Lucy Letby - Specifically those who think she is guilty…

You've lost me.

I haven't "linked the whole transcript as evidence of some "facts" someone made up about Lucy Letby sneaking around the wards illicitly at night" 🤔

I have simply linked to the transcripts because someone asked for that. Everything that was said in court is in the transcripts. The transcripts are the transcripts, read as much or as little as you want, find a word or phrase or whatever you are checking.

As I've said I've found it very useful to read what was actually said rather than others summaries. Slow going though, regardless of sides it is always in one's mind that you are reading about the deaths of babies, I can only read so much each time before I need a break.

The use of experts in trails has been heavily reformed since Sallys conviction; I used to work in criminal regulatory law where expert evidence was usual, very complex and technical, and assessing differing viewpoints difficult, but essential. Even for judges.

After Reefer and Wilkins cases (I think! It’s been a while) Gvt guidance was published Part 19 of the Criminal Procedure Rules (CrimPR) which essentially says that experts on the opposite sides need to duke it out beforehand as much as possible. Experts’ duty is not to their appointing side either, it is to the court, to help the court decide on the matters of fact. Experts are I think meant to submit a joint paper to the court where they outline the key facts, those they both agree on and importantly those where they don’t.

I can only surmise that the defence tried and struggled to find experts able to defend the defendants position, and /or rebut the prosecution position well enough that they would agree to do so. Other experts may and have come forward outside of the court procedure of course, the court of public opinion is easier one to hold forth in, without pesky professional duty and standards applying!

I do wonder if a further inquisitorial rather than an adversarial approach would assist courts better on technical matters in cases.

She wasn’t that young, she was a 34 year old woman when convicted the same as I am now, she just came across as mummy and daddy’s little girl.
A mummy who was prepared to take the blame for her when she said “I did it, take me instead”

I’m not sure there is a manual on the correct response upon hearing that your only child has been sentenced to die in prison.

It is the endless comments like this I think I find so bizarre in themselves. Her mother said this; she had a shredder, she wanted to say goodbye to her cat, there was a poster with sparkles on her wall, her diary had a cartoon on it.

It. Doesn’t. Matter!

I’m not sure there is a manual on the correct response upon hearing that your only child has been sentenced to die in prison.

It is the endless comments like this I think I find so bizarre in themselves. Her mother said this; she had a shredder, she wanted to say goodbye to her cat, there was a poster with sparkles on her wall, her diary had a cartoon on it.

It. Doesn’t. Matter!

She hadn’t even been tried when the mother said that let alone sentenced!

It doesn’t matter.

I’m not sure there is a manual on the correct response upon hearing that your only child has been sentenced to die in prison.

It is the endless comments like this I think I find so bizarre in themselves. Her mother said this; she had a shredder, she wanted to say goodbye to her cat, there was a poster with sparkles on her wall, her diary had a cartoon on it.

It. Doesn’t. Matter!

Well it does because wouldn’t your first reaction be to ask the police why they were there, not scream “take me”???

People really think it’s been made up that multiple babies were murdered, and attempted to be murdered, and this woman was framed? I think that’s silly.

I think people struggle to comprehend that this pretty white woman in a nice job in a position of trust could do something so horrific, and so they turn to conspiracy instead. She’s been found guilty for a reason.

I’ve always found that response from her mother deeply odd. Did what? How did she know her daughter had done anything? Did she assume her daughter was guilty?

Neither silly nor even a unique case, just look at the wrongful conviction and later acquittal of a Dutch nurse for a very similarly constructed "series" of infant deaths:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucia_de_Berk_case

She knew what her daughter was being arrested for. The police inquiry opened a year before any arrests, and this wasn't even the first arrest.

If Netflix had shown the first arrest first, it would have been Lucy Letby breaking down and crying.

@TonyDancer it really doesn’t matter because it isn’t indicative of her guilt or otherwise. This case is unique as the only question is whether a crime was committed or not. If it indisputably was, Letby is guilty, and I think that’s why some can’t move away from this stance because in their eyes, murder did happen and if we were all to agree on this point it would be hard to argue against Letby being responsible.

But if there were no murders at all, then Letby could have the strangest mother ever, terrible twee taste in house decor, hundreds of cats, a penchant for married men. It still doesn’t make someone a murderer if no murders happened.

So nobody who thinks she's guilty has any qualms about Dewi Evans "changing his mind" about causes of death periodically? Or that he based one "theory" on an x-ray taken the day before Lucy Letby was on shift? Or that Ravi Jayaram gave fifferent accounts of the "she was just standing there" incident in court and in other communication? Or that the door swipe data was actually wrong in the first instance, and proved very little overall as there were other routes in and out if the unit?
But these all together still weigh so much less than all the evidence that was put forward. A guilty verdict is not proving someone is guilty, it's considering the evidence and concluding that they much more likely to be guilty than not.

No, I want the relevant section please, not the whole transcript.

You can't make an informed decision if you just read some quotes.

I could take quotes out of that document to support any theory I chose.

If she isn’t guilty and she has been used as a “scapegoat” why has the mastermind of this not been identified?
surely if she was a scapegoat someone in hospital management must’ve “selected” her…it just seems completely unbelieveable

I’ve just been reading massive amounts of posts of Facebook following the new doc out about LL. (Blame a long train journey!) and it got me thinking, those who still think she is guilty what are your reasons?

It does feel like the tide has turned generally. I haven’t watched the new doc yet, likewise has anyone seen it, and is it worth it?