Lucy Letby

[No2]

1 hour ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

You're assuming that someone was deliberately harming babies.  Where's the evidence?

It was presented in a trial, in front of a jury. Rico shared the judges report a few pages back.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

23 minutes ago, No2 said:

It was presented in a trial, in front of a jury. Rico shared the judges report a few pages back.

tl;dr

 

All I've seen is a claimed statistical anomaly (which doesn't strike me as proof of anything) and some notes (which don't strike me as proof of anything).

 

I'm not saying she's definitely innocent, just that there doesn't appear to be any convincing evidence of guilt.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

11 hours ago, Bjornebye said:

Has anyone asked whether you would or not yet? 

I think that was about 2/3 of the thread that got deleted.

[No2]

Just now, AngryOfTuebrook said:

tl;dr

 

All I've seen is a claimed statistical anomaly (which doesn't strike me as proof of anything) and some notes (which don't strike me as proof of anything).

 

I'm not saying she's definitely innocent, just that there doesn't appear to be any convincing evidence of guilt.

Its not a normal case with normal evidence. For starters the victims weren't recognised as victims until long after their deaths. The survivors are too young to be witnesses.  There is no "weapon" as such. It's based on a shit load of circumstantial evidence but what other type is there in a case like this? 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

9 minutes ago, No2 said:

Its not a normal case with normal evidence. For starters the victims weren't recognised as victims until long after their deaths. The survivors are too young to be witnesses.  There is no "weapon" as such. It's based on a shit load of circumstantial evidence but what other type is there in a case like this? 

That's my concern. Circumstantial evidence shouldn't be enough for something this serious: a shit load of circumstantial evidence is still only circumstantial.

[No2]

21 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

That's my concern. Circumstantial evidence shouldn't be enough for something this serious: a shit load of circumstantial evidence is still only circumstantial.

The alternative is a murderer gets away with it. 

[Code]

Like I said in the other thread, premature babies do die, according to the Lancet, around 1 million every year.

[Bjornebye]

1 hour ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

I think that was about 2/3 of the thread that got deleted.

Oh. Who said yes? 

[Bjornebye]

34 minutes ago, Code said:

Like I said in the other thread, premature babies do die, according to the Lancet, around 1 million every year.

Ok now do the ration per ward and age 

 

 

Like I’ve said before I hope she’s innocent. 
 

 

Hard to imagine she is. 
 

 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

2 hours ago, No2 said:

The alternative is a murderer gets away with it. 

No it isn't.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

1 hour ago, Bjornebye said:

Oh. Who said yes? 

Probably you. Maybe me.

 

We'll never know now.

[Bjornebye]

Just now, AngryOfTuebrook said:

Probably you. Maybe me.

 

We'll never know now.

Christ you’d be the worst defence lawyer ever 

[Bjornebye]

“Would anybody in the court bang the defendant?”

 

“Yeah if she gets out when she’s 93 the murdering bastard” 

 

 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

Reminder that shit happens.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c70j2d4v24wo

 

[Moctezuma]

17 hours ago, Code said:

Like I said in the other thread, premature babies do die, according to the Lancet, around 1 million every year.

Is that UK only? 1 newborn baby is dying among 68 people in the  population?

[Bjornebye]

Would anyone on here fuck her?!!! 
 

It’s the GF not crown court 

[Babb'sBurstNad]

Nah, her mugshot is a proper boner-killer.

 

I could look past the dead babies, but come on love, put some mousse in your hair or something. 

[John102]

18 minutes ago, Bjornebye said:

Would anyone on here fuck her?!!! 
 

It’s the GF not crown court 

Didnt she have suitors on the GF?

 

Some on here would take Letby home to meat the parents.

[Pidge]

2 hours ago, John102 said:

Didnt she have suitors on the GF?

 

Who doesn't...

[lifetime fan]

3 hours ago, Bjornebye said:

Would anyone on here fuck her?!!! 
 

It’s the GF not crown court 

 

[lifetime fan]

21 hours ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

That's my concern. Circumstantial evidence shouldn't be enough for something this serious: a shit load of circumstantial evidence is still only circumstantial.

Historical sex offence cases? 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

1 minute ago, lifetime fan said:

Historical sex offence cases? 

They tend to have witness statements, at least.

[lifetime fan]

1 minute ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

They tend to have witness statements, at least.

And tend to come down to simply he said Vs she said. 
 

I’d suggest there’s far more ‘evidence’ in this case. 
 

Would you advocate not attempting to prosecute historical sex offence cases? 
 

 

ETA: I know you wouldn’t mate, wasn’t trying to be a cunt, just pointing out that complex cases still need to be tried. 

[Numero Veinticinco]

I haven’t really followed this at all, which position should I take in order to annoy the most people?

[lifetime fan]

Just now, Numero Veinticinco said:

I haven’t really followed this at all, which position should I take in order to annoy the most people?

A nuanced position always works wonders on the GF.