The case against Lucy Letby has often been referred to by those of us who have looked closely at the evidence as a 'witch hunt', a crime that particularly impacted women,
When "Expert for Hire" Dr Dewi Evans was questioned about Lucy's possible motives, he gives Lucy's status as a "single woman"(?) in her late twenties and alleged 'infatuation' with Dr A as a grounds for suspicion, this after he mentions earlier in the interview that he remained single into the beginning of his career as a consultant. He considers himself career focused while she is suspicious.
I'm not sure how useful this comment is in terms of appeal, especially because flagrant sexism seems to be ignored or taken as a normal worldview especially in older members of the population, but in Dr Evans case I can't help wondering if evidence pointed to an unmarried, 'career- focused' doctor, his finding might have been a bit better informed?
But the Public are angry...yes the Fucking Public again,are foaming at the mouth like rabid Baboons,baying for blood,and revenge, like a 17th century Wytch trial.If you drown you're innocent, if you don't we'll hang you.
Jandek would have been burnt as a witch if he was around Salem back then.....maybe today he would just get away with a sound beating from a drunken Mob of Morons, or maybe not.Humans are dangerous.
Lucy Letby was convicted and sentenced to spend the rest of her life in jail for murdering seven babies and attempting to murder six others. She is facing retrial for one further attempted murder charge. On five other counts of attempted murder the jury could not reach a consensus. She has consistently maintained her innocence and some close friends and colleagues have supported her. No motives for the killings were ever put forward,except that she wanted to impress a Doctor she fancied. She was convicted almost entirely on circumstantial evidence from "expert" witnesses, who were often testifying on subjects outside their expertise. In particular, medical doctors were testifying about areas of medicine for which they were not specialists, or presenting their conclusions as "scientific", without applying correct scientific methods. As a result the evidence on which she was convicted was flawed and partial, and other likely explanations for the deaths, such as hospital infections, were not presented to the jury as part of the expert evidence. Flawed evidence was allowed to pass unchallenged in the court, or accepted as "uncontested fact" by the defense, who appear to have been out of their depth with the medical complexity of the case. Incredibly, given the nature of the evidence against her, no expert witnesses were called to testify on Lucy's behalf. This is a summary of some of the worst errors, identified by experts in their fields who able to be part of the proceedings. There are links to more detailed information available on the Science on Trial website. All this evidence was presented to the defense team during the trial, but,inexplicably, none of it was used or put before the jury?!
Lucy Letby was found guilty of killing six babies by injecting them with air. Again this was not from evidence gathered at the time. The post mortems recorded natural causes of death. Instead the prosecution relied on expert evidence from a retired pediatrician Dr Evans) through an investigation carried out several years later. The correct procedure for establishing death through air embolism should be a particular postmortem technique. But this was not done. The next best would have been a CT scan. But again this was never done. Instead the cause of death was inferred from X-rays taken before the babies died along with analysis taken from a study carried out in 1989 during the early days of ventilating preterm babies. The study used is entirely inapplicable as it examined babies with lungs damaged from high pressure oxygen, which is very different from injecting air. The expert witness in the case was not a pathologist or forensic scientist, and did not follow the correct methods for determining the cause of death, which could only have been done to any degree of certainty, through a comprehensive post mortem.
There were two babies Lucy was convicted of attempting to murder by injecting insulin. These cases were presented as "the smoking gun" which showed there was a spate of murders in the unit, rather than the more logical explanation of an uncontrolled series of infections. In the notes of these two babies investigators found (a couple of years after the event) entries of very high levels of insulin and very low levels of C-Peptide. An expert witness from the lab where the tests were done at Liverpool University NHS trust, said this pattern could only come about through injecting insulin. To the jury this was presented as proof of insulin poisoning - while Lucy Letby was the one on duty. However the lab that did the tests specifically says in its online information that the lab test used was not designed to determine cases of insulin over-dose, and that if exogenous insulin were suspected then a different test at a different lab would be necessary. Lab experts say the type of assay tests carried out by the lab are prone to error and that the extremely high figures in the notes, which was many times the level required to send an adult into a coma, was much more likely a false result. While the result is recorded in the notes, no further tests were ordered, nor was a more accurate test by photo spectrometry carried out. Instead two hours later one of the babies (both of which survived) recorded normal glucose levels, strongly suggesting the insulin test recorded was indeed a false result. Unfortunately Lucy's defence, who seem to have been out of their depth, made an agreement early on with the prosecution where they conceded that insulin poisoning through injection of insulin into fluid bags was "established fact", based testimony of one professional expert witness:Dr Dewi Evans.
These and many other aspects of the case are covered in a more comprehensive critique of the evidence which you can read at your leisure HERE!. It was put together during the trial and sent to the defence lawyers who said they read it, but then failed to follow up or use it?????
Then we have to mention the "I AM EVIL" post-it note.On which the prosecution seemed blind to anything else except the "I AM EVIL I DID THIS" line at the end,taking it totally out of grammatical context.
The "They" she refers to is obviously The Police and her accusers.
"THEY went I DID THIS,I Killed Them on purpose because I'm not good enough to care for them,I am Evil I did This."
She is writing about her finger pointing accusers.A simple case of self-flagellation, Absolutely nowhere near a Confession.
The note is dissected expertly HERE!
.jpg)
