rob9872
Well-Known Member
Pretty much what I said above. Also conveniently stopped when she was no longer there. But definitely innocent
Lucy Letby (9 Viewers)
- Thread starter Saddlebrains
- Start date
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
This is good for balanced details of the whole court case
Grendel
Well-Known Member
This is good for balanced details of the whole court case
And? Can you tell one thing in the linked argument that would change a jurors mind?
Otis
Well-Known Member
It seems very detailed, so yes.
Just needs someone professional to look at it really doesn't it. It's not asking a lot. Someone like Inside Justice. Just for someone to give it a read and see if it warrants further scrutiny.
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
You would need to find a medical refutation for each death/near death.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
What detail concerns you?
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
It’s not a jurors decision it’s a judges one
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
I’ve read some today but like most if not all in here I don’t know enough medically or legally to know enough
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
There wasn't any real evidence that that had actually happened
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Let's be honest though a jury trial in a high profile case like this where he name was made public very early is difficult not to be influenced
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
Better than one person but not infallible
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
The article in the New Yorker points out that she wasn't actually present at every death so the matrix being the starting point weakens the case
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Pretty much what I said above. Also conveniently stopped when she was no longer there. But definitely innocent
Or conveniently stopped when the hospital realised how poor conditions were and decided to actually do something about it?
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
Yep by allegedly not treating really prem babies with complex needs
Liquid Gold
Well-Known Member
I have read the full article and I still think she is most probably guilty given that the complexity of the case cannot be laid bare in 100,000 words let alone 13. A 10 month trial following years of investigations by the police would be far more revealing and the jury overwhelmingly found her guilty. That isn't to say that I trust implicitly the justice system, I just think that we don't have everything that resulted in a conviction to hand. If there is a retrial maybe a different result comes out but that will also be decided by a lengthy and detailed process.
I also think the article is actually quite poor in quality for a few reasons despite its length. Firstly it gives away its sympathies almost immediately when painting her as a sympathetic figure "saved as a baby", "always wanted to work in paediatrics" and the quite bizarre "pretty in an unassuming way" (not direct quotes as I haven't got the article up but it was along those lines). There is no way the writer is going in with a sense of objectivity.
There is also a definitely snobbery about the British healthcare system in there, where it fails though is by presenting the hospital Letby worked at as being singularly awful. The talk of cramped space, outdated machinery & long, stressful working hours isn't unique to the hospital but a symptom of over a decade of underinvestment and neglect that is felt across the NHS. What the article fails to report is the hundreds of other hospitals in the exact same condition that didn't have the string of infant mortality that Countess of Chester suffered. What was singularly bad at that hospital that resulted in the deaths of those babies? The most likely scenario to me is either A. The management made some catastrophic errors (they don't come out of this looking rosey at all) and managed to pin in on one nurse while also convincing the police, judiciary and peers of her guilt or B. Someone was purposefully killing those infants. B seems much more likely in this instance.
I also find the bloodlust in the beginning of this thread really distasteful but that doesn't persuade me of her innocence and a few medical professionals and journalists working from transcripts and incomplete information will not convince me otherwise.
I also think the article is actually quite poor in quality for a few reasons despite its length. Firstly it gives away its sympathies almost immediately when painting her as a sympathetic figure "saved as a baby", "always wanted to work in paediatrics" and the quite bizarre "pretty in an unassuming way" (not direct quotes as I haven't got the article up but it was along those lines). There is no way the writer is going in with a sense of objectivity.
There is also a definitely snobbery about the British healthcare system in there, where it fails though is by presenting the hospital Letby worked at as being singularly awful. The talk of cramped space, outdated machinery & long, stressful working hours isn't unique to the hospital but a symptom of over a decade of underinvestment and neglect that is felt across the NHS. What the article fails to report is the hundreds of other hospitals in the exact same condition that didn't have the string of infant mortality that Countess of Chester suffered. What was singularly bad at that hospital that resulted in the deaths of those babies? The most likely scenario to me is either A. The management made some catastrophic errors (they don't come out of this looking rosey at all) and managed to pin in on one nurse while also convincing the police, judiciary and peers of her guilt or B. Someone was purposefully killing those infants. B seems much more likely in this instance.
I also find the bloodlust in the beginning of this thread really distasteful but that doesn't persuade me of her innocence and a few medical professionals and journalists working from transcripts and incomplete information will not convince me otherwise.
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
It’s provoked some odd thoughts for me that she was sentenced for killing or maiming babies, whereas those at Telford where my brother in law was born have never faced criminal charges despite an appalling and lengthy track record of newborn babies dying or suffering lifelong effects of malpractice during or shortly after the birth.
In his case he had his feet being pulled on with such force that his life was in genuine danger and still now has some long term issues arising from it.
In his case he had his feet being pulled on with such force that his life was in genuine danger and still now has some long term issues arising from it.
rob9872
Well-Known Member
This was 2015. Are we blaming Labour for this decade of underinnvestment then or the Lib Dems coalition immediately pulled the funding to quickly spiral it out of control?
Or was she simply a bit of a nutter and there is no political angle despite trying to shoehorn one and blame the wrong government?
Otis
Well-Known Member
A few things really, but seems a lot of the equipment was inadequate and staff had complained about it and only having one vent for 5 babies etc. That she wasn't actually present at every death, as the prosecution implied.
I am not saying she is innocent, or there should be a retrial, I am just saying there is no harm is someone having a more in-depth look here to see if there is anything in this.
I don't know why anyone would be taking umbridge over that
The likes of Inside Justice are charities and there will also legal experts willing to just have a look at it to see if there is anything in it.
Neither Liquid Gold’s post, nor the New Yorker article mention a single political party at any point. The article certainly doesn’t look to apportion blame to any political party, so not sure why you’d get upset about this - but then again you haven’t read it.
rob9872
Well-Known Member
LG's post literally said the conditions spoken about in direct relation to the time were as a result of 'a decade of under investment and neglect'. As usual a dig at the government on here, I merely pointed out that as her 'crimes' were 2015, that 10 years took us back to 2005 when Labour were still in full swing. Still, you go ahead and use that journalistic licence to pretend it didn't mean that at all. Ffs you'd look for a fight in a phone box.
I assume LG knows that, which is why he didn’t mention any specific political parties. It was you who decided to take issue and try and apportion blame to individual groups. I needn’t have said anything if you hadn’t, but if you don’t like being called out on stuff, don’t post on a discussion board I guess.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
The discourse off this should tell you everything. It’s all Americans not understanding the UK legal system, true crime podcast fans with a theory, and her mates.
Surely if we’ve learned anything since the dawn of the internet it’s that very confident people making claims about something they’re not close to based on publicly available information are more likely to get things wrong than right?
The assumptions are still that a random US medic can better judge than the entirety of the UK medical establishment. That the UK system is uniquely corrupt against defendants in a way the US one isn’t (might want to check conviction rates), that none of the things that a random asks on first sight were considered in a months long trial, and that standard reporting restrictions are proof of a cover up.
The journalist themselves on Twitter has repeatedly shown they don’t understand the case or the system it was tried under.
Surely if we’ve learned anything since the dawn of the internet it’s that very confident people making claims about something they’re not close to based on publicly available information are more likely to get things wrong than right?
The assumptions are still that a random US medic can better judge than the entirety of the UK medical establishment. That the UK system is uniquely corrupt against defendants in a way the US one isn’t (might want to check conviction rates), that none of the things that a random asks on first sight were considered in a months long trial, and that standard reporting restrictions are proof of a cover up.
The journalist themselves on Twitter has repeatedly shown they don’t understand the case or the system it was tried under.
Which random US medics are you referring to?
The journalist who wrote the piece hasn’t posted on Twitter in almost a year. Are you sure you’ve read the right article?
Don’t agree personally. The New Yorker is not exactly renowned for sensationalism. But if you’d rather go with what’s been reported in the British press…
It’s a quote from a UK government inquiry. I mean, I’m not here to personally defend every individual paragraph of the story on the writer’s behalf. But if you want to play a game of sensationalism tennis between this article and the British coverage of the case so far, I’m sure I could keep going for quite some time.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
I think that's it really - UK media coverage of the story had found her guilty pre trial, her arrest was covered in an exceptionally high profile way (they carried out a dawn raid on her house). The police didn't actually disclose that she was arrested but it got to the media anyway?
Oh and further to the point earlier about the deaths stopping after her arrest - that's because the unit was closed.
I mean I'm not entirely swayed that she wasn't guilty but don't think she necessarily had a fair trial by the courts or more widely.
Oh and further to the point earlier about the deaths stopping after her arrest - that's because the unit was closed.
I mean I'm not entirely swayed that she wasn't guilty but don't think she necessarily had a fair trial by the courts or more widely.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Not that it proves anything but interesting that the women and maternity unit at the Countess is in the New Hospitals Programme.
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
Sorry to be pedantic she didn’t even get to make an appeal her request to do so has been rejected
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Her request was on four specific ground - none of which have been considered substantial enough for a retrial