level just by chance.
Now add on the other baby care units which have been disasterous. That again changes the random chance odds dramatically.
Given that they hadn't worked out how she was able to commit these crimes, there is a risk that the perpetrator is still at large. That is no justice for the families. Plus what does it say about our judicial system? How did the appeals not call for further investigation and presentation of physical evidence?
The jury heard it was by injecting air and insulin. Maybe you are better informed?
@@Zhang1000000 Imagine her life at present behind bars! Known to be a serial baby killer. If she's innocent and does eventually get released the damage may already have been done.
Anyone saying it is "in poor taste" to discuss this is really saying they would rather a potentially innocent woman spend the rest of her life in prison, because they are uncomfortable thinking about it.
Probably lack sufficient education and are ruled by emotional indignacnce
I am curious if their was a foul play in her conviction, if so the perpetrators should get the time she got.
It's in poor taste to comment if you haven't bothered to read the 10 months worth of court transcripts. The evidence is out there, you can read it but you prefer to be ignorant
Innocent? LOL.
Give it a rest! She's GUILTY! She's never, ever coming out!
Perhaps it has something to do with the NHS covering it's ****.
Yes thats the true story
Bingo
Post Office
The NHS can and will scapegoat to cover collective failings. They absolutely will do this.
Standard procedure.
She wasn’t on duty , yet the prosecution claim that she could have visited the hospital, is this for real, the words straw and clutching spring to mind.
Dont you know? Letby took some invisible tablets, so she could get in the unit, unnoticed!😄
So do the words "hatchet" and "job".
@@philholding6905
Of course , no doubt they’ll claim she broke into the pharmacy to get them as well.
@@philholding6905 she did, to see baby G after the first attack, late on at night, her texts showed this, she didn’t have her card, a colleague let her in. LISTEN TO HER TESTIMONY.
@@jamessykes3965 have you heard her testimony, she went into the unit late at night to see a baby she had attacked the day prior!! Her colleague let her in, as she didn’t have her card, her text messages proved this!!! “I’ve just checked his stats” she then denied this!! LISTEN TO THE COURT TRANSCRIPTS!!
I think the evidence is somewhat flimsey. Shoot me but I don't think she did it.
Stefan Kiszko - In a nut shell, then Jeremy Bamber - any evidence that could prove he is innocent was destroyed, despite a court order saying that none should be destroyed, that case stinks
The conviction is at the very least unsafe
I think you could be right, everyone shouts it down when you say it, but the whole case seems like the 'system' wanted to find someone to blame for systemic failings in the NHS
I also think there was pressure to find her guilty to bring some sort of closure to those poor parents who've lived in limbo for years . A baby may be viable at 24 wks but still only has a survival rate of around 50% and that's with optimal care.
❤ me too ... its a stitch up.
Nurse of 44 years
Interested to examine the sewage leak into the NNU ..Conven8enyly ignored !!@@
There were babies dying when she was on shift and there was babies dying when she was off, but there was a doctor on at all times
Exactly. Only nurses were on the spreadsheet, no doctors.
@@KingBee24 The independent report into the deaths blamed the doctors for poor levels of care...
Yeah. I’m sure there was a nurse on at all times. What’s your point?
Exactly
@@Sam-tx1tnthe absence of the more senior member of staff (a doctor) is criminal, the legal ramifications should be aimed at the senior doctor on shift, not some lowly nurse at the bottom.
When this case first hit the headlines my wife, a retired lead nurse, said there's something not quite right about this case, that's all I'm saying for now.
There seems to be far too much circumstantial evidence and not enough hard facts here. Her presence when so many deaths occurred, for example, is easily explained by the fact that she worked more overtime than anyone else, but it doesn't make her a killer. There was clearly a high degree of incompetence at senior level in the Countess of Chester and a suspicion of the establishment closing ranks. Definitely an unsafe conviction.
There’s not even circumstantial evidence if you understand the issues regarding the misleading statistical “evidence” that was presented by the prosecution, purportedly showing an improbable association between her presence on the ward and the deaths. Even my basic math skills show this to be nonsensical, let alone leading statisticians.
@@kipling1957 The problem with the justice system is it is stuffed full of people that have no more mathematical knowledge than a GCSE. Until they are willing to accept they don't know the first dam thing about statistics and defer to actual statistical experts we will be miscarriages of justice. We have seen this before in the SID's trials with Sally Clark and others. We need immediate reform where the *ONLY* people allowed to present evidence of a statistical nature in court have to be approved to do so by the Royal Statistical Society. If that was this situation with the case it probably would not have gone to trial because the knowledgeable experts would have refused to present the prosecution's statistical "evidence".
Good point
I dont think basic maths skills cann assess statistics. Statistics use complicated maths so if you dont know statistical maths you can really make a judgement using basic maths. Just as a basic knowledge of anything cant assess a complex issue. They would also have taken into acvount her hours. Thats what staitisticla analysis does ...it doesnt just conclude if somone is there more oftne they witness more deaths. @kipling1957
Statistical analysis would have taken into account the time she spent on the ward. They dont just see a person who's there more hours has seen more deaths. It's not simple primary school maths.
The very minimum she needs is a retrial.
It is not just Miss Letby's on trial but the judicial service and CPS.
Problem is that if the legal system is put on trial, the public will realise that we have no real trials....
But unfortunately, it would also be the hospital, management, doctors and the NHS on trial. We can't have that can we.
@@Merlin3189 Yes please that would be the correct thing to do....lawyers don't like sarcasm...they imagine it when it's not even there...
@@Merlin3189 yes we can. managers have no accountability like registered professionals. if the cock up they get moved or its covered up. put them on trial and if needed get them convicted and jailed. that simple measure will give them a wake up call and manage properly and truthfully. this is the reason why they have and continue to get away with such massive mistakes that cost lives
Well the CPS clearly isn’t fit for purpose and the worst lunatic at the CPS, ex head of CPS is now seriously endangering British citizens with an 8 year contract to run border force.
Trouble in this country is coming down the path.
The trial and conviction were absolutely and completely unsafe.
A proper trial whether guilty or innocent is required.
Recent high profile trials in the UK have shattered the illusion that the criminal justice sytem in UK has the checks and balances we used to be famous for.
Everyone involved in The Criminal Justice system in UK should be thoroughly ashamed.
I have no emotional attachment to either guilt or innocence in this case.
Not to mention that the amounts needed to effect a neonate are tiny.
Simon you've not read any court transcripts, of which there are 10 months worth of evidence. You have no idea what you're talking about
@@MrSupplementScene Have you read all the transcripts ?
@@MrSupplementSceneAre you not even watching the video breaking down what wasn't done properly with the evidence.
He doesn't need to read 10 months of court transcripts, quite literally on the video you're commenting on, a video made by a lawyer and barrister.
Why would I read transcripts when it was mostly bollocks.
@@MrSupplementScene
Peter Hitchens was very vocal about this terrible case & l totally agree that this case really needs to be addressed
not often I agree with that twonk, but this case seems decidedly dogy
As does David Davis MP.
@@stephenholmes1036 Hate Tories generally but when those guys say a miscarriage of justice has happened I believe them-they have some integrity.
Hitchens has a long track record for being wrong and David Davis is as thick as mince.
David Davis has come from single parent on a council estate, Rose to a senior executive at Tate and Lyle.
He has been a very good MP and has a first class reputation.
One of my brother in laws is a consultant and has very serious concerns and has along with other seniors.
I suppose you would have refused Stefan Kiszco's appeal as his mother who single handedly started his appeal was an old lady of a council estate.
Oh Mr Poole what exactly is your expertise in this field?
Professor? Barrister?
Wether she is guilty or not... she 100% should have a re-trial, something does not feel right about the trial
She did
Justice is not made out of feelings.
@@livingthedream8539 in a perfect system yes.
That is not how the law works. It deals with facts and carefully considered judgements, not with stray feelings.
Like the PO scandal she's a scapegoat for sociopathic management.
And the NHS are notorious for it.
@@billguyan1913 for a narcissist doctor!
They protected her, not made her the scapegoat
Carl Perkins, former fraud investigator for the police, and also father of a baby who was in a neonatal unit for an extended time, makes some very interesting points on YT. For example, the police failed to treat EVERYONE as a potential suspect, and instead effectively worked as an advocate for the hospital, and made LL the ONLY suspect, with all the associated biases. Please have a look for yourself.
Thank you 🙏✝️
@@pelocitdarney5718
Have you got a link.
@pelocitdarney5718
No they didn’t, watch the Operation Hummingbird documentary, they did the total opposite, each officer got a single case to review, independently, and looked for reasons it was anything but foul play. You are ill informed. Why would they pursue a case, at great cost, if they didn’t feel it would stand up to scrutiny or had any base. This innocence malarkey has to stop, listen to her cross examination, she repeatedly lied, contradicted herself and refused to give answers to questions about any topic that wouldn’t help her cause, refuted agreed evidence when it didn’t suit her, the three triplet babies with a mock sympathy card, “today’s your birthday but you aren’t here…” one of them was still alive, taking pictures of cards in front of cots where certain babies died, the shredder, the 1st handover sheet in a box in her bedroom at her parents house, lying about air embolus knowledge, despite the course two weeks earlier that would give her access to central lines…. I could go on, there’s loads
@@raeraelabouche
I disagree, the entire case was circumstantial, they started at her being guilty and worked backwards. The evidence does not stack up , the girl is completely innocent and it was a stitch up from start to finish.
@@jamessykes3965 Yes it was circumstantial, most criminals try not to let people see them committing crimes. Can you offer an excuse as to why she would write a mock sympathy card for a child that wasn’t dead? Or take a photo of a sympathy card in front of the cot where the baby died? have you listened to her testimony? Or cross examination? or police interviews transcripts I was seriously doubtful of her guilt, until I listened to her evidence, interviews and closing statement on CS2CR. She ain’t getting out, ever. She should’ve put that Datix form in sooner, she obliterated ALL credibility pulling that stunt the minute she knew they were onto her.
The brilliant thing about this independant news channel is that you make us aware of both sides of the argument. This is something that the main news channels used to do, but rarely do now. Thankyou!
Before the Post Office Scandel I would not have beleved this. Now if I am honest I think anything is possible.
You have a short memory. I can remember Christopher Evans / John Halliday Christie and I understand that Dr Crippen was convicted on dubious evidence as well.
@@pjaj43 Gosh you must be really old to remember Christie & Crippen. Are you some sort of Vampire? I dont remember Christopher Evan being Convicted of anything but I think perhaps he should have been after the mess he made of Top Gear!
Regulators remove us from practice by applying Shipman case to civil cases!!!
If that's not a lawyers' MO, then what is!!!
Read any Act of parliament and analyse it - ask yourself who benefits from this wording... it's the usual suspects...
It horrifies me that so many people commenting on other sites, don’t understand what ‘beyond reasonable doubt means’, and are happy to convict her based on ‘it’s better to be safe than sorry’. They also think the prosecution is presenting the gospel truth, and don’t realise it’s the prosecutions job to convince you of guilt. They also don’t know the difference between being objective and subjective. Im delighted, and relieved to see that Black Belt Barrister is attempting to educate the public on these matters. I think it’s very important. These people could be called up for Jury Service one day. It’s important that they understand what is required of them, and are already familiar with thinking in a non prejudiced, non biased way.
Read Dale Nance 2016 book Burdens of proof
It might change the decisions.
It won't bring back people who have unalived themselves but it might help someone 🙏
People tend to fall into two camps.. When someone is introduced into their lives whether in person through social or business life or via the news media or some form of social network or comment column such as RUclips, we all instinctively form an opinion very quickly without even realising it based on that first contact. For the most part its really either a matter of liking them or disliking them: the problem then follows that it is very difficult to change that opinion despite evidence to the contrary. Many people were influenced by what they first heard about Lucy Letby having "murdered babies". They are likely to condemn her in these comment columns and remain that way even if supporting evidence is discovered that she might not be guilty after all.. that is the very nature of choices. It is actually very difficult for most proper to remain truly impartial.
In Scotland there's the Italian goalkeeper verdict .
Innocent
Guilty
Not Proven ( or fucktifano)
I agree with your comment that the public does not in general understand how the law works, but ...
I have sat on three juries. Two were for fairly short and simple cases, one was for a much longer and much more complex case. In each case I was extremely impressed by the desire of all the jurors to do their jobs properly, to understand fully what was said in court and to think carefully about what they could reasonably conclude, based only on the evidence. A good foreman makes a massive difference, as s/he will guide the jury in its' deliberations.
@@hb1338 there are 12 jurors at criminal court, all chosen for suitableness and all taking the rules seriously and not paid by the prosecution.
In contrast, healthcare regulators are profit making businesses that rely on the civil balance of probabilities - for civil and criminal allegations - that pay one 'panel chair, one representative of the profession and one lay person' (prosecution pays the jurors). So of course the defendant healthcare professional has little chance of being listened to, let alone allowed to return to practice.
It is fixed fixed fixed
No motive, no actual evidence, no valid confession. The verdict is therefore unsafe.
There doesn’t need to be a motive, some people are just evil and murder because it boosts their narcissistic ego that they can decide if a baby will live or die. 40% more babies died when Letby was on the ward because their breathing tubes were dislodged. How much evidence do you need. She even wrote in her diary that she was evil. Those who protect her should be ashamed, as reported by the Judge. This case needs to be put to rest.
She's a Narcissist, her upbringing is proof, she shows and does all.the things Narcissists do.
@danielaspitz3052 we can all seem like 'narcissists' though, the word is thrown around too frequently.
@@stellar52 she might be a narcissist. But that is not a crime in it self.
@@Zyphera Precisely, if we banned anyone with narcissistic personality disorder from NHS hospitals we'd fire every surgeon.
Come train to be a nurse. The pay is awful, the conditions are worse and, if it is expedient for your managers, you may spend the rest of your life in jail. God Bless R NHS!
Remember seeing her arrest. The look on her face was what's going on. She didn't look like she was guilty & caught. She looked like WTF is this all about.
And WHY were we shown her arrest? We don't usually get shown the arrest of people (even suspected or convicted murderers). It's like the media/system knew they had to force-feed the public the narrative on this case.
Good observation
@@JulietCrowson I agree with Mark. Although I haven't qualified in psychology, I am a very experienced amateur and was taught by one of the very best. To most people, sociopaths and psychopaths (they are NOT the same thing, as many believe) are undetectable and to most people that's true. But to those who have trained in such matters it is quite easy to spot the 'tells'. You have to be VERY good at DELIBERATELY hiding it from trained analysts and I simply don't believe she has the experience or ability to do so.
Give me a photo of 10 people who superficially look the same, but 1 is a sociopath or psychopath and 9 aren't and 99% any analyst will spot the odd one. NB the photo needs to be in the natural element, not staged such as a line up.
There was an 11 minute gap in the first arrest video. Between 0603 hours and 0614 hours. It appears the police took 11 minutes inside the house to calm her down. Letby's nose and eyes were pink-ish when she exited the residence. The full video should be released to the public.
She looked like a rabbit caught in the headlights. Stunned
As soon as I heard the natal ward was under special measures ,I soon realised the deaths was not due to nursing care, but the blame was with the doctors and management. Blaming nurses is always a convenient cover for incompetence!
Almost all direct care of patients is provided by nurses. The main role of doctors is to diagnose and prescribe.
@@hb1338 The consultant in the neonatal unit of the CoCH were pretty incompetent.
I’m a medical clinician observing from Australia.
In due course the UK justice system will be forced to admit that the babies were not murdered. They needed more experienced paediatricians in a more specialised and hygienic unit.
Read my case
No such thing as a conspiracy theory
Hi from England !!
☮️
Haven't read the case file, wasn't there barely knows anything besides what he glimpsed from "sky news Australia" yet he's sure she's innocent. I feel for your patients. Not a bright one are you Doctor?
@@bortstanson2034maybe the certainty comes from knowing the legal system is a bit fixed ...
@@JulietCrowsonHe/she is a legal expert as well …🤔
The case seemed very convincing until all the omitted evidence came out after trial. The fact that it was omitted from the trial implies that the prosecution did not allow for a fair trial. I also noted at the time that Letby's representation was extremely poor. There were minimal attempts to rebutt the claims made by the prosecution.
@@SkepticalTeacher Many decisions made by the defence team are simply inexplicable.
Unless someone stepped in for 'national security'.
The Words ‘British’ and ‘Justice’ should never be used in the same sentence (no pun intended)
Evidence would've been omitted for a good reason. The judge would have directed it if it was even a point of discussion.
It would be interesting to find how buddy buddy they are with the prosecution. That's what I often see at my local courthouse- prosecutors, judges, and many of the defense lawyers are all friendly colleagues, swapping jokes and working together. I once observed a young, well presented female defendant whose attorney told her they were just going to do what the judge said and not question anything because it wouldn't do any good. The poor woman was so frustrated since she thought her lawyer was supposed to actually defend her.
If she is innocent, god help this lady as she has already been through HELL.
If ANYTHING suggests that she is NOT GUILTY, even the smallest thing, she must at least have a RE-TRIAL !
No, convictions quashed.
You're a person on a comments section of a barrister who thinks we should just ignore and hand waive the established legal process.... do you not see the irony in any of this?
@@happyjonn9242 I ABSOLUTELY DO !
@@helenporter7584 I agree but, I know if I had said this, lots of people would have thought I was freeing a guilty person, without question !
@@mrobo9037 I hear what you’re saying, but I’ve listened to all the doctors analysis, podcasts and videos and I’m convinced she’s innocent and every day she is locked up is a tragedy. I’m quite a strict person usually. A retrial will take years.
Could she be the fall guy for managers etc who were incompetent?
Incompetent management does not directly cause deaths. Rogue nurses can and do.
This all sounds SOOOO much like the case we had in the Netherlands with Lucia de Berk. A nurse who was wrongly condemned of killing patients.
Yes, exactly the same.
Something feels really off with the whole case. She seems to have been thrown under the bus for systemic failures, a big brush it all under the carpet and blame a Woman that cared too much.
Yeah, she's pretty and blonde, and you can't imagine she would be capable of horrible crimes. Thankfully your fellow citizens aren't as shallow.
@@happyjonn9242 I'm in a long term relationship bud, maybe you need to look beyond physical attributes and see the person inside. Have a great evening.
@@happyjonn9242 what's her appearance got to do with anything? Did you watch the video you're commenting on? Hope you are never picked for a jury otherwise every pretty blonde woman should worry as factual evidence is clearly not a thing for you.
@@happyjonn9242 ridiculous baseless comment.
@@bjrnhalfhand2258 Another member of the Lucy Letby fan club/ cult.
First "serial killer" I've heard of with no MO !
She seems to have a different method for every victim.
And NO motive.
@@turquoiseblue228That's what MO means.
@@Jackwylde68😂 MO means modus operandi, i.e. how she did it. Motive means why she did it.
Tampering with a very fragile premature baby's healthcare equipment seems a consistent action. As far as motive...many don't appear to have a clear motive. Harold Shipman?
@@557samma Power trip
Im surprised the Bristish justice system hasn't sentenced someone for 20 years for not paying their tv licence.
.. And not having a TV or watching any TV.
Won’t be long. People have been imprisoned for sharing pretty harmless memes…
Women have been imprisoned for not paying TV licence
@@JulietCrowson
Yes, good point.
@@JulietCrowsonexactly, there's a disproportionate amount of women in jail for TV licence non payments and council tax.
The big question is why is nobody looking at the other excess deaths and collapses. Why is nobody looking at the documented poor standards of care at the hospital?
You could be forgiven for thinking its all been quite convenient that the murder probe has obscured all the other failures. But where is the fairness for other families.
Where it becomes really questionable is when you realise just how tenuous and hypothetical the 'evidence' was that Letby was convicted on. Its all assumption, hypothesis, possible explanations and no hard facts. Her defence seems to have failed because you cannot mount a factual defence against a prosecution that is non-factual.
Maybe she's guilty. I wouldn't bet my life on it though.
The private eye recently did a special and included some writing about the excess deaths even when she wasn't there. Interesting read.
More to the point, would you bet the rest of her life on it?
Indeed. There were 17 deaths that year on the ward. In a normal year you would expect 3-5 based on historical data. Letby was charged with 7 murders. So what about the other 10? If you assume she was a murderer, then there are more than 2x as many cases than would be otherwise be expected. If you assume she is innocent, then there are questions about whether the standard of care there was actually good enough for the criticality of these children.
@@tomsixsixLucy Letby was charged with 13 murders, she was convicted of seven
We have lost all faith in the Justice system and in particular the judiciary and police.
Beyond reasonable doubt. There is doubt so why is she in prison?
Because they are protecting the real persons that did it and know who did it.
It is possible that it isn't murder, but strangled funding, negligence, mis managemnt, closing of ranks etc
But yes, it does feel that Letby might have been scapegoated
Yes....the masonic responsible....and others ....she was present because she was on duty ...she was present because she was professional,she was present because others who where, didn't get mentioned....
She was guilty.. because...they had no evidence,just circumstantial..
She was guilty because they didn't want the true person (s(...put in spotlight...
YES SHE IS THE FALL GUY...
They may not know and more, none of it may have 'been done to' any of them, they can all be error, accident, fluke of nature, etc. They are guessing! No basis to lock up anyone, even if they did do it, reasonable doubt is there to protect the innocent and we accept it will let off some guilty as a price that needs to be paid for justice, not a lynch mob on emotions and supposition, opinion.
I don’t think they do know, They just looked at who was on duty at the time and Lucy was, however there were many deaths where she wasn’t there.
Because the JURY found Lucy Letby guilty beyond reasonable doubt - not everyone on social media.
The fact this woman was only convicted on convoluted technical and opinionated expert testimony, is terrifying.
Surely, for such a conviction to occur, there should be a 'smoking gun'?
That's our legal system though...
Roobish
It's normal well usual practice for law firms ime
@@Focal_Paradox The legal system in the UK has been corrupted, and is suspect. From such a high, it has fallen so low.
In the post office scandal, the corporate entity (a sold for scrap national treasure) who was the accuser effectively ran the trials.
Summary convictions have been held previously for a list of defendants, signed off by a judge, sight unseen.
I believe it to be an attack on the checks and balances this country sacrificed so much for over so many centuries, to put in place. And they've taken only a few years to do it.
Maybe it was in the best interested to use her as a scapegoat for the hospitals shortcomings.
Some witnesses for the prosecution were allowed to give evidence anonymously, WHY ?!
I’m satisfied with this. Anyone should have the right to give evidence to court ,without their name being plastered to the media and suffer from expeculation . Anonymously to you is not anonymously to all involved in the court proceedings.
@@livingthedream8539 It's very easy to make up evidences then. It's like a black box with the "anonymous person".
@@Zyphera totally flying over your head. You know absolutely nothing about law.
@@livingthedream8539 if you can't see who your accuser is how easy would it not bee to make things up. It is not a bout the what's written in law but what's technical possible to do when the accuser is hidden.
@@Zyphera “Hidden “ from the public but NOT from the court proceedings.
Whether she was guilty or not, the defence seems to have done a pretty poor job.
The defense barrister/solicitor/lawyer myers was criminally inept
Was thinking exactly the same thing.
@@scottaznavourian3720if you think that then you should read some more law books which will show you that the outcome of trials are biased towards the prosecution winning every single argument.
Prosecutorial misconduct?
Did the prosecution lawyers give evidence under oath? No. So there's your answer...lawyers can and do lie for money...psychos
Very interesting!
I enjoy the comments from these type of videos regarding Letby, particularly from former NHS health workers.
Overall, they imply that Doctors are never guilty but nurses are regarded as underlings and "Whistleblowers" are number 1 scapegoats.
Juries will believe a doctor's evidence forgetting doctors are human too and can make mistakes.
"The key prosecution expert witness in the Lucy Letby trial has branded statisticians questioning her guilt 'arrogant' and 'ignorant.'" - How ironic.
You don't think they are arrogant?
@@S.Trades Questioning a verdict is perfectly reasonable. I totally get why prosecutions want every one to shut up, but that clearly is not acceptable. Verdicts should always be open to question - otherwise miscarriages of justice go uncorrected
The lawyer may not have done any statistics beyond middle school. I have two math degrees. I am pretty sure I'd sound arrogant faced with that lawyer pretending to be knowledgeable. As for which one of us was ignorant.....
That said, BBL tells that that context is important and I have none.
@S.Trades It's irrelevant what I think. The irony is one person suggesting that any other expert who questions their testiomy is arrogant.
@@bestbehaveexactly
mine did
no one cares as they believe regulators (pseudo-court) Leyes
The whole case was based on speculation. The experts speaking up since reporting restrictions were lifted are voicing their grave concerns, NOT speculation.
It's moving fast now . Channel 5 on Sunday (tomorrow) at 9pm till 10pm....Lucy Letby: The new Evidence.
Spread the word!
I once did an "introduction to Criminology" course at my local college. It was more of an "introduction to law" as the three tutors we had on that course were all solicitors and had no real knowledge of criminology as a subject. Still, it was a very interesting course to attend. Around the time of the course beginning, the case that was in the news was the case of the solicitor, Sally Clarke, who was sentenced to life imprisonment for the killing of her two infant sons. It was claimed that the two boys had died from Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS or Cot Death) but she was convicted on the evidence of an "expert" who claimed the chances of two babies dying so close together of SIDS was a 1 in 73 million chance. The court of appeal later heard that the "1 in 73 million" estimate was the expert doctors opinion, not scientific fact, and Sally's conviction was overturned. Basically, what we learned from that was that the experts can get it wrong and that even expert testimony should be tested to the hilt.
Or opinions are not evidence.
@ericleach... Opinions are like rectums... Everybody has one, but so what.
The biggest takeway from the Sally Clarke case is that the justice system is stuffed full of people whose STEM education stopped at GCSE level. Until the justice system is willing to accept they don't know jack about statistics and probability and move to a system where only those approved by the Royal Statistical Society can present evidence of a statistical nature in court we will get miscarriages of justice.
Remember a letters were written by senior figures in the Royal Statistical Society saying the 1 in 73 million figure was garbage when Sally Clarke appealed and the judges dismissed it.
The "expert" was Dr Meadow, and he had no expertise in statistics.
I also remember that case and some of my thoughts at that time. If a mother loses her baby to an event like SIDS, that must be awful (for want of better words to express it.) To then get convicted of murder and imprisoned for life - I can't imagine, nor think of words to say. In such a case there must be not the slightest shred of doubt.
I thought that a mother losing her baby, even by her own hand, would be punishment enough. In Lucy L's case, though not a mother, she was a nurse dedicated to caring for these babies and their loss must have been a terrible burden for her.
With enough money an expert witness is available to say what you need them say.
I don’t these experts talking to the BBC are being paid to do so , in fact they are probably very worried about doing so because of the backlash. They say they feel compelled to because they are so concerned with how the medical evidence was presented at the trial .
But in this case the new expert witnesses are coming forward of their own accord, not being paid at all.
Reasonable doubt? The doubt in this case is off the scale.
I find it hard to believe anyone would commit this crime. I find it harder to believe the jury had no reasonable doubt. I have always believed Lucy is not guilty. I am pleased to see people are at least questioning what has gone on.
Read the final judgement and the Court of Appeal verdict - both are available freely on the web. You may change your mind.
Your absolutely right - if you're gonna seriously punish someone then they better be guilty beyond reasonable doubt. If she isn't then someone has screwed up and more seriously brought the law into disrepute - and that is Not OK...
Beyond reasonable doubt is exactly what? Any doubt? How little doubt? What percentage/probability of doubt? What is the margin of error?
Prosecution lawyers have been bringing the legal system into disrepute since magna carta....imo
@@JulietCrowson Beyond any reasonable doubt. Beyond doubt that a reasonable person (Your average person sitting on a London bus) would consider is reasonable. Not the same as any doubt at all, not infallable without any margin of error but a reasonable doubt. As in reasonable, doubt.
@@JulietCrowson “A reasonable doubt is a doubt that is reasonable. These are ordinary English words that the law does not allow me to help you with,” Mr Justice Sweeney to the Jury in the case of Vicky Pryce.
The judge in this case dismissed the Jury as they were too stupid to reach a verdict. I hope you never get called to serve on a Jury for this reason too.
Vague
Dan, you are absolutely doing the right thing in this case in the interest of true justice for these babies. As you so rightly say it's either one of the most heinous murder cases to ever come to trial in this country, OR it is one of the worst miscarriages of justice here in England and Wales ( for the benefit of overseas viewers the legal system works under different rules in Scotland since before the act of Union )
I absolutely think it was an unsafe conviction. I have seen multiple, very reputable experts in their own fields all have problems with the way the evidence was presented, from neonatologists, statisticians, biochemists, pathologists etc.
That's just normal differences of opinion - it happens all the time amongst experts.
There was no evidence in the usual meaning of the word. That was no admission of guilt. She was a scapegoat for NHS incompetence. There were theories and speculations and she was convicted because of those.
Three statements, all incorrect. Well done.
@@happyjonn9242 No, all three statements are correct. i would add that there is no evidence suggestive of any murders.
@@francishooper9548 Why should there be an admission of guilt?
@@francishooper9548 .. except the causes of death put forward by the various pathologists.
Extremely brave talking about this. In a case involving things that I don't even want to type it is essential things are done correctly, and if they haven't been people cannot shy away from opening dialogue about the possibility a person may have been wrongly convicted. From experience working in NHS trusts I can assert they are not sufficiently professional not to make *repeated serious mishaps* and they are not sufficiently incorruptable to not scapegoat.
I spent five years working in the NHS. The appalling levels of incompetence and corruption in the management were absolutely staggering. Needless to say the people who suffer most as a result are the clinicians, the people who care for patients.
3 possibilities
1) Lucy is guilty
2) No individual is guilty because no crime took place and the cluster of deaths was just a statistical event
3) No individual is guilty but the standard of care was sufficiently bad that the NHS trust is guilty.
4) Somebody other than Letby is guilty
5) Multiple individuals are guilty
The answer is option 3. Management, but that includes senior clinical leadership, were criminally incompetent. Some deaths were preventable. Nobody deliberately harmed any baby. Lucy Letby is a scapegoat for a failed NHS.
Thank you very much for your views and explaing some of the doubts about this case . ❤
The New Yorker article is the only record I have seen that went through the court transcripts to evaluate the evidence. Having read the article (as a 40-year veteran nurse) I have grave fears for the safety of this conviction.
I have from the first trial considered that she was guilty, however since the disclosures and doubt about the evidence after the appeal I am no longer convinced that she is guilty, rather that she is a victim of the system.
Baby C is utterly bizarre. The whole prosecution case is built around the gas seen in the x-ray on 12th June. Then it comes out that Letby wasn’t on the unit before the 13th and they come up with the ludicrous suggestion that she had somehow sneaked on the unit when no one was looking, sneaked into the nursery without it showing up on the door swipe, injected air into the stomach because she had invented a new method of killing babies, and then sneaked out again unnoticed. Why wasn’t this stupidity laughed out of court. It is utterly beyond comprehension.
did the nursery actually have a working door swipe ? hadn't heard they had one
@@adeptusmagi They do, and every room and hallways has CCTV that is stored for 8+ weeks.
@@hardergamer interesting thanks for clarifying
of course with the state of the health service its still possible it was out of order
@@adeptusmagiactually there was insignificant cctv footage for the ward and this has been published before. Even though there's ones there they may not be working properly. As for whether someone can "sneak" in, yes it's not that difficult if you are a member of staff.
She admitted that she could get into the unit when the door was opened by colleagues.
In all these discussions I get the distinct impression her defence were DELIBERATELY INCOMPETENT.
The only person called to defend her was the hospital’s plumber, to me thats absolutely crazy.
@@70mikejneveryone is scared of bullying prosecution as they know the system is run by thugs
@@70mikejn Possibly the only one around who had nothing to lose?
I think someone commented on this further up. If it was just poor care or lack of funding for the hospital then they'd get sued back to the stone age. If there's a "killer" to blame then it's not their problem. Something really isn't right with this case.
You have legal training do you ?
I have been always troubled by this criminal outcome. I’m not saying that she isn’t guilty. I have also not seen any incontrovertible proof.
you'll rarely if ever have incontrovertible proof - that's for mathematicians.
However the evidence put forward seems circimstancial at best and even by that standard pretty flimsy
@@bestbehaveflimsy, we can’t put people away for years and for life on flimsy.
@@bestbehave agreed with completely. X
@@lisalupin1202 Oh absolutely, I'm agreeign with you - Iwas being a bit semntic regarding the difference between evidence and proof
What has been put forward (I think) hardly even amounts to much more than finger pointing
If the bbc are involved you know someting is wrong
Sounds more like a stitch up with every report on the case
I've worked in medical and casual pool and with TPN that was issued from the pharmacy with TPN in a bag, only the pharmacist was allowed to make any additions, and then you had lipids to infuse as well. If we were giving insulin IV, this would be via a separate infusion made up to be 1u of insulin per ml. In SCBU or paeds, they required all medications be checked by 2 RNs. So we're supposed to believe that in a open plan unit that somehow one of the nurses managed to get out the bag, find and add insulin with no one seeing. Also, this also after the first bag highly relied on another nurse purely by chance selecting the bag that had the insulin. Then there's that you are giving insulin which is countered by the infusion of products like dextrose which raise blood sugar? It doesn't make sense as an 'attack' really. There's also a third infant transferred and diagnosed with hyperinsulinaemia who wasn't brought up, unfortunately, they did not verify the test again nor do extra tests to confirm what was going on. In reality there would also be other plausible explanations, including the very common risk of medication error.
Then there's all the other things, these babies were ill and at risk. There's no incident reports, despite many years later saying there were suspicious incidents? No event analysis of the collapse and resuscitation - they do that at hositals I've worked in and it's used as a tool to improve processes. There's also how the unit got downgraded or that critical equipment like blood gas analysers were broken. It must have been extremely hard for the jury to get to grips with that. More I hear, the more confusing it seems.
Excellent and enlightening technical comment, thanks!
Thank you for your insights here. As a former career long nurse, I have much to say about this dreadful case. At every level and layer of professional involvement, something seems to be very wrong. When something doesn't make sense is it wise to start at the beginning and follow the money, remembering sometimes it really is the root of all evil? I'll try to keep it brief.
-The Neonatal Unit had lost high grade nurses/nurse practitioners in rounds of effeciency savings in previous years. Replaced by newly qualified nurses and Nursery Nurses. A drive to save on salaries and final salary pension payments calculated on the last few years of service. It wasn't because these highly skilled nurses weren't needed. Did management consultants influence decision making in order to try to balance the books when chronic underfunding was the problem?
-The Unit was running at 25% fewer nurses than it needed.
-The Unit was a Level 2, taking babies who needed Level 3 care, and was downgraded to Level 1 due to not having trained staff, resources or a dedicated Neonatologist.? Additional funding for taking higher acuity babies.
-Paediatricians adding Neonatal Unit in to their workload, only doing 2 ward rounds a week, leaving their medical management to junior doctors when babies needed continuous input from experts
-Negligence litigation is reported to have been in the air, closed down by the case against Lucy.
-Well documented evidence of 'sub optimal care'.
-Lucy was one of few specialist trained nurses, competent to look after Level 2&3 babies who worked a lot of overtime when saving to buy a house. She was reported to be competent and clashed with doctors when things went wrong. At times formally reporting issues on the unit that could create, a risk to patients etc.
-A consultant was absent for periods when filming, we don't know who was covering him, if it was unpaid leave etc.
-When deaths increased there were also increased stillbirths, which suggests a possible connection.
-Clinical Trials also took place at the hospital. Is this also an additional source of revenue?
-The finger pointed at Lucy because she was always there when babies died. Doing overtime and looking after the most vulnerable patients, being specialist trained to assist with resuscitation put her at the scene.
-The deaths perhaps weren't suspicious until long after they occurred and the doctors were coming under more scrutiny?
-Police involvement before all internal and pathology investigations had seriously looked at the wider picture, including mother's health and evaluating the medical management.
-The lead medical expert and consultants who should have been potential suspects, had access to medical notes and looked for suspicious events related to Lucy.
-Lucy had a grievance against consultants for bullying her upheld.
-The lead expert has a history that needs thoroughly investigating. (Bonnie Linda Lewis case for starters)
-Once the police became involved the end game appeared to be securing a conviction.
-I won't go into the science, more than to say I don't find it credible and wonder how it was taken seriously.
-No expense was spared with the investigation and trial, with numerous witnesses called for the prosecution.
-Why were Lucy's witnesses not called?
-Why was Lucy treated so badly in court?
-Is this a 'stitch up' or are there other explanations?
Thank you for your comment, I’m coming across more and more inconsistencies that point towards her being innocent by the day. Surely sooner or later she will have to have a retrial? To say that I find this hugely upsetting is an understatement!
@clairedavison5607 It is beyond belief and really distressing. The way Lucy was treated in court made me cry. Like you I really hope she can have a fair trial, or be exonerated completely by witnesses withdrawing flawed evidence and new evidence being too compelling to ignore.
Tried and found guilty by the media. Outcome was obvious
Prosecution have favourable treatment in my experience !!!
'jury' is primed by the first to speak ie the 'prosecution'...system is fixed/biased/loaded against the defendants.
What nonsense. There is every reason to believe that the jury chose its' verdict based only on the evidence presented to the court - remember that juries are not allowed to access the media during a trial.
She may have done it but she’s also the PERFECT scapegoat for NHS incompetence. Locked away for years no more questions asked.
It would have been far, far easier to fire her and make her sign a NDA.
As a lawyer from down under it does appear that there is mounting exculpatory evidence
She's lucky that her case has been published...many aren't
Ironic that a former penal colony has lawyers. Your opinion is irrelevant.
@@JulietCrowson All court proceedings in the UK are published. The problem is that in the vast majority of cases you have to pay a great deal of money to get hold of a trial transcript. Before Boris was in power, those documents were always free.
You only have to look at the failings of the neonatal ward where she worked to fully support her claims of innocence.
As others have outlined, she is merely a scapegoat and it will ( one day ) be proven to be a catastrophic miscarriage of justice.
I feel so sorry for all the victims here, notwithstanding Lucy herself.
I worry about this case. In some ways it reminds me of the witch trials of yesteryear. "Something terrible has happened. Somebody must be to blame. We must find A person responsible and punish them." Note the "A". The thirst for vengeance pushes reason to the outfield.
Wow.... I have just listened to the BBC file on 4 and I suggest everyone takes time to listen. I appreciate that most if not all the commentators on various RUclips channels (including myself) are nothing more than so called "armchair experts" but after listening to File on4 expert after expert offers their professional opinion and it almost brought tears to my eyes that based on their expert interpretation and other factors that have now since arisen (many of which the jury were never told) that this is heading towards the potential of a massive miscarriage of justice of almighty proportions..
Thanks I’ll check that out
A very good friend of mine, a nurse, lost EVERYTHING when they were falsely accused of something. Their, job, career, marriage, home, sobriety, sanity … Everything.
The intimate and caring nature of nursing can easily lead to false accusations by its very nature. Nurses are not made aware of this risk, (doctors are to some extent).
Nurses MUST do their own risk assessment ... You don’t have to work on that ward. You don’t have to work in that care home. And a nurse is ALWAYS entitled to have a chaperone present during patient examination … just like a patient is.
@@Hickalum wise words
Said from the start, there's something not quite right about this.
It sounds like emotion has taken precedence over facts
That can happen
In cases like this I think the problem is that they're not tried by a "jury of peers" (is that just a US term?) the jury should have been made up of neonatal doctors and nurses so they understand all the evidence so neither prosecution or defence can manipulate it to their ends
As someone who works on a neonatal unit in the UK- my colleagues could absolutely could be swayed with emotional arguments, sadly.
In the US they say “if you want a trial decided on law, you go for a bench trial, if you want it on emotion you go for a jury trial”.
@Lredfloss1
Then all the nurses would find not guilty and all the doctors guilty!
No, the proper thing is to ensure the evidence is properly presented, no presentation of evidence that can fairly be described as attempting to pervert the course of Justice, the rules of evidence are fairly followed, the defence team is competent, the judge is not biased, there is a search for truth and not just a macabre game between the lawyers to emotionally sway the jury, etc., etc.
Gosh no! Their 'group think' and loyalty to clan would make them the last ones to want on a jury.
Our justice system is a joke and is dangerous.
Dangerous for defendants more
Pseudo courts like healthcare regulators are the same...incompetent, lazy, biased, dangerous to defendant healthcare professionals and dangerous to PTS as people are scared to defend PTS when the lawyers are so aggressive and dishonest
Definitely not beyond reasonable doubt! That's for sure
The jury, which heard ALL of the evidence, decided that the prosecution made its case beyond all reasonable doubt. Definitely.
@@hb1338 The jury heard evidence from a discredited, long retired paediatrician whose evidence has now been thoroughly discredited. Dr Dopey Evans, the medical dunce should be charged with perjury and his NHS chums who agreed with his nonsense should face some serious questions.
The bogus spreadsheet shown to the the jury has been debunked by eminent statisticians from The Royal Statistical Society.
What is left is specious evidence that is worthless.
Daniel, I would like your opinion on the following:
Having worked in the police and prison service for 20 years, it is my contention that there seems to be a widespread desire to achieve a conviction by prosecutors, rather than to establish the truth. This is highlighted by the suppression of witnesses and evidence which would harm a prosecutions case.
This to me is endemic, in the criminal justice system, and very very troubling.
This seems a textbook example, and I would welcome your thoughts.
Well stated. OMF has the same concerns.
I still can't understand how they satisfied the corpus delicti of murder if they could not show how the babies died? to prove death does not necessarily prove murder and being present at a death, even a murder, doesn't necessarily make you a murderer. The Crown should not have been allowed to present a theory for cause of death without evidence to support it.
@@davidhorsley2717 Not to mention that she was not in the hospital from the moment baby C was born to when the X-ray was taken showing his terminal condition.
She was literally convicted of a murder when she wasn’t there … Some kind of witchcraft I guess.
Very important to fully scrutinised the evidence in order that the conviction is secure.
Which is what the Court of Appeal has done - twice.
But where was the motive?
I'm not stating an opinion of whether Lucy Letby is innocent or guilty. I will say that the motive could be as simple as getting a sick buzz from how powerful murdering babies could make a psychopath feel. Getting away with it once could prompt a habit of killing, as often demonstrated by serial killers. It's often difficult for sane people to perceive the motives of those touched by insanity. I remember how puzzled I was watching the Harold Shipman case, before I understood a bit more about psychology. 'Why would he murder all those women,' I thought, 'and yet only steal from the last one?' That made no sense to me back then, but now it does.
There is only a motive if there was a murders. As there seems to substantial doubt about that, any putting forward of potential motives would be empty speculation
@@FrancisXLord There is no suggestion that Lucy Letby had any psychopathology.
15 life terms with questionable evidence, Letby has the right to a second hearing.
@@dinogoldie9716
She was denied her appeal for a retrial !
Lawyers won't want this as their practices and strategies could be exposed to the public!
@@mikegraham8319by? The corrs
@@richardpaine5923 regulatory lawyers call this ' having a second bite of the cherry' and portray corrections as unfair or wrong - in turn because lawyers are not and I repeat not interested in facts or the truth or God's Truth
@mikegraham8319 twice she has been denied an appeal 15 life orders No chance she's where she belongs
I haven't seen the evidence that was presented but understand that there is only a theory as to how she killed them comprised of circumstantial evidence
Well, the way things are going in today's world, I would tend to err on the side of it being a gross miscarriage of justice, rather than one of the "gravest crimes of all time"! So many things (and people) are becoming "skewed", in every area of life!
This stinks of the nhs protecting themselves and throwing Lucy to the wolves to potentially cover up their own mismanagement. We need a new trial …. this is shameful.
The investigation was conducted by Cheshire Constabulary and the decision to prosecute was taken by the Crown Prosecution Service.
i don't understand how "nobody" noticed anything much much earlier....how could that happen....??
The people who think discussion of the case is in poor taste are just moronic. They must believe that the British court system is incapable of mistakes. You just have to hope that such people never get asked to serve on a jury.
Yeah or get accused and prosecuted for something they have not done but a conviction is required and they are in the frame.
I’m no health or legal professional but people who’s opinions I respect have written articles and given presentations saying the convictions are not sound and that at least a retrial should be considered. That’s enough for me. You’d want to be sure with such a serious crime!
Except that none of the people who are claiming that the convictions are unsound are qualified lawyers, very few of them have read the trial transcript and very few of them understand what constitutes an unsound conviction. It is little more than the chatter of ignorant people coupled with the various opinions of those who are slightly better informed. The Court of Appeal has twice reused Letby leave to appeal. Why ? Because there are no grounds to grant such a request.
@@hb1338 If you did some research you would realise that medical experts, including consultant neonatologists, think the medical evidence in the trial is nonsense. And not one medical expert outside of the trial has agreed with Evans.
Mark McDonald is a qualified lawyer and he has recently taken on the case of Ms Letby because he knows she is innocent.
David Davis MP has been convinced for some time that Ms. Letby is innocent And he is joined by Nadine Dorries as well as doctors, statisticians, nurses, investigative journalists and prominent members of the legal profession who have serious doubts regarding the safety of the Letby trial.
The guilty verdict is untenable and the longer Ms. Letby is in prison the more ridiculous the judiciary will look to the public of this country and to the world.
How would the jury confront all this evidence?
He mentions Mind Notes. If thats correct they are normally part of therapy and if I am correct in my thinking you are supposed to write down all your thoughts no matter how dark they may be - please correct me if I am wrong
No, you're right, and this is covered in other videos. He counsellor asked her to write down her thoughts.
@@davidthomas1424 thank you :)
@@adstitching Correct. Like brainstorming.
That's exactly what it is.
All sorts of different techniques can be used in therapy. My daughter was advised to do something called "the revenge protocol" after a traumatic event. Basically, you go over how you would plot revenge... She hasn't participated in it, but I wouldn't like to see the notes of that session be be shown outside of therapy. 😳
I lost a daughter in NICU in Plymouth in 2007, they inserted a feed line straight through her Liver which sadly cause it to rupture, it wasn't until the inquest that we understood what had happened, nothing was explained to us at the time, I can fully understand these Jury members not understanding any of the evidence, and a well trained medical Barrister for the prosecution could turn a jury with such medical evidence!
I truly believe that there needs to be an inquiry which could lead to reopening Letby's convictions and a retrial.
We made a complaint to the Care Quality Commission as it was, they investigated and upheld our complaint, a Professor from Bristol who specialised in Neonatal care even agreed, but at the inquest he changed his mind, because the hospitals defence barrister guided him, (they all went out for lunch, including the Neonatal Consultants from Derriford) our Barrister was aghast that the verdict was an open one, but further down the line I understand these things happen and these Nurses are Angels and should be supported, they are at the coalface every day and get very little support.
Dear me.... I used to be a nurse and I can assure you a lot of them are not angels. They get all the support they want from colleagues and unions (which most of them are in).
@@S.Trades I can only go by my experience
I'm very sorry for the loss of your daughter - these circumstances must have made it even harder to deal with.
@@SkepticalTeacher Yes it was hard, but we had a surviving twin that we had to concentrate on for the next 3 months, it made the atmosphere unbearable at times, but we carried on, we were offered the option to move our surviving daughter to another hospital NICU unit, but the nearest was 30 odd miles away and would have caused so many issues with daily travelling :(
Expert witnesses ‘being swayed’ by other expert witnesses and changing their minds definitely goes on. I’m so sorry to read your post and for your loss. It would be difficult for anyone who hasn’t had first hand experience with hospital to understand some of the things that go on.
As an ITU nurse I am so uncomfortable with this verdict. There is so much unanswered.
Like what?
There seemed to be so much circumstantial evidence. I think she was vulnerable, possibly out of her depth lacking support. Some of the things they claim she did, injecting air etc. it’s not that easy. You’re also rarely on your own. Drugs are signed out of the cupboard with your passcode. All sorts of things could have shown reasonable doubt in my opinion. I don’t think the jury really understood the environment. Politically these units are often a nightmare. It would not make me surprised for a minute if there figures were bad and they wanted to out someone under the bus.
Interesting, thank you. In the case of baby A, in a 20 minute period: A small ward with open doors, glass windows the length of the ward and corridor, allowing anyone passing to see in. A doctor attending to a baby in a cot next to Lucy Letby and the baby A she was caring for. Two other nurses in the room and other nurses/staff coming in and out of the ward at any time. If she did sabotage the life of baby A, she was a big risk taker.
Don't apply logic - it does not fit the desired narrative.
It seems to me any nurse working on a ward, or in a home where patients die is now “a big risk taker”.
Searching on Facebook is evidence now?
Depends on that nature of the searches I suppose. Google searches are evidence in a lot of murder trials.
I've spent hours reading other people's Facebook accounts. Colleagues, customers, suppliers - Its fascinating ... Like reading a book , but real.
Why would people put stuff on-line if they didn't want you to read it?
I hope that doesn't make me a serial killer.
Compare this case to that of Lucia De Berk in the Netherlands.THATs how these cases can go so wrong.
The conviction of Letby is unsafe. The prosecution were making all sorts of assumptions about how these babies were murdered. But it is far more likely that the babies died because they were very ill and possibly received substandard care from an understaffed ward.
It’s “interesting” to me, that she knew all about air embolisms, insulin and misplacement of medical equipment, without the need for Google even once!! However doctors needed google to find their way for an explanation!!
This case is getting like Stefan Kiszco's case ! This case is unsafe and their should be a re-trial.
This country’s court system is guilty unless you can prove (way beyond a reasonable doubt) you’re innocent. It’s a bloody joke!
There's lots of daught in this case. A jury must be beyond reasonable daught. Her rights have been pushed aside. DISGUSTING
Nonsense. The jury found that the prosecution made its' case beyond reasonable doubt. What people who have heard almost none of the evidence think is irrelevant.
Doubt !!!
With the state of the place nowadays nothing would be a surprise
The forensic evidence is based on blood samples post mortem taken by a police surgeon in Chester.They appeared to show abnormally high insulin levels.There are technical issues with blood sampling post mortem in neonates.The analysis should be on MULTIPLE samples and concurred by several specialist forensic pathologists.Just one sample is insufficient.Dr Dewi Hughes is a retired general neonatologist. There were problems with infection?potential infection with bacteria E Coli and Pseudomonas Aeruginosa.(the first patient I saw die of infection died of Pseudomonas).Its documented the drains on the unit backed up.He is not a specialist in forensic pathology.I worked with Dr Hughes when I was a medical student in Liverpool.There is justifiable doubt about this conviction
I understand that both babies that had" high insulin levels" were discharged home within a few days of the blood tests completely well. The accusations of insulin overdoses were made months after the events by Dr Dewi Evans reviewing the files he claimed. However others of the Consultants have also made the claim that they detected the insulin overdoses from reviewing the files. No additional tests were carried out to confirm that artificial insulin was present because the medical staff at the time accepted these elevated levels as arising naturally. A number of studies have demonstrated that this occurs in up to 15% of neonates and the article in the NYT points out that there was at least one other incident of a neonate in this unit experiencing a similar blood result.
@@francishooper9548 Clearly there is considerable doubt about basing the conviction on just one test- the accuracy of which is in question.
Experts????.... the medical evidence was very general non conclusive, and the jury was extremely ignorant ... the issue is that the statistical number gave to the jury was false and the ignorant judge did not understand math.... an innocent nurse is jn jail
judge did not understand math - Ive dealt with a solicitor that just couldnt add up, even basic maths
@@creightonjason is maths necessary for a law degree ... if not seems it should be!
@@creightonjason Solicitors are usually good at maths when it comes to bill time. They always add up the costs and know how much to put on top for extra.
@@LawrenceHyett Oh this one couldnt, with any civil cases I had with her in defence, Id use as many numbers as I could.... When she started adding up figures I used to tap my finger on the court desk, getting faster and faster then I stop and start again. Stopped that after a Judge told me off !
The prosecution was able to present their hearsay evidence as infallible and were completely unchallenged by the defense barrister!!
All those that aided this miscarriage of justice should be investigated.
No one aided it. But the managers who despite being repeatedly told, did nothing, have questions to answer!
I think they all aid miscarriages of justices on a regular basis, it's common practice.
They are all guilty of aiding miscarriages of justices, it's what they do.
The Wild West: The Magistrates Court
"The truth is that the entire case in favour of magistrates courts as we currently run them, is a sham. There is little sustainable rationale for their existence in principle, and no justification whatsoever for the way in which these courts operate in practice. There is no excuse for the amateur, sausage-factory paradigm of Justice and "that'll do" complacency that pervades 94% of criminal cases, other than the most cynical political trinity: its cheap, it's the way we've always done it and no one who votes either knows or cares, and the more you experience magistrates' courts justice, and interrogate the base assumption of this system, the less explicable the whole pantomime becomes."
The Secret Barrister
@@S.Trades Repeatedly told by a consultant who's changed his testimony 3 times, so is obviously unreliable.
@@S.Trades Some knew that what they stated was evidence was dodgy. David Kurten called it from the start