The Lucy Letby Inquiry

[Babylon]

1 minute ago, Daggers said:

Depressingly true.

 

I blame the WEF for this because they’re lizard people.

My Mrs said I forgot to put the bins out on Friday; she won't believe me that the deep state brought them back in to cause conflict in our house. 

[ramboacdc]

On 10/09/2024 at 12:30, Zear0 said:

Why is it going to be interesting? The chair has articulated, far more than clearly than I could, that this speculation and innuendo by internet "sleuths" with zero first-hand knowledge of the trial are causing further distress to the victims families. 

 

It's no coincidence that it's the same people here speculating about this case are those who trotted the same BS about Jay Slater about CCTV showing him hauled off in boats etc. 

 

As Lady Justice Thirlwall said it, the courts and the court of appeal have done their jobs that with a clear result that the convictions stand.

It's not just them "sleuths" who were jumping on the Jay thing or the woman who went missing in the river a few years ago. They will jump on anything they can go keep the videos and clicks coming, that's just how this shitty social media world works and there is enough people who will make it and morons who will watch it and follow them. If I hear the words "true crime documentary" or "True Crime Podcast" one more time I may put my head through a microwave. This case has has David Davis, medical professionals and some statiticians  saying that there is holes and inconsitencies. They could still take it higher than our Court of Appeal if they find something. It isn't over until it goes all the way up to the Supreme Court then into the European courts. 

 

I think she was involved for sure, but the doubts over if she got given a fair defence will be something that could end up at retrials for sure.  I don't think it's a conspiracy. It's not like it's being done to cover someone or something else and she is the scapegoat or whatever. This inquiry will show what we all know, the NHS can't keep up with itself at this point and there is too many people involved in higher up roles that stuff gets lost. If a doctor or nurse raises a concern to their superior, there is a good chance it won't even make it to a consultant's desk or someone above them who has no medical experience and it's just white noise to them.

EDIT: I just read the rest of the thread. I'll grab my tin foil hat and my flack jacket and sit in the corner....

 

Edited 11 September by ramboacdc

[HighPeakFox]

On the subject of 'everything is a conspiracy', I tend to find that that sort of thinking comes from those who themselves have that tendency - a projection of sorts, just as people who get staunchly behind awful politicians or whatever are basically justifying their own minor awfulnesses.

 

I must state for the record, this is my opinion and cannot back it up with peer reviewed fact or studies.

[Daggers]

Clearly something to do with the Masons.

 

Dan Browne should write about it.

[Bellend Sebastian]

I don't know where I read this and I don't know if it's from someone of consequence or just some Twitter random, and I'm sure I'm not quoting it correctly but it struck a chord with me: 

 

It turned out that there was a real, massive conspiracy and it was to get people to believe in conspiracy theories

[Sampson]

1 hour ago, HighPeakFox said:

On the subject of 'everything is a conspiracy', I tend to find that that sort of thinking comes from those who themselves have that tendency - a projection of sorts, just as people who get staunchly behind awful politicians or whatever are basically justifying their own minor awfulnesses.

 

I must state for the record, this is my opinion and cannot back it up with peer reviewed fact or studies.

I think the opposite. I think it’s out of fear of the actual chaos which governs humanity and our lives. 
 

The reason conspiracy theories are popular if they give meaning and purpose and intelligence behind humanity. I remember a Dan Carlin podcast a few years back using the example of the Kennedy assassination conspiracy theory - is it not actually less reassuring and gives less security and less faith in humanity to believe one random pissed off man could just change history like that over that it was the planning of highly intelligent secret services at the top of world governments full of highly educated people with endless amounts of background information on everything going on?

 

Is the fact that we are actually governed by the kind of careerist politicians your average person votes for actually less reassuring than there’s intelligent people at the top puppet mastering the whole thing?

 

I think a lot of conspiracy theories are actually comforting to people because they give a sense of reassuring order to what is actually a cruel and chaotic world filled with world changing decisions by hideously underqualified people.

Edited 11 September by Sampson

[HighPeakFox]

1 hour ago, Sampson said:

I think the opposite. I think it’s out of fear of the actual chaos which governs humanity and our lives. 
 

The reason conspiracy theories are popular if they give meaning and purpose and intelligence behind humanity. I remember a Dan Carlin podcast a few years back using the example of the Kennedy assassination conspiracy theory - is it not actually less reassuring and gives less security and less faith in humanity to believe one random pissed off man could just change history like that or that it was the planning of highly intelligent secret services at the top of world governments full of highly educated people with endless amounts of background information on everything going on?

 

Is the fact that we are actually governed by the kind of careerist politicians your average person votes for actually less reassuring than there’s intelligent people at the top puppet mastering the whole thing?

 

I think a lot of conspiracy theories are actually comforting to people because they give a sense of reassuring order to what is actually a cruel and chaotic world filled with world changing decisions by hideously underqualified people.

I'm not so sure about this. In the case of JFK, there is probably way more decent evidence mitigating against the random lone nutter theory than in many other cases. 

 

As for your last para, those two things are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

Edited 11 September by HighPeakFox

[Wymsey]

 

 

[Trav Le Bleu]

This is just like that nasty conspiracy theory that the Post Office knowingly prosecuted hundreds of post masters rather than admit to some ridiculously implausible "software fault".

 

This has been decided in law and so absolutely must be true!

 

N.B. I'm not saying she didn't do it, but from what I've heard and seen in the news, there are staggeringly glaring holes in the prosecution and also a parallel with the Post Office case in as much as the accused being told, "you've got no chance, so you might as well not bother trying to defend yourself."

 

If it turns out the "I am evil" note is as suggested, part of therapy, then I think it gets very interesting. 

 

At the very least, the evidence should be reexamined.

Edited 11 September by Trav Le Bleu

[Babylon]

12 hours ago, Wymsey said:

 

 

Yeah and Harold Shipmans patients thought he was a lovely chap. 

Edited 12 September by Babylon

[Trav Le Bleu]

2 hours ago, Babylon said:

Yeah and Harold Shipmans patients thought he was a lovely chap. 

Paula Vennells is a top lady.

[Mike Oxlong]

IMO the only reasonable and evidence based conclusion to draw from the existence of this thread is that @Wymsey has a boner for Lucy 

[Zear0]

20 minutes ago, Mike Oxlong said:

IMO the only reasonable and evidence based conclusion to draw from the existence of this thread is that @Wymsey has a boner for Lucy 

[Zear0]

Something from the inquiry today that seems relevant

 

Peter Skelton KC now addresses the widely-published doubts surrounding Lucy Letby's conviction.

For context: Some statisticians have publicly questioned the credibility of some of the evidence against Letby - such as a staffing rota showing she had been on duty for every suspicious death or collapse between June 2015 and June 2016.

Skelton says that critics of the case against Letby don’t understand that her conviction was not through statistical argument.  He highlights the fact the Court of Appeal refused her permission to appeal her case and that she was convicted because the "factual and expert medical evidence demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that she had harmed the children at the hospital".

 

Richard Baker KC, who is also representing some of the families, adds that anybody doubting the case "should be ashamed of themselves".

[Paninistickers]

I see some of the usual suspects have (unsurprisingly) framed this into the usual COVID / Immigration / Brexit political dividing lines. 

 

It's a fascinating case. Nothing wrong with admitting that. 

 

4 minutes ago, Zear0 said:

she was convicted because the "factual and expert medical evidence demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that she had harmed

Interesting point, though the expert analysis has also been called into question (tho why oh why here defence didn't do that, goodness only knows) 

 

Autopsy reports were inconclusive and when reassessed by experts, the findings were tainted by knowing they were to do with the case (and not a blind analysis) 

 

Also, I listened to the times radio podcast on this and apparently the leading expert  used has had his credentials in a past criticised for providing poorly researched, poorly articulated analysis 

 

[RoboFox]

16 hours ago, Wymsey said:

 

 

The state of the comments on that video. 

 

Why are you waging a one-man PR campaign for her on here, just out of interest? This video is meaningless. 

 

 

[Trav Le Bleu]

2 hours ago, RoboFox said:

The state of the comments on that video. 

 

Why are you waging a one-man PR campaign for her on here, just out of interest? This video is meaningless. 

 

 

To be fair, it has featured a lot in the news recently and it does look likely to be reopened.

[Trav Le Bleu]

4 hours ago, Paninistickers said:

I see some of the usual suspects have (unsurprisingly) framed this into the usual COVID / Immigration / Brexit political dividing lines. 

 

It's a fascinating case. Nothing wrong with admitting that. 

 

Interesting point, though the expert analysis has also been called into question (tho why oh why here defence didn't do that, goodness only knows) 

 

Autopsy reports were inconclusive and when reassessed by experts, the findings were tainted by knowing they were to do with the case (and not a blind analysis) 

 

Also, I listened to the times radio podcast on this and apparently the leading expert  used has had his credentials in a past criticised for providing poorly researched, poorly articulated analysis 

 

She didn't have a defence counsel. As I said earlier, rather like the Post Office trials, there was a lot of, "got you bang to rights, there's no point wasting time and money" talk.

 

One thing that I found very strange was the expert for the prosecution volunteered himself. Usually the counsel would select someone of their own choosing, but this guy was there ready and waiting.

 

The statistics used were also skewed. They showed that certain babies died when she was on duty, but no statistics were provided of when other nurses were on duty, to provide a comparison (sadly, babies died in hospital all the time without the help from murderers).

 

I don't get people saying she was found guilty, she must be guilty, when they have little knowledge about a case (I'm talking in general here) when new light is cast on it.

 

Time and again we've seen miscarriages of justice and it's the principal reason we don't have the death penalty in this country.

[Paninistickers]

12 minutes ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

She didn't have a defence counsel. As I said earlier, rather like the Post Office trials, there was a lot of, "got you bang to rights, there's no point wasting time and money" talk.

 

One thing that I found very strange was the expert for the prosecution volunteered himself. Usually the counsel would select someone of their own choosing, but this guy was there ready and waiting.

 

The statistics used were also skewed. They showed that certain babies died when she was on duty, but no statistics were provided of when other nurses were on duty, to provide a comparison (sadly, babies died in hospital all the time without the help from murderers).

 

I don't get people saying she was found guilty, she must be guilty, when they have little knowledge about a case (I'm talking in general here) when new light is cast on it.

 

Time and again we've seen miscarriages of justice and it's the principal reason we don't have the death penalty in this country.

Agree. 

 

The stats, ie the chances of A nurse being on duty for all deaths were reasonable, went unchallenged 

 

The lack of challenge / counter opinion to the expert analysis of embolism symptoms

 

The lack of credibility knocking of the main expert witness

 

The tainted non blind study (effectively,.do you reckon these babies were.murdered?, rather than a credible scientific blind study with dummy autopsies being there to review) 

 

....it's a staggeringly inept performance from the defence. 

 

The therapy explanation for her notes was never argued 

 

Strangely,.my own personal gut feel is she's guilty. Her weird demeanor, feeble defence in the dock and kinda loner vibes don't do her any favours. But I'm loathe that the criminal justice system convicts people without an adequate defence or on the basis on 'gut feels'. You can't have trials like that. 

[Trav Le Bleu]

1 minute ago, Paninistickers said:

Agree. 

 

The stats, ie the chances of A nurse being on duty for all deaths were reasonable, went unchallenged 

 

The lack of challenge / counter opinion to the expert analysis of embolism symptoms

 

The lack of credibility knocking of the main expert witness

 

The tainted non blind study (effectively,.do you reckon these babies were.murdered?, rather than a credible scientific blind study with dummy autopsies being there to review) 

 

....it's a staggeringly inept performance from the defence. 

 

The therapy explanation for her notes was never argued 

 

Strangely,.my own personal gut feel is she's guilty. Her weird demeanor, feeble defence in the dock and kinda loner vibes don't do her any favours. But I'm loathe that the criminal justice system convicts people without an adequate defence or on the basis on 'gut feels'. You can't have trials like that. 

Yeah, I'm more inclined to think she did than she didn't, but... and here's the rub... I'm less inclined now.

 

I tend to poo poo conspiracy theories because they're not reasonable. In this case though, to my mind this is plausible, if unlikely.

 

It's the old Sherlock Holmes motto, "when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

 

There's a lot of improbability that hasn't been eliminated in this one.

[oakman]

Very good article in The New Yorker about the case published on 13th May - for some reason it wasn't allowed to be published in the UK though. (I read it via 12ft ladder). Definitely raised a few questions for me. 

 

That being said, I think she had a hand in some of the tragic deaths.

[Jon the Hat]

Miscarriages of justice are a tiny tiny proportion of cases, and generally they don't look much like this one.

[Brizzle Fox]

Reading about this case it feels more like a case of her legal team not doing a particularly good job (e.g. no expert witnesses called despite being available) than her actually being innocent. 

 

Probably worthy of discussion because of its public interest and some interesting reasoned  analysis in publications such as Private Eye etc.

 

However as ever as pointed out elsewhere, it does seem to have become another vehicle for various nutjob conspiracy theorists to hop onto unfortunately, which must exacerbate the pain for the victims families.

[Sly]

I guess the question is, if not her, then who / why? 

[Robo61]

1 hour ago, Sly said:

I guess the question is, if not her, then who / why? 

Poor management of the unit, insufficient funding, coincidence,

negligence or a combination of those.

I don't know whether LL killed all or any of those babies, but from what I have read all the evidence against her was circumstantial at best and not sufficiently tested by the defence.