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 #38

[joe jones]

Wow... trying to avoid getting personal but there's a get-out clause if ever I saw one. You do seem to have a totally closed mind where all evidence, reporting or professional opinion pointing to her guilt is concerned. I can understand that you have your strong belief but please do back up your statements so that we, being open-minded, can actually see where you are coming from and make up our own minds.

I am only completely close minded when it comes to my virulent abhorrence at the rag that is the DM, i do read the articles if they are posted online without me having to give them any advice revenue,
I tend to rely on the transcripts and reports as much as I can,

 

[Sweeper2000]

I agree that is a red flag. How does he expect to find guilt or innocence upon the medical reports alone?

It takes the full context of the situation to determine guilt or innocence.

Finding a cause of death is not always cut and dry. It is very complex sometimes. It is hard to differentiate something like a SIDS death in the night from someone putting a pillow over a baby's face. There is no way to know without video evidence or a witness or a confession.

He thinks he can read the medical notes from 27 collapses, and refute the verdict of the jurors, who had the full context of evidence, like witness testimony, expert testimony, testimony from the defendant, and various data, and not just the medical notes?


Yes, another red flag. He recruits people whose aim is to be her last hope for acquittal? That is unethical, imo.

Thought of some other things as well. I think it's reasonable to see as Hammond suggested the lack of hard evidence which imo opens up the doors to speculation on the actual cause of death/mode of injury. In other words a differential diagnosis for example Dr Michael Hall himself in that DM episode said he wasn't called because he could not state clearly that he could rule out air embolism. To me that suggests a unclear path for the declines or at least in terms of evidence it is unclear. Remember there is only one hard test for air embolism and it was not performed. So my main point is that maybe MM qnd Dr Lee and Co consulted before that email was sent out and maybe Dr Lee and MM either realised that that aspect of the evidence would be the easiest to tackle especially considering Dr Lee and co's supposed clout. Therefore if Dr Lee headed into the task with bias already in mind then did he just look to reach a preformed conclusion?

Kinda makes sense as well if he disliked his paper being used in the trial.

 

[joe jones]

...and those parents have actually told their child that that nurse tried to kill him such that he apparently refers to her in that way. Hmmmm...

I can fully understand why the parents of the babies who have died or feel LL has deliberately harmed their child do not wish to give interviews, or keep rehashing their story over and over again, I did find it strange that the documentary included a family where LL has never been charged with harming there child, and found it a tad disturbing that they have told there young child that she is the nurse who did it

 

[Sweeper2000]

I disagree, if Dr Evans. evidence is discredited then the whole case crumbles, as it is he who opines on COD. and from that poisoned tree all the other branches join,
I was utterly appalled at his demonstration of how one could add things to an IV bag, with a doll included in the demonstration,

It's not. Dr Bohin agrees.

I don't know why you would object to his demonstration either? The trial lacked any such thing and its verbal explanations didn't quite convey just how easy it is and how quickly.

 

[rsteen]

LL, didnt really have much " character " or an interesting life on the surface. She was "beige" liked salsa dancing and holidaying with her parents. She doesn't seem to even have had a romantic relationship. There wasn't much scandal to write about aside from her horrific crimes.

If anything, the coverage (what there was of it) of her life before her conviction was probably favourable to her, just because she appeared to be so typical, with a normal social life for a single 20-something and a close relationship with her parents. The worst thta could be said was that her taste in home decor was a bit tacky - hardly a character assassination.

 

[joe jones]

Seriously??? Really???

So, you post something claiming it to be fact and then refuse to back it up for reasons of "conscience". Wow - just wow!

You do realise that the site rules require you to support facts with links, surely?

Of course, the real reason you are now claiming conscientious objector status is because you simply cannot back it up. This is classic conspiracy theory "do your own research it's all out there for those willing to look" nonsense.

I think I understand websleuths rules after the many years I have been here, but I cannot post anything from DM, and once again no need for you to be so personal, a conspiracy theory and me ever made an acquaintance, and it's only that one rag I can't tolerate,
I think all DM quoted articles should come with a warning,
I do find it very amusing the name calling and personal comments made about and towards me,

 

[Marantz4250b]

I am only completely close minded when it comes to my virulent abhorrence at the rag that is the DM, i do read the articles if they are posted online without me having to give them any advice revenue,
I tend to rely on the transcripts and reports as much as I can,

You have said that they, along with other media outlets, put their own "spin" and opinions into reports of trial proceedings, even going as far as to comment on LL's personal life unrelated to the trial. You are saying that they are presenting an untrue account of an ongoing criminal trial. essentially.

That is bordering on an accusation of contempt of court yet you point-blank refuse to provide any evidence for same.

Edit: and being "close minded" of anything, ever, is not a good thing and shows that you have poor judgement skills.

 

[joe jones]

19th August 2023 DM article Why did they not stop this monster sooner? Just to comply with websleuths T and C's,

 

[Marantz4250b]

I can fully understand why the parents of the babies who have died or feel LL has deliberately harmed their child do not wish to give interviews, or keep rehashing their story over and over again, I did find it strange that the documentary included a family where LL has never been charged with harming there child, and found it a tad disturbing that they have told there young child that she is the nurse who did it

Including that family was sketchy, as hell, imo. The documentary provided absolutely zero evidence of anything at all relating to them. I'm not saying that they weren't being truthful - I'm sure they were - but it would be a relatively simple task for a journalist to check their facts and to include some details as to whether LL could, or could not have been working so as they could meet.

It also didn't include any details of the medical conditions the child had, what he specifically suffered from at CoCH, what he medical issues he currently has or whether they could be related to anything which might have taken place at the hospital.

 

[joe jones]

You have said that they, along with other media outlets, put their own "spin" and opinions into reports of trial proceedings, even going as far as to comment on LL's personal life unrelated to the trial. You are saying that they are presenting an untrue account of an ongoing criminal trial. essentially.

That is bordering on an accusation of contempt of court yet you point-blank refuse to provide any evidence for same.

Edit: and being "close minded" of anything, ever, is not a good thing and shows that you have poor judgement skills.

Once again personal attacks are not allowed, but I never report them because I find them funny, and they say more about the posters character than mine, and fortunately for me I enjoy being vehemently closed minded in relation to DM,
And most high profile cases often cross into contempt of court territory, but DPP appear to have an aversion to prosecute,

 

[joe jones]

There’s an article I shouldn't tell you about – is contempt law in a losing battle with reality? | Archie Bland

The concept behind the Contempt of Court Act is laudable, but in the age of social media it is clear an update is needed, says Archie Bland, editor of the Guardian’s First Edition newsletter

www.theguardian.com

 

[rsteen]

Papers constantly spin stories about crime, trials and the evidence, pre, during and post, they barely skirt the contemptuous laws,
During the trial the media, including the DM opined on all aspects of LL life, most of it not pertaining to the evidence. Before she was convicted they had assinated her character,

19th August 2023 DM article Why did they not stop this monster sooner? Just to comply with websleuths T and C's,

They assassinated her character before she was convicted....by publishing an article the day after she was convicted?

 

[joe jones]

They assassinated her character before she was convicted....by publishing an article the day after she was convicted?

That was to comply with T and C's

 

[Marantz4250b]

If anything, the coverage (what there was of it) of her life before her conviction was probably favourable to her, just because she appeared to be so typical, with a normal social life for a single 20-something and a close relationship with her parents. The worst thta could be said was that her taste in home decor was a bit tacky - hardly a character assassination.

And, we also need to remember that there was actually very little in the public domain about her prior to her being convicted. There were a very few pictures of he snathced from her's and her friends Facebook but literally nothing else. The pictures of the inside of her house didn't come out until afterwards.

Nothing of significance came out during the trial and hardly anything was said about her in that period. She presented as completely and utterly normal in every respect and, to be honest, other than murdering babies there was/is nothing unusual about her at all that we are aware of.

I still believe that we are going to hear more about her over the coming years and I'm quite sure that something potentially extremely weird or disturbing is going to materialise. If there is anything like that we won't hear about it until any future trials are over and her appeals finally exhausted.

Personally, I get the impression that more charges are likely.

 

[Marantz4250b]

I think I understand websleuths rules after the many years I have been here, but I cannot post anything from DM, and once again no need for you to be so personal, a conspiracy theory and me ever made an acquaintance, and it's only that one rag I can't tolerate,
I think all DM quoted articles should come with a warning,
I do find it very amusing the name calling and personal comments made about and towards me,

From a ethical standpoint, though, it is wrong to criticise an outlet without providing evidence of what you are accusing them of doing.

You also mentioned that essentially all the media were putting their own spin (basically acting in contempt of court) so please provide links.

I will say again; regardless of what you think, the DM provided some of the best, perhaps the actual best coverage of the trial while it was underway. The Podcast they produced was unique and is up for an award.

 

[Marantz4250b]

19th August 2023 DM article Why did they not stop this monster sooner? Just to comply with websleuths T and C's,

AFTER she was convicted!!!

Not during the trial which is the discussion we are having.

 

[rsteen]

That was to comply with T and C's

So you agree the DM was not in contempt of court by publishing articles calling her a monster before she was convicted, due to said article in fact being published after she was convicted?

 

[Marantz4250b]

That was to comply with T and C's

It doesn't, though, because you were referring to what they published during the trial!

 

[Dotta]

From a ethical standpoint, though, it is wrong to criticise an outlet without providing evidence of what you are accusing them of doing.

You also mentioned that essentially all the media were putting their own spin (basically acting in contempt of court) so please provide links.

I will say again; regardless of what you think, the DM provided some of the best, perhaps the actual best coverage of the trial while it was underway. The Podcast they produced was unique and is up for an award.

Yep.
I cannot understand for the life of me why DM seems to be a "whipping boy" for some hahahaha
But maybe as a foreigner I miss something?

Their reports concerning the trial were great IMO.

The case of Lucy L. and subsequent uproar is novelty to me.
I cannot recall any other criminal case where the verdict caused such backlash.

I was very active in these threads,
now I only check from time to time to see what's new and maybe post some links.

And I'm constantly surprised by vehement arguments here
Wow!

JMO

 

[joe jones]

It doesn't, though, because you were referring to what they published during the trial!

I do apologise, I cannot be expected to be perfect all the time, and you don't have to take my word for it, I'm not going looking for DM material anymore it makes me itch, if you think that the DM has never maligned LL you hold onto that thought,
The DM is off topic, and I do like to try to comply with T and C's which is why I never make personal attacks