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

I mean the woman confessed in those notes.

She stole records and took them home, not one but multiple.

She was a clear liability before she started murdering babies.

Then she started looking up the parents of the babies she killed on facebook.

She is an awful individual.

IMO it’s only a matter of time before she actually confesses to murdering those babies.

Hope none of the witch finders ever get accused of wrong doing based on medical evidence and the balance of probabilities alone. If you do, and you know you're innocent, will you just suck it up? I mean, experts, right? Always right? Depending, of course.

Thank fuck we have the CCRC, which at least pays lip service to justice and due process.

The British Medical Association seems satisfied that they are experts!

https://www.bmj.com/content/388/bmj.r250

Everyone is entitled to their viewpoint, and everyone is entitled to ignore corrections in matter of fact, but doing so does undermine their arguments.

I closely followed the trial and then watched the press conference. Some of the explanations offered at the press conference were also offered at the trial and dismissed for various reasons so I am not convinced by it.

I just don't understand where were all these experts who are suddenly jumping to defend her during the trial? Her team had every opportunity to call far more experts in her defence and they called none

Will ad AI bot to my CV. Will keep it short if that helps. This was a long and complicated case. The jury did not have one expert or one set of statistics to rely on.The jury found the evidence sufficient to meet the legal standard of ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ and from what I have seen and read (granted the statistical information is not my forte) I think they came to the right decision. I can’t imagine what that’s children’s parents and families must be going through thinking about all the media attention this case is getting yet again.

[[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy9lz1wwr20o www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy9lz1wwr20o this is on the BBC home page, incidentally.

The trial made use of discredited science (Evans's misuse of Shoo Lee's paper, Evans's false claim that murder through air in stomach is clinically proven) so it's natural that some genuinely correct explanations were wrongly rejected.

Fortunately there is quite a lot of new evidence to bolster these conclusions now.

These are world leading experts. Ofcourse they don't follow every murder trial in the world. These are people much more qualified than the experts used at the trial.

I don't think you are capable of grasping the issues around this case. She's obviously innocent. You'll be proven wrong in time.

In what way is she guilty as sin? No confession, no one saw anything, nothing caught in camera, there's been no motive, no search history online and she's never really messed up her wording. She's not been caught out lying. She's not got any sort of diagnoses to try and back up the reason or cause of her doing it. Her friends have family don't believe it and still stick by her. What bits of evidence makes you so sure she did it?

This. It was obviously just a therapy exercise/brain dump. She's obviously writing about her fear of being SEEN as evil by those accusing her.

At last. It should have been paid the day he walked free.

Anyone who thinks Letby's defenders shouldn't speak up should look at how badly his case was handled. They have had the real rapist's DNA since 2007. Appalling. Worth a read.

https://www.theguardian.com/law/article/2024/jul/18/how-did-the-ccrc-handle-andrew-malkinson-three-appeal-applications

Perhaps read the nine months of evidence - I’m not going to list it on here as there’s so much.

And ask yourself why her only defence witness was a plumber. Or why the psychology reports undertaken by the defence were not submitted in evidence.

Hilarious you think no confession is a sign of innocence though. and why would hospitals have CCTV in a children’s ward?

Hope none of the witch finders ever get accused of wrong doing based on medical evidence and the balance of probabilities alone. If you do, and you know you're innocent, will you just suck it up? I mean, experts, right? Always right? Depending, of course. hope none of the Lucy Letby fanclub ever have their baby murdered by a psychopath and then find that their baby’s murderer has a fanclub on the internet who constantly protest their innocence.

If a parent of one of those murdered babies came on here to talk about what happened to their baby and how they absolutely believe that LL is guilty will you call them thick and obtuse as well?

The confession was only one for the things I listed. I'm not asking for you to list all the evidence, can you just name 3 things? Not including the notes people keep going on about that we now know were from therapy and the fact she was on shift, which again, we don't know is even true now.

It's very hard to grasp that some people are indeed "that unlucky" as Lucy Letby is.

The mere fact that this case came to court - well, no smoke without fire. No "smoking gun" other than medical opinion? Well, experts wouldn't do that, wouldn't essentially make shit up to retro-fit dodgy statistics and dodgy doctors with gut feelings? Personality analysis - except her personality after the fact is immaterial, because extreme stressor. No psychological pathology. Daily media "revelations" - she lied about her pyjamas! Proof at last.

All those original pathologists? Have they been disciplined? Struck off? How did they get it so wrong?

Ah, yes, but one keen professional witness spotted murder, in one set of notes, in ten minutes reading over coffee. A witness with a dubious track record and an interest in FII. Who offered himself up with pound signs in his ymetes because this case was right up his street.

Bandwagons. There's a fleet of them apparently....

I just don't know how you can say that given the points raised by the doctor whose research was erroneously used.

I haven't called anyone thick or obtuse.

I'm not a member of any fan club, and unlike some of the supporters of the trials outcome, I 've not called anyone thick or obtuse.
I do however believe that our justice system should be robust enough to be able to stand up to discussion, retrial and stand up to any review by the required standards in law.

I don't know if LL is innocent or guilty but I do believe that the evidence against her is unsound and that won't change just because someone throws emotional blackmail against me.

The defence could have approached them but chose not to. They didn’t even use Shoo Lee. The complete lack of any experts to defend the case speaks volumes.

From what I understood watching the recent press conference, the information they provided was not new so I am not convinced it’s a definite appeal.

I want the truth to come out but my sentiments are with the families of the babies, how truly horrific for their nightmare to just never end.

You want me to name 3 things but are restricting what I’m allowed to name 😂😂

Her being on shift for all of them or just on shift (babies can take time to die and their murderers can clock out). If it wasn’t her it wasn’t about 15 nurses working together

Obsessions with working with the sickest babies.

Collection of notes she kept about the babies she killed (collected paper, sure you did)

The fact all babies were on the road to recovery not death, and that there is no explanation as to why a NICU baby would suddenly have its tube dislodged or have mottled skin from nowhere.

There you got 4.

Have you actually read the evidence? Or transcripts? Why do you think the “experts” didn’t testify in the first place in her defence? Or any experts really. What is the new evidence that shows she is innocent?

THATS what you’re hingeing this on? Do you think that was the only bit of evidence? Have you even read the evidence?

Lots of people on mumsnet seem absolutely convinced of her innocence. If she were released, would you trust her to look after your baby alone?

I bet nobody here has even read Liz Hull’s article - and stop the snootiness around the Mail, grow up and read it because this is a court reporter who sat through all of Letby’s trials and the press conference.

I think it should inconveniences people that someone has countered the claim of the “experts”

Remember this “panel” is not a select committee or an appeal board. Someone booked a meeting room and they turned up. Weve no reason to listen to anyone at this stage