Lucy Letby (2)

You're being ridiculous. It's a medical fact.

Words have impact its literally his job!

He did say that.

Did you even listen to what he said or did you just decide that the other poster had a twisted agenda without bothering to Listen to what MM said?

I did and read it. No need to belittle. I have said why in several posts. If you don't agree says more about you than my comprehension. Shame as I agreed with your points on the Clancy thread.

You’ve picked a couple of words out of the whole interview. Along with your little gang you’ve been banging on about minutiae for 2 days now and you still have the gall to accuse other people of having an agenda. Pop off back to your coven on Reddit or Tattle or whatever echo chamber you inhabit why don’t you, and stop boring us rigid.

Rude! I had an opinion. It doesn't agree with yours. Tattle or Reddit. What? I have been on here for years.
That is the trouble with some of the people who think she is innocent. Everything is perfect nobody did anything wrong. Literally not even he should not have said that it must be hard for the parents but no its all excuse.
I do think she is guilty but I don't agree with everyone. I can see problems on the prosecution side too. As I said very rude! Enjoy your Sunday.

I have literally never heard any of my friends or family saying 'I was on the floor crying' metaphorically. But it could happen I guess.

You probably "literally never heard and of your friends or family" being serial baby killers, or even just turning out to be so starkly different from who they seem to be. But that's what the prosecution says happened. To the extent that our personal experience is a useful guide for what to believe, the prosecution's claims warrant great skepticism.

You were belittling posters with your comments, you told one they had a real problem if they didn't think that word was dehumanising, and how it was indefensible 'no matter how we all try'.
I responded because you then asked why didn't he say that then, even though he did, which is what those posters have been explaining to you over all the posts.

Is it not enough to just think it was a bad term to use? but to instead try to make out he said something awful deliberately and that anyone clarifying it is doing something indefensible isn't in any way fair or accurate.

I don't think the term is dehumanising in the context in which he used it, instead it's just stating how vulnerable they were. Doesn't mean I'm saying something horrible. When my waters broke at 36 weeks, even at that point I was told that they didn't want to induce me yet because my baby wasn't fully formed.

I can understand how the term may be considered offensive in other contexts, but he did not use the term in a different context, and instead was using it to express their vulnerability, which is completely different.

I'm not sure why that is a shame? It just shows that we can agree with people on some topics but not on others, but for this particular part of the discussion you were the one belittling others and being rude repeatedly.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/40438179/letby-victims-died-impossible-surgeons-verdict/

I see Dewi is sitting down with a vascular doctor in this new documentary out tomorrow.

He is a barrister, badly phrased and inarticulate is not acceptable. He said it and it is indefensible

I had all 3 of my DC at COCH
i know quite a few very experienced, exceptional, dedicated ITU nurses who work there
i also know one of the consultants giving evidence and I think he is arrogant, misogynistic and self-absorbed
still believe she is 💯 guilty

This child, this vulnerable neonate, not a baby, not a fully formed baby, but one that was still developing was seriously ill and that's why they died."
what a disgusting, patronising thing for those poor parents to read
if premature babies aren’t actually proper human beings let’s forget controlling late abortion hey.
he’s a self serving, glory seeking career barrister who wants to be a Michael Mansfield but isn’t. I used to be impressed by mark mcdonald but not now

'Not fully formed' does not mean that MM was suggesting they're not actually proper human beings.

You're choosing to get outraged over something that he never implied.

Should be good.

I don't have TV channels so will have to wait until it gets uploaded somewhere else, hopefully by Tuesday!

At the risk of getting flamed, I wonder whether people would be so quick to doubt the conviction if it hadn’t been a young, white, vaguely attractive woman who was found guilty?

Also isn’t it rather disrespectful to the families whose babies died to keep rehashing the medical details?

I cannot even begin to imagine the pain the parents are going through. They are trapped in a living nightmare; however, I don't think this is a good enough reason not to challenge blatantly poor medical care, policing, and justice. Not least because the parents deserve the truth, and they don't have that yet.

Whether you believe Letby is guilty or not, I think we can all agree that none of the babies died from overfeeding or air in the stomach. There are also serious doubts about the air embolism and insulin diagnosis that need to be addressed.

There's also the fact that until we know what went so very, very wrong at COCH, Cheshire Police, and the expert witness system that allowed this mess to happen, we cannot take steps to ensure it never happens again. That it could happen again should be of concern to anyone who uses the NHS or relies upon British policing and the justice system to keep them safe.

I’m neither a legal nor a medical expert so I can’t comment on that.

The NHS is a shitshow, I agree with that.

I just don’t think people would be examining this in such minute detail if she was someone else.

Anarchy99

At the risk of getting flamed, I wonder whether people would be so quick to doubt the conviction if it hadn’t been a young, white, vaguely attractive woman who was found guilty?

I just don’t think people would be examining this in such minute detail if she was someone else.

This is more of a you issue than anyone else's

Also isn’t it rather disrespectful to the families whose babies died to keep rehashing the medical details?

I believe that the families deserve to know the truth.
If the truth is that LL murdered their babies then so be it.
If the truth is that the hospital et al should have done more then that needs to be known.

It’s not a me issue. It’s picking up on a bias that I see. I’m a white woman so I have no skin in the game but isn’t it relevant to point out bias, unconscious or otherwise?

It is medical and legal experts who raised the concerns. It's not a case where it's all armchair medics and detectives with no support from anyone official.

The expert who wrote one of the papers used to convict her has concerns. The detective who wrote the police guidelines on handling suspected cases of medical harm has concerns. And many, many other highly qualified, experienced people.

But it is a you issue when you see a percieved bias where there is none.
You are looking for an issue which puts the bias with you unconcious or otherwise.

Or are we meant to overlook issue where we see them in case other people see bias?

How have you reached the conclusion that it was bias though?

Most people had no issue believing she was guilty initially and she was young, white and vaguely attractive then too.

What actually changed was that the evidence started to be questioned, A few initially starting speaking out online because they had concerns about the evidence they had heard, then the New Yorker article came out followed by the first articles doubting the convictions in the UK papers questioning evidence as soon as the reporting restrictions were lifted. Since then, more experts have openly spoken about their concerns and put their names to them, and naturally more members of the public have become interested in the case.

Why assume that growing interest is because she's white and vaguely attractive? rather than because there are increasingly prominent people publicly raising substantive concerns about the evidence and convictions?

What evidence do you have that the momentum in this case is being driven by bias because she's a white woman rather than by the developments in the case itself?