UK - Nurse Lucy Letby, murder of babies, 7 Guilty of murder verdicts; 8 Guilty of attempted murder; 2 Not Guilty of attempted; 5 hung re attempted #36

[Moll]

(snip)

I advised you to avoid MSM. You're so not doing.

(snip)

All MSM??
How would you have followed the trial without the BBC and others?
All media have to be used with caution.

 

[mrC]

the msm is the only approved source on here i cant avoid the msm and on the this casr the alertnative media and the msm are pretty much in lockstep the great advantage of msm is i know ho those people are

 

[Becky53]

medical experts are allways rewriting papers as new evidence is discoverd as new evdence is discoverd its called updating it happens in medicine all the time

What new Air Embolism evidence has he discovered to rewrite paper?
I thought he was just narked about the description of the skin discolouration seen on the babies and was adamant that it could only be pink.

At the end of the day it’s not as if he can purposely inject air into babies to see what all the results are for his paper.

 

[joltz]

Felicity Lawrence is one of the most biased journo on this case. Last year she put up a whatsapp number for anti conviction readers (people like you) to send her tips. Yeah hreat independent journalism (!!!!!) Nothing she writes can be considered to hold any value.

I advised you to avoid MSM. You're so not doing.

The more you, and similars, post, the more confirmation I have that Letby's staying incarcerated forever.

Sarah Knapton from the telegraph is also to be avoided. One of Letbys biggest fans and was also fully onboard with Saritta Adams campaign of misinformation and attending her little zoom meetings. Every one of her articles implies Letby is innocent.

 

[mrC]

papers are often rewritten by eperts to clarfiy what they ment or to go into more detail its common thing in medicine

 

[May72031]

Sarah Knapton from the telegraph is also to be avoided. One of Letbys biggest fans and was also fully onboard with Saritta Adams campaign of misinformation and attending her little zoom meetings. Every one of her articles implies Letby is innocent.

You would think a proper journalist would have learnt a valuable lesson after getting their fingers burnt over Saritta Adams. But not Sarah Knapton, it seems.

 

[May72031]

papers are often rewritten by eperts to clarfiy what they ment or to go into more detail its common thing in medicine

Perhaps Shoo Lee can clarify his claim that "skin discolouration was only a factor in 10% of air embolism cases", but in his 2024 review looking at 117 cases of air embolism, he identified 46 with skin discolouration. That's around 40% - four times higher!

 

[saoirselouise]

papers are often rewritten by eperts to clarfiy what they ment or to go into more detail its common thing in medicine

It really isn’t after publication. Papers may be revised many years later IF a new study has been conducted and reviewed, but those papers then go through peer review and extensive research before seeing the light of day. published papers are very rarely revised after the fact without new evidence/studies/etc.

Dr Lee never saw any of these patients personally. Dr Lee never set foot in the hospital. Dr Lee is making drastic rewrites to papers without evidence to back them up. He is not a trustworthy source of information and is making himself look like a quack.

 

[Anxala]

All MSM??
How would you have followed the trial without the BBC and others?
All media have to be used with caution.

Agree. It's not about avoiding MSM, it's about being alert to what is unbiased news reporting and what are purely opinion pieces by individuals who so often come with agendas - as we've seen so unsettlingly and problematically in the case of the post-trial reporting on the Letby case.

 

[Anxala]

I think someone must have posted this information previously, so apologies if everyone else knows about this, but I'd be grateful to know how Lucy Letby's new defence team and PR specialists (Maltin PR) are funded.

Lucy Letby Press Conference - New Medical Evidence - Maltin PR

Maltin PR has today hosted a press conference announcing new medical evidence relating to the conviction of Lucy Letby.

www.maltinpr.com

Good question. I'd also be interested to know why a defence team requires a PR company.

 

[saoirselouise]

Good question. I'd also be interested to know why a defence team requires a PR company.

It’s not terribly uncommon in high profile cases; it’s just not always transparently broadcasted. if you’ve ever seen “a representative for the defence” in an article it’s typically a PR firm.

 

[mrC]

if man says a paper he wrote has been miss used and that isn't what he meant then its perfectly normal ffor him to rewrite it with more clarification in fact thats what he would e expected to do

 

[Parker Knoll]

It’s just ridiculous.
Serial killers with PR ?
Stop the world … I want to get off.
She’s absolutely where she needs to be - in prison for life.

 

[mrC]

dr lee is not geting paid for any of this why would he risk his repution by lying for somebody he doesnt even that makes no sense whatsoever

 

[saoirselouise]

if man says a paper he wrote has been miss used and that isn't what he meant then its perfectly normal ffor him to rewrite it with more clarification in fact thats what he would e expected to do

It would have to go through peer review and the new evidence would have to be presented and verified. you can’t just go “no, that’s not what i meant!” willy nilly.

 

[iamshadow21]

dr lee is not geting paid for any of this why would he risk his repution by lying for somebody he doesnt even that makes no sense whatsoever

Some people like attention, and don't mind the quality of that attention. And some people get convinced of the justness of a cause without actually understanding what they're supporting.

I'd like to say that nobody would knowingly, willingly support someone they knew for a fact was a serial killer, but it does happen. But people supporting someone they've been persuaded has been unfairly persecuted or convicted? Happens all the time, and every day. The worst criminals who have hurt the most vulnerable people in the cruellest, most sadistic ways all have their fan clubs and supporters who are convinced of their innocence. And some of those people have degrees and are very intelligent people. Doesn't mean they're correct, but it does mean that they have more influence than someone with less standing and a lower level of education. They know how to argue their position and sound convincing, even if their argument doesn't bear close scrutiny.

There are people out there who will argue the world is flat; arguing that a meek, vanilla, white, educated NICU nurse couldn't possibly be an extreme sadist preying on babies in her care and their families doesn't creep that high up the conspiracy scale. Plenty of otherwise perfectly rational intelligent people are going to buy what is being sold, because the idea that such a horrific predator could look like her and pass as normal is too disturbing. People want monsters to look like monsters, with cape and fangs, not like a completely generic twenty something year old woman you could pass on the street without noticing a thing about her. That's frightening to people. That means anyone could have that violence in their heart, and most people shy away from that instinctively because it flies in the face of their belief in the inherent goodness of people they read as being normal.

MOO

 

[Anxala]

It’s not terribly uncommon in high profile cases; it’s just not always transparently broadcasted. if you’ve ever seen “a representative for the defence” in an article it’s typically a PR firm.

Appreciate that but in this case it's clearly trying to direct and influence public opinion. And very blatantly so from that write-up of the press conference. It's so riddled with tabloid-type 'bombshell' speak. It's not remotely a good or credible look for the Defence Team.

JMO etc etc

 

[Highlandspring]

All MSM??
How would you have followed the trial without the BBC and others?
All media have to be used with caution.

That's a fair point. I was being lazy, I should've advised to avoid the recent (not the trials/appeals reporting) unbalanced MSM (a few listed below) which are heavily biased to which Mr C mainly referred. Theyre sensationalising the claims of the PR campaign by eg Shoo Lee and Neena Modi. Eg those using headlines announcing 'No murders' or 'A doctor killed a baby' and 'new evidence' via a paper Lee's written on very flimsy foundations, which give the pro Letby angle without any counterbalance.

Eg biased journalists like Lawrence, Telegraph's Knapton as mentioned above, Hitchens at Daily Mail, (Liz Hull's more balanced with the Trial DM podcast), Phil Hammond on Twitter, John Sweeney on Twitter, countless other Twitter and YT accounts.

I assume people have read the appeal document for the actual facts around the judges' rejection of Lee's challenge against the prosecution/Evans and the team last April.

For one thing most articles don't even mention the other half dozen or so experts alongside Evans. One of whom died before the trial started. There are about 3 excellent articles (with actual balance) that challenge the 14, sorry 12, actually unbiased, experts - although we've only heard from a few havent we. One article is on the Spiked website.

 

[saoirselouise]

Appreciate that but in this case it's clearly trying to direct and influence public opinion. And very blatantly so from that write-up of the press conference. It's so riddled with tabloid-type 'bombshell' speak. It's not remotely a good or credible look for the Defence Team.

JMO etc etc

oh yeah i’m not saying it’s necessarily a good look, just that it’s not an uncommon thing to have happen.

 

[joltz]

dr lee is not geting paid for any of this why would he risk his repution by lying for somebody he doesnt even that makes no sense whatsoever

He risked his reputation when he went to the appeal court and his evidence was thoroughly rejected. He's now got a bee in his bonnet about it. There's no excuse that you can give that will make what he's done look any better. He was told by Mark McDonald after the appeal that he would need to find something extraordinary to exonerate Letby now and different explanations for the deaths.

That's exactly what hes gone and done. The literature paper isn't even his own research. If you don't think there's a problem with his actions then that's your opinion, but you will find it's probably going to be very much in the minority.