how did a nurse commit such unthinkable murders?

[Marfer]

This is UK news and will no doubt run over the weekend. The numbers immediate jumped out at me. I wonder where it will go and IF we are potentially heading for another chapter of covoid the people who speak out and are not injected will be framed as child killers and as grandma is dead we need to protect the children!!!

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... le-murders

The 33-year-old nurse has been convicted of murdering seven newborns and attempting to kill another six, making her the worst baby killer in modern British history.

At about 9pm on 3 August (3,8) 2015 a mother arrived on the neonatal unit - 9/11

[YouCanCallMeAl]

Her name is Lucy Letby.

On the green note, the first line is: "I can't breathe".

[Marfer]

let bygones be bygones

[YouCanCallMeAl]

I'm thinking that the purpose of this event is that it will some sort of wierd proxy for the covid mismanagement. My thinking is that by giving people a reason to be angry at the management failures that let Lucy by to commit the killings she is purported to have committed, people will get hand wringingly angry at the medical establishment, but will then see justice being done. This would act as a lighting rod to release emotion, and maintain the idea that the system and justice is fine.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66562938

And look at what Lucy has in the photo - a nest by her front door. This is not accidental, given she is purported to have killed children in the neonatal unit (an artificial "nest") - this is Derek Brown style messaging.

I took a screenshot and attached that, as the original webp file is not a supported file format that can be uploaded on these forums.

[Samson79]

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/do-stati ... elston-fgs

Worth a read, certainly puts a more realistic perspective on the statistics of baby deaths in NHS hospitals, looks like Lucy had no form at all and possibly another fallguy. The strongest case made by the prosecution is that she was in attendance .....that is it.

When you consider the very real depopulation agenda, things like the Liverpool care pathway and the call for pregnant women to be jabbed I see more form in the NHS being somewhere you go to die.

Narratives are in the control of the media so its difficult to know but I suspect she is innocent.

[Samson79]

https://rexvlucyletby2023.com/

Science based review of the LucyLetby murder case.

[Samson79]

https://gill1109.com/2023/05/24/the-luc ... ase/?amp=1

[Samson79]

Her name is Lucy Letby.

On the green note, the first line is: "I can't breathe".

4000.jpg

https://old.reddit.com/r/scienceLucyLet ... _focus_on/
I was very interested to encounter this subreddit having become increasingly concerned about this trial and conviction.
Until hearing about the verdict on the news, I have not followed this case closely. Initially, when I heard about it, I was revulsed, as would be the natural reaction. Then, after some time, my natural instinct for inquisition kicked in. Okay, Letby is guilty of all of these heinous crimes – show me the evidence.
As I began to investigate this case in more depth, I immediately smelt a rat. I really don't think it's particularly difficult to sense this. You simply need to disengage your emotions and engage your brain. Once you do this, you almost immediately find that the evidence on which Letby has been convicted is, at best, flimsy. It's doubtful that she's received anything approaching a fair trial, and this could ultimately be one of the biggest miscarriages of justice in known human history.
The Confessional Note
I want to begin by discussing one thing in particular. In my view, the supposed 'confessional' note is absolutely critical to this case. I believe that if the police had searched her home and found a typical suburban house with nothing of any import whatsoever, she would have been acquitted.
The note was critical in painting the image to the jury of a guilty party. However, this is farcical because the note quite clearly does not represent a confession. As rambling as it is, and as indicative of a deeply wounded emotional state it clearly is (and so it should immediately be discounted as 'evidence'), the supposed confession is also a complete red herring.
Letby states unequivocally that she is “evil and did this” because she is “not good enough”. I have captured the part of the letter where she states this here. So, actually, not only does the position of the defence on this subject make sense, but it is explicitly stated in the note. She is clearly commenting: “I am responsible for murdering these babies because I am not a good enough nurse”, as opposed to: “I deliberately killed these babies”. I should also mention that this "not good enough" phrase was used in the same context in text messages with the doctor with whom she was supposedly infatuated.
Without that evidence, I believe everything else would have been viewed differently. No matter how the judge instructs the jury, and whatever other legitimate or erroneous evidence may have been presented, this note will have had an undeniable impact on jurors. In fact, one only needs to read Reddit threads on this subject, in order to witness countless people stating: “of course she did it – she confessed to it!”.
This has also been used to cast a disparaging light on various communications that Letby had via text messaging, which have been presented as sinister. But they're not actually sinister in content, and certainly not incriminating. In a different context, they can be viewed as entirely innocent remarks – either perfectly normal conversations, or exactly the sort of soul-searching that one might engage in if they were present when someone of any age died in their workplace.
Furthermore, this note is still being cited as one of the most important pieces of evidence. Never mind the fact that, as BBC Panorama stated, there is “no smoking gun” in this case, and “no-one has ever seen Letby harm a child”. Ignore the fact that there was an 18-month medical review while Letby was still working for the hospital, which uncovered nothing, and it was only when it was passed to the police that they started pinning it on Letby. Let's instead emphasise the importance of a scrawled note, written by someone who was clearly in a profound state of distress, and then ignore the fact that it doesn't state what it is claimed to state, and, in fact, literally states exactly what the defence has indicated!
This is merely one aspect of this case that is highly troubling. What concerns me most is the apparently incredibly poor level of evidence required to convict someone of something for which the key can literally be thrown away. I hope that I am never unfortunate enough to face this criminal justice system because my faith in it is extremely limited.
Previous Cases
In previous similar cases:
Italian nurse Daniela Poggiali was convicted of murdering two hospital patients in 2014, but was later acquitted due to a statistical error.
Jane Bolding was acquitted of charges that she killed three gravely ill patients and attempted to murder two others by injecting them with massive doses of potassium chloride. Prince George's Circuit Court Judge Joseph S. Casula granted a defense motion for acquittal, commenting that “the state at most has placed [Bolding] at the scene of the offenses. But that is insufficient to sustain a conviction. The state's reach hopelessly exceeded its grasp.” (note that this is literally exactly what has occurred in the Letby case, except that she has been convicted and sentenced to life in prison).
Sally Clark was the victim of a miscarriage of justice when she was found guilty of the murder of her two infant sons. The prosecution case relied on flawed statistical evidence presented by paediatrician Professor Sir Roy Meadow, who testified that the chance of two children from an affluent family suffering SIDS was 1 in 73 million. He had arrived at this figure by squaring his estimate of a chance of 1 in 8500 of an individual SIDS death in similar circumstances. The Royal Statistical Society later issued a statement arguing that there was no statistical basis for Meadow's claim, and expressed concern at the “misuse of statistics in the courts”.
Lucia de Berk was sentenced to life imprisonment for four murders and three attempted murders of patients under her care. In 2004, after an appeal, she was convicted of seven murders and three attempted murders. Her conviction was controversial in the media and among scientists, and it was questioned by the investigative reporter Peter R. de Vries. In October 2008, the case was reopened by the Dutch Supreme Court, as new facts had been uncovered that undermined the previous verdicts. De Berk was freed, and her case retried; she was exonerated in April 2010.
Nurses Susan Nelles and Phyllis Trayner came under suspicion during the Toronto hospital baby deaths that occurred in the Cardiac Ward of the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto, Ontario, Canada between July 1980 and March 1981. Much was made, as in the Letby case, of the fact that they were both on duty during almost every suspicious incident related to the case. But they were ultimately exonerated. In January 1984, the lawyer for the Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario, Frances Kitely, spoke of the negative impact the Grange Inquiry had on nurses, calling them “sacrificial lambs” in an unresolved witchhunt.
Yet I have, unsurprisingly I might add, encountered so many people who are certain that Letby definitely did it, that there's no way the court system could possibly have made a mistake, and they say this without any explicit evidence linking Letby to any of the deaths. There is literally not one piece of concrete evidence.
There was an 18-month medical review that revealed nothing. Contrary to what has been suggested and reported, most of Letby's collegaues were not suspicious of her and some defended her on Facebook during the trial. No-one has ever seen Letby do anything remotely untoward, whereas if there were suspicions then she should have been, at the very least, watched like a hawk. No-one has explained specifically how, where, or when she accessed insulin, let alone seen her administer it. She didn't exhibit the patterns of behaviour associated with a killer, and she doesn't fit the profile of a serial killer, even according to a major criminologist who accepts the verdict...I could go on.
Other Problems
This crime has been pinned on Letby for two reasons: (i) she was there, although others were there as well, (ii) she 'confessed' to the murders. There is literally no other evidence to specifically indicate that Letby killed. It is not inconceivable that she did murder babies deliberately, but no-one has any evidence to demonstrate this, merely supposition.
There are numerous other things to point out. Many have questioned the credibility of 'expert' witnesses. Many have questioned the quality and validity of the medical evidence submitted. The legitimacy of statistical assertions made in court have been questioned, as well as the assumptions that underpin these assertions.
One point that I haven't heard raised is that there was a six-month period in which nothing suspicious happened at all. By this time, according to the prosecution, Letby had already murdered and attempted to murder several babies. But then she stopped for half a year, despite the fact that the opportunity was still there, and she wasn't even under suspicion. This is not consistent with previous incidences of serial killers, whose behaviour typically spirals out of control once they begin killing.
The Role of the Police
Finally, the role of the police has to be questioned. Although one doctor, Dr. Stephen Brearey, was wary of Letby, until the Cheshire constabulary became involved there was nothing to suggest that Letby would have been fingered for anything. But what do the police do – they investigate crimes and try to associate them with a criminal(s).
I think by now every right-thinking or remotely critical person is extremely sceptical about the quality of policing in the UK, the ability of the police to dispassionately and objectively investigate criminal cases, and the ethical constitution of the institution as a whole. While I have no doubt that there are good people who work for the police, I have serious misgivings about the modus operandi of the organisation.
My experience is that, typically, as an organisation, the police want to find someone to blame for something. The institution views its job as solving crimes, identifying a perpetrator in all cases. The accused can then, hopefully, be convicted, then the police can say: “look, we did our job, someone was locked up, case closed”, and the victims of the crime receive closure.
That may seem a harsh assessment, but I don't think it is. I say that because of the sheer number of major crimes that have had their verdicts overturned (one can only imagine how many people have been wrongly imprisoned, with no hope of having their cases reopened), as well as anecdotal evidence that I have encountered. Of course, such overturning of verdicts also casts serious doubt on court proceedings, but once a case is passed to prosecutors, their job is to prosecute to the best of their ability, just as defence lawyers defend guilty people in court by any means possible. It is the police that usually first identify someone, and it seems to me that this is their driving motivation; to find someone culpable.
This certainly appears to be so with Letby. The entire case centres around the fact that she was present for the 'suspicious' cases, and that it was 'statistically unlikely' that there could be any other explanation than she killed them all. Elsewhere, people have pointed out that this is nonsense, and, as I've mentioned, there have been other very similar cases in which statistical assertions made in court have ultimately been shown to have no merit whatsoever. The defence haven't done a particularly great job, in my opinion, but they are correct to assert that this has been a crime of coincidence. There is no hard evidence demonstrating that Letby committed these crimes. None.
As mentioned previously, in the unsurprisingly uncritical BBC Panorama documentary, it was stated that there was “no smoking gun”, but, in fact, there is no gun at all. There is merely the supposition that Letby must have killed babies because she was present, it's supposedly statistically likely, and she wrote a note when under massive psychological pressure that doesn't even say what it is purported to state.
Summary
It's obviously not possible in one Reddit post to cover all of the problems with this case, or even the previous precedent in which similar cases have been overturned or rejected with extremely similar levels of evidence having been submitted. There are several exhaustive examples of critical analysis of the Letby conviction already online, and I have tried to link to these where possible. I don't want to get into assessing medical evidence, as others have already done this extensively and admirably.
In my view, there are serious problems with this conviction, not to mention the fact that numerous parents have been told that their children were murdered, when this may not be the case. It is also highly worrying that this verdict can presumably be used as a precedent for future cases. This might not be the last time that we hear of something of this nature; that should be concerning for anyone who has an interest in actual justice.
Sadly, it seems that most people do not care about this; they just want someone fed to the wolves, so that they can discharge their own righteous indignation.

[YouCanCallMeAl]

It's doubtful that she's received anything approaching a fair trial, and this could ultimately be one of the biggest miscarriages of justice in known human history.

You seem to think there is a real person, victims, court, etc. Whereas I am (very briefly) looking at this as a media event. It has lots of media event elements to it - the name, the numbers, the photos, the reference to other media operations...

What is it that makes you think this is something that happened? Are you open to the idea that this is all just a story with some potential psychological benefit, eg a way to manage the masses?

Elsewhere:
viewtopic.php?p=10493#p10493

you seem to put forward an auto-hoax message, which I agree with, so I'm even more curious now as to why you accept this story, but want to dismiss it on bad science. Fwiw, the science to dismiss it is also bad to me, using viruses etc to do so.

[Samson79]

Im open to the idea it is all fake, including all the profiles here, this forum, even the idea everything must be fake.....seems fake, so Im open to the idea, yes.

However, your quoting me as saying something.... I didnt, I linked to someone commenting on the idea of a post it note somehow being evidence of a confession. I posted the link above it to where it was written which shows who wrote it and whos opinions it shows, I did not write that, you assumed I did.

Im also open to the idea this didn't happen, sure, everything posted in this forum could be fake, the content could be theatre, the users could be AI generated (they are all over the internet) but you have only seeded the idea so far, evidenced by your opinion it likely is fake because:

"it has lots of media event elements to it - the name, the numbers, the photos, the reference to other media operations"

So using your same logic, most of this forum's content is based on interpretations of names, numbers, photos all referenced to other media operations......so some of which have yet to be evidenced as having happened but by simply using group-think some of these events are imho still based in opinion and reasoned hunches, or not given the same scrutiny in any given amount.

You can have opinion, sure, we all can, but unless I "know" otherwise I remain in the belief "everything" can then be faked, with opinions only to seperate what each individual believes is or isnt.

Neither of us know Lucy, but then I only know a limited ammount of people myself, which using the same logic means anyone else is fake.

Neither of us attended court, we might travel past our local court and realise it is real and has been there for years in the same place as it always has, but Ive not seen the court in another town or city, but to propose the court in another town or city doesnt exist or is fake is delusional to someone who attended, documented their attendance and that being only disseminated via media in your opinion would make it fake, especially if your focusing on something else....

Your comment about the bird box is pure nonsense.
You expressed what it could mean or likely means to you but offered no evidence beyond opinion, but you believe it is there because of the meaning you have attached to it, that was it.

See how easy it is.



Are you open to the idea that projecting everything as fake because of numbers or photos or being linked to media can damage peoples perceptions of reality by making it seem something that is real isn't but groups of people can agree they are and produce content past that point to discredit very real events, effectively making it harder for outsiders to gain truth of the matter?