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

It’s extraordinary isn’t it? They must surely in all their “research” have seen that the notes contained many entries indicating bewilderment and confusion about being under suspicion. They must surely know that this was reported by her therapist to be brainstorming about her greatest fears and intrusive thoughts. The photos of the notes bear this out, yet they still insist it was clearly a confession.

My heart breaks for the parents of children she murdered who have to listen to half wits speculate on their child’s death.

It is not necessary for every opinion from an expert to be absolute fact. It’s opinion. They differ. It’s the weight of all opinions that matter and other hard evidence.

No I haven't read all the evidence. I'm not even saying I think she's innocent. I just genuinely don't get how people say she is guilty as sin on such little evidence. The time and attendance system wasn't working at that time so I thought that bit of evidence was useless anyway? You say she wanted to be with the sickest babies but then said they were getting better before they passed away. So which is it?

I haven't read all the evidence but I've read a lot and just never read anything that's made me think yes she definitely did it. It's horrendously sad that the babies are no longer here and I think there must be more proof that she either did it, or didn't.

Some of us half wits have direct experience of being falsely accused based on medical evidence / opinion alone, followed by the determination to back it up with spurious circumstantial bullshit.

Some of us half wits give a shit that the medicolegal arena is fraught with opportunities to ruin lives, engages in institutional gas-lighting, and creates mayhem in the lives of all concerned.

Some of us half wits give a shit about the truth.

No I haven't read all the evidence.

How can you say this then go on to say

I just genuinely don't get how people say she is guilty as sin on such little evidence

How do you know there’s ’little evidence’ if you haven’t even bothered to read it 🤣🤣

I've read the article.

Why does Liz Hull keep going on about sitting through the trial? There's nothing in that article that isn't already all over the internet. What is her point?

I completely agree. most people saying that she is guilty;lty now have only read the headlines.

Unless you have direct experience of the trial and all the evidence you’re doing little more than projecting

Tell me how is the medical community ruining lives when it was all a police investigation? Are you suggesting the police were part of framing Letby?

Perhaps because it’s relevant? She will be one of the few people who watched it all as a lay person. That matters because she has a knowledge of the bigger picture

Some of the parents have been left with unanswered questions and an explanation of 'your child has been murdered, we can't really give you a proper explanation of how, so that's that, on your way'. I believe many will want to hear sound evidence and have a proper explanation of how thier child died. Which many of them felt they had more of before the murder enquiry.

It's an interesting point. Nobody had to listen to that panel of experts. But a room full of national and international press did.

It seems a lot of people felt this press conference was worth taking very seriously. Given the calibre of very real and serious experts attending, and the many serious doubts raised about Letby's convictions, I'm not surprised.

Aren't some of these families still trying to take the nhs trust and some of the Drs to a tribunal for medical misconduct in the death of their babies?
If they are as convinced as you are that LL is guilty, why would they be doing that?

Maybe, but nothing she writes is at all original in that article. I think she's just trying to impress.

Some have spoken out already about the speculation and how hard it is. I doubt any of them are part of the Fan Club

On the same conditions as anyone else, yes

Do you think the press turn up in the noble pursuit of the truth or because it sells papers?

There were very real and serious experts who testified at the trial giving expert evidence. I suggest you read it.

Perhaps because a review found that care was substandard? Substandard care doesn’t lead to 14 dead babies though.

It's one of the most important pieces of evidence. Evans relied on it in four murder cases and two cases of alleged murder.

Because I only ever see the same evidence and it's so weak!?

It’s not supposed to be original it supposed to challenge what this panel have said. And it does a pretty good job

Fucking hell imagine saying you’d let a baby killer look after your kid.

Not at all - the judge directed the jury that they didn't need to be certain exactly how she did it, just that she did it. I don’t believe the defence have disputed that that direction was wrong and I don’t believe it formed part of any appeals (I.e they accept the judge was correct to direct the jury in that way).

Unless they can come up with a credible medical explanation that turns hiterto unexplained, suspicious deaths into something explainable, then it doesn’t really matter. And even then, the defence had access to all manner of medical experts, and still they chose not to put any them on the stand because not one of them could provide a credible alternative that would stand up to cross examination.

Our appeals process isn’t expert top trumps; you can’t keep appealing with different experts, until you get the verdict you want. Any such medical explanation would need to be entirely new and unavailable to the original defence team.

Why shouldn't substandard care lead to 14 dead babies? In Nottingham it seems to have led to far more?

(Though it's fair to assume some of the 14 would have died either way).

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.

'So Lucy Letby is innocent now' sounds more like an observation, they're saying oh the media seems to be pushing the idea that she's innocent now.

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.

Followed most of it, gave up part way through Thirwall, completely unconvinced that she harmed any babies. Yes everything with her parents was bizarre but it was also a highly unusual situation in the first place. Imagine hearing that your child was accused of something like that, I'd imagine that a lot of parents would be going mad about that.

You can't say my expert is better than yours.
Of course you can. Some experts are better!