Lucy Letby: Debate on the case and conviction of serial killer nurse | The Reaction

[@tom5216]

The transcript of trials such as this should be in the public domain.

[@sarahhamilton347]

This young woman is a victim of an institution not taking personal responsibility for its inadequate situations to treat these seriously ill babies, before the accusations began against Lucy she complained about these issues, if you work in the NHS you will realise that is a big No No. It’s is not as transparent as people believe, i hope people will find out who is rightly to blame.

[@twinkletoes6290]

This is why the courts and trials should be made open to the public on a large scale and why they should be televised and livestreamed!! You can’t say “you shouldn’t be talking about this case and raising concerns when you weren’t there to watch) the trial every single day start to finish.” to everyone, when the UK doesn’t make trials open to the public on the scale they need to be, televising and live streaming them so everyone can watch it and be informed and see the justice system happening and feel secure about it!

[@paulinearnold1801]

Exactly. USA have got this right.

[@shonabeggs4640]

Dewy Evans may have told police not to tell him her name, but he didn't need them to tell him. Jayaram told him the name at a conference both attended. Police didn't seek out Dewy. He contacted GMP and offered his services. His evidence in two other trials was flung out - in the very court room LL case was heard. One judge wiped the floor with him when his lies were uncovered.

[@louisejeffries7155]

He is a quack Some of what he claimed is pathologically impossible

[@Lindsey922]

You should not be able to convict a senior nurse working many hours on a unit where babies are already very vulnerable on purely circumstantial evidence. It is very dangerous to all nurses. For goodness sake she is at work not at the scene of a crime. Look at Dewi Evans’s history. Look at Jayaram history of support of Roy Meadow who destroyed Sally Clarke another person also ‘at the scene of the crime’ as she was a mother of her sons that had died. Instead of compassion they destroyed her. Peter Hitchens thank you. His opponent in this debate is very superior about the average persons ability to tell right from wrong!

[@ts7844]

Please go and educate yourself on this case.

[@lindamessam8784]

She’s a monster

[@louisejeffries7155]

@@lindamessam8784and the evidence of that is ????? Seriously what is the evidence

[@denisedean2446]

She killed those babies but white folks have trouble convicting blue eyed blonde femaled.My heart goes out to parents whose babies were murdered.

[@d-rex8223]

Snowdon says he gets his information from podcasts and has minimal knowledge of the case but is still unwavering in his belief in Letby's guilt. Peter, on the other hand, believes there was a miscarriage of justice but does not necessarily proclaim Letby's innocence, and is open to changing his mind if he sees unequivocal evidence of guilt. Take your pick.

[@Vicr-m4x]

snowdon knows a great deal more than hitchens and wipes the floor with him

[@d-rex8223]

@@Vicr-m4x He certainly thinks he does but gets a lot wrong.

[@Vicr-m4x]

Such as?

[@d-rex8223]

@@Vicr-m4x He thought Baby K was desaturating (low blood oxygen) because of a nasogastric (feeding) tube having been removed and it could simply be put back in by a nurse. But it was actually a breathing tube and hadn't been removed, it had become dislodged and it's only doctors who insert these.

[@Vicr-m4x]

But who dislodges them? Letby, thats who

[@marinka424]

Peter Hitchens is wonderful standing up for truth in this awful persecution .Thank you.

[@charlesdehavilland2437]

Let's hope a proper investigation takes place. There could be no crimes here at all.

[@John-p7i5g]

Trial transcript in full, minus privacy redactions, should be free. Justice should be transparent and democratic.

[@idi0tdetectioninprogress]

As taxpayers we've already paid for it. Anything in Court should be public record.

[@bevturner2258]

@@idi0tdetectioninprogress I think you’re right

[@dianamincher6479]

Agreed. Democracy for the people!

[@Prometheus4096]

Can't you just make a freedom of information act claim? Like any government document that's not classified, any citizen in a western country can just ask for and get.

[@arfurascii2232]

@@Prometheus4096 we don't have an unlimited right to even non-classified information. It wouldn't change anyone's minds anyway. Most people commenting haven't read the trial reporting or even the Court of Appeal judgment. They're not going to read 10 months worth of verbatim transcripts. Also, the public having access is not going to help LL, who can only appeal on the basis of a point of law and/or "fresh evidence".

[@frankexchangeofviews]

If "these people know what they're doing" was an argument, we wouldn't need trials in the first place.

[@Gopher31]

Dr jayaram’d ever changing testimony was based on swipe data. He also remembered a lot more many years later. He also claimed he caught her ‘almost red handed’ killing a baby but waited 9 months to tell the police. Something very odd about him.

[@KS-yv7tw]

Very odd. Was this when he caught her ‘red handed’ doing nothing to help? Either he was standing doing nothing himself looking at Lucy Letby doing nothing or it was the time it took him to enter the ward and walk over to the baby - a few seconds. How can he possibly judge she was doing nothing to help in a few seconds.

[@marinka424]

He virtually sees things.say no more.

[@Vicr-m4x]

@@KS-yv7tw It depends how long you think it takes to notice something like that. I think he noticed it in an instant. It’s not like he said she was stood there for five minutes doing nothing…

[@hazzard8760]

In this reference "Almost" has no value at all.. Did you buy me a Christmas present? I almost did but it ended in me not buying you one.. which means you didn't. "Did you see Lucy murdering a baby", ..."No but I almost did". "So the answer to the question is no you did' t see her murder a baby.. Correct?

[@marinka424]

@@hazzard8760 He almost saw her do it. So is he saying that:-Firstly, when he saw the dislodged tube how could he safely deduce she had just that second dislodged it. Secondly, did he check the baby’s tube just before Letby walked up, to see it was in place? Does he know it hadn’t been dislodged two hours previously by someone else? Thirdly, did he check the tube had been placed correctly at the time of attachment, so he could be certain it hadn’t come lose naturally. Did he make a note of the doctor who attached it, and see if he had problems with other babies. Fourthly, did he find out who else had seen the baby during the past hour who might have dislodged it, or alternatively could confirm it was in place. Fifthly, did he check to see if any other babies tubes had been dislodged, and note which nurse was attending to them. Why is it that every piece of circumstantial evidence betrays this shoddy reasoning ability, and create more questions than it answers.. It’s really poor investigative work, and every argument crumbles when put under a microscope. It’s really depressing to see the public accept it as gospel. If I was going to accuse someone of stealing my purse, I’d need to have thought it through much more thoroughly than Jayaram seems to have done.

[@IanTickle-k1o]

A man who is not a professional statistician dismissing out of hand professional statisticians' assessment of the statistical evidence? That about sums up the quality of the prosecution's case.

[@simonealbion5772]

You've completely missed the points he was making

[@peterwallace8441]

Indeed. No one has done a proper analysis to demonstrate that the cluster of deaths was statistically significant. This is the crux of the matter.

[@marinka424]

I think that when a trial involves difficult medical information, which it seems even the prosecution can make mistakes over, there needs to be a neutral scientific review of the case, to ensure a case isn’t inadvertently distorted. It needs to be noted that it’s not just the Jury which seems under qualified to understand this case. If a neutral statistical society, and a neutral scientific/ medical society had reviewed this case, I seriously doubt the so called evidence would have been presented. It is deeply worrying. It makes me wonder how often this happens.

[@lukasidaho]

yea, let's just discount hearing from the people that caught her red handed. genius idea

[@MindbodyMedic]

Who caught her red handed? The guy who claimed this never went to the police when he claims he witnessed this. Odd wouldn't you think? If for instance you worked at a daycare place and witnessed a fellow staff member molesting a child, what would you do?

[@lukasidaho]

​@@MindbodyMedic the mother of baby E walked in on her bloody baby (backed by phone records with her husband). the note that Letby made about this was obviously pretty badly altered to put the incident further in time. but yea let's not tell the jurors that

[@Burglar-King]

@@MindbodyMedic Dr Ravi Jayaram. Letby was standing over the cot of a baby whose tube had dislodged and she was doing nothing. The alarm didn’t go off which apparently is strange because it’s designed to do that. No one heard it and the only possible answer to that was that it had been switched off. Letby said she hadn’t switched the alarm off. The baby was in distress. The inquiry has unleashed evidence that while Letby was in her previous employment there was a rise from 1% to 40% of tubes falling out. This stopped after Letby left. There’s the holidays she took when no deaths reported at Chester. The stalking of the parents. She said under oath this did not happen. Prosecution said yes she did and proceeded to show her the computer websites, Facebook entries that she had done. that totally squashed her lies to pieces. There were bags upon bags of hospital reports found at her home. She said I quote “I collect paper". Nonsense. As for reporting it, they did but they were not believed.

[@KingBee24]

@@Burglar-King ... and 8 months after this supposed incident, Dr Jayaram told the inquiry by Dr Green that he had no problem with Letby and was unaware of any evidence against her. Out of more than 2300 facebook searches, only 31 related to the dead babies. She took home 257 handover sheets, out of which only 21 related to the dead babies.

[@utubb]

Thank you Hitchens. A brave intervention. Justice should never be taken for granted. So many unanswered questions here.

[@SuperBoomslang]

I appreciate Hitchens for his civilised, dignified stance, not wanting to slander anyone in any way. The point about Dr Jayaram's compelling eye-witness account is that it conflicts with his earlier statement during the Grievance hearing, when he said that there was no objective evidence against Letby. The point about Beverley Allit, or Kristen Gilbert in the US, is that violent traits and severe mental illness were observable from early on in their lives.

[@clorofilaazul]

More civilized here than with Alex O'Connor...

[@louisejeffries7155]

That’s the eye witness account from someone who almost saw something but didn’t actually see anything

[@SuperBoomslang]

@@louisejeffries7155 There's a great video by Jennifer French posted by Jabe which pretty much clarifies the whole situation regarding Jayaram and Baby K.

[@paulwilliams1951]

After listening to someone on KZbin doing hours of the trial transcript and anti Lucy. From this it seem apparent that the only things that she seemed guilty of, is working hard and working extra hours. By all accounts the babies where very ill to be there in the first place, and as a result you would expect the death rate, would be higher than say on the ward that had healthy babies. If you look hard enough you can find professional and competent medical staff that can argue both ways, an example of this was the child abuse case in Newcastle and satanic practices which were false in the end. I ask myself is this another case where the professionals have got it wrong.

[@Vicr-m4x]

Have you listened to courtroom number 2’s transcript of the prosecution’s summing up, also on youtube? Its forensic and thorough and the weight of evidence is absolutely enormous. It’s 10 hours long btw

[@Vicr-m4x]

‘Working hard’ 🙄

[@ruthbashford3176]

@@Vicr-m4x There is no solid evidence and the circumstantial evidence is not remotely convincing. Quantity does not mean quality. The evidence is just opinion and speculation.

[@heathgarrick713]

@@Vicr-m4xyes I have and it’s come from his preconceived bias of the whole case which he is now inciting others to believe

[@Vicr-m4x]

Um he's the prosecution lawyer, doh! The point is she couldn't come up with any defence in the face of such mountains of - yes - circumstantial evidence

[@Lindsey922]

Beverley Allit had huge history of mental illness. Triplets should not have been on the unit. It was not equipped for triplets. Triplets are very likely to die anyway if you look at the stats. They are massively vulnerable. It is a small enough number for the stats to be relevant.

[@louisejeffries7155]

I do believe that by moving the third triplets saved his life but I don’t believe that that had anything to do with Lucy rather had more to do with the sepsis in the unit

[@YA-qo7xq]

Really ?? Disregard statistics and coroners work in its full?? What a world!!

[@Rootle2]

Statistics are not evidence. How can you determine whether or not you’ll die in a car crash on your way to work just by statistics?

[@JasonPhippsProducer]

I take it this was recorded prior to the last few days of statements to Thirwell inquiry - specifically Christopher's dismissal out of hand of the state of hygiene and care at the Neo-nat ward, by all fair assessment the unit was not up to scratch - also curious that none of the cases of deaths were due to infection? but sepsis was critical in a number of cases, typically caused by infection - so could Christopher explain his comments, or point to details in the court proceedings that are publicly available? How was infection categorically ruled out? Great debate by the way

[@arfurascii2232]

1. The audio version was published on 17 September, so it was recorded on or before then. 2. There was no evidence at trial that any of the infants had infections.

[@scottaznavourian3720]

.kre intresting is the inquiry has shown massive incompetence from people not named lucy letby...but the inquiry is just ignoring it

[@Vicr-m4x]

@@scottaznavourian3720 most of that incompetence being from people who refused to remove Letby from her duties till far too many babies had been murdered.

[@scottaznavourian3720]

@@Vicr-m4x well u haven't been paying attention to the inquiry cause uts about the personnel on duty for the 'victins'

[@Vicr-m4x]

Uts not actually

[@connorwood8527]

BBC File on 4 podcast has new experts who cast doubt on prosecution medical evidence

[@mrangry01]

Why no mention of the general difficulties of obtaining medical professional witnesses who will speak on behalf of the defence in these types of cases?

[@arfurascii2232]

They're discussing this particular case and they're aware that the defence instructed a number of expert witnesses including medical experts. It wasn't the decision of these medical experts to not give evidence. It was the defence team that decided not to call them to give evidence.

[@mrangry01]

@@arfurascii2232 I think the point is that many expert witnesses are reluctant to testify for the defence in these types of cases due to possible backlash from professional bodies, employers etc as has been seen historically.

[@arfurascii2232]

@@mrangry01 So the expert witnesses instructed by the defence were willing to attend the pre-trial conference and willing to serve reports before and during trial but they were not willing to give evidence? I don't buy it. Especially given the number of medical experts criticising the trial and verdicts in the media and online. My speculation is that the medical expert witnesses instructed by the defence would, if called to give evidence, have not been able to provide alternative explanations for the medical evidence or perhaps they would have been compelled to agree to some extent with the prosecution's claims about the medical evidence.

[@mrangry01]

@@arfurascii2232 No, the fact that so many expert medical professionals are reluctant to testify for defence in these types of cases ultimately means that there are less experts available to defence councils to instruct. This for me highlights a failure in our judicial system on the basis of fairness.

[@arfurascii2232]

@@mrangry01 They're willing to speak to the media but they're not willing to testify? Fascinating.

[@christopherlloyd98]

I like Mr. Hitchens’ approach.

[@nicholashaines8481]

Large amounts of non-probative evidence are no more convincing than small amounts. The prosecution had no proof of guilt. The scenarios in which she is innocent are far more likely to be true than the scenario of her being a serial killer.

[@Prometheus4096]

The more circumstantial evidence you need to prove your case. An 8 month trial in total The longer you need to put the murder suspect on the stand, 60 hours over a 14 day period. The more likely the suspect is innocent. And the more likely the trial was unfair even if the suspect was guilty.

[@8964TS]

@@Prometheus4096 The more charges there are, the longer a person stays on the stand. It's that simple. She was charged with 22 murders and attempted murders, and each one was looked at in turn. It's pretty easy to see why that could take 60 hours. It's not even 3 hours per charge.

[@littleshubunkin7926]

You would need to be on the jury. Not only do you get to hear all the evidence, but you can also see the demeanour of the person on trial.

[@nicholashaines8481]

@@Prometheus4096 What are the frequencies of these events in the UK’s health care system? 1/ Patients die because they were very vulnerable to dying. The hospital was adequately resourced and skilled but couldn’t prevent the deaths. 2/ Patients die because the hospital lacked the resources and skills to provide the optimal level of care. 3/ A once-in-a-century serial killer nurse murders the patients in ways that can’t be detected by coroners and that leave no forensic evidence and no eyewitness evidence of anybody being murdered? Lucy Letby should not have been charged. There is no circumstantial case against her because the circumstances massively favour her being innocent. Other explanations for the 15 infant deaths in 2015 - 2016 are vastly more likely to be true than a pediatrician's emotion-based hunch that Lucy Letby is the most prolific serial killer in the UK's history. And since there's no forensic or eyewitness evidence that proves that any of those 15 infants were murdered, there is no reason to charge anyone. The UK's legal system sometimes descends to basket case levels of incompetence. It is sobering to be reminded that an advanced country has institutions that sometimes fail miserably to perform their functions.

[@johnkeating4221]

An innocent person in prison for life and this man thinks the whole thing will get boring. Perhaps if he were the one in prison he might not feel the same.

[@70mikejn]

Snowdon needs to listen to ‘The Other Side Of Lucy Letby’ blog.

[@edwardgrabczewski]

Don't the similarities wirh the Lucia de Berk case teach us anything?

[@S.Trades]

Not in this case. The two cases are unrelated.

[@Sanctified57]

Yes, there are striking similarities between the De Berk and Letby cases

[@Prometheus4096]

Wow Christopher Snowdon was extremely arrogant.

[@steveblundell7766]

It's not arrogant to lay out the realities of the legal system to those that don't want to hear it. To paraphrase the man, "you're going to need a lot more than that"

[@ruthbashford3176]

@@steveblundell7766 A lot more than what? The medical evidence has been so thoroughly discredited its almost as if Evans plucked it out of thin air. The bogus spreadsheet has also been comprehensively debunked and even ridiculed by eminent statisticians from The Royal Statistical Society. What is left is just 'noise' to quote Lady Thirwall.

[@Prometheus4096]

@@steveblundell7766 But that's not what he is saying, though. Most people will feel this trial was unfair. If you think this trial was properly done, then your view is that the entire UK justice system is broken.

[@Vicr-m4x]

Not true. I think the trial was as meticulous as it could possibly be

[@Prometheus4096]

@@Vicr-m4x Not true at all. The defence didn't even have expert witnesses. In a jury trial, that's actually like making a confession. There is no way in any trial that a jury is going with the side that has 0 medical experts when the other side had 6. Especially in a trial with only circumstantial evidence that is all medical in origin. In a trial where we can't even be sure if an actual murder was committed, you can't with a straight face say that running a de facto admission of guilty defence, is a fair trial. Calling the trial 'meticulous' is also a stretch. It would be better to call the trial 'messy' and 'convoluted' and 'confusing to any jury'. The problem was that the trial was so long and that there were so many lines of evidence that the judge should probably have thrown out.

[@hazzard8760]

Snowden keeps referring to inflicted harm... what is this so called "inflicted harm and where is the evidence of it.. the pathologist during the post mortems surely would have identified harm if harm had been caused and they failed to discover any evidence of harm. Death by natural causes does not include evidence of harm being done.... Surely the first and most important factor before a case for murder can be brought to trial is to identity categorically by examination of the deceased whether any murder has actually been carried out and the method used...the post mortems in all cases examined came up with a blank. and one assumes that if Ms Letby murdered all 7 babies she did it in such a way as to leave no evidence of any murder having been committed.

[@arfurascii2232]

"what is this so called "inflicted harm" - If you're unaware of what LL is accused of doing then why are you commenting?

[@hazzard8760]

I suggest you re-read my comment. I repeat again, what hard, physical evidence (not anecdotal or presumptive evidence) was presented at the trial that any baby was categorically murdered (or intentionally harmed) as opposed to died of natural causes. None...To suggest otherwise would be to challenge the report produced by the pathologist that they could find no evidence of any baby having categorically murdered (or harmed). Yes she was found guilty by the 12 man jury but that still doesn't answer my question of absolute unequivocal proof that any baby was "murdered" . The whole trial was based on anecdotal evidence which to many people makes the verdict potentially unsafe

[@arfurascii2232]

@@hazzard8760 You've chosen a longwinded way to say something like "I don't conclude what the prosecution wants us to conclude from the evidence they presented." If you had simply said that, I woudn't have responded.

[@Prometheus4096]

Nurses could theoretically kill very sick babies without leaving any evidence. The prosecution has several theories as to how Lucy murdered the babies. And somehow they call this 'causing harm'. If a nurse makes mistakes, she could potentially result in a higher rate of death under her baby patients. That wouldn't be murder either. This case is just very strange.

[@arfurascii2232]

@@Prometheus4096 murders and attempted murders

[@Splodge542]

Snowdon says he can't think why the "gang of four" would lie. To cover up their own negligence perhaps? He claims to be an expert on all of this.

[@louisejeffries7155]

Also at the time there where four families from Chester that were seeking legal advice because their children have been affected and damaged by sepsis Those doctors were covering their backside alright specially that senior Doctor Who is told to write a letter of apology but instead took this as a first opportunity to go to the police that evening

[@philswain9648]

Have you compared this case with Lucia De Berk in Netherlands - now labelled Netherlands largest miscarriage of justice - where the same sort of evidence was presented, the same preventative approach was asserted to challenge - and eventually was overturned? It's very, very similar in the prosecution case build..

[@steveblundell7766]

I would not say "the same sort of evidence was presented." In Lucia de Berk’s case, her conviction relied heavily on statistical analysis that was later discredited. In contrast, Letby’s case is based on direct allegations involving specific incidents

[@schippersfamilie3213]

​@@steveblundell7766no that is not true. It was based on statistics, but also on what she wrote in her diary ( I gave in to my compulsion again, which later turned out to be tarot card reading) and medical information that later turned out to be incorrect. She is said to have given babies certain medication because this would have been proven by blood tests. This was later undermined by various doctors. Do you see the similarities with Lucy Letby? It is really eerie

[@steveblundell7766]

@@schippersfamilie3213 The fact that Lucia de Berk was exonerated does raise questions about potential outcomes for Letby but does not directly suggest that she will experience a similar fate. Each case is unique: The legal systems in which these cases are prosecuted differ significantly (UK vs. Netherlands), which can affect how evidence is evaluated and what constitutes reasonable doubt. Exoneration typically occurs when there is clear evidence proving wrongful conviction; until such evidence emerges regarding Letby’s innocence or guilt, you cannot predict her outcome based solely on Lucia de Berk’s experience.

[@Prometheus4096]

@@steveblundell7766 Not true. The entire reason the Lucy Letby case was created it that people thought it was very statistically unlikely for her to be present during each baby deaths. The way Lucy Letby did her job, or how the babies died, nothing of any of that suggested to anyone that babies were being murdered and that Lucy was doing it. After that, everyone convinced themselves that Lucy murdered the babies, and every other fact about her was then re-interpreted. And that's what everyone talked about during the trial. Which is why in countries were rule of law actually matters, rather than countries were people are king because of whose vagina they craw out of, or where judges wear wigs, hearsay is not allowed in court.

[@8964TS]

It's not at all accurate to say the same sort of evidence was presented. Where are you getting your misinformation?

[@arfurascii2232]

28:10 The defence instructed a number of expert witnesses. We can only speculate as to why they were not called to give evidence to the jury. We do not have the information the defence team had. Perhaps the defence thought the prosecution had not persuaded the jury to be sure of guilt, perhaps the defence thought they had done enough to undermine the prosecution's case. Perhaps the defence experts could not provide alternative explanations for the medical evidence, they could only disagree with the prosecution's claims - or perhaps they could not disagree with the prosecution's claims. Perhaps the defence experts could not have helped but aid the prosecution's case by supporting to some extent the opinions of the prosecution's medical experts. E.g. "yes, that looks like gas," "yes, if that is gas it shouldn't be there," "yes, this is consistent with but not diagnostic of air being administered." That's all my speculation but it seems far more reasonable than commenters on social media who leap to assuming incompetence, fear or conspiracy.

[@EcoSailor]

It could also be the reluctance of practicing medical professionals to give evidence for the defence in sensitive trials due to the harm it might cause to their careers. This also explains why only long retired medical "experts" were called by the prosecution, which the defense challenged but the judge allowed. In doing so they undermined their own, retired, medical witness who they didn't then call. This left the proceedings in a dangerously imbalanced state. The adversarial legal system is not fit for purpose in complex medical cases such as the one against LL, as evidenced by the long list of miscarriages of justice in such cases.

[@SuperBoomslang]

But if she is innocent there will be reasonable answers to those questions and they needed a witness with enough credibility to articulate those answers. No witness, no explanation.

[@EcoSailor]

@@SuperBoomslang and, therefore, reasonable doubt because a jury cannot determine of the validity of evidential claims made by the prosecution if those claims are not questioned by expert witnesses representing the defendant.

[@SuperBoomslang]

@@EcoSailor I understand the logic behind the strategy but it seems like it badly misfired in this case, because from the outset of Op Hummingbird, for whatever reason, Letby was treated as guilty.until proven innocent.

[@EcoSailor]

@@SuperBoomslang indeed, a true witch hunt!

[@annieclark5798]

Professionals are frightened to defend in such emotional tragic cases like this, as it may hurt their future career or even job prospect's, as noted in other cases.

[@JC-tn7ow]

Well done, Peter Hitchens. Stay strong.

[@FitziCal]

Well done for having the mental capacity of a plank of wood...

[@joshb7326]

@@FitziCal 😂😂😂😂😂😂

[@joshb7326]

@@JC-tn7ow She's guilty get over it already

[@ruthbashford3176]

@@joshb7326 Lucy is innocent

[@joshb7326]

@@ruthbashford3176 No she's not you're delusional

[@fredphipps9452]

Christopher doesn't convince me that Lucy is guilty.

[@Prometheus4096]

He didn't spend a single sentence on explaining why he thinks Lucy is guilty.

[@SuperHuia]

It's about the unsafe nature of this conviction. Lucy Letby did not receive a fair trial. That should be of concern to everyone !

[@8964TS]

@@SuperHuia She had one of the fairest trials in legal history. Newspapers weren't even allowed to report on it until the trial had started and only then could say what the jury had heard.

[@SuperHuia]

@@8964TS nothing fair in using dodgy statistical data. Nothing fair in conveniently leaving out evidence that could point the jury in another direction. Nothing fair in a jury provided with allegations of murder when no one is actually sure any murders took place. This is the sort of trial that would take place in Russia

[@benshep09]

@@Prometheus4096 he did though

[@willowm9469]

"Dr Dewi Evans requests all the details, all the clinical records of the deaths that had taken place between January 2015 and July 2016 and also any clinical records of strange or unexplained collapses." What I'm wondering is who was it that determined which records contained a strange or unexplained collapse. Was this done by someone who knew Lucy, maybe even someone with a bias against her? If it was done by someone who knew Lucy then that destroys the claim that the study was blind. Great debate from Peter Hitchens. Lots of important points made. Christopher Snowdon really doesn't seem to know what statistics are.

[@8964TS]

The doctors and nurses at the hospital, with combined decades of experience and medical knowledge, are more than qualified to recognize strange and unexplained collapses. These are people who can diagnose on sight and from asking targeted questions, and then draw on an encyclopaedic knowledge of medicine to determine the course of treatment. They're not you and me, groping around in the dark. It's their area of expertise.

[@RichardGill1109]

@@8964TS The senior doctors who were never there when they were needed. Or do you mean the young doctors who had to use Google to find our what to do? All senior nurses had been fired to save money.

[@KingBee24]

@@8964TS ... Yet they didn't notice anything wrong at the time ?

[@EcoSailor]

@@8964TS they are also human with human biases and they may have applied selection criteria based on those biases. If they didn't like Lucy because she'd made a complaint about their unprofessional behaviour, that might influence them. There needs to be complete transparency in order to avoid an unsafe conviction. Any chance of cherry picking is unacceptable.

[@8964TS]

@@EcoSailor What leads you to believe there hasn't been transparency other than personal paranoia?

[@kiwichickie1975]

It wasn't a NG tube on baby k.it was a ET tube which a nurse would not move

[@marinka424]

He only virtually caught her, which means he didn’t catch her doing it. He didn’t see it. He saw something dislodged and although he hadn’t looked at the baby and didn’t know the tube wasn’t dislodged hours ago, he jumps to conclusions. Oh my goodness, fancy being in jail based on such stupidity.

[@harrydavey9884]

​@@marinka424no, he said he witnessed her standing over the baby and not reconnecting the tube.

[@Sanctified57]

@@harrydavey9884Which as someone pointed out she was not permitted to do

[@charlesdehavilland2437]

@@marinka424 It's scary isn't it. We are all at risk from a court system like this.

[@TheWalrusWasDanny]

"All this Nonsense" he says...dismissing the questions...dismissing the concerns of us all...meanwhile an innocent young woman festers in Prison for a crime that she didn't commit...this whole case is disgusting.

[@paulhallett1452]

Where’d you learn to declare the substantive of reality - just a lot of time being thoughtful?

[@harrydavey9884]

🙄 lot of legal experts showed up for these KZbin comments, eh?

[@birdinthebush]

As somebody who was a front line health professional for over 45 years I can tell you, the culture in the NHS is such that the higher up the food chain you are, the less you are bound to be blamed for anything gone wrong. The unit was unsuitable for that kind of pediatric work and understaffed. The trust executives were more concerned with reputation than outcomes (as usual).

[@denisedean2446]

None of your complaints justify giving a premature baby insulin or deliberately putting fluids in feeding tube to cause cardiac arrests.

[@suze9760]

I'm very impressed with the amount of homework these two have done to come to their views but I have to say I find Snowden a lot more persuasive. Hitchens seems to be arguing that you have to come up with a lot of different reasons in order to make a case that Letby is guilty, but to my mind you have to come up with even more reasons to make the case that she's innocent

[@3chords490]

Ah , but therein lies the issue. The onus is on the prosecution to take the level of guilt “ beyond reasonable doubt “. You can’t put someone away for life on the basis of your thinking. It’s too tenuous. Hitchens is saying that there are serious issues and doubts , that’s all he has to do. It’s about whether the conviction is safe NOT whether Lucy is guilty or innocent per se.

[@lennymice2261]

​@@3chords490 Hitchens hasn't sufficiently demonstrated that it is an unsafe conviction, neither here, nor anywhere else that I've seen him comment on the case.

[@louisejeffries7155]

It may not be sufficient for you, it certainly is for others Then there is the highly educated professionals across a number of disciplines speaking up saying the same thing- unsafe At what point does it becomes sufficient??

[@lennymice2261]

@@louisejeffries7155 If others are too easily convinced, that's on them. Most of the "highly educated" people that have spoken out about it have either shown themselves to be ignorant of the case and make irrelevant points about it, or they are complete cranks. It will be sufficient when enough valid points are made to cause reasonable doubt.

[@professorbernardkemp7448]

This case against Lucy Letby is a complete joke. Beyond Reasonable Doubt replaced with On The Balance of Probabilities (at best). This is NOT justice and there needs to be a retrial.

[@littleshubunkin7926]

I’m pretty sure juries are told what the standard of proof is I.e the rules on evidence for criminal cases.

[@Gopher31]

That’s my major problem. I cannot see how a jury cannot have reasonable doubt in this. Finding her not guilty of one case at least shows that they were thinking deeply on this case.

[@professorbernardkemp7448]

@@Gopher31 Me too. I am aware that there is a reluctance by medical experts to provide defence witness evidence in these types of cases. The agreed facts prior to the trial and the seemingly lack of expert witnesses for the defence is startling to say the least.

[@Ette397]

How was the poor baby's liver attacked?

[@KingBee24]

According to 'Private Eye' ( Lucy Letby Part 4 ), the alternative explanation is a 'ruptured subcapsular haematoma of the liver'

[@EcoSailor]

Vigorous resuscitation attemps are a more likely cause than an unobserved murder in a cramped neonatal unit.

[@daviddavis7665]

She et it with 'favor beans'.

[@gillianstapleton8566]

I don’t get it either .. surly to say that they would have to indicate exactly how the injury would be caused, timing of the injury and how long it would take to die from such an injury. I cannot think of any way she would have done it or why she would chose that as a deliberate way to murder the baby when there would be so many other options at hand if that was her intention. There is no motive no history or abuse or mental illness. The method seems to change and not consistent like most other serial killers. The medical explanations seem vague more like a process of elimination and a medical guess as to the cause of death. If that dr saw what he claims he saw with the sats, alarms muted and ng tube out .. why was she left nursing those babies as that would show despite her years working there she was incompetent at best. I think if you have a large number of babies unexplained sudden deaths 4 Drs looking for anything else to blame but their own competence and medical license would be willing to throw a nurse under the bus. I would also like to know why the medical professionals that did the original pm’s if they did them didn’t take the stand in court or why they changed their opinion on the initial cause of death or were no suspecting foul play. All unexpected deaths or unexplained should have a pm. I was a nurse for 25yrs I wouldn’t have a clue what would be detectable or undetectable way to eliminate someone .. it’s not exactly a subject your thought or discuss and there is no evidence of her google searching or looking this kind of information up. People are assuming because she was a nurse that she just knew this kind of stuff. Also suspicious the ward no longer looks after sick neonates.. more than Lucy an issue. If she was the only problem no need to downgrade the unit when she is gone. Was she just a really incompetent nurse and bad practice led to the deaths that should have been picked up by the cnm. I just can’t figure it out it’s a very strange case .. I’ve definitely met nurses I wondered if they got their badge in a car boot sale😂.. The insulin is confusing as well .. people use to make mistakes with dosing using the 1ml insulin syringe but you rarely see a vile and syringe used definitely we didn’t stock it as any patient on insulin had a pen labeled just for them. Or why there wouldn’t be cctv on a locked drugs fridge.? You’d clearly see a bag being tampered with. The explanation that it plausible to believe she was able to tamper with the bag that was hung on the shift after .. the bags are sealed and how would know what bag would be picked up.. that was confusing and imaginative assumption I don’t think possible. The text about “I just did meds in room one”. Don’t understand the prosecution issue with that . If that’s where the drug press / trolley/ fridge was she could have been there just getting meds for her own baby she was taking care of in a different room. I wouldn’t have necessarily interpreted that to me she was in there given meds to a patient she wasn’t looking after .. texts can often be misinterpreted. It could well have been the explanation she gave. It just wasn’t made clear although unlikely there was a drug store in all rooms.

[@EcoSailor]

@@gillianstapleton8566 indeed, there are more likely causes for the cluster of fatalities than a rogue nurse.

[@GeoffreyBulmerStephenson]

Lucy Letby not guilty!

[@harrydavey9884]

Based on what?

[@denisedean2446]

7 babies not alive!

[@spikey12341]

Peter, Christopher let you make your opening statement without interrupting and you should have granted him the same curtesy.

[@jemimapowell]

Peter should learn to listen

[@steveblundell7766]

@@jemimapowell It is actually something he has unlearned over time

[@Rootle2]

Courtesy

[@marinka424]

He was making a correction and clarifying Rachel Avis use of the transcript.

[@Mervyn-wj1bi]

Snowden debating here reminds me of school where you're put on the opposing debate side that you don't believe in and have to spout a load of nonsense just to keep talking.

[@steveblundell7766]

I'm sorry that happened to you, I do hope you recover from it

[@NickThompson-s4b]

​@@steveblundell7766I love this

[@christopherjones4789]

What did he say that was nonsense?

[@harrydavey9884]

​@@christopherjones4789 He just asked question after question and any time he made an assertion he said "I'm not sure about this". Just utterly baseless. The video is pretty long and offers genuinely nothing at all.

[@suze9760]

​@@harrydavey9884I don't agree at all. It's clear to me that snowden has read many of the transcripts and evidence in detail. He has her head on directly addressed many of the doubters concerns such as the alleged misuse of statistics and the door swipe data, both of which he points out were not actually relevant to convicting Letby at the trial and the defences evidence on plumbing problems on the ward which he demonstrated were in no way linked to the deaths because 1, plumbing incidents did not occur at the same time as the deaths and 2. infection had been ruled out as a cause of death

[@customisedfitness]

Shocking! Unfortunately, we see far too often in UK legal system that there is huge pressure on police and others to close cases and prosecute. If the case is entirely circumstantial, isn’t by default there an element of uncertainty and dare I say, a reasonable doubt??

[@arfurascii2232]

No. The standard of proof is that the jury must be sure the defendant is guilty. The standard of proof is not that there must be N people who directly witnessed the defendant commit the crime.

[@customisedfitness]

@@arfurascii2232 Isn’t part of their instruction from the judge that they must find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? I can’t fathom how this is possible in an ENTIRELY circumstantial case. Of course I don’t know if she is guilty or not, we won’t really know until the transcript is available.

[@arfurascii2232]

​@@customisedfitness 1. For several decades the criminal standard of proof has been that the jury must be "sure" the defendant is guilty. 2. If you demand only direct evidence, i.e. witnesses to the defendant doing the crime, then you are freeing a lot of criminals. There is nothing inherently wrong with circumstantial evidence. What matters is the quality of the evidence. (By the way, witnesses can be mistaken.) 3. The "transcript" is not a mind-reading device, it won't be able to tell you whether LL is or isn't guilty.

[@Prometheus4096]

UK system also has 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. Apparently, that is what a jury decided two times. Not a surprise if one side has medical experts, the other side does not, and all the evidence is circumstantial medical evidence that you need to be an expert in to even know what it means. If you can't have your own medical expert cast doubt on what the experts of the prosecution are asserting, it is like not even having a trial at all.

[@arfurascii2232]

@@Prometheus4096 1. There is no single "UK system". In the jurisdiction of England and Wales, where LL was tried, the standard of proof is that the jury must be "sure" the defendant is guilty. 2. The defence instructed a number of expert witnesses including medical experts. The defence chose not to call these expert witnesses to give evidence. We can only speculate about why, we do not have the information they had.

[@elizabethhodson5945]

Thank you for this civilised talk on a very difficult subject!!!

[@TropicalCapture]

the judge and the jury are lay persons. that's why they took so long to figure something out. the nurse is a passionate career person &she frowns upon mismanagement in the nhs system . she becomes a pariah and she has to be removed from the hospital and therefore a scenario is created:- 1. she's got to be removed out of here, from the unit. asap to cover our incompetence 2. the number one police whistleblower is a tv star with eloquence with an amazing memory of things emblazioned into memory two years later. an actor of skill. 3. there are two huge issues here with the above:- non contemporaneous note keeping by the primary witness, the tv star. gmc will frown upon that. secondly :- no mention of primary anatomy:/ -an iv injection how ( the f...)could it reach the arterial circulation, to reach the skin to cause a rash?? this whole story is much like the middle ages burning of witches at stake.

[@Swansong321]

Weirdo

[@TropicalCapture]

@@Swansong321 read para 3

[@TimBlackwood]

Absolutely 👍👍 FREE Lucy Now

[@littleshubunkin7926]

The judge is not a lay person. Dear oh dear.

[@jeremygough1387]

The Judge is not trained? Silly Billy.

[@malicant123]

It's possible that she's guilty AND that the NHS is a den of incompetence.

[@jackieemslie]

we won't get tired we want justice

[@jeremygough1387]

Or punctuation?

[@SuperBoomslang]

RIGHT ON!

[@harrydavey9884]

You will get tired. You'll be done with this in a few months, just like every other "current thing". I'm sure you've posted similar comments on previous nonsense.

[@TimBlackwood]

Peter is absolutely brilliant he knows she's innocent 😎🙏🙏🙏Free Lucy Now

[@littleshubunkin7926]

Freda Peeple - Bring On The Lucie!

[@celinehynes3336]

The chart wasnt statistics? What?

[@kanatsizkanatli]

the statistics was misused, simply a phenomena mis labelled as evidence against the accused.

[@harrydavey9884]

​@@kanatsizkanatlievidence is whatever provides some form of basis for suspicion. It is therefore evidence. You mean it isn't proof.

[@anthonyreed480]

Whatever you think, this was a super entertaining conversation.

[@stephenholmes1036]

If you look at the cases against the late Stefan Kiszco and Lucy Letby. The comparisons on evidence that had convicted both are in Lucy Letbys at best unsafe. Stefan Kiszco went to prison for 16 years on flawed evidence and lies in a very similar manner. This young young lady ⁰deserves at ret

[@jopiez1]

As far as baby K is concerned: how could dr J have thought LL was alone on the ward, when nurse Sophie, as far as i know, had never left, and 2 other nurses’ swipe data confirm they came back (at 3.40) the moment he put down the phone ? Looking at the lay-out of the unit he must have past nursery 2 till 3 and the nursery station to get from the office to nursery one. This apart from the fact he was wrong in his testimony on 2 occasions ( the time, of which he said during the first trial he was certain because he looked at his watch, and the fact baby K was sedated). Maybe he saw LL on another occasion, and connects it with baby K, but the timeline doesn’t make sense.

[@Scott1433]

The problem is Peter Hitchens hasn't really come up with something that could be a"game changing" piece of evidence. I "don't know" but I'm pretty convinced Lucy Letby is guilty

[@tobyclayton2597]

I disagree with Peter on so many things but not this.

[@bevturner2258]

Christopher Snowden kept talking over Peter Hitchens, who doesn’t speak clearly anyway. Really irritating!

[@bevturner2258]

*Snowdon

[@Vicr-m4x]

He has to, to get a word in

[@S.Trades]

Mr Hitchens, they've looked at her application to appeal. She has NO grounds for an appeal! Shes guilty without question and she's NEVER coming out.

[@KingBee24]

If you are so convinced of her guilt, why do you feel the need to keep telling us over and over ? It doesn't make any sense. Why are you wasting your time ? !

[@christopherking3937]

I’m not sure if she is guilty but I do know what it is like to have a baby in intensive care and you are terribly vulnerable. So sad.

[@ruthbashford3176]

Of course Dewi Evans knew who the suspect was. In Cheshire Constabulary's Hummingbird propaganda film Paul Hughes admitted at the beginning of the film that everyone knew who the suspect was as she had been removed from the ward. It was even in the media.

[@KingBee24]

Is it correct that Dr Evans was assisted in his investigations by one of the consultants ?

[@hazzard8760]

All we do know in the first instance is that he was not approached but offered his services claiming to be an expert. The definition of"expert" is highly questionable. In the UK, anyone can put themselves forward claiming to be an expert. Its up to the prosecution, defence or judge as to whether they accept their expert evidence. In the US the ability to be an expert in a particular field is far more rigorous and meticulous

[@Vicr-m4x]

It wasnt. She wasnt arrested until after his investigation was completed. Lies lies lies. Get real folks!

[@ecowifey4603]

But how would Evans know which incidents Letby was present for?

[@8964TS]

It wasn't in the media. She wasn't named until much later. All the early reports just say "a nurse".

[@enjoyyoursleep1]

The public interest in this case has so far been extraordinary, and rightly so, considering the circumstances. If only society had the same level of interest into cases of infant prematurity and the still far too high occurrence of respiratory, motor, or cognitive disability that can affect such sick babies, instead of accepting it as 'the norm' for this kind of situation. A heightened public interest might perhaps lead to better outcomes for these little ones, or even better, the goal of finding a clinical approach to reversing injuries in others, sustained as a result of early delivery, no matter the age of the patient.

[@3chords490]

Sudden Infant Death Syndrome ( SIDS ) is an accepted medical unexplained phenomenon for normal babies. These were neonatal premature babies and some were highly vulnerable twins and triplets. Why were these deaths so suspicious ?

[@Carol-kkIrl]

You should really read/listen to the transcripts of the trial. The jury are not stupid. Expert medical witnesses were not called for the defence. The only witness that was called was the plumber. Parents gave evidence which was very credible, I'm sure they will remember what happened for the rest of their lives. The defence did the best with what they had.

[@mikkibubble4711]

I wish the UK would allow the public to watch murder trials online, so we could have followed the entire trial ourselves to form our own opinion on what evidence was used and what experts on both sides were saying.

[@isabellacullin4884]

I was one who thought Lucy was guilty but now I'm not sure.imagine going to prison for these terrible crimes and your innocent.

[@rachell7682]

If you were would you say in your police interview " I just think we as a nursing team were concerned" or would you say " yes I was so worried and no I didn't f ing do this" etc. I wish they'd release more of the police interviews.

[@littleshubunkin7926]

Imagine going to prison for these terrible crimes and you’re guilty.

[@jeremygough1387]

Are you easily led?

[@isabellacullin4884]

​@@jeremygough1387 but remember Lucia de berk convicted nurse later became miscarriage of justice.

[@marinka424]

@@rachell7682 Lucy was more refined than that. Not all women respond like fishwives when wrongly accused. Maybe you don’t know anyone like Lucy.

[@philswain9648]

I don't charge Lucy Letby was innocent. I'm challenging some - some -of the way the case was brought and presented. For example early in the case, long before trial, the parents were told Lucy had killed their babies and were smothered by the family liaison officers such that the parents became part of the prosecution team - even ferried to and from court. This made them no longer independent witnesses.

[@Vicr-m4x]

This is absolutely untrue - in fact the inquiry heard last week from two mothers who never learnt that there was even a remote suspicion until letby had been questioned several times or even maybe arrested. Why are you making things up? Why???

[@Prometheus4096]

It is insane that the parents of the babies were even allowed to be witnesses in front of the jury. Like they have anything meaningful to say, guilty or innocent.

[@Prometheus4096]

@@Vicr-m4x You didn't even read what he wrote. I suggest you stop replying to comments in this video. Because I saw you reply to several people. You are clearly bamboozled and tricked by this trial. And you shouldn't spend any more time on it.

[@arfurascii2232]

@@Prometheus4096 Do you have any idea of what they said?

[@philswain9648]

@@Prometheus4096 Great point - they bring no expertise to the case - we all understand the tragedy of the loss to them but that's not evidence. You've raised an important point here imho.

[@williamhallett327]

Snowdon's criticism of the statisticians is unfair. Letby came under suspicion in the first place because Dr Brearey noticed what he regarded as a correlation between Letby's shifts and the deaths, since described by them as 'scientifically worthless'. He makes statistical assertions of his own (from his armchair even) about the likelihood of certain events, precisely the points addressed by Richard Gill, Jane Hutton and others. Also he seems very dismissive of the criticisms by other highly qualified and regarded medical and scientific experts (not ghouls and armchair critics) of the trial evidence who were not consulted at the time, and those who were but were not called. Where he makes detailed assertions these should be answered by such experts. If anything there seem to be very few of them (any?) coming forward to express support for the interpretations presented to the jury. Once a healthcare professional has been identified as a potential serial killer, particularly on spurious statistical grounds, the quality of the medical evidence will be critical and it should not be left to the prosecution alone to present this, using whoever they can find. It is not surprising so many are worried the same thing may happen to them. That there is so much detailed scientific debate about the evidence in this case in itself suggests the convictions are less than safe. It is at least encouraging that at the end some partial agreement on this point was reached.

[@Vicr-m4x]

The deaths weren't investigated on these grounds, as this conversation explains. Oh i can't be bothered. If you want to ignore the facts, you will anyway. Its like snowdon says, round and round in circles

[@Vicr-m4x]

And that is no kind of agreement at the end - apart from an agreement to disagree

[@Prometheus4096]

Exactly. The whole case is build around the idea that babies died on Lucy Letby's shift. It is how the entire thing started. And how, under the theory that she is innocent, everyone else convinced themselves that the babies were murdered and that she did it. If this entire idea is faulty, which it seems to be, then that is extremely damning. So far, it seems babies died very often before she came to work in that hospital. And that by chance, which is actually perfectly normal, she just happened to be on many of those shifts, but not even all. And they just made up that the babies that died on her shifts were 'harmed' and thus 'murdered'. And those babies that died before she started to work there, or were not on her shifts, died of illness. The fact is that if I go into a a casino and watch a poker hand, literally every hand that I see is extremely unlikely to happen. And if I decide those hands are 'special', then I can't explain why unlikely it is that I just happened to get that one special hand. But the actual answer is, I constructed the entire thing. So what we need is statistical evidence by an actual medical or forensic statistician that shows that given all 29 million nurses world-wide, it is extremely unlikely that a nurse just happens to be present on shifts every single time a baby dies of illness. And that it can't possible by Lucy Letby that is the most unlucky nurse in the world. But they didn't do that. Which is why the trial is unfair. Because it is all conformation bias, even if Letby actually murdered the babies.

[@marinka424]

If he spends a year studying statistics, he might have something meaningful to say on it. The whole case is riddled with false statistical assumption, it’s not just the chart. It’s a waste of time explaining it to people who have never studied stats. Notice how no statistician has come forward and said the ‘objecting statisticians’ are incorrect. They never will,because we all know they have an important and valid point. No statistician would refute what they say.

[@SuperBoomslang]

@@Vicr-m4x The chronology of the case suggests that there was significant disagreement at the time, 2015/16/17 as far as medical opinions were concerned. Then the doctors went to the police. Then miraculously, everyone starts to agree that she must be guilty and the evidence against her starts to become compelling. Then it starts to become overwhelmingly large in scope and volume as the special expert witnesses get to work, supported by other doctors working for a prosecution. Everyone is protecting their own interests and no-one wants to risk their reputation standing up for Letby. Facts don't grow like low-hanging fruit trees. They are what happened at the time. That's what we need to get back to.

[@moneypenny1267]

Guilty when you study the case and this is an insult to the parents!! It is not all circumstantial there were autopsies! Wrong she was hovering over an incubator & the babies tube was dislodged.

[@FINEFELINE333]

‘a gaggle of armchair detectives, armchair pathologists and armchair barristers.’________ Snowdon is talking nonsense.

[@steveblundell7766]

I suspect he is talking about people like you

[@FINEFELINE333]

@@steveblundell7766 I suspect that you are just like him.

[@steveblundell7766]

@@FINEFELINE333 Thanks very much

[@FINEFELINE333]

@@steveblundell7766 Don't thank me.

[@markmcintyre9893]

32:20 the problem with door swipe evidence is that we all lend our swipe cards out a million times a shift to agency staff and people without the correct door access for the required permission. I’d also add the chart of staffing doesn’t include agency staff as well.

[@mikkibubble4711]

The jury should have consisted of independent, qualified pediatricians. The case is far too complex for common folk to be critical enough of the evidence.

[@sgordon8123]

Get a proper statistician on this subject. PLEASE.

[@KZgun4hire]

At 8:30 the unrealised mistake is made. She was the only person who was present. Perfect if we know a PERSON was responsible. There were many other THINGS present for all the deaths.

[@tequilamockingbird532]

You can tell Christopher gets more and more irate, catty, snarky and critical of others having a differing opinion the longer this debate goes on. On the other hand, Peter remains calm, defends people being criticised and open to all possibilities, whether that be guilt or innocence.

[@KingBee24]

The whole debate around this case is similarly characterized. The people who think the verdict is unsafe speak calmly and rationally and use logic and facts. The people who are convinced of her guilt are highly emotional and insult anyone who asks questions ... and post comments like "guilty as sin", "get over it" and "end of" ...

[@ashleyboard1783]

@@KingBee24well that’s just a wild generalisation and actually I have seen the exact opposite and people getting irate when they are convinced of her innocence

[@mikeburke3576]

Christopher snowdon changed my mind

[@Luke-mr4ew]

8:25 Hitchen's demonstrates his contempt for ordinary jurors compared to big-brained Peter

[@kossfan]

Christopher Snowden is being disingenuous when he says that he got involved because he had doubts about Lucy Letby's guilt, I believe he became involved because he had no doubts about her guilt.

[@Vicr-m4x]

How would you know and why would he lie?

[@kossfan]

@@Vicr-m4x When I made my comment I didn't know, I only suspected, but after watching the whole conversation I believe I was correct in my original assumption. At no point has Christopher Snowden ever had doubts about Lucy Letby's guilt. He lied so that he would appear as reasonable objective and participant in the conversation.

[@steveblundell7766]

@@kossfan Why does he need to "appear as reasonable objective", surely his arguments should stand on their own merit, should they not?

[@kossfan]

@@steveblundell7766 Most people would like to appear reasonable and objective even though sometimes they are are not. Peter Hitchens obviously doesn't think that his arguments stand on their own merit so presumably he would like to appear reasonable and objective to Peter and his supporters. I really shouldn't need to explain this.

[@steveblundell7766]

@@kossfan You don't need to "explain" anything, you need to prove it. Saying "most people would like to appear reasonable and objective even though sometimes they are are not" is just irrelevent nonsense. How would you know how most people would like to appear anyway? Christopher Snowden is sure of his facts and his arguments, just as the prosecutor was, why would they concern themselves with how they "appear"?

[@tarawells1553]

I believe the jury should have been made up by health care professionals nurses/GP’s/hospital care workers etc. There is no way general members of the public could fully understand medical practice within a working hospital. Just a major point, they said she was giving medication on wards she wasn’t assigned to. Medication of this type needs to be double signed and and in any health care setting you just grab anyone who can give that second signature because you don’t have two people just walking around together. The hospital/home couldn’t care less if you are understaffed. I have worked 70 hours a week regularly because they simply don’t care how understaffed you are. I didn’t realise those diary entries were made after she had been questioned. When you work in care and have lots of people die in quite quick succession, you really feel like you might be cursed, it’s just one of those that you know you can’t be blamed for because you have followed every step that you should. I am not saying she is guilty of every case but the jury have only heard things that they can minimally understand.

[@janetmarybowen3157]

Babies on neonatal units do not collapse/die inexplicably. You might not undersand the reason initially, but there will be one. That is just a simple fact which every experienced neonatal nurse or doctor knows.

[@Vicr-m4x]

I think at some point PH might regret spearheading this campaign

[@ruthbashford3176]

I don't think so as since reporting restrictions have been lifted the prosecution case has fallen apart. It is now obvious Lucy Letby is innocent.

[@SuperBoomslang]

Not on the balance of opinion expressed in comments here

[@AngelaMcKavanagh]

New born babies can get sepsis which is a response to infection. In neonates sepsis is the leading cause of infant death.

[@ashleyboard1783]

And yet there was no evidence these babies all had sepsis

[@oriongriffiths3030]

The Drs do have an interest, I’m not saying they maliciously accused but they do have an interest. Am I wrong in thinking that?

[@sarahrymill2692]

Christopher Snowdon showing that hes knows very little about the case and that hes excellent at talking over people

[@susieporter5239]

unfortunately innocent pwople have been wrongly accused of guiltiness , unfairly /often which is because police, can be very rude / not listen / as when I had right or road /was nearly killed / knoced of my bicycle by a wicked man who did not stop as he came out of a side road into the main roaad as i signalled to turn right,.I was talen to hospital with serious injuries!!!!1

[@wfcyellow]

Sorry?

[@jeremygough1387]

What?

[@christopherbrookfield4785]

Peter Hitchens rocks my teddy bear. ❤

[@professorbernardkemp7448]

Christopher Snowden ignores the possibility of statistical clusters.

[@KingBee24]

No cluster. There were more deaths than the previous year 'cos there were twins and triplets.

[@seanmorris5551]

what so many don't seem to understand - or wish to acknowledge - is that experts coming forward and challenging the clinical evidence is part of the scientific method. Critical analysis is based on challenging a hypotheses, studying the material and identifying the most likely outcomes based on the strongest quantitative or qualitative evidence. So having one expert disagree with other experts is nothing new. The experts who have challenged evidence or the way some evidence has been used notably are not claiming that she is innocent. Mostly it is questioning how some evidence has been used. Therefore, online keyboard warriors professing her innocence have taken a huge leap where sceptical experts have not. When Letby was around, babies would suddenly collapse. Yes, people die in NHS hospitals every day unfortunately. However, NHS staff are not routinely investigated for murder. She had some significant explaining to do, first to hospital bosses, then to the cops, then at trial (x2). She failed to do so, and has failed to convince that there is new evidence for an appeal. Therefore, she is a serial killer. The worst murderer of children in the UK of modern times.

[@AngelaMcKavanagh]

Real serial killers know when they are under suspicion to move on, lots of jobs for her qualifications, she had a sense of her own competence and innocence and that is unusual for a serial killer. Lucy is innocent. The parents of some babies were threatening to take the case of the doctors to the GMC.

[@louisejeffries7155]

17 of the 200+ documents had babies relevant babies names on them Manyi nurses and doctors take their handover sheets home Some training institutions tell you to do so, many places don’t encourage the practice and some places considerate wrong but it’s not illegal And it’s not uncommon

[@deceptiondetective]

The prosecution has no obligation whatsoever to share their data sets or transcripts with us? Fair enough, and we have no obligation to blindly accept any of their conclusions.

[@Vicr-m4x]

No one said you did have such an obligation. It doesn’t matter what you believe! The case is over!

[@Prometheus4096]

They do because they work for the government and those documents are government documents that belong to all Uk citizens.

[@Ozzy1984_]

Peter hitchens has his facts, logical and arguments ripped to pieces here. Hopefully he stops banging on about this case soon, because she's guilty and deserves to rot in prison for her whole life.

[@philswain9648]

I have a problem with bringing multiple cases together in circumstantial evidence cases where each case is supported by the 'weight of evidence' of the existence of the other charges which are also unsettled at that time. Each case should be heard separately on it's own merits. After all - they get sentenced separately...

[@dianamincher6479]

Air embolism never happens! They chose air embolism to to weaponize their political mission to get a conviction!

[@Vicr-m4x]

That’s such a mad idea when the evidence is so interconnected. A new jury sworn in each time? A new judge? And imagine being letby in remand on all these charges - the trials would have dragged on for years and years and years!

[@philswain9648]

@@Vicr-m4x So the time and resources available to the court is evidence or cause for changing the fundamental right to a fair trial? Not for me. Rushed justice is rough justice I, and many others, say.

[@Vicr-m4x]

Right but the point i was making is that would mean years and years longer in remand prison for the defendant

[@Minimmalmythicist]

There is an argument to say that jurors should have to say what evidence they found persuasive

[@daveJohn-n4g]

She had one witness because her total budget was 30 k in money. The prosecution spent millions.

[@arfurascii2232]

To 5 September 2024, the most up to date figure for the total legal aid paid to LL's representatives is £1.7 million. To October 2023, it was £1.5 million. So why do you say her "total budget was 30k"? The defence instructed a number of expert witnesses, one of whom has been named. The defence didn't call any of them to give evidence, they called LL and a plumber. (and why say budget "in money", what would the alternative be, bananas?)

[@ashleyboard1783]

Tell me you don’t know how high profile cases work without telling me

[@arfurascii2232]

​@@ashleyboard1783 It seems you also don't know what the £30k number represents.

[@m39403]

So, we are told that the number of deaths and collapses in that period was far more than just those that she was convicted of. At least the same again I’ve read. We are also told that the average number of anticipated deaths on the ward was around 3. Now I'm no statistician, but if the non-suspicious number is more than 3, which it was, surely, they too are suspicious! In my humble option she is then either responsible for all of them or none of them. Given everything else I've been reading, I would have to say none of them!

[@Chipoo88]

This would be interesting to listen to if they didn’t talk over one another, and one more than the other

[@justicebynumbers]

He makes a great point about the jury jumping on the simple evidence (eg rota and scribbles) and ignoring the complex evidence presented over months and months!

[@arfurascii2232]

No-one but the members of the jury (and perhaps their confidants) know what they considered to be more or less important. We can only speculate.

[@KingBee24]

@@arfurascii2232 As the jury were unlikely to be medical professionals, it's highly likely that the spread sheet and post-it notes were influential ... which is why the prosecution presented them.

[@arfurascii2232]

@@KingBee24 You have imagined that the jury "ignored" - not even paid less attention to, but "ignored" - the complex evidence.

[@justicebynumbers]

@@arfurascii2232 Absolutely, you’re right. Only the jury knows exactly what weighed most heavily in their decision, and anything beyond that is just speculation. It’s fascinating to think about how different pieces of evidence may have influenced them differently. What aspects of the case do you think might have been particularly persuasive, either from the statistics or the broader evidence presented?

[@Prometheus4096]

We know from US cases that the jury often didn't decide their ruling on the things that the journalists thought they responded to during the trial.

[@Gopher31]

Of the 17 babies that died, 7 died while Letby was working. Only these seven were brought up in trial. I would like to know why these were selected. Was it just because Letby was present?

[@arfurascii2232]

The other deaths were explained, not unexpected, not suspicious.

[@steveblundell7766]

Did you not watch the video, they discussed this at length

[@KingBee24]

@@arfurascii2232 neither were the others deemed suspicious by the pathologists who did the post mortems.

[@arfurascii2232]

@@KingBee24 Those didn't look for deliberate harm and one was "unascertained"

[@KingBee24]

@@arfurascii2232 Bingo ! If you're looking for something, you'll find something.

[@daviddavidsen907]

I recall reading that one of the insidences that Lucy Letby alledgedly was alone with a baby that died (I think it might be the one where the doctor went to check in on her and "vertualy caught her red handed") turned out to have at least one other nurse registrated to be precent there with her. Wich would render his story even more unbelievable. I also think it is highly worth looking deeper into the bacterial outbreack. I have listned to statements on this topic from the highest experts in regard to this spesiffic case wich states that it is highly likely that the bacterial outbreak on that unit could be the real killer. They sead that a different hospital with a far less sevear outbreak then what was on that baby unit had been shut down due to the danger of it. And they also sead that the consequenses of the levle of bacterial outbreak on the baby unit was unimaginably bad. Another expert on infection from that spesiffic bacteria have sead that the symptomes the baby showed, allign with symptomes of infection from that spesiffic bacteria. There is evidence for this and it will eventually emerge to the surface as new evidence. The bacteria outbreak on that unit is the real killer. And it had cultivated in the taps the nurses used to wash their hands in beefore handeling vaulnerable babys. I have read so many comments from nurses saying that they too have piles of paper at home that they shouldn't have. The work paper that Lucy had at home proove nothing more then bad paperwork managment that seemingly is comon amongst nurses acording to nurses them self, so to use that as an argument to proove her to have some kind of abnormal personality trait needed to be a killer is utterly unrelevant and just show so clearly that those who can not acknowledge that there is a potential of her beeing innocent, have their judgment clouded and their logic compromiced.

[@ashleyboard1783]

I suggest you listen to her testimony and then think again. There was no evidence of infection in the majority of the post mortems they did.

[@Rachelshmachel63]

To argue anti Lucy letby side; your dealing with the most vulnerable population, who cannot communicate in ANY WAY … but by their number of deaths with the same person always there , it’s quite evident to me

[@Rachelshmachel63]

39:27 it’s too bad you were on an interesting tac 13 minutes ago … you lost me

[@pixiedragon83]

I've just read that current inquiry has found that an important piece of machinery for monitoring blood oxygen levels in the unit was malfunctioning during the time period LL was accused of murder...this is crucial as it shows that staff could have easily missed when babies were deteriorating which would make their collapse appear unexpected and the machine was giving incorrect reading which can lead the staff making the wrong treatment decisions...this throws everything up in the air!!!

[@arfurascii2232]

In early May 2023 the jury heard from the defendant about this.

[@pixiedragon83]

@@arfurascii2232 it says the jury were NOT informed of this faulty piece of equipment...

[@pixiedragon83]

@@arfurascii2232 look up the article by Cieran McGrath in the express headlined - lucy letby baby monitor at hospital 'was broken' when babies died on ward

[@pixiedragon83]

@arfurascii2232 look up the article lucy letby baby monitor at hospital 'was broken' when babies died on ward

[@arfurascii2232]

@@pixiedragon83 The Daily Express article seems to be based on the Daily Telegraph article on the same matter. Headline, "Critical baby monitor at Lucy Letby hospital was broken during infant death spike". The Daily Telegraph issued a correction to its claim that the jury was not told. "CORRECTION: In an earlier version of this article it was incorrectly stated that the jury at Letby’s trial was not told about faulty equipment. In fact, in her evidence on 2 May 2023 Letby told the court that occasionally if the blood gas machine in the neonatal unit was broken, an alternative machine on the labour ward would be used. We are happy to correct the record." The Daily Express has not issued a correction.

[@jackierice5848]

Has Ms Letby been psychologically/psychiatrically evaluated?

[@dianamincher6479]

Not necessary as this is a political NHS trial so no need! The result is to be expected and is contrived! Why would 19 neonatal support the innocence of Lucy Letby! Defence should have called expert evidence!

[@jeremygough1387]

I would think so. This isn't Deputy Dawg.

[@jackierice5848]

@@jeremygough1387 I wonder what the results are?

[@Burglar-King]

Two babies had been given insulin. Neither were diabetic and the only way insulin could have got into those babies was by malice aforethought. Lucy Letby was caught out lying on the stand on many occasions.

[@KingBee24]

That has been discredited by toxicologists.

[@Vicr-m4x]

@@KingBee24 it really hasn’t. The tests have a margin of error but the results in these two cases were really clear - the discrepancy was extreme.

[@KingBee24]

@@Vicr-m4x The laboratory which did the tests said that they were tests for antibodies and not suitable for detecting exogenous insulin. This has been verified by leading forensic toxicologist, Professor Alan Wayne Jones who specializes in insulin.

[@Dylan-y6n]

​@@KingBee24 Why are you trying to defend her and I ask why youre so invested in this case. If she were innocent would she not have kicked up a huge scene and fuss when arrested? I know I would have if I were accused of such terrible crimes

[@KingBee24]

@@Dylan-y6n This is going to come as a shock ... so brace yourself ... not everybody is like you ! And you have no idea how you would react in any situation until it happens. You may think you'd react in a macho way, but it's more likely that you'd go to pieces.