Now the court order is lifted, I can finally tell you what REALLY happened.
Vložit
- čas přidán 7. 09. 2024
- Why was the New Yorker article suppressed; and how did an email nearly derail the trial?
#artoflaw #lucyletby
Disclaimer: Neither this nor any other video, may be taken as legal advice. I accept no liability whatever for any reliance placed upon it.
Founded by Alan Robertshaw and @Blackbeltbarrister
czcams.com/users/bl...
UPDATE:czcams.com/video/ehHeYNu4cfo/video.html
All law is theatre. I had the "pleasure" to be a litigant in a civil case. The other side were monied and were represented by a barrister. It actually shocked me with how nasty and playground level insulting the guy was. When I expressed shock at that the judge backed him up and threatened me! This coupled with a woman I knew who was working as a solicitor for a big legal firm who told me all she does is send corporate letters threatening to ruin people all day really disturbed me. You just take it for granted if you're not involved in it about how fine and upstanding our legal institutions are, and then you find out it's all just quite self righteous, phoney, vile crap.
@pignoramous Don't judge all cases like the one you’ve referred to .Look at the case of Lucy Letby properly ...she has definitely hurt babies absolutely nodoubt about that .Her behaviour was odd to the extreme put it all together and she is a very dangerous nurse/person .I am convinced she has the munchausen syndrome by proxy .Beverly Allitt is in Rampton secure unit having killed children when she was a children's nurse ......l am sure Letby has the same mental health condition
.
Agree @pignoramous•
100% correct. I've been involved in 2 civil litigation cases concerning recovery of non paid invoices I raised against customers.
Do not expect Justice from the court, even if you are in the right. It's about who puts across the most convincing argument to the judge on the day.
Also, minor incorrect details on paperwork can cause a case to be lost.
I won both cases luckily, but I would never want to go to court again.
Never expect Justice, the system is there to protect the rich, the Establishment, and people in certain organisations.
@@jonathanbrown2870 I connect fully with what you say… I went through seven years of hell when I received life long injury!
So well put. An absolute farce. Alot of the higher strata of legal professionals have got there out of contacts, social circles, hubris, narrow-mindedness and worst of all, hypocrisy.
I'm a retired nurse...
Something seems wrong here....
I think more questions need to be asked..
Absolutely!
Agreed!!!
Such as?
something's wrong indeed. The all case actually rests on what one doctor's "gut feeling" ability to convince his own team that she is guilty. he's the one noticing more death, then he's the one thinking about the nurse, then he's the one witnessing the nurse not reacting to an alarm, and he's the one blowing the wistle but not calling the cops, then he's the one who gets to be called a hero, and there is another death spike after she's arrested. I wonder if the cops investigated other members of that team.
@@janlittle2148 The fact that the babies Lucy was supposed to have murdered had post mortems and were found to have died from natural causes. Unless of course you prefer to believe the long retired, discredited paediatrician, Dewi Evans who fantasized about air embolisms and insulin poisoning.
From an article I just read in the 'Daily Telegraph', the prosecution showed the Letby jury a chart which demonstrated she was present when every one of the babies she was charged with killing had died. You might say "so what, it would, wouldn't it? That's why she was in the dock". What the prosecution did NOT produce was a chart of the many other instances of infant death (they were all, after all, very sick babies) when Letby WAS NOT on duty. In other words, they cherry-picked the data. That does not prove that she did NOT kill those infants but it does highlight how little people understand about statistics. The defence should have been all over that cherry-pick... but they weren't.
Yes, why aren't the police investigating all deaths all the time ?
And of course you sat in the court for every day and absorbed every scintilla of evidence and witness before deciding you knew better than the court.
@@andys5841spot on! These people have no more credibility than flat earthers.
That was not all they were shown. It was demonstrated that the excess deaths were statistically extremely unlikely to be the result of random chance, and that the only profile of duty which, when removed, returned the rate to normal, was Letby's.
And when I say "extremely unlikely" I don't mean winning a EuroMillions roll-over jackpot unlikely, I mean winning 3 jackpots in a row unlikely. It simply is not going to happen, the sun will die out before it occurs, that's how unlikely it is. The excess deaths are only explained through an examination of Letby's work schedule, she is the only key which turns the lock.
And this is all in addition to all the other evidence given by multiple doctors and staff who independently went to police well before the arrest because they suspected that Letby was attacking infants. It had even become a source of dark humour in the ward.
@@user-xs1yx9tc9m Because it's a stitch up.
I have done jury service three times. Once was dismissed by the judge before trial, once was guilty plea last minute. Once was a surreal experience with ( ficticious example as I can not give direct details) jury members saying thing like "I know we have just seen CCTV of the defendant shooting the victim in the head, but they're only 18 so we can't find them guilty and ruin their lives".
How absurd and frustrating! I've been a witness in an assault case, but I'm very glad that I've never been a juror. If I ever get the letter they send, I will get a doctor's note to get out of doing it. I am legitimately too sick to do it, because I'm disabled by MS. Thank goodness!
I sat on a jury once too. Some of the crazy things the jurors said was unbelievable!! There was an old lady who had sat on 2 other jury’s and found them both guilty and without listening to the evidence she said “so I’m going for the hat-trick on this one”!!
Your surreal experience, exactly that happened in the case where I served as a juror. Went to retrial, new jury, unanimous gulity verdict. Person received 26years custodial sentence.
@ruthjones7121 I was amazed at the way some jurors were just ignoring the evidence and making stuff up "I think it was a drug deal gone wrong"... erm, based on what?
@@colettebishop2173 I didn't write that quote you accredited me with. You may wish to respond to the correct poster if you wish to receive a response.
I believe that a lot of people are feeling very guilty about what they originally thought was the small part they played in covering up the incompetence of the NHS. I'm sure many of them never thought it would go this far. One day, the truth will come out.
Inquiry starts on 10 September, much will be revealed.
@@judewhitbread2394 The parents request to have the inquiry live streamed has been refused. Why? Lady Thirwall has said the media will be the eyes and ears of the public.Is this the same media that operated a witch-hunt against Lucy and mis-reported facts about the case?
@@judewhitbread2394 No it won't.
@terrynpiper7667 Agreed
💯 everyone sees how shady this is
Lucia De Berk is a Dutch nurse, who was charged with ending 13 patients in 2003. She was found guilty of four murders & again, as in the Letby case, the only evidence presented was that she was on duty when they passed. She was eventually cleared in 2010, because the statistics were cherry picked, misrepresented & grossly exaggerated. It's a mirror image of the Letby case.
And Letby's defence didn't even try to discredit the manipulation of data.
@@pedazodetorpedoBecause they couldn't.
Very doubtful that it's a 'mirror image'. Why do you invent these things?
@@momeara7482because they just keep mentioning this case over and over
A mum caught her red handed messing with her baby
"A criminal trial is not a search for the truth". I expect that you as a barrister see nothing wrong with that, but to we normal people it explains everything that is wrong with the British Justice system.
Yes, that's why the cops will conceal evidence of innocence from the defence, and when challenged they'll claim that they're not in the business of helping the defendant be acquitted; this is why something like 20% of people convicted are actually innocent. Also, stupid people who are desperate that someone be convicted and aren't too bothered if the person is innocent or not. Look at _The Lost Honour of Christopher Jefferies_ for one among a multitude of such cases.
I'm also sick of the way people make excuses for female criminals and nit-pick the prosecution case to try to find some totally-meaningless factoid to then claim that the conviction was somehow unsafe. For example "Someone saw a white van in the area at the time; have the police cleared the driver?" If the answer is "No" then they'll claim that the case hasn't been properly investigated and the conviction should be quashed. On the other hand if the answer is "Yes" then it'll be "A man was seen walking in the area; has he been cleared?" and so on. I firmly believe that women commit more than half of all murders, but the cops rarely investigate properly. Most children that are murdered are killed by their mothers, yet the police almost always focus on the father.
@devonfuse There is no way to find the truth. Only the one person knows the truth, and you can never be certain she has ever told it even if she completely spills the beans.
We substitute proof for truth because that is possible. What can be proved based on all the available evidence.
All of the evidence is available to the defence, even that unhelpful to the prosecution. We make it as hard as possible for the prosecution and give the defendant the benefit of any reasonable doubt.
This is the best any system could ever achieve. A search for truth is an impossible aim.
Spoken like a barrister. Out of touch. As I said, this highlights the problem. It is not about truth, but who has the deepest pockets
That's the adversarial system of justice, in which the judge is the referee of a game. The inquisitorial system, found in most of Europe, is rather different. Apart from that, the other major difference was that one of the first things the French revolutionaries did was to abolish the doctrine of precedent. How different from the American practice of asking themselves, "How would a group of 18th century landowners have thought about this ?"
I am no expert, but there have been many reports over the years that British victims of crime have found the French inquisitorial system to be wanting, although a similar system seems to work effectively in Scotland. The French system doesn't really seem to have benefitted anyone but Madame Guillotine during "La Terroire".
Having had first-hand experience of the incompetence of the NHS; having seen the duplicity of bureaucrats in the post office case and having been in a jury, I don't have much confidence in the conviction. This is a bad thing for justice in the UK; if only the courts would allow cameras in so we can see justice being done and make up our own minds
I personally know how utterly incompetent the NHS can be . I was suspended for almost a year , had to face a tribunal, and was eventually given a 2 year probation ( which I found out was not legal ) and returned to work, for something I had not done. I worked in the NHS for almost 20 years before I eventually had enough and retired. The NHS are ruthless when they need a scapegoat. This could easily be the case for Lucy Letby, and she won’t be the last.
@@lynnbargewell3833Well said👍
You don't need to make up your own mind since 2 juries have now convicted her. Because she's guilty.
@@intruder313 You should have kier starmer's job, you would make a great labour prime minister 🤣
you just need to look at the tribunals of nhs staff who do wrong ,plenty of them get away with stuff for far too long.. it takes too long and too much money is wasted which is typical of public services.
Could it be that a serial killer causing sick babies to die was preferable to the sick babies dying from Hospital negligence? If it was really Hospital negligence there would be potential lawsuits amounting to £millions.
she was made a scapegoat.
@@hitterandrewpickles4649possibly. But why did she write in a diary that she did the crimes. That's what's hard to dismiss.
@@Mistersandyrobertsonshe did not do that at all
@@xXllIIIIllXx She did write "I am evil. I did this". She MAY be innocent, but if so it was very foolish to write stuff like that, even if as her defence claimed that she was just in distress and questioning her competency.
@@Mistersandyrobertson and you can't see why she might write that?
33 years in the law - this conviction troubles me a lot. It needs to be seriously reviewed.
You clearly haven't followed the case
My opinion is she was thrown under the bus. She probably made errors but not a murderer.
@@user-pu4pb5dm7r lol 🤣🤣🤣
@@user-pu4pb5dm7rvery possibly 🤔
18 years in law practice and I agree wholly with summation!
being an old man now i don't believe a word of what people who work in courtrooms say,
You don't believe a word? How about Myra Hindley, Fred West? You don't believe what people said about them?
Yes I agree , in fact if ever I was asked to do Jury service I would decline due to not wanting to partake in corruption. The cases are used as deal breakers with prosecutions and barristers all too often. Plus I know someone involved in a big case ,the judge demanded a 100% Jurors agreement . At the beginning only one Juror said guilty , the rest not guilty ...as this stipulation was ordered the jury had too keep meeting for nearly two weeks by which time one by one fell and in the end they all agreed. My aquaintance was extremely distressssed , the pressure put on her was huge as they wanted to go back to work and their family life. She buckled in the end and an innocent man went to jsil for a life term.
@@peacedreamerable bullshit name the case
@@peacedreamerable come on whats the case, or did you just make it up
@@peacedreamerable as i thought you made it up. Trials are public record theres nothing stopping you
Interesting interview with Peter Hitchens (who I almost never agree with ) on is
lot of people I know including ex nurses very uncomfortable with this whole verdict and the way the trial was conducted.
I don’t have a lot of faith in the so-called British justice system
I agree. I rarely agree with him either but very interesting.
I don’t have any faith whatsoever in the NHS top brass! For obvious reasons…
Peter kitchens said on live TV to Matthew Perry that his alcoholism was a choice and not a disease of the brain. Peter Hitchens has oppositional defiant disorder. His brother Chris' Hitchens was revered and a great orator so Peter took the opposite side of each and every view. Peter Hitchens is not an authority on this case.
@@user-ls1mx3nb1p I agree he’s no authority on the case but my wife is a ex nurse. She has read the American paper. She was uncomfortable with a decision at the time. I watched this video and commented as it came up on my feed and we had been discussing the case.
There’s been a few really terrible miscarriages that have taken a long, long time to put right
Recently and there are certainly holes in this one
@@user-ls1mx3nb1p Yeah the women basically admitted guilt in her diary. Peter is a bit of a grifter and its a way to get tv time.
She was tried by media before the trial even happened
@Strider9655 You are judging a gentle & kind face, that is a fatal mistake people always do.
The Crown knows that the Jury would be terrified of finding an actual child killer not guilty in error and have played on that. The fact that this went to a hung jury suggests to me that the jury had serious doubts about the evidence. Yet, that fear in the back of their minds has nudged them into a guilty verdict. I haven't heard all the evidence, admittedly, but from working in nursing, my gut instinct is that this is wrong. Nurses as callous and vindictive as Letby is purported to be, would have a long back catalogue of strange behaviour and would be weeded out
@@terryyakamoto3488 imo she spoke out or acted as a whistle blower and got found out
Convistions are unsafe and she was scapegoated and betrayed! She never intentionally killed any baby!
The court needed to return findings of guilt!
14 babies died. The staff who witnessed the situation suspected Lucy Letby. The death rate was normal before Lucy arrived. It returned to normal after she was removed. Does that sound as if Lucy Letby was some kind of scape goat? I think not.
False. She arrived long before death rate rose. It rose in 2015 when hospital became a level 2 instead of a level one and was then downgraded in 2017. Do your homework don’t rely on main steam media reports
The death rate remains the same according to the New York article who requested the info under the official information act.
Correlation does not imply causation. I can't say what the truth is but I'd be incredibly cautious about believing this sort of thing.
Letby was removed on the 30th june.
7th of July they downgraded the unit. Soon after they refitted all the pipework. Either of these could explain the slowing, although not consistent or considerable slowing, of the death rate
This stinks of "there's no smoke without fire" which is an awful way of conducting justice. People can have their opinions, but our law shouldn't and hasn't been based on that for a long time. Hence beyond reasonable doubt, and your own supposition is full of reasonable doubt.
So let me get this straight. Someone attempted to pervert the course of justice? Is this being persued? The Jury member may be easily able to prove they were elsewhere at which point the person making the claim is a defacto liar and has made an attempt to have a trial overturned.
Yes. But the email was sent anonymously from a burner email address. The email wasn't sent by the girlfriend; the emailer said they worked at the cafe, but there's nobody working there with the name given. They _claimed_ their name was the same name as someone who worked for Tescos, but it wasn't them. It might as well be an anonymous paper letter sent to the court. Who would you go after?
@@michaelstreeter3125 unless they've sent it via a VPN there is going to be logs of IP addresses in the email and at the mail service provider, that can then be cross referenced with data held by the internet supplier. These are readily available with a warrant. Yes, it may end up a wild goose chase but ultimately someone has tried to derail a major criminal case here and an example needs to be made. The other alternative is that the cafe owner has motive, a warrant to seize and access their devices could potentially turn up data that links them, small things such as cookies from the burner email website may be resident on the device.
@@michaelstreeter3125there will be a forensic trail on any device used to connect t to that email account. I suggest warrants for the bosses and partner's phones, it'll be one of them.
@@michaelstreeter3125 a member of the jury’s girlfriend worked at the cafe and she pissed off the owner who tried to get his own back by getting the boyfriend into trouble. The COA looked at it and threw it out
@@michaelstreeter3125 Even if they know who sent the letter, if they can't prove it, they should just drop it. They have far more important things to spend our money on than investigating that to death.
I always had a funny doubtful feeling about this case.Are we ever told the truth in this messed up world we live in ???
I never know who to believe…..from the Royals…..to the government……the so called judicial system and so on……☹️
It's the Beverly Allitt case all over again.....she murdered children in hospital in exactly the same way
answer: NO
The first problem we have is not finding 12 members of the public to serve on a jury, but 12 members of the public with the common sense to figure out what they are hearing. I have sat on a jury, quite frankly I was shocked at the logic of some of the others. Basically they had no logic, just a viewpoint, and often that viewpoint was generated from social media.
The Letby case is disturbing. I find it particularly so when they couldn't reach a verdict on some of the charges, yet the cases they couldn't reach a verdict on were the most compelling cases of all.
Agree. The information and discussion of the alleged insulin overdoses and corresponding peptide production was degree level biochemistry, yet we are asking someone who could be in their 50s, who works on a till in Tesco, and who left school 40 yrs ago with one CSE!
Does anyone remember the case from a decade ago thereabouts, of a girl murdered and they thought her landlord had done it?
A lady I worked with was convinced it was him ( it wasn't!) on the basis he " looked creepy" ! I mean, yes he did look like a villain off a Scooby Doo cartoon mystery, but that is the level of intellect and logic you are working with.
I’ve served as a juror on two occasions in U.K. I think your comment is disingenuous. I did encounter the people who were only interested in their version of the facts.
Yeah, Social Media has completely ruined people's critical thinking and understanding of any information presented to them, they either blindly accept it as fact and don't question it or go on the offensive to make others view it in the same way as them. I was on a jury a few months ago and thankfully everyone had logic and understanding but I have started to wonder how long this random jury selection can go on for with the a really tragic majority of the public being so devoid of logic, critical thinking and intelligence. If she has been falsely convicted especially due to the jury being unable to understand statistics and other information presented then that is terrifying.
People are so dumbed down they don’t think for themselves. I’d be very worried if I had to rely on a jury for any reason.
People who did jury service that I've known have told me this too!
The sender of the email should face some sort of charges. They may not have meant to impact the trail but could well have done.
they absolutely meant to derail the trial and have the blame placed on an innocent juror. This is a very serious matter and should be passed to cybercrime specialists to track down where that email came from. I'll also be looking for warrants to seize devices from suspects with motive.
Conspiracy theories abound !Read the court evidence!!!!!
It appears that no-one on the unit ever saw her causing any patient harm.
and that the causes of death of the majority of these infants is open to doubt.
Air embolism is not a cause of death that any of the Drs had seen... and relied on a 30yr old scientific paper which has no corroboration.
Patients on intensive care and SCBU are ill... otherwise they would be elsewhere. And sadly some of them die, sometimes for reasons which remain hidden.
The reaction of the consultants to the prospect of their unit having a bad reputation and that they are ultimately responsible for this, can vary. But one reaction is to look for a scapegoat. It occurs over and over in the NHS, and I've seen it before.
Juries are human. Some of them won't be very bright, and they certainly will have little grasp of the medical niceties of ICU.
My experience as a juror, was that a proportion of the folk there were willing to convict, almost on the basis that the accused had been arrested and charged, and therefore must be guilty.
To convict this nurse of serial killings on the basis of a time sheet, which shows she was doing a lot of shifts and was always around, seems to me to be a little forward. is this really beyond all doubt...
I don't think so.
Everyone wants to feel sympathy for parents of children who have died. its only natural. However to jump on a band wagon... because "she must be guilty" is an easy assumption.
For folk who have no background in the NHS and it's Byzantine internal politics, its simple to say she must have done it especially when the jury were shown the time sheet with the crosses on it showing that nurse Letby was present at all the incidents on the unit. What they weren't shown was the full list of incidents over the same time period, during which there were 17 not 10 deaths, and correspondingly more near misses, at which nurse Letby was absent.
The unit itself had been upgraded to a local referral centre a year or so before, and during its inspection prior to any of the Letby drama, had been rated as chaotic.
Obviously that reflects very poorly on the consultants in charge, and when things continued to be chaotic and more mistakes were made, by an understaffed overstressed unit, some of the consultants rather than accepting responsibility looked for a scapegoat.
Since then the unit has been downgraded, and several of the consultants have been on tv trying to repair their reputations by emphasizing their amateur sleuthing.
No-one wants to admit that this conviction is unsafe, and its much easier, for everyone concerned to simply say she did it and not face the difficult questions that this case raises.
I didn't see a single case of air embolus in 40yrs as a Dr, and neither have any of the experts called, or the doctors on the unit either.
Her private journal, which was found by police, doesn't help her either though, right? All that stuff like Letby herself writing "I killed them on purpose because I'm not good enough to care for them", "I am a horrible evil person", "I am evil I did this". She didn't offer this up, it was seized in a search. The defence says this was all a traumatised person acting out. Maybe. But let's not pretend the only thing on jurors' minds was a timesheet.
You yourself jump to massive, unsafe conclusions, and would be just as dubious a juror as those you deride (saying some won't be intelligent, etc). You state, as though it's established, proven fact 'some of the consultants rather than accepting responsibility looked for a scapegoat.'
Putting this aside, what did you think of Letby on the stand? She was chronically evasive, and - a cynic would say - said she couldn't recall X,Y or Z endlessly, when to do so would muddy timelines or cast some doubt as to everything from her whereabouts to her duties to events to interactions etc etc etc. I'm not saying the conviction is 100% airtight, but do you feel that Letby helped or hindered her case?
Apart from her seized private journal as highlighted by @trevorbyrne4668 what do you say about her rather bizarre social media searches on grieving parents?
You clearly know nothing about the case. There was nothing to scapegoat, as no one in management believed anything was wrong or suspicious. The consultants had to fight for an investigation. If they hadn't pressed the issue, no one would've been any the wiser. So you're saying that guilty consultants spent months and effort drawing attention to their mistakes in the hope a heretofore pleasant hardworking nurse could be blamed? And have the parents go through more agony? You know nothing.
She has been found guilty by 2 juries. I also worked in the NHS for 20 years. I knew a Theatre Sister who got all her sheets and towels from there....corruption, even on a small scale, is rife as are nurses and doctors with poor attitudes to care.@@trevorbyrne4668
You need to listen to 'crime scene to court room'...he reads every word out...and he was there. It will put you in no doubt of her guilt! There are many hours of podcasts
The staff who expressed serious concern and worked very hard all through this terrible case are all still working very hard, using their very high level of skills to continue to provide care to tiny sick babies and look after their parents.
I salute all you hard working. focused and dedicated NHS staff. I do hope that positive changes have been made in your work environments and that there is a possibility of a culture shift within HR and management.
I salute you all
The CQC rating overall of the trust is 'requires improvement' and the most recent reviews of the hospital itself are atrocious, it seems not enough is being done to rectify problems within this trust. Until people stop putting workers on a pedestal purely because they work for the NHS instead of holding them to account for serious misgivings I'm afraid this sycophantic culture within this field will remain.
@@michelle4595 As far as I'm concerned, people who work for the NHS are on the same level as people who join the military. They could all earn more doing their jobs for private healthcare providers but then everyone suffers.
As a young NHS worker who will soon be leaving the NHS, this couldn't be further from the truth I'm afraid. I work in a "good" trust yet it is full of lazy stupid people at every level. There are a small handful of talented individuals who eventually get worn down by the "not my pay grade", "not my job", "not my responsibility", "not my problem" mindset, and its mafia style banding system means so much money goes to inept middle managers who have been promoted via the Dilbert Principle. There are financial wastages beyond comprehension, staff are fundamentally underskilled but bypass lack of qualifications via inclusion policies or in MANY cases use fraudulent qualifications, and it is absolutely impossible to get rid of employed morons (we forget this but permanently stupid people do actually exist) who bring entire departments down to their level, unless they literally kill babies (allegedly) or criticise endless immigration
@@alfsmith4936 As far as I'm concerned, nobody in the NHS could be doing private work (except doctors, who don't do anything nowadays except order CTs and MRIs) because none of them are qualified for it or have the appropriate attitude. The NHS is one big retirement home for people incapable of getting a job anywhere better
The people that work for the NHS are just doing a job, nothing more, nothing less. Stop making them out to be hero's they are clearly not.
I live in France and read the New Yorker magazine article weeks ago. It raises many legitimate questions and their conclusion was compelling. There is very little evidence for a conviction and many doubts that any crimes actually happened at all. Certainly the unit she worked in was understaffed and badly led with many sub standard outcomes. She may well be guilty but so far I have seen little evidence to convict her over any other member of the staff.
During the trial, the prosecuting barrister would ask Lucy about a particular shift he was interested in questioning her about. Without fail he ALWAYS asked her 3 questions- one pertained to staffing and if the staffing numbers contributed to the collapse/decline/death of the baby. I have yet to hear her say “yes” during her cross examination with the KC. So it really wasn’t a huge contributing factor. Have you listened to Lucy’s cross examination in its entirety? If not I suggest you do.
@@katerinakaye2228 doctors and nurses work numerous shifts and I can assure you after a couple of years (sometimes even months) of repetitive and often nocturnal work your memory becomes far from perfect. The prosecution had an easy task in making her look guilty. How was she supposed to answer that question? If she said yes, she would look arrogant and trying to avoid guilt by shaming her workplace. If she said no, then...well you answered that yourself.
@@katerinakaye2228 You have missed the point entirely. Read the New Yorker and then tell me the evidence against was forensically solid and compelling, it wasn't. It could have applied to any number of other staff including some very senior doctors.
@@borjastick Agreed.
I struggle to remember what I was doing 6 weeks ago, let alone think of a specific shift from 6 years ago!
@@katerinakaye2228 Yes, it contains nothing of any consequence or worth.
I don’t know if Lucy is guilty or innocent, but what I can tell you as a mother of a nurse, who, when she was a student nurse, was told in a lecture about the many failings in the Mid Staffs Scandal. In the wake of the scandal, ‘The Francis Report’ highlighted failures there were a direct result of putting profit before patient care. Not one manager or Dr was disciplined. Some were moved around, others even promoted. Nurses took all the flack and it isn’t uncommon for Drs to pass the buck for their mistakes onto nurses. The NHS culture protects the Drs and managers and often doesn’t discipline Drs or managers for even some horrendous mistakes. It’s quite happy for nurses to take all the blame. They’re dispensable and sacrificial lambs in the eyes of the NHS.
Thank you
You are making this about something completely different. PLEASE LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE because l know you haven't ...yes people angry about the state of our hospitals but this case isn't about that
Same in outsourced healthcare.
There were a LOT of deaths and near deaths in the same ward all took place when letby was on shift and then stopped when she was taken off the role. None of this is outright evidence that letby did it however it is evidence that your theory isn't true because if that was the case, surely it would be ongoing and someone else would be getting the blame.
@@annbumfrey6812 have you read the whole "confession" note? Bet you any fooking money you ain't. Go fucking read that confession note that was used as evidence. Read the whole thing if your cognitive ability allows and ask yourself did that nurse really confess a murder or blame herself because she had become too attached to her patients?
Through the negligence of the NHS, I am now dying of cancer and no doubt there are thousands more like me, being over 70 years old I get the sneaky feeling they didn't give a toss about my welfare. and after 7 months of trying to find out why I was losing the use of my legs I went abroad for diagnosis it took the hospital 23 hours to diagnose spinal cancer so excuse me for thinking this young lady could well be innocent,The NHS is a cesspit that needs winding up and closing down exactly the same as the BBC.
Then people like me would be unable to afford help and medication like many tens of thousands in America where people literally have to choose between health care costs and being homeless.
Closing it down is cutting your nose off to spite your face.
It's woefully mismanaged and money is wasted. It's need a drastic overhaul not being gotten rid of.
Jesus, I really feel for you and understand, to a degree, some of your frustrations. I lost my dad due to NHS negligence, ignored his symptoms for near a year, by the time they took him seriously his pancreatic cancer was far too advanced and he was gone withing a month. They also caused the failure of his newly transplanted kidney 16 years prior (overdosing him on antibiotics), a consultant threatened to collude with other medical professionals cut off his treatment if he "made a fuss".
Once my mum was diagnosed with stage 4 lung cancer her life and health were no longer treated as important, we had to fight many times to stop them leaving her terrified and in pain, once after a stroke in a hospital corridor. Another stroke they made her wait 5 hours for an ambulance.
Absolutely vile service with some truly evil people.
I had an accident in mid 90's, fractured my pelvis in 7 or 8 places(it was a mess bits of bone everywhere, not just breaks) and after the first X-Ray I was told that they couldn't fix it and I would have to accept that I would be wheelchair bound for the rest of my life. As you can imagine I said no way! The next day I was visited by the same doctor and another guy(a toff) who was a pelvis specialist who rarely did NHS work, he was interested in my case and wanted to film the operation for a presentation he had booked for a tour of America that coming winter, I of course agreed, and signed the relevant papers. The first operation took over 20 hours, titanium plates and more than 30 screws, 2nd operation less than 3 hours to remove one of the screws that could have protruded into the joint. After the operation it looked like they had sawed my leg off and stapled it back together, I was on a diamorphine(pharmaceutical heroine) drip for 10 days, I had a button I could press if the pain got too much to give me an extra boost! Although I'm a recreational drug used, I didn't like the drip and asked to be taken off it. Reluctantly they took me off it and put me on co-codamol. Anyway 3 months later I was walking without crutches. I'm fine now although I am often a bit sore(especially before thunderstorms) I can't run properly now, but everything else is fine. I realise how lucky I was because the NHS couldn't fix me, and I was extremely fortunate that my case interested a third party who could make money out of it. BUT I can't help thinking, What IF my case hadn't interested this specialist, What IF the accident had happened a week later/earlier, What IF I had been taken to a different hospital. Large chunks of my memory are missing and conversations I had with staff I have no recollection of, BUT for whatever reason I was in the right place, at the right time when HELP was available that wasn't normally there. I put it down to fate! I have friends who say it was God/Jesus, others who just put it down to the luck of the draw, which I can equate with not withstanding that I have always considered myself NOT a lucky person. What I do know is that the NHS had already sentenced me to a life in a wheelchair and MR Ward(the pelvic specialist) was there at the exact right time to save me😮 Make of that what you will, BUT the NHS doesn't exactly shine does it🤔 IF I HAD BEEN IN AMERICA I WOULD HAVE DIED🤢
I am sorry for your situation, but no, it needs to be fixed. After 14 years of austerity measures, it is more than struggling. The blame lies with the previous government.
That was the previous governments plan; undermine the NHS so much that a private health provider and ‘American health insurance companies’ make an appealing alternative. Chronic under staffing for years and the watering down of using fully qualified staff by using ‘associates’ have all contributed to the situation.
My biggest concern about the original trial was the lack of any substantial evidence that the children had been killed. We know that they had died, they were all very sick, being in an ICU facility, but no evidence beyond more had died than statistic said should have.
Lots of speculation, but little actual evidence.
9 months of trial - pretty sure there was a LOT of evidence
@@potr6461 You’re wrong. Circumstantial and hearsay.
Have you read or listened to the court transcripts? There was lots of damning evidence.
@@potr6461stop being daft.
You are right to be concerned. The case is very concerning indeed,
As to the statistics, in fact it is worse because the statistics were affected by upgrading the facility to incle a higher level of serious cases, which meant more didn't die than statistically to be expected.
The evidence in fact points very strongly to her innocence and deaths from another cause, sepsis, infection or something to do with the facility. The statistics used to allege guilt against her were fiddled and a proper analysis links another nurse equally and others nearly equally. In other words the statistical evidence is fatally flawed and of no value whatsoever. Furthermore she was alleged to have been involved in 7 deaths but there were in fact 17 deaths and no enquiry into the other 10 was made.
Almost certainly she is innocent and certainly she did not receive a fair trial.
I know it may be an unpopular opinion, but I have to say I don’t believe Lucy is guilty.
I believe she has been made a scapegoat for the hospitals failings. The unit, including all doctors, nurses, managers etc have stuck together and blamed Lucy to save their own backsides.
Yes she did some strange things, the things she wrote down. Keeping nursing notes. Facebooking prior patients family’s.
However, what she wrote could have been self doubt. Doubts in her ability as a nurse. Feeling self blame, as these deaths were on her shifts. I can say as a nurse, that most nurses who have a patient die on their shift, let alone it being a baby, and it being a frequent occurrence, feels an element of responsibility. That feeling of ‘Could I have done more?’ ‘Could I have done something differently?’ So it’s not that hard to understand with so many deaths why she’d write such things, maybe she just wasn’t coping.
The facebooking of her prior patients parents/family was made out to be something she did to satisfy her evil twisted mind.. Maybe she really just wanted to check up on them, see if they were doing okay? Maybe the deaths weighed that heavily on her that she felt compelled to make sure the family was okay?
Most of the evidence against her is hearsay, from others who witnessed this or that. But didn’t actually whitness her cause the death or actual harm of any baby in her care. Yet if you truly believed any of those babies lives were in danger, and management weren’t listening to your complaints. Wouldn’t you go to the police?
Also they’ve cherry picked cases, so many other babies died that weren’t on Lucy’s shifts. They weren’t mentioned at all, as she couldn’t be blamed for them could she. I believe 17 died, 10 on Lucy’s shifts, and she worked a LOT of shifts. The case and evidence against Lucy is to perfectly put together.
From the start something in my heart has just never believed Lucy is guilty of murdering all those babies 😓.
If she is, then she is in the right place. If she isn’t, I sincerely hope she gets the justice she deserves. 😓
She was found guilty on circumstantial evidence and I read before her trial she was being made a scapegoat, that was written by someone in the hospital. I feel the same as you, uneasy.
How long did you spend in the court?
@@annephillips5243 ALL evidence is circumstantial. It points to a set of events, people, relationships... the circumstances of the crime. People who say this are advertising their lack or understanding of how the law works.
Thankfully we don’t think with our hearts.
@@Rosskles Not ALL evidence is circumstantial. There is also Forensic Evidence such as DNA evidence, fingerprints, weapons used in a crime, ballistics reports. Digital Evidence. Statistical evidence.
Just saying, if you want to talk law, know that there is 18 different types of evidence that can be presented to a court in a criminal trial. ONLY ONE of which is circumstantial evidence.
It appears she was convicted on statistical evidence, without evidence of commitmenting murder
You have got the 'appearance' wrong.
@@momeara7482 well done, you spotted my dyslexia
@@paulyoung1172 In fact, I was kind enough to avoid the evidence of your dyslexia.
That is not the case. If you listen to the podcast, The Trial of Lucy Letby, you will see what all the evidence was.
She also had witnesses who saw the babies deteriorate under her case despite being perfectly stable before she arrived on shift. I do think they could get one case wrong, but there's numerous cases and she was found guilty of all of them.
I still think she was used as a scape-goat to cover up more serious crimes.
HOW can there be more serious crimes than killing babies?????
What a bizarre comment, you made!
@@childofthe60s100 Serious managerial negligence.
crimes or failures.
Glad you managed to cram in this video, Alan. Very interesting and informative as always. Thank you 🙏🏻
The New Yorker article is still blocked. The key to this is the ‘sift’ as it’s referred to in the appeal judgement. No one has verified this, no reports were made for the other cases, it’s solely Evans opinion with the assumption he was working independently, despite him touting for the position in an email.
Agreed - as far as I can see motive and means were not established beyond reasonable doubt. My prediction - this will turn out to be an enormous scandal.
@@lcship1905 I agree
Accessible here in Australia. Reading it now.
is this the article that came early in may.?
✌🏻🇦🇺🌏🤘🏻
It’s not solely Evans’ opinion. The prosecution called other expert witnesses.
The defence was free to call their own expert witnesses but chose not to. Presumably they didn’t think it would help their case if they did.
Ta for providing such clear and simple exegesis of legal doctrines. I can’t recall any of my lecturers ever offering such clean and clear lessons during my law degree. ❤
I got shot down on social media like crazy for daring to say What If she's innocent?
@@mandsc4120 can’t help ur gut feeling…..👍
what are you basing this on?
i would have been one of those people but now i would agree with you....dont think there were murders in the first place..action needs to be taken now not 10 years time
thank god I'm not the only one who thought from the start that something is off with this case.
Have you read or listened to the court transcripts being read (I.e. what LL said in court)?
@@ellea2541 Yes and there is not a shred of 'evidence' against her...
Internet detective's are a plague
@@66kaisersoza It doesnt take a genius to understand basic facts...but clearly well beyond you.
Yes, it's good to know you went into it without any preconceived ideas, before you'd heard a single piece of evidence. 🤡
To me the hospital plumber hit the nail on the head when he said the maternity ward had sanitation issues.Apparently drains were a problem with foul water backing up in basins nurses used to wash their hands.
Omg.
No surprise. Medical malpractice is rife all over.
Totally irrelevant. The cause of death of those babies had nothing to do with the cleanliness of the ward. Go and read the evidence.
None of the babies died from blocked up drains
@@sarahmurphy8030 how do you know that?
Many thanks. I love hearing your insight on these matters.
Lucy has been made a scapegoat. It was obvious from day one. This woman who cared for sick babies has had her life ruined because of poor management, nhs failures.
Pointless, non evidence based, emotional speculation.
If it HAD been "obvious from day one", do you think that YOU were the only one to notice it?
@@childofthe60s100 These conspiracy theorists are absolute nutbags.
@Kellycreator l honestly think you haven't study her case ...you won't be saying that if you had .How on earth can you compare cases like this the details Yes THE DETAILS are so different
I have wondered why they have protecred the name of her married doctor friend but named all the other witnesses.
Because Dr A didn't want his wife to find out about his 'friendship' with Lucy.
If it was a "normal" citizen I doubt they would have protected the identity.
There were other witnesses whose names were withheld but, they didn’t even allow the people in court to see her boyfriend. He had a screen in front of the stand when he testified. It’s bc of his association with her being more intimate (we all know they had an affair) and the potential for his being blamed for being involved or targeted bc he was cheating on his wife with a murderer.
Yeah, seems very suspicious.
They are setting a precedent where someone can accuse someone of the most serious crime, with no direct evidence, and they don't even have to reveal their name.
Also, they weren't even the victim. It's very strange.
I read that a parent or parents had engaged a lawyer to sue doctor(s) for negligence/malpractice. If true, the Drs had one heck of a motive to testify against Lucy - and Dr A's identity may have been protected because he had been named in a Civil Court case.
It totally stinks of fish that his entire identity was concealed.
Worth noting that he's already been established as a liar by carrying on with Lucy behind his wife's back.
I spent so much time worrying about a dystopian future, I didn't realise I was in a dystopian present. We are not heading for a police state, we're already in one.
If this women is left to languish for years in jail for nothing then as a society a country you should be disgusted with yourselves. The British justice system is a joke how many now even today rot in jails nationwide innocent victims of police corruption even just to cop a plea through bad legal advice? Or did the nation as a collective forget the whole Post Office scandal? Because from where I sit and perceive as a country were very very broken!
She’s a murderer too many coincidences
Which country or countries are you making comparisons with?
@@mikerodent3164 You go back to sleep! With the rest of the sheep..
@@ApnaChoud Which country are you comparing with?
@@mikerodent3164 Go back to sleep!
A lot of people die in hospitals … Nurses are there when it happens.
If I was a nurse, after this case, I would never work on a ward again.
I think Letby's problem was that she was there every time it happened.
Some clowns on here
@@gordonshewan9892 Nurses don’t have to work on the front line - on a ward.
There are loads of ‘back room’ jobs that don’t carry the risk.
Let us the suppose the probability of being accused of murder is tiny, tiny, tiny … fine.
But if, by some incredibly unfortunate situation, it happens … Then you get imprisoned for life.
What are you gonna do ???
@@minanes6549 She was also not present when other people died.
@@minanes6549 she wasn't though lots of babies died when she wasn't though. That was not even highlighted by her shocking defence.
How nice to watch a legal channel without any waffle, unlike a certain online barrister, whom I won't name. Subscribed.
BBB?
@@RamblingRose777The cap fits.
@@RamblingRose777The cap fits.
As a police officer I was in Crown Court once where before the main trial some 'pre trial issues' were raised by the defence. There was a hearing the previos day between defence and prosection where is was agreed certain aspects of my evidence should be omitted, so in effect the jury didn't have the full picture. When the remaining evidence was given at trial, the jury looked bewildered and I felt I had to let them know as part of one of one of my answers to my cross examination that there had been discussions (which I called business) removing some of my evidence the previous day. The defence were not happy but it had to be done. Obviously I could even hint at what it was.
chips for breakfast a true northerner i am proud of you
You obviously never lived in Sussex.
Is that because they're warm?
@@scottb721 no
@@QPRTokyo Who the f wants to live in Sussex when you can live up north and eat proper fish n chips?
Halfway through and I'm losing the will to live. 😴
Is he going to mention Lucy Letby?🥴
no one seems to talk about the doctor she reacted to when she saw him in court.
Dr A betrayed Lucy, he is a treacherous coward
@@ruthbashford3176 He was a player and flirted with nurses and he betrayed his wife. He is for #1, himself.
@@ruthbashford3176
He certainly led her on. To say it was unrequited on his part was laughable after the infantile hearts and chocolate etc
Funniest thing is the first release of the Appeal Court ruling left Dr A' real name in, so the Court of Appeal broke the reporting restrictions the Trial Judge had been threatening everyone else with for months. You couldn't make it up!!
He did not deserve anonymity
I had a strong gut feeling that Lucy Letby is a victim of a miscarriage of justice. I know shes been convicted, right? Of course they never get it wrong do they? Horizon anyone.
In my view your instincts are correct!
You're biased.
@jamesburns9975 did you have a strong gut feeling that Beverly Allitt was innocent too Cos she was a children's nurse who murdered 4 children in much the same way as Lucy Letby Now in Rampton hospital secure unit
@jamesburns9975 And if your wrong and she's taken back on as a nurse are prepared to take that risk she might do it again !
@@annbumfrey6812 is that best the argument you have? You think a nurse who's been convicted of this is going to go back and be a nurse again and she might do it again and somehow that means I would change my whole view on her being a victim of a miscarriage of justice? Please @annbumfrey6812 refrain from breeding.
Starting to believe her innocence.
I'm kind of shocked the jury wasn't sequestered. Unless they don't do that in the UK.
This was such a high profile, important and complicated case I am sure the jury would have been sequestered in the U.S.
I’m reading things from Britons in these comments that indicate to me that they treat jurors disrespectfully and abusively. The Crown seems contemptuous of jurors as if it barely tolerates them. Just my impression. 🇺🇸
Excellent, articulate and professional summary - thank you!
Thanks! It’s interesting to learn about law in the UK 🇬🇧
This absolutely stinks . Surely any critically thinking person can see this
Wasn't the same said when that woman went missing and they blamed the husband. Turns out she fell into the river
YOU were on the jury and heard ALL the evidence then??????
Surely a critical thinking person requires evidence - not just a knee jerk response?
I doubt I could have been certain of her guilt, wanting someone to pay for the poor baby's death is human nature but I'd want to be 100% sure I got it right before locking someone up for life.
That’s not how things work though is it. We don’t convict on 100% certainty
@vvvictoriav5958 If you're on the jury, i.e. if I was on the jury, I would have to be 100% convinced she did it. The evidence would need to be solid. Someone's life is at stake, you don't convict a life away on a hunch or a maybe. I think the technical term is "without a shadow of a doubt" i.e. 100%
@@donny121able You mean you'd have ben the one single juror who failed to find Ian Huntley guilty , sure the girls both accidently drowned in his bath ? All the transcripts.evidence points to Letby-investigative magazines such as Private Eye reported the Post Office scandal over 15 years ago, they do a lot of miscarriage of justice investigations that often see convictions quashed. For people like Bamber-who has his fan club-no chance; guilty as convicted, Unless these sorts of hard hitting real investigative jourbals take up her case and show huge faults in evidence etc etc-which on the face of it is unlikely-I'd say its a safe conviction. The social media "facts" that Letby didn't do it, it was a Dr on duty, loads of babies died before and after Letby are totally false and do more to underline her guilt than anything and w ill prove a huge hinderance to any sort of sane defence if there is one.
@@vvvictoriav5958 our system is "beyond a reasonable doubt".
What is reasonable doubt in simple terms?
Reasonable doubt exists when you are not firmly convinced of the Defendant's guilt, after you have weighed and considered all the evidence. A Defendant must not be convicted on suspicion or speculation. It is not enough for the State to show that the Defendant is probably guilty
Yeah, that's a worrying part of this; there are absolutely people in the world who would say 'guilty' even if they're not certain. And some countries still have the death penalty.
I had to defend myself and sue a very aggressive organisation (not in the UK by the way) a few years back. I could not believe the lies and the alternative reality created by their lawyer, with no supporting documentation. Still, the judges believed her version. I realised how flawed and corrupted the entire legal system is. Citizens who have no experience with the law system, think that the law is there to protect them, no bigger illusion than that.
There is something deeply unsettling about her conviction, in my humble opinion, and I felt this from the beginning.
Appreciate your work
Why deeply unsettling ? Because she's white ?
i was the opposite i thought she was guilty but i only watched the news which give you the impression it was a slam dunk....i am now of the opinion there were no murders in the first place so if thats true these parents have been put through double trauma
Your opinion is extremely humble-you are simply either in love with Lucy( forgetting she is a constant liar and not caring) or simply hate anyone you think more intelligent than you are lol
@@dr1609 dont there was anything to lie about...the 6 children she is supposed to have murdered in their post mortem the death was given as natural causes....either the police are lying or the pathologists needs sacking today
Brilliant analysis as always, thank you.
This email incident smells of an attempt to pervert the course of justice. Will charges be laid?
How did the Cafe manager not get arrested for attempting to pervert the court of justice?
Im a Brit living in the US. I read the article in the New Yorker - it was very detailed and does cast doubt on the conviction of Lucy Letby.
The New York era knows more about a case in the UK than the jurors? Right.😅
@@notyourordinarygran it's called investigative journalism. Read the article
@@SlaterLater Well it might be but why do Americans think they know better than everyone else , and poke their noses into other countries affairs?? Focus on your own country, which has many failings!!
Cover up for manager and Dr failure.. cant let it look like the system is broken so someone has to be blamed.
Wow! That is exactly what I typed on an article a few days ago about this!
HAS to be a doctor failure, nurses always know best lol
She's a scapegoat. There were many many ongoing issues at hospital procedures weren't being followed and staff are aware of this.
Well said iv said same from day one’ only last week a Kent hospital had to shut down the baby unit because so many babies died !
How interesting, I am surprised there wasn't further investigation into the email and charges brought against the person who sent it. Imagine trying to scupper such an important trial, putting the grieving parents through the wringer, wasting Court time and costing the take payer a lot of money because you are miffed that you were forced to pay for a second hand phone you had stolen from an employee. That cafe owner needs to be clear their behaviour is unacceptable. I'm not sure what charges, if any, could be brought against them. Wasting police and court time perhaps? Attempt to pervert the course of justice maybe? At the very least they need a stern talking to. Or possibly psychiatric care. It's fascinating to get a peek behind the curtain of the court though, so thank you
If I'd been her, and was handed a life sentence for crimes I didn't commit, I'd be saying far more than 'I'm innocent!' She showed no real emotion and I think an innocent person would have been distraught! 🙄🇬🇧
Not necessarily some people are void of emotions on some things if I cried as a child I'd get a beating now I don't show my emotions especially in front of others it doesn't mean I don't care it just means I no longer know how to show my emotions in front of others
Your world view as a barrister is really refreshing. The world of legal professionals appears to be separate from the the rest of the world. Understandable, on the basis that some form of administration and process needs to be followed to "ensure" consistency. But, difficult for the non-professionals working on the basis of "common-sense" to appreciate and comprehend. Your content is excellent in it's simplicity and regularity.
PS: I am not a robot.
Neither am I.
Only a robot would deny it was a robot.
@@andrewcarter7503damn. You got here first !
@@andrewcarter7503affirmative
When you talk about 'non-professionals' I presume you're referring to all the social media 'experts' with their conspiracy theories, who seem to think they know more than those who were actually involved in the case. This item is a perfect example of that, and if the courts were to take any notice of this sort of nonsense nobody would ever get convicted of anything.
Is it me or does that chimney look like it’s leaning to the left 😂
As soon as I heard this Lucy Letby stuff coming out, with the arrest, the stuff she wrote, the searches she did on the internet, writing letters to the family, I thought the whole thing stinks. There is something strange going on when your colleagues accuse you of murdering babies, you are put on administrative duties, then a year later there is a Police investigation, a year later Letby is arrested for the first time, a year later Letby is arrested for the second time, a year later Letby is arrested for the third time, then charged a month later. There seemed to be a lot of coincidences and her colleagues put two and two together. The most damning evidence were the "confessions," but she was directly accused of the worst possible crimes by her colleagues. I'm not saying she is innocent, but it's not easy investigating incidents from 7-8 years ago. Should there not be an investigation every time someone dies?
We are talking about the NHS and its covering up CULTURE. Speaking from experience having worked in wards.
There should at least be a "Morbidity and Mortality" conference/ review (hekd regularly multidisciplinary) to review these incidents. At least that's what happened where I used to work.
Every single baby had an autopsy done at the time by forensic pathologist Dr. George Kokai. He found the babies to have died of natural causes. He was not called to give evidence at either trial. Odd.
Of the 7, six had an autopsy and were claimed to be from natural causes, which when you have a baby of 27 weeks old, that isn't unusual.
The entire trial was based on the theories of that expert witness. That expert witness over turned pathology report and crafted new theories gleaned from reviews of the notes.
Hes not a pathologist or neonatologist, but somehow from reading the notes he knew exactly what happened despite no one else having a clue. It beggars belief.
The expert witness wasn’t just a witness, he was the prime source for the trial.
He also had a financial interest in the trial as he was a professional witness. He wasn’t an expert in his field as such, He was just a hack retired general paediatrician hawking his services to the courts. Massive conflict of interest.
The other thing to note is the reporting restrictions were only in place around the time of the appeal due to the retrial . Given the 14 life sentences a retrial for one count of attempted murder was not particular necessary. The reporting restrictions were convenient for the appeal though
Agree. He actually got in touch and recommended himself, and they accepted!! Had been retired well over a decade, and was obsessed with air/gas embolism theory that he obtained from information from 1989!
@@strippins If you read the trial transcripts, or listen to the podcast The Trial of Lucy Letby, or the voiced trial transcript videos by the CZcamsr Crime Scene 2 Court Room, you will see that the entire trial was not based on the theories of Dr Dewi Evans.
Dr Evans was not the ‘source’ for the trial either. Lucy Letby came to trial because first she was suspected by the consultants on the unit where she worked, then the police investigated and had reason to think she was guilty, then the CPS looked at the police’s evidence and agreed with them.
(Then the jury, having heard all the evidence, agreed.)
Dr Evans has many years experience of working as a consultant paediatrician including with newborn babies, the exact area of medicine to which the charges related.
Why do you think Dr Evans, who was paid to act as an expert witness, had a financial conflict of interest?
@@strippins The entire trial was not based on the theories of Dr Dewi Evans (a consultant paediatrician with extensive experience of neonatal medicine), and he was not the prime source for the trial.
@@Jill-jb1jg that’s not entirely true, while the prosecution may have called other experts, the premise of the entire trial was in fact based on Evans.
The police gave Evans some notes, he looked at the notes and went , no no, that pathology reports wrong the baby died of x ( air embolism or what not) . It is fair to say that that there was a trial at all was entirely based on Evans .
Furthermore, Evans approached the police not the other way round. He approached them and said I can help you. Then the police give him some notes and he concocts the theories letbys presumed guilt was based upon. It’s a sham
He was a paediatrician , but retired for several years, and while every paediatrician does some neonatology during their training he was never a consultant neonatology specialist. Neonatology is so specialised having an expert witness who didn’t work at consultant level in neonatology is fairly spurious
The whole case was based on one experts 'fantasy' of how the deaths 'could' have occured. No evidence at all supported his claims!!
Is that cafe worker not attempting to pervert the course of justice?
I would say so. It needs to be investigated further though before charges can be brought.
@@Boudicca-the-musical whoever sent that email absolutely are. They are seeking to alter the course of the trial.
don't you mean the boss? is sounds like the boss was pissed with the girlfriend so tried to get the boyfriend in trouble.
*Calling Letby a Nurse is an insult to Nurses*
Ditto calling Shipman a Doctor.
Exactly my thoughts
Lucy Letby is an excellent nurse but the mistake she made was being a whistleblower. The neonatal unit in the CoCH was a chaotic, shambolic open sewer with incompetent consultants, understaffed and with under trained staff. It's not surprising so many neonates died there.
Shipman’s dead and was struck off before he died. So no one calls him a Dr
Whilst I have no doubt given what you have reported in probably the case, in terms that the Juror did perorm his duties professionally; I do find incredulous that the boyfriend had never been in the cafe his girlfriend works in.
My thought too.
I never went to my wife's place of work.
There was no reason to do so.
WHY is it incredulous?
@@childofthe60s100this person means " incredible" and probably does not understand better-paid/ qualified jobs keep one busy during working hours lol
Always interesting. Thank you. 👋
I'm glad I'm not paying you by the word. I'm 5 minutes in and I'm none the wiser.
Yes , straight to comments after a minute.
@@Mrtwowongssadly the commentators are overwhelmingly angry women, doctor-hating nurses or wannabe-nurses and a few out-of-work men.
Some Serial killers have a tendency of believing their perceived innocence even though they know they committed the crime. All they want to do in their warped mind is to inflict as much pain to the families of the victims.
I certainly wouldn’t want her babysitting my kids let’s put it that way 😮
How about Lucia de Berk?
That was really interesting-thank you!
People do admit to crimes that they didn't commit. We had two brothers in Wakefield who had done just that, and spent years in custody. A future video topic perhaps Alan?
Soviet style show trial. Welcome to communism.
Check out the Wikipedia article on "False confession".
I just learned about a story of 5 separate people who all falsely confessed to a crime. Later DNA evidence showed they were innocent.
The two brothers were set up and eventually were freed. They were not full shillings and the police needed a suspect.
I believe this girl is innocent
i dont know if she did or didnt but what i do know is she was convicted on circumstantial evidence which is NOT beyond reasonable doubt lucy should never of been convicted
I was on the jury of a sex assault trial and they were saying they didnt believe the victim because she wasnt upset enough and other really shallow reasons - it was scary how ignorant they were.
The many people complaining the conviction is not secure are often saying her being there when babies was the only evidence presented by the prosecution. This is false.
Firstly, more babies started dying than usual after Letby started working at the unit. The issue wasn’t just that she was there when they died. And when she was moved from working at night to day shifts the times of death changed accordingly.
And there is much more evidence which definitely points to her being guilty, including:
She removed over 250 handover sheets from the hospital. This is illegal and is strong evidence she was attempting to cover up her crimes because handover sheets are legal documents recording what happens during a shift. If they are removed then what happened on shifts cannot be investigated on the basis of official documents.
She also falsified patient records: changing the time of death to make it appear she had not been on duty when the baby died. I mean how is that not suspicious?
Yes sick babies will die bit before she worked there they were dying from sicknesses that were known to be a threat to their survival. After she came babies started dying unexpectedly without explanation.
The NHS was poor in its response not because they framed her, even though there is a lot of buck passing of course. The problem was that upper management did not act after many staff raised concerns.
I thing she’s Not Guilty …. Something about this Case don’t sit right with Me
Agree
Yeah but what about the evidence - it’s a pity about all the evidence then
@@scarletred8888 what evidence? Everything presented has been either ‘he said, she said’ or ‘she was on duty when…’
The statistical evidence presented by the prosecution showing she was ‘ever present when…’ wouldn’t have even been admissible in a Dutch court after the wrongful conviction of Lucia de Burk, a nurse who was acquitted of murdering patients after six years in prison and who was sentenced on the same evidence that Letby’s been sent down on.
They had to change large parts of the legal system following her acquittal.
In fact, I read of one statistician who presented evidence that wasn’t used in the Letby case showing that, based on the statistical analysis used to convict Letby they could equally accuse 38 other nurses of the same crimes!
@@scarletred8888what evidence? Cite one single piece of forensic evidence and I'll donate £10,000 to the NHS staff fund.
@@kymmoore853 She was on duty for all 27 incidents, most others were only on duty for 3 or 4 and one for 7. That can't be explained by coincidence alone.
But then there is eye-witness evidence of her behaviour around children as they suddenly deteriorated. You're calling that "he said she said", you're effectively saying that eye witness evidence doesn't count.
There is also the hard evidence that she sent a photo of a baby in intensive care without its breathing tube in, to the parents. Are you claiming someone else took the tube out, then she happened to come in and take the photo quickly before putting the tube back in and then somehow didn't report it?
She was guilty. Banged to rights. If it walks like a duck and sounds like a duck; it’s a duck!
Without any evidence at all sadly
With regard to the idea that the jury had made up its mind early on, Michael Popok has said that research indicates that juries do make up their mind very early in a trial. They go over the evidence of course but a lot of them figure out a case not long after the opening arguments have been made. (He does commentary on the Meidas Touch Network)
She’s so blatantly guilty
reasons.
So say you!
I have strong doubts about her guilt I'm afraid. She's a patsy
Agreed. Understaffed and poorly performing neo natal unit find a scapegoat to pin the blame on.
My sister is one of the brightest people imaginable, Cambridge graduate and GP, and she said at the time that she had concerns about this conviction.
Are you the inferior sibling then?
@@TheRealD4 Definitely, lol.
Neither being a Cambridge graduate nor being a GP are sufficient for concluding someone is one of the brightest people imaginable.
But she isnt a lawyer
@jamesj.mccombie5031 I've known a lot of exceptionally intelligent people and she's right up there.
Serving on a jury is an incredible experience as to the level of stupidity in society. I'm talking about the other jurors.
Most jurors pre- assume guilt... "Because why the cops gave charged them ? "
True fact.
I've no doubt that she is guilty. She showed no remorse and then there's the creepy collecting of papers and cards and note writings. My family have experienced a 'natural baby death' in our family and it's left a permanent dark cloud over all of us. I HOPE the families of these babies are able to come to terms with what happened to them.
Some one who was not guilty would not show remorse either.
It's the worst torment in the world to face down a falsehood.
I thought she just looked in shock personally.
Did not hear her explanation for the notes.
If she was not guilty, why would she show remorse?
She’s not guilty. The nhs is a criminal mafia. They killed my daughter too and covered it up. She wrote those notes because neonatal nurses have a code of silence and she was the only one with a guilty conscience
@@paulgibbons2320because they won’t allow her statements to be published otherwise it will be revealed to the world that the nhs routinely does this to whistleblowers
Was Dewi Evans instructed as an Expert Witness in the way we have all seen as being important in the Post Office SCandal?
Gareth Jenkins of Fujitsu was never an Expert Witness but a Witness of Fact. No Letter of Instruction or educational instructions of specific duties.
There were rumours that Dewi Evans was 'self-appointed' and no Letter etc etc.
The cafe thing is plain weird.
dewi evans is in the case the same as paul brittain another so called expert in the rachell nickell\samantha blissert.....both a waste of space...
Are we to forget about the notes she wrote to herself saying she was guilty and evil? Come off it.
Thank you! She was revelling in her own evilness. People just don't want to believe that a nurse can be this evil. Plus the conspiracy freaks who believe everything they see on the internet 🙄
was just thinking that myself...
Guilty as sin , a lot of idiots on here !!
No that was a young woman who was very distressed. Doesn't prove any thing. Remember she wasn't considered insane.
@@joemurphy2177 she had every reason to be very distressed, she got caught...
Anecdotal and personal eye-witness evidence is the lowest quality of evidence in science but of higher quality evidence in law, which is a bit mind-blowing to me.
Science is all about making general statements. Criminal trials are usually about establishing what happened on a particular occasion. That's "anecdotal" by definition.
that's because you have a poor mind that can't tell what the difference is.
I work with a healthcare worker who is also a legal professional who both worked on the same ward as Letby when he was training and had some dealings with the case, he said Letby was a "Lovely, lovely person" with a beautiful voice who one would never suspect of such things and he also said there were things not admissible as evidence in the case: CCTV recordings of her when she thought no one was watching her when she was pulling horrible faces "Like a wild animal" and he speculated that she may have a split personality. He was quite convinced that she was guilty.
Wow! How strange. Was this behaviour mentioned by anyone else, do you know?
@@psisky The judge saw it he said.
As I recall from doing jury service many years ago, jurors are not supposed to discuss the case, or even say what case they're on, with anyone outside. How come everyone in the café seems to have known that this juror was on the Letby case? Seems he may not have been taking his oath *that* seriously.
The juror had never been to yhe Cafë. His girlfriend worked there and had called the Police to deal with her Manager not paying for her phone. Manager's revenge?
She's guilty. Court transcripts show that. She was also guilty of the stuff she was accusing other staff of. She was constantly found on a ward she wasn't assigned to, messaging her pals while on duty. Letby's parents must have a lot of money, and will do anything to protect the reputation of their daughter. Yes, negligence in the NHS costs the tax payer over a billion pounds sterling ANNUALLY, but the facts of the case (she literally confessed to it on a post it note). Regardless of the nitpicking technicalities the "Innocence Fraud" crowd rely on (see WM3 and Amanda Knox).
Yes, her parents had so much money and influence that their daughter's face is now all over the press as a convicted baby murderer and she is in jail for life. Take your weird, inaccurate conspiracy theories somewhere else.
I think you will find there are thousands of nurses, who are equally as guilty of all of the things you think to be convincing enough of her guilt. The only difference being, they haven't been accused of anything, so nobody cares.
You will also find that any parent would want to defend the reputation of their child, if they are being incorrectly accused of something as horrific as murdering babies.
If you start with the belief, she is guilty, everything can be deformed to fit that belief, and convince you she is guilty.
If you don't start with the belief she is guilty, there is not one single detail that can give you the belief she is guilty, only lots of arguments that indicate she could have done it.
You don't lock people up for life because they could have done what they are accused of doing, you lock them up because they actually did it.
I’ve met Dr Ravi. He’s one of the nicest people I’ve ever met. He would not accuse someone of murder unless he was 100% positive
He would if his job depended on it
You have met a doctor. You liked him when you met him. This means he would not do anything wrong.
Oh yes?
@carolineoakshett8520 I'm sure Harold Shipman was probably very nice too 😂
@@craigdobson9068 as nice as angelic Lucy Letby
I wish someone with medical knowledge could explain why all this wasn't picked up at the post mortems of 6 of the babies. And how they could reach the conclusion they were murdered later on
Why are so many people trying to defend this child murderer?
Spare a thought for her victims and their families.
You should not be vehemently defending someone who was found guilty of such crimes, and to do so demonstrates that you really don't understand what you are talking about as well as your contempt for the rule of law.
I read all 13k words of the New Yorker article and there's definite grounds for an appeal here and the ruling forbidding one is astonishing
And what of the notebooks found at Letby's home with words like "I am EVIL!" and "I did this!"? And these were just two of the many heavily incriminating scribblings of Letby.
Don't you think that's rather incriminating?
@@winningjubbly9712I agree, but there is additional evidence to question the safety of the conviction
@winningjubbly9712 it was a note of things people were saying about her, written after the accusations.
@@winningjubbly9712 that is not my point.. my point is that there appears to be no grounds to deny the appeal. Yet they denied it. I don't know whether she is guilty or innocent because there are significant holes in the conviction that suggest it needs another look.
Just a guess. : maybe the Appeal Court Judges know slightly more about the case
than you do...??
000,s of babies and mothers have died in maternity units all over the UK, I suppose she's responsible for them as well is she? She was,nt at work when another 7 babies died, explain that. No forensic insulin work done either. Trial by the UK press.
I still have doubts as to her guilt.
As the court case did not produce one shred of concrete evidence as to this ladys guilt, you have to wonder what happend the law of "innocent until proven guilty".
Prosecution by statistics. The dutch Luci de B case shows how easy it is to come to false conclusions by data alone and not by actual factual witnesses to a crime.
I don't know if Lucy is guilty or not, but there is no proof she did these 'murders' which could easily be caused by systematic failures in care.
There are large numbers of men in prison for crimes that they didn't commit - Michael Stone for instance - so until they are free I'm completely unconcerned with a psychopath like Letby.
Actually it seems to be an American thing. If I'm not wrong (i might though 😅) Art if law was taking about it not long ago on a panel with other YTbers. In the UK you have a burden to prove you're innocent and for example if you're decide not to testify or make a statement prosecution can literally say to the jury "See, they didn't even offer an explanation, they've got nothing to say because they're guilty!" while in States it's defendant's right to stay silent and that kind of statement by the prosecution would cause a misstrial because of how prejudiced it is.
This is wild!!!
@@BeardLADI expect there are many Michael Stones. But regarding criminality;
1. Northern Ireland loyalist convicted of murders in 1988 at Milltown Cemetery.
2. Person convicted of the Russell murders in 1996 in Kent, England.
No.2 maintains his innocence and continues to contest his conviction. It is probably No.2 that the above poster is referring to.