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

No, just saying use the process not re-trial by social media. Everyone is entitled to an opinion just they are not informed the way the judges, jury and appeal court are as much as they think they know best.

Again with the projection.

A pp said you won’t win specifically with reference to her request that you showed evidence of where she was “tying herself in knots”. Nothing to do with LL winning or losing.

Nobody is gloating “about a serial killer getting off”. You were the one gloating in the post that I quoted.

You seem to be missing the point that public scrutiny of justice is not only legal, it is extremely important even if you don’t realise it. It isn’t “trial by social media”. It’s people talking about something that affects their lives deeply, something we have every right to do.

There isn’t a single miscarriage of justice that was corrected without public scrutiny. Just think about that for a minute before you continue harping on about “trusting the process.”

FFS. Those of us question the safety of this conviction have stated over and over again cogent reasons why it is important to scrutinise it for the overall health of our systems and institutions which are supposedly there to safeguard the population.

Our justice system is by definition adversarial, which means it is designed to have winners and losers, apparently more by foul means than fair these days. I was told, in person, by a solicitor who went on to be a well respected family court circuit judge that the truth was secondary to presenting a case that would win, in a similar situation involving complex medical evidence. To say I was gobsmacked is an understatement. Court proceedings are not geared up to protect people's feelings, and you do indeed end up "playing a game", much though it turns your stomach. It's the nature of the beast.

You really have to be there. Most posters here haven't had the misfortune to experience it, and I thank God for that because it's something I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy, yet they can grasp the enormity of being helpless in the face of the judicial juggernaut and can see the flaws in the system.

Those of us who have been through it come out forever broken and traumatised, lacking in trust and brutally educated as to our lack of importance to a point of such demoralusation and fear that we cannot dare put our heads above the parapet to address it because we end up believing it's futile. Thank all the deities for those who can and do fight back on our behalf with objectivity and compassion. And that includes on behalf of those bereaved parents who are going through hell every day because they have become the rope in a most unseemly and unnecessary tug of war thanks to a certain doctor touting for business and keen to make a name for himself. Those parents will likely never really know the truth because the water has been muddied to such an appalling degree by institutional failings designed to avoid embarrassment and accountability.

The smug sneering from the witch hunters on here turns my stomach.

If it was before she was told she was suspected of harming them, why would she have forgotten them already?

She was removed from the ward in July 2016. That's four years under suspicion before her final arrest.

Are you saying she forgot those children and their parents by then? Because I don't think even the police or prosecution ever claimed that.

Well she wouldn't need to look them up, but I'm sure some of her colleagues at different points would have mentioned particularly stressful/difficult/sad cases they dealt with in a "remember baby X, I wonder how she did after going home...", or "I bumped into Baby Y's mum down in Tesco yesterday..." and it kind of just goes from there really... just trying to jog memories.

The Facebook searches are only relevant against a backdrop of murder, where the assumption is that she looked up the parents in order to either gloat about their anguish or to see if they had posted anything that could be interpreted as suspicious.

If we assume murder didn’t actually take place, then the Facebook searches could indicate that she cared enormously about the families and wanted to see how they were. Or it could suggest that she was terminally nosy. Or (which I think is most likely) she had a particular bond with one of them and one led to another and another.

Facebook remembers your previous searches. Let’s say I look up Kitty Lighthouse. Then next time I’m on Facebook I go to the search bit and ‘kitty lighthouse’ comes up. So I have another look, and another.

I still look up an old colleague of mine who I loathed from 2018! God knows what I’m expecting to find.

In any case, it doesn’t matter why she was looking them up. Facebook searches don’t make someone a murderer.

Was anyone else aware of the case of Bonnie Lewis?

I mentioned that case yesterday I think. It's a shocker.

It’s baffling that anyone needs this explained to them!

She claimed she couldn't remember that baby at all, that's another reason it's suspicious.

Most of them have followed the trial from the very beginning which I'll bet is more than can be said for a lot on here. Some even went to the court. I guess you think the whole trial was full of stupid people as well since that's the side tattle's on.

Yes, one of many egregious things in Dewi Evans chequered past.

Thirlwall just released a bunch of witness statements. https://x.com/lucyletbytrials/status/1891602426882322853?s=46

I’ve only read one so far, from an unnamed nurse, but this is what it says. “The unit had gone from 7-10 patients being average to routinely having 16-20 patients, without an increase in staffing. This placed pressure on staff who were not used to working with that level of occupancy. With an increase in patient numbers, it did not surprise me that the number of babies dying had also increased. I considered that the increase in acuity had increased"

I've been a bit disconnected from it after opting to take a break and now I'm just finding out about all this and wondering why Dewi Evans has never been investigated.

Loads of us followed the trial from the beginning too. Several of the most prominent voices questioning the verdict also attended the trial, and not just to rubberneck at the grisly little details either. What else you got?

I am someone who was a very firm LL is guilty and now concedes that there is actually worrying information about the prosecutions case that I do actually feel her case merits a retrial. Denying and trying to normalize LL's bizarre behaviour would never have swayed my opinion on her possible innocence.

Keeping the patient notes was and still is for me very incriminating. Following the families online so doggedly and even going back on dates of significance is absolutely fucking weird. Not acknowledging this as fucking creepy and actually claiming it's normal is only going to undermine any attempt to explain why she may be innocent.

The only thing that is going to convince people of her innocence is medical and scientific evidence proving natural deaths or hospital failings/staff incompetence.

He certainly should be! Interestingly the family courts have just become open to reporting and external scrutiny after being closed during his entire tenure as a family courts expert witness. He retired days before this was announced.

Nurse Caroline Oakley’s statement just uploaded by Thirlwall. What leaked from the ceiling was raw sewage from the dodgy pipes. Literally human faeces leaking from the ceiling into a neonatal intensive care unit.

“I did not know what the rash was, I thought it must have been related to sepsis. I do

not know if I saw the same rash on another baby or if I was told or read about it in

another baby's medical notes. I can recall wondering whether the rash had something

to do with the previous leak through the ceiling in Nursey 1 near to where Child D was

nursed. I cannot recall when the leak was but to the best of my knowledge, it

contained soilage which made me wonder whether that had anything to do with what caused the rash”

https://thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk/wp-content/uploads/thirlwall-evidence/INQ0101334.pdf

Watch this.

https://x.com/lucyletbytrials/status/1891450653886550248?s=61&t=r2R2aezWDfDdIttDPUAug

The late Paddy Hill: “We did not get our convictions overturned becuase of the government or the courts. I’ll tell you what got our convictions overturned: public outcry. The one thing about the British public when they see an injustice they are not afraid to stand up and scream about it”

They went to the trial? Clearly a normal bunch then. Not sure why we need to be discussing another forum on here anyway.

Where did you read that she followed the families doggedly? That just isn’t true. She looked up basically everyone she came into contact with, which naturally included some of the families. But she didn’t visit any of their profiles more than once or twice.

Also not sure if you are aware of this but she had loads of handover notes and very few of them related to babies she allegedly harmed. She had a habit of taking handover notes home after work and procrastinated on shredding them, basically.

She had a social media addiction. She was disorganised and probably a bit lazy when it came to getting rid of work info that needed shredded. In what way is either of those things particularly weird?

I honestly find it weirder to find these normal behaviours weird!

Well it's normal compared to stalking parents who have lost their babies and keeping confidential medical notes under your bed (which is apparently normal on here) no need to discuss other than to say they're laughing at you all 😎

No, looking people up on facebook and bringing work stuff home when you shouldn’t are both objectively more normal - in the sense that more people do these things - than attending a trial you’ve become obsessed with through Tattle.

If these Tattlers are ever accused of wrongdoing they’re screwed. I don’t personally believe their strange behaviour definitely makes them baby murderers, but a jury may be less understanding.

Do you seriously think we care that a bunch of true crime addict morons are ”laughing at us”? 🥴