Lucy Letby - new thread (part 2)

[anonymousamy]

A thread for anyone who was on the last one and wanted to continue the discussion.

What I cannot wrap my head around is Letby’s seemingly completely normal upbringing. Usually serial killers have displayed some kind of markers by the time they start killing, but AFAIK she literally had none. 100% believe she is guilty BTW - just cannot begin to understand it.

How these babies had the rashes? What were they? Why did they appear on a number of the babies that were murdered or attempted to be murdered?
Mottling and skin discolouration is often a sign of infection.

If those babies had died as a result of infection, there would be an awful lot more evidence of it that just mottling and skin discolouration.

Why then have democracy ?

So why did she do it? These weren't just accidentally taken home, these were carefully sorted and stored and moved between houses. For such a 'conscientious' nurse as was painted of her by the defence its very odd that she'd see nothing of taking these home when it's strictly against policy. Her reasoning of well its confidential as its in my house or my parents and no one looks in there is a poor attempt at justifying it, ridiculous even.

We don’t determine innocence or guilt by democratic means.

Democracy as understood these days means the right to vote for your government.

What's that got to do with this Cailleachian?

In fact it's a favourite argument of cranks and the intentionally ignorant that their opinion is as good as everyone else's. When in fact it's just wibble.

It’s not quite right. It’s one of the questions that’s been bugging me since it came out at the middle of the trial because it was a huge missed opportunity.

IIRC blood was sent to Liverpool for the test because something extremely abnormal was happening to Baby F’s blood sugar. The low C peptide was spotted at the time which seems to have led to some investigation at which it was concluded that that it was synthetic insulin and couldn’t have been an accidental poisoning because no other baby on the unit was receiving insulin at the time. And then they did nothing. Or appear to have done. I think Brearly rediscovered the result in 2018.

What’s come out since has mostly answered my question. I suspect this may be something an inquiry looks at.

Referring to anyone not a fully paid up member of this awful conspiracy theory as "the great unwashed" is vying for "calling the parents liars" for worst comment.

Geez, the Alex Jones wannabes are showing their whole entire backsides here.

Here is the original FOI, the doc is linked as a response.

What it demonstrates is that there was a cluster of stillbirths and neonatal deaths from late spring to early autumn 2015, peaking in June/July 15

After Letby was removed from the ward and the unit was downgraded to a special care unit in July 2016, there was 1 further neonatal death in 2016, 4 in 2017 and 2 in 2018.

Quite. If the babies died of overwhelming infection there’d be a hell of a lot more obs in their medical notes supporting that. There isn’t. Which rules out infection as source of the mottling. Typically would be a much more gradual decline that perfectly normal vitals the cardiac arrest.

Pretty sure the same applies to nec as well.

This is just more speculation on your part, isn't it? Exactly what is your evidence that the defence was incompetent?

This is not just one solicitor. This is a whole defence team including a very experienced KC and junior. If the barristers thought the solicitors weren't doing their job properly, they would undoubtedly have made a fuss about it and, if necessary, taken steps to get them removed.

Further, they did instruct experts who were involved in pre-trial hearings. However, they did not call them to give evidence. The obvious explanation for that is not that they forgot, or were incompetent, but that the experts didn't back up the defence case. It is the duty of expert witnesses to act independently, which means that if their findings don't support the case that those who are paying them want to put forward, they must nevertheless give those findings. However, defendants have no duty to produce their reports if they aren't helpful to them.

As for the jury, if they were so uncritical of the supposedly cherrypicked evidence, how come they didn't convict on every count?

What has democracy got to do with it? Juries have to make decisions on guilt or innocence based on evidence, not on what they "think" based on the heavy degree of speculation that @Cailleachian has admitted to.

What is meant by Hawkins0090 Cailleachian is "This is a democracy. Therefore my opinion is equal to yours. That means I'm correct and you are not."

Conspiracy theorists always rely heavily on their right to their own opinions. The trouble is, they never quite seem to realise that they don't have a right to their own facts.

What's seems obvious to one person or group, is not always another's obvious.

And yet quite a few of what were originally conspiracy theories in history then were actually proven years later,

Why does this matter at all?

Once again you and @Cailleachian are answering questions directed at each other, are you tired?

Although I should say you are purporting to answer, as that response is so evasive it is actually highly revealing of the lack of evidence for this part of the LL supporters' argument.

Then try watching or studying how juries deliberate, they discuss the case they don't just discuss the merits of the evidence alone,
That I learned from doing A level Law.

All I offered was my perspective that what seems obvious to one is not to another, the rest is your presumption

This is just more speculation on your part, isn't it? Exactly what is your evidence that the defence was incompetent?

Oh goodness, of course it was incompetent.

NO expert witnesses in defence.

Just the PLUMBER . . .

Really interested in which A Level Law syllabus involves the content of a jury deliberation.

You don't even study that in a law degree.

Did you listen to the legal directions given to the jury or do you just enjoy making shit up to defend a baby killer?

That's quite an assumption Tom,

Why?

Why didn't the KC call anyone else? Other than there were NO witnesses or are you suggesting that a KC is up to his neck in the conspiracy theory with the consultants and the police?

You are unhinged dear.

And you are supporting a baby killer.

Shame on you.

🤣🤣🤣🤣 We can all go home now m there's an A-level lawyer in the room!