  |
 Lucy Letby |
| Track this thread | Email this thread | Print this thread | Download this thread | Subscribe to this forum |
 14th May 2024, 01:00 PM
Post
#21
|
|
 BuzzJack Gold Member
Joined: 22 June 2015
Posts: 2,496 User: 22,008 
  |
Very good article in The New Yorker with some new information. The media-led witch hunt against Lucy never sat right with me. Also I think it’s ironic that this article is inaccessible in the UK because of “contempt of court” laws (in case it “undermines” trust in the British justice system
 ) but newspaper headlines were already branding her an “evil baby killer” before she was convicted of anything. Whether you think she is guilty or not (I personally don’t believe she is), with a jury that was overheard saying they were convinced of her guilt from the start, it is impossible to say she had a fair trial. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and the prosecution failed to deliver that.Here’s the article if anyone wishes to read it: https://archive.ph/AWpyz |
 |
 
|
|
14th May 2024, 01:24 PM
Post
#22
|
|
 Break the tension
Joined: 7 March 2006
Posts: 89,464 User: 51
    |
I followed this very closely from the beginning, and every article I read in the media before the verdict used the word "allegedly" as is required by law in a live court case. Are you able to provide a link to any headlines that branded her as such beforehand? They'd probably be sued megabucks for doing that, if they did!
Also, the contempt of court thing makes perfect sense as she has an upcoming re-trial next month for an attempted murder charge. (I'll read the article later) This post has been edited by Jessie Where: 14th May 2024, 01:30 PM |
|
|
|
|
14th May 2024, 01:33 PM
Post
#23
|
|
|
BuzzJack Gold Member
Joined: 22 June 2015
Posts: 2,496 User: 22,008
|
QUOTE(Jessie Where @ 14th May 2024, 02:24 PM)  I followed this very closely from the beginning, and every article I read in the media before the verdict used the word "allegedly" as is required by law in a live court case. Are you able to provide a link to any headlines that branded her as such beforehand? They'd probably be sued megabucks for doing that, if they did! Also, the contempt of court thing makes perfect sense as she has an upcoming re-trial next month for an attempted murder charge. I don’t think qualifying it with “allegedly” makes it any better. The tone of the reporting throughout the trial was very much that Lucy was guilty and evil and any dissenting opinions were strongly discouraged. It’s a long one but I strongly encourage you to read the article if you’re convinced of her guilt. The British media is godawful - they would much rather have an “Angel of Death”, makes a much more interesting story than a number of mistakes made by an incompetent hospital. Also following news coverage of a trial doesn’t make you an expert, no offence. It really reminds me of the Amber Heard case, people felt justified in their hatred of her because they had “watched the trial” when in actuality that had been manipulated by a very effective PR campaign This post has been edited by No Sleeep: 14th May 2024, 01:35 PM |
|
|
|
|
14th May 2024, 01:52 PM
Post
#24
|
|
|
Break the tension
Joined: 7 March 2006
Posts: 89,464 User: 51
|
It's a good job things like transcripts and court reports are available beyond the news coverage, isn't it? (No offence)
|
|
|
|
|
14th May 2024, 03:07 PM
Post
#25
|
|
 Baby Reindeer
Joined: 9 March 2008
Posts: 13,993 User: 5,567
 |
Jesus that’s more of an essay than an article! I read a bit but cannot read anymore right now.
 What was even her defence in court? From what I remember there was a lot of evidence pointing to her and barely anything supporting her innocence. |
|
|
|
|
14th May 2024, 04:28 PM
Post
#26
|
|
|
BuzzJack Enthusiast
Joined: 6 December 2023
Posts: 918 User: 173,568
|
This story irks me. Crime, psychology are things I have spent an unhealthy amount of time interested in, studying etc. This case is as clear as day and there is this weird growing agenda to paint a clearly evil person as a victim. I don't get where it's coming from or why people feel the urge to do this. It's just bizarre but it's not really a subject for peoples need for attention or clicks or whatever it is driving this stupidity. I would compare it a little bit to Alex Jones and the sandy hook being staged thing. It's just something some idiot starts and others for some reason follow and then almost delude themselves about it. It's just not based on reality. Yeah the coverage painted her as guilty because she was.
This post has been edited by Liam sota: 14th May 2024, 04:29 PM |
|
|
|
|
14th May 2024, 05:02 PM
Post
#27
|
|
|
BuzzJack Gold Member
Joined: 22 June 2015
Posts: 2,496 User: 22,008
|
I don’t know why you have the idea that this is some right-wing conspiracy plot trying to prove her innocent, it is in fact quite the opposite. Rachel Aviv is a respected, award-winning journalist, the New Yorker is about as high-quality and liberal outlet as you can get, and if you check the conversations on Twitter, the people questioning this conviction are far from “Alex Jones” as you can get - it’s people with PhDs, journalists who know how media manipulation works. I would argue the “she’s an evil baby killer” mob have more in common with Alex Jones personally, resorting to emotive language and shaming people rather than looking at the facts and evidence (or, lack thereof). Outlets like the Daily Mail have controlled the narrative of this and there has never been any balanced reporting on this case in the UK, it’s refreshing to see the New Yorker restore at least some sanity.
|
|
|
|
|
14th May 2024, 06:01 PM
Post
#28
|
|
|
BuzzJack Enthusiast
Joined: 6 December 2023
Posts: 918 User: 173,568
|
QUOTE(No Sleeep @ 14th May 2024, 06:02 PM) I don’t know why you have the idea that this is some right-wing conspiracy plot trying to prove her innocent, it is in fact quite the opposite. Rachel Aviv is a respected, award-winning journalist, the New Yorker is about as high-quality and liberal outlet as you can get, and if you check the conversations on Twitter, the people questioning this conviction are far from “Alex Jones” as you can get - it’s people with PhDs, journalists who know how media manipulation works. I would argue the “she’s an evil baby killer” mob have more in common with Alex Jones personally, resorting to emotive language and shaming people rather than looking at the facts and evidence (or, lack thereof). Outlets like the Daily Mail have controlled the narrative of this and there has never been any balanced reporting on this case in the UK, it’s refreshing to see the New Yorker restore at least some sanity. I didn't mention left or right wing. I brought up Alex Jones as this was a very obvious case of something that happened and tons of people following it and believing it didn't based off pretty much nonsense. Left wing or right wing means nothing people believing nonsense is a human trait. As for this kind of case if we were to talk left or right wing then yeah I would expect more left wing people to defend it they are more likely to be defend evil people in this way. You just have to look at some human rights lawyers or some people on death row who have committed heinous crimes and some left wing do-gooder will be trying to free them. I don't really subscribe to anything you said at all but it's more interesting what is the motivation behind these people this journalist this theory? Even yourself? What is the real agenda there? Surely these people are not so feeble they are going against reality because they deem it a right wing witch-hunt to convict a baby killer? That really would be pathetic. You never know with American journalists some of them are pretty woeful a lot of nepotism goes on there. I wonder why it's even reached America it's just not something I'd expect them to know much about. I feel like I'm missing something entirely. There's cases like OJ Simpson you could get someone off in a technicality or trying to create doubt but why would anyone want to do that for a serial baby killer? It's just very peculiar. There would have to be the mother of all coincidences multiple times for her not to be responsible. She fits the psychological profile. He actions were very consistent with how such a person would act, several different staff members had raised concerns about her specifically. Everything is so obvious and yet SOME people will latch onto the fact there is no complete smoking gun(which you don't need here) you need video proof of her doing it to be convinced? If that's all that will convince you then there is no way you will ever see her as guilty but that's not how the law works. If there are really people shallow enough to be inclined to have sympathy for a baby killer because the daily mail were against her then you can only roll your eyes at that. This post has been edited by Liam sota: 14th May 2024, 06:02 PM |
|
|
|
|
14th May 2024, 06:15 PM
Post
#29
|
|
|
Radical Pink Troll
Joined: 11 March 2006
Posts: 26,658 User: 177
 |
I didn’t know whether to bother posting as I’m sure some people will accuse me of being too close to the case to be unbiased even though my link is extremely tenuous.
But in recent months, I have become friends with one of the doctors who first suspected her guilt. He has never spoken of it and I would never ask him, he doesn’t even know that I know. I only know because I recognised him from television interviews last Summer. He comes across as a man of great integrity and an absolute professional. I fully trust him in these matters. I also teach children who come from families affected by her actions. I simply cannot entertain any idea that she’s innocent. The jury were quite thorough. They didn’t even find her guilty of every charge, only the ones where the evidence was quite overwhelming. From my recollection, the media only began declaring her a murderer once she was found guilty of being one. I don’t know why so many people, including doctors in the hospital, would put so much effort into setting her up. If anything the management, who would have a great interest in setting her up as a scapegoat should they require one, did more than they needed to in order to support her and hush it all up. |
|
|
|
|
14th May 2024, 10:18 PM
Post
#30
|
|
|
BuzzJack Gold Member
Joined: 22 June 2015
Posts: 2,496 User: 22,008
|
QUOTE(Liam sota @ 14th May 2024, 07:01 PM) I didn't mention left or right wing. I brought up Alex Jones as this was a very obvious case of something that happened and tons of people following it and believing it didn't based off pretty much nonsense. Left wing or right wing means nothing people believing nonsense is a human trait. As for this kind of case if we were to talk left or right wing then yeah I would expect more left wing people to defend it they are more likely to be defend evil people in this way. You just have to look at some human rights lawyers or some people on death row who have committed heinous crimes and some left wing do-gooder will be trying to free them. I don't really subscribe to anything you said at all but it's more interesting what is the motivation behind these people this journalist this theory? Even yourself? What is the real agenda there? Surely these people are not so feeble they are going against reality because they deem it a right wing witch-hunt to convict a baby killer? That really would be pathetic. You never know with American journalists some of them are pretty woeful a lot of nepotism goes on there. I wonder why it's even reached America it's just not something I'd expect them to know much about. I feel like I'm missing something entirely. There's cases like OJ Simpson you could get someone off in a technicality or trying to create doubt but why would anyone want to do that for a serial baby killer? It's just very peculiar. There would have to be the mother of all coincidences multiple times for her not to be responsible. She fits the psychological profile. He actions were very consistent with how such a person would act, several different staff members had raised concerns about her specifically. Everything is so obvious and yet SOME people will latch onto the fact there is no complete smoking gun(which you don't need here) you need video proof of her doing it to be convinced? If that's all that will convince you then there is no way you will ever see her as guilty but that's not how the law works. If there are really people shallow enough to be inclined to have sympathy for a baby killer because the daily mail were against her then you can only roll your eyes at that. By all accounts she is the exact opposite psychological profile of a serial baby killer, can you provide any evidence to the contrary? It may be the “mother of all coincidences”, but did you know the prosecution misrespresented the facts by leaving out the instances where Lucy wasn’t present for a baby’s death in the ward? Or that the death rate only dropped afterwards because they stopped caring for babies who were already in such a dire condition? This is a woman’s life we’re talking about, so yes I think due diligence should have been done and more solid evidence should have been presented to warrant 14 life sentences. It wouldn’t be the first miscarriage of justice similar to this, even in this country. Sally Clark was convicted after an “expert” witness misrepresented facts by claiming there was a 1 in 73 million chance of her two babies both dying of SIDS. She won her appeal but died of alcoholism 4 years later. It seems that when a woman is deemed to be a “baby murderer”, emotions run very high and logic goes out the window. This post has been edited by No Sleeep: 14th May 2024, 10:26 PM |
|
|
|
|
14th May 2024, 10:37 PM
Post
#31
|
|
|
BuzzJack Platinum Member
Joined: 26 January 2021
Posts: 7,299 User: 122,344
  |
As has been alluded to in other comments, people are bound to try and pick holes and form their own theories in a case where there is no absolute 'smoking gun' piece of evidence presented, forgetting that in law if the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming enough it holds the same weight. She was fairly convicted based on the evidence presented, as T Boy points out this didn't even extend to all of the charges brought which pretty conclusively tackles the 'jury bias' argument.
Women who kill on more than one occasion are rare but when they do their victims are often the very young. Instead of embarking on a chase to create doubt about the safeness of the conviction, what really needs to be focused on as a result of in the wake of this case is getting to the root of how she was allowed to go on doing it and implementing institutional measures in response to that. Yes a large part of that does involve hospital departments being overworked, understaffed and underfunded, unfortunately the chances of seeing real change on the horizon where that is concerned look bleak right now. |
|
|
|
|
14th May 2024, 10:47 PM
Post
#32
|
|
|
BuzzJack Gold Member
Joined: 22 June 2015
Posts: 2,496 User: 22,008
|
From the article:
QUOTE “What’s the evidence?” Myers asked him. “Baby collapsed, died,” Evans responded. “A baby may collapse for any number of reasons,” Myers said. “What’s the evidence that supports your assertion made today that it’s because of air going down the NGT?” “The baby collapsed and died.” “Do you rely upon one image of that?” Myers asked, referring to X-rays. “This baby collapsed and died.” “What evidence is there that you can point to?” Evans replied that he’d ruled out all natural causes, so the only other viable explanation would be another method of murder, like air injected into one of the baby’s veins. “A baby collapsing and where resuscitation was unsuccessful—you know, that’s consistent with my interpretation of what happened,” he said. QUOTE The trial covered questions at the edge of scientific knowledge, and the material was dense and technical. For months, in discussions of the supposed air embolisms, witnesses tried to pinpoint the precise shade of skin discoloration of some of the babies. In Myers’s cross-examinations, he noted that witnesses’ memories of the rashes had changed, becoming more specific and florid in the years since the deaths. But this debate seemed to distract from a more relevant objection: the concern with skin discoloration arose from the 1989 paper. An author of the paper, Shoo Lee, one of the most prominent neonatologists in Canada, has since reviewed summaries of each pattern of skin discoloration in the Letby case and said that none of the rashes were characteristic of air embolism. He also said that air embolism should never be a diagnosis that a doctor lands on just because other causes of sudden collapse have been ruled out: “That would be very wrong—that’s a fundamental mistake of medicine.” There are some pretty big holes to pick in this case. The “air embolism” theory is just that, a theory, because the doctors at the hospital couldn’t come up with any other explanation and one found one paper on Google . Nevermind that the author of that paper themselves has came out and said it’s a “mistake” to consider that as a cause of death simply because they can’t think of any other. And these assumptions are what the prosecution’s entire case relied on: QUOTE "In her hands, innocuous substances like air, milk, fluids - or medication like insulin - would become lethal.” It really shouldn’t be about your emotions in this case it should be about whether there is undeniable evidence of this woman’s guilt. They have nothing more than hearsay from a bunch of doctors whom suspicion would have fallen upon if we weren’t all too busy crucifying Lucy |
|
|
|
|
15th May 2024, 07:57 AM
Post
#33
|
|
|
Break the tension
Joined: 7 March 2006
Posts: 89,464 User: 51
|
Let's look at two pieces of evidence in isolation; the sympathy cards she sent on the day of the funeral and the Facebook searches for bereaved parents.
Does this not paint a picture of an individual who wants to be a part of and experience the grief and horror she was causing as much as possible? Unless of course you really buy her explanation that REPEATEDLY searching on Facebook for families of the victims on occasions like the anniversary of their passing, Christmas day etc is a "normal pattern of behaviour" (in which case I have some magic beans you might be interested in buying). This is basically her digitally returning to the scene of the crime, which is actually a common behaviour in serial killers. I didn't want to believe it was true or possible she did this either, but there came a point in the trial where I realised beyond any doubt in my mind that she is a hideous sadist who not only got a thrill from murder but also immersing herself in the families' grief as much as she possibly can. That's the conclusion I drew regardless of whichever news outlet reports on it whichever way. |
|
|
|
|
15th May 2024, 08:09 AM
Post
#34
|
|
|
Baby Reindeer
Joined: 9 March 2008
Posts: 13,993 User: 5,567
|
QUOTE(Jessie Where @ 15th May 2024, 08:57 AM) Let's look at two pieces of evidence in isolation; the sympathy cards she sent on the day of the funeral and the Facebook searches for bereaved parents. Does this not paint a picture of an individual who wants to be a part of and experience the grief and horror she was causing as much as possible? Unless of course you really buy her explanation that REPEATEDLY searching on Facebook for families of the victims on occasions like the anniversary of their passing, Christmas day etc is a "normal pattern of behaviour" (in which case I have some magic beans you might be interested in buying). This is basically her digitally returning to the scene of the crime, which is actually a common behaviour in serial killers. I didn't want to believe it was true or possible she did this either, but there came a point in the trial where I realised beyond any doubt in my mind that she is a hideous sadist who not only got a thrill from murder but also immersing herself in the families' grief as much as she possibly can. That's the conclusion I drew regardless of whichever news outlet reports on it whichever way. I totally forgot about these points! If there really has been an unfair trial then LL should be granted a retrial but I'm struggling to see beyond her guilt. So many things add up and if the hospital really were to blame, there would be people in-the-know who would be speaking up rather than letting an innocent woman be branded a serial killer and rotting in prison. |
|
|
|
|
15th May 2024, 08:18 AM
Post
#35
|
|
|
BuzzJack Gold Member
Joined: 22 June 2015
Posts: 2,496 User: 22,008
|
QUOTE(Jessie Where @ 15th May 2024, 08:57 AM) Let's look at two pieces of evidence in isolation; the sympathy cards she sent on the day of the funeral and the Facebook searches for bereaved parents. Does this not paint a picture of an individual who wants to be a part of and experience the grief and horror she was causing as much as possible? Unless of course you really buy her explanation that REPEATEDLY searching on Facebook for families of the victims on occasions like the anniversary of their passing, Christmas day etc is a "normal pattern of behaviour" (in which case I have some magic beans you might be interested in buying). This is basically her digitally returning to the scene of the crime, which is actually a common behaviour in serial killers. I didn't want to believe it was true or possible she did this either, but there came a point in the trial where I realised beyond any doubt in my mind that she is a hideous sadist who not only got a thrill from murder but also immersing herself in the families' grief as much as she possibly can. That's the conclusion I drew regardless of whichever news outlet reports on it whichever way. You’re framing this as something very sinister but plenty of people who work in medicine have said that’s a very normal thing for them to do in their private time after a tragedy. They also found no suspicious google searches or anything on her computers, don’t you think if she was really stalking the families digitally to bask in it she would’ve left more of a digital footprint? Also I’m not surprised more people aren’t defending her because the ones that have have had their lives ruined. Nobody wants to be associated with a “baby murderer”, you can’t even have a debate about this anywhere without being shamed for defending an “evil baby killer”. The ones who did who the New Yorker interviewed requested anonymity because of what it would do to their career if they were seen questioning her conviction. The power of groupthink and peer pressure |
|
|
|
|
15th May 2024, 12:23 PM
Post
#36
|
|
|
BuzzJack Gold Member
Joined: 22 June 2015
Posts: 2,496 User: 22,008
|
QUOTE(Jessie Where @ 14th May 2024, 02:24 PM) I followed this very closely from the beginning, and every article I read in the media before the verdict used the word "allegedly" as is required by law in a live court case. Are you able to provide a link to any headlines that branded her as such beforehand? They'd probably be sued megabucks for doing that, if they did! Also, the contempt of court thing makes perfect sense as she has an upcoming re-trial next month for an attempted murder charge. (I'll read the article later) |
|
|
|
|
15th May 2024, 01:13 PM
Post
#37
|
|
|
BuzzJack Enthusiast
Joined: 6 December 2023
Posts: 918 User: 173,568
|
I read the article just to check if I was missing something. It was very slimy journalism. It was attempting to be persuasive rather than anything. If you hadn't heard of the case you could easily be persuaded especially if American.
However the angle was almost like a lawyer trying to seed doubt than anything real. She essentially tried to paint a picture of a circus unit underfunded with incompetence running wild and mistakes being made left right and centre. One example she gave was someone using google to look up how to do something trying to paint the idea clueless staff were unsure how do things. Everybody knows doctors/GP’s/etc often use google to check or verify things or even refresh their own memory, it’s actually considered good practice. An underfunded unit doesn’t mean a nefarious employee cannot exist within it? If anything it would be a lot easier to commit such crimes in a chaotic unit like this, a well funded military unit would not leave the opportunity for someone to commit such crimes repeatedly. Anyway. Overall I get the impression she timed it deliberately to coincide with her upcoming court stuff knowing it’d be embargoed in the UK to attract more weight to this notion it was some of stitch up by the powers that be. Some woman who probably had ideas to be a universally respected journalist making groundbreaking stories instead has not really gone too far, times ticking and she has used this case to try and win herself a Pulitzer. The actual reality that there is 99.999% chance Lucy did it and there are families of the victims etc who will have to witness all these crackpots and dull contrarians jump on it and give sympathy to someone who has caused such pain is so repugnant. Maybe they think Casey Anthony should be the norm or something. I’ve seen a lot of people say “not a safe conviction” or “Not beyond a reasonable doubt” I can only attribute this to their own stupidity. I think anyone saying this is insulting their own intelligence. You have to overlook so much evidence, so many testimonies, so much logic to even begin to have a doubt and if you’re doing that then you’re looking to do that. There was no doubt for the judge or jury or the vast majority of people who payed attention to the case and the trial. No doubt at all for me. I think allowing a baby killer to be found not guilty based on a 0.01% chance is a lot more unsafe in reality because what kind of society rewards criminals and punishes families of victims which is essentially what these people are wanting here. In general sure journalists should be tackling difficult subjects but to approach a case like this and do what that woman has attempted is really quite ugly and hopefully people don’t forget this and begin to really understand what she tried to and how she tried to do it. |
|
|
|
|
15th May 2024, 01:17 PM
Post
#38
|
|
|
BuzzJack Gold Member
Joined: 22 June 2015
Posts: 2,496 User: 22,008
|
The New Yorker is far from “slimy journalism”
It’s ironic that you try to insult my intelligence. You’re acting like no jury has ever gotten anything wrong before. I already cited the Sally Clark example earlier. You seem to be relishing in this so I won’t be replying any further. This post has been edited by No Sleeep: 15th May 2024, 01:21 PM |
|
|
|
|
15th May 2024, 10:15 PM
Post
#39
|
|
|
BuzzJack Gold Member
Joined: 22 June 2015
Posts: 2,496 User: 22,008
|
“Slimy journalism”, the New Yorker article is certainly not.
|
|
|
|
|
Friday, 10:54 AM
Post
#40
|
|
|
BuzzJack Enthusiast
Joined: 6 December 2023
Posts: 918 User: 173,568
|
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9773l3qzl4o
Not really sure what to think about this. I think there should be some kind of finality and denying an appeal just looks bad even though I get the procedure. A direct retrial doesn't seem fair but a 10-1 verdict being denied an appeal raises questions. Everything should be public at this point. |
|
|
|
|
| Time is now: 30th May 2024, 06:37 PM |
Copyright © 2006 - 2024 BuzzJack.com
About | Contact | Advertise | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service
