Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Chat

Join the discussion and chat with other Mumsnetters about everyday life, relationships and parenting.

Thread gallery
33
Oftenaddled · 30/09/2025 23:22

KeepOnKeepingOn25 · 30/09/2025 22:42

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.

The hospital has stopped taking the most vulnerable babies since those days. Only one of the seven babies Lucy Letby has been accused of killing might have been on the ward, nowadays, and most of the babies she is accusing wouldn't be there either.

They don't have an intensive care ward for babies any more, just an emergency cot for babies waiting to be transferred to another unit.

They also hired more specialized staff, checked all their nursing skills, and had advice on areas for improvement which I presume they followed, when the ward was downgraded. They were advised that they needed to improve intubation skills and to have equipment on hand for difficult resuscitations, for example.

So it's a very different place now, though the hospital is still struggling in many ways.

kkloo · 30/09/2025 23:26

Firefly1987 · 30/09/2025 22:01

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.

Show quote history

No the opposite and I'm not insulted, in fact it was actually nice that for once you asked instead of just telling me what I am and what I think 😂

This is the way you go on. Let's say the topic was whether mashed potatoes and roast potatoes were better. Let's say you prefer roast potatoes and I prefer mash.

You - You only prefer mash because they're faster to make
Me - What? No, I just prefer them
You - No one could prefer mash, you just think you do.
Me - No, I genuinely prefer them.
You - No you just prefer them because you've obviously never had proper roast potatoes
Me - Yes I have, loads of times, I've tried both and I just prefer mash 😂
You - Roast are better, you only prefer mash because x/y/z.
Me No
You - You just prefer them because they're faster to make.
Me - No I already told you that, I just prefer them
You - Next you'll be saying that you'd even prefer mashed carrot over a roast potato 🙄

You - Some people are just so dogmatic.

Just accept that other people have different opinions than you and stop telling people why they think stuff and coming out with all these assumptions that are always wrong and that will cut out most of the clashes.

Athreedoorwardrobe · 30/09/2025 23:26

Whats also interesting is what odd ideas people have about what constitutes "normal" behaviour. And what constitutes mental health issues. And how people behave under stress.
You've got a few people in this documentary making statements about Lucy letbys behaviour so assertively.. yet they are so wrong.
I work in mental health and I'm staggered at the lack of insight.

Firefly1987 · 30/09/2025 23:30

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.

Many people turn up on forums saying "I don't know much about the case BUT I watched x documentary and I think she needs a retrial" so it's not a crazy assumption to make. I think I've said multiple times there's clearly some very intelligent ppl on here who know a helluva lot about the case so I'm not referring to them.

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

So? Am I not allowed to feel bad people are abusing him on social media? Two wrongs don't make a right do they.

Firefly1987 · 30/09/2025 23:53

kkloo · 30/09/2025 23:26

No the opposite and I'm not insulted, in fact it was actually nice that for once you asked instead of just telling me what I am and what I think 😂

This is the way you go on. Let's say the topic was whether mashed potatoes and roast potatoes were better. Let's say you prefer roast potatoes and I prefer mash.

You - You only prefer mash because they're faster to make
Me - What? No, I just prefer them
You - No one could prefer mash, you just think you do.
Me - No, I genuinely prefer them.
You - No you just prefer them because you've obviously never had proper roast potatoes
Me - Yes I have, loads of times, I've tried both and I just prefer mash 😂
You - Roast are better, you only prefer mash because x/y/z.
Me No
You - You just prefer them because they're faster to make.
Me - No I already told you that, I just prefer them
You - Next you'll be saying that you'd even prefer mashed carrot over a roast potato 🙄

You - Some people are just so dogmatic.

Just accept that other people have different opinions than you and stop telling people why they think stuff and coming out with all these assumptions that are always wrong and that will cut out most of the clashes.

Edited
Show quote history

No the opposite and I'm not insulted, in fact it was actually nice that for once you asked instead of just telling me what I am and what I think 😂

OK well my assumption was based off you saying you didn't like an expert making the dessert analogy for one. It seemed you had trouble understanding what he was getting at and would prefer if he used statistics instead. There I go making assumptions again though.

This is the way you go on. Let's say the topic was whether mashed potatoes and roast potatoes were better. Let's say you prefer roast potatoes and I prefer mash.

Or lets say-I think Harold Shipman, Rose West and Myra Hindley are all innocent and I just wish everyone else would respect my opinion that I think there isn't enough evidence and the victims never said anything at the time. They only think the serial abuser/killer is guilty because the police told them. Other people just go on and on at me making assumptions about why I think they are innocent and it's so frustrating. I should be able to discuss their innocence in peace with everyone respecting my opinion. I'm just asking for them all to get a retrial because there isn't enough evidence to satisfy me.

And honestly, comparing a shocking horrific case like this to a preference for potatoes...but hey you've got your backup so I'm sure I'll somehow be made to look like the unreasonable one.

kkloo · 30/09/2025 23:57

Firefly1987 · 30/09/2025 23:30

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.

Many people turn up on forums saying "I don't know much about the case BUT I watched x documentary and I think she needs a retrial" so it's not a crazy assumption to make. I think I've said multiple times there's clearly some very intelligent ppl on here who know a helluva lot about the case so I'm not referring to them.

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

So? Am I not allowed to feel bad people are abusing him on social media? Two wrongs don't make a right do they.

It's easy to dismiss it as just 'watching a documentary' but the documentary is just showing what's going on, people may have just heard one side before or only read the damning headlines, the documentary is then showing that actually now a lot of experts are expressing concerns with every aspect of this case, and now all these experts are actually putting their names to these concerns, that she has loads of experts working pro-bono on the case and that they're willing to argue the points in court. The documentary is showing that there are a lot of doubts and not much certainty, which is true.

It's not uncommon for people to try to appeal verdicts and there will be a news story on it, but it literally tends to just be a news story saying they're appealing on X grounds, and the ground is often some point in law or something like that and it's never anything like this, where a lot of experts are talking about it and saying this verdict seems unsafe.

So of course from that perspective a documentary is going to be compelling enough to make people some people think a retrial is needed , it's literally filling people in on all of the news of what's been going on since she's been convicted.

kkloo · 01/10/2025 00:03

Firefly1987 · 30/09/2025 23:53

No the opposite and I'm not insulted, in fact it was actually nice that for once you asked instead of just telling me what I am and what I think 😂

OK well my assumption was based off you saying you didn't like an expert making the dessert analogy for one. It seemed you had trouble understanding what he was getting at and would prefer if he used statistics instead. There I go making assumptions again though.

This is the way you go on. Let's say the topic was whether mashed potatoes and roast potatoes were better. Let's say you prefer roast potatoes and I prefer mash.

Or lets say-I think Harold Shipman, Rose West and Myra Hindley are all innocent and I just wish everyone else would respect my opinion that I think there isn't enough evidence and the victims never said anything at the time. They only think the serial abuser/killer is guilty because the police told them. Other people just go on and on at me making assumptions about why I think they are innocent and it's so frustrating. I should be able to discuss their innocence in peace with everyone respecting my opinion. I'm just asking for them all to get a retrial because there isn't enough evidence to satisfy me.

And honestly, comparing a shocking horrific case like this to a preference for potatoes...but hey you've got your backup so I'm sure I'll somehow be made to look like the unreasonable one.

Show quote history

No I knew what he was getting at, I said it was stupid and elaborated on the analogy to show why it was stupid....

and at the time your response was to resort to assumptions again and you told me that I "just didn't like or understand analogies" 😂😂😂😂

I'm not comparing this case to a preference for potatoes....there you go now, perfect example of you twisting something.

I used that example to show what you're like when you're discussing something.

You've literally proved everything I've been saying right again with this response by the way 😂 I think most can see it clearly anyway.

Oftenaddled · 01/10/2025 00:24

kkloo · 01/10/2025 00:13

He's really not making the case for himself as a serious or objective thinker there, is he?

kkloo · 01/10/2025 00:36

Oftenaddled · 01/10/2025 00:24

He's really not making the case for himself as a serious or objective thinker there, is he?

Show quote history

"His criticisms of my role were factually incorrect".

The way he answered in the documentary was ridiculous..

Shoo Lee 'Why are you looking at malfeasance and ignoring everything else?

Dewi Evans : 'well since then we suspected that there are additional babies murdered by LL so Dr Lee is wrong again'.

Absolutely bizarre.

Outig · 01/10/2025 05:04

I had to rewind to be sure I heard him correctly when he said ‘I have never lost a case yet’’ .

For anyone who has been following the disquiet about the conviction, there was no new information in the documentary, however it was a good summary of all that is very wrong with this case and the flawed evidence the conviction was based on.

Original poster
Typicalwave · 01/10/2025 07:51

kkloo · 01/10/2025 00:36

"His criticisms of my role were factually incorrect".

The way he answered in the documentary was ridiculous..

Shoo Lee 'Why are you looking at malfeasance and ignoring everything else?

Dewi Evans : 'well since then we suspected that there are additional babies murdered by LL so Dr Lee is wrong again'.

Absolutely bizarre.

Show quote history

Ikr? Hd didng directly address the three questions.

OP posts:
Original poster
Typicalwave · 01/10/2025 07:52

kkloo · 01/10/2025 00:13

Oof, before I even read this I’m willing to bet he’s just digging deeper

OP posts:
Original poster
Typicalwave · 01/10/2025 07:56

Firefly1987 · 30/09/2025 23:06

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.

Show quote history

It’s not strange at all.

The evidence is there for everyone to see on these threads, I’m plain black and white.

LL otoh - the ‘evidence’ for her stacks up to a manipulated rota and an expert who ‘diagnosed’ on the basis of believing theres malfeasance and so diagnosed bia exclusion…medical professionals should know this is a backwards approach.

OP posts:
Original poster
Typicalwave · 01/10/2025 07:57

CheeseNPickle3 · 30/09/2025 22:05

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.

That’s pretty much everything on my red flag list

OP posts:
Original poster
Typicalwave · 01/10/2025 07:58

Firefly1987 · 30/09/2025 23:53

No the opposite and I'm not insulted, in fact it was actually nice that for once you asked instead of just telling me what I am and what I think 😂

OK well my assumption was based off you saying you didn't like an expert making the dessert analogy for one. It seemed you had trouble understanding what he was getting at and would prefer if he used statistics instead. There I go making assumptions again though.

This is the way you go on. Let's say the topic was whether mashed potatoes and roast potatoes were better. Let's say you prefer roast potatoes and I prefer mash.

Or lets say-I think Harold Shipman, Rose West and Myra Hindley are all innocent and I just wish everyone else would respect my opinion that I think there isn't enough evidence and the victims never said anything at the time. They only think the serial abuser/killer is guilty because the police told them. Other people just go on and on at me making assumptions about why I think they are innocent and it's so frustrating. I should be able to discuss their innocence in peace with everyone respecting my opinion. I'm just asking for them all to get a retrial because there isn't enough evidence to satisfy me.

And honestly, comparing a shocking horrific case like this to a preference for potatoes...but hey you've got your backup so I'm sure I'll somehow be made to look like the unreasonable one.

Show quote history

I think she used something simple and relatable to try and make it easier to understand.

OP posts:
PinkTonic · 01/10/2025 08:00

Typicalwave · 01/10/2025 07:52

Oof, before I even read this I’m willing to bet he’s just digging deeper

Show quote history

He’s just flat out lied on baby C. He’s apparently forgotten that we can all read the court transcripts and know exactly what he said on oath, and that he’s given previous accounts since the trial which don’t align either. Wow.

Original poster
Typicalwave · 01/10/2025 08:05

Athreedoorwardrobe · 30/09/2025 23:26

Whats also interesting is what odd ideas people have about what constitutes "normal" behaviour. And what constitutes mental health issues. And how people behave under stress.
You've got a few people in this documentary making statements about Lucy letbys behaviour so assertively.. yet they are so wrong.
I work in mental health and I'm staggered at the lack of insight.

I’ve noticed this a lot in this case.

I think peopld forget that their way of walking through the work didng everyone’s way.

For example - the ‘laugh’ LL is said to have performed.

Is ig ideal? No

What kind of laugh was it? Manic? A nervous one? Mocking? Just Z short list of yhd types of laugh. Attributing deliberate maliciousness to it based on the 4+ year old recollection of a couple that happened to learn about the case bevause they say Lucy’s picture on TV isn’t indicative of very much, really.

OP posts:
Original poster
Typicalwave · 01/10/2025 08:06

PinkTonic · 01/10/2025 08:00

He’s just flat out lied on baby C. He’s apparently forgotten that we can all read the court transcripts and know exactly what he said on oath, and that he’s given previous accounts since the trial which don’t align either. Wow.

Show quote history

The CPS must have its head in its hands.

He’s already been told to STFU about baby C at the parents request….

OP posts:
Original poster
Typicalwave · 01/10/2025 08:44

kkloo · 01/10/2025 00:13

I have lots of questions:

  1. ‘It’s why statistics didn’t play a part in the prosecution’s case’ Didn't they? Have I misunderstood the purpose of the rota chart?

  2. What 18 papers regarding air embolus?

  3. The ‘detailed critique’ of Shoo Lee’s papers - why not include them now, Dewi? And why choose to reference the original paper in the trial? And Shoo Lee’s is an epidemiologist? Not according to his bio.

  4. ‘factual incorrect’ ‘awash with errors’, ‘some of the weakest reports’ - well come on, Dewi…here’s your opportunity, why not take it?

  5. ‘Over the next 5 years the dates seem to have become confused…’ Really Dewi? What was it you said at the trial? (See attached)

  6. ‘There is nothing in Baby C’s clinical records to confirm LLs presence’ Really Dewi? I hope no one’s listened to your interview on the John Sweeny podcast nif watched the latest Panorama documentary (someone correct me if I’m misremembering when the issue of the names of the nurses being clear on the records)

Lucy Letby - have you changed your mind pt. 5
OP posts:
rubbishatballet · 01/10/2025 09:31

Typicalwave · 01/10/2025 08:44

I have lots of questions:

  1. ‘It’s why statistics didn’t play a part in the prosecution’s case’ Didn't they? Have I misunderstood the purpose of the rota chart?

  2. What 18 papers regarding air embolus?

  3. The ‘detailed critique’ of Shoo Lee’s papers - why not include them now, Dewi? And why choose to reference the original paper in the trial? And Shoo Lee’s is an epidemiologist? Not according to his bio.

  4. ‘factual incorrect’ ‘awash with errors’, ‘some of the weakest reports’ - well come on, Dewi…here’s your opportunity, why not take it?

  5. ‘Over the next 5 years the dates seem to have become confused…’ Really Dewi? What was it you said at the trial? (See attached)

  6. ‘There is nothing in Baby C’s clinical records to confirm LLs presence’ Really Dewi? I hope no one’s listened to your interview on the John Sweeny podcast nif watched the latest Panorama documentary (someone correct me if I’m misremembering when the issue of the names of the nurses being clear on the records)

Show quote history

Just dipping in quickly to try and help with your question 2 - these are the 18 papers.

Lucy Letby - have you changed your mind pt. 5
Lucy Letby - have you changed your mind pt. 5
MistressoftheDarkSide · 01/10/2025 09:39

https://www.lawyer-monthly.com/2025/09/lucy-letby-criminal-law-expert-witness-appeal/

This just came up on my feed, because algorithms of course, and it very much ties into the current conversation. Interestingly I think it came out nearly a week ago.

It clearly shows that it's not just a bunch of "Letbyists" with dubious agenda carping over minor details - this publication is aimed at those in the legal profession and points out discrepancies such as Baby C and previous MOJs that we too have referenced here, alongside personal experience in some cases.

The role of expert witnesses should not be taken lightly. The impact of their "opinions" is huge, whether in criminal or family court, and they should be held to the highest standards and accountability.

As a side issue, not long ago, a High Court judge recently banned use of AI by law practitioners after it was discovered that in some cases, citations and cases used as precedence did not existu, but had been "hallucinated" by AI.

There's no suggestions of that here of course, but it got me thinking. There's always been a slught trend to think if somethings made it onto the Internet, it must be true. (I know many people would argue that's naive and ridiculous but there we are). AI use is being encouraged to streamline all sorts of professional work, including in both the justice system and social care settings, plus healthcare. I don't deny it may have it's benefits, but there are huge risks.

AI works by taking in all the information available to it on a subject and providing an analysis. If serious disputed "theories" are rubber stamped by it, we've got another level of Dystopian nightmare. One may argue that professionals wouldn't rely on AI, but we are being encouraged to embrace it to save time, and of course, money.

Yes, everything depends on the initial human input, and this is why it's vital that "theories" don't become "fact" when there is clear doubt - such as no actual medical research to support over feeding or induction of air as a cause of death / destabilisation.

I think it's time to recognise that the issues highlighted by this case aren't just about Lucy Letby, it's about the fates of accused people caught up in the system dye to circumstance and having little hope of anything approaching an accurate defence.

Lucy Letby prison mugshot released after conviction for the murder and attempted murder of babies.

Lucy Letby Appeal Exposes Criminal Law’s Fragile Reliance on Expert Witnesses

Lucy Letby’s appeal raises questions about criminal law and the role of expert witnesses. With disputed medical evidence and personal injury parallels, can her convictions withstand scrutiny?

https://www.lawyer-monthly.com/2025/09/lucy-letby-criminal-law-expert-witness-appeal/

Original poster
Typicalwave · 01/10/2025 09:53

rubbishatballet · 01/10/2025 09:31

Just dipping in quickly to try and help with your question 2 - these are the 18 papers.

Show quote history

Thank you

OP posts:
KeepOnKeepingOn25 · 01/10/2025 10:12

Oftenaddled · 30/09/2025 23:22

The hospital has stopped taking the most vulnerable babies since those days. Only one of the seven babies Lucy Letby has been accused of killing might have been on the ward, nowadays, and most of the babies she is accusing wouldn't be there either.

They don't have an intensive care ward for babies any more, just an emergency cot for babies waiting to be transferred to another unit.

They also hired more specialized staff, checked all their nursing skills, and had advice on areas for improvement which I presume they followed, when the ward was downgraded. They were advised that they needed to improve intubation skills and to have equipment on hand for difficult resuscitations, for example.

So it's a very different place now, though the hospital is still struggling in many ways.

Show quote history

Thank you so much and to the other pp who gave the link to the new building at CofC, that is a relief to hear! 💛

PinkTonic · 01/10/2025 10:35

MistressoftheDarkSide · 01/10/2025 09:39

https://www.lawyer-monthly.com/2025/09/lucy-letby-criminal-law-expert-witness-appeal/

This just came up on my feed, because algorithms of course, and it very much ties into the current conversation. Interestingly I think it came out nearly a week ago.

It clearly shows that it's not just a bunch of "Letbyists" with dubious agenda carping over minor details - this publication is aimed at those in the legal profession and points out discrepancies such as Baby C and previous MOJs that we too have referenced here, alongside personal experience in some cases.

The role of expert witnesses should not be taken lightly. The impact of their "opinions" is huge, whether in criminal or family court, and they should be held to the highest standards and accountability.

As a side issue, not long ago, a High Court judge recently banned use of AI by law practitioners after it was discovered that in some cases, citations and cases used as precedence did not existu, but had been "hallucinated" by AI.

There's no suggestions of that here of course, but it got me thinking. There's always been a slught trend to think if somethings made it onto the Internet, it must be true. (I know many people would argue that's naive and ridiculous but there we are). AI use is being encouraged to streamline all sorts of professional work, including in both the justice system and social care settings, plus healthcare. I don't deny it may have it's benefits, but there are huge risks.

AI works by taking in all the information available to it on a subject and providing an analysis. If serious disputed "theories" are rubber stamped by it, we've got another level of Dystopian nightmare. One may argue that professionals wouldn't rely on AI, but we are being encouraged to embrace it to save time, and of course, money.

Yes, everything depends on the initial human input, and this is why it's vital that "theories" don't become "fact" when there is clear doubt - such as no actual medical research to support over feeding or induction of air as a cause of death / destabilisation.

I think it's time to recognise that the issues highlighted by this case aren't just about Lucy Letby, it's about the fates of accused people caught up in the system dye to circumstance and having little hope of anything approaching an accurate defence.

Thanks for the link.

I take issue with this phrase but I’m a pedant. To her supporters, the idea that flawed expert evidence may have locked away an innocent woman is equally horrifying.

The idea that flawed evidence may have locked away an innocent woman should be horrifying to each and every normal human being. This is why I can’t get my head around the glib denials that there is anything to see here. There are more than enough rational questions to answer that any reasonable person reviewing the updates would necessarily think this, yet round and round we go. ‘Expert’ panel in scare quotes, oh but the notes, oh but Facebook. It’s deranged.