Lucy Letby guilty !

[Strontium]

On 18/08/2023 at 15:47, Kevin D said:

I’m surprised, as well. Just on what’s been reported, the case seems weak. 

 

You may or may not find these interesting

 

https://www.chimpinvestor.com/post/the-travesty-of-the-lucy-letby-verdicts

 

https://rexvlucyletby2023.com/

[Chip Butty]

6 hours ago, Gnasher said:

 

Former Old Bailey Judge speaks total sense here. You drag someone up it'll probably turn into a circus where the defendant shouts all sorts of abuse and possibly struggling violently with Officers in the Dock.

 

 

They could wheel her up on a porters trolley, put a cage style mask on her, with a gag. That’d remove the drama. Deffo. 

[Gnasher]

2 hours ago, Chip Butty said:

They could wheel her up on a porters trolley, put a cage style mask on her, with a gag. That’d remove the drama. Deffo. 

 

Yeah like Hannibal Lector. Could work. 

 

Instead of having a debate about how we tighten loopholes and make it easier for whistle-blowers who spot wrongdoing so we might never again endure another like Letby our media and politicians are pretending to the public its possible to make murderers act remorseful. 

 

I suppose the old  'we get the politicians we deserve' saying rings true here. The below would be welcome. 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/aug/21/lucy-letby-murders-victims-families-and-experts-call-for-statutory-inquiry

 

Thats what should be called for.

 

[Paulie Dangerously]

8 hours ago, Strontium said:

 

You may or may not find these interesting

 

https://www.chimpinvestor.com/post/the-travesty-of-the-lucy-letby-verdicts

 

https://rexvlucyletby2023.com/

 

This is weird like...

 

[Mudface]

51 minutes ago, Paulie Dangerously said:

 

This is weird like...

 

 

That's a really bad graph though, it's not comparing like-for-like and there are incomplete figures for several years. The circled columns are for the whole area while the grey (? sorry I'm colour blind) ones are presumably specifically for COCH. Those grey ones show a marked rise in 2015/16, followed by a drop in 2017/18 back to or below the levels seen in 2013/14, but there's no further data beyond 2018.

[Paulie Dangerously]

7 minutes ago, Mudface said:

 

That's a really bad graph though, it's not comparing like-for-like and there are incomplete figures for several years. The circled columns are for the whole area while the grey (? sorry I'm colour blind) ones are presumably specifically for COCH. Those grey ones show a marked rise in 2015/16, followed by a drop in 2017/18 back to or below the levels seen in 2013/14, but there's no further data beyond 2018.

 

Fair point, I misread it as yellow being the Letby related deaths rather than not COCH specific. 

[Mudface]

2 minutes ago, Paulie Dangerously said:

 

Fair point, I misread it as yellow being the Letby related deaths rather than not COCH specific. 

 

Being naturally cynical, I'm assuming that's why it was presented as such.

[Pidge]

Yeah, the ONS data will be by local authority rather than trust. The grey data ends because it only covers the period requested in the FOI request and there's clearly a dramatic drop between 2016 and 2017.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

20 minutes ago, Mudface said:

 

That's a really bad graph though, it's not comparing like-for-like and there are incomplete figures for several years. The circled columns are for the whole area while the grey (? sorry I'm colour blind) ones are presumably specifically for COCH. Those grey ones show a marked rise in 2015/16, followed by a drop in 2017/18 back to or below the levels seen in 2013/14, but there's no further data beyond 2018.

I've not been following the case, so I don't know how relevant it is to look at those sort of stats anyway.  I really hope the case didn't rest on statistics, because the actual numbers are (I presume; I'm no Hannah Fry) too small to infer any involvement of any individual.

[Shitty Arse]

I think everyone’s lost a lot of respect for Lucy Letby after not appearing in court. Talk about a fall from grace.

[Strontium]

2 hours ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

I've not been following the case, so I don't know how relevant it is to look at those sort of stats anyway.

 

Not to put too fine a point on it, but the stats are the entirety of the case against her.

[Arniepie]

13 minutes ago, Strontium said:

 

Not to put too fine a point on it, but the stats are the entirety of the case against her.

what about the notes though?

 

going to be interesting if she appeals it.

[Strontium]

6 minutes ago, Arniepie said:

what about the notes though?

 

I continue to be astonished that anyone puts any stock in them, or rather, a single cherry-picked extract from one of them.

[No2]

18 minutes ago, Strontium said:

 

Not to put too fine a point on it, but the stats are the entirety of the case against her.

What about doctors and parents walking in on her? What about her written diaries? 

 

Something really interesting is going on here, she's about to become the UK's version of Sandy Hook.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

22 minutes ago, Strontium said:

 

Not to put too fine a point on it, but the stats are the entirety of the case against her.

Jesus.

 

I've got some very vague memory niggling in the back of my mind of some previous UK high-profile case resting on an expert convincing the jury that, statistically, it was impossible that the accused person was innocent; it was overturned when a better statistician proved that it was really not improbable that the events happened by coincidence.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

6 minutes ago, No2 said:

Something really interesting is going on here, she's about to become the UK's version of Sandy Hook.

For some cunts, that has already happened.

 

Ignoring those cunts, there may still be legitimate reasons for intelligent people to question the validity of the verdict.

[Strontium]

6 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

I've got some very vague memory niggling in the back of my mind of some previous UK high-profile case resting on an expert convincing the jury that, statistically, it was impossible that the accused person was innocent; it was overturned when a better statistician proved that it was really not improbable that the events happened by coincidence.

 

I should think you're thinking of the Sally Clark case. They said the odds of two of her children dying from cot death would be tens of millions to one. The poor woman spent a few years in prison, then drank herself to death.

[Bjornebye]

51 minutes ago, Strontium said:

 

Not to put too fine a point on it, but the stats are the entirety of the case against her.

 

Apart from them not being the entirety whatsoever, you're right. 

 

 Key evidence in the prosecution case 

• Medical records – these were crucial to establish the condition of the babies when they were attacked. When some babies recovered, the speed of their recovery was too sudden to be seen as a natural occurrence. Several medical documents featured falsified notes made by Letby to hide her involvement. She amended timings on several documents in an attempt to distance herself from incidents where babies had suddenly become severely unwell.
• Text messages and social media activity – these were an important part of the case as they coincided with the attacks happening on the neonatal Unit. They were dated and timed, sometimes they were similar to a live blogging of events. They also explained how Letby deceived her colleagues into believing that these inexplicable collapses were simply a natural worsening of children’s underlying conditions. They also revealed an intrusive curiosity about the parents of babies she had harmed.
• Staff rotas – we were able to show the jury that Letby was the one common denominator in the series of deaths and sudden collapses on the neonatal unit. We were also able to show the jury that many of the earlier incidents occurred overnight, but when Letby was put onto day shifts, the collapses and deaths began occurring in the day. We were able to corroborate this further using Letby’s personal diary in which she had noted her shift patterns.
• Handwritten notes and diaries – many handwritten notes were discovered by police during their investigation. They included phrases such as: “I killed them on purpose because I’m not good enough to care for them”; “I am evil I did this”; and “today is your birthday and you are not here and I am so sorry for that”. These notes gave an insight into her mindset following her attacks.
   

https://www.cps.gov.uk/mersey-cheshire/news/lucy-letby-found-guilty-baby-murders

 

 

[Captain Turdseye]

You could never have predicted which poster on here would take the contrary position. You can’t help but admire the dedication. 
 

Credit where it’s due, it keeps the GF ticking over. 

[Pidge]

40 minutes ago, Strontium said:

 

I continue to be astonished that anyone puts any stock in them, or rather, a single cherry-picked extract from one of them.

 

What prevented the defence from presenting other notes that may reflect on a stress reaction, rather than something specifically related to this? Similarly, did she routinely track parents of other children passing through the unit or just the ones she attacked? How about the evidence of the methods she attempted and how she mixed the approach a few times. Surely there's evidence that show insulin or the milk and water cases, must be pretty specific and cover a narrow timeframe. Were there notes collected at her home from other cases?

 

A lot of it is circumstantial, but in an environment where she both worked regularly and where sterilisation is a common occurrence what type of evidence would you expect?

 

It's far too early for this kind of speculation. If there's grounds for appeal, there will be one and court documents will also be drafted and released.

[Strontium]

Just now, Pidge said:

What prevented the defence from presenting other notes that may reflect on a stress reaction, rather than something specifically related to this?

 

Well indeed. I'm not even a lawyer and I could have defended her better than her defence team did. I think they called one single witness? Astonishing.

[Arniepie]

57 minutes ago, Strontium said:

 

I continue to be astonished that anyone puts any stock in them, or rather, a single cherry-picked extract from one of them.

yeah I didnt think of that

 

writing down “I killed them on purpose because I’m not good enough to care for them,” and I AM EVIL I DID THIS", is quite ambigous so Im no idea why it was even relevant.

[Strontium]

2 minutes ago, Arniepie said:

yeah I didnt think of that

 

writing down “I killed them on purpose because I’m not good enough to care for them,” and I AM EVIL I DID THIS", is quite ambigous so Im no idea why it was even relevant.

 

Of course, as we all know, a written confession is 100% proof of guilt.

 

However, in this instance, it requires you to ignore all the bits where she proclaims her innocence.

 

As I said, cherry-picking.

[Kevin D]

14 hours ago, Strontium said:

 

You may or may not find these interesting

 

https://www.chimpinvestor.com/post/the-travesty-of-the-lucy-letby-verdicts

 

https://rexvlucyletby2023.com/

I think they were right to charge her and she probably did do this, but compared to the other women who’ve got whole life sentences the evidence is pretty thin. 
 

It seems odd to me who you searched on Facebook would be such a prominent part of a murder trial.

[No2]

 

33 minutes ago, Captain Turdseye said:

You could never have predicted which poster on here would take the contrary position. You can’t help but admire the dedication. 
 

Credit where it’s due, it keeps the GF ticking over. 

He was calling her innocent half way through the trial, those babies are more likely to rise from the dead than he is admit he could be wrong.