29 minutes ago, Casino said:

Nuance

There are hundreds of buildings around the country covered with flammable cladding because of what these cunts did.

It’s not negligence, or incompetence we’re talking about here - it’s knowingly and intentionally selling a product you know is lethal.

Corporate manslaughter is the very least they deserve charging with. It should be worse.

2 hours ago, Ani said:

 

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. 

Ok, but the thing is, if there was no suggestion, for whatever reason, in the initial trial that her scribblings and notes were advised to her as a way to deal with it

And someone can now prove that they were 

Would that count as new evidence? 

Because that you could pass off the scribblings and perhaps in turn the internet searches and Facebook posts

All you're left with is her being on shift

Surely though they covered all that first time round, it's not the sort of thing you'd miss out if you're a decent defence lawyer 

 

56 minutes ago, gonzo said:

Monday. Stick me straight on pharmaceuticals

You still got that nurse's outfit?

Well fit!

27 minutes ago, Zico said:

Ok, but the thing is, if there was no suggestion, for whatever reason, in the initial trial that her scribblings and notes were advised to her as a way to deal with it

And someone can now prove that they were 

Would that count as new evidence? 

Because that you could pass off the scribblings and perhaps in turn the internet searches and Facebook posts

All you're left with is her being on shift

Surely though they covered all that first time round, it's not the sort of thing you'd miss out if you're a decent defence lawyer 

 

No idea tbh how much on that was said at first trial, second trial or the request to appeal. Or what other evidence there was. 
 

She was suspended back in 2020 so bit strange if just been discovered or mentioned 
 

 

32 minutes ago, Zico said:

Ok, but the thing is, if there was no suggestion, for whatever reason, in the initial trial that her scribblings and notes were advised to her as a way to deal with it

And someone can now prove that they were 

Would that count as new evidence? 

Because that you could pass off the scribblings and perhaps in turn the internet searches and Facebook posts

All you're left with is her being on shift

Surely though they covered all that first time round, it's not the sort of thing you'd miss out if you're a decent defence lawyer 

 

That's precisely what has been suggested. 

A lack of expert witness testimony, and investigation. 

May well be guilty, and may well have been found guilty, but at least everything would have been out in the open for full consideration. 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3d93kpkl83o.amp
 

they must read here

So is she innocent then?

Like, Andy Dufresne innocent?

25 minutes ago, Spider said:

So is she innocent then?

Like, Andy Dufresne innocent?

Who knows!

These people voicing their concern better be careful, before the prison governor has them in front of the sharpshooter.

1 hour ago, Ani said:

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. 

I need to read up on the tests because I don't know enough about them to form a proper opinion. 

The other evidence they had against her (the circumstantial bits) always felt a bit clunky to me. 

But surely 22 babies don't just drop dead?

The autopsy reports all suggest foul play don't they?

 

Edited September 5, 20241 yr by gonzo

18 minutes ago, gonzo said:

But surely 22 babies don't just drop dead?

The autopsy reports all suggest foul play don't they?

 

It's possible if she was on paediatric ICU. I'd say I saw a patient of mine die once every two weeks or so when I was on ICU/HDU. So 25 or so a year. More over a longer period........

That was adults though. Not sure what the statistics are like for kids mortality. But they're extremely poorly and extremely vulnerable. 

32 minutes ago, gonzo said:

But surely 22 babies don't just drop dead?

The autopsy reports all suggest foul play don't they?

 

 

10 minutes ago, kent_white said:

It's possible if she was on paediatric ICU. I'd say I saw a patient of mine die once every two weeks or so when I was on ICU/HDU. So 25 or so a year. More over a longer period........

That was adults though. Not sure what the statistics are like for kids mortality. But they're extremely poorly and extremely vulnerable. 

I spent 7 years working with the neonatal and paediatric ICUs around the North of England and Scotland. There’s quite a difference between the two. Or at least there was in the 2000s.

Neonatal ICUs are heartbreaking places. These tend to be very premature babies that are clinging on by a thread or new borns with a serious problem. Youngest ended up at St Mary’s after an op the day she was born. That place was grimmer than anything I’ve ever seen. She came through. Most on that unit didn't

Paediatric ICUs are (or maybe were) a bit better. Still bad when looking at newborns but it’s ones like my eldest who decided to swallow her own shit (meconium) whilst being born that end up there. Most seemed to survive but needed intensive care

If Letby was in a NICU then mortality rates would be high and 25 a year wouldn’t surprise me at all. A PICU would be surprising imo as it would also include “older” children who’s mortality is a lot lower

Not sure if the unit she was on was NICU or PICU?

I’ll defer to @kent_white for correction if I’m talking shite

 

 

12 minutes ago, MancWanderer said:

 

I spent 7 years working with the neonatal and paediatric ICUs around the North of England and Scotland. There’s quite a difference between the two. Or at least there was in the 2000s.

Neonatal ICUs are heartbreaking places. These tend to be very premature babies that are clinging on by a thread or new borns with a serious problem. Youngest ended up at St Mary’s after an op the day she was born. That place was grimmer than anything I’ve ever seen. She came through. Most on that unit didn't

Paediatric ICUs are (or maybe were) a bit better. Still bad when looking at newborns but it’s ones like my eldest who decided to swallow her own shit (meconium) whilst being born that end up there. Most seemed to survive but needed intensive care

If Letby was in a NICU then mortality rates would be high and 25 a year wouldn’t surprise me at all. A PICU would be surprising imo as it would also include “older” children who’s mortality is a lot lower

Not sure if the unit she was on was NICU or PICU?

I’ll defer to @kent_white for correction if I’m talking shite

 

 

Hats off to you mate. I don't think I could handle NICU or PICU. Takes a special kind of person. And a lot of mental strength! 👍

42 minutes ago, MancWanderer said:

 

I spent 7 years working with the neonatal and paediatric ICUs around the North of England and Scotland. There’s quite a difference between the two. Or at least there was in the 2000s.

Neonatal ICUs are heartbreaking places. These tend to be very premature babies that are clinging on by a thread or new borns with a serious problem. Youngest ended up at St Mary’s after an op the day she was born. That place was grimmer than anything I’ve ever seen. She came through. Most on that unit didn't

Paediatric ICUs are (or maybe were) a bit better. Still bad when looking at newborns but it’s ones like my eldest who decided to swallow her own shit (meconium) whilst being born that end up there. Most seemed to survive but needed intensive care

If Letby was in a NICU then mortality rates would be high and 25 a year wouldn’t surprise me at all. A PICU would be surprising imo as it would also include “older” children who’s mortality is a lot lower

Not sure if the unit she was on was NICU or PICU?

I’ll defer to @kent_white for correction if I’m talking shite

 

 

One of the other things is the status of the unit changed after she was suspended , it changed I assume from the definitions above from a NICU to PICU so the death rate did drop off. Do not think this was used as evidence, but another example of just looking at numbers with no context is meaningless. 

2 hours ago, Spider said:

So is she innocent then?

Like, Andy Dufresne innocent?

At the moment after two trials she has been found guilty twice.

It has been ruled no grounds to appeal

 it as per the link they are now talking about another appeal, she has changed her legal team, so maybe the next thing will be appeal because the defence was flawed. 
 

So they now they need new evidence to show the original prosecution was unsafe, if they are then granted an appeal then if that is successful it will mean a re trial. 
 

As it stands she is guilty, but how safe that is is impossible to say. 

26 minutes ago, kent_white said:

Hats off to you mate. I don't think I could handle NICU or PICU. Takes a special kind of person. And a lot of mental strength! 👍

Tbh I wasn’t “hands on” as such. I was there along with the folk who worked for me training the nurses on immunisations for the pre-terms. Sadly the training was actually “live” within the units and obviously I saw what would be happening at the time. Nurses who the had to handle the issues on the units were incredible. Fuck me. Taught me a lot.

The experiences do make me wonder about the Letby numbers though. NICU is fucking brutal. Rationalising. Not saying she is guilty or not. Just looking from a certain angle 

12 minutes ago, Ani said:

One of the other things is the status of the unit changed after she was suspended , it changed I assume from the definitions above from a NICU to PICU so the death rate did drop off. Do not think this was used as evidence, but another example of just looking at numbers with no context is meaningless. 

I’ve not read enough of the case to properly determine exactly where she was working. She was neonatal. But was she neonatal ward or neonatal ICU? And at what point was she interacting with the babies? Was it at the point of transfer between the two? Or was it transfer from NICU to PICU? I’ve probably answered my own question that I need to read up a bit more.

@gonzohas sent me down a rabbit hole because my curiosity has been piqued. 

21 minutes ago, MancWanderer said:

I’ve not read enough of the case to properly determine exactly where she was working. She was neonatal. But was she neonatal ward or neonatal ICU? And at what point was she interacting with the babies? Was it at the point of transfer between the two? Or was it transfer from NICU to PICU? I’ve probably answered my own question that I need to read up a bit more.

@gonzohas sent me down a rabbit hole because my curiosity has been piqued. 

Her initial trial was 8 months long which is why people on the internet making assumptions about her guilt or innocence based on what they have read on the internet is bollocks. A lot of the court docs were not made public till after her second trial as it would affect any chance of a fair trial.

Before you start going down any rabbit holes just be aware there are millions of the fuckers full of half truths and lots of 'experts' who all think they know more than the other 'experts' with very little analysis of differing view points. 

8 hours ago, Ani said:

Before you start going down any rabbit holes just be aware there are millions of the fuckers full of half truths and lots of 'experts' who all think they know more than the other 'experts' with very little analysis of differing view points. 

A bit like this place then? 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c05j4dng9q0t
 

The enquiry into the hospitals handling of it all is underway, nothing to do with any legal appeal, but more stuff coming out that is ignored by the conspiracy lot 

With a senior doctor who was an expert witness at the case heavily criticising the judges opening remarks- apparently she made some factually incorrect comments. 

This hearing is into the performance of the hospital and managers etc, not the conviction- which the judge explained correctly- but making controversial statements is just going to add fuel to the fire.

More miles in all this yet.

 

This chaps worth a read. MD in Private Eye. Still believes she's guilty but that the conviction on the evidence presented is unsafe.

 

 

20 minutes ago, Duck Egg said:

This chaps worth a read. MD in Private Eye. Still believes she's guilty but that the conviction on the evidence presented is unsafe.

 

 

His opinion is based on 'what I have seen' as is that of his 'experts'. Not on all the evidence presented, it is a massive difference. 

I have no axe to grind in terms of is she guilty or not  OR was the trial fair or not, but the people who sat through all the evidence over months found her guilty, the people picking at the verdict do not claim to have seen or listened to all the evidence it is based on 'what i have seen'

Paul Comstive scored off a corner twice in a game, so you could conclude if that was only game you had seen that he was a good player, however if you examine all the evidence he was fucking shit. 

50 minutes ago, Ani said:

His opinion is based on 'what I have seen' as is that of his 'experts'. Not on all the evidence presented, it is a massive difference. 

I have no axe to grind in terms of is she guilty or not  OR was the trial fair or not, but the people who sat through all the evidence over months found her guilty, the people picking at the verdict do not claim to have seen or listened to all the evidence it is based on 'what i have seen'

Paul Comstive scored off a corner twice in a game, so you could conclude if that was only game you had seen that he was a good player, however if you examine all the evidence he was fucking shit. 

Much of his opinion is based on his medical knowledge and the medical evidence that was presented in court, some of it so complex that experts can't agree and it's not unreasonable to think much of it went over a Jury's head. 

19 minutes ago, Duck Egg said:

 it's not unreasonable to think much of it went over a Jury's head. 

See this is why the justice system needs to be sorted and i don't know the answer.

I have done jury service a couple of times, its an eye opener, 1st time never even got selected but was a good skive off work for a couple of weeks, full pay and all expenses.

2nd time after a couple of days got on a trial.

Well, god knows how the case even got to court, was a couple of feral scroats and one was accused of threatening behaviour with a bladed implement.

The lad was obviously already banged up for a previous that is not allowed to be taken into consideration and the girl was off her t*ts and couldn't string 2 words together.

Anyway his defence was a streetwise older woman that was very switched on and the prosecution was a young girl who by her own admission to his honour the judge had only picked up the case an hour before and knew nothing of her client or the case.

Loads of times the jury are sent out for hours on end whilst points of law are discussed without them, so most have switched off, forgotten, and basically lost interest.

The evidence was pi$$ weak, the police reports full of spelling errors, dates didn't match and looked like kids had done it.

Defence barrister basically made it look like Arsenal v Hayward Green High school.

So in a big case with loads of technical jargon what chance has a Jury got when basically they are fed up and just wanna get back in time for tipping point.