Lucy Letby - have you changed your mind pt. 5

[Typicalwave]

New thread

Part 4 here - https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/_chat/5400564-lucy-letby-have-you-changed-your-mind-thread-4?utm_campaign=thread&utm_medium=app_share

Originally started by @kittybythelighthouse

So which deaths of the 13 was she not on shift for?

She was not on duty for one of two non indictment deaths in September 2015, nor for two deaths in February and March 2016, out of the 13 that took place on the ward between June 2015 and June 2016.

No matter what - Letby wasnt present for around 50% of the deaths associated with COCH - still WAY over the usual amount of deaths. And yet the ONLY explanation is a serial murderer nurse…

That would depend on whether the incidents were considered suspicious before or after they knew that LL was present.

Well Evans has said he looked at everything not knowing who was on shift or if they had someone in the frame. He specifically wanted to make sure there was no accusation of bias. You do realise that if she's guilty then she's the one that's going to be the common denominator whether anyone knew she was on shift or not?

Let's not forget that there were 17 deaths over the time period and an unknown (but presumably larger) number of collapses. Once we remove the 7 deaths that were ruled as murder we're still left with 10 where the expected value was 2 or 3. Don't we still need to account for those?

We don't know what happened to those but it's not beyond the realms of possibility that LL was there for most of those too. They didn't have strong enough evidence to take everything to court and it was already a very lengthy trial. The first Panorama documentary said she was there for all deaths the past year. Now some are saying it's 12/13 she was there for, so I still don't think we're absolutely sure. These are insane numbers anyway-this unit expected 2-3 a year before 2015!

As to how many charges could you stack up if you were innocent - well it depends whether just being at your place of work counts as a reason to suspect you. The more you're there, the more likely we are to find something. And the more things we find, the more likely you are to be guilty, right?

Goes for every nurse, and yet only Lucy was ever in the frame.

You seem to like to turn opinion into fact and are unable to accept that others don't agree with you.

Some things aren't merely a "difference of opinion"-and on a convicted serial killer of BABIES case all the more reason to not just "accept" it. She had a PLUMBER defend her, that's all. No one else had any natural explanation for the deaths, even her own defence expert didn't for some of them. It'd be a different convo if there were multiple experts going up against the prosecution with plausible reasons for the deaths and collapses. There is no explanation that holds any weight that's the bottom line.

For example in LL case "Baby killers are abhorrent, she's been accused so she must be guilty" - I'm not saying that happened, I'm saying it could which by your reasoning means it did.

No because my thought process at the start was "she must be innocent it must be a mistake, why would anyone harm babies" plus it made no sense there were so many collapses and multiple attempts if she wanted to kill them (she was a nurse she'd know how to first time). So what was the motive? I've said I thought she was innocent before on previous threads. The evidence was more than convincing. Also I know it's been said a million times but no one writes "I killed them on purpose" unless it's true.

Stop claiming "she is" guilty, you don't know that for a fact - you may notice that those who are saying the conviction is unsafe are not claiming "she is" innocent, they say they believe she didn't have a good defence team and new evidence / testimony / etc. should be taken into account at a (fairer) retrial - not she is 100% innocent and should be released today.

The problem is you have to find experts that will go into court and defend her and she had her chance for that. This new panel might be saying all the right things to sway public opinion but I really doubt they'd be putting their careers on the line in court defending her. If they actually did all their theories would soon fall apart under cross examination. Logic says there's a reason she could find no one to defend her at the trial.

Well Evans has said he looked at everything not knowing who was on shift or if they had someone in the frame. He specifically wanted to make sure there was no accusation of bias.

He did try to say that but it isn’t true. When pressed he conceded that the notes he was given to review had not had the nurses names redacted. And he knew they were looking for incidents associated with a specific nurse. Don’t forget he knew exactly what was required from him, after all he immediately identified it as ‘my kind of case’.

Because the experts - international panel and others - have been formally instructed by the defence, their reports can now be used / quoted / published as the defence team wishes.

So the idea that they would be scared of scrutiny just doesn't hold water.

Why exactly would they have wasted their very valuable time on all this if they didn't want to defend their conclusions? That's quite a conspiracy theory you are trying to sell there.

Logic (and testimony) have by now given us plenty of reason that Lucy Letby's defence experts didn't take the stand. Why are you still acting as if it's some great sinister mystery?

I thought your reasons didn't extend beyond "her defence team weren't very good"?

And immediatly identified ‘murder’ within 10 minutes.

And then on the stand changed his opinion.

And then in subsequent interviews continued to show himself up for what he is, a man in yhd business of making money as an expert witness which means, for the CPD, being ‘sure’ even when he can’t be (air embolism is pretty much impossible to prove as just one example) bevause that’s what yhe cps wants bevause it’s what lau juries need. And it’s likely why Mike hall wasnt called - bevause Hd had integrity and wouod tell the truth - he cannot be 100% certain - because no one can. Dewi Evans is a charlatan.

just another example of you twisting whay people have said.

I’m just going to come oug and say it - why are any of us at this point responding to a troll?

I’ll await the deletion.

Feel free to point me to where I've said that.

Two new articles in the Telegraph - one by, one about Lucy Letby's lawyer, Mark McDonald

https://archive.is/NQwVy

Does anyone truly think of Wales and the Welsh the way Dr Evans suggests? It sounds a bit of a stretch.

Anyway I remember an old saying, stop banging your head against the wall, the wall won't move and you get a sore head.

So easy to get sucked in when she makes ridiculous claims!
Going to try (again) not to though 😅

I'm not I can't remember specifically who said what. Some posters HAVE repeatedly stated she had a bad defence.

That's rich, I'm not the one telling people that grieving parents got it all wrong. Maybe give the Jay Slater documentary a watch. It gives a very good insight into the damage internet detectives who are so convinced they're right cause. You lot rile me up not the other way around.

Nope. Posters have repeatedly pointed out that they may not understand why the defence experts wasnt called but that Tgere were strategic reason for possibly doing so - unlike you, many of us are not egotistical enoygh to believe we know with certainty what other people’s motives or beliefs are . I’ve posted for you on at least three separate occasions an article written by a criminal law PE turer with a background in medical criminal laws thd reason why the defence witnesses may not have been called.

You continue to just ignore and tell everyone what their motives, thoughts and reasoning is….. often with a dose of hyperbole

There you go.

Keep on keeping on - Yoire the gift that keeps on giving.

The grieving oarents dudng belueve theif babies were murdered by a killer nurse until Cheshire police told them so.

Thank you for proving my point.

But please, go ahead - tell me that I think aboyg Jay Slater…I’ll wait.

Yeah so you said. I intend to stop doing just that after the new documentary airs. Then I'll quietly sit back and await the new charges. Pity everyone else can't do that before spouting all their theories on her innocence.

It’s a pity there are some people who cannot accept others havd a different view to them without thinly veiled personal attacks.

The grieving oarents dudng belueve theif babies were murdered by a killer nurse until Cheshire police told them so.

What sort of logic is that? Neither did the families of people killed by Harold Shipman. Most of them defended him-and he killed hundreds before being caught! They don't even know the exact number. It means nothing. The circumstantial evidence is what proves it not that no one thought anything was off at the time (maybe because serial killers are quite rare?)

I'll just leave this here-

In a courtroom setting, a judge's instructions to "look at the whole picture" or "consider all the evidence" are a standard legal principle.
This direction serves to:

• Prevent bias and prejudice. It instructs jurors to base their decision solely on the facts presented in court, rather than on personal emotions or outside information.
• Encourage a comprehensive view. Jurors are tasked with weighing all testimony and exhibits collectively to arrive at a verdict.
• Allow for circumstantial evidence. Juries are permitted to consider circumstantial evidence, which can be part of a larger pattern or "whole picture" of events, and to draw reasonable inferences from it.

Sorry but you've shown time and time again you're unable to do the above which is the issue.

I won't be communicating with you further after this post - you continually demonstrate lack of rational thought. From what I read I'm not the only one who is frustrated by you.

Your post here demonstrates your arrogance again - it's almost like that's the sole reason for posting, to wind people up, you haven't wound me up, I just can't be arsed giving you any more of my time. I wish others would adopt the same approach, you seem to thrive on the attention.