Jump to content
  • Sign up for free and receive a month's subscription

    You are viewing this page as a guest. That means you are either a member who has not logged in, or you have not yet registered with us. Signing up for an account only takes a minute and it means you will no longer see this annoying box! It will also allow you to get involved with our friendly(ish!) community and take part in the discussions on our forums. And because we're feeling generous, if you sign up for a free account we will give you a month's free trial access to our subscriber only content with no obligation to commit. Register an account and then send a private message to @dave u and he'll hook you up with a subscription.

Recommended Posts

The doctors referring to her as 'nurse death' and her writing a note saying 'I'm evil' and "I killed them on purpose" have always made a compelling case in my view, added to the fact David Davies - far from being a champion of civil liberties - is widely considered to be retarded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s very telling that the New Yorker article by Rachael Aviv which sets out the case for the defence is actually banned in the UK. Try googling it and see how hard it is to read it. There is a link here in case anyone’s interested. https://archive.ph/dlA3W

if it’s such a clear cut case why is this article banned ?
 

It does amaze me that people on here are so trusting of the judicial process given what’s happened to this club. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Jack the Sipper said:

 

Is it the case that she was present every time a baby died during her time at the hospital, and that none died after she was moved away?

The deaths went straight back to normal once they moved her away. I can’t remember if she was there for them all, I think one may have a survived an extra night and she wasn't there at time of death. Its all in the judgement handed down by the court.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Engineman Hicks said:

It’s very telling that the New Yorker article by Rachael Aviv which sets out the case for the defence is actually banned in the UK. Try googling it and see how hard it is to read it. There is a link here in case anyone’s interested. https://archive.ph/dlA3W

if it’s such a clear cut case why is this article banned ?
 

It does amaze me that people on here are so trusting of the judicial process given what’s happened to this club. 

 

It's geo-blocked by the New Yorker themselves, semi-complying with Contempt of Court laws that are designed to make sure trails are fair. Letby may still be granted an appeal, so that might explain it not being lifted yet. It being banned is not evidence of anything other than archaic pre-internet laws.

 

As for invoking Hillsborough, that's a bit shitty. If you want to open that can of worms, just ask yourself what kind of Tory cunts were behind the cover up, and look a little closer to home before throwing that grenade again.

  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Babb'sBurstNad said:

 

It's geo-blocked by the New Yorker themselves, semi-complying with Contempt of Court laws that are designed to make sure trails are fair. Letby may still be granted an appeal, so that might explain it not being lifted yet. It being banned is not evidence of anything other than archaic pre-internet laws.

 

As for invoking Hillsborough, that's a bit shitty. If you want to open that can of worms, just ask yourself what kind of Tory cunts were behind the cover up, and look a little closer to home before throwing that grenade again.

I don’t think that’s right. She’s had her appeal so unless new evidence comes to light she won’t get another one There are other people appealing against their convictions whose evidence is freely available. Jeremy Bamber has a whole web site of evidence. Why isn’t this banned ? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Engineman Hicks said:

I don’t think that’s right. She’s had her appeal so unless new evidence comes to light she won’t get another one There are other people appealing against their convictions whose evidence is freely available. Jeremy Bamber has a whole web site of evidence. Why isn’t this banned ? 

 

As I understand it her new lawyer is still trying to take it to the Criminal Cases Review Commission. If successful, they could appeal one or more of the charges.

 

It's odd, I grant you, as almost nothing in the New Yorker article isn't readily available elsewhere. We have some very archaic laws (though this was 1981), and I can't say I agree with the application here.

 

As for Bamber, he has long since seen any hope of new evidence disappear. The sheer recency and nature of the Letby case is very different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Babb'sBurstNad said:

 

As I understand it her new lawyer is still trying to take it to the Criminal Cases Review Commission. If successful, they could appeal one or more of the charges.

 

It's odd, I grant you, as almost nothing in the New Yorker article isn't readily available elsewhere. We have some very archaic laws (though this was 1981), and I can't say I agree with the application here.

 

As for Bamber, he has long since seen any hope of new evidence disappear. The sheer recency and nature of the Letby case is very different.

Yes I agree but Bamber has also submitted his case to the CCRC so that doesn’t explain the injunction. 

 

The original author Aviv originally tweeted she was told by the Government that publishing her article in the Uk would “undermine confidence in the judicial system” but this tweet has now also been deleted. 

 

The whole thing stinks of a stitch up. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, No2 said:

The deaths went straight back to normal once they moved her away. I can’t remember if she was there for them all, I think one may have a survived an extra night and she wasn't there at time of death. Its all in the judgement handed down by the court.

The statistical evidence is very similar to the Lucia de Berk case in the Netherlands. She was convicted of murder then overturned on pretty much the same sort of argument about being present when people died. Now seen as an infamous miscarriage of justice. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Engineman Hicks said:

Yes I agree but Bamber has also submitted his case to the CCRC so that doesn’t explain the injunction. 

 

The original author Aviv originally tweeted she was told by the Government that publishing her article in the Uk would “undermine confidence in the judicial system” but this tweet has now also been deleted. 

 

The whole thing stinks of a stitch up. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. 

 

The recency and greater likelihood of Letby's legal team finding grounds though makes the Bamber comparison apples to oranges.

 

I'm not sure a deleted tweet is evidence of anything, either.

 

Out of interest, who do you think is behind, or benefits from this "stitch up"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Section_31 said:

The doctors referring to her as 'nurse death' and her writing a note saying 'I'm evil' and "I killed them on purpose" have always made a compelling case in my view, added to the fact David Davies - far from being a champion of civil liberties - is widely considered to be retarded.

Workplace gossip + the ramblings of a broken person under huge pressure = GUILTY!

 

Nah.  Whatever other evidence exists, those things can be safely dismissed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, No2 said:

The deaths went straight back to normal once they moved her away. I can’t remember if she was there for them all, I think one may have a survived an extra night and she wasn't there at time of death. Its all in the judgement handed down by the court.

 

It's my understanding that she wasn't "there when all these poor babies suffer the trauma", as you said earlier, although that's how it was presented by the prosecution. From The Guardian:

 

'The jury was shown a chart listing 25 deaths and collapses Letby was charged with and the names of the nurses who had worked on the unit through the period of the cluster of deaths. The column for Letby was marked with a cross for every incident, whereas other nurses had only been on shift for a few of them.

However, the jury was not told about six other deaths in the period with which Letby was not charged. They were omitted from the table.'

 

And, yes, babies still continued to get 'unlucky' after she was moved on. As for the death rate 

going back to normal, it's argued that the spike in deaths in the first place wasn't abnormal:

 

'John O’Quigley, a professor of statistical science at University College London, said: “People get the wrong end of the stick with statistics. In my opinion there was nothing out of the ordinary statistically in the spike in deaths, and all the shift chart shows is that when Letby was on duty, Letby was on duty.”'

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/jul/09/lucy-letby-evidence-experts-question

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Jack the Sipper said:

 

It's my understanding that she wasn't "there when all these poor babies suffer the trauma", as you said earlier, although that's how it was presented by the prosecution. From The Guardian:

 

'The jury was shown a chart listing 25 deaths and collapses Letby was charged with and the names of the nurses who had worked on the unit through the period of the cluster of deaths. The column for Letby was marked with a cross for every incident, whereas other nurses had only been on shift for a few of them.

However, the jury was not told about six other deaths in the period with which Letby was not charged. They were omitted from the table.'

 

And, yes, babies still continued to get 'unlucky' after she was moved on. As for the death rate 

going back to normal, it's argued that the spike in deaths in the first place wasn't abnormal:

 

'John O’Quigley, a professor of statistical science at University College London, said: “People get the wrong end of the stick with statistics. In my opinion there was nothing out of the ordinary statistically in the spike in deaths, and all the shift chart shows is that when Letby was on duty, Letby was on duty.”'

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/jul/09/lucy-letby-evidence-experts-question

 

 

There was a very similar case in the Netherlands of a nurse charged with killing patients. A lot of parallels particularly the use of statistics. She was eventually exonerated and it is seen as one of the biggest miscarriages of justice in recent Dutch history. Lucia de Berk case - Wikipedia 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Babb'sBurstNad said:

 

The recency and greater likelihood of Letby's legal team finding grounds though makes the Bamber comparison apples to oranges.

 

I'm not sure a deleted tweet is evidence of anything, either.

 

Out of interest, who do you think is behind, or benefits from this "stitch up"?

I think the judiciary in the UK is institutionally reluctant to admit mistakes or in this case incompetence. All of the recent miscarriages of justice such as Hillsborough, the Post masters etc have come about because of external campaigners working tirelessly for years to persuade the system to reopen the case. The inertia in the CCRC process is deliberately designed to wear these people out, it should not take literally years for them to review a file but that's what happens all the time. The Bamber case as an example has been with the CCRC for 5 years now. 

 

Letby's public funded defence team were awful but it is not in the interest of the judiciary to admit that she was incredibly badly defended by one of their own KCs so they would rather shut down the debate, rely on the CCRC dragging their heels for years and hope the external campaigners lose interest or die. Once Davies gives up that will probably happen here.

 

However the judiciary seem to have gone even further in this case by blocking the public from reading the Aviv article even though the appeal process has finished. It is quite astonishing that the rest of the world can read an article about the case but the British public are being denied access without any explanation. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

Not sure anyone's defending murderers on this thread, any more than supporters of the Birmingham Six were.

It was typical attempt to start a fight rather than engage. He's like a wasp in a pub garden, buzzing around irritating the grown ups who are trying to talk.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, VladimirIlyich said:

Was this nurse so adrift from normal society that very few colleagues seem to want to defend her against these charges? And there are serious questions regarding how she was hired if that is the case.

 

I suppose if she has been convicted primarily by the use of statistics, then the department is going to keep schtum because the alternative is that the department was pretty poor at keeping babies alive.

 

As an aside, the Royal Derby had 160 perinatal deaths in a three-year period. I'm sure if you put up a chart with names and crosses, some poor cow would have been there for a large majority of them too.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

Workplace gossip + the ramblings of a broken person under huge pressure = GUILTY!

 

Nah.  Whatever other evidence exists, those things can be safely dismissed.

 

I think the notes in particular are just unfortunate. Ramblings to let out emotions, not statements of fact.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...