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

A press conference could be seen as disrespectful instead of engaging with the law as it is.

Or it could be seen as bringing injustice to light.

If people want to see it that way that’s up to them, but in a situation where it can take the CCRC ten years to even get round to looking at the case, and where at any point the police could silence all discussion again by bringing some more spurious charges based on equally bad science and circumstantial evidence, it’s clear why her lawyer would want to get this information out into the public domain asap.

I wonder what those fighting against checks and balances think about the innocence project and their ilk. Are they being disrespectful?

@FrippEnos

It could as long as we wll keep open minds and as I said eead nore than the headlines.

The point was apparently its rude to discuss this on AIBU. It isn't.

Well some people think it’s rude and disrespectful to discuss it at all, I think that’s what that was all about

🤦🏼‍♀️

It definitely does need to be discussed.

If she was innocent. I don't think she is obviously.

Be interesting to read the report and not just a presentation and allow peers to review it.

Those that have been accused of being in a "lucy letby fan club" or the supporters of a "baby murderer" seem to have more of an open mind than those that want to shutdown the discussion and name call and insult posters with a different view.

I don't know if LL is guilty, I have read more than the headlines, and I think that this needs looking deeper into.
If LL is guilty then surely more evidence will be found and will prove that she is guilty.
However it is looking like the evidence put forward needs looking in to as this could be a massive miscarriage of justice.

It is literally a synonym if it.

Honestly I give up some postsers want to just pick fault. A discussion of why people think what they think is interesting and good for justice.

This isn't.

@FrippEnos

I disagree as lots of what they said was discussed at trail. But I appreciate your view and agree its a valid discussion and if the report comes out and can undergo cross examination then yes would agree with you.

Semantics.

Well it is a little bit about Lucy if she was killing babies...you seem awfully convinced of her innocence, seems like in a couple years time (hopefully sooner) when more comes out you'll have to make a swift MN username change because doubt you'll ever admit you were wrong.

You know what? The very fact there is so much doubt means she should be acquitted. It's so horribly simple.

I think even those who have pored over every detail in the transcripts don’t know either and there is only 1 person who does - so what difference does it make if people just read headlines or not?

That isn’t how our judicial system works - thank God.

@Spottyshirt

Nothing to debate.

It absolutely is. Reasonable doubt. If you have more than reasonable doubt then you have to acquit.

@bottleofbeer so in your eyes all healthcare serial killers should be walking the streets? You can always find some "expert" to argue the evidence is wrong.