Install the app
How to install the app on iOS

Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.

Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.

This nurse Letby case

Sean Ashley said:
but there is no other evidence to suggest a different cause. And so much evidence to suggest she did it.
Click to expand...
This seems to be the charge against her. Unfortunately, it is all circumstantial (e.g she was always there). There is no proven MO of how she "did it". The evidence against her basically describes, for example, a capable and conscientious worker who took on the difficult cases to help out colleagues...
 
COYBL25 said:
I think the fact that babies stopped dying once she was caught
speaks volumes too.
Click to expand...
I know very little about the case ....

But ....

I have observed Britain's special skill - the cover up- on many occasions. Keep mum, mums the word, don't rock the boat .... we have repressive phrases subtly rammed into our heads from an early age by the establishment.

Now contemplate .... a nhs manager runs a sloppy ship, there's a tight budget to follow. They got their job by virtue of having a public school on their CV, and despite only having good grades in Latin, history and art, they landed this cushy well paid management role because their appointing boss went to a similar school snd they know one another through lacrosse / pony club / rugby.

Public school teaches self confidence above all else, blag it out, brass neck. So this manager is inept, clueless and filled with false confidence with no ability to run his or her section. All they prioritise is keeping within budget because that might mean a cushy promotion. Perhaps their system, their management , the lack of adequate funding or staffing leads to pressure, poor decisions, deaths.

Maybe the case against Letby is circumstantial. How convenient to have a fall guy. Charge 'er officer.

The manager bucks up their ideas. The NHS trust slaps his or her wrists, less time is spent in the cafe supping coffee and socialising, the job is taken seriously for a while, work is done collaboratively by managers to make an improvement for once. There have been fewer deaths since.

Looks convincing doesn't it? Could easily happen. The cover up.

In the uk rhe buck seldom stops high up where it belongs. Look at how long it took to expose the Post Office.
 
COYBL25 said:
I think the fact that babies stopped dying once she was caught
speaks volumes too.
Click to expand...
I’ve said it before I think she’s been convicted on maths . The statistics are unbelievable and the changes in numbers when she moved from hospital A to hospital B back to hospital C are incredible and extremely compelling .

The overall evidence , mathematical and statistical to one side doesn’t seem overwhelming but I wasn’t sat in the court for months . The fact the jury seemed able to distinguish between various cases also gives me some confidence in the verdict , overall like the majority of us I don’t really know enough about it certainly not to be convinced to set aside a juries verdict . If things change going forward then I may change my opinion .

I do think because she’s a move relatively attractive middle class girl makes it easy for her to garner support in away others probably don’t get .
 
Harryflashman said:
I’ve said it before I think she’s been convicted on maths . The statistics are unbelievable and the changes in numbers when she moved from hospital A to hospital B back to hospital C are incredible and extremely compelling .
Click to expand...

Well, apparently not. When proper statisticians started looking at the figures, they reckon they do not suggest this at all ...
 

chrismpw said:
I know very little about the case ....

But ....

I have observed Britain's special skill - the cover up- on many occasions. Keep mum, mums the word, don't rock the boat .... we have repressive phrases subtly rammed into our heads from an early age by the establishment.

Now contemplate .... a nhs manager runs a sloppy ship, there's a tight budget to follow. They got their job by virtue of having a public school on their CV, and despite only having good grades in Latin, history and art, they landed this cushy well paid management role because their appointing boss went to a similar school snd they know one another through lacrosse / pony club / rugby.

Public school teaches self confidence above all else, blag it out, brass neck. So this manager is inept, clueless and filled with false confidence with no ability to run his or her section. All they prioritise is keeping within budget because that might mean a cushy promotion. Perhaps their system, their management , the lack of adequate funding or staffing leads to pressure, poor decisions, deaths.

Maybe the case against Letby is circumstantial. How convenient to have a fall guy. Charge 'er officer.

The manager bucks up their ideas. The NHS trust slaps his or her wrists, less time is spent in the cafe supping coffee and socialising, the job is taken seriously for a while, work is done collaboratively by managers to make an improvement for once. There have been fewer deaths since.

Looks convincing doesn't it? Could easily happen. The cover up.

In the uk rhe buck seldom stops high up where it belongs. Look at how long it took to expose the Post Office.
Click to expand...

I know people that both worked on the investigation and the preparation of the case for court.

The investigation certainly, was meticulous and very carefully done. The possibility that the deaths were down to institutional incompetence / negligence explored in great detail and the conclusion was reached, that this did play a factor, but only in that Letby wasn’t supervised adequately, which allowed her to get away with it for so long.

My missus is a career nurse mate and a can’t talk for the Countess of Chester, but she’s worked all over Liverpool and the higher ups she’s had as bosses, have never been from a public school background.

They all seem to be, very high flying nurses, both male and female.

For some reason nursing doesn’t seem to attract ex public school, as it’s not on the career radar - no idea why ?
 
tonyhorne said:
Well, apparently not. When proper statisticians started looking at the figures, they reckon they do not suggest this at all ...
Click to expand...

….yep, it seems the statistical evidence is misleading. More specifically, the nurses rosta showing Letby on duty when the children passed away is quite damning evidence but is misleading because it should include all the babies that died at the hospital during that period (not only those involved in the court case).
 
Last edited:
COYBL25 said:
I know people that both worked on the investigation and the preparation of the case for court.

The investigation certainly, was meticulous and very carefully done. The possibility that the deaths were down to institutional incompetence / negligence explored in great detail and the conclusion was reached, that this did play a factor, but only in that Letby wasn’t supervised adequately, which allowed her to get away with it for so long.

My missus is a career nurse mate and a can’t talk for the Countess of Chester, but she’s worked all over Liverpool and the higher ups she’s had as bosses, have never been from a public school background.

They all seem to be, very high flying nurses, both male and female.

For some reason nursing doesn’t seem to attract ex public school, as it’s not on the career radar - no idea why ?
Click to expand...
Nursing is too technically skilled/grisly/demanding for the dropouts of public school who need to be shoehorned into cushy well paid jobs - which is why I was alluding to management.

Why is the Countess mentioned? Might she be a public school figure given oversight of a trust? Would she happen to have any suitable training, qualifications or skills for that status other than rank and status?

Like I say, I don't know many of the details of the case, nor the hospital involved, nor its structure. I'm just postulating that there is form, in Britain, for the establishment closing ranks when the optics are poor, and putting up a fall guy. The PO, the BBC and nonces, the churches, prince Andrew etc etc. As the timescales suggest - it is very, very hard to pin any of these issues near the top, where the priveleged or the aristocracy so often reside.
 
From the Guardian:

Evidence presented in the first trial of Lucy Letby showing which staff came in and out of the baby unit she worked on was incorrect, the Crown Prosecution Service has acknowledged.

The Crown Prosecution Service: the discrepancy discovered was related to one door in the neonatal intensive care unit and that it had been corrected for the retrial.

A spokesperson for the Mersey-Cheshire Crown Prosecution Service said: “The CPS can confirm that accurate door-swipe data was presented in the retrial.”

David Davis, the Conservative MP, has written to Sarah Hammond, chief crown prosecutor of Mersey-Cheshire CPS, asking her to “urgently make clear” what timing errors were made during the first trial and how they related to the prosecution’s case.

Davis, who is planning to bring a parliamentary debate after the summer recess, said: “The door-swipe data is clearly vital to knowing which nurse was where at one point in time, and this in turn was vital to the prosecution’s case in the first trial.

“It is therefore essential that the CPS makes it plain whether those errors occurred throughout any of the evidence of the first trial.”

In the initial trial, the prosecution said Dr Ravi Jayaram, a consultant, had discovered Letby standing over Baby K at 3.50am on 17 February 2016. The baby was deteriorating and its breathing tube had been dislodged.

The prosecution said door-swipe data showed that the baby’s designated nurse had left the intensive care unit at 3.47am. But the data was amended in the retrial to show the nurse had returned at that time, meaning Letby was not alone.
Click to expand...

Her alleged attendance at all the 'serious events' in the deaths of the babies was the cornerstone of her conviction.

If the data from the period is corrupted by errors in that data due to faulty readings of comings and goings into the neo-natal unit her conviction falls apart.

Letby will be freed within a year, I would venture to say.

The case against her always looked clunky and had the stink of a hospital trust looking to cover its own failings with a sacrifice.
 

I find the whole thing dodgy tbh. There is no evidence that conclusively proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that she did it, just all circumstantial and cherry picking. Some of the statistic charts they presented were very misleading with important things omitted. They had their suspect and just fitted everything around them. Worst thing any investigation can do and often leads to a miscarriage of justice sometime in the future. I suspect that will be the case with this one too.
 
The shouts about her being a middle class white girl and, because of that, she's getting a more sympathetic hearing than others convicted would have got, are utterly immaterial to this case. Anyone making or repeating those assertions are embarrassing themselves.

The hard evidence to convict Letby has always been thin on the ground, and it's getting weaker by the day. Certainly - if the swipe card data used in her first trial is confirmed as having been 'mislabelled' - the case against her will fall way short of 'guilty beyond reasonable doubt'.

In any case swipe card data is unreliable: lots of times there's holding of doors open for others (as we've no doubt all seen happen at hospitals) rather than doors getting swiped, so that skews data on who's accessing a unit at any particular time. It was always a very dodgy way to convict someone.

Overall: none of the initial post mortems carried out on the babies found that they’d died of unnatural causes. It was only when two senior consultants responsible for this ward got worried about the high mortality rate (which would impact on their careers) did it get off the ground as a murder inquiry and unnatural causes reintroduced into the investigation. The 'whistle blowers' in this respect were looking to set up a scapegoat - a nurse - and the Trust were only too happy to go along with it.

This is a classic miscarriage of justice, but those who've taken up a position against Letby are going to have to be carried kicking and screaming to recognise it.
 
davek said:
The shouts about her being a middle class white girl and, because of that, she's getting a more sympathetic hearing than others convicted would have got, are utterly immaterial to this case. Anyone making or repeating those assertions are embarrassing themselves.

The hard evidence to convict Letby has always been thin on the ground, and it's getting weaker by the day. Certainly - if the swipe card data used in her first trial is confirmed as having been 'mislabelled' - the case against her will fall way short of 'guilty beyond reasonable doubt'.

In any case swipe card data is unreliable: lots of times there's holding of doors open for others (as we've no doubt all seen happen at hospitals) rather than doors getting swiped, so that skews data on who's accessing a unit at any particular time. It was always a very dodgy way to convict someone.

Overall: none of the initial post mortems carried out on the babies found that they’d died of unnatural causes. It was only when two senior consultants responsible for this ward got worried about the high mortality rate (which would impact on their careers) did it get off the ground as a murder inquiry and unnatural causes reintroduced into the investigation. The 'whistle blowers' in this respect were looking to set up a scapegoat - a nurse - and the Trust were only too happy to go along with it.

This is a classic miscarriage of justice, but those who've taken up a position against Letby are going to have to be carried kicking and screaming to recognise it.
Click to expand...

Are you aware that at her very recent appeal against conviction, the CPS flagged up the fact the swipe card data was in fact incorrect and this formed part of the appeal, which was of course rejected, along with the other evidence submitted as part of her appeal ?

So this isn`t really " new evidence ", it`s just that it`s been picked up by the Internet Criminal Investigation Department as part of some grand conspiracy involving the hospital, the police and the CPS, to keep poor Lucy behind bars for eternity.
 

Welcome to GrandOldTeam

Get involved. Registration is simple and free.

Register
Back
Top