Lucy Letby (2)

[Oftenaddled]

Not only the second thread of course, but maybe with them filling so fast it is time to start numbering them?

Well this is all down to Shoo Lee isn't it? They obviously believe him, doesn't make them right. I don't think they have any motivation I think they probably don't really understand circumstantial evidence and think Shoo Lee can void all her crimes with a press conference. Mark Mcdonald is a master manipulator so he's behind most of the public changing their minds (which he even admits to) via a very slick campaign. I mean it's like people who voted for Brexit isn't it, they really believed in it because they were sold a lie.

Oh I think you underestimate people's critical thinking. And am astonished that you disregard Dr Lee's professionalism. This is a man who is well documented as being an expert in his field.
I'd be interested to hear other people's views too.

The reason Lee's conference is so persuasive is that Evans and his collaborators claimed they had ruled out natural causes of death. That is what made the deaths suspicions. That is what made Lucy Letby being present at the deaths suspicious.

If the deaths had not been suspicious, obviously there would be nothing sinister about a nurse being in the vicinity. Even a callous, obsessive, slobby, tactless, social media addict of a nurse, if that's how you want to describe Lucy Letby.

If the prosecution had based their case on the claim that there were other plausible causes of death but reasons to prefer murder, there would still be a conversation to have. They didn't. There isn't.

The case fell apart with Lee's press conference. Sure, plenty of people saw problems before that. And plenty of other issues have come to light since. And law is a slippery thing and takes its time. But the case as presented in court is shattered - we are just waiting for the pieces to fall to the ground.

@Iamateadrinker you think that press conference was professional? With him being announced as the "star of the show"??!! He probably is more professional than that but he had Mark Mcdonald and David Davis intent on making it into a spectacle. What can I say, it worked like a charm on people didn't it.

That doesn't explain those of us that were concerned when the trial/s were going on.

I can assure you that my belief that Lucy Letby is innocent was formed long before the Shoo Lee press conference. It was when I heard from trial reporting that she was supposed to have murdered babies by administering air via an ng tube.Shame on all those health care professionals who knew that was complete bullshiit and didn’t speak out. You knew that was wrong. You didn’t speak up. You could have put an end to it before it got out of hand

It does seem like it should have been handled far more sensitively considering the families weren't even aware they were investigating deliberate harm, while I'm sure the police will often have to let families know arrests have been made early in the morning, most will be waiting for that call, so it must be unbelievably shocking if you had never even considered that your baby could have been a victim of murder/attempted murder.

@Firefly1987 I think he is a well respected professional. The press conference needed to be made public such was the panel's concern that a woman was imprisoned for life on such dubious grounds. They took on the onerous task of looking at all the medical records with the proviso that if they found evidence of wrong doing they would report it as such.
How would you have liked them to report their findings? Via an email?
People ( including her legal representative) have to make a noise about this - I'm sure you would expect no difference if it was you or someone you loved in a similar position.

Of course before Shoo Lee you said the motivation was that we all wanted to save the white blonde nurse.

I think even though many people get mixed up with what circumstantial evidence actually is, most people can tell the difference between strong and weak circumstantial evidence.

You on the other hand (and many on the guilty side) seem to think that if circumstantial evidence exists then that means the person must have done it, even though they could have had a file of circumstantial evidence on multiple people if they had looked for it.

Mark McDonald isn't a master manipulator at all, he's very obvious in what he's doing and how he's doing his job. You even said yourself he has admitted to this. It's mad how some people think that they're so clever that they can see right through him when he's not trying to hide what he's doing 🤔

In this case, all the signs are there in that it's the guilty side who have been sold a lie.

You know more than two doctors (one of whom was a neonatologist) with 30 years experience? Wow those are some credentials you must have. Talk about armchair experts.

Were the experts you quote experienced in the administration of enteral feeding of neonates?

No thought not

@Firefly1987 I certainly don't think you are in any position to call anyone an armchair expert.

The WHOLE trial concerned you? Or just one or two parts of it? You think every expert just happened to get their speciality wrong? So the endocrinologist, the pathologist, radiographer? What's the reason the defence didn't do a far better job if the trial was SO concerning?

Quite a specific question? They're neonatologists though, why wouldn't they be?

For what it’s worth I think the defence should have done a much better job. That does not make Lucy Letby guilty .Pathology,.Endocrinology, ,Microbiology, full blood counts, sepsis. All biochemical data that can’t be changed. But can of course be manipulated and interpreted to fit Chester Police objectives

I am really sorry. I am not posting here to score points against anyone.. Although I will admit to being upset and angry when I see posts that I think need challenging.

You have been on these threads as long as I have, and I don't expect you to remember points that I have made in various posts.
So a few points
The stats (that you don't like)
That St Dewi of Evans changed his opinion during the trial
The door swipe data that was never going to be reliable.
The the defence wasn't allowed to refute the expert witness testimony as it was put forward on each count
That various consultants were proved to have lied.
The a Judge that wasn't linked to the trial wrote a letter pointing out that DE made the evidence fit his theories.
The state of the ward
That the consultants only did rounds a few times each week
and that Letby had won a grievance against the consultants

Not the trial but linked to it are the paid for by police journolists.

And as I have posted before, if I were on the jury I would not have been able to find her guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

I am not one of them she is clearly 100 per cent innocent but having wasted too much time on other forums and listened to plenty of debates on youtube i can answer.

They thought they were important and in a way part of the investigation, they believed their views online were worth listening too and collected loadsa likes etc for the many many hours put in supporting Dewi and his whacky ideas, backing the police or the doctors and explaining to most of us that were not sure it made much sense.

Turns out it was a load of tripe but backing down and saying i was wrong is not an option for people that are stubborn and take themselves so seriously.

Maybe there is also some embarrassment about the previous language used to describe a hard-working nurse that is a nice person.... although i certainly would not blame them for that part given the charge against her and media coverage.

I actually wonder if these people will be ok when she gets out, cos if they are upset with talk on forums about being innocent, when it could not be more obvious, then i can only imagine their anger when the government tv channels are forced to tell us..... Lucy Letby is free this is the greatest MOJ ever.

It is the WHOLE trial really though isn’t it? Difficult though that is to get your head around (any of us, not just you). It started back to front. Instead of a murder victim or victims, then an investigation to prove the perpetrator, it started with a feeling that one person ‘must be doing something’, and then followed with trying to find evidence to support that theory. So that’s the first thing that’s wrong, and it is undoubtedly what they did. The police uncritically swallowed everything the consultants told them without looking for other explanations as they should have done, then again they uncritically accepted everything Evans said without seeking other independent medical expert opinions. You can see that when they interviewed LL they did so from the point of view that they believed Evans who had told them it was 100% deliberate harm. Now of course dozens of highly reputable and credentialed experts with no axe to grind and no financial incentive have robustly and repeatedly challenged his hypotheses. So the medical evidence is not credible or believable. Then we have multiple disclosure failures and questionable decisions by the judge on admissibility of evidence.

I think this type of caricaturing of people with differing views is unhelpful and unnecessary, and does not contribute to an atmosphere we we can improve our understanding. Unless you have genuine powers of mind-reading, you can't know for sure why people think/say what they do.

I think the original question to someone like Firefly is interesting. What do those who refuse to acknowledge that there is anything to see here genuinely think is the motivation of those who question. They should know the answer as it’s been endlessly explained, but nevertheless the response is to repeatedly misrepresent, to ridicule, to insult, to attack the credibility of professionals who are objectively more qualified to speak than the trial ‘expert’ witnesses. I find the question of the motivation of the staunch pro guilt people absolutely fascinating because it’s so irrational and even the most articulate of them can’t argue it. It might not make for a particularly intelligent and interesting discussion, but the discussion here is constantly interrupted by the same old regurgitated circular arguments anyway, so I’m quite interested in what drives people.

@Dolphin37 the problem is that when people doggedly stick to one view regardless of increasing evidence to the contrary it doesn’t suggest people who are willing to be thoughtful and analytical about events.

Some of the language used in some of the discussions about this case is terrible and very disrespectful to everybody. Which is why I do find it a bit odd when those convinced of Letby’s guilt suddenly become the arbiter of what is respectful tbh.

@Firefly1987 told me once that my interest in the case lay only in the fact that it was presented as a miscarriage of justice. She was right, and also right that I took an interest in it only once the material was out there to explore that claim, in the shape of the New Yorker article and various online sources.

She and I would differ on whether that means I am destined to hold a distorted view of the case forever, though I accept that we all have to check our biases and that I want this to be a miscarriage of justice. I also want to be right. I guess that is human nature. But once I acknowledge these things about myself, I think that I can still go on with thinking critically, especially helped by comments from others on both sides of the argument.

So I thought since we are talking about Firefly, I would say she got that about right in my case. Although I think she is wrong on many points, I have learned a lot talking to her - not just by disagreeing with her. She pointed out to me a few threads back how few neonatalogists there are in England - I think just over 100 - which changed how I thought and wrote about aspects of the case.

I still think I'm right, though! But who doesn't?

So in your view what would a likely motivation be for someone who made supporting the guilty verdict a personal crusade from the very beginning, and who has doubled down and seems to make it a personal mission to bat off all comers on a daily basis? Especially someone who wouldn’t be impacted by the NHS or British justice failures due to living in a different country? I mean why would they care enough to bother? I don’t particularly want it to be a miscarriage of justice, but I do want to get to the right answer. If it is a miscarriage of justice I want reform. I think there are enough issues now to make it essential to look again. I don’t find people who just deny there are problems credible if they can’t articulate their position.