Nurse Lucy Letby - guilty of murdering 7 babies - whole life sentence
- Thread starter Raulduke
- Start date
Feck right off!! Why does anyone give these vile lunatics the time of day? Absolute scum!
Cherry picking bits and pieces misses the mountains of evidence that got her charged and convicted in the first place. Someone killed the babies and she was the only one there on all occasions. So apart from the other evidence and repeated dodgy behaviour this is fairly convincing as the alternative is presumably multiple murderers.
Last edited:
It's absolutely vile. Seems like they're desperate to blame the NHS and want to create drama for their own careers, at the expense of the parents. Utter scum.
Maybe don’t help them by sharing the tweets then.
You think people who see it here, which has no impact on views or engagement, will be convinced by it?
I’ve no idea, but you sharing tweets without any comment at first seems like an endorsement until your further comments.
Besides the fundamental point is don’t give oxygen to these assholes.
Why would it seem like an endorsement, other than in your own mind?
Sharing a tweet without any comment alongside it generally comes across as sharing a view you agree with.
Why?
I’m not getting into an extended back and forth on this.
I think many people tend to take quoted tweets that way in the absence of further comment.
Have to agree, I took your initial post as an endorsement of what they were saying. It’s the only reason I bothered to watch it.
Didn't she write a letter confessing to the murders?
Had that very same discussion before. It’s pointless. It’s not him who gets something wrong. It’s everyone else.
There were notes which mentioned many things, including denying responsibility but also saying things like "It's my fault they died". The prosecution argued that this was akin to a confession. We cannot know the jury's reasoning but they may have assumed that they believed the prosecution's description of events.
I know your MO is to apportion motive and meaning to people you don't know because you have main character syndrome but I assure you, no one is wrong here.
I'd imagine that's what most people would think. Why do you think the opposite
I understand. I would try not assume meaning, or intent of a poster on here because they shared a tweet.
Sort of.
And there's very little actual evidence that certainly the air injections happened or that they could've caused death. According to other experts in the field..
It's this approach that is being questioned by quite a few expert statisticians..
The oddest thing about the case is the behaviour of the defence. They could have called up expert witnesses to rebut some of the key evidence, but they chose not to. Some of the potential challenges were already in the public domain after similar other cases...
She was provably there for all of the deaths and nobody else was and what has statistics got to do with it? Plus her incredibly suspicious behavior. Guilty as sin and she really should have been caught and stopped much earlier.
This isn't about finding trends in data though, it's a criminal investigation into a series of murders.
If you share something you disagree with I think you should state that you disagree with it. It's common sense. Otherwise you're opening yourself up to misinterpretation for no reason.
Fair enough, I personally think that's on other people trying interpret motive and meaning to a post but I see your point.
Disclaimer: I don't endorse either view in this tweet.
For context, these claims were published in the US already, but could not be reported here due to the attempted murder trial.
Fortunately that's not how the justice system usually works. Which is why there's questions being asked now by some pretty eminent people, who happen to be experts. And as for your take on the statistical interpretations of the staff rota, it's scientifically accepted to be a crock of shit.
Part of the 'damning evidence' which no doubt influenced the jury, especially in the absence of any hard evidence of her culpability is the data. The concerns being raised are not necessary about her guilt or lack of, it's about how the science was used by the prosecution and their experts to convict her.
Just admit you think you can fix her
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2015
- Messages
- 18,175
- Supports
️
And we’ve also had experts make the case to convict.
A very weird hill to die on given we also know:
What do you make of here journal note amounting to a confession?
The only thing that gives me pause about her guilt was the prosecution barrister making out she's some kind of lying bitch for making a remark about being arrested in her pajamas when, in fact, she was arrested in a leisure suit
I'll be honest, I haven't followed the case that closely and so don't know all of the details. I will however say 2 things:
-I can completely and utterly believe that an NHS trust would find an individual scapegoat to blame systemic failures of patient safety on, as opposed to accepting there may be structural failures in Rotas, staffing etc etc.
-Taking those 2 quotes (again, just completely by themselves and without the full context of what exactly they were referring to) I feel could be read in a different way depending on the context. The on purpose part is definitely odd and looks terrible but a lot of healthcare workers will blame themselves in general when things happen to their patients. They will obsess over little details and wonder if they'd done x or y earlier, the outcome may have changed. I imagine this feeling is amplified significantly when your patients are neonates.
You don't really give off vibes of someone who doesn't buy into the BS conspiracy theories.
I also wonder how concerned about the conviction these experts would be if Lucy Letby weren't an attractive young white woman.
Why do people keep saying Letby is hot? So weird
I think she's conventionally attractive, and I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest some people would let that sway their decision making or opinion on whether they believe she is capable of murder