Lucy Letby: have you changed your mind - thread 3

[Typicalwave]

New thread for those following or wishing to comment - originally started by @kittybythelighthouse.

Oh dear. Here come the Tattle witchfinders all piss and vinegar. At least they can’t block us from Mumsnet for not mindlessly repeating the catechism 😇

Indeed.

The land where needles have been invented to defeat tamperproof seals and defy the laws of physics and chemistry, creating holes in TPN bags so small that liquid molecules cannot leak out.

Absolutely, why not? Any motive for harming and killing babies is obviously not going to make sense to the rest of us. Why do you think she did it then?

This is not what I did. Have you missed the part where I said I heavily leaned towards her innocence for years?

It's the opposite of this place. Anyone who dares say "I think it could be a miscarriage of justice you know guys" is swiftly sent packing! They'd be better than me at dismantling all the innocence arguments but evidently they have much better things to do.

I’m in favour of juries. I think giving the judiciary even more power to not be held accountable would be bad, but much needs to be done regarding how information is given to juries (expert witness system is a joke for e.g).

I think there are several blatant fictions within our current justice system that don’t stand to scrutiny as regards ‘open justice’ or any pretence of transparency, but have thus far mostly flown under the radar:

1. The idea that reporting bans are to “give the defendant the best chance at a fair trial” - in practice, with high profile cases, this is nowhere near true. Front pages will simply echo the generally more shocking prosecution accusations while critical voices are silenced. This shackles the press and the public from being able to scrutinise justice and hold it to account.
2. That we have ‘open justice’ in any real sense - it simply is not ‘open justice’ if only a handful of the public can get into the courtroom and transcripts can cost £100,000 to access. That is not open justice.
3. I also take issue with court ordered anonymity being handed out like sparklers at a birthday party. Anonymity should be given rarely and only for those who really need it. Nothing will ever convince me that a doctor who embarrassed himself by flirting with a nurse young enough to be his daughter is in need of court mandated lifelong anonymity. Are you joking?

Courts wield extraordinary power: they can deprive people of liberty, property, and reputation. In a democracy, such power must be subject to public oversight to retain legitimacy. This is crucial and fundamental in a democracy.

Speaking of open justice, Court reporters are in no way a suitable proxy for the public in a case like this. It would be too much for any reporter to fully cover, but too many of the reporters with full access to this trial presented a blatantly biased sliver of information.

For e.g the door swipe data 🐓 up - the public would still not know about this if Cleuci De Oliviera (a Brazilian journo) hadn’t been there one of those days (as a member of the public) and broke that story on twitter. She was then called a liar everywhere until finally it was (extremely reluctantly) admitted to by the CPS, Liz Hull, Judith Moritz & Co but of course heavily downplayed by all.

Moritz works for a publicly funded broadcaster! Absolutely shameful behaviour. God knows what else happened that we don't know about. I would like to know Moritz’s reasoning behind not reporting this. There is no justification for it. It was clearly of public interest and her wages are financed by the public. Sorry, but that is absolutely atrocious and makes a total joke out of ‘open justice’.

Oh yeah, the standard of debate over there is really next level 😂
Thank God there's only a couple of you here on this thread or we'd really be torn apart 😅

Sounds like the very definition of an echo chamber. Glad we are here, where there are no little totalitarians, and not there.

“They'd be better than me at dismantling all the innocence arguments but evidently they have much better things to do.”

Hahahahaha. No they don’t.

@Kittybythelighthouse I guess it's a fine line between an echo chamber and just people who are right about something...

Years? You heavily leaned towards her innocence for years? Barely anything was reported on save for her arrest and bail and ‘ongoing investigations’ until the trial.

Unless you mean you were abiding by the supposed cornerstone of our justice system: innocent until proven guilty

Yes. That much is apparent.

I have never been on tattle if you’re suggesting I’m one of them? (And only clarifying as I think it’s pretty much been just firefly and me countering some of the pro-Letby arguments on here for a while now)

Please do tell me how a needle can make it past a tamper-evident seal.

No, It's only @Firefly1987 name who has stood out to me on these threads on MN due to refusing to engage in good faith and to constantly throwing out the same old lines over and over.

And on the tattle thread I could have sworn she was a specific user based on the things she was saying over there about MN users, but it was another poster who posted up the screenshot of kittys comment so I know there's at least two, but never thought of your name at all!

Yeah I mean from 2018 maybe? I remember her first or second arrest and followed it ever since then. I thought there was no way she did it, based on what little we had to go on. I often argued against people who thought she was guilty at that point.

I recently read one of their threads because I thought it might be useful to see what issues they were pointing out. Was a bit disappointed to see they don't engage with the evidence other than repeating prosecution talking points and agreeing with each other.

Imagine saying this:

”It's the opposite of this place. Anyone who dares say "I think it could be a miscarriage of justice you know guys" is swiftly sent packing!”

thinking that it makes us look bad and them look good? What a bunch of little Hitlers they must be.

I actually thought our @Firefly1987 had seen the light for a moment there 🥲

I can be repetitive I'll give you that (I'm trying to work on that but I have OCD which doesn't help) but I am debating in good faith. I'm getting questions all over the place, it's hard to keep track or answer them all or read a million sources. I'm not sure what else comes across as not in good faith.

Peter Hitchens' latest column in the Daily Mail (sorry if some of you are offended that some people read it) headlines that we (ie. we the people) are about to be BANNED from talking (presumably online) about Lucy Letby. I haven't read the column as it's behind a pay wall but I will try and find it elsewhere.
It sounds ominous and FWIW I have never been convinced of her guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The 3rd of July whrn it was reported a healthcare worker had been arrested in connection with the deaths. She was named in the 6th after being bailed.

Therre was very very little reported on up until the trial. The public narrative was very tightly controlled until then for obvious reasons. LWH and COVH confirmed they were assisting police. Blah blah. All very generalised. Nothing REALLG to follow.

You weren’t ’on her side’ - there was very little to have opinion on. You were simply assuming innocence until proven guilty.

I had a quick look once when I first started taking an interest in this case. A quick look was more than enough. The very hardline pro verdict people on X are the same. Weird little bullies, basically.

I do not understand people who are interested in true crime only in that they want to pick over the same bones again and again, like a weird sort of ghoulish entertainment, like that’s somehow satisfying, without ever actually thinking about anything.

It’s so weird! And then to assume moral superiority for this ghoulish appetite and lack of human curiosity?! It’s a bit spooky tbh.

Yes - I had a look over the last few pages and they are not coming up with serious arguments over there.

I don't understand why they think they know what is in the CCRC application - looking at the current posts. We have headlines only, from March. And it's a dynamic process - things can be added. And (as with the "no new evidence" refrain, people can discuss the facts of the case outside the legal processes anyway.

From his mother's interview on the first Panorama.

@Efacsen how can it be confidential when the baby's mother was interviewed and said all this herself?

Did you? Seems a bit previous to be taking a firm stance either way that long before the trial. What kind of arguments were you making? And based on what? What finally changed your mind?

He's just saying if there are new charges, which hasn't happened yet, in order not to prejudice proceedings. In practice, it would be more of a grey area and wouldn't exclude all online discussion at all.