Lucy Letby

Sha-mon.

 

Hospitals are cynically burying evidence about poor care in a “cover-up culture” that leads to avoidable deaths, and families being denied the truth about their loved ones, the NHS ombudsman has warned.

The NHS sometimes does “dreadful” and “cynical” things in obstructing families’ pursuit of the full facts about a death, including lying and concealing evidence.

https://www.theguardian.com/society...ospitals-cynically-burying-evidence-poor-care

Hmmmmmm.

 

Did she run a sub post office before becoming a nurse?

 

Yes, after a short stint at Barings Bank.

 

Indeed. #Leesons learned.

 

If anyone can be bothered to read this, I think they will have no choice but to conclude we've witnessed the biggest miscarriage of justice in history.

https://archive.ph/WNt0u

Sadly it's fuccing long and I doubt any off you have the attention span to read it.

 

It's also very very interesting and a very easy to read piece. Yes, it's very biased towards Letby but there is now a huge question over the list of babies that died and who was on shift when they did. Pretty d4mning towards the hospital and police.

I hope she gets a re-trial.

 

The bit about it being more palatable to find a monster to blame rather than our beloved NHS rang true to me.

I did not know that bit about the juror being overheard saying they'd made their mind up from the start either! Wonder if that's actually true?

What a shytshow.

I'm just surprised she hasn't topped herself.

 

I've not read it but if it was about protecting the "NHS brand", that sounds very similar to Horizon and the Post Office.

 

Absolutely that's what the article leans into. It's well-written and quite compelling. It's also essentially the bulk of the defence case written up by a professional. The nudge-nudge, wink wink implications about our bog standard sub-judice / contempt of court laws because the case is still live is a real cherry on the top. Come to it though I reckon a talented journalist could do the same for any number of wrong'uns where the case is reliant on elements of circumstantial evidence. Maybe it's time to give Levi Bellfield a second chance?

Once again I'm here to remind everyone that scientists and academics are great at what they do but they often disagree vehemently with one another. And they certainly aren't investigators or lawyers. And that we don't convict people based on having absolutely no doubt, we do it based on having no reasonable doubt. Where that line falls is what the jury grapples with (for better or worse).

Lets see if she wins permission to appeal. If so her chance at salvation will come through the same system that convicted her in the first place, not from sneering American journalists.

 

In a post truth world you’ll always find something that supports your view if you look hard enough, or sometimes not even very hard at all.