Watched the Panorama about this. Found it rather odd, especially the BBC reporter who, at times, seemed keener on making the story about her than the subject matter at hand.

Secondly...the evidence against this lady is purely circumstantial and boils down to her simply being on duty at the time. Everything else was just character assassination and not even that compelling.

That is not to say I believe she is innocent, and that the odds definitely point at her being guilty but I also struggle with this narrative of management bad, medical experts good when it comes to dealing with this.

I have nothing other than contempt for the kind of management structure being blamed but the medical profession at the level of consultants and doctors are just as guilty of malpractice on multiple levels and I would not put it past any of them to try ad offload the blame onto people further down the ladder when it comes to their own incompetence. And we also live in a society that seems to put the nursing profession up on a pedestal which no doubt contributed to all kinds of issues in this case. I have received plenty of flak in the past for my less-than-flattering opinions about the nursing profession in general, especially when it comes to those working in hospitals, and feel that this entire 'Angel' narrative has played its part as well.

This entire s***-show is set to run and run and as far as I can see, nobody involved should have our genuine sympathies other than the poor parents who lost children.

"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell.

I'd concur with much of your view of our medical profession...which of course, like many professions contains many great people working very hard and in its specific case people genuinely helping improve and extending lives...but the view that genuinely gets put out there seems truer of the past and there is certainly lots of modern day propaganda to promote it.

However, I think the case against Letby seems strong and the circumstantial evidence is pretty strong stuff.....a death rate many times higher while she was in the unit that dropped to the average when she went.

Not only that, the notes she wrote herself and the parents who think they caught her in the act of harming their children.

Here is a link to Ed Dutton's video on the case and why some young women kill babies.
[Link]

Edited by Stirlingsays (20 Aug 2023 11.47am)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

What doesn't add up for you? Is it her motivation?

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

The bit in bold is my overwhelming feeling. No CCTV footage, no witness statements, no fingerprints/DNA type stuff. Not even any evidence form the children's post-mortems. There's no doubt she was a suspect, (and I wasn't privvy to the evidence in the courtroom), but bringing the case seemingly on the basis of statistics, and no actual evidence, seems highly irregular.

If you follow the statistical line of inquiry, you would then have to eliminate all other potential variable during the period of child deaths. Cleaning systems, cleaning suppliers, drug suppliers, temporary nursing staff, etc. and just random peaks of childrens deaths.

"The facts have changed", Rishi Sunak

I would urge you to research in more detail about the case before making such a sweeping and inaccurate statement.

The investigation has been one of the most thorough and professional multiple murder investigations ever undertaken in this country. Those involved in compiling and presenting the evidence in this case will undoubtedly receive praise from the Judge during his sentencing remarks for doing so.

I must stress there were hundreds of witness statements, there was almost ten months of evidence to sit through, it was most certainly not simply based on statistics.
There was also detailed medical evidence from the babies post mortems. The value and significance of fingerprint and DNA evidence would be countered by the very fact that the accused was in direct contact with the victims and the scene because of her working there.

I actually feel quite sickened and moved that I have to type this but I can’t bring myself to leave your comments unanswered. Please take my response in the good natured context that is intended and that is one of clarification not criticism.

all evidence is ultimately about statistical probability. If your are caught on the Orient Express, standing over a dead stab victim with a bloody dagger in your hand, a victim you had a motive to dislike.....and all that.

Letby is as guilty as sin. Going forwards we MUST use statistical science and other I.T. to catch serial killers.

Eze Peasy at Anfield....