Lucy Letby - have you changed your mind thread 4

[MistressoftheDarkSide]

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

My opinion is that I'm not convinced by the evidence and it stuns me that a woman got locked up for life based on the evidence provided. I would never have expected to see something like that happen in 2023. Ever.

Whether I think my opinion is right or not is besides the point, it's not your opinion of guilt that I have an issue with, it's your behaviour. Deciding your opinion is right therefore you think it's ok to tell people they're a fan of a baby killer and so on. 'You guys this' 'You lot that'...and the projection....well don't even get me started.

There are many people who have shared your opinion that she's guilty on these threads, but most are able to share it without going on like that.

Anyway, I'm just going to be discussing the new developments from now on and not engaging with this thread killer stuff with you any longer.

It's an interesting question, asking what could change your mind. I think it is important to ask it.

For me, I don't see how anything to do with the insulin cases could change my mind. There's just nothing linking Lucy Letby to them any more than anyone else.

If a number of the deaths were really unexplained, I suppose that would undermine my confidence. So if we had serious experts with an international reputation arguing that Child A couldn't have died of either of the two conditions the experts have posited, and there was no alternative explanation, and I suppose if you had similar for several other children, I'd feel uneasy.

I can't take Dewi Evans as seriously as these people. First, he's not an internationally regarded expert. I don't mean any insult by that, but he just isn't. Second, he has a habit of saying he can't explain how he knows things. Well, that's a pity, but I'd never believe anyone on that basis.

If someone convinced me that Lucy Letby was really without empathy, obsessive, morbid, narcissistic or any of the other character defects that have been suggested, that wouldn't change my views because so many people have these traits and aren't serial killers.

So, radically different expert opinions on several babies could change my mind, but I feel very secure in the fact that each baby has had at least 3 separate reviews establishing a natural cause of death. So if someone credible comes forward to say none of these causes are credible I'd be quite shaken, but I feel confident for now

I think I'm coming at it from the point of view that there are problems with the prosecution evidence when it comes to whether there were actually murders committed.

You have door swipe data indicating whether someone was present or not then realise it's backwards. How can it still be useful if some of it says the opposite to what you were originally suggesting?

You've got experts saying that the stats data has been misused. We can be sure that there were other similar deaths/collapses that weren't considered.

You've got medical experts saying that there are more plausible causes of death/collapse for all of the cases. In fact the deaths weren't considered suspicious at the time.

You've got other medical experts saying that the prosecution's causes of death don't actually work in some cases - injecting air into the stomach or overfeeding - and that adding insulin to a TPN bag would be detectable because they're tamper proof. If you were looking for patterns with a serial killer, surely you'd look for consistent method or type of victim first?

All of this is working off notes and memories from years previously. There is no forensic evidence either way.

Those are, I think, the most compelling problems with the physical evidence.

It could still be true that LL is a murderer or a terrible nurse, but it's up to the prosecution to present convincing evidence and I don't think they have. They've gone for quantity of incidents.

This reminds me of the playing chess with a pigeon saying.

That pretty much sums it up for me too.

Im horrified.

I still had faith in our criminal courts.

Not any more.

They all say that - or so prison officers famously say.

That’s just statistics. Plenty and plentyy of people convicted say they are innocent. And a percentage will be.

With respect, I’m not sure you’re able to discern between facts and opinions.

I actually didn't mean to bring up the same arguments again but someone new posted and I was replying to them. They hadn't been on the previous threads so had most likely missed a lot of stuff. I'm not sure I invited anyone else to comment? But you could've just ignored it anyway. So you want someone to just go "ok fine you think differently to me, bye then" are you aware how discussions work or do you just want everyone to agree with you?

Really?! Just goes to show you can find an expert to argue against anything doesn't it...

My opinion is that I'm not convinced by the evidence and it stuns me that a woman got locked up for life based on the evidence provided. I would never have expected to see something like that happen in 2023. Ever.

So basically, you're doing exactly the same thing you accused me of. You refuse to just accept that the jury found the evidence convincing and came to a different conclusion than you. You must be right, and the jury must all be idiots. The irony is off the charts.

Whether I think my opinion is right or not is besides the point, it's not your opinion of guilt that I have an issue with, it's your behaviour. Deciding your opinion is right therefore you think it's ok to tell people they're a fan of a baby killer and so on. 'You guys this' 'You lot that'...and the projection....well don't even get me started.

I didn't think saying "you guys" is offensive...maybe if it wasn’t a five against one pile on where you all agree with each other, demand I read vast pages of sources in 5 mins and then all say things like “she won’t read it” I wouldn’t use that term. I don’t really know what projection means in this context so can’t even begin to address that. Why don’t people just say what they mean instead of snide comments like this.

Also I don’t remember telling anyone they’re a fan of a baby killer. So unless you want to quote me and give me a chance to address it and/or apologise I’m going to assume I didn’t use the words “fan of a baby killer” to describe anyone on here. I’m not sure most arguing for her innocence have covered themselves in glory either tbh. Some have been more able to have a discussion than others though, for sure.

There are many people who have shared your opinion that she's guilty on these threads, but most are able to share it without going on like that.

As I recall, most of them got pretty fed up of the patronising put downs and demands for their credentials and left ages ago.

Anyway, I'm just going to be discussing the new developments from now on and not engaging with this thread killer stuff with you any longer.

Great! I’m sure there will be plenty of things of substance to discuss from the expert panel. We’ll see how long the thread lasts now…

Ha! I'll remember this comment when more charges against her come out.

Cab rank rule. Look it up. Fundamental access to justice principle.

Charges are not convictions.

Ok. Happy to discuss that development factually should it occur. I don’t think it’s impossible and actually isn’t unheard of in situations where an appeal is being sought. Neither you nor I know if she’s truly innocent but I would imagine we’d all agree that a fair trial is in everyone’s interests.

Well convictions are not convictions to you guys either 😆oops sorry I said "you guys" again didn't I.

p.s I will apologise now in the event someone manages to find a quote of me calling anyone a baby killer fan. Leaving you to discuss all the expert panel evidence now, I'm sure there will be absolutely loads to get through, ta-ta!

1. I don’t mind ‘you guys’ in this context as it provides me with some light comic relief (Goonies fan)
2. ‘well convictions are not convictions to you guys’ - I really am going to need you to explain what you mean here before I conclude you are either wilfully misrepresenting people here or you have some reading comprehension challenges, and we’re back to the question ‘does Firefly believe convicts should have a right to access appeals processes if they are convicted?’

Excellent summary.

I don't rule out the possibility that LL is nonetheless a killer. Maybe she is. Meanwhile, there are clear issues with the evidence and we have a system that undoubtedly isn't structurally equipped to quickly deal with miscarriages of justice.

Nobody’s arguing that she hasn’t been convicted. That’s literally what we’re discussing here, the safety of those convictions.

Send help! 🫠😭😅

I’m still here @Firefly1987! But yes, did indeed step away for a while for exactly the reasons you mention (as well as a bit of work/life).

Anyway, in the spirit of moving things on, I’m interested that there hasn’t been much, if any, discussion here about Peter Hammond’s latest article which finally reveals why defence experts weren’t called, particularly as there had been some anticipation about this on this thread.

As far as I’m concerned the reasons it sets out are exactly the reasons why lots of us had always thought they didn’t call experts (ie that they would not have helped her as they didn’t disagree with the prosecution on key elements of their case). But am interested in others’ reflections on this.

I can’t find it online and so far have struggled to manage to read any of the photos taken of it.

Same here x

There's a bit on reddit.

From what I glean the varying levels of "expertise" were a bit of a stumbling block, particularly around the insulin. I would have thought at that point further more focused opinions would have been sought on both sides.

It’s Phil Hammond.

Private Eye is a print magazine and it will likely be at least a week before the article is published online as part of the series of special reports on this case.

Sorry, yes of course Phil Hammond! (Brain fart as I know a Peter Hammond 😆)

I've always assumed the same thing - they didn't have anyone who could explain the insulin results, and they did not have experts who were willing to categorically rule out air embolism (because how can you? It would not necessarily leave any trace).

Against that, the defence argument was that there was no meaningful evidence to support air embolism, and no reason to associate Lucy Letby with the insulin test results more than anyone else.

So it hasn't come as much of a revelation to me. These assumptions were already baked into my assessment of the case. The defence wasn't capable of mounting a scientific defence around the insulin testing then. It is now. So do we leave Lucy Letby in prison because they didn't get there first time around?

I was surprised at Mike Hall's claim that he hadn't seen a vital page of the medical record on Baby O. Couldn't he just have blinked and missed it, given the volume of material he was dealing with? And if so, should that stop the defence from using it in their attempt to exonerate Lucy Letby?

My questions are all about the justice system at this stage.