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

The defence put on no expert to challenge the prosecution’s experts

Nobody knows why?
Why do you think?

I’ll ask you again. What has Mark McDonald said or done that leads you to believe he has breached standards?

Having a glitzy press conference that could predujice any retrial. Read the guidance I linked.

Apparently some legal have put complaints to the bar. Agree this maybe a bit extreme.

Sorry meant to reply to @SnakesAndArrows

@Tandora

Can you at least agree she was a really bad nurse? Even if you don't think that's evidence of guilt?

"We can't undermine the legal system"

I rather think the legal system undermined itself by bringing this case to trial at all.

In an allegedly democratic society, it's incumbent on the populace to scrutinise the institutions that government it and draw attention when those institutions no longer operate fairly or in it's interests. That's why the US has a constitution.

Gen pop can't actively undermine the legal system, but it can be vocal about things like MoJ and expect those within it to exercise scrutiny. Otherwise there is no point in having systems in the first place, and we'd still have overt Inquisition with no recourse to appeal at all.

Otherwise we essentially live in a barely disguised dictatorship / totalitarian state.

But it leave sit open for anyone to get a different witness and hire a room instead of going through proper channels.

They are doing both. Proper channels to the CCRC which has had a team being put in place since September ready for the formal application once the report was complete.

If there was a legal mechanism to prevent the press conference do you not think it would have been used? Do you not think the panel would have taken legal advice to ensure that their synopsis of the case was legally watertight in order to avoid litigation?

Should the system prevent the potentially innocent from pursuing truth and justice?

If your argument is that people shouldn't be allowed to keep asking questions then we're in serious 1984 territory.

Oh gosh know of course ask questions but surely they should have at least finished their report first?

They were also selective at who they allowed to ask questions.

As a lot of what they said was akwd at trial.

It's quite clear that you think if Lucy Letby didn't have a fair trial then that's tough. If you were in her position what would you do?

The report had been finished or it wouldn't have been submitted to the CCRC following the press conference. The press conference provided a summary of the full report as far as I'm aware.

I get that you don't want a "baby killer" to get off, but the point is if she isn't the system has shown itself to be broken, and even if she is, which looks extremely unlikely the system has still failed because her conviction was not beyond reasonable doubt and the medical evidence used at trial lacks credibility, as do the original experts.

A bit of digging around puts Evans firmly in the Roy Meadows camp.

I read the guidance, but I think you maybe haven’t. Exactly what has he done wrong. Don’t link to the Reddit thread you got this from.

In what way is this relevant? We don’t know whether she was a good nurse or not, but being a bad nurse doesn’t point to illegality, let alone murder.

Not at all if the ccrc send itbto the appeal court or there is a retrial then fair enough.

But IF.

Such touching faith in the proper channels. Have you read about Stefan Kiszko?

What do you mean by “they should have finished their report”?

@SnakesAndArrows

Of course not, which is what I said. Just trying to distinguish the blind followers to the thoughtful ones. We do have absolute evidence she was a terrible nurse though.

Even you can admit that. Again doesn't show guilt. I agee.

So she could never nurse again not that she would want to.

It's not a case of the jury being incompetent, it's about the validity of the evidence that was submitted to them and whether the evidence was watertight enough to convict.

People thinking the NHS wouldn't scapegoat is laughable, really. Corruption is present in all organisations.

I don't know whether she did it or not. I don't have the time to pore over court documents, read endless articles or listen to a million podcasts. I do think though, that if a key medical expert has said that his evidence was taken out of context, that's concerning. I also think there is possibility of a miscarriage of justice, which is also concerning and warrants examination - and not by armchair detectives.

We have evidence that she made two medicines administration errors. You want all nurses who have made more than one error struck off the register? Errors usually happen because of system failings.

What other evidence do we have? She might have been awful, but I don’t think you have evidence of that.

Texting on duty constantly. Even when feeding babies. Think thats enough.

I don't mean med errors sure that can happen easily.

There is much more though.

That document doesn't say those things. It's about lawyers stating their personal opinions to the press. It points out they are legally entitled to do so and suggests a list of things to bear in mind.

What more? Everything I’ve read indicates that she was considered competent.

Agree OP doesn't appear to have read/understood the link they posted - same with the BMJ link a few pages ago - both posted without comment

There's no evidence she texted while feeding babies.

Here's why you might think she did.

Outside emergencies, nursing notes rounded things to the nearest 15 minutes. So if you sat down to feed a baby at 8.24, you'd note 8.30.

The prosecution ignored this fact when asking questions intended to prejudice listeners against Letby. They can ask any question they like - it doesn't need to be rooted in fact and it doesn't become evidence just because they ask it.

Dear me!

Expressing personal opinions to the media, may enable trial by media. P27. It is why some people have reported him.

And I posted the link as someone, a pp,asked for it and as I said I read all sorts not just bias pieces.

The way you guys interpret stuff no wonder you think she is a brilliant nurse with not even 5 percent chance of guilt.

Reported him for something the document acknowledges he is legally permitted to do?