Lucy Letby. Why do some people only read headlines?

[skyfirechesnut]

I was at work today and someone says so Lucy letby is innocent now. They have just gone with the media headlines. Instead of researching.

Sorry for the fail link but this is quite a good article below on the current state of things. The author has attended all trials and listened to appeals and conferences.

I also don't understand people who say she was scapegoated. If people follow the Thirwall enquiry this is far from the case. She was totally protected, her parents calling up, being in meetings, dictating apologies. It beggars belief.

I can somewhat understand people saying she is innocent based on medical evidence after the press conference but even that is nothing new.

You can't say my expert is better than yours.

Also people seem to think it was all Dewi Evans for the prosecution it wasn't. There was Dr Bohin, Prof Arthurs , Prof Hindnarsh and Dr Mar etc.

That is without the Doctor colleagues if you want to dispute them.

Then they new defence have changed ideas from the conference they had in December.

They are also not totally impartial.
It isn't as simple as the headlines.

Here is the article.

archive.ph/NYg7U

Of course there was evidence of murder. What do you think a 9 month trial was all about?

Not the external reports, no.

People who are wrong can eke it out over a long long time as well as a short one! I think we see that on this thread.

Because they’re not relevant to Letby. This isn’t Hollywood it’s a criminal court case that strictly only brings relevant evidence to the trial. Unless that report had evidence or murder its relevant

The jury didn’t need to see an external report to know there were filming on the ward, it was spoken about for 9 months.

Or perhaps they was just a lot of evidence to get through?

It was about a load of rubbish made up by a few incompetent consultants trying to protect their own backs, and a former paediatrician-turned-“expert”-for-hire who makes a lot of money giving dodgy testimony in medical criminal trials.

People who are wrong can also read 5 minutes of conspiracy he theory guff rather than evidence and come into a public forum and behave like they know more than a jury and experts

Well of course you can.

Juries can get it right.

Juries can get it wrong.

You can't refer to a jury's decision and insist it proves things either way.

Sorry what filming?

No evidence of murder and yet after a 10 month trial, the jury, who heard all of the evidence, entirely disagreed with that, and the court of appeal haven’t allowed her appeals. It’s disrespectful in the extreme to the families of those babies this consistent pandering towards a woman who it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt murdered them.

And again, as for these world leading neonatologists, they weren’t willing to stick their heads above the parapet at the trial, when it was important for them to do so, but now they can get their 5 minutes of fame with any Tom, Dick and Harry believing everything they say, without the risk of embarrassment in cross examination, then why not. Oh , and their report was littered with errors, they got dates of death on some babies wrong, referred to a male baby born by c section as a female born by vaginal birth. If they can’t get the basics right they how on earth can their superior knowledge be trusted 🙄

This media circus is a farce, it spits in the faces of the parents of those children and achieves nothing. Public perception isn’t something the courts will give weight to, if they felt they had the grounds for a CCRC then why this three ring circus, just get on with it quietly. It’s absolutely infuriating that people who didn’t follow the trial, who haven’t followed the inquiry, listened to one panel where they couldn’t even get the basic details of some babies right and assumed the entire thing is a miscarriage of justice.

Only evidence of murder is not a good rule at a trial where murder needs to be proved!

Because when I asked you what the evidence is, you would have said the strongest wouldn't you?

You know nobody can "stick their head above a parapet during a trial" because of reporting restrictions?

They'd be in contempt of court.

As in they didnt assist the defence and weren’t called to give evidence.

considering a new set of top experts in the field are now saying pritty much she is not guilty then it seems more possible that its a miscarriage of justice

Did you ever see that programme where they had two juries who were unaware of each other, showed them the exact same trial at the exact same time and they came to opposing conclusions.

I don’t think it’s fair to blame the press for attending a press conference and then reporting on it. After the thousands of words generated here, it’s hardly a subject not important to the public. Some murders get more publicity than others. Multiple murders of DCs always will. It’s inevitable. That’s always been the case. Sometimes parents generate that interest. However most responsible press coverage is reasonable in that they attended a press conference and reported faithfully. What people make of it on line is another matter.

Really, really, really? You wouldn’t feel just the SLIGHTEST bit of trepidation?

Even if she was found not guilty people would OBVIOUSLY still feel a bit of trepidation. So that's a pointless question

It must be unbearable.

I think the defence miscalculated and thought Evans's implausibility would be clear to the jury.

But they wouldn't have had 14 international experts anyway - these people weren't for hire and with one exception weren't aware of the case. It wasn't a big newspaper story outside Britain.

It’s not conspiracy theory. It’s the most preeminent neonatologists in the world telling you that there is no evidence of murder. There is death by natural causes and poor medical care. No murder.

its every single statistician in the world telling you the use of stats in the trial to implicate Letby was a nonsense.

Dr Evans isn’t an expert; he’s a retired paediatrician- not even a specialist: neonatologist - who hasn’t practiced for 15 yrs, didn’t have a license at the time of trial, has never in his life written a peer review paper, who offers himself to the police in medical criminal trials so he can make a load of money, and who has a history of being admonished for giving rubbish evidence. Oh and he also got one of his mates to co-sign his conclusions.

You asked, I answered.

If you just wanted to say, nobody would ever leave her alone with their child, you can just say it.

the jury, who heard all of the evidence, entirely disagreed with that

they didn’t hear all the evidence at all. far , far from it. That’s the problem.

It's not spitting in their faces, if there is reasonable suspicion their children may not have been murdered and a woman may be languishing in prison for the rest of her life for something she didn't do then it's people's duty to generate talk around the issue.