Cheshire Police are an incompetent bunch of useless bastards

Are you that strange friend that has professed her innocence from the beginning?

@WhatsInTheRug I'm sure the excuses for her will come thick and fast.

Another 'accident' I suppose!?

Oh look, bad luck again I assume, I'm sure this happens to every nurse-

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cq8xjqxv0y9o

Corrupt how? To be corrupt they would have to be perverting the course of justice to their own (likely financial) benefit. I don't see how this could be happening. Cui bono?

Much more likely to be hubris, incompetence, and as the linked article points out, a fundamental misunderstanding of how probability works. I suspect none of the medical experts called as witnesses had studied S+P since first year undergrad, and they would goggle at you if you so much as mentioned Bayes theorem. The one medical stats expert who was retained was never actually asked to perform an analysis.

Indeed they can be wrong and their testimony should always be approached critically. One of the various things that rang alarm bells with other scientists re Dewi Evans’ evidence was that he was far more certain than the evidence justified. It’s one thing to say a death might have been caused by air embolism and another to go down the Dewi Evans route and claim you have definitively excluded everything else and are certain.

For the defence lawyer it throws up a problem in deciding whether or not to use an expert witness because a scientist who is more cautious and honest about the limits of their expertise is likely to play less well with a jury than one who is more prepared to express certainty. We don’t KNOW why Myers didn’t use more expert witnesses; one possibility that has already been raised is the difficulty of finding people in cases like this. But he did have one he chose not to use and it is equally possible there might have been others who would have been willing to speak but he thought they would have been too careful and answered their questions with too many qualifications so it could have actually harmed the case when set against Evans’ certainty.

Or corrupt?!

Because 'highly qualified ' people and 'experts' are never wrong? Or to be doubted?

I find the people who are adamant there can’t possibly be a problem with the conviction much weirder tbh, given that a conviction is supposed to be beyond reasonable doubt and so many highly qualified people in the relevant fields have gone public over their doubts.

Yeah i don't get the outrage over this inconsequential 'lie'. I often wear PJ bottoms and a short nightdress on top and put a hoodie on if I'm cold or the doorbell rings. I'd still say 'arrested in my pjs or nightie' not arrested in my hoodie.

There are plenty of people who have been acquitted who were very likely guilty.

There is a high profile one in fact whose own child disowned her because she didn’t believe she was innocent of the crimes she’d been acquitted of committing.

So using one person as an example is entirely irrelevant, because for those that are acquitted for being innocent, there will also be those who are found not guilty or acquitted of crimes that they absolutely did commit.

Must I?? Take a break....

Are you ok....maybe take a break?

You clearly have a crush on LL of some sort

Gently.....No not wearing a t shirt ..

Lucy Letby is innocent. Lucy Letby is guilty.

There, fixed that for you.

I assume that you know this woman in some way, because frankly your obsession with trying to prove this murderer to be innocent really isn’t healthy.

There were multiple other deaths of infants on that unit - including deaths that presented in the same ways that the ones Letby has been convicted of killing did.

But THEIR deaths weren’t added to her charges because, no doubt to the prosecution’s chagrin, Letby WASN’T on shift when they died (and let’s not dive into the keycard swipes which they used as evidence and which turned out to be wrong for some dates).

What’s the explanation for all the other deaths on that unit which couldn’t be pinned on the scapegoat for poor performance Letby?

The same judge instructed the jury that they did not need to be certain of the murder method.

So, if you believe Letby harmed one child - let's say by overfeeding which could easily be accidental in the qualities claimed, and wasn't proved ...

then you may assume without further evidence (all of which hinges on a specific method in trial and conviction) that she harmed or murdered any infant involved in the trial.

This is far far too low a standard for a safe conviction

@GossIsAGit

You aren't really coming across very well now. Sounding a bit deluded

There’s no reason to think she’s guilty

other than her convictions

Lucy Letby is innocent

I don’t think she is, but she can avail herself of the same judicial mechanisms of everyone else if she wants

😂