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

The issue is that the dogma and attacks on anyone who disagrees is pretty much the only behabiour we’re seeing.

@Firefly1987
I agree that no one should be abused but the people who do that are the type who are on Tattle so have you made the same point on there?? Many of the victims of people from that site have reported them to the police.

So you keep saying yet never address what you disagree with. You just keep making digs without giving me the chance to address anything.

No because that's the influencer side of the site which I have nothing to do with so I haven't seen it-I've only heard rumours about how bad Tattle supposedly is for that. Besides, Evans isn't an influencer/celeb. I mean yes he has put himself out there but I doubt he saw this complete turn of events happening where he becomes the evil one not the convicted serial killer...

Completely agree.
Right from the start when people started to have doubts, people convinced she was guilty have displayed that dogma and attacks rather than just engage civilly and just discuss things.

In the documentary last night the father said he believed LL was 100% guilty, the mother said she goes back and forwards between innocent and guilty, if that couple, a couple who have been personally affected by the investigation can have opposing views then other people should be able to without receiving abuse for it and being made out to love baby killers.

Agreed.

It definitely isn't just the influencer side. The culture and toxicity of the site is the same regardless of who or what they're speaking about.

It's a copy and paste across the board no matter what you look at, their targets are evil and need to be taken down etc, the tattle people are just 'oh so concerned' and morally superior and only talking about all these people because they truly care so much 😇😇

And no of course you didn't, but you'd say it here even though there's nothing to suggest that anyone on here who isn't convinced by the verdict would cross any line.

I wasn’t referring to you in this instance.

Hiwever, it’s incredibly disingenuous of you to claim this - I have directly challenged in multiple occasions.

The receipts are there for anyone who wishes to scrutinise

Completely agree.
Right from the start when people started to have doubts, people convinced she was guilty have displayed that dogma and attacks rather than just engage civilly and just discuss things.

So if I came here to discuss some other high-profile controversial case of murder or abuse with multiple multiple charges everyone would say "you're totally entitled to believe they're innocent" and people wouldn't have strong opinions on it? Even if I made a post saying I think there's not enough evidence against Prince Andrew all hell would break loose. I would be called all sorts of names. That would NOT be a respectful discussion. Why do you think Lucy Letby should be any different. And once again all someone has to do is quote what someone has said and address what they disagree with at the time to avoid possible misunderstandings.

In the documentary last night the father said he believed LL was 100% guilty, the mother said she goes back and forwards between innocent and guilty, if that couple, a couple who have been personally affected by the investigation can have opposing views then other people should be able to without receiving abuse for it and being made out to love baby killers.

It's not really opposing views if the mother goes back and forth about it. And she only really seems to think she could be not guilty because the crime is so unthinkable.

Why do you automatically think this is about you?

I'm speaking in general.

So if I came here to discuss some other high-profile controversial case of murder or abuse with multiple multiple charges everyone would say "you're totally entitled to believe they're innocent" and people wouldn't have strong opinions on it?

I mean if it was some very emotive case and out of nowhere you're saying 'I think they're innocent' then yes I think some people would be thinking wtf, but we're talking about a case that is very emotive and when as soon as reporting restrictions were lifted the floodgates started to open with more and more experts doubting the evidence.

And once again all someone has to do is quote what someone has said and address what they disagree with at the time to avoid possible misunderstandings.

No firefly, that's not all we have to do, because you do that in every single post, every single response to you most of us have to correct your assumptions you throw out constantly and fix the words that you twisted etc, in every post.
If there was a misunderstanding occasionally I don't think anyone would care, if you just occasionally projected some label onto people maybe we wouldn't care either, but it's each and every time.

It's not really opposing views if the mother goes back and forth about it. And she only really seems to think she could be not guilty because the crime is so unthinkable.

And she only really thinks she's guilty because of the investigation/court case.

too late to edit, but I mean the court case where only one side was put forward.

I mean if it was some very emotive case and out of nowhere you're saying 'I think they're innocent' then yes I think some people would be thinking wtf, but we're talking about a case that is very emotive and when as soon as reporting restrictions were lifted the floodgates started to open with more and more experts doubting the evidence.

Doesn't really make much difference to the people who think she's guilty. It still provokes the same reaction.

No firefly, that's not all we have to do, because you do that in every single post, every single response to you most of us have to correct your assumptions you throw out constantly and fix the words that you twisted etc, in every post.
If there was a misunderstanding occasionally I don't think anyone would care, if you just occasionally projected some label onto people maybe we wouldn't care either, but it's each and every time.

I don't mean this as an insult but are you a very literal person? Because if so I can try and change my communication style and lay off the hyperbole etc. I would ask for just ONE example of me twisting anything but you don't seem to want to give any.

I don't know about anybody else, but some of the reasons why I think the conviction isn't a secure one would be...

the misuse of statistics where the jury was shown a chart that implied that LL was the only person there for every incident

the fact that none of the deaths were thought to be suspicious initially

the lack of transparency over how which cases were chosen

the number of different supposed methods (and changes of method/time to fit the narrative). Also the somewhat questionable nature of overfeeding and liver injury with the force of a car crash without leaving any other damage as murder methods.

the lack of anything except weak circumstantial evidence

the door swipe evidence which, when found to be incorrect, was apparently not a problem for the prosecution

the conditions on the ward - by which I mean the lack of consultant rounds, the poor hygiene, cramped conditions, lack of expertise and understaffing etc. which could have meant that babies whose condition was deteriorating were not noticed early enough or treated appropriately

the selective use of the post it notes/diary evidence

the way some of the circumstantial evidence was not put into context - for example the Facebook searches, which turned out to be 31 searches out of a total of over 2000 and handover notes as "trophies", most of which didn't relate to the babies in question and the painting of this as some kind of motivation.

the fact that what she was wearing when she was arrested was even mentioned by the prosecution

the "almost caught red handed" not calling for help by Dr Jayaram when his own email appears to contradict this

the fact that when any of these is examined and found wanting, the argument seems to be that whatever it was was not relied on in court, it was all the other things.

the fact that the people coming out to say that they think there's a problem in this case are not conspiracy theorists but statisticians and highly respected medical professionals.

It's not because I think a nurse could never possibly be a murderer, or because she's pretty/not pretty/blonde/blue eyed or I think she was a brilliant nurse it's just that on a ward with some really serious failings, there's a much simpler explanation.

Cool.

now please show me where I have failed to give you a chance to reply….

Or anyone ekse for that matter.Several of us havd asked you direct questions and have never had a response, and this has been a a number of occasions with you occasionally claiming too mang have asked you questions and you cang keep up..

Which is it? You’ve not had a chance to respond, or you’ve too overwhelmed to respond? Again, the receipts are there for anyone to see.

An excellent precis of the issues - thank you.

Is anyone one else worried about what is going on at this hospital, and the safety of mums and babies still going there? I desperately hope they are ok, esp those on the neonatal unit.

I was thinking either way it’s a lose-lose for the CofC because i deaths occurred that were medically preventable then it is down to an atrocity of poor care from the hospital, or if a serial killer than they attacked un-detected in plain sight, multiple times that no one witnessed or suspected (before arrest) and the hospital would have failed to detect/ stop them. It’s just awful any which way you slice it 😥 but obvs much worse if murder. The other alternative is a combination of both, for example with the insulin babies, imo they appear the most suspicious even with the test result issue re: not being 100% reliable always. Could it be both simultaneously(?). Either way I hope the trust is coming under intense scrutiny for their neonatal quality of care going forwards.

Just watching the documentary now and it has backed up a lot of concerns I had.
Initially I always expected that some concrete evidence would come out as I trusted the investigation would get to the bottom of it.
That concrete evidence never appeared and I was shocked she got convicted.

I think it's frightening that there may have been a whole host of failings at this hospital that have been covered over as they were able to blame it all on a mad serial killer

It's been rebuilt...

https://www.cheshireccg.nhs.uk/posts/first-patients-welcomed-into-landmark-women-and-children-s-building-at-countess-of-chester-hospital/

All some people have to do is watch one biased documentary or listen to Mark Mcdonald and suddenly they're convinced

See Firefly - this is what people are objecting to - you are making sweeping assumptions about how other people behave and then presenting them as fact. This is what is annoying people on this thread. If you stuck to debating the facts as rubbishatballet does no one would have an issue - we are here for a debate not for a set of blinkers.

Strange how you're so cynical about me and I've been accused of twisting words or being a manipulator yet Lucy gets the benefit of the doubt again and again. Or maybe I just missed where anyone criticised her for laughing in the face of worried parents.

Which is it? You’ve not had a chance to respond, or you’ve too overwhelmed to respond? Again, the receipts are there for anyone to see.

I haven't answered every single post no, didn't realise there was a rule that I had to. It's usually because the thread has moved on by the time I read it. And yet you haven't reported me for all this manipulation or trolling I'm supposedly doing.

I'm talking about a lot of this happening after the ITV documentary (I forget what it was called) because I do remember it swayed people that weren't particularly following the case before. Am I presenting it as a fact or saying it was my observation? I think people are assuming I'm directing this at people here when I'm not it's from observations on many different platforms. Of course a documentary can sway people when it only presents one side.

First - you are presenting these views on this thread and you have many many times made assumptions about people who comment here. You can hardly complain if we then question you on the assumptions you make on this thread.

Secondly I do remember it swayed people that weren't particularly following the case before. How do you know whether or not people were following the case before? How do you know the documentary swayed them? Assumption after assumption. I've been following the case on here since the live threads at the time and I was troubled then by the number of commentators who worked in NICU who said on those threads that LL's behaviour was quite typical. Maybe you should take a break from these threads and go back and read you way through those?

You've also spent a lot of time in the last couple of days sympathising with Dewi - I have repeatedly said that I have also been an expert witness and his behaviour is outrageously outwith the expert witness duty to the Court - I am surprised that he was allowed to get away with it in this case given a more senior judge wrote to criticise him