“someone says so Lucy letby is innocent now.”
What has been said is that a panel of 14 of the world’s leading neonatal experts have done detailed reports on all the evidence and concluded that there were no murders. That would mean she is innocent, but the point is that there were no murders in the first place.
“They have just gone with the media headlines. Instead of researching”
Are you taking the mick? You’re the one sharing a Daily Mail Liz Hull tabloid story! All I’ve seen is people engaging thoughtfully with an extremely serious issue. I have seen plenty of evidence of understanding, facts, and research. Plenty of people, myself included, have followed the entire thing. I have more detail on this case than I ever cared to imagine I might. I’ve read everything. Including every day of Thirlwall documents. Trust me. I 100% have my facts and research straight. In fact, I haven’t seen anyone just “going with media headlines”.
Except you that is.
“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.”
It’s not a “very good article”. It’s Liz Hull’s usual nonsense. I accept your apology for insulting our intelligence with it.
“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.”
Maybe you would understand if you read more widely than the Daily Mail. Note that none of this matters whatsoever if there were no murders. That said, her dad is a manager of a furniture shop in his 70’s. Not a mafia don. She’s in prison, so how was she “totally protected”? What “beggars belief” here is the apparent lack of ability to understand that a parent protecting a child and advocating for them is not unusual. You’d do the same no doubt if someone accused your daughter of murdering lots of babies.
But again, none of this matters if there were no murders!
“I can somewhat understand people saying she is innocent based on medical evidence after the press conference but even that is nothing new.”
Somewhat understand? Nothing new?! Ffs. It IS new. It was SEISMIC. These experts are the best in the world. No one credible disputes that. Literally no one. These NEW reports were written by these experts in their own time working pro bono because they are so shocked at the absolute STATE of the evidence as presented in court. That should be taken seriously by everyone who values their own life and liberty, and that of their children. That’s how serious this is.
Thankfully they are being taken seriously by the people who actually make the decisions here, so you and Liz Hull will have to learn to cope.
“You can't say my expert is better than yours.”
In science you literally can. These experts are objectively better than yours. That’s a stone cold fact. It’s premier league football vs the local pub five a side. It’s not even a question.
“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.”
Who doesn’t know this? Im pretty sure most people DO know this. Not a single one holds a candle to Dr Lee’s panel. They wouldn’t even claim to. Also they based their work on Evans reports. They didn’t work independently. They also largely qualified their conclusions by saying “consistent with” (which covers a multitude) rather than making impossible claims at certainty and outright lying like Evans did. Although, like I said, they are vastly outgunned by far superior experts. They’re utterly cooked on this one I’m afraid.
Evans, for his part, is an absolute charlatan.
“That is without the Doctor colleagues if you want to dispute them.”
The drs are drs. Not medical experts. There’s a massive difference. And yes, I would dispute them. The panel of experts certainly do. As do the judges at the last CoA application hearing who rightly said Dr Jayaram’s testimony was unreliable. They said this even though they were denying her application to appeal, so they’re certainly not biased against the drs!
“Then they new defence have changed ideas from the conference they had in December.”
Do you believe everything Liz Hull tells you? They didn’t. They emphasised different factors. That’s all. They are in complete agreement on what happened.
“They are also not totally impartial.
It isn't as simple as the headlines.”
Based on what? The Liz Hull piece you shared even as you claimed others are easily swayed by the media?! The irony is mind blowing, frankly.
“Here is the article.”
I already read it thanks. It’s the usual trash and desperation from Hull. You’d know that if you read more widely.
Here’s an actual article by Pr Neena Modi, former head of the RCPCH, Professor of Neonatology at London Imperial, and one of Dr Lee’s experts. A world leading neonatologist who actually knows what to she’s talking about.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/feb/12/lucy-letby-case-trial-justice
No paywall: https://archive.ph/Hpm8E