Lucy Letby: have you changed your mind - thread 3

[Typicalwave]

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

Thank you @Oftenaddled

OK if you say so 🙄plenty of people trusted the police had got it right at that point and thought she was guilty.

Here it is sans paywall:

https://archive.ph/cqfZR

I don’t personally read the DM, but I don’t expect to agree with people on everything, so no judgement here if you do.

IMO it does nobody favours when everything becomes an us or them issue these days. Issues of justice (for example) are too important for that. Justice concerns all of us. Thanks for pointing to the article.

They sound very foolish. You were right to disagree with them, even if you did change your mind later. Innocent until proven guilty is an important principle that we all should value.

What would be the point in tamper proof seals at all if needles - the one thing most likely to be used for tampering - were easily capable of bypassing such security measures?

At the risk of being repetitive again, this is wild considering how ghoulish Lucy's behaviour was! Which you think is absolutely fine. At least the true crime people aren't at the centre of the deaths themselves, or creeping around the victims.

Firefly, people who are right about something don’t need to silence and hide from those they disagree with. Only totalitarians with weak arguments feel the need to do that.

If they were “just right” about this case they’d be able to demonstrate that with rational discussion. They can’t, so they instead cocoon themselves and their weak arguments in an echo chamber where the truth can’t get in the way of whatever they want to believe. Do you really not see that?

The LucyLetby subreddit is just as bad, they instantly ban anyone who doesn’t parrot the party line. It’s pathetic.

(not to be confused with LucyLetbyTrials which tolerates differing views like rational adults)

You definitely are not.
I started to write a post explaining how you're not and what comes across as not in good faith but I've already explained to you already so I stopped because I can't be bothered typing it again.

I think maybe you just don't understand what engaging in debate in good faith means.

I got AI to explain it

Engaging in a debate in good faith means approaching the discussion with honesty, respect, and a genuine desire to understand and explore the topic, rather than aiming to "win" at all costs. Good faith requires you to consider your opponent's perspective, avoid deceptive tactics like lying or strawman arguments, and remain open to changing your mind. The goal is not necessarily agreement but a mutually productive, enlightening exchange of ideas, even if you ultimately agree to disagree.

I think it's clear to absolutely everyone that you are not engaging in good faith, and surely you yourself can see that.

Of course I'm sure you think the same about others on here, but that's because you're ignoring the fact that we have already considered the prosecutions case in-depth.

It surely cannot be this difficult for you to understand that people who don’t think she did it…don’t think she did it?

It’s like you believe I secretly know she did it but I think serial killing babies is…really cool or something? I promise you I’m a huge fan of babies. I even have some of my own at home.

Are we really not past that notion yet? It’s not the first time we’ve had this conversation…

Yes. Engaging in good faith means being able to present (and argue against) the strongest version of your opponent’s argument. Not constantly resorting to strawmen arguments like characterising your opponents as sickos who love baby killers.

For example: Tattle members using the ban hammer on anyone who disagrees with the party line is not an example of good faith.

I guess someone needs to ask Tattle - I’m sure the explanation will be enlightening.

Well weren’t they silly? Thousands of peopld are arrested each year, bailed and then
case dropped by CPS, or found not guilty.

That was incredibly premature of them.

You did what any normal person would do, presume innocence until otherwise proven.

I’d like to know too @Firefly1987 - given the dearth of information prior to late 2022.

Ah

’They say their child, who is now seven years old, was badly harmed by Letby and has been left with severe learning difficulties and "a lot of complex needs". "There's a consequence," his mother says, "and he's living with it."

This is nothing like what you claimed.

Does anyone know if the CRCC can appoint/hire their own experts to fact find or to provide information?

I belueve so. I know they can access any records they wish, interview whom they wish, so I can’t see why they can’t consult ang expert they feel they need to

How is it not?!

That's totally beside the point-she was still at the centre of the deaths and displaying disturbed ghoulish behaviour whether she did it or not. Worse than any true crime fan (although there are nutters that go to crime scenes etc.)

I just read about something else she did which I hadn't heard of before (so won't be repeating myself for once) after one of the twins died she put his teddy in with his brother and took a photo and said "look he rolled over and started clutching his brothers teddy and I thought it was so amazing so I took a photo"
Only later did the parents realise the baby wouldn't even have been able to roll over like that.
She left one of the dead twin babies on the unit and when the mother came down to visit her other baby she was so shocked to see him and asked why he was still there and Lucy said "you didn't tell us to take him"!

It’s like you believe I secretly know she did it but I think serial killing babies is…really cool or something? I promise you I’m a huge fan of babies. I even have some of my own at home.

More like the opposite-you're desperate for her to be innocent because who would want to believe anyone could do something so evil. But on some level you must know it wouldn't be this hard to defend her if she wasn't guilty. You should've been her barrister, I mean you wouldn't have got her off (no one could) but you'd be as good as Myers probably.

Yes - they can and do

It’s a belief. Not a fact.

In the family victim impact statement to the court mum also referenced baby F’s disabilities and said they believed it was a result….

You present it as a medical fact - whrn this isn’t what has been said.

That story is most likely about the tonic neck reflex, which you can see even in premature babies.

And yes, you would wait for parents' permission before removing their child from the ward where at all possible. Don't you think people would criticize Lucy Letby if the parents said, we came down to the ward expecting to see him and he was gone?

Neither of these stories should be used as ammunition against anyone.

Yes, they have pretty wide powers to investigate any suspected MoJ.

They can for example obtain any document or material relevant to a case from public bodies (police, CPS, NHS, social services, prisons, etc.), even if that material wasn’t disclosed at trial and they can also compel private bodies to produce material. They regularly instruct experts and can commission dna testing, toxicology, digital forensics etc. Their budget is not unlimited though.

You just wouldn't be able to attribute development delays and complex needs to insulin poisoning retrospectively.

We know the child was born at 29 weeks and suffered borderline growth restriction in utero, neonatal hyperglycemia and absent-end diastolic flow, all of which are risk factors for such outcomes. That's before the poorly controlled hypoglycemia, with or without insulin poisoning. You can't simply pinpoint one of these factors and ignore the other four. It's a shame the child's parents believe that Lucy Letby is responsible for their child's condition, but there would be no way to link it to insulin poisoning.

I said it was consistent with insulin poisoning, which it is. All the medical facts in this case are disputed so not much change there.

@Oftenaddled the baby was fine until that first bag was put up and started recovering when the second bag was removed.

“That's totally beside the point-she was still at the centre of the deaths and displaying disturbed ghoulish behaviour whether she did it or not.”

Can you really, honestly, not put yourself into my mindset, even just as a thought experiment, and understand that nothing she did is actually “ghoulish” if she is the victim of a MoJ? It’s all just normal human stuff filtered through an “evil nurse” lens.

I think you’re really struggling with understanding that prosecution allegations are not facts (we’ve discussed this before). The prosecution are always going to act like the defendant in ANY case is public enemy number 1 - the worst miscreant who ever walked the face of the earth, no matter how innocent they are. It’s impossible to have a rational discussion with you if you cannot understand that I totally reject the prosecution’s framing.

Witness testimony, coming from people who have been misled into thinking someone they previously trusted murdered their babies, are going to reframe every memory in light of that story. Anyone would do the same. It doesn’t make that reframing accurate.

I don’t think any of the prosecution’s “ghoulish” framing is true. I think Cheshire police’s investigation was extremely poor and they made a ton of embarrassing mistakes - we probably don’t know the half of all that yet. Most of all I think the lead “expert” witness Dewi Evans is a horrendous, nasty, little Witchfinder who lies for profit at the drop of a hat and should probably be behind bars.

I simply don’t see it at all like you do. I don’t think you’re a bad person though. I just think you’ve been misled by vicious framing and bad information. You do seem to think I’m a bad person, because I would be if I accepted even a fraction of the framing that you have fully taken on as fact. I don’t accept it though. I reject it all.

From my perspective, following over a year of pretty close research, I’ve come to the conclusion that she’s just a fairly ordinary English nurse, who worked more than anyone else, who took all the overtime she could because she was saving for a house, and who unfortunately fell in the firing line when a doctor panicked about rising death rate (not understanding that it was a statistically normal random cluster) and had a gut feeling that she was “always there” (she wasn’t). It spiralled wildly out of control, but it all grew from that.

Thars my position and if you can’t understand that this IS truly my position it’s honestly impossible to converse rationally. You don’t need to agree with me to understand that I see it completely differently. I don’t agree with you, but I appreciate that you at least want to engage in good faith. To do that you have to accept that my perspective is very unlike yours. Any attempts to have a conversation will only descend into absurdity if you don’t/won’t/can’t.

“More like the opposite-you're desperate for her to be innocent because who would want to believe anyone could do something so evil.”

I’m totally capable of thinking people can be very evil indeed and I’m really not “desperate” for her to be innocent. I truly think she is, after a long time of considering every piece of evidence and testimony I could lay my hands on. I didn’t make a snap decision.

“you must know it wouldn't be this hard to defend her if she wasn't guilty.”

I’m not finding it hard at all. Are you?