Lucy Letby - new thread

[anonymousamy]

No idea why the last one was taken down, but for anyone who wants to continue the discussion on Letby, I’m starting a new thread here.

I’m 100% sure she’s guilty, but I’m still massively struggling to comprehend why on earth she did it.

As in no they didn't make it up.

Yes the poor baby did have injuries likened to a serious car crash.

You would first have to understand that the wrong "experts" were in court...and yes I do, now retired.

Agree, the poster has just revealed a total lack of any basic knowledge of this case by disputing this sad fact.

Think it's best just to not to engage with those type of posters. Ignoring them worked for a while.

The pathologists who actually examined the infants who died at the hospital concluded they were natural deaths. Why do you believe that you know more than them because you read a BBC article?

The person who discussed car crash scenario said cause was sepsis. In a hospital ward that had instances of sewage backing up into the nursery. The medical team did not pursue that as a possibility as to why this child was unwell. It's so easy to cherry pick random quotes from the testimony to make people click an article. Rather than considering the whole trial and the quality of the evidence overall.

Then why didn’t the defence use the “right” ones? Are you going to apologise for that disgraceful accusation of fabrication you just made?

@loyalist

You would first have to understand that the wrong "experts" were in court...and yes I do, now retired.

You state that as fact when there is no way for you to know that.

This was a ten month, complex trial with multiple victims. Tens of thousands of pages of evidence.

The fact you accused a poster of making up what is a widely reported testimony (that the injuries of one poor baby were like that of a serious car crash) makes it clear you haven't read much about the case outside of the site you keep quoting.

And @loyalist if you're actually here in good faith as you claim, you owe the poster an apology for accusing them of making something up when they didn't. It was completely out of line and a quick google would have told you it was widely reported.

agree With you, there is a couple of them posting very disturbing and erroneous facts. I won’t engage with them further. It’s too sick for words.

Agreed, total blanking from now on. Anyone that sincerely wants information can find it quite easily.

@Mustardseed86 What site are you saying is a conspiracy theorist site, because the sites I am looking at seem to be championing the scientific method and employing proper critical thinking, whereas antivax and climate denial websites do the exact opposite. I am deeply despairing about the misinformation peddled by anti-vaxers and climate change deniers, but this is completely different.

Is it one of these?:

https://www.science.org/content/article/unlucky-numbers-fighting-murder-convictions-rest-shoddy-stats

https://rexvlucyletby2023.com/work_4_1_1_1/

Isn't the point of debating the Various facts or factors is to arrive at the truth or as best as and, not just assuming x is correct and then anything else = false?

I don't know exactly how the discussions between barristers and the defendant go, because those are legally-privileged conversations and I'm not a barrister. But if the legal team have reason to think that a particular witness will provide information to support the case then there would be no reason for the defendant to disagree with the decision to call them, unless the defendant had been lying to Counsel. Barristers would generally have a very good idea about what answers a particular witness for their own side will give - hence the barristerly cliche about never asking a witness a question to which you do not already know the answer. Bear in mind that the evidence given in Court is only really the window display for the Defence (or prosecution) case - all the hard work and discussion happens long before that, in gathering statements and reports, and having meetings with witnesses and experts to discuss the implications of the different strands of evidence and how best to put it all together.

If the defendant is mentally unwell to the extent that they can't give a reasoned account of their actions, then they would generally be not fit to stand trial, and their legal team would waste no time in putting that forward.

She didn't make it up.

I hope you will apologise.

I have reported the vile accusation from the poster above who doesn’t deserve to be named.

We all need to just ignore these idiots, because that’s what they are. To start going on about wrong defence (when the defence was done by one of the most reputable defence lawyers in the country) and claiming that they have all the evidence is frankly quite hillarious because it shows just how stupid some people are.

As for Richard Gill, you might as well replace the name Gill with Dawkins.

This is a fascinating watch. The amount of work that went into the investigation is mind blowing.

Hopefully she’ll be banned. Although I’m sure then she would say that it’s all a conspiracy against her and how her freedom of speech is being curtailed.

Imagine being blind to the truth of what those babies suffered just because it doesn't fit her narrative of rushed staff or blocked drains.

@loyalist

You keep quoting your source as if their opinion is gospel.

It's a really odd way to engage with people as you aren't displaying any critical thinking and are solely working with confirmation bias by just saying the expert witnesses in court were the wrong ones, so their testimony isn't valid in your mind, but the sources you quote are right so the opinion they've shared on their website should be taken as scientific fact.

You owe that poster an apology. They mentioned something that was specifically said during the trial - that the injuries were 'likened to that of a car crash', which is demonstrably true:

Prosecutor Nick Johnson KC asked the consultant: “How does that injury come to be in a child of (Child O’s) age?”
Dr Marnerides, who practises at London’s St Thomas’ Hospital, said: “The distribution, the pattern and the appearance of the bruising indicates towards impact-type injury. I’m fairly confident this is impact-type injury.”
He explained the photograph showed “extensive haemorrhaging into the liver”, which he had only seen previously in a road traffic collision and in non-accidental assaults from parents or carers.

The first site doesn't mention Letby, except once briefly to simply mention that she was (at the time the article was written) on trial.

The second was created specifically to defend Letby - the url literally has Lucy Letby in it - and is shrouded in mystery. There's no info about who created the site, and the site claims it was created "by a scientist" yet also claims the intention of the site is "science on trial."

The website even claims "experts within the relevant scientific fields were consulted with to obtain additional knowledge and insights" - this is an extremely strange thing to write on what's essentially a DIY fansite for Lucy Letby, and again why the secrecy over who these "experts" are?

So one legit site that isn't about Letby, and one extremely weird and dodgy site started by an anonymous person claiming to be a scientist, who claims to have no connection to Letby but who has spent a lot of their own time and money creating a website solely to defend her. Very very odd behaviour and clearly dodgy as fuck.

The anonymous person who created the Lucy Letby fansite (who btw has gone to quite a bit of effort and spent money to hide their identity, I checked) really goes out of their way to state that they aren't Richard Gill, very odd. Hmm.

@Janieforever
@CherryMaDeara and others who are getting increasingly angry and offended by those expressing doubts about the verdict:
why don’t you Google Lucia de Berk’s case and look at the similarities with LL? Miscarriages of Justice happen, and these cases are so disturbingly similar.

Richard Gill endorsed the site and links to it from his blog:

”For the medical material, the site to visit is the magnificent https://rexvlucyletby2023.com/.”

This quote comes from: https://gill1109.com/2023/05/24/the-lucy-letby-case/?amp=1

Understandable the author would like to stay unnamed for now. Lots of bile and hatred would come their way.

Understandable the author would like to stay unnamed for now. Lots of bile and hatred would come their way.

Is it understandable though? If they're making such confident assertions and (presumably) want people to see them as having credibility, they should be willing to put their name to those assertions.