Lucy Letby Case #73

Status
Thread locked. We start a new thread when they have over 1000 posts, click the blue button to see all threads for this topic and find the latest open thread.
1
Tofino said:
Jane Hutton is absolutely infuriating in that podcast. I may have shouted out a couple of times. I was initially thinking why on earth are they giving her any airtime but actually I’m glad they have because Liz and Caroline are being quite assertive with her, correcting her errors, asking if she’s read stuff etc and it actually really shows up how little research she has done on this case.

Caroline pointed out that Jane was shaking her head when Caroline was talking about the experience of the doctors and the unexpected deaths. Like a bleeping ‘statistician’ has more experience in neonatal health care than paediatric consultants. Jane went on to say wtte ‘I believe they made errors placing tubes so they can’t be that experienced’ but Caroline or Liz quite rightly corrected her and said no evidence that the intubation issued caused any of the deaths. So Jane says ‘I don’t know. I’ve no idea what investigations were done to see whether that was a problem.” 🤬
Click to expand...

What an absolute idiot. “Experts” like her would be pulled apart by NJ KC if they were to testify in her defence in court!

I was going to avoid listening to that, but actually I would quite like to hear Liz and Caroline properly questioning the strength of her “expertise”. It gives a good indication to how LL really has zero defence.
 
ImDavidBrent said:
What an absolute idiot. “Experts” like her would be pulled apart by NJ KC if they were to testify in her defence in court!

I was going to avoid listening to that, but actually I would quite like to hear Liz and Caroline properly questioning the strength of her “expertise”. It gives a good indication to how LL really has zero defence.
Click to expand...

Yes it’s definitely worth a listen even though Jane is infuriating. It’s great to hear journalists challenge these idiots for once and it just reaffirms how ludicrous the conspiracies are.
 
VicksterIcon said:
The DM has released a new episode to their Trial podcast. They speak to Professor Jane Hutton as she has questioned the statistical evidence and Tim Owen KC (from Double Jeopardy podcast). It was recorded prior to the news about Letby’s new legal team which they will discuss in the next episode.

Click to expand...


This explains the other deaths that Richard Gill talks so much about,

4 discounted due to serious congenital conditions
1 severe oxygen shortage at birth
4 due to infection, 2 died when Letby was on duty.

Presumably it would be hard to prove she killed them if they had an infection.

Jane Hutton doesn't seem to understand that baby I is included in the chart 4 times because there were four incidents where she collapsed. It is a chart showing who was on duty for each suspicious collapse. She also feels multiples should show as one incident, why?? As there were no infection, genetic or severe prematurity issues why should they be linked.
 
Just been told that it's been on BBC C News that she's appointed a new legal team. Does anyone know how this will work because her appeals have been denied and there's no future pending trial. So where will they go with this.
---
tay65 said:
Just been told that it's been on BBC C News that she's appointed a new legal team. Does anyone know how this will work because her appeals have been denied and there's no future pending trial. So where will they go with this.
Click to expand...
Just seen earlier posts which says they are taking her case to Criminal Review. I will read all earlier posts for more information.
 
If you can get through Jane Hutton's ignorant nonsense, the second half is really worth listening to. Tim Owen's point is one that MUST be addressed: the jury's first task was to decide if the unexpected deaths/collapses presented in the trial were the result of homicide/deliberate harm and they said YES in some but not all cases. Then they had to decide if so, did Letby cause the harm. If she is innocent, then there is still an issue that these babies appear to have been harmed and died or collapsed unexpectedly (yes, Jane Hutton you bleeping moron, many babies that died were making good progress and were expected to survive and get home). So, either it needs to be shown that every single one of those incidents was not the result of deliberate harm OR there's a different serial killer of babies at CoCH still on the loose.
 
MavisBeacon said:
Her point about Multiples should count as one death was nonsensical from a medical point of view, as she assumed all babies in a multiple birth would be exactly the same in terms of their health and outlook, which simply isn't the case AFAIK. What an idiot.
Click to expand...

Oh yes the bit about multiples was frustrating too.

her words from transcript:

“So for example, if you had happened to have quadruplets born very prematurely and they'd all died, it wouldn't be surprising that all four died, but it would give you an apparent cluster of four when in fact you've only got one pregnancy.”

No Jane. It would only be unsurprising if you know the cause of death was natural. It would be surprising if premature quadruplets all died BECAUSE SOMEONE MURDERED THEM.

And she’s seemingly missed that many of the multiples had a survivor. Probably because she knows duck all about the actual babies. The real human beings with hundreds of pages of medical records. They are not just a number in your statistical fantasy Jane.
 
tay65 said:
Just been told that it's been on BBC C News that she's appointed a new legal team. Does anyone know how this will work because her appeals have been denied and there's no future pending trial. So where will they go with this.
---

Just seen earlier posts which says they are taking her case to Criminal Review. I will read all earlier posts for more information.
Click to expand...
It’ll be like Jeremy Bamber where every now & again they announce another appeal which is ultimately denied. Then they generate as much publicity as possible & protest their innocence citing a new piece of information which has no legal significance but on the basis of which a new legal team is instructed & new appeal launched supported strongly by a bunch of weirdos. Repeat until death.
 
People always compare Lucy to Sally Clark, but they are very different cases. Lucy's involved a lot more babies, evidence, post it notes, there was no there is a one in so many chance she happened to be there for each suspicious incident. It was just showing she had access to the babies.
A big part in freeing Lucia seemed to the medical evidence changed so it became clear the patients weren't deliberately harmed.
 
Tofino said:
Ok today’s choice for ‘who do you agree with on Jeremy Vine’ are Vanessa Feltz or Owen Jones.

Owen doesn’t even anger me here because he just sounds stupid.

“But especially as she got scapegoated for the failures at that hospital” 🤦🏼‍♀️

Click to expand...

Owen Jones is a self aggradising idiot who never saw a bandwagon pass by he didn't try to jump on.

Letby is not a scapegoat for systemic failures at the Countess of Chester. She's the heinous result of them.,
 
Tofino said:
Ok today’s choice for ‘who do you agree with on Jeremy Vine’ are Vanessa Feltz or Owen Jones.

Owen doesn’t even anger me here because he just sounds stupid.

“But especially as she got scapegoated for the failures at that hospital” 🤦🏼‍♀️

Click to expand...

sebanna said:
People always compare Lucy to Sally Clark, but they are very different cases. Lucy's involved a lot more babies, evidence, post it notes, there was no there is a one in so many chance she happened to be there for each suspicious incident. It was just showing she had access to the babies.
A big part in freeing Lucia seemed to the medical evidence changed so it became clear the patients weren't deliberately harmed.
Click to expand...

Also, Statistical probability was used in the cases of Lucia du berk and Sally Clarke, this never happend with Letby.
 
I'm a bit confused about the number of deaths. Can anyone explain?
On the Panarama documentary it was confirmed that there were 13 deaths on the ward between June 2015 to July 2016 and Letby was present for all of them.

In Liz Hull's podcast and article she states that there were 9 deaths between January 2015 to July 2016 that Letby wasn't charged with because they were not suspicious. Letby was present for 2 of these unsuspicious deaths.

So there were 16 deaths in total between January 2015 to July 2016. If 3 of the deaths occured before June 2015 then the 13 deaths would match up but if what Liz Hull is saying is correct Letby would have been present for a max of 9 deaths not 13 (im guessing baby K is not included because she was transferred to Arrowe Park). This doesnt match up either what was said in court by Eiran Powell in court or the BBC documentary.

It also says in this article there were eight deaths in 2015 and five in 2016, so that's 13 mot 16.

https://www.12ft.io/https://www.the...g-baby-deaths-at-countess-of-chester-hospital
 
Last edited:
Hazara04 said:
I'm a bit confused about the number of deaths. Can anyone explain?
On the Panarama documentary it was confirmed that there were 13 deaths on the ward between June 2015 to July 2016 and Letby was present for all of them.

In Liz Hull's podcast and article she states that there were 9 deaths between January 2015 to July 2016 that Letby wasn't charged with because they were not suspicious. Letby was present for 2 of these unsuspicious deaths.

So there were 16 deaths in total between January 2015 to July 2016. If 3 of the deaths occured before June 2015 then the 13 deaths would match up but if what Liz Hull is saying is correct Letby would have been present for a max of 9 deaths not 13 (im guessing baby K is not included because she was transferred to Arrowe Park). This doesnt match up either what was said in court by Eiran Powell in court or the BBC documentary.
Click to expand...

You’ll be accused of being a fan girl for the people saying she’s innocent for daring to ask this, but I agree - it is very confusing and all the “good” sources, ie ones that are not conspiracy, do seem to be somewhat contradicting each other at this point with the deaths/collapses claims. Hopefully with the inquiry there will be clearer answers on it all.
 
CabalofBolorneaise said:
You’ll be accused of being a fan girl for the people saying she’s innocent for daring to ask this, but I agree - it is very confusing and all the “good” sources, ie ones that are not conspiracy, do seem to be somewhat contradicting each other at this point with the deaths/collapses claims. Hopefully with the inquiry there will be clearer answers on it all.
Click to expand...

Either way It doesn't make any difference to her guilt as the causes of death or natural or explained but I was just confused about the actual number.
 
Hazara04 said:
I'm a bit confused about the number of deaths. Can anyone explain?
On the Panarama documentary it was confirmed that there were 13 deaths on the ward between June 2015 to July 2016 and Letby was present for all of them.

In Liz Hull's podcast and article she states that there were 9 deaths between January 2015 to July 2016 that Letby wasn't charged with because they were not suspicious. Letby was present for 2 of these unsuspicious deaths.

So there were 16 deaths in total between January 2015 to July 2016. If 3 of the deaths occured before June 2015 then the 13 deaths would match up but if what Liz Hull is saying is correct Letby would have been present for a max of 9 deaths not 13 (im guessing baby K is not included because she was transferred to Arrowe Park). This doesnt match up either what was said in court by Eiran Powell in court or the BBC documentary.

It also says in this article there were eight deaths in 2015 and five in 2016, so that's 13 mot 16.

https://www.12ft.io/https://www.the...g-baby-deaths-at-countess-of-chester-hospital
Click to expand...

Did she just mean she was present for two of the infection deaths. Maybe some of the other deaths she was on duty but because the death was clearly explained they never looked into who was there.

Maybe the other three deaths were transferred out and died at another hospital?
 
sebanna said:
Did she just mean she was present for two of the infection deaths. Maybe some of the other deaths she was on duty but because the death was clearly explained they never looked into who was there.
Click to expand...

Yes that would make sense, she might have been on duty but not cot side.
 
Status
Thread locked. We start a new thread when they have over 1000 posts, click the blue button to see all threads for this topic and find the latest open thread.
Back
Top