the scientific literature is showing that the more preterm, the higher the death rate, AFTER vaccination. The vax schedule has not been studied for preterm, baby weight and mother's milk-feeding (reduces death rate): they are applying it without any consideration to those important variables.
Nurses know this by experience but neonatal docs are like blindfolded!!!
The more developed the baby, the less death rate after vaccination. Based on the data, many pediatricians are suggesting to wait until the immune system is developed (3 years old).
Please read and watch all of this! Your life depends on it, because there's a plan to murder 95% of the global population by 2050… written on the masonic Georgia guide-stones: “Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 … ”
- At least since the 90s, vaccines are weaponized to reduce the population, for example:
1. Adding hCG to infertilize women: lab detected in 30 countries
2. Overpassing the FDA 10 ng limit to human DNA “contamination” by 2000%, thus causing neuro-damage (autism, asperger, tics, dyslexia in 29% of kids, etc.) and childhood cancer epidemic (n.b. leukemia, non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas)
- It’s the masons, who create counterfeited currencies (trillions of dollars and EUROS) and bought the listed corporations, media, healthcare, universities, parties and political careers:
Pllllleeeeease, on my knees, don’t believe me, just do your own homework by searching the following in yandex.com, mojeek.com (includes crawl date filter and substack search), gigablast.com, startpage.com, duckduckgo.com (not Google, Bing, Yahoo censors). The key terms to test them? Child Satanic Ritual Abuse, Child Satanic Ritual Murder.
If you are a mason or know a mason, ask him to ask his 33° master to put in writing and sign it, who is "the great architect" and that he is not Lucifer. If he refuses, then he’ll know who he is really serving, Satan: tell him to get out of masonry NOW. Sooner or later he’ll be required to trample on a cross to get to a higher degree.
President John Quincy Adams: “Masonry ought forever to be abolished. It is wrong - essentially wrong - a seed of evil, which can never produce any good.”
Confessions of a former mason (Serge Abad-Gallardo):
The best way to have a real dialogue about vaccines being weaponized to handicap, infertilize and murder the “over-population” is to start with vaccine contamination: nobody could be in favor of contaminated pharmaceuticals.
1. Carcinogen SV40 in Oral Polio Vaccine: they knew it since the 60s but kept distributing it even until 2016 !!!
2. hCG in vaccines to infertilize women detected since the 90s: still going on
3. Thimerosal, aluminum, Mono-sodium Glutamate (MSG) and other NEUROTOXINS
4. Heavy metals
5. Human DNA 2000% in excess of FDA 10 ng limit (main driver towards brain damage like autism/asperger/ticks, leukemia and non-Hodgkin cancer), probably related to point 7 below.
6. Graphene oxide in Flu and COVID shots but now with anything injectable (even dentist anesthesia, hospital IV, etc.).
7. Carcinogenic SV40 genomic sequences and double-stranded DNA in mRNA COVID shots: the hacked DNA in the cell doesn’t stop producing the poison when the cell dies, but its descent continue the poisoning until the haccinated casualty dies.
8. Bluetooth nano-routers injected with COVID vaccines and inserted with swabs (which explains why they rejected the cheaper non-invasive saliva test).
Proof of criminal intent:
Points 7 and 8
Censoring and blocking 30+ COVID cures
Labeling the most lethal batches with a lethal code (howbad.info)
Blocking the real knowledge of effectiveness v. "adverse event" rate
That proves:
A. There's zero Government control
B. There's zero Manufacturer liability
C. There's zero Media coverage
D. All that, during decades and still going on, not only with vaccines but also with medicines, food&beverage additives, etc. Everything, even institutions have been weaponized!
E. There's zero political action to stop that (except RFK2 in the USA)
A school buddy told me "I know you make sense but if I recognize it's true, I won't be able to enjoy life anymore".
We would need to see the complete medical record for these babies to see what medications, including vaccines, they might also have been receiving. I know that some paediatric doctors like to encourage parents to allow them to jab babies as they are discharged (especially after a prolonged stay) but I am not certain this is a uniform thing done by everyone, or rather just something that a few of the more hard core zealots like to push
Basic math is not hard. I did realise that your input data was not certain and the math changes the format in which that uncertainly appears. Indeed this kind of output is often presented with great certainly, I’ve seen it in so many of those ‘gold standard’ RCTs. But the message for me was that the same uncertainty with numbers applies to the prosecution case. With small numbers of cases there will be large fluctuations in deaths over a period due to many factors and only contemporaneous investigation and autopsy can decide causes. Thank you for all this fascinating, and distressing, analysis.
It wasn't about "adjusting the model to get what I want" in these last two articles for me. the issue of numbers is a contentious one, it seems, and unfortunately not all the sources are 'straight forward' - such that I had avoided going down this rabbit hole until now.
In the first run I used the value in a "number of births" field in one CoCH report that turned out, when I read the detail of the report, to have actually been the total for "number of beds" for the hospital - as best as I can tell the box in the table had been mislabelled by the report writer. They got me there.
In this second run I used the Wayback machine to find CoCH reports that for some reason they have deleted from their website... I wonder why? I also used ONS datasets from 2015 and 2016. The CoCH report I dug up gave me the 2157 number you see in the table. I then sought to verify that number by looking at births over the last few years. For 2021 they reported 2,295 births; for 2018 they reported 2,649. In an interesting anomaly, while covering up for the deaths in 2015/16 CoCH management were telling the CQC in mid-2016 (report dated 29/6/2016) that they were safe and met adequate staffing levels and somehow reported a little over 75% (1,841) of their average annual births over the last five years (2,367) in just the four months from June to October 2015 - implying that for 2015 they were going to deliver over 5,500 babies, a thoroughly incredible number for a small hospital. CoCH numbers are a mess that simply cannot be believed.
However, had I used the RCPCH report then I would have ended up with two further numbers. In that report they say that CoCH delivered "just over 3000 babies". Then they go on to give you a number as a percentage of the total births that, when calculated, comes out to 3.123 births - which I would consider to be a little more than "just over 3000". Had I used the larger of these two numbers then the number of 'expected deaths' would have been 13.5 which, when adjusted for the qualifiers would result in an outcome actually a little better than break even (so, a situation where there were fewer deaths than expected). If I used the June 2016 CQC report then the number of expected deaths would almost treble, and we are back to heroic nurses saving far more than the national average.
Thanks again for your great analysis which continues to be as fascinating as it is distressing. I think the considerations in this comment might be worthy of a post of their own rather than one hidden down in your comments section - especially re the CoCH record-keeping shambles & the importance of the denominators.
As with everything, lies damned lies and statistics comes into play, there is also another equally, if not even more sinister component to toxify the mix, pecuniary gain.
Everything has a cost or a monetary gain, hospitals are no different to any other “business” although the hippocratic oath should ensure they are very different.
As Timothy opines in the Bible.. “Fo r the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs”.
Financial consideration is responsible for many pitfalls in life, consultants offering mid-wifes incentives (some would say a bribe) for their units, if they set aside or bypass normal and proper treatment protocol’s.
Which brings us to the nub of the matter, LL is either guilty as convicted or she isn’t, I honestly don’t know...I do know that the most damning opinion in the whole case, that of Dr AM went more or less unchallenged, not even producing Dr Korios to defend his PM results is one glaring omission, amongst apparently several by the defence.
Pants down ferguson put a huge dent in any trust the public may have had in modelling/stats, joe public in truth prefers tangible evidence to mull over, as do I.
Finally the PM’s (imho) were the catalyst that led to LL’s convictions, weren’t those PM’s tangible enough for the defence to lead as their defence strategy ...where is the defence, where is the appeal or even mention of any possible appeal, it becomes murkier by the day.
It is important in each case to determine the true age of the neonate. How was that determined? By date of last period? 1st pregnancy test? Scan withing 12 weeks supposedly the most accurate), most of which are no more than educated quesses. 27 weeks could easily be 26 weeks ( the babies don't come labeled). If the mother of a child ovuated 2 weeks earlier the date of last period add 2 weeks to the true age, if on the other hand the mother ovulated one week earlier this leaves 7 days + 2 ( potential days in which to get pregnant) or 9 days in total making the true age of of a "27 week" neonate 25+5. There is no scientific way to date a neonate. Ok you might say, but if they are all dated the same way the math should still work. But they are not all dated the same way, I suspect that most of them were dated by scan ( early/late?) https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/pregnancy/963293-How-accurate-are-dating-scans. If it does not matter where do these arbitrary week categories come from and why do they matter. This isn't science, its voodoo
Hmmm, now i'm more confused. So, is it the case that during the 2015-2016 period there was both a spike in deaths, and the spike was more than the expected average?
I still think it is a break even - that there were no excess deaths. I think this because:
(a) I dont trust CoCH to have given us 'all the deaths' in their FOI
(b) While I had used the Epicure Study death rate and thus overstated the expected deaths, I had also omitted the term and post-term deaths from the first calculation. The term and post-term deaths are not stillbirths because they are born alive, and they die at some point after birth but before discharge. they were not included on the CoCH FOI but do happen at a fairly consistent but low rate year-on-year.
So, while I had to present the possibility that there might have been a couple of excess deaths, I think those excess deaths would actually be the expected deaths in the term and post term babies that were not accounted for in the original numbers. Hence why I opine "or none" towards the end of the post above.
At 54.40mins Mortiz (presenter) says '13 deaths in the last year of LL on the unit , LL present for all.' Some of which could be considered as excess I would have thought, but will bow to greater expertise.
At 50.20 LL 'always willing to do extra shifts' -( what I would call 'the works cat' ie always there.) This could be part of an explanation of why she was always present.
Hang on... if there were "13 deaths in the last year of LL on the unit" - that would mean there were 13 deaths in the first half of 2016.
The FOI from CoCH (see Part 10 of my Lucy Letby stream) contains only 8 deaths in 2016 - does that not mean the Panorama show you quote were lying? How were they a "well-balanced" program if the numbers they cite are biased in order to create sensationalised quotes and don't match the evidence provided by the CoCH?
Who is more likely to by lying or exaggerating? CoCH or Panorama from the BBC?
And if Lucy "was there for " 13 deaths... given that the prosecution used even the most tenuous of links to try and impugn Lucy Letby... why did they only prosecute her for 7 and not at least 13?
No... really it doesnt. Even then we still don't see Lucy prosecuted for 13 babies, nor do we see her being linked to the deaths of 13 babies.
If they could have linked her with 13 babies they would have. They would not have left those deaths unanswered.
Talking about "best evidence" is pretty raw considering there was no definitive evidence at all... They prosecuted so many charges that it didn't matter - the scattergun was always going to get some. So I am sorry but I must respectfully disagree. If they could link her to 13 babies, they would have. The claims on the show you are referencing are fishy to say the least
The more I read, the more it looks to me like a complete witch hunt. Police smelling blood from day 1 and happy to do anything to get a conviction, rather than find a boring old reasonable and valid explanation. So many meaningless bits of information appear to be twisted to appear sinister.
But - the thing that strikes me the most is the lack of facts and the lack of information. I keep looking for the smoking gun but it's just not there... All I have seen is inuendo and guess work. The only thing that comes close to fact is that LL was on shift at the time - easily explained by the fact that she was working extra shifts and by all accounts was dedicated and hard working. Had the shifts been slightly different it could have been any one of those nurses in the crosshairs.
I watched the Operation Hummingbird youtube video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T33A90OCHQk). The police were tripping over themselves to line up evidence, even to the point where they transported 'witnesses' back and forth for the entire 10 months to make sure they appeared in court. 90 people employed for 5 years to get a conviction - nobody would have a chance fighting against the prosecution with an open cheque book.
It absolutely stinks and I am firmly convinced there wasn't even a crime committed.
the scientific literature is showing that the more preterm, the higher the death rate, AFTER vaccination. The vax schedule has not been studied for preterm, baby weight and mother's milk-feeding (reduces death rate): they are applying it without any consideration to those important variables.
Nurses know this by experience but neonatal docs are like blindfolded!!!
The more developed the baby, the less death rate after vaccination. Based on the data, many pediatricians are suggesting to wait until the immune system is developed (3 years old).
Please read and watch all of this! Your life depends on it, because there's a plan to murder 95% of the global population by 2050… written on the masonic Georgia guide-stones: “Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 … ”
- At least since the 90s, vaccines are weaponized to reduce the population, for example:
1. Adding hCG to infertilize women: lab detected in 30 countries
2. Overpassing the FDA 10 ng limit to human DNA “contamination” by 2000%, thus causing neuro-damage (autism, asperger, tics, dyslexia in 29% of kids, etc.) and childhood cancer epidemic (n.b. leukemia, non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas)
Check soundchoice.org or videos at bottom after this page:
https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/wake-up-videos
- COVID was designed as a primer for even more lethal COVID haccines:
https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/the-real-covid-timeline
https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/not-vaccine-not-gene-therapy-just
https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/what-do-bioweapons-have-to-do-with
- Wake up videos:
https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/wake-up-videos
https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/2050-youll-go-nowhere-and-youll-be
- It's genocide for depopulation:
https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/depop-vaccines-no-myth
- It’s the masons, who create counterfeited currencies (trillions of dollars and EUROS) and bought the listed corporations, media, healthcare, universities, parties and political careers:
https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/david-rockefeller-illuminati
Confessions of ex-illuminati Ronald Bernard (all lodges obey the same master, Satan):
http://youtu.be/JAhnCdXqPww
Now, are you really ready for this?:
The full PLAN exposed:
https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/the-plan-revealed
16 laws we need to exit Prison Planet
https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/laws-to-exit-planet-prison
Pllllleeeeease, on my knees, don’t believe me, just do your own homework by searching the following in yandex.com, mojeek.com (includes crawl date filter and substack search), gigablast.com, startpage.com, duckduckgo.com (not Google, Bing, Yahoo censors). The key terms to test them? Child Satanic Ritual Abuse, Child Satanic Ritual Murder.
https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/rpn5aj/i_have_found_the_perfect_uncensored_search_engines/
https://www.deepwebsiteslinks.com/uncensored-search-engines-for-anonymous-searching/
If you are a mason or know a mason, ask him to ask his 33° master to put in writing and sign it, who is "the great architect" and that he is not Lucifer. If he refuses, then he’ll know who he is really serving, Satan: tell him to get out of masonry NOW. Sooner or later he’ll be required to trample on a cross to get to a higher degree.
President John Quincy Adams: “Masonry ought forever to be abolished. It is wrong - essentially wrong - a seed of evil, which can never produce any good.”
Confessions of a former mason (Serge Abad-Gallardo):
https://www.ncregister.com/interview/confessions-of-a-former-freemason-officer-converted-to-catholicism
Confessions of ex-illuminati Ronald Bernard (all lodges obey the same master, Satan):
http://youtu.be/JAhnCdXqPww
Confession of 33rd degree master mason - Masons worship deities/demons
https://rumble.com/v294ksc-words-from-33rd-degree-master-mason-rare-video-masons-worship-all-sorts-of-.html
Masonry's Satanic Connection
https://odysee.com/@HiddenTruths:c/Masonry's-Satanic-Connection:4
Masonry's Satanic Doctrine | From Their Own Books
https://rumble.com/v2wg24a-masonrys-satanic-doctrine-from-their-own-books.html
Do Freemasons Worship Lucifer？ Evidence They Don't Want You To See
https://odysee.com/@John_4-14:a/Do-Freemasons-Worship-Lucifer%EF%BC%9F-Evidence-They-Don't-Want-You-To-See-%EF%BD%9C-Hidden-Agendas---Walter-Veith:0
Satanic Ritual Abuse and Secret Societies [1995] [VHS]
https://odysee.com/@thisworldworks:1/satanic-ritual-abuse-and-secret-societies-1995:3
Satanic Pedophilia Torture and Blood - Dark Satanic Secrets Revealed
https://odysee.com/@Gmail.com:52/822821884_Satanic-Pedophilia-Torture-and-Blood---Dark-Satanic-Secrets-Revealed:4
UNITED NATIONS LUCIFER AND THE LUCIFER TRUST
https://odysee.com/@dynosarus:c/UNITED-NATIONS-LUCIFER-AND-THE-LUCIFER-TRUST:4
The best way to have a real dialogue about vaccines being weaponized to handicap, infertilize and murder the “over-population” is to start with vaccine contamination: nobody could be in favor of contaminated pharmaceuticals.
1. Carcinogen SV40 in Oral Polio Vaccine: they knew it since the 60s but kept distributing it even until 2016 !!!
2. hCG in vaccines to infertilize women detected since the 90s: still going on
3. Thimerosal, aluminum, Mono-sodium Glutamate (MSG) and other NEUROTOXINS
4. Heavy metals
5. Human DNA 2000% in excess of FDA 10 ng limit (main driver towards brain damage like autism/asperger/ticks, leukemia and non-Hodgkin cancer), probably related to point 7 below.
6. Graphene oxide in Flu and COVID shots but now with anything injectable (even dentist anesthesia, hospital IV, etc.).
7. Carcinogenic SV40 genomic sequences and double-stranded DNA in mRNA COVID shots: the hacked DNA in the cell doesn’t stop producing the poison when the cell dies, but its descent continue the poisoning until the haccinated casualty dies.
8. Bluetooth nano-routers injected with COVID vaccines and inserted with swabs (which explains why they rejected the cheaper non-invasive saliva test).
Proof of criminal intent:
Points 7 and 8
Censoring and blocking 30+ COVID cures
Labeling the most lethal batches with a lethal code (howbad.info)
Blocking the real knowledge of effectiveness v. "adverse event" rate
That proves:
A. There's zero Government control
B. There's zero Manufacturer liability
C. There's zero Media coverage
D. All that, during decades and still going on, not only with vaccines but also with medicines, food&beverage additives, etc. Everything, even institutions have been weaponized!
E. There's zero political action to stop that (except RFK2 in the USA)
A school buddy told me "I know you make sense but if I recognize it's true, I won't be able to enjoy life anymore".
16 laws we need to exit Extermination Planet
https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/laws-to-exit-planet-prison
If we don’t succeed, they’ll succeed with their 6-sword lethal plan fully exposed here:
https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/the-plan-revealed
Change goes in hand with the number of awakened! Thank you for sharing this to save lives!
We would need to see the complete medical record for these babies to see what medications, including vaccines, they might also have been receiving. I know that some paediatric doctors like to encourage parents to allow them to jab babies as they are discharged (especially after a prolonged stay) but I am not certain this is a uniform thing done by everyone, or rather just something that a few of the more hard core zealots like to push
Speaking of Health&Tech:
Could you please get anybody to corroborate these readings?:
https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/sound-of-silence-challenge
Basic math is not hard. I did realise that your input data was not certain and the math changes the format in which that uncertainly appears. Indeed this kind of output is often presented with great certainly, I’ve seen it in so many of those ‘gold standard’ RCTs. But the message for me was that the same uncertainty with numbers applies to the prosecution case. With small numbers of cases there will be large fluctuations in deaths over a period due to many factors and only contemporaneous investigation and autopsy can decide causes. Thank you for all this fascinating, and distressing, analysis.
🤔
Certitude is not the test of certainty. We have been cocksure of many things that were not so.
Yes, it can come from using the wrong model: https://substack.com/@fallingray/note/c-39643038
or from simple propaganda aka the ferguson models...
Indeed, adjust the model to get the output data you want.
It wasn't about "adjusting the model to get what I want" in these last two articles for me. the issue of numbers is a contentious one, it seems, and unfortunately not all the sources are 'straight forward' - such that I had avoided going down this rabbit hole until now.
In the first run I used the value in a "number of births" field in one CoCH report that turned out, when I read the detail of the report, to have actually been the total for "number of beds" for the hospital - as best as I can tell the box in the table had been mislabelled by the report writer. They got me there.
In this second run I used the Wayback machine to find CoCH reports that for some reason they have deleted from their website... I wonder why? I also used ONS datasets from 2015 and 2016. The CoCH report I dug up gave me the 2157 number you see in the table. I then sought to verify that number by looking at births over the last few years. For 2021 they reported 2,295 births; for 2018 they reported 2,649. In an interesting anomaly, while covering up for the deaths in 2015/16 CoCH management were telling the CQC in mid-2016 (report dated 29/6/2016) that they were safe and met adequate staffing levels and somehow reported a little over 75% (1,841) of their average annual births over the last five years (2,367) in just the four months from June to October 2015 - implying that for 2015 they were going to deliver over 5,500 babies, a thoroughly incredible number for a small hospital. CoCH numbers are a mess that simply cannot be believed.
However, had I used the RCPCH report then I would have ended up with two further numbers. In that report they say that CoCH delivered "just over 3000 babies". Then they go on to give you a number as a percentage of the total births that, when calculated, comes out to 3.123 births - which I would consider to be a little more than "just over 3000". Had I used the larger of these two numbers then the number of 'expected deaths' would have been 13.5 which, when adjusted for the qualifiers would result in an outcome actually a little better than break even (so, a situation where there were fewer deaths than expected). If I used the June 2016 CQC report then the number of expected deaths would almost treble, and we are back to heroic nurses saving far more than the national average.
What would you do?
Thanks again for your great analysis which continues to be as fascinating as it is distressing. I think the considerations in this comment might be worthy of a post of their own rather than one hidden down in your comments section - especially re the CoCH record-keeping shambles & the importance of the denominators.
As with everything, lies damned lies and statistics comes into play, there is also another equally, if not even more sinister component to toxify the mix, pecuniary gain.
Everything has a cost or a monetary gain, hospitals are no different to any other “business” although the hippocratic oath should ensure they are very different.
As Timothy opines in the Bible.. “Fo r the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs”.
Financial consideration is responsible for many pitfalls in life, consultants offering mid-wifes incentives (some would say a bribe) for their units, if they set aside or bypass normal and proper treatment protocol’s.
Which brings us to the nub of the matter, LL is either guilty as convicted or she isn’t, I honestly don’t know...I do know that the most damning opinion in the whole case, that of Dr AM went more or less unchallenged, not even producing Dr Korios to defend his PM results is one glaring omission, amongst apparently several by the defence.
Pants down ferguson put a huge dent in any trust the public may have had in modelling/stats, joe public in truth prefers tangible evidence to mull over, as do I.
Finally the PM’s (imho) were the catalyst that led to LL’s convictions, weren’t those PM’s tangible enough for the defence to lead as their defence strategy ...where is the defence, where is the appeal or even mention of any possible appeal, it becomes murkier by the day.
It is important in each case to determine the true age of the neonate. How was that determined? By date of last period? 1st pregnancy test? Scan withing 12 weeks supposedly the most accurate), most of which are no more than educated quesses. 27 weeks could easily be 26 weeks ( the babies don't come labeled). If the mother of a child ovuated 2 weeks earlier the date of last period add 2 weeks to the true age, if on the other hand the mother ovulated one week earlier this leaves 7 days + 2 ( potential days in which to get pregnant) or 9 days in total making the true age of of a "27 week" neonate 25+5. There is no scientific way to date a neonate. Ok you might say, but if they are all dated the same way the math should still work. But they are not all dated the same way, I suspect that most of them were dated by scan ( early/late?) https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/pregnancy/963293-How-accurate-are-dating-scans. If it does not matter where do these arbitrary week categories come from and why do they matter. This isn't science, its voodoo
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-66711402
Hmmm, now i'm more confused. So, is it the case that during the 2015-2016 period there was both a spike in deaths, and the spike was more than the expected average?
I still think it is a break even - that there were no excess deaths. I think this because:
(a) I dont trust CoCH to have given us 'all the deaths' in their FOI
(b) While I had used the Epicure Study death rate and thus overstated the expected deaths, I had also omitted the term and post-term deaths from the first calculation. The term and post-term deaths are not stillbirths because they are born alive, and they die at some point after birth but before discharge. they were not included on the CoCH FOI but do happen at a fairly consistent but low rate year-on-year.
So, while I had to present the possibility that there might have been a couple of excess deaths, I think those excess deaths would actually be the expected deaths in the term and post term babies that were not accounted for in the original numbers. Hence why I opine "or none" towards the end of the post above.
Ref Mr Law above ' I still think it is a break even - that there were no excess deaths. I think this because: '
Just watched the Panorama prog on BBC iPlayer - a well balanced programme.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m001q7dl/panorama-lucy-letby-the-nurse-who-killed
At 54.40mins Mortiz (presenter) says '13 deaths in the last year of LL on the unit , LL present for all.' Some of which could be considered as excess I would have thought, but will bow to greater expertise.
At 50.20 LL 'always willing to do extra shifts' -( what I would call 'the works cat' ie always there.) This could be part of an explanation of why she was always present.
Hang on... if there were "13 deaths in the last year of LL on the unit" - that would mean there were 13 deaths in the first half of 2016.
The FOI from CoCH (see Part 10 of my Lucy Letby stream) contains only 8 deaths in 2016 - does that not mean the Panorama show you quote were lying? How were they a "well-balanced" program if the numbers they cite are biased in order to create sensationalised quotes and don't match the evidence provided by the CoCH?
Who is more likely to by lying or exaggerating? CoCH or Panorama from the BBC?
And if Lucy "was there for " 13 deaths... given that the prosecution used even the most tenuous of links to try and impugn Lucy Letby... why did they only prosecute her for 7 and not at least 13?
I think Panorama were having a lend of us
Depends on when you measure the last year on the Unit, mid 2015 -mid 2016 would be a year.
Why was she prosecuted for only 7 - use the best evidence to convict, every not guilty will weaken the case .
Well balanced - there was an objective theme that she did not have the characteristics of a serial killer - Criminologist strongly against conviction.
Time notes from the Panorama prog
8.00 Brearly (Consultant) three deaths 'pin it on something ' LL present at all three
9.50 Mortiz (presenter) what happens if she is found innocent after such a long investigation
13.00 Texts - cant stop crying - at variance with Police statement of no empathy
14.30 Management email - the fact that LL was present each time - unfortunate occurrence - different causes of death.
17.30 Mortiz - pretty sure this is not want a serious child killer looks like
20.10 Friend Most out of character , not in her nature to be accused of killing
21.30 Criminologist Prof David Wilson doesn't fit the profile of serial killer and gives detail - Prosecution opening 'is that it' Wilson's comment.
23.00 Consultant say LL standing watching baby desaturating - ( Was this microsleep ???? it was 3.50am poss 8 hrs into a night shift.)
26.30 triplet deaths in previous good health - Brearly we need to do something about this.
29.00 LL removed from Unit, suspicious deaths stopped.
30.00 Rava Consultant wished he hadn't toed the party line - (therefore all consultants acting as one hardly objective more group think)
31.10 No investigation despite Royal College finding
33.25 Management upheld a complaint by LL against drs
34.40 Police called in by hospital Brearly thinks if they hadn't insisted police wouldn't be called in.
36.30 Hummingbird started (police investigation)
37.00 One case convinced Police of a killer Twins - one dead one complex needs.
39.00 Brearly finds 'poisoning' Insulin in notes. LL on shift
40.00 Dr Simon Mitchell low c-peptide result - then insulin has been administered - Brearly no doubt LL was involved.
43.00 Staff table LL present at everyone of the 25 suspicious incidents
45.30 Police surprised at the extent of notes given that she would expect police to come and see her
46.30 Criminologist - notes are ramblings of someone under extreme psychological pressure
47.00 Moritz no motive only circumstantial evidence - Police taken 3 years to investigate
48.00 Police Superintendent no empathy - (BUT cried in texts to friends )
50.00 Moritz LL a bit mousey, a bit normal
50.20 LL always willing to do extra shifts
52.00 Brearly, other explanation? the journey we went on it the first year - included all those things until we got to LL
53.20 10 month trial, jury out for 5.5 weeks
54.40 Moritz 13 baby died in LL's last year of duty, on duty on every one of them.
No... really it doesnt. Even then we still don't see Lucy prosecuted for 13 babies, nor do we see her being linked to the deaths of 13 babies.
If they could have linked her with 13 babies they would have. They would not have left those deaths unanswered.
Talking about "best evidence" is pretty raw considering there was no definitive evidence at all... They prosecuted so many charges that it didn't matter - the scattergun was always going to get some. So I am sorry but I must respectfully disagree. If they could link her to 13 babies, they would have. The claims on the show you are referencing are fishy to say the least
Thanks for clarifying.
The more I read, the more it looks to me like a complete witch hunt. Police smelling blood from day 1 and happy to do anything to get a conviction, rather than find a boring old reasonable and valid explanation. So many meaningless bits of information appear to be twisted to appear sinister.
But - the thing that strikes me the most is the lack of facts and the lack of information. I keep looking for the smoking gun but it's just not there... All I have seen is inuendo and guess work. The only thing that comes close to fact is that LL was on shift at the time - easily explained by the fact that she was working extra shifts and by all accounts was dedicated and hard working. Had the shifts been slightly different it could have been any one of those nurses in the crosshairs.
I watched the Operation Hummingbird youtube video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T33A90OCHQk). The police were tripping over themselves to line up evidence, even to the point where they transported 'witnesses' back and forth for the entire 10 months to make sure they appeared in court. 90 people employed for 5 years to get a conviction - nobody would have a chance fighting against the prosecution with an open cheque book.
It absolutely stinks and I am firmly convinced there wasn't even a crime committed.
The answer is of course... possibly. But each has some distinctions that some may want to argue separately.
FWIW the hypothesis that they were really break even when we account for the term and post-term deaths should also rightly be an option on the list.