Serious,very serious. If exculpatory evidence has been presented but withheld, those who suppressed it would be guilty of a very serious crime in any civilized country. Not too many years ago, the adjective "civilized" would have been considered redundant, unnecessary when referring to the specific country within which this crime may have been committed.
Don't know what they were expecting - the report was bound to come out there are a few in the NHS who have moral compass. I'm not the sensitive kind but reading Scott's email made me feel physically sick - are these people in the real world, and their precious NHS/career matters above an innocent person's life and career? I have never trusted the NHS after Covid and this just tops the lot!
Be interesting who knew of the report and who was responsible for non-disclosure. Need a civil case for damages - sequestration of a part of their salary and pension on a monthly basis - LL is going to need it.
"speaks volumes to the biases and sheer hubris of those tasked with the investigation" - distinguished (after a fashion) doctors invite H.M. Constabulary to investigate the deaths of babies in their unit, and they have a suspect. Done deal, all the detectives have to do is build their case, and that they duly did.
The idea that we have a an even handed criminal justice system in this country is laughable. The idea that, having taken the Hippocratic Oath, our doctors are ethical and moral creatures (who wouldn't fit up a suitable individual) is laughable. We have all experienced the depths that ordinary human beings can fall to, do not fool yourselves into believing that such depths of behaviour are restricted to ordinary human beings. Extraordinary(?) human beings like doctors, police officers, lawyers, judges, are as foul in their ways as any ordinary human being.
A spokesman for the Countess of Chester Hospital NHS Foundation Trust said “Due to the ongoing police investigations and the pending public inquiry, it would not be appropriate to answer or provide advice on the questions asked at this time.”
I wonder what further tangled web is being woven. When people lie to protect themselves I can forgive them - unless that lie is targeting another person, then I damn them and want that 'full force of the law' to crush them.
They also declined to respond to Mark Mayes recent FOIA request re infection protocol at the time - it seems they were trying to cover up or at least not disclose the fact that this "treat all babies as if they are infected" protocol was actually in force. The version I was shown had a last edited date of Feb 2016... meaning it had been updated just after three of the neonate deaths (in January 2016) that Lucy wasn't accused of or prosecuted for.
I thought the CoCH NICU ward was demolished and a new one build ? How can they now look into things ? Or did the Chester PD store the debris somewhere (safely) ?
It turns out that what they did was to strip out the one Lucy worked in, tear down some walls and then rebuild it so that each neonate could be isolated in it's own little curtained off area with an incubator and recliner chair. The new building is scheduled to be opened in the middle of 2025, at which point most of the existing building will be raised to rubble.
I think the answer to your subtitle question is 'now'. If the law even half-worked she would be released immediately. And all those specialists who testified against her have some serious questions to answer. If the other half of the law worked then they would be the ones facing charges of some sort.
I'm also wondering whether her 'defence' team were aware of any of this? If not, then surely this can be categorised as 'new evidence' thus justifying an appeal (or at least preventing grounds for refusal). I do also wonder whether the defence was aware of the babies that didn't die or did but weren't on the infamous list, and if so, why they didn't mention them to destroy that bogus statistical evidence. That question has always bugged me.
And I do think a bit of praise is in order here Scott because you did seriously well keeping that bombshell to yourself, but still mischievously embedding it into your articles.
I feel you are correct... but sadly the wheels of justice are want to turn incredibly slowly. I think even if you had video of someone else doing the incredible acts Lucy was accused of, it would still take many years before the judicial system came back around to correcting her fate.
Here's another question that I have. When it comes to exculpatory evidence, the experts for the prosecution keep repeating: we know better, we have seen all the material, we have seen the case notes - and you have not. It was said by Dr. Dewi Evans, Dr. Bohin, Chester PD.
1. I thought that the prosecution had to share all relevant materials with the defense ? If so, how can there be "more" ?
2. We are talking about one of the most serious trials in UK history and a young woman is in prison for life. Why is not every piece of information given to a group of neonatal, pediatric, OB/GYN, statistical, microbiological, pathological, etc. etc. experts with the question to get to the root of the issue - using all available material.
Does this mean that every time a nurse washed her hands with soap and then rinsed them, she contaminated her hands (again) ? Does anyone know how this works ?
Also: "much of the remainder of the plumber's evidence was about the wards next to and above the neonatal unit which the prosecutor got him to say could not have affected the neonatal unit." A plumber is not a microbiologist, neither is the prosecutor obviously. Since when do pathogens respect boundaries ?!
Wouldn’t the nurses on the unit have been told there was a bacterial outbreak? And wouldn’t LL have told her KC? And wouldn’t he have investigated it and brought it up at the trial?
It gives a bitter taste in the mouth that apparently a number of people knew about this report but decided not to divulge it. Why didn't they give this information to the plumber ? It was in his/her line of business/expertise. It would have made his testimony so much stronger (I think).
I have just watched the Channel 5 programme. So a female doctor gave evidence at the appeal of a woman convicted of killing her baby by the "shaken baby syndrome", and the appeal was successful, the woman set free. This female doctor was then persecuted by the medical establishment.............. It truly is a them and us situation, them being the evil bastards who couldn't give a monkeys about justice, and us who could give a monkeys about justice - I was going to say "fuck" and not "monkeys", but thought better of it. Oops I have just said "fuck".
Channel 5 only appear to allow access to their online service if you are in the UK. It would be a shame if anyone suggested this, and I don't recommend it, but I am sure someone will... but it will very likely appear on youtube, rumble or a torrent server near you over the next day or two
Serious,very serious. If exculpatory evidence has been presented but withheld, those who suppressed it would be guilty of a very serious crime in any civilized country. Not too many years ago, the adjective "civilized" would have been considered redundant, unnecessary when referring to the specific country within which this crime may have been committed.
Don't know what they were expecting - the report was bound to come out there are a few in the NHS who have moral compass. I'm not the sensitive kind but reading Scott's email made me feel physically sick - are these people in the real world, and their precious NHS/career matters above an innocent person's life and career? I have never trusted the NHS after Covid and this just tops the lot!
Be interesting who knew of the report and who was responsible for non-disclosure. Need a civil case for damages - sequestration of a part of their salary and pension on a monthly basis - LL is going to need it.
"speaks volumes to the biases and sheer hubris of those tasked with the investigation" - distinguished (after a fashion) doctors invite H.M. Constabulary to investigate the deaths of babies in their unit, and they have a suspect. Done deal, all the detectives have to do is build their case, and that they duly did.
The idea that we have a an even handed criminal justice system in this country is laughable. The idea that, having taken the Hippocratic Oath, our doctors are ethical and moral creatures (who wouldn't fit up a suitable individual) is laughable. We have all experienced the depths that ordinary human beings can fall to, do not fool yourselves into believing that such depths of behaviour are restricted to ordinary human beings. Extraordinary(?) human beings like doctors, police officers, lawyers, judges, are as foul in their ways as any ordinary human being.
A spokesman for the Countess of Chester Hospital NHS Foundation Trust said “Due to the ongoing police investigations and the pending public inquiry, it would not be appropriate to answer or provide advice on the questions asked at this time.”
I wonder what further tangled web is being woven. When people lie to protect themselves I can forgive them - unless that lie is targeting another person, then I damn them and want that 'full force of the law' to crush them.
They also declined to respond to Mark Mayes recent FOIA request re infection protocol at the time - it seems they were trying to cover up or at least not disclose the fact that this "treat all babies as if they are infected" protocol was actually in force. The version I was shown had a last edited date of Feb 2016... meaning it had been updated just after three of the neonate deaths (in January 2016) that Lucy wasn't accused of or prosecuted for.
I thought the CoCH NICU ward was demolished and a new one build ? How can they now look into things ? Or did the Chester PD store the debris somewhere (safely) ?
It turns out that what they did was to strip out the one Lucy worked in, tear down some walls and then rebuild it so that each neonate could be isolated in it's own little curtained off area with an incubator and recliner chair. The new building is scheduled to be opened in the middle of 2025, at which point most of the existing building will be raised to rubble.
I think the answer to your subtitle question is 'now'. If the law even half-worked she would be released immediately. And all those specialists who testified against her have some serious questions to answer. If the other half of the law worked then they would be the ones facing charges of some sort.
I'm also wondering whether her 'defence' team were aware of any of this? If not, then surely this can be categorised as 'new evidence' thus justifying an appeal (or at least preventing grounds for refusal). I do also wonder whether the defence was aware of the babies that didn't die or did but weren't on the infamous list, and if so, why they didn't mention them to destroy that bogus statistical evidence. That question has always bugged me.
And I do think a bit of praise is in order here Scott because you did seriously well keeping that bombshell to yourself, but still mischievously embedding it into your articles.
I feel you are correct... but sadly the wheels of justice are want to turn incredibly slowly. I think even if you had video of someone else doing the incredible acts Lucy was accused of, it would still take many years before the judicial system came back around to correcting her fate.
Thank you for your kind praise.
Sadly possible. By way of recent example: https://barristerblogger.com/2019/04/07/should-a-convicted-man-stay-in-prison-if-his-accuser-says-he-is-innocent/
Documentary tonight..
LUCY LETBY: DID SHE REALLY DO IT? Unpacking and questioning the evidence used to convict neonatal nurse Lucy Letby:
Channel 5 at 9pm tonight (5th August)
The Letby scapegoating is disgusting. Very Kafkaesque
Here's another question that I have. When it comes to exculpatory evidence, the experts for the prosecution keep repeating: we know better, we have seen all the material, we have seen the case notes - and you have not. It was said by Dr. Dewi Evans, Dr. Bohin, Chester PD.
1. I thought that the prosecution had to share all relevant materials with the defense ? If so, how can there be "more" ?
2. We are talking about one of the most serious trials in UK history and a young woman is in prison for life. Why is not every piece of information given to a group of neonatal, pediatric, OB/GYN, statistical, microbiological, pathological, etc. etc. experts with the question to get to the root of the issue - using all available material.
Does this mean that every time a nurse washed her hands with soap and then rinsed them, she contaminated her hands (again) ? Does anyone know how this works ?
Also: "much of the remainder of the plumber's evidence was about the wards next to and above the neonatal unit which the prosecutor got him to say could not have affected the neonatal unit." A plumber is not a microbiologist, neither is the prosecutor obviously. Since when do pathogens respect boundaries ?!
Wouldn’t the nurses on the unit have been told there was a bacterial outbreak? And wouldn’t LL have told her KC? And wouldn’t he have investigated it and brought it up at the trial?
It gives a bitter taste in the mouth that apparently a number of people knew about this report but decided not to divulge it. Why didn't they give this information to the plumber ? It was in his/her line of business/expertise. It would have made his testimony so much stronger (I think).
I have just watched the Channel 5 programme. So a female doctor gave evidence at the appeal of a woman convicted of killing her baby by the "shaken baby syndrome", and the appeal was successful, the woman set free. This female doctor was then persecuted by the medical establishment.............. It truly is a them and us situation, them being the evil bastards who couldn't give a monkeys about justice, and us who could give a monkeys about justice - I was going to say "fuck" and not "monkeys", but thought better of it. Oops I have just said "fuck".
Is the documentary from which you excluded available for US viewing?
(Apologies if I overlooked it)
Channel 5 only appear to allow access to their online service if you are in the UK. It would be a shame if anyone suggested this, and I don't recommend it, but I am sure someone will... but it will very likely appear on youtube, rumble or a torrent server near you over the next day or two
Now on youtube, (h/t Prof. Gill) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nekxq9HT5SY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nekxq9HT5SY should work anywhere other than UK who should 'stream' on my5.com