Lucy Letby (2)

I think his point is pretty clear, but badly phrased, that's all. He's not especially articulate. I wouldn't use this to judge his respect and compassion for the parents (or to judge anything about the case)

A neonate is a newborn and that is very standard medical terminology - I wouldn't see that as offensive. Baby D was new-born, but full-term. She had congenital or neonatal pneumonia after her mother's waters broke early, the mother was denied antibiotics, and the newborn Baby D's antibiotic treatment was delayed. Baby D was the only baby Lucy Letby is accused of killing who wasn't born prematurely: she was in intensive care following care failings. The others were all premature.

Doctors have certainly said it in my hearing. The point is obvious - premature children don't have fully formed respiratory, endochondral systems etc. Anyone who thinks they wouldn't make that kind of slip occasionally under pressure to explain rapidly to a live TV audience is either inexperienced or enviably articulate - some are indeed better at avoiding this kind of misspeaking than others

What he said was factual. Neonates are not fully formed. There are nicer ways of putting it, I agree, but what he said was not dehumanising, it it is a fact. Their lungs, digestive system, and immune systems are not fully developed, hence the need for serious medical intervention.

Mark Mcdonald actually referred to the babies as "not fully formed" in an interview yesterday (it's about 7 mins in). All part of dehumanising her victims. I've always said he's a disgrace but this is a new low even for him. I'm sure her supporters will say this is fine, because they've lost all perspective and decency when it comes to defending her.

Mark Mcdonald actually referred to the babies as "not fully formed" in an interview yesterday (it's about 7 mins in). All part of dehumanising her victims. I've always said he's a disgrace but this is a new low even for him. I'm sure her supporters will say this is fine, because they've lost all perspective and decency when it comes to defending her.

There is nothing stopping experts who have confidence in the verdict from speaking out to defend Evans' case.

Only abuse and death threats from the Letby camp.

Where there is credible evidence that no crime was committed that definitely meets the criteria for an appeal. There just isn’t that evidence. You’re just being fed bullshit by a media-hungry extremely second-rate lawyer.

That wasn't my point. I never asked whether the case presented at court convinced a non-qualified jury. I asked if the case presented at court was sound where are the medically qualified experts defending it?

There is nothing stopping experts who have confidence in the verdict from speaking out to defend Evans' case.

Where there is credible evidence that no crime was committed that definitely meets the criteria for an appeal. There just isn’t that evidence. You’re just being fed bullshit by a media-hungry extremely second-rate lawyer.

Nonsense. They were presented at trial and challenged by the defence. Evans was one of several medical experts.

Anyway she will stay in until she dies. Even if the CCRC refers her case back to the court of appeal that doesn’t mean a retrial for her and it seems highly unlikely that they will refer her case anyway. Maybe she can do an open university degree to pass the time she will spend in the clink. I hear Myra Hindley did that.

Just that there’s a big overlap between people who believe in insane conspiracy theories like the ones about Covid and also think Lucy Letby is innocent. I suspect you know her personally in some way or the family as I can’t understand why anyone would be so obsessed with defending a convicted murderer otherwise.

Where is the credible evidence that there were murders? By credible, I mean medical evidence that is not heavily disputed by numerous experts vastly more qualified and experienced than those who originally put it forward.

If Evan's theories were robust enough to safely convict someone for life, where are the experts defending them? Even he's backed away from a lot of his theories.

Dude, she’s a baby killer. It’s not weird to hate her and want her to stay locked up. It’s really not. If you think it is, your head is too far down the rabbit hole.

Where there is credible evidence that no crime was committed that definitely meets the criteria for an appeal. There just isn’t that evidence. You’re just being fed bullshit by a media-hungry extremely second-rate lawyer.

What is actually really weird and highly suspect is the vitriolic insulting of people who question the verdicts, the desperate attempts to debunk and attack the credibility of serious, highly credentialed experts, the so called strategising from certain online communities who dedicate an inordinate amount of time and energy to this. Theirs is not a rational position at this point, given what has emerged about the bad science used in the trial. For people who use the NHS and are subject to the British justice system however, it is entirely rational to want to pursue an explanation for the discrepancies between what the actual qualified neonatologists, statisticians, legal eagles have to say v the so called evidence used to convict her. At this point no one who is capable of reading a paper or trial transcript, and exercising critical thinking, can legitimately believe there is no reasonable doubt. So what’s their motivation? They never make any reasonable arguments, it’s just dogma and ad hominem attacks.