Lucy Letby case expert witness was under fitness to practise investigation

[ITMA2000]

Wow! Pot, kettle, black? Need a new investigation?
Lucy Letby case expert witness was under fitness to practise investigation during trial | Lucy Letby | The Guardian

FF doesn’t have to come up with any proof though, that’s already been done and the jury accepted it.

She also wrote, "I haven't done anything wrong." Maybe she wrote that simply because it's true?

Yes the jury did accept it and we are all obviously aware of that, but now there's a CCRC application, which is also a valid part of the justice system, and there has been an unprecedented response by many experts who are saying that the evidence was flawed and the case needs to be looked at again.

You're 'swooping in' comment suggests you don't understand that this isn't how remedying of MOJs work in our system

*Your

Indeed.

Maybe she doesn't think it's wrong to hurt babies. Since she did then she obviously thinks its fine.

I don't think it's weird. I don't think many people comment as the same posters show up every thread. It becomes an echo chamber and FF is pounced on.
I actually admire her tenacity. I would gave given up long ago.
I await the decision from the CCRC.

FF pounces on everyone else constantly.

All we have asked her to do is to just accept that some people have a different opinion than her, that's literally it. If she did that and stopped taking jabs then there would be none of this but it's constant. The threads would be cut down by a huge amount.

The whole point of these threads is that there is considerable and genuine doubt about the safety of the convictions. A number of the posters are discussing the evidence and information that has come to light since the trial.

Most of us have open minds and will follow the evidence. We’re not Letby fans, or whatever facile jibe that poster chooses to use. We’re interested in justice, whichever way that goes.

That poster, and a couple of others, including you, apparently, don’t seem to be able to comprehend that MoJs can and do happen, and that it’s legitimate, and even necessary, to have public discourse about our judicial system and its flaws. Especially in the case of complex medical information that has been demonstrably misconstrued.

There are other pro-verdict posters who post rationally, which is welcome. Views should be challenged. Spitting ad hominems is not challenge, it’s shitposting.

Fortunately for miscarriages of justice "the jury accepted it" is not a reason to dismiss appeals.

FF has to justify her claims which are often nothing to do with what the jury have been told.

You make personal attacks all the time, they probably don't get deleted because no one bothers to report them. I saw the one that got deleted towards you and unless I got that post wrong what you say is often similar to and often worse than that.

Well to tell you the truth I was surprised that comment got reported and deleted. Appreciate it though, whoever it was! Me, I don't really care what anyone says about me on this subject and I've come to expect nothing less from that poster 😆

No that wasn't me but you did reference that thread in the Lucy Letby one and I said I wasn't on it and hadn't seen it.

But you do acknowledge there is only witness testimony from potential victims and often no hard evidence. You've said you wouldn't serve on a jury case like that for this reason but it doesn't stop you from thinking the evidence is adequate. Yet you have a much higher bar here.

You do know why people seriously think otherwise though, they’ve patiently told you why over and over again

I just read some of her police interviews and it just cements it even more. Everything is "do you accept you were alone at the time the baby collapsed" "yes" over and over again. It was always her going in when another staff member went on their break. Can only assume you haven't read them, or anything from the trial. You're smart people, surely.

I spend a lot of time on MN in general and I do like a debate. If I wasn't here I'd be elsewhere on MN. If there were debates ongoing for anything else I felt strongly about I'd be all over them too.

@CommonlyKnownAs in case you missed this 😜 Imagine being so condescending and then doing this!

That thread was far worse from what I recall. I don't remember telling anyone on here they shouldn't be around kids because of their views. And that was a very one-sided thread where me and a couple others were getting piled on with all sorts of insults. That's not happening here because most of MN is pro-letby.

You also mentioned you had a very high bar to declare someone as something as disgusting as a paedophile, but yet your bar is so low for declaring someone as a serial killer of babies.

It's not low. You could prove it for just about every baby separately, put it all together and it's undeniable. If this was a clear cut case of murder she'd obviously be the only one who could've done it. It being not clear cut obviously muddies the water but doesn't change all the circumstantial evidence. Maybe you should try looking at it from that perspective.

Thanks for the laugh, I'm in pain and I've been on hold to an out of hours doctors for the last hour and needed that, and I wouldn't have gone looking except for you tried to make out I was like you. Turns out you were actually a bit more like the people on here you always try to browbeat into submission back then instead 😂😂 but bizarrely, somewhere over the past couple of years you've apparently lost all ability to understand that different people can look at the same thing and reach different conclusions 🤔🤔

I'm glad it gave you a laugh! Not sure any of it helps your argument though only to prove that all the people who believe someone is guilty are just as bad (or worse) no matter what thread you're on.

Actually it has helped me understand because I know I came at the MJ case from a bias perspective and it was incredibly hard to finally accept the truth. So I'm admitting I was biased there instead of neutral and is why I didn't find the evidence convincing. Same thing here I guess.

Imagine being so condescending and writing all the shit you did in your first post!I mean, you waded right in calling other people armchair experts, and we've still had multiple posts from you entirely failing to explain or back up what you meant, nearly two days later.

The other poster has a fair point though, and I noticed that as soon as I'd posted, thought I'd got away with that one there- the lesson is to be careful with predictive text. Mea culpa! You, however, haven't got any room to talk. About either accuracy or talking down.

While we're here, in case you missed my reply to you above, here it is again:

Do you not get that something showing zero indication you understand a topic isn't the same thing as that thing being incorrect? Because that's a really important distinction here.
Your comment about Letby's case being under review for a year isn't wrong, it's just completely insufficient to prove that you know anything other than that one fact. Because you could know that and still be completely wrong in your assessment of the topic. Like,oooh, hypothetically if you thought the reason it had been outstanding for over a year was something to do with the case not being strong enough for a hot shot lawyer to swoop in and fix it.
I'll repeat a paragraph in one of my posts from yesterday that deals with this point, since apparently once wasn't enough:
Well no, that isn't an indication that you know how the system works. It merely indicates that you know how long the case has been with them. Doesn't tell us whether you think this is typical, whether it tells us anything, if you know how long they took with other eventual MOJ cases.

No proof that she deliberately hurt babies.

Sorry. I couldn’t resist 🤣 You were first to pull someone up on their spelling and to make your own mistake. Just made me smile.

Predictive text? Nah.

Oh don't worry there's no need to apologise. I'd do the same in your position, especially if I was hoping I could use it as a distraction from an inconvenient question. Well, not that I'd have accused other people of being armchair experts whilst typing what you did, but if I had.

But you still haven't told us what 'There is a reason a lawyer/Soliciter hasn’t swooped in to save the day' meant?

I did! Way back. Between you commenting on my spelling and you using the wrong “you’re/your”

Its mumsnet. Build a bridge and all that. Move on. I’ll probably make the same comment on another thread one day. Peace out!

You can't do the move on and peace out schtick whilst also continuing arguing yourself. It's one or the other. I'm choosing the latter.

So no, you have not explained what that meant. You typed a lot of words, but none of them actually did that. If you had, you'd be able to cite that explanation now. But you won't.

Armchair experts indeed...

@Firefly1987 Okay 👍

I mean, I can.

Thank you! Appreciate it 😊and you're right, I'm not the only one always on these threads! I don't know why I do it to myself but it's something that needs countering.

Proof or it didn't happen.

There you go! Argue/disagree move on.