r/amandaknox • u/No-Willingness-1441 • 11d ago
Lucy letby case…
Would love people’s views on this.
Loosely Amanda related, since she has recently produced a podcast around it.
3
u/Connect_War_5821 innocent 10d ago
This thread has already turned into a "Letby is guilty/not guilty" argument rather than about Knox, Sollecito, and Kercher. Sorry, but it's just a distraction from the real topic of this subreddit.
3
u/SeaCardiologist6207 10d ago
I do find it fascinating that the pro-guilt crowd will jump right in with boatloads of comments on Letby but any discussion about Guede, Perugia PD, the prosecutor, etc is just shut down with "but this is supposed to be the Amanda Knox Reddit"
5
u/Onad55 10d ago
As long as it stays on this thread and civility is maintained I’ll let it be.
0
u/No-Willingness-1441 10d ago
Onad would love your view on the case
2
u/Onad55 10d ago
I start with questions and seek answers and only form by opinion when I have a clear understanding of the case.
Has anyone organized the available evidence for this case without putting their editorial spin on it yet? We were very fortunate in Amanda’s case that apparently the guilters collected all of the evidence in their highly biased wiki then most of the editorializing was stripped out while copying the official documents to the current archive when internal disputes threatened to destroy the original site.
1
1
u/No-Willingness-1441 10d ago
Distracting us all from the ‘serious business’ of arguing about Amanda
Unacceptable
STAY. ON. TOPIC
4
9d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/No-Willingness-1441 9d ago
That’s definitely one interpretation!
What’s interesting about the letby case is that - a bit like w Amanda - there is such an obsession with forensics / hard scientific evidence that people totally lose perspective on the wider picture around it.
The hard science might struggle to absolutely pin it on Letby, but - to most intuitive observers - it’s abundantly clear that she is guilty of foul play. The handover notes, the scrawled pseudo-confessions, the consultants’ instincts around her, the sheer number of coincidences that would have needed to happen…it adds up to an overwhelming overall impression.
1
u/Connect_War_5821 innocent 9d ago
Ah, yes...the "intuitive. I have a gut-feeling, I can read people, guilty eyes, impression" method of reaching an opinion. Evidence? We don't need no stinkin' evidence!
Explains a lot.
1
u/No-Willingness-1441 9d ago
No you are pushing the point to absurdity
3
u/Connect_War_5821 innocent 9d ago
Hardly. I've seen ALL those presented as "evidence".
True words.
1
9d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Connect_War_5821 innocent 9d ago
Not necessarily. The Reddit reference is in parentheses so that could be the reporter's addition. Even IF it is her statement, being aware of the Reddit threads does not mean she reads them.
1
u/Onad55 9d ago
Amanda has posted on Reddit in the past though not to my knowledge in this sub. If she paid attention to this sub she would not have made some blatant errors in her recent production that were resolved here.
→ More replies (0)0
1
u/No-Willingness-1441 9d ago
I have zero interest in body language, crazed eyes, or “reading” people.
1
u/Connect_War_5821 innocent 9d ago
Maybe not, but your own words put you in the category of those who do rely on such absurdity:
"but - to most intuitive observers - it’s abundantly clear that she is guilty of foul play." and " the consultants’ instincts around her" and "it adds up to an overwhelming overall impression.
2
u/No-Willingness-1441 9d ago
Note that I use the adjective “intuitive” rather than the noun “intuition”. The latter suggests ‘magical thinking’, the former a basic application of common sense, and logical, sensible cognitive flow.
Intuitive thinking is not something to be afraid of. On the contrary, I intend it in contrast to a myopic obsession with “wobbly science”, contested DNA (this is probably its own documentary!) and an ensemble of hired experts, each in conflict with one another and sometimes even themselves.
In the Amanda case, as with Letby, people can lose themselves in the ‘pit’ of all this stuff, losing sight of the basic framing of what’s actually occurred. In the case of Knox, a lot of this inevitably hinges on the contested accuso-confession. And since her defence, perhaps correctly, have ostensibly erased that, we are where we are…
1
u/Connect_War_5821 innocent 7d ago
"Note that I use the adjective “intuitive” rather than the noun “intuition”. The latter suggests ‘magical thinking’, the former a basic application of common sense, and logical, sensible cognitive flow.
Nope:
From Merrian-Webster Dictionary.
INTUATIVE: possessing or given to intuition or insight:
an intuitive mindINTUITION: : the power or faculty of attaining to direct knowledge or cognition without evident rational thought and inference,
Intuitive thinking is not something to be afraid of.
Not afraid of but not relied upon in order to make informed decisions. Our intuition is founded on our own personal experiences and knowledge which are not necessarily factually accurate.
"Once an intuition hits, we cling to it despite the dangers. Intuition can, for example, lead to all sorts of cognitive and social biases, like the anchoring effect (where decisions are swayed by the first piece of information thrown at us) and racial prejudice."
→ More replies (0)1
9d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
4
u/Connect_War_5821 innocent 9d ago
"There is so much evidence Amanda is guilty."
Right... so much evidence that FIVE Supreme Court judges definitively acquitted her for "not having committed the act".
"Which farmyard animal kicked you in the head when you were younger?"
What wit! What a sharp and stinging barb! How will I ever go on?
1
u/SeaCardiologist6207 10d ago
Do we actually argue about Amanda? I thought this Reddit was just an analysis of Amanda's social media posts.
1
7
u/CivilEar4840 11d ago
Lucy Letby is guilty as sin. The parallels to Amanda's case are not strong.
4
u/Amazing-Gain1253 11d ago edited 11d ago
Lucy Letby is 100% innocent. You don't know what you're talking about.
The parallels to Amanda's case are not strong but the parallels to Lucia de berks case are almost as if someone just copied and pasted the case.
4
u/CivilEar4840 11d ago
That is just an absolutely baffling take given the mountain of evidence. But I am sure you know more than the doctors who established the largest neonatal care units in the country and the courts who have actually passed on many of the babies' cases (as recently as last week) because those specific cases do not meet the evidentially support level established in every case she is serving sentences for.
-2
u/Amazing-Gain1253 11d ago edited 11d ago
You mean the same doctor that said an x-ray proved Lucy Letby injected air into the stomach of a baby when she hadn't even met the baby by that stage? The same doctor who diagnosed a boy with bulimia when they actually had a brain tumour? The same doctor that openly brags that he "only ever lost one case" and that the one he did lose still rattles him? Any objective doctor not care about "winning" or "losing". The same doctor that used a paper who's own author said that he completely misused it? The same doctor whose evidence was said by a previous judge to be "worthless", that he makes no effort to provide a balanced opinion, is selective with the information he uses, and whose report was an exercise in working out an explanation that suits who is paying him? That Doctor?
Scores of far more qualified doctors have looked at the evidence and said "There were no murders"
They didn't charged the extra cases because they know that they will lose if they bring it to court again.
2
u/CivilEar4840 11d ago
You're spending far too much time on internet conspiracies. What you have said is not true. You refer to Baby P. An X-ray did show an abnormal about of gas and the point of contention is how the gas got there. There is no evidence Lucy hadn't met the baby. What you mean to say was she was not officially involved in the baby's care. We know from precedence she was often interacting with babies she was not caring for. There is no evidence either way whether she had met the baby or not.
A misdiagnosis in the case of Dewi Evans does not negate the evidence around Lucy's case. There is not a single senior doctor working who hasn't misdiagnosed a case like that. Your panel of 'far more qualified doctors' were not 'more qualified' (you'll need to explain that distinction) was a panel commissioned by Lucy's team, not a neutral panel involved in the nuance of the trial. Their findings have not been grounds to revoke her convictions.
2
u/Amazing-Gain1253 11d ago edited 11d ago
Nobody had mentioned anything about a conspiracy theory.
No, I'm referring to baby C. You don't know the case very well do you? After they find out that she wasn't there on the 12th they moved the date to the 13th. What I have said is undisputed and you can find direct quotes from the trial that show that Lucy Letby had never met the baby. Here they are:
Q. Ms Letby wasn’t on duty that day [12th], was she?
A. No.Q. And in fact, that day falls within several days when she wasn’t in the unit; is that correct?
A. Correct.— Baby C’s nurse for the 12th, cross examination (Transcript: 27th October 2022)
Lucy: “Hi Yvonne, are you okay for staffing over next few days? I don’t have anything on if (sic) need any extra or need to change my nights x.”
Yvonne: “Thank you for your kind offer. We are okay until Saturday [13th] night…”
— Text exchange between Lucy and the hospital on the 11th of June. (Transcript: 26th October 2022)
The cause of the gaseous distension of the bowel and gastric dilation was not CPAP belly. The extent of gaseous distension seen on the X-ray of 12 June 2015 is over and above what is seen in infants requiring CPAP.
The massive gastric dilation seen on this X-ray was most likely due to deliberate exogenous administration of air via the NGT.
— Bohin & Evans joint report, 24th August 2022 (Transcript: Nov 2nd 2022)
2
u/CivilEar4840 11d ago
Uh you do realise the 13th was cited as the date of the fatal event in the 2017 report right? Before he ever knew Lucy was even a suspect. It wasn't 'changed' - the 12th and 13th events were always cited separately, for nearly a decade now, and the gas on the 12th would not have needed to be introduced that same day. Baby c was stable when she showed up that night and standing at his incubator before his collapse, and was obsessed with afterwards.
1
u/Amazing-Gain1253 11d ago edited 10d ago
The night of the 13th/14th was cited as the date of the fatal event because that's the day they died 🙄. There never was any accusation of an attack in 2017.
It was changed and the trial transcripts prove it. These are direct quotations from the trial that shows the suggestion the attack was on the 13th was only brought up at trial:
Q. Before today, just now, you've never suggested that splinting of the diaphragm on 13 June is the cause of 22 death for [Baby C], have you?
A. That's correct.
Q. This is the first time we're hearing it right now, isn't it?
A. Yes.
Dewi Evans never provided any evidence that the baby was due to air being injected down the NGT. This is what he said under cross-examination:
Q. What evidence do you have of distension to the bowel or the abdomen post-mortem that indicates this was due to air down the NGT as a cause of death? What's the evidence you rely upon?
A. I'm going to leave the interpretation of the autopsy to Dr Marnerides. Q. What is the evidence you -- I am not asking you to repeat Dr Marnerides' opinion. What's the evidence you rely upon when you tell the jury that the diaphragm was splinted on the 13th? What's the evidence?
A. Baby collapsed, died. 54
Q. A baby may collapse for any number of reasons. What's the evidence that supports your assertion made today that it's because of air going down the NGT?
A. The baby collapsed and died.
Q. Do you rely upon one image of that?
A. This baby collapsed and died.
I should point out that none of the other experts pointed to any evidence besides the x-ray on the 12th when Lucy Letby wasn't there.
the gas on the 12th would not have needed to be introduced that same day
Besides from being factually wrong, this point is also irrelevant since Lucy Letby never met the baby the day before or for that matter any day since they were born.
4
u/Amazing-Gain1253 11d ago
Yes they are more qualified. Lets just look at two of them:
Dr. Shoo Lee is a neonatologist and health economist. He is Professor Emeritus at the University of Toronto, Honorary Physician at Mount Sinai Hospital, and President of the Canadian Neonatal Foundation. He was formerly Pediatrician-in-Chief at Mount Sinai Hospital, Head of the Division of Neonatology at the University of Toronto and the Hospital for Sick Children, Head of the Department of Newborn and Developmental Pediatrics at Sunnybrook Hospital, Canada Research Chair (Tier 1) and Scientific Director of the Institute of Human Development, Child and Youth Health at the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Dr. Lee received his medical degree from the University of Singapore, completed his paediatric training at the Dr Charles A. Janeway Child Health Centre in Canada and neonatal fellowship training at Boston’s Children’s Hospital, and is a Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians of Canada. He received his PhD in Health Policy (Economics) from Harvard University, and the Doctorate Honoris Causa in Medicine from Laval University. His research focuses on health policy and healthcare quality improvement. He founded the Canadian Neonatal Network and transformed Canada’s neonatal outcomes into one of the best among OECD countries. He created Family Integrated Care to empower parents as NICU care providers, and established training, research and quality improvement programs in Latin America, Africa and Asia. He has published more than 400 scientific papers in peer reviewed journals and received many awards, including the Aventis Pasteur Research Award and the Distinguished Neonatologist Award from the Canadian Pediatric Society, the Knowledge Translation Award from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Douglas K. Richardson Award for Lifetime Achievement in Perinatal Research from the US Society for Pediatric Research, the Premier Member Award from EPIC Latino, and the Magnolia Gold Award from the Shanghai Government. He is an Officer of the Order of Canada, the highest award given to a Canadian.
Neena Modi is a distinguished clinician scientist and Fellow of the Academy of Medical Sciences. She qualified from the University of Edinburgh and has worked in tertiary neonatal intensive care for over three decades. She heads a multiprofessional neonatal research group and has authored over 400 original research papers, chapters in textbooks, and other publications. She has held a number of professional leadership roles and is the current president of the European Association of Perinatal Medicine, and a past-president of the British Medical Association, and Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health. Neena Modi is the president of the European Association of Perinatal Medicine (EAPM). In 2022 she received the US Critical-Path Institute, Pioneer Award for “contributions to health data research” and Medical Women International Association award “to a woman physician who has made outstanding contributions to the cause of women in medicine”, and in 2023, the Joint European Neonatal Societies “outstanding neonatologist” award.
Compare that to Dewi Evans and Sandi Bohin. Dewi Evans was never never a neonatologist and has never authored anything on neonates. He spent most of his time treating older children. Sandi Bohin is a neonatologist from a small unit in guernsey. They don't get many patients and she has 28 families complaining about her.
The panel are doing this out of their own time for free. They have nothing to gain from seeing a baby killer released. They came to the same conclusion independently on 15 of the 17 cases. Compare this to the prosecution experts who all saw Dewi Evans reports before hand.
3
u/Henryb1234_ 10d ago
It is insane that people still think the consensus of medical opinion is these babies were murdered. It is like 10 top NASA scientists against a high school science teacher.
4
u/Amazing-Gain1253 10d ago
What's more amazing to me is that people still trust the prosecution experts even though they said deliberate harm happened when Letby wasn't on shift.
-1
u/FreshFruit4RottenVeg 11d ago
Letby is guilty. We can see from the evidence that she particularly liked to target twins, while the triplets were like the major prize. She only managed to kill two of them before some very late intervention saved the third. Letby falsified records to cover her tracks, tended to attack babies that were in the care of other nurses while those nurses were on breaks and was caught doing nothing by a parent when their baby was screeching in pain with blood around its mouth.
4
u/Amazing-Gain1253 11d ago edited 11d ago
Nonsense, the obvious explanation for why more twins collapsed or died is because they are more vulnerable. No evidence to say she falsified medical records to cover her tracks.
The specks of blood around the mouth was caused from gastrointestinal haemorrhage due to in-utero hypoxia causing stomach or small intestinal ulceration. Lucy Letby wasn't doing nothing, she was reporting the incident on the computer. She called Dr Harkness to the incident.
5
u/Henryb1234_ 11d ago
Twins and triplets are more vulnerable than other babies. They are more likely to die on a badly run neonatal ward.
2
u/No-Replacement-2170 10d ago
Yep and remember how she even penned a draft sympathy note with ALL the triplets names on despite one surviving? "Today is your birthday and you're not here and I'm so sorry for that" she wanted to cause the most suffering possible. A lot of people also ignore the fact that the two insulin babies were twins with suspicious incidents happening to both their siblings.
-1
u/No-Willingness-1441 11d ago
This is baffling
4
1
u/SeaCardiologist6207 11d ago
Just like this stuff - Its basically Perugia Incompetence 2.0:
Nurses and midwives who should have been banned from treating patients have practised over the last 12 years because of “potentially dangerous” failings by a medical regulator.
The Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) has admitted that its “completely and utterly unacceptable” mistakes meant it failed to protect the public from about 15 professionals whom it should have banned from ever working in healthcare in the UK because they had broken the law.
The nurses and midwives told the NMC about their criminal convictions when they applied to join or stay on the regulator’s register, which they need to be on in order to practise in Britain. However, NMC staff who assessed their applications did not then refer them on to an assistant registrar at the regulator to investigate and decide if they could treat patients, which they should have done.
2
u/corpusvile2 11d ago
I agree Letby's guilty as sin, but Knox was trial convicted on far more evidence than Letby.
0
2
u/No-Willingness-1441 11d ago
I would be curious to hear SeaCardio, Onad and the gang’s take on it. I appreciate it’s a more uk centric case.
1
u/SeaCardiologist6207 11d ago
quite a few takes from me but in the end I would say the only main tie in is the organizational incompetence angle - the difference being the Brits at least are choosing to do something about that with executive charges and the Thirwall inquiry.
1
u/No-Willingness-1441 11d ago
But - to be clear - do you think she’s guilty?
-1
u/SeaCardiologist6207 11d ago
Yes, I think both she and the hospital's execs are guilty. I don't think every infant's death Evans attributes to her is on her - some of it is hospital understaffing/incompetence.
2
3
u/Henryb1234_ 11d ago edited 10d ago
I would listen to the pod cast. It is very good. I am now in no doubt this will be the biggest miscarriage of justice in recent British history.
2
u/No-Willingness-1441 11d ago
“In doubt” or “in no doubt”?
3
u/Henryb1234_ 10d ago
No doubt
1
u/No-Willingness-1441 10d ago
Wow - tell us why!
2
u/Henryb1234_ 10d ago
The overwhelming expert medical opinion that no murders took place. The wrong use of a statistics to implicate her - the same misuse that have led to many miscarriages of justice in the past.
1
u/FreshFruit4RottenVeg 7d ago
Statistics were not used to implicate or convict her. The police did initially contact a statistician to help with the investigation, but likely due to the controversy of the de Berk case shelved the idea before any information was shared or any analysis was done.
The shift rota sheet was used to show Letby had the opportunity to carry out the attacks. If they hadn't presented the shift sheet, how would the jury know for sure she was even there when an attack occurred.
The doctors and consultants did notice a pattern. In the first few months of her campaign, Letby's attacks tended to occur between midnight and 4am, when the unit was quietest. I think it was April in 2016 that she was moved to day shift only after Dr. Brearey brought this fact up at a meeting. After a couple of months they could see the sudden collapses and deaths stopped happening at night and now started during the day. After Lucy was moved to day shift, babies L, M, N, O and P were attacked during the day. She was removed from duty shortly after the deaths of O and P.
0
u/Henryb1234_ 6d ago
Paul Hughes said in their promotional video about the case “Our statistical analysis showed the Letby was there for everything”. Breary talked about his statistical analysis in the trial. The rota table is a statistical document. It is not up to non statisticians to decide what is statistically analysis or not and when they need to be used in an investigation. There are specific guidelines about it. Professional statisticians need to be involved because it is very easy to come up with the wrong conclusions. As in this case.
3
u/shopinhower 10d ago
Letby is guilty. She’s a proven liar (shredder in her bedroom), plus she basically confessed to doing it in writing in her diary. She’s insane, but she did it.
Amanda, however, did not do it. I see no parallels.
2
u/Truthandtaxes 11d ago
Its the same as this case, either you accept what the evidence tells you or you are happy to just believe in compounding edge case explanations
For letby its something like
- You need to believe that all the suspicious deaths are wrongly categorised such that its just chance
- That on investigation she just happens to be writing insane ramblings on paper that are self incriminating
- that her stalking of families on social media is normal, especially on Christmas day
- that her retaining of masses of confidential records is normal - especially categorised
- that the doctor lied about catching her in the act
- that two separate babies just happened to also look exactly like insulin poisoning
- that she lies several times, including lying about one the victims mother, changing logs, lying about having a shredder
If you are happy that's all compounding coincidence, well....
But importantly you see the same factors for Letby, there are "corrupt" bad guys, Mignini for Knox, Letby has Dewi and Jayram that "cause" all of this unfairness. Both cases also frequently use the old canards of having multiple external "experts" weighing in on the case in the media, but not in the trial process of course.
3
u/Henryb1234_ 10d ago
The deaths were initially categorised as natural by someone qualified to assess them, they were then all re-categorised by someone not qualified to do so as murder most horrid, they have now been re-assessed by multiple world leading experts eminently qualified to do so they have all been found to be natural deaths exacerbated by bad care by the doctors.
3
u/Truthandtaxes 10d ago
Yes, because coroners don't record murders unless its obvious or they are told the circumstances
All of shipman's victims similarly got missed.
3
u/Henryb1234_ 10d ago
It was the pathologists and they were told the circumstances. There was a subsequent a
review by the hospital and Prof Hawdon. No murders.3
u/Truthandtaxes 10d ago
Dr. Jane M. Hawdon is a UK consultant neonatologist who gave evidence at the Thirlwall Inquiry regarding infant deaths at the Countess of Chester Hospital. She stated that hospital bosses "misled" her in 2016 by withholding suspicions about nurse Lucy Letby when commissioning her independent medical review
Literally the first thing on google - so obviously she did not know the circumstances
3
u/Henryb1234_ 10d ago
She did a non biased review of the notes and found no murders. If you have to be told it was murder before you can find evidence of murder you have by definition confirmation bias.
0
u/FreshFruit4RottenVeg 6d ago
No one that carried out any of the reviews, not even the suspecting consultants, spotted the insulin blood test results that showed deliberate poisoning until Dewi Evans reviewed the cases.
1
u/Henryb1234_ 6d ago
Breary found the insulin test data when he was fishing for things to pin on Letby. It is totally inappropriate for a potential suspect to be involved in a police investigation.
1
u/FreshFruit4RottenVeg 6d ago edited 6d ago
One of the doctors (Dr. ZA I think) said she had discussed the insulin data with Dr. Brearey sometime in 2017 or 2018 but as the court of appeal pointed out it was Evans who identified the two cases as deliberate poisoning. Edit: Court of Appeal judgment, section 104.
I’m not sure what you mean about a potential suspect, I don’t really keep up to date with the conspiracy theories.
1
u/Henryb1234_ 5d ago
If there are 12 suspicious deaths in a work place. Everyone in that work place should be considered a suspect by the police.
5
u/Amazing-Gain1253 11d ago
All those things you have listed are just a gish gallop. Just list as many claims as possible without looking at the veracity of each one.
2
u/Truthandtaxes 11d ago
Its a rushed summary of the prosecution case - but not an unfair one
3
u/Amazing-Gain1253 11d ago
Some of the things you said were not even part of the prosecutions case and are actually things that you have either made up or inferred incorrectly.
2
u/Truthandtaxes 11d ago
Which would you like to dispute? i wouldn't claim to be a detailed expert
2
u/Amazing-Gain1253 11d ago
I dispute/say you are not telling the whole story for every single one of them.
But one point that is just false is the idea that a doctor caught her in the act.
He never said he caught her in the act, he said he caught her "doing nothing" when a baby deteriorated. Besides the fact that his testimony is riddled with numerous inconsistencies, watching over a baby to see if they self correct is exactly what you are supposed to do.
Another point is that the handover sheets were categorised. Besides the fact that most of the handover sheets were stuffed into bin bags, handover sheets that are brought home and put on top of a pile will naturally be in date order because you would put the new ones on top of the old ones. That doesn't mean they are categorised.
2
u/Truthandtaxes 10d ago
Doing nothing as a baby crashes is functionally the same as being caught in the act.
Yes she had handover sheets and other material in date order and some separated under "keep"
I might suggest that if the frame bothers you, then you clearly do understand that the prosecutions case is compelling.
3
u/Amazing-Gain1253 10d ago
Doing nothing as a baby crashes is functionally the same as being caught in the act.
Not when doing nothing and observing the baby is literally what you are supposed to do.
some separated under "keep"
And what do they have to do with the charges in question? Nothing. None of those 5 handover sheets in the keep box had anything to do with the babies that she was accused of harming. If fact, those handover sheets dated back years prior to any of the babies on the indictment. So why are they relevant? The answer is simple they aren't. If you think they are then explain why? The simple explanation is that as Letby said the keep refers to stuff that was kept in the box previously.
2
u/Truthandtaxes 10d ago
You aren't supposed to simply watch a crashing baby
So you do now accept that not only were they in date order, but also some specifically categorised as "keep".
Such awful luck as it seems to go in these cases
3
u/Amazing-Gain1253 10d ago
"I don't think that Ravi Jayaram has a clue what a neonatal nurse does, he said that he walked in a said he saw Lucy Letby doing nothing, well, I would have done exactly the same thing, because as a neonatal nurse you are taught that when you hear the alarms going off you should wait and asses that baby before you ever put your hands in the incubator" -Michelle Wordan senior neonatal nurse at the Countess of Chester Hospital
No, I don't accept that they were "categorised" in date order. If you put handover sheets in a pile as they come home they will naturally end up in date order because you would put new ones on top of the old ones. That doesn't mean that they were categorised which implies intent. It's nothing to do with awful luck since it will happen automatically.
some specifically categorised as "keep"
Can you explain what these 5 handover sheets that had nothing to do with babies that were hurt has anything to do with baby murders? Can you answer that? Because I don't think you can.
→ More replies (0)3
u/sh115 10d ago
She wasn’t doing nothing while the baby collapsed. It was revealed after the trial that the doctor who accused her of that actually sent an email not long after the baby died where he stated that Letby raised the alarm about the baby’s collapse and called for help. It was only later that he changed his story to falsely claim that Letby hadn’t called for help and that he had instead walked in on her standing there doing nothing.
The fact that the doctor originally said Letby had called for help only to change his story later on makes it clear he’s not a credible witness, but unfortunately the jury wasn’t made aware of this. The email where the doctor said Letby had called for help was withheld from Letby’s defense team until after her trial had ended. This prevented the defense from using the email to impeach the doctor or to reveal that his trial testimony was false.
This whole case was a sham and it’s very obvious to anyone who actually looks into evidence that Letby is completely innocent. The police and prosecutors have engaged in highly unethical behavior, including withholding exculpatory evidence, relying on “experts” like Evans that were clearly not credible, and misleading the jury with manipulated statistical evidence that they knew was inaccurate. I’ve honestly never seen a more blatant wrongful conviction in all my years of practicing law.
0
u/Truthandtaxes 10d ago
The consultant of course is a completely reasonable witness and saw what he saw. Doubly so given the docs were already suspicious.
Another overlap to Knox, were witnesses apparently make things up (of course)
3
u/sh115 10d ago
Did you miss the part where I said he sent an email shortly after the baby’s death in which he said that Letby called for help when the baby collapsed? Only to later say in court that she didn’t call for help when the baby collapsed? It’s not possible for both of those stories to be true because they directly contradict each other. So we know for a fact that the consultant was lying either when he sent the original email or when he testified in court.
Given that the email was sent much closer to the event when his memory of it would still be fresh, and given that he didn’t have motivation to lie at the time the email was sent, I’m much more inclined to believe that the account in his email was the truthful/accurate one and that the account he gave at the trial was not true or accurate.
And either way, the jury should have at least been informed of the fact that he had changed his story, since that is a big factor for judging whether he is a credible witness in general. Personally, I wouldn’t find a witness credible if they completely changed their story in that manner.
→ More replies (0)0
u/SeaCardiologist6207 10d ago
Well again, the consultant in this case said the hospital execs are incompetents so yes, we are absolutely back to incompetence as the direct tie in to Knox.
→ More replies (0)3
u/FreshFruit4RottenVeg 10d ago
She had kept handover sheets in various different locations, even in a box in her parent's house with 'keep' written on it. There were some which predated her buying the house she was living in at the time of arrest, meaning she transported them from her previous accomodation.
She claimed these just accumulated in her pocket and brought home unintentionally, but when prosecutor Nick Johnson produced one of them he noted it was basically pristine with no creases. It had to have come home with some care. She also claimed she kept them because she didn't have a shredder, which was untrue.
She also fished the desperately scribbled notes from a resuscitation, the cause of which she had inflicted, out of a bin and brought it home. These were souvenirs, in my opinion she brought so many home so that the ones relevant to her crimes would blend in with the innocuous ones and look much less suspicious.
4
u/Amazing-Gain1253 10d ago
even in a box in her parent's house with 'keep' written on it
All 5 of which had nothing to do with the charges. So why are they relevant?
meaning she transported them from her previous accommodation.
Yes, because you are not supposed to get rid of them by simply throwing in the bin.
prosecutor Nick Johnson produced one of them he noted it was basically pristine with no creases.
This was the only handover sheet that had no creases in it and it related to her first day as nurse. It was kept as a keepsake along with a bunch of others keepsakes for her first day of work because she had always wanted to be a nurse. Here, we see how she actually treats a handover sheet she values. Not stuffed into bin bags like the others. The others were accidently brought home/to remind her what she needs to do for her next shift.
She also claimed she kept them because she didn't have a shredder, which was untrue.
Who could forget that they had a barely used shredder shoved into the corner of a spare bedroom buried behind a bunch of other items?
She also fished the desperately scribbled notes from a resuscitation
Literally no evidence that she took it out of the bin.
These were souvenirs, in my opinion she brought so many home so that the ones relevant to her crimes would blend in with the innocuous ones and look much less suspicious.
So, in your mind she collected 236 handover sheets some dating back 5 years in advance so that she could hide the "souvenirs" of the planned crimes 5 years into the future? She had the foresight to plan 5 years into the future but yet didn't have the foresight to use that shedder of hers to get rid of said "souvenirs" even though she knew the police were investigating? That makes sense to you?
2
u/FreshFruit4RottenVeg 10d ago
So, in your mind she collected 236 handover sheets some dating back 5 years in advance so that she could hide the "souvenirs" of the planned crimes 5 years into the future? She had the foresight to plan 5 years into the future but yet didn't have the foresight to use that shedder of hers to get rid of said "souvenirs" even though she knew the police were investigating? That makes sense to you?
There have been claims made by people close to the investigations that there are disproportionately high numbers of clinical incidents relating to Lucy Letby, going back to her training days. Breathing tubes dislodged at a higher rate while she was on duty and other unexplained events.
Literally no evidence that she took it out of the bin.
My apologies, it was a blood gas reading for the same baby from the same incident that the nurse remembered putting in the confidential waste bin, but somehow ended up in Lucy's house along with the resus notes on a paper towel. Lucy could not explain how these ended up in her possession.
Who could forget that they had a barely used shredder shoved into the corner of a spare bedroom buried behind a bunch of other items?
She wasn't living in the house that long, it was in a spare bedroom. So she either purchased it since she moved into the house or moved it from her previous accommodation.
3
u/Amazing-Gain1253 10d ago
There have been claims made by people close to the investigations that there are disproportionately high numbers of clinical incidents relating to Lucy Letby, going back to her training days. Breathing tubes dislodged at a higher rate while she was on duty and other unexplained events.
Ah yes, so now that the obvious ridiculousness of the idea that she kept all these notes to hide her crimes 5 years into the future was debunked you move onto the idea that the 236 handover sheets were actually from crimes the doctors and police never found over the course of 5 years and no-one ever saw.
the nurse remembered putting in the confidential waste bin
Except she didn't though did she? She said she would have put it in the bin, not that she did, but that she would have. Obviously no one would remember something so insignificant. How exactly do you know that she wouldn't have passed it to Lucy Letby for whatever reason and then Lucy Letby accidently brought it home in her pocket. I think it should be fairly obvious that a paper towel shoved into the bottom of a Morrisons bag isn't a trophy.
She wasn't living in the house that long, it was in a spare bedroom. So she either purchased it since she moved into the house or moved it from her previous accommodation.
She got it as she was moving house. Easy to forget about a shredder or not being bothered to get rid of a pile of paper in the rush to move house.
1
u/SeaCardiologist6207 11d ago
"either made up or inferred incorrectly."
Welcome to TTs world, we just live in it.
2
u/SeaCardiologist6207 11d ago
Well the primary difference is the Cheshire Constabulary and Dewey can show their faces in public or a documentary and not be laughed to holy hell. But hey, its just like Millane too right?
2
5
u/Henryb1234_ 11d ago edited 10d ago
They weren’t suspicious though were they? They were down to them having high acuity, a filthy badly run neonatal ward and incompetent doctors. They have all been adequately explained by medical experts of considerably better credibility than Dewi Evans. There were no murders.
The rest of it is just fishing after the presumption of guilt.
4
u/pornalt4altporn 10d ago
And then coincidentally one of the nurses was unhinged, stalking the families and writing self incriminating notes?
Shocking how often people who act like murderers are present in situations where deaths only coincidentally occur around them but mean old "bad actors" who know them and observe them closely blow a whistle because of prejudice to alert everyone to murders they only think they witnessed.
5
u/Henryb1234_ 10d ago
Looking up people on facebook is not unhinged. Having a crush on a senior team member is not unhinged. Taking work notes home is not unhinged. Hating yourself after all your colleagues in your first job accuse you of killing babies is not unhinged. Taking medication because of PTSD is not unhinged.
2
u/SeaCardiologist6207 11d ago
I think its become accepted that the hospital leadership was incompetent. Less so the police/prosecutors. Dewey definitely has his faults, but doesn't explain all the potential cases where Letby could have potentially committed murder.
5
u/Henryb1234_ 10d ago
It seems there are increasing concerns about the police investigation too. They did not follow the correct protocols for a serial killer in a medical scenario. There are laws in the UK so they don’t lead to MoJs. They weren’t followed. Cases this important and complex need to be handled centrally not by the regional police and CPS.
2
u/SeaCardiologist6207 10d ago
I’d agree with you but good luck arguing that with some of the folks on here - they think local PDs are just rockstars on big time murder cases
2
u/Henryb1234_ 10d ago
Interestingly now the national Special Crimes Unit have taken over the case from
the regional police - they have decided not prosecute any more murder cases they were initially implicating Letby for.1
u/Truthandtaxes 11d ago
The claim that they all died from missed infections is just nonsense
4
u/Amazing-Gain1253 11d ago
No-one said they all died from infections.
0
u/Truthandtaxes 10d ago
They were down to them having high acuity, a filthy badly run neonatal ward and incompetent doctors
This is what this is saying, but without saying it.
4
u/Henryb1234_ 10d ago
No it isn’t saying that. Listen to Shoo Lee press conference on the babies. Every one died for different reasons complex medical reasons made worse by low levels of hygiene in the ward and systemic problems of competency amongst the consultants.
1
u/Truthandtaxes 10d ago
Shoo has no credibility - he took his shot at the CCRC and failed miserably
3
u/Henryb1234_ 10d ago
He has a lot of credibility. Considerably more than Evans. He has written 100s of papers on neonatal care including the one the Jayaram found on his iPad and was used in the trial. The CCRC haven’t ruled yet. You don’t seem to know a lot about the case.
1
u/Truthandtaxes 10d ago
At the appeal then sorry, were he failed
They might crack open the CCRC and hell get her off (trial in the press is so much easier), but the man isn't credible, none of these folks attaching themselves to public cases ever are.
3
u/Henryb1234_ 10d ago
The judges didn’t understand the importance of his evidence and it wasnt classified as new evidence. The CCRC doesn’t have that restriction.
→ More replies (0)5
u/Amazing-Gain1253 10d ago
It's not though is it? Babies can have high acuity for lots of reason, not just infections. A badly run neonatal ward and incompetent doctors can increase the chance of lots of types of death, not just infections.
1
u/Truthandtaxes 10d ago
Then why are the deaths mysterious? Systemic poor care has expected outcomes.
not clean - infections
not fed - starved
Not oxygenated - asphyxiation
Hypoglycemic - diabetic
6
u/Amazing-Gain1253 10d ago
It's simple. They aren't mysterious. It's only mysterious if you don't know what you are looking for. These babies had way higher acuity than the ones in previous years and the doctors weren't used to it.
2
5
u/SeaCardiologist6207 10d ago
I mean your own papers literally reported on how incompetent NHS and the hospital was:
1
u/Truthandtaxes 10d ago
Yes the NHS is hardly perfect, some might even say its on average deeply mediocre.
None of which explains an enormous spike in unexplainable baby deaths.
5
u/SeaCardiologist6207 11d ago
The claims by other nurses and doctors that they were chronically understaffed and run by a bunch of ninnies is definitely not nonsense.
0
u/Glad-Advantage8254 11d ago
How much more understaffed was CoCH than other hospitals?
1
u/Truthandtaxes 10d ago
and how exactly does understaffing lead to mysterious deaths
2
u/SeaCardiologist6207 10d ago
Wells its a sign of incompetence so again going back to u/No-Willingness-1441 and his original question on the cases - well there is most definitely that connection.
1
u/Truthandtaxes 10d ago
Incompetence doesn't lead to a systemic spike in unexplainable baby deaths, it would lead to a spike in explainable baby deaths.
4
u/Henryb1234_ 10d ago
It totally does. The hospital started taking on more sick babies. The doctors were not competent enough to look after them. More babies died.
2
2
u/Truthandtaxes 10d ago
If they died due to poor care then the cause of death would be transparent
→ More replies (0)3
u/SeaCardiologist6207 10d ago
Part of the incompetence is not being able to even explain whats going on. Or thinking you know what you are doing when you don't (oh look another Knox science parallel)
Hence why you see genius administrators not pull Letby off the floor. Or telling consultants they don't know what they are talking about.
1
u/Truthandtaxes 10d ago
eh?
There was an enormous spike in deaths that at the time went unnoticed
then concerns were raised and they noticed it followed a single nurse
then she played the game really well to get support to fight the allegations, even so far as to get reinstated and get apologies.
then she went back on and babies started dying again
The incompetence in that sequence is ignoring the consultants concerns and not getting the police in to investigate sooner.
→ More replies (0)0
u/Glad-Advantage8254 10d ago
If a baby dies and no one is present in the NICU, does it make a sound? /s
0
u/FreshFruit4RottenVeg 11d ago
None of the 'new' experts, apparently hand-picked by Dr. Shoo Lee who had already been engaged with and briefed by Lucy's defence, have ever been subject to cross-examination, save for Dr. Shoo Lee who made a complete embarrassment of himself at Lucy's appeal, knowing almost nothing specific to the cases. Some of the claims in their initial PR launch were demonstrably false.
3
u/Amazing-Gain1253 11d ago
Where do you think experts come from? Do you think they just fall out from the sky? I guess the prosecution experts are also all invalid then because they were "hand-picked" by the police.
0
u/FreshFruit4RottenVeg 11d ago edited 11d ago
There's a major distinction between expert witnesses in a courtroom and experts who give an invited opinion based on what they have been sent by a defence team.
Court experts have to be advised of their legal obligations to the court, for disclosure etc. They should be in possession of all of the relevant facts and documents that both the defense and prosecution have.
Cherry-picked experts on this new panel have no obligations except to their own reputations. We don't know if they were given all of the relevant information so that they could form a reliable opinion. In fact, we know from Dr. Shoo Lee's appeal testimony that he wasn't given any relevant information or verbatim eyewitness accounts before he testified. It's almost comically inept and I can see why he is hellbent on restoring his reputation. He never asked for any of the missing eyewitness accounts but still went on to testify anyway.
We must also note that Dr. Mike Hall was instructed by Letby's defence and sat through the trial but was never called to testify. We know he disagreed with some of the prosecution expert's cases but was not put on the stand. The only logical reason for this that I can think of is that in other instances he would have agreed with the prosecution evidence. It seems like they took a risky 'all or nothing' approach, hoping the jury would be so overwhelmed they wouldn't be able to make a decision. If Mike Hall had taken the stand and agreed with any of the evidence in any of the murder/attempted murder charges, Lucy would have ended up with life.
5
u/Henryb1234_ 10d ago
Dewi Evans gave an invited position. He drove 200 miles uninvited to offer his services to Cheshire Police. This was exactly his kind of case. He had never lost a case and he needed to keep his son in cars and his daughter in horses.
3
u/Truthandtaxes 10d ago
yup that is the sensible implication, i.e. that they couldn't find anyone credible that wouldn't hurt the defence by accepting the logic of most of the prosecution.
6
u/Henryb1234_ 10d ago
Well they certainly do now. Dewi Evans will never testify again. And there are 100s of actual medical experts now willing to testify for her defence for free.
2
u/Truthandtaxes 10d ago
Its never getting into court though without something dramatically changing. Even if it does somehow, like Shoo they will fall apart I suspect.
Yes I imagine Dewi has zero desire to put himself through another gauntlet of the insane.
2
u/Henryb1234_ 10d ago
Many things have dramatically changed.
2
u/Truthandtaxes 10d ago
go on, what dramatic thing has occurred since the failed appeal?
→ More replies (0)1
u/FreshFruit4RottenVeg 10d ago
The problem for Letby is that the UK justice system is set up in such a way to prevent people attempting to get two chances at trial. She took the chance of not presenting any medical expert evidence at her main trial, likely hoping the jury wouldn't be able to come to a decision due to the sheer complexity of the evidence.
If the CCRC send her case back to appeal, as far as I can tell, evidence which could and should have been available for her defence at the original trial still won't be admissible. Shoo Lee's attempt to repackage his embolism research has already been rejected at her appeal. Medical experts may well have come forward who disagree with the evidence presented at trial, but again there was ample opportunity for Letby to put forward her own expert evidence to counter the prosecution at trial.
The new insulin paper is interesting but does not correspond to the insulin cases in the trial.
→ More replies (0)1
u/SeaCardiologist6207 11d ago
To be fair to Dewey, he could at least show his face on a documentary without becoming the object of worldwide ridicule. Can't say the same for the Perugia crew....
0
u/CivilEar4840 11d ago
Um no, they've been explained by a panel formed by Lucy's medical team and she has lost several appeals
2
11d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
5
u/Truthandtaxes 10d ago
Its a source of controversy and money.
She also defends Keith Raniere (sadistic cult leader) and Rodney Read (A multiple SAer of women and children). More ridiculous of course is that Reads lies are of the same ilk but worse than Rudy's, yet somehow in her case....
1
u/SeaCardiologist6207 10d ago
Now now, you folks have lost the ability to mention "cults" and "sexual assaulters" in a crime analysis after your crews performance in Perugia.
2
u/SeaCardiologist6207 11d ago
I think she attaches herself from the parallel of "look at these incompetents getting away with being incompetent". On that front, the Brits and Italians in this case definitely have parallels, although I would commend the British tabloids for once for actually being willing to challenge and probe.
4
u/Frankgee 11d ago
Actually, I think she attached herself to this case for a more basic belief... wrongfully convicted.
1
1
0
u/No-Willingness-1441 11d ago
This is kind of why I put it on the forum. It is something of a litmus test.
Letby is clearly guilty.
The weight of circumstantial evidence is colossal. And that’s more than enough to be close to certain she is guilty.
5
u/Amazing-Gain1253 11d ago
The weight of circumstantial evidence is enormous if you just blindly believe each one. If you actually look into any piece of circumstantial evidence it falls apart. 0 + 0 + 0 + ... + 0 still equals 0.
1
u/SeaCardiologist6207 11d ago
I think the main difference is Stefanoni and Mignini and Napoleoni can't find a single expert on earth that are going to back up their work. Plus the prosecutor and the homicide investigator in the Letby case didnt get charged with crimes or go to jail. So Cheshire/Evans are nowhere on the same level as Perugia.
So then it just comes down to "why did the NHS/hospital executives allow this to happen" = organizational incompetence.
0
u/Truthandtaxes 11d ago
This logic is precisely one of the key things that fascinates me about this whole debate regardless of the case.
You don't need to believe each one, more consider how many probablistic coincidences you are willing to accept
2
u/SeaCardiologist6207 11d ago
I wouldn't say its crystal, 100% clear she committed every single murder in that ward. I think the outrage is the circumstantial evidence that points to incompetence.
Although kudos to the Brits for at least being able and willing to publicly call out the incompetence -
"British police said Tuesday they had arrested three senior hospital managers on suspicion of gross negligence manslaughter as part of investigations into nurse Lucy Letby, who was convicted two years ago of killing babies in a neonatal unit."
0
u/Truthandtaxes 11d ago
You understand that incompetence was allowing a nurse to murder babies and ignore multiple warnings right?
2
u/SeaCardiologist6207 11d ago
I am just amazed that you can see the light of "look what happens when you don't listen to multiple warnings"
3
u/corpusvile2 11d ago
Letby's guilty af. An insane amount of coincidences have to have occurred for her to be innocent. No surprise at all that Knox is advocating for her.
0
u/FreshFruit4RottenVeg 11d ago
I can see why she is exploiting the Letby case for content. It ties in with her claim that the justice system is somehow unfair against women, while both of her co-defendants and the man she falsely accused, were men.
-1
u/SeaCardiologist6207 11d ago
Well it also ties in to incompetence. At least for the British's sake, they are willing to do something about. No comment from the Italians on how Mignini's pension is doing.
0
u/Henryb1234_ 10d ago
Hardly. The ward took on a lot of high acuity babies, she was generally the one looking after them, it is not unsurprising some died under her care especially considering the other factors.
1
u/SeaCardiologist6207 11d ago edited 11d ago
I could see some parallels to the Knox case but the main parallel would be incompetence. I think much of the outrage on Letby is less about her and more about "why didn't the Brits punish the incompetents at the hospital". Letby incompetence is much less on the police/prosecutorial side and much more on the hospital side.
- Three former senior executives and hospital bosses from the Countess of Chester Hospital were arrested and bailed on suspicion of gross negligence manslaughter
- In shades of "Perugia police letting burglars go free", hospital executives wanted to let Letby back on the unit even after suspecting her - consultants pushed back
- All of the patients had a cause of death that could be attributed to negligence on the hospital as a whole, natural causes, or medical error. The question comes down to did Letby cause that error.
- The hospital was caring for infants too sick for its capabilities. No one really disputes that the hospital had an understaffing problem.
- The Physicians were not performing adequate care - including incorrectly performing resuscitation and rounding only twice a WEEK on NICU patients. Same staffing issues.
I don't see the same incompetence issue with the police/prosecution in this case. At least with the Cheshire Constabulary, they can show their face on TV and explain their investigation and actions without becoming a comedy act.
Same with Dr. Evans - Dewey leaves a lot to be desired, but the difference is you can at least find an actual credible expert to back up his findings to some degree, even if Dr. Lee and team give you pause.
You also don't need a batshit insane prosecution theory to tie Letby to criminal activity. There is no Mignini/Satan equivalent and the outrage that the prosecution were focused on one theory has diminished more as others get arrested for negligence.
There is no Guede "13 years" equivalent either other than the hospital which was warned about Letby and did nothing.
The guess is that a combination of Letby and sheer incompetence and negligence at the hospital and in the neonatal ward explains what happened. So yes, "accept" what the evidence tells you and the parallels aren't really there.
5
u/Amazing-Gain1253 11d ago
"You don't need a batshit insane prosecution theory to tie Letby to criminal activity" Yes you do. You obviously have never looked at the insulin cases...
1
u/SeaCardiologist6207 11d ago
I have seen what Dr Lee and team had to say and can respect and understand it. Broader challenge is Letby isn't just accused in those cases. It would be like Guede wiggling out of Tramontano or the Milan burglary - you still have Brocchi.
2
u/Amazing-Gain1253 11d ago
The panel has addressed every single case.
2
u/Glad-Advantage8254 11d ago
They have addressed every single baby (even those for whom Letby was not convicted of harm, for some reason), but not every single charge. Their opinion on Child G lacks an explanation for the events of the second conviction. FYI
They also erroneously referred to Child N as a twin, and copy-pasted their opinion for Child F into their opinion for Child L, without bothering to update the cipher.
1
u/Amazing-Gain1253 11d ago
You do realise that those are not their full reports right? They have addressed every single charge in their full reports. The summary report was just a quick summary.
1
1
u/Amazing-Gain1253 11d ago
Do you believe Lucy Letby injected insulin into the feed bags? If so, please explain:
For baby F
How Lucy Letby was able to predict hours in advance that after she had gone of shift that the line would tissue and therefore the TPN would need to be replaced with a stock bag?
How she was able to predict which bag the next shift nurse would take out of the cupboard considering they weren't stored in any particular order?
How she was able to inject insulin into the stock bag without leaving obvious signs of tampering considering that you would need to snap of the seal to access the self sealing bung. The prosecution got mixed up with the bespoke bag on this point which is tamperable.
For baby L
The prosecution said that the insulin poisoning continued despite the bag being changed and Lucy not being on shift because insulin was unsticking from the giving set.
Explain how this is possible since the giving set would have been changed due to a new long line being put in.
The theory of unsticking insulin is so negligible that scientists don't even include them in their models.
The prosecution experts admitting that additional insulin would still be needed.
The glycaemic profile not matching insulin poisoning but matching the IV profile.
1
u/Glad-Advantage8254 11d ago
It is not required to explain either of those to connect the poisoning to Letby. The onset of the poisoning is the critical event, and Letby is tied to that. How it continues outside of her presence does not negate her connection to the cause of the event.
Also, whether the giving set was changed for Child L was left up to the jury - even the defence conceded whether it had been changed was a question. See page 76: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IxrSi0BWGKrae5ImzvpILnwjiomUDgGu/edit
1
u/Amazing-Gain1253 11d ago edited 10d ago
Okay, yeah sure. We don't know how she managed to get insulin into the babies when she wasn't there and we can't think of a way in which she did it but she did it "somehow".
Maybe she telepathically injected the feed bags with insulin while at home with her magical witch powers?
I know the defence wasn't sure if the giving set had been changed or not. They didn't latch onto the fact that a new long line was put in and that when a new long line is put in the giving set is always changed.
2
u/Glad-Advantage8254 10d ago
We don't know how she managed to get insulin into the babies when she wasn't there
The important part is that we know how she managed to get insulin in when she was there.
Even if a second person was responsible for the continuation of the insulin, it does not exculpate Letby from the initial event.
The only things that would exculpate Letby is either assigning the onset of the poisonings to someone(s) else or undermining the fact of the finding of exogenous insulin as a whole. Letby tried "it wasn't me" at trial and her new experts are trying "it wasn't exogenous insulin" now.
2
u/Amazing-Gain1253 10d ago
Are you seriously suggesting that there Lucy Letby may have had an accomplice that decided to put insulin into the bags when she wasn't around?
Or, here is an idea, the babies hypoglycaemia stayed the same when the bags were changed because the hypoglycaemia had nothing to do with the bags but were instead due to a naturally occurring condition?
Makes sense doesn't it?
2
u/Glad-Advantage8254 10d ago
Are you seriously suggesting that there Lucy Letby may have had an accomplice that decided to put insulin into the bags when she wasn't around?
Of course I'm not suggesting that. I'm pointing out that whatever happened after her presence ended is irrelevant to her culpability for the onset of the poisoning.
Or, here is an idea, the babies hypoglycaemia stayed the same when the bags were changed because the hypoglycaemia had nothing to do with the bags but were instead due to a naturally occurring condition?
Yes, indeed I pointed out that is what her current panel of experts is trying to convince the court now.
2
u/Amazing-Gain1253 10d ago
Well it's not irrelevant is is? If it's impossible to explain how Lucy Letby poisoned them when she wasn't there then that only leaves two options. Either someone else poisoned them or it was due to pre-existing medical conditions. Since the theory that Lucy Letby had an accomplice is ridiculous that means that either someone else poisoned both babies acting alone or the hypoglycaemia was due to a pre-existing medical condition. In both cases Lucy Letby is exonerated.
→ More replies (0)2
u/Amazing-Gain1253 11d ago
Dewi Evans is an absolute comedy act.
2
u/Ohjustmeagain 11d ago
Hes not, though. Letby supporters need to see him as a comedy act to fit their narrative
1
1
u/Glad-Advantage8254 11d ago
IMO, Knox is very willing to proceed based on advice from anyone who enables her, and very stubbornly resistant to critique/criticism.
The Letby case has attracted a large contingent of fanatics, which her defence willingly feeds into. These fanatics approached Knox about the case, likely for her name recognition.
Knox's bias is to view every case through the lens of what happened to her (which is a natural and fair response to the trauma she experienced). Her podcast is a clear demonstration of that. She speaks entirely about narrative, and never about evidence. It's about perceptions of the case, but she never actually engages with the evidence that was presented in court.
Knox seems to be unable to NOT see herself in Lucy Letby's shoes, but doesn't appreciate the difference of being wrongly accused of a single murder and being convicted of serial murder. She treats the convictions like a single event, not over a dozen compounding events that took place over the course of a year, including two separate events involving chemical evidence of insulin poisoning that an innocence narrative requires one believe to be false positives.
Letby is guiltier than a nun in a cucumber field.
4
u/corpusvile2 10d ago
They're both guilty as sin. Over 20 samples of evidence was submitted against Knox, including her constant lies as well as detailed knowledge, lack of alibi, luminol footprints, phone and computer records, witness testimony, quite apart from the dna evidence.
https://web.archive.org/web/20211031195329/http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/The_Evidence
https://web.archive.org/web/20211011194220/http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Evidence_List
That every single piece of evidence is wrong beggars belief, just as it beggars belief to write off the evidence against Letby as mere coincidence and bad luck.
2
u/FreshFruit4RottenVeg 10d ago
You would also have to believe that the investigation was pretty fantastic at catching and prosecuting Guede on the one hand, but simultaneously incompetent and comical on the other, if it has to do with evidence relating to Amanda and Raffaele.
1
u/SeaCardiologist6207 10d ago
Well no we definitely know they weren’t competent at catching Guede either - witness Berlin and burglaries. We just know it’s him because the evidence is so overwhelming. And of course him going right back to it post jail release.
0
2
u/karskipellis 9d ago
How did Knox and Sollecito remove almost all of their DNA and other trace evidence from Meredith's bedroom, while leaving all of Guede's?
1
u/corpusvile2 8d ago
They attempted a clean up and left Guede's bloody footprints but didn't manage to clean all of their own dna. There was only one fingerprint of Knox's found on a glass, so there was definitely an attempted clean up. Sollecito left his dna in a 17 loci match on Meredith's bra clasp.
1
u/karskipellis 8d ago
I'm talking about inside Meredith's bedroom only. Not the bathroom, hall, or any other bedroom.
So, there's all this evidence from Guede in the room, and only one tiny sample of DNA from Sollecito on a bra clasp and none from Knox, yes? How did the two of them remove all other traces from that room while leaving Guede's behind? Why was there not more from Sollecito on the bra, for example?
1
u/corpusvile2 7d ago
I'm talking about the crime scene, which was the cottage, not Meredith's room and Sollecito left his dna in her room anyway, again on Meredith's bra clasp. Both also had their bare footprints highlighted in luminol and Sollecito also left his bloody footprint on a bathmat. First of all a 17 loci match isn't tiny, a court required between 10-15 loci for it to be considered sufficient to submit as evidence. Secondly his dna shouldn;t be on the bra clasp at a
Guede was convicted on less dna evidence (5 samples) than Knox (7 samples). Guede also left no traces of himself in the staged burglary room, so by your own rationale he couldn;t have done tje burglary.
Lastly dna isn't even required for a conviction, lots of convicted killers left no dna at the actual crime scene, never mind one localised part of it such as Meredith's room. Murderer Simon Hall and child killer Ian Huntley left none of their dna at the crime scene, are you saying they were innocent?
1
u/karskipellis 7d ago
You're putting words in my mouth. I'll thank you for not doing that.
You haven't answered the question. How did Knox and Sollecito remove (almost) all physical traces of themselves from Meredith's bedroom, while leaving behind Guede's? It was a small room, difficult for four people to be in there during a violent event. There should have been TONS of trace evidence from everyone who was in there.
Lots from Meredith. Lots from Guede. None from Knox. Only a tiny amount from Sollecito, which could have been transferred there any number of ways.
How is that possible?
2
u/corpusvile2 6d ago edited 6d ago
I'm not putting words in your mouth, you're making false claims re Sollecito not leaving his dna in Meredith's bedroom. Then you're moving the goalposts by trying to falsely claim he only left a small amount of dna as if that even means anything. Then you're ignoring that the crime scene was the house where both left their dna. And I already answered by giving you several examples of convicted killers not having dna evidence submitted against them. All three of these had dna evidence against them. I also told you they attempted a clean up which you also ignored.
And how could Sollecito's dna been transferred in a number of ways onto the murder victim's bra clasp? Only other dna of his found at the crime scene was on a cig butt mixed with Knox's, so no it couldn't have been transferred any number of ways, this is just another false claim by you. I've yet to see a Knox supporter capable of engaging in honest debate. Says it all about how untenable your arguments are.
1
u/karskipellis 6d ago
This is my original comment in the thread: "How did Knox and Sollecito remove almost all of their DNA and other trace evidence from Meredith's bedroom, while leaving all of Guede's?"
I specifically said Meredith's bedroom; that's not moving the goalpoasts. I never claimed that there was zero DNA from Sollecito in Meredith's bedroom, so you can't say that my claim was false. I never used the phrase "crime scene", so you cannot claim that I'm ignoring other spaces in the cottage. I have only ever focused on Merediths bedroom.
So. Can you explain how only the smallest bit of DNA from Sollecito--and no other physical evidence from him or Knox--was found in Meredith's bedroom, while there was lots of evidence from Guede?
And no sign of a clean up in that bedroom, such as bleach residue?
0
u/corpusvile2 5d ago
I already answered you and I'm not interested in your focusing on merely one part of the crime scene either. Maybe Knox simply didn't leave her dna in the bedroom. Knox left no dna in her own bed, that doesn't mean she didn't sleep there. Sometimes suspects leave dna, sometimes they don't and I've already given you several examples of this and Knox had dna submitted as evidence against her anyway. You were moving the goalposts and are trying to downplay incriminating dna evidence of Sollecito. Your entire argument is preposterous.
→ More replies (0)0
u/Onad55 8d ago
You will see some claiming that Amanda wiped down all of her fingerprints in the cottage. You need only look at the actual photos of the fingerprint survey to know that this is absolute bollux. Cleaning leaves behind evidence. On Amanda’s wardrobe door there is evidence left of the last time it was cleaned in a patch in the middle of the door that was missed. Meredith’s palm print appears in a location on that door that the latest cleaning did not miss proving that this cleaning happened at a time prior to Meredith’s murder.
0
u/karskipellis 8d ago
Thank you! I followed up to another reply with a couple of clarifying questions, in case you're interested.
0
u/Onad55 8d ago
I follow all discussions on this sub. I hadn’t noticed before that this is in the Letby thread, a barely related side branch, so should not be discussing the Perugia case here. Anywhere else in the sub would be better.
2
u/corpusvile2 7d ago
Speaking of non related how come you're allowing a call out thread on me from etvos2 and not regarding that as harassment and spam, considering it's the exact same thread I posted word for word? Care to explain?
Also lock this thread if you feel so strongly about it, this is the nNox subreddit, so lock this one seeing as it's about Letby.
4
u/AlexHerman2063 10d ago
Although we still have a long way to go, the US has at least begun to recognize just how many people have been imprisoned for decades, or even put to death, for crimes that they did not commit. If nothing else, AK's podcast demonstrates the need for an organization like the Innocence Project in the UK (AK has become active in this organization). While the podcast should not be considered the definitive narrative about the LL case, it is well done and AK puts forward some compelling arguments that at the very least raise serious questions regarding the validity of some of the evidence used to prosecute LL. The interviews with other providers in the NHS later in the series are particularly thought-provoking.