Lucy Letby (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Saddlebrains
- Start date
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
How else can one account for babies having been found injected with air if not done so to them?
Did you read the article?
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
I don’t think anyone on here has
Otis
Well-Known Member
It's a weird one, as she seemed so guilty. She had actually written stuff T home about killing babies hadn't she?
The killings also only happened on her watch and others had flagged up concerns.
I will definitely read through the article to see what they are saying. Always willing to keep an open mind.
The killings also only happened on her watch and others had flagged up concerns.
I will definitely read through the article to see what they are saying. Always willing to keep an open mind.
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
The argument in the article says there wasn’t any evidence of it other than the crashing and death of the baby involved
My mum had a baby in 1969 or so that was born weighing 4lbs, his lungs hadn’t fully developed and he died after 5 days
We recently marked his death where he had been buried in another persons grave almost 50 years later
These babies were hugely vulnerable it appears sometimes we just don’t know
I have no idea and won’t ever have read enough to know if she was guilty or not but beyond reasonable doubt is the measure not balance of probabilities and this has put that level of doubt in my mind
It’s a good well reasoned and logical article
TomRad85
Well-Known Member
Doesn't take much to win you over. A short piece by a writer at the New Yorker. I suspect those in the court room had a bit more to go off.
Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk
A short piece?
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
You’ve not read it have you?
They had much much more to go on yes
TomRad85
Well-Known Member
Enough for you to decide you want her released?
Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Seriously?
It’s a deeply reported piece, with dozens of interviews with hospital administrators, former colleagues, medical experts, and key figures from the prosecution and the defence. It will have taken months if not years to put together, and The New Yorker’s approach to fact checking is notoriously rigorous, especially with a story like this.
I don’t really understand the defensiveness, or the implicit trust in the UK legal system. I’d give it a read first.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
They read the reporting and transcripts, spoke to a few unrelated US doctors, the defence, and one or two people on the fringes. They say they couldn’t talk to most people because of reporting restrictions.
A lot of it comes off as “that UK care is just terrible not like the US” in fact the reporter says as much on their Twitter:
This reply is my feeling and the reply to it is pretty weak sauce TBH
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
It’s nothing to do with me
I’ve no idea whether she should be released and have said so
I have no doubt given the questions raised that at some point an appeal will be successful because of the nature of our justice system in that guilt is a matter of beyond reasonable doubt and not balance of probabilities
We’ll see over the next decade I assume
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Possibility 1: Random journalist and his mates in the US have found serious problems with court and medical procedures in the UK
Possibility 2: Random journalist and his mates in the US have half the story and write sensationalist article based on not much in continuation of a trend of popular miscarriage of justice podcasts of questionable quality.
Possibility 2: Random journalist and his mates in the US have half the story and write sensationalist article based on not much in continuation of a trend of popular miscarriage of justice podcasts of questionable quality.
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
What’s that got to do with it?
It was 10 months and the case took many years to put together
As have other cases that have been found to have led to miscarriages
Who knows about this one?
What’s your point?
The journalist (it’s a woman btw) is openly critical of the sensationalist coverage of murder trials in the article, which I assume you’ve read. This is The New Yorker, not a Netflix series. She seems to have spoken to many of the key players involved in the case, including some of the key prosecution witnesses on the record.
I didn’t post it as irrefutable proof of her innocence, but again, I’m not sure why the defensiveness.
I think I saw it’s 13,000 words - it’s not a short article by any journalistic or academic standard.
Still not sure what your point is - we don’t decide someone’s guilt by word count.
If Nick is concerned about the legal implications then I’ll happily remove the link.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Well then I’m not sure why the defensiveness with this journalist.
Once you cut past the heart string tugging it’s basically “her defence and friends and family don’t believe it, everyone says she was lovely, here’s some US doctors with no familiarity of the case who say the UK healthcare system sucks and these experts don’t know their arse from their elbow”
When specifically challenged on this point the response isn’t “yeah there could be things I’ve missed” but “ I my mates said they can’t think of any other reasons”.
It hangs on the assumption that everyone is corrupt, incompetent, and that we’re all a bunch of backwards yokels who wouldn’t get work as a vet in the US. That last bit may account for some of the defensiveness you’re seeing.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
I can’t imagine any doctor of merit would dismiss an air embolism as something that would just make a baby “throw up”. A friend of mine had one after a diving accident meaning he had to go in a decompression chamber. Don’t recall if he got the embolism from the incident itself or the decompression chamber but the short of it was he had a stroke because the embolism reached his brain. He was a very fit and healthy 30 something at the time and still couldn’t fully recover, some 20 years later he still has a gap in his field of vision which prevents him from being able to hold a driving licence. If an air embolism can do that to a fully developed fit and healthy adult I’m not sure how you can take a doctor seriously if they’re saying that in a a still developing vulnerable new born baby it will do no more than make them vomit.
What was the bit around the stomach,was it in reference to that?
I don’t see why the nationalities are that relevant here.
As for “familiarity of the case”, both the prosecution and defence relied on expert witnesses who weren’t familiar with the case until being tasked with it - that’s how a trial works, isn’t it?
Yes, there are assumptions and heart string tugging at the core of this piece - just as there have been with the reams of stories portraying Letby as a psychotic mass murderer. Only this story seems to be getting the scrutiny though?
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
I am willing to consider that, but when someone writes ‘I killed them’ and is seen near a baby who suddenly declines to death, what is the most likely explanation?
Also, there’s a grand total of one US doctor quoted in the piece (well, South African, but working at Harvard) and he doesn’t talk about the UK healthcare system at all.
So I have to ask, did you actually read it?