15 minutes ago, Ani said:

So Lucy Letby has been jailed for injecting babies with insulin and/or water causing deaths. 

A company has made up test results that have contributed to deaths, along with a series of other companies cutting corners which combined caused multiple deaths

And someone is saying that it was all just an accident we should move on ? 

Yeah, shit happens, apparently, boo hoo.

Same with the collateral damage being done to the Palestinians.

6 minutes ago, Traf said:

Yeah, shit happens, apparently, boo hoo.

Same with the collateral damage being done to the Palestinians.

Elf and safety gone mad. 
 

Back in my day………

1 hour ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

Don't shoot the messenger, but from what I heard, the evidence of her presence is in doubt because they had got the log whe wrong way round: she wasn't in when they said she was.

I don't know whether that was for the whole of the time, or part of it- whatever the case, if true, then it suggests her defence team weren't up to much. It may also cast doubt over the trial as a whole.

Not sure of your source but that was not picked up in her trial or her appeal as far as I know 
There have been statisticians arguing that the number of times she was present is not statistically relevant and they have not picked up on this either.

I like 99% of the population have not seen all the evidence, there are numerous articles out there with people challenging various elements but she was found guilty, and her appeal rejected, so untill otherwise proven she is guilty. 
 

There are always people on the internet with alternative theories, there was a bloke who claimed the arena bombing never happened, Sandy Hook was invented etc etc. rarely stand up to any scrutiny. Letbys prosecution is made up by a lot of circumstantial evidence so always likely to be questioned by some . 

2 hours ago, Ani said:

 internet with alternative theories, there was a bloke who claimed the arena bombing never happened, Sandy Hook was invented etc etc. rarely stand up to any scrutiny. Letbys prosecution is made up by a lot of circumstantial evidence so always likely to be questioned by some . 

But none of these would have been taken seriously by a court. 

They won't agree an appeal unless there are reasonable grounds. 

6 minutes ago, kent_white said:

But none of these would have been taken seriously by a court. 

They won't agree an appeal unless there are reasonable grounds. 

Her ‘confession’ turning out to be an exercise for a therapist being used as evidence is flimsy as fuck now. 

8 minutes ago, mickbrown said:

Her ‘confession’ turning out to be an exercise for a therapist being used as evidence is flimsy as fuck now. 

As is compulsively looking at the family of the babies on Facebook. Or writing in a diary that she 'killed those babies'. 

Just as likely to be the stream of consciousness of someone conscientious but buckling under the pressure and pain of holding herself responsible as it is to be an admission of guilt. 

The aftercare for nurses who have witnesses traumatic events is non existent. There is no debrief. No counselling. The body is taken away and your next patient arrives immediately in most cases. You go home and then try to unpick it all in your own head the best way that you can. 

And I guarantee you that every good nurse agonises over whether they could have done more for a patient who has died in their care. Some will obsess over it. Maybe that's the case here? 

 

38 minutes ago, kent_white said:

As is compulsively looking at the family of the babies on Facebook. Or writing in a diary that she 'killed those babies'. 

Just as likely to be the stream of consciousness of someone conscientious but buckling under the pressure and pain of holding herself responsible as it is to be an admission of guilt. 

The aftercare for nurses who have witnesses traumatic events is non existent. There is no debrief. No counselling. The body is taken away and your next patient arrives immediately in most cases. You go home and then try to unpick it all in your own head the best way that you can. 

And I guarantee you that every good nurse agonises over whether they could have done more for a patient who has died in their care. Some will obsess over it. Maybe that's the case here? 

 

Aye. Couldn’t pay me enough.
 

And they deffo don’t pay enough.
 

Did you read that NY Times article about it? Think there’s a link somewhere in the thread. 

2 hours ago, kent_white said:

But none of these would have been taken seriously by a court. 

They won't agree an appeal unless there are reasonable grounds. 

They rejected the appeal. 
 

As I said none of the 'experts' offering opinions outside the trial have seen all the evidence.

Equally having read comments from some of the 'experts' who did give evidence IMO there is an element of 'it is right , I said it, I am always right.'

As the case is based on circumstantial evidence it is relatively easy to question each individual element but it is the weight of all the evidence that gives the verdict.  
 

So if it was just the internet searches, just the confession, just the weird notes in her book, just the fact she was on duty of all the events etc etc she would be ok, but the cumulative effect of all these that led to the verdict. 

6 minutes ago, Ani said:

They rejected the appeal. 
 

As I said none of the 'experts' offering opinions outside the trial have seen all the evidence.

Equally having read comments from some of the 'experts' who did give evidence IMO there is an element of 'it is right , I said it, I am always right.'

As the case is based on circumstantial evidence it is relatively easy to question each individual element but it is the weight of all the evidence that gives the verdict.  
 

So if it was just the internet searches, just the confession, just the weird notes in her book, just the fact she was on duty of all the events etc etc she would be ok, but the cumulative effect of all these that led to the verdict. 

I didn't realise the appeal had been turned down so I stand corrected. 

I'm not sure we've heard the last of this one though. 

36 minutes ago, Ani said:

They rejected the appeal. 
 

As I said none of the 'experts' offering opinions outside the trial have seen all the evidence.

Equally having read comments from some of the 'experts' who did give evidence IMO there is an element of 'it is right , I said it, I am always right.'

As the case is based on circumstantial evidence it is relatively easy to question each individual element but it is the weight of all the evidence that gives the verdict.  
 

So if it was just the internet searches, just the confession, just the weird notes in her book, just the fact she was on duty of all the events etc etc she would be ok, but the cumulative effect of all these that led to the verdict. 

Read that NY Times article. It sounded well dodgy and that before the therapy exercise scribblings were passed off as a confession. 

14 minutes ago, mickbrown said:

Read that NY Times article. It sounded well dodgy and that before the therapy exercise scribblings were passed off as a confession. 

It is a bit like any conspiracy theory , anyone with a modicum of knowledge can make a convincing argument and you need a similar level to say why the theory is not as convincing as it first sounds.

All the below are true; (I have used 25 and 5 as examples , think they are right but not 100% sure)

1 There were 25 incidents that were identified as suspicious. Letby was only person on duty for all these   - Gulity ! 

2 There were another 5 incidents that were not included and Letby was not on duty for those- Not Guilty 

3 The expert who selected the suspicious incidents did so in advance, he knew of the other 5 but did not regard them as suspicious so were excluded. This was done before checking the rotas - Ah Guilty then 

4 Some statistical analysis would state that Letby being on duty for all those incidents is just genuinely coincidental. Because it is such a small sample size it is wrong to make assumptions. -  ah so maybe not guilty 
 

5 Saying something is not statistically significant does not mean it is not true. - Ah so maybe guilty 

 

Not read the NY article but read similar since the Appeal.  Article below is probably a bit more balanced, but you will see from this there is clearly some 'expert envy' ongoing . 
 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/aug/27/lucy-letby-inquiry-should-be-postponed-changed-experts#:~:text=Despite the convictions and court,that Letby's conviction was unsafe.

1 hour ago, kent_white said:

I didn't realise the appeal had been turned down so I stand corrected. 

I'm not sure we've heard the last of this one though. 

Her request to appeal was rejected, sorry I was not clear. That decision could be challenged. 

24 minutes ago, Ani said:

Her request to appeal was rejected, sorry I was not clear. That decision could be challenged. 

From what I was reading, there was reasonable doubt cast on the validity of the test designed to detect an injected dose of insulin - and the same effect could have been accounted for by insulin naturally produced by the baby in question. Which really would cast doubt on the validity of the evidence. 

15 minutes ago, kent_white said:

From what I was reading, there was reasonable doubt cast on the validity of the test designed to detect an injected dose of insulin - and the same effect could have been accounted for by insulin naturally produced by the baby in question. Which really would cast doubt on the validity of the evidence. 

Surely if they found insulin that they suspect injected, there would be a clear mark from the needle at that age? Or was it that it was too much injected? 

24 minutes ago, only1swanny said:

Surely if they found insulin that they suspect injected, there would be a clear mark from the needle at that age? Or was it that it was too much injected? 

Baby would already have a canula jobby 

27 minutes ago, only1swanny said:

Surely if they found insulin that they suspect injected, there would be a clear mark from the needle at that age? Or was it that it was too much injected? 

It was IV so they would already have had a line in........

3 minutes ago, gonzo said:

Baby would already have a canula jobby 

Good knowledge Gonzo. When can you start? 😁

7 hours ago, Ani said:

Not sure of your source but that was not picked up in her trial or her appeal as far as I know 
There have been statisticians arguing that the number of times she was present is not statistically relevant and they have not picked up on this either.

I like 99% of the population have not seen all the evidence, there are numerous articles out there with people challenging various elements but she was found guilty, and her appeal rejected, so untill otherwise proven she is guilty. 
 

There are always people on the internet with alternative theories, there was a bloke who claimed the arena bombing never happened, Sandy Hook was invented etc etc. rarely stand up to any scrutiny. Letbys prosecution is made up by a lot of circumstantial evidence so always likely to be questioned by some . 

Supposedly come to light recently that it wasn't picked up at the trial!

Unfortunately, I can't remember where I heard/read it.

All that apart, as Zico said, there may be enough doubt to quash the initial findings, but I would presume that would mean long, drawn out retrials.

https://www.reddit.com/r/LucyLetbyTrials/comments/1dym754/the_trial_of_lucy_letby_podcast_on_swipe_card/

Plenty on here, and frankly can't be arsed reading it all.

How accurate it is etc, I've no idea.

Edited September 5, 20241 yr by Tonge moor green jacket

6 minutes ago, kent_white said:

Good knowledge Gonzo. When can you start? 😁

Monday. Stick me straight on pharmaceuticals

8 hours ago, Spider said:

Nope.

One of the cladding manufacturers made up a test purely to pass their cladding as non-combustible. So all the safety certificates were then pointless because it was a load of lies.

They KNEW the test was bollocks,  and that’s why people are very likely to end up doing serious jail time. 

Have you read anything at all that was in the enquiry report released yesterday?

Nuance

1 minute ago, Casino said:

Nuance

 

Bit harsh.

Ginger nuance

20 minutes ago, gonzo said:

Baby would already have a canula jobby 

Junkie

14 minutes ago, gonzo said:

Monday. Stick me straight on pharmaceuticals

Controlled drugs cupboard is locked nowadays mate! 😂

1 hour ago, kent_white said:

From what I was reading, there was reasonable doubt cast on the validity of the test designed to detect an injected dose of insulin - and the same effect could have been accounted for by insulin naturally produced by the baby in question. Which really would cast doubt on the validity of the evidence. 

The test they quoted was devised by and named after 2 doctors, one of those has suggested (again without seeing all the evidence) that the conclusions being drawn might not be correct. The expert who produced the original report said the conclusions were not based solely on that test. (The other doctor who devised the test is now dead) 

Worth noting that there have already been 2 trials, in the first some of the cases were not proven and the prosecution asked for a retrial and then she was found guilty on the outstanding cases.

The other element that can not really be bought into the discussion of a re trial is the natural human emotion that with all these deaths it gives the parents more closure and is easier for everyone if there is a 'monster' rather than that is being left open as something that just happened.