Lucy Letby (2)

There’s a subreddit. I think Firefly is more of a Tattle fan.

Nobody was competent because it wasn’t possible to definitively say whether the child had it or not at that stage since it takes multiple tests with two positive results 12 weeks apart. So the person who said the child didn’t have it was incorrect, incompetent or not truthful. They also didn’t mention that antibodies could have been passed on via the placenta even if the disease was not passed on. I think it’s fairly clear the ‘expert’ either didn’t have a clue or didn’t tell the truth.

You have dodged Frequency’s question.

Who in that courtroom was competent to “test” and/or dismiss the idea that a mother with antiphospholipid syndrome might pass antibodies to her unborn child? We know the child didn’t have the disease, but we don’t know whether or not antibodies were passed on.

And don’t come back with anything about plumbers. The lack of defence experts is part of the problem here, likely caused by the structuring of the trial.

Apologies @Firefly1987
I must have misunderstood a previous post

Because it has to apply to the actual case-if he brings up something like APS antibodies and it's already been tested in court and dismissed as not relevant then it's no good. He needs to be cross-examined on it to see if it any of it applies to her case. We're talking about potentially letting a multiple baby murderer out on his evidence.

Nope UK born and bred. Why did you think I wasn't? Sometimes I'm on here late.

I find the Americans are much more open to her guilt-going by reddit (which I assume has attracted a lot of Americans to the case via netflix) they know about serial killers and female killers. They have no trouble believing she did it.

I'm struggling with this idea of medical evidence being not being believable until it is tested in court because peer reviews are not good enough. Can you explain?

If your child was sick, you'd go to the Dr, presumably, not the county court, right? Because medics understand medicine, judges understand the law.

@ firefly
Please don't answer if you don't want to but have I understood that you are living outside of the UK?
I didn't realise that the case had spread further
Apologies if I am incorrect

So I should change my view, even if she's guilty? Why exactly? I'll change it when the new evidence has actually been tested and if it comes to anything. Not just experts saying "trust me bro".

Again, stop making things up. Telling you that you don't know why the jury made their decision isn't the same as saying it was all about one thing. But you do need to understand that it's not for you to decide how they weighed the evidence. Its disrespectful of you to presume you can speak for them.

But its good to hear you acknowledge that mistakes happen. That's right. Some of those mistakes are MOJs.

And the most recent revelation about the door data was only the other day.

What about the ridiculing of Dewi Evans? The making the consultants into villains? Oh that's fineeee.

I find the insistence on her innocence fascinating. They really ought to study the nationwide brainwashing that's happened to make people think this woman is the innocent party here. How can so many people get things so wrong?

ok if you say so, it was ALL thanks to door swipe data 🙄or more like people have picked out any mistake they can in a 10 month trial and think that=she's innocent. It doesn't. It means people are fallible and there's going to be mistakes in a trial of that length. Did her defence raise it at appeal?

As for being cot side for every event she wasn't always alone....

It was testimony from herself and her colleagues that got her found guilty not door swipe data

Stop inventing things. As has been pointed out to you probably dozens of times by now, you don't know what weight the jury gave any particular claim. For any of us know, the door swipe data was persuasive.

And this is why every individual thing the prosecution got wrong is a problem, because any error could've been the thing that the verdict turned on.

None of that invalidates all the evidence against her though. She was placed cot side for every collapse. They know she was there. Her own notes prove it most of the time. Yes it's very unfortunate they got the door swipe data wrong but what do you want them to do-find her not guilty for that reason? It was testimony from herself and her colleagues that got her found guilty not door swipe data.

The the defence wasn't allowed to refute the expert witness testimony as it was put forward on each count

More preferential treatment people want for her. That's not how trials work that's why. Prosecution presents their case, defence presents their case. Why is she different? Why does an innocent person need the rules bending?

That various consultants were proved to have lied.

Letby was also proved to have lied multiple times. But she's allowed to for some reason. There is controversy over Dr Jayaram's testimony but I don't believe he lied. Not sure which others you're referring to.

The state of the ward

That's what the defence focused on, I believe this whole "sewage dripping from ceilings" has been wildly exaggerated. And staffing levels weren't that bad compared to other units.

and that Letby had won a grievance against the consultants

Weren't we all aware of this when the trial was ongoing? I thought we were but could be wrong. Why does this mean anything? Oh the useless managers were manipulated by her (like everyone on here) so she won a grievance, it means nothing-they were wrong. They're now potentially going to have to pay for being wrong and not listening to the consultants. I wonder if they're partly behind all this good PR for her...

I can't see anything in these points that would make the slightest bit of difference to her being found guilty.

Yes I was reading something the other day about how attracted we are to stories, and can see that the story that was created was compelling.

When I say I don’t particularly want it to be a MOJ i mean I’m not invested in the case from that point of view. I do believe it is, and therefore would want her to be exonerated. I’m also concerned about women’s experiences in maternity care at the moment. My daughter had a baby last year and it was pretty shocking. The maternity ward and the NICU were literally incapable of communicating with each other. She has an underlying health condition and her pregnancy should have been managed by a multidisciplinary team but the antenatal team couldn’t communicate with the tertiary hospital which manages her. It was all very worrying.

Two parts that they got wrong @Firefly1987 ? Are we talking about the same trial here?

The one I am aware of, they got the stats wrong, the door data wrong, timings wrong, Jayaram's testimony wrong, some of the causes of death were theoretical, and others were complete fiction.

The entire case was wrong. I'm surprised they managed to spell Lucy Letby correctly, in all honesty.

So in your view what would a likely motivation be for someone who made supporting the guilty verdict a personal crusade from the very beginning, and who has doubled down and seems to make it a personal mission to bat off all comers on a daily basis? Especially someone who wouldn’t be impacted by the NHS or British justice failures due to living in a different country? I mean why would they care enough to bother? I don’t particularly want it to be a miscarriage of justice, but I do want to get to the right answer. If it is a miscarriage of justice I want reform. I think there are enough issues now to make it essential to look again. I don’t find people who just deny there are problems credible if they can’t articulate their position.

@Dolphin37 the problem is that when people doggedly stick to one view regardless of increasing evidence to the contrary it doesn’t suggest people who are willing to be thoughtful and analytical about events.

Some of the language used in some of the discussions about this case is terrible and very disrespectful to everybody. Which is why I do find it a bit odd when those convinced of Letby’s guilt suddenly become the arbiter of what is respectful tbh.

I think the original question to someone like Firefly is interesting. What do those who refuse to acknowledge that there is anything to see here genuinely think is the motivation of those who question. They should know the answer as it’s been endlessly explained, but nevertheless the response is to repeatedly misrepresent, to ridicule, to insult, to attack the credibility of professionals who are objectively more qualified to speak than the trial ‘expert’ witnesses. I find the question of the motivation of the staunch pro guilt people absolutely fascinating because it’s so irrational and even the most articulate of them can’t argue it. It might not make for a particularly intelligent and interesting discussion, but the discussion here is constantly interrupted by the same old regurgitated circular arguments anyway, so I’m quite interested in what drives people.

I think this type of caricaturing of people with differing views is unhelpful and unnecessary, and does not contribute to an atmosphere we we can improve our understanding. Unless you have genuine powers of mind-reading, you can't know for sure why people think/say what they do.

It is the WHOLE trial really though isn’t it? Difficult though that is to get your head around (any of us, not just you). It started back to front. Instead of a murder victim or victims, then an investigation to prove the perpetrator, it started with a feeling that one person ‘must be doing something’, and then followed with trying to find evidence to support that theory. So that’s the first thing that’s wrong, and it is undoubtedly what they did. The police uncritically swallowed everything the consultants told them without looking for other explanations as they should have done, then again they uncritically accepted everything Evans said without seeking other independent medical expert opinions. You can see that when they interviewed LL they did so from the point of view that they believed Evans who had told them it was 100% deliberate harm. Now of course dozens of highly reputable and credentialed experts with no axe to grind and no financial incentive have robustly and repeatedly challenged his hypotheses. So the medical evidence is not credible or believable. Then we have multiple disclosure failures and questionable decisions by the judge on admissibility of evidence.