One of the most disturbing and perplexing cases of the 20th century. After hearing all the evidence, it's all circumstantial. There is no motive. I am not fully convinced of her guilt.
@@scottaznavourian3720 During the time the babies were dying she was getting a load of sympathy and attention from her fellow nurses and the doctors. That's clear from her text messages. Judging from her own texts, she seemed to be trying to extract even more sympathy from them.
@@ruthbashford3176it's when babies die suspiciously and unnaturally -she's always there alone, and was caught hovering around letting them die. Big difference between an explainable & natural death & a sudden attack out of the blue!
@@ames876i3 But the babies didn't die suspiciously or unnaturally as they had post mortems and were found to have died from natural causes. Unless you prefer to believe the discredited, long retired Dewi Evans who fantasized about air embolisms and insulin poisonings.
Yes their was ! Plenty of evidence. Her calm & collective behaviour Unusual behaviour searching FACEBOOK for the parents of these tiny deceased babies !, Dr. A.. just a friend she says.... then she answers. She does have a boyfriend after the cross examinar asked her ! She is full of LIES.
For those who have doubt about her guilt after reading a magazine article, I implore you to look into the case of baby G. Baby G had been fed by her designated nurse… designated nurse steps out for a break… Lucy steps in and soon after baby G is projectile vomiting across the entire room to a degree that doctors called “extraordinatory”. She projectile vomited FAR more milk than her designated nurse fed her and was STILL found to have 45ml or so plus air present in her stomach. So much air and milk had been pumped into this baby’s stomach that her diaphragm split in two. Because of this because of the episode, baby G is disabled for life. Even Lucy was forced to agree at trial that the baby had been overfed milk by “someone”.
Mr Myers: "We don't know [the quantity of vomit as it was not measured]." "No, but it's a lot of vomit." "We don't know how much, do we?" "It was...an awful lot of vomit."
You do realize that Letby herself had to concede that “somebody” had likely overfed the baby massive amounts of milk based on the evidence. She could not deny the facts. If you look at the case of baby G objectively, it is clear this baby was intentionally pumped full of milk and air by “somebody” and that person is Lucy Letby.
40ml or so of milk and “air++” was STILL aspirated from baby G’s stomach AFTER this extraordinary vomit. This is a fact. This can only be possible if baby G had been profusely overfed.
That’s why even the defendent had to agree with this conclusion. Baby G’s designated nurse had fed her around 30ml of milk I believe. So if 40ml of milk PLUS air are aspirated AFTER this huge projectile vomit, the ONLY logical explanation is baby G had been loaded with milk. An objective look at this particular case points to only guilt.
She is not guilty she was one of many who looked after a 25 week baby in a hospital not equiped to do so. She was highly qualified so was often left with the sickest babies and often was also given other babies in addition which was against protocol but they had no staff. 15 other babies died in that year where she wasn’t involved but that was omitted…..the death rate on that ward is the same to this day.
@@DorothySnow-jb1osit's a flow-of-consciousness reference to the accusations and insinuations that were being made...in those same notes, she also also categorically denies it.
@@marthas.4456huh? Actually 32 babies died on that ward and she was only there for half of them ? Have you spent any time at all researching the case or do you just pick and choose the facts you like ?
I do believe that mistakes are made but I don’t trust the testing that is reported I don’t believe she is guilty and hope and pray that evidence and testing is rebooked at time and time again it’s been proven that tests have been wrong or different views on testing have been so far apart !!
@@missfluffydiva2120 The babies Lucy was supposed to have murdered had post mortems and were found to have died from natural causes. Unless you believe the fantasies of air embolism and insulin poisoning from a discredited, long retired paediatrician. The convictions rest entirely on Dr Dewi Evan's opinions and the entire case appears more like a medieval witch hunt than a serious investigation. No fair minded person could possibly believe that these convictions are safe, resting as they do on opinion and speculation.
I know and have worked in hospitals and seen how staff work this lady I believe in what I’ve heard from the media is innocent and believe everything needs looking at again without bias and no scapegoat
Old saying is " No smoke without fire ". Guilty or not, somehow those babies died and not naturally. Truth always comes out eventually. If she is guilty,then she needs to spend the rest of her life in jail, unfortunatly, we don't have the death penalty in UK.
But the post mortems found the babies died from natural causes unless you believe a discredited, long retired paediatrician who fantasized about air embolisms and insulin poisonings.
If you don’t even know what the evidence against her is, then you really have no business championing for her innocence. People who actually read the court transcripts and the evidence presented understand why she was found GUILTY.
It's amazing! 12 people on the jury sat through the whole case, listening to all the evidence and hearing the cross examination. Yet some people only have to read or listen to a podcast to know more than they do and can form a better judgement. In the future, we should save the cost of trials and just ask random people on the internet. We would save a fortune.
I Big question in my mind about the alarm not going off . Did he check to see if it had been turned off ,possible proof of intent ? Did he consider the machine might be faulty as the alarm had failed to go off ? Did he phone the maintenance people to check the machine ? These are the steps that logically should have been taken . Especially as he was concerned about Letby .
Facts: -At 3.30am baby K was stable (evidenced in notes by designated nurse) -At 3.47am designed nurse leaves unit & LL is left ALONE to "babysit" -At 3.50am Dr enters finding baby K in collapse, LL cotside, breathing tube dislodged & alarm muted. (As the alarm never sounded this means someone muted it from get-go, that someone had to be cotside from the exact moment sats started to plummet!). Caught red-handed!!! Worth noting baby k was a tiny 25 week old preemie who was heavily sedated on morphine at the time of her collapse. She was not wriggling or active in any way that would've caused her breathing tube to dislodge. Her tube was clearly dislodged purposely- in those fateful few minutes the (now convicted) baby killer was left alone with her! As well as being caught right in the act, LL majorly slipped up in Police interview. She ADMITTED the Dr found her cotside, alarm muted & doing nothing to help at the time of the babys collapse. She thought she could excuse her inaction by saying she was innocently "waiting" to see if the baby would "self-correct". Now all of a sudden she has amnesia!!! Can't remember being cotside at all during the collapse!🤷🏼♀️ How convenient!!! 100% guilty & a brazen liar!!
@@thecomputergurukidShe absolutely changed her story. She admitted in her police interview that the Dr did walk in, found her cotside, alarm muted, doing nothing while baby K was in collapse. She focused all her attention on excusing her lack of helping this baby in collapse by stating she was "waiting to see if the baby would self correct". Now in court she's suddenly denying being cotside at the time of collapse, shes magically caught amnesia and is trying to backpeddle on her admissions in police custody as they are severely incriminating!!!!
@@ames876i3 You have so many facts wrong. Look you have no idea what happens in court as you weren't there, I was. Its frustrating to hear all these random people on the internet think they know all about a case when they didn't even hear the evidence.
@@thecomputergurukidFirst off: facts by their very definition, cannot be wrong. The word fact describes a proven truth. Secondly, anyone can claim they were in court without any evidence to corroborate that claim. The only reliable self-proclaimed court attendees are those who can back up their claim by providing and publishing court transcripts- word for word. Lastly, any blagger or LL apologist can be spotted a mile off as they are unable to accept facts & never have any solid evidence to support their theories (which is why they remain theories/speculation and will never be upgraded to the status of proven fact - unlike the overwhelming mound of evidence that has solidified her guilt).
My issue is that at 25 weeks using the word "stable" is just stupid. Babies deteriorate super rapidly and unpredictably. Even adults do. I have lost track of how many patients were handed over to my team as "stable" only to crash a couple of hours later out of nowhere. In babies it is even more difficult. You are taking the world "stable" as literal...it is only a reflection of a clinician expectation, not an absolute truth. All the so call evidence is based on the fact that all the doctors working there were absolutely competent and that the unit was not the dysfunctional mess that it was. Do you know that since those deaths the unit was downgraded so that could not look after babies younger than 32 weeks? Wonder why they never went back to their previous level 2 status even after Letby was apprehended?
You should look into the case of baby G if you have any doubt about her guilt. Baby G had been fed by her designated nurse… designated nurse steps out for a break… Lucy steps in and soon after baby G is projectile vomiting across the entire room to a degree that doctors called “extraordinatory”. She projectile vomited FAR more milk than her designated nurse fed her and was STILL found to have 45ml or so plus air present in her stomach. Because of this because of the episode, baby G is disabled for life. Even Lucy was forced to agree at trial that the baby had been overfed milk by “someone”
For those who think she's innocent, why has her legal team failed to produce one medical expert to counter the prosecution's arguments. Answer; there are none.
I read that it is difficult to employ medical defence experts in the UK for these sort of cases for some reason. Lucy's defence was abysmal and should have gone abroad even to the States to find medical experts.
The defence team did have a medical expert ready to testify. For some inexplicable reason he wasn’t called. He says he has sleepless nights thinking about it. The excellent article in The New Yorker discusses this. Definitely worth reading, certainly raised doubts in my mind about this case.
You need to read the actual evidence against her so you can see why the jury’s decision was correct. Actual evidence trumps a highly biased magazine article. I suggest starting with the case if baby G, as that one is a hard one for Letby to try to wriggle herself out of.
It would seem Lucy is the only one expected to have a perfect memory of events but others like Jayaram, Gibbs, Brearey etc when they can't remember or contradict themselves it doesn't seem to matter. Lucy must be suffering from PTSD, being wrongly accused of murdering babies, and I'm surprised the poor woman had the strength to go into the witness box.
Why did Jayaram and Brearey suspect Lucy in the first place as the babies she had supposed to have murdered had post mortems and were found to have died from natural causes?
Because babies don’t just collapse for no reason and there had been several completely unexplained collapses over a brief period of time… as well as instances of unexplained bleeding in the throat, and a strange flitting rash that even experienced medical personnel had never seen before.
It’s extremely likely she is guilty - around 99.9%>. However her guilt is not guaranteed and will only be fully confirmed if she admits. I think she probably will admit to it later on down the line. Even in the extremely unlikely event she is innocent - the risk of releasing her on such a small likelihood is too big and the jury could see that. She is where she belongs. The likelihood is just too big to justify a not guilty verdict even if the whole case relies on purely circumstantial evidence.
You would rather an innocent person go to prison just to make sure someone is being punished so everyone feels safe ? I’m not saying she’s innocent but your argument and reasoning are terrifying. You better hope you’re never in the wrong place at the wrong time with people saying the same words. “There’s a chance he’s innocent but we are willing to lock him up anyway because someone needs to be.” Deeply disturbing logic.
It IS public. And the people who actually followed the 9 MONTH TRIAL know why she was found guilty. Quite amazing that people who never read the evidence presented at trial cam simply come to her defense after reading a highly biased article. It is a slap in the face to the jury who spent 9 MONTHS considering the evidence and to the families whose babies were maimed and/or killed by this monster.
@@tbhat10 what a travesty of justice, lucy letby is innocent. the convictions are all unsafe because they are based on circumstantial evidence. There is no physical evidence to prove her guilt therefore it can not be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
what a travesty of justice, lucy letby is innocent. the convictions are all unsafe because they are based on circumstantial evidence. There is no physical evidence to prove her guilt therefore it can not be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
@@ruthbashford3176 LMAO This murderer had a fair trial and the testimonies of the Doctors says it all.She is EVIL personified.Listen to the summing of the Judge.His words resonated throughout the world
@@DorothySnow-jb1osyou forgot punctuation and used two words completely wrong …. lol maybe check yourself before asking others to speak English. How embarrassing 🙄
I have been wondering what Dr Ravi Jayaram did at the time as he was a doctor and said he was alotted for that time on the ward. The question has not been asked did the doctor dislodge the tube. But it has been noted from the previous trial that senior staff had trouble with tubes etc.
I thot the shock on her face was hardbto act, phycopaths usually put heads down and cover up. She was in shock. I think the 2 doctors how we no their not a combined due and pass the derry on her. FISHY
@@DorothySnow-jb1oslol here comes Dorothy again needing to feel superior so asking for English. Is that what you need to do when you don’t understand the grown up facts of the case because it seems to be your pattern. Why don’t you find some videos about grammar and spelling so you can show everyone what a genius you are ? It’s so very impressive.
@@nancyleehampton8 Go back to your knitting circle, you will be a lot more productive there than coming on here and making idiotic comments and showing your ignorance!!
This is not a video. It's somebody talking non-stop while displaying a photo of someone who I assume is Lucy Letby. That may explain why it has 3.7 million views and only 53 likes.
