Lucy Letby - have you changed your mind thread 4

[MistressoftheDarkSide]

With thanks to the original poster @kittybythelighthouse and @Tidalwave for continuing the discussion.

Nope, not only because. The number of MOJ victims vastly outstrips the number of people LL has been convicted of killing. The Post Office scandal alone is over a hundred times more. This is very basic information.

Also, you can't have it both ways. If the parents are avoiding social media, the issue of them reading this thread doesn't arise.

I know, it was the idea I took all this from tabloids I was addressing. I think writing the initials for the days they were born, allegedly attacked and died is a bit of overinvolvement though. Surely you can see how if she DID attack them, this is exactly the sort of stuff they'd expect to find?

It’s worth remembering that quite a few families and friends of murder victims have been convinced of someone’s guilt - I’m thinking specifically of Rachel Nickell’s parents, who said publicly that they believed Colin Stagg was responsible. Of course, he wasn’t and they did retract that statement and apologise (not that they should have had to really; they believed what the police told them.) But the point of course is that the personal pain and anguish of a family doesn’t mean that a miscarriage of justice can take place: the fact that needs saying is disturbing.

The post office victims weren't accused of killing anyone so it's not really the same thing (in fact I think they'd be hugely offended at the comparison)

Also, you can't have it both ways. If the parents are avoiding social media, the issue of them reading this thread doesn't arise.

Oh well, that makes it alright then.

It’s incredibly disturbing.

Thanks, take the point about the tabloids.

I'd assume she noted initials for deaths, births, and children in her care when she was on duty. So we know she was on duty when Child A was born and when child A died, for example. So I wouldn't see this as sinister.

I don't see why she would note down the dates babies were born as part of a plan to kill them, no. Why would it make any difference?

@Oftenaddled
How was it possible for her to commit this crime? is such a fundamental aspect of this that I know we have talked about, but it's so striking!

How did she tamper with tamper-evident, cellophane-wrapped bags? I genuinely can't see a way that is feasible.

How did she force feed the enormous quantities of milk that was cited as a method of harm? Multiple people have said this just isn't possible and makes no sense.

How did she create an air embolism in a room with two other nurses without them noticing?

Forgetting about from Dewi Evans' dodgy science for a moment, and the fact that there are other more plausible causes for the deaths, quite a few of the accusations don't even seem to be possible, let alone probable.

Okay then

People discussing concerns that this may be a miscarriage of justice and believe that it should be properly reviewed to make sure either way are not “arguing for a serial killer to be released”. Are you 12? Ffs.

I’m still waiting for you to explain how you can be so sure that YOU are right in the context where the medical evidence that there were any murders in the first place has been completely torn to shreds. You are the one who is being foolish and reckless here.

“And what about if the parents of the babies are reading this? Did you consider them AT ALL?!”

The babies in the Lucia De Berk case had parents too. They were as sure as these parents are that she had killed their babies, because that’s what they were told. Unfortunately they were misled. Do you think she shouldn’t have been exonerated?

We live in a democratic society that is supposed to have fair, transparent justice, which includes speaking freely about matters concerning the public interest.

You could always move to North Korea- they actively discourage any and all engagement in speech concerning the state and its affairs.

Ah, the paradox of the extremely clever manipulative and almost undetectable serial killer, versus the idiocy of someone who knew they were under suspicion and positively hoarded incriminating evidence. Yep, totally logical 🙄

You're not remotely qualified to speak on what the Post Office victims think, especially the ones who died before they ever saw justice, but by all means we can restrict it only to those wrongly accused of murder if you prefer. There are still lots, lots more than 7 of them. To that end, I wonder what Lucia de Berk's family would make of some of your contributions this thread.

As to your second point, au contraire, it makes you weaponising them to try and stop people saying things you don't like a logic fail as well as very much not alright.

You're not saying it needs looking into though, you're claiming her almost certainly innocent and saying if any of her family are reading this for them to know you believe in her! You have no idea if you're wrong. It's wild how you can just proclaim her innocent, absolutely wild.

I don’t think it is; after all, you’re proclaiming her guilty.

It’s wild that you still do not understand how ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ works.

And how that weaves in with Biackstone’s ratio.

Taking all of your information from CS2C and believing that makes you informed is actually worse than getting it from tabloids. Sorry. At least the tabloids do sometimes include other arguments.

I have listened to CS2C btw. Let me ask you, have you read or listened to anything that challenges your position? Are you willing to do that? If not then that’s an admission of a total lack of curiosity, or reasoned adult engagement with matters of justice, beyond a desire to gleefully rubberneck at other people’s pain and call it morally righteous. It isn’t.

Unfortunately they were misled. Do you think she shouldn’t have been exonerated?

Well you could just wait until Lucy is exonerated then (don't hold your breath). Meanwhile just think for a second how you'd feel about people feeling sorry for the person who killed your child and declaring them almost certainly innocent. They don't even have a voice as there is so much they are probably not allowed to talk about.

I don’t feel sorry for a woman who killed somebody’s child, I feel sorry for a woman who has lost her career, reputation, liberty, home, pets and future and is still imprisoned now while some of the most knowledgeable people in neonatal medicine have come out, pro bono, to say no crimes were committed. That is absolutely unheard of, isn’t it? Yet still we fall back on ‘but she’s a baby killer.’

Public and media scrutiny of the justice system is as much a cornerstone of democratic justice as jury trials. Miscarriages of justice don’t get rectified without it. Lucia De Berk would not have been exonerated without it. Neither would Sally Clark. You are the one arguing to shut that down. You aren’t the good guy here.

“there is so much they are probably not allowed to talk about.”

And why is that? It’s because of the extremely unusual anonymity orders in this case.

You know onw thing that has always baffled me is why the police dug up her garden? What on earth were they looking for?

I don't think anyone claimed any of that. They get sloppy, always happens. That's how they get caught. They cannot control themselves. They cannot give up their trophies. If she was innocent you could also say "why did she keep these confidential documents"? Especially if some of them don't even relate to the babies in the case? It just makes it look like she either harmed way more babies than was known at the time, or took every handover sheet home to make it look less likely she wanted to keep the important ones (under her bed)

Why did she hang around after shift to fish out a note another nurse had put in the BIN?! Totally normal all this. People always fish out stuff from bins that others have thrown away, and then keep it for years. I'm sure she just needed it for her defence because she knew she was about to get investigated for trying to murder babies 🙄

I'd be surprised if it makes much difference to them. They know the truth, you don't.

Note that the media were tipped off in order to be there and photograph this garden digging. Therein lies your answer.

I could bring ANY 100% guilty healthcare serial killer to you and you would argue the same thing-for their innocence. You do not accept anything unless someone saw them do it with their own eyes. I think someone else said it best earlier in the thread-"that's a YOU problem" and is only going to get you more irate about the justice system. Meanwhile, everyone else is satisfied that justice has been done.

You didn’t answer the question.