Lucy Letby - have you changed your mind thread 4

[MistressoftheDarkSide]

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

They are top of their fields, with solid gold reputations, extremely lucrative careers, and their legacies to think of. What do you mean “what are they actually losing”?! If they were dishonestly shilling for a serial killer nurse they would have everything to lose. What would they gain? They aren’t even being paid!

“It's not like they're being ripped to shreds”

No they are not and they won’t be either.

“Surely Shoo Lee is just pissed they used his paper?”

This is just silly. Very poor effort. These people have come from all over the world, from Tokyo to Sweden. From e.g the hospital that is the home of the Nobel Prize for Medicine.

Even if Shoo Lee was petty enough to come all the way from Canada on his own buck to shill for a serial killer nurse from Chester, throwing his career, reputation, and legacy down the toilet, why would the other 13 join him in this self destruction?

Why would he care whether the prosecution used his paper if they used it correctly? That would only be good for him.

On that note if Dr Lee is not trustworthy why did the prosecution rely on his paper as the only evidence of air embolism in the trial? If he is trustworthy why isn’t what he has to say now important?

The prosecution forced him into this case by misusing his research to wrongly convict someone for life.

He stepped in because it’s the right thing to do both morally and for science.

The others joined him because they also have integrity and he is respected enough to be taken extremely seriously by them. That’s it. Nothing more or less than that.

I think this may be the third time you’ve explained this to @Firefly1987

Pissed they used his paper? 😮

More likely he's horrified that his paper was misused in order to send a woman to prison. If it were you who wrote a paper and you knew it had been completely misused to put someone in prison don't you think you'd also be horrified?

@Firefly1987
I asked you in the last thread because you brought up the strange rashes again as evidence for her guilt, but I don't think you answered.

What do you think caused those rashes?

An excellent question.

Checking in as a lurker. I’ve always doubted the legitimacy of her conviction and it’s interesting to read all of your scholarly thoughts on the case.

Shoo Lee will have published dozens (possibly hundreds) of academic papers. People citing them will be no big deal to him, nor people misunderstanding them a bit. But people completely misinterpreting them and locking someone up on what he is uniquely qualified to recognise as a false change?

He said it himself with he was asked at the press conference. He sees Lucy Letby's case as a tragedy.

I feel like a stepdaughter in a Grimm Brothers fairytale, stuck in the Mumsnet tower, condemned by a magical dwarf to keep making the same points over and over again for extremely petty but unknown reasons.

Why do I do it?! Send help!

According to John Sweeney via PubMed Lee has published around 400 peer reviewed papers.

Which is 399 more than Dewi Evans.

Hi. Would you share what bothers you about the conviction?

Genuine question, and apologies if already asked, I’ve only read first page of thread. For those, who have changed their mind and believe she is innocent, would you genuinely have zero qualms in allowing her to look after your baby, completely unsupervised, in a medical setting?

If she was over the trauma of the last decade, and if I had a baby for her to look after, sure, as much as I would any other nurse - but not at the Counter of Chester Hospital.

I wouldn’t be comfortable with my newborn in any NNU in the NHS, Letby or no Letby - we sit at #19 out of 22 OECD countries for poorest outcomes in maternal, neonatal and infant morbidity and mortality.

But seeing as we don’t have the luxury of country hopping my answer is no, I would not be comfortable.

Im not here because I believe without a shadow of a doubt that she is innocent, I’m here because I don’t believe she’s guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Those are two entirely different bars.

These words will come back to haunt you. How could you EVER take the risk with your precious baby? You're just offering another being (a vulnerable helpless child) up to her. Maybe if it was adults she was killing it'd be fine to say something like that. You wanna take the risk that's up to you(!) like say if it was Harold Shipman you were convinced was innocent and you said "yeah I'd be his patient" I'd say fair enough. But not to gamble with a child's life.

Sooner Lucy Letby than some of the consultants she worked with - and who, eight years on, have an application in to go back to managing short-term neo-natal intensive care. There's something to worry about.

Yep. I never said it did. I don’t rely on vibes though, so everything I give weight to is evidence, not vibes, and therefore falsifiable via evidence, but not by vibes.

It's not just vibes though is it? It's a pattern of behaviour that ALONG with the expert evidence point to her guilt. Your side ONLY has "expert" evidence that hasn't even been tested in court.

The mere fact that more plausible alternatives than murder exist is more than enough to prove that murder is the least likely cause of death and thus more than enough to introduce reasonable doubt in spades, which is what the law requires.

Nothing is plausible in this case. A serial killer nurse isn't plausible and neither is consultants and experts ganging up on an innocent nurse to make her a scapegoat and bring internationally attention to themselves and the hospital. But one of them happened.

No. In this scenario it would be letting her out because no murders happened in the first place.

You can't possibly know that for sure if you've got one set of experts saying harm was caused deliberately.

In this scenario she would have been either exonerated or she would have won her appeal. There would be no “convicted serial killer” to let out. That’s why they would let her out.

Splitting hairs but ok lol.

Don’t be silly. No it wouldn’t.

How wouldn't it if the experts can't agree?

On the other hand your position would require many more nurses to be convicted of murders. The whole country is crawling with serial killer nurses if you’re right and this evidence is solid evidence of murder. Every hospital probably has several nurses who would be convictable under the same standard LL was. When are we rounding them all up?

Doesn't the fact this isn't happening tell you something? Why do you think that is?

I could make lots of little arrows point at you by filtering everything through a lens that presumes murders took place and that you are responsible for those murders.

In those circumstances literally everything looks evil. If you were thought to be a serial killer everything you do, even if it is; boring, or normal, or everyday, becomes shocking proof of malevolence in the context of you being a murderer. In this way even your most benign behaviour is part of an overwhelming constellation of circumstantial evidence. It’s circular reasoning. It’s not evidence of guilt no matter how many benign behaviours you filter through a ‘serial killer’ presumption of guilt and group together.

You call a tracksuit that you opened the door at 6am in ‘pyjamas’?!

Liar! It’s a ‘blue Lee.cooper leisure suit” you’re definitely a murderer for saying this tracksuit you slept in is pyjamas. PRISON!!

Shit day at work, but you won some money at the grand national and text a friend about it on your way home?

EVIL BITCH! You clearly don’t care about any babies who were sick in your workplace today. You may never enjoy life even slightly unless no babies are ever sick in the literal intensive care unit for sick premature babies you work in. MURDERER!

(This rule also applies to Hospice workers btw. No happiness in life may be felt or expressed unless nobody was poorly at work today)

You have slightly better vision than a colleague and may or may not have said a baby looks pale?

GASP where’s the ducking stool for this obvious witch?!

When told by the police that they have definitive proof that someone was 100% poisoned (via a supposedly forensic test) you don’t argue that they are wrong, because you trust that the police aren’t lying to your fupping face?*

Oops! You just “agreed” that this was a murder attempt, therefore you’re the one who tried to commit the murder. It doesn’t matter that the lab that does the test says in bold red letters in their guidelines that it isn’t forensic or reliable enough to prove anything. You accepted the premise so JINX you’re it! No takey backeys. Enjoy life in prison.

*They were lying to your fupping face btw. Jokes on you. Hope you like being gaslighted into becoming Britain’s most hated woman.

And so on, and on, and on.

Really? I'm thrilled for them if that's the case. Hope it happens, I have no worries on that front at all. There's a reason most of them still work at the Countess, they're good doctors. They did everything they could to save those babies. In fact if it wasn't for them there would more than likely be far more deaths.

“It's not just vibes though is it? It's a pattern of behaviour that ALONG with the expert evidence point to her guilt”

Judgements about behaviour is just vibes. Sorry.

“Your side ONLY has "expert" evidence that hasn't even been tested in court.”

It has been rigorously peer reviewed by top level scientists, experts. Courts are no good at “testing” scientific evidence, this is known. Scientists are. Most lawyers and judges etc don’t even have a science A level. The court test is nonetheless the ultimate point though anyway. Have patience.

“Nothing is plausible in this case. A serial killer nurse isn't plausible and neither is consultants and experts ganging up on an innocent nurse to make her a scapegoat and bring internationally attention to themselves and the hospital. But one of them happened.”

Let me help you here:

A serial killer nurse? Vanishingly unlikely. Needs extraordinary evidence to prove.

Scapegoating in a crumbling NHS that is experiencing across the board neonatal crises? Not rare at all unfortunately. Extremely likely in fact.

There you go. I know which one my money is on.

“You can't possibly know that for sure if you've got one set of experts saying harm was caused deliberately.”

Their evidence has been thoroughly debunked. Some of it was walked back by the actual prosecution lead expert witness.

Im interested that you say this though, because it sounds like an accidental admission that YOU have reasonable doubt because experts disagree.

We don’t keep people in prison just in case.

“Doesn't the fact this isn't happening tell you something? Why do you think that is?”

Doesn't the fact that we aren’t rounding up every nurse we can using the same level of evidence used on LL tell you something?

Many hypoglycaemic babies have immunoassays that show anomalous results.

Many nurses take home handover sheets.

Many babies die from natural causes and have uncontroversial post mortems

Many nurses work more shifts than anyone else

Many babies die from poor care in a crumbling NHS.

Many hospitals have a random cluster of deaths that seems much higher than usual, in fact one hospital per year in the UK will experience this.

Some nurse will always be the one nurse who seemed to be “always there”

You’re so close to getting it.

Can you not just let posters answer the other posters question without jumping in and trying to shame the poster?

Sounds like the poster who asked just wants to know how strongly people actually believe in her innocence but you have to use it as an excuse to once again position yourself as supreme protector of babies while acting like no one else gives a shit.

And yet you won't say a single bad word about anyone else at the hospital...

‘These words will come back to haunt you’

Are you saying you can now see the future and the vanishingly unlikely event of @Oftenaddled (congrats! For the future, apparently)?

And of course those consultants are actually still practicing medicine. Whereas even if LL is entirely exonerated, she clearly is never going to nurse again. So unlike with her, there is actually a theoretical possibility that the selection of perjurers and God complex havers staffing the Chester consultant roster might actually look after our loved ones.

It's just a "can't lose" question, from some people's point of view - not saying that applies to the user who asked it here

But - answer no - see, you don't really think she's innocent!

And - answer yes - you monster, leaving your child with a baby killer!

It's just grandstanding. But yes, I would genuinely hesitate around that neo-natal unit.

Naive at best.

I don’t find this question difficult. I wouldn’t leave my baby with her because I don’t know her. I wouldn’t leave my baby with any of you either, no offence! I only leave my baby in the care of 3 people in the entire world, two of them close family, one a very close lifelong friend. Who is going round leaving their baby in the care of random people they have never so much as spoken to?

Lucy Letby’s friend Dawn, who does know her, would leave her baby with her. As I’m sure would others who know her well. She is godmother to several children already.

I agree with you @Oftenaddled I certainly wouldn’t leave my baby anywhere near COCH.