|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Aug 22, 2023 14:31:27 GMT
Too many lovies wouldn't agree with it. It's good for the planet to get rid of the sicko's in more ways than one. Like Andy Malkinson....hmmmm, what do we do in those cases once he's been strung up? Just shrug and say whoops? |
|
|
|
Post by spiderpuss on Aug 22, 2023 14:51:38 GMT
What turns a sweet innocent young child and seemingly dedicated university graduate on the left to the evil monster on the right. She will be the subject of psychiatric pondering for years to come no doubt. Are there any psychiatric or mental health nurses on here with an opinion. It baffles me. View AttachmentCan happen very early in life, 4-6 years old. For instance maybe her parents weren't very sympathetic when a pet died. It's been festering for a while, what strikes me is that it was so planned. She wanted to be in childcare at school I believe, so it's not a new thing whirling around in her head. Did she start planning then? Unlike USA where Piers did a series of visiting "lifers", that's not permitted here in the UK. We'll never know what is rattling around in that head, and maybe that's a good thing? |
|
|
|
Post by lawrieleslie on Aug 22, 2023 15:39:48 GMT
It's good for the planet to get rid of the sicko's in more ways than one. Like Andy Malkinson....hmmmm, what do we do in those cases once he's been strung up? Just shrug and say whoops? We are a civilised society and taking some one’s life is abhorrent & barbaric in my opinion regardless of the reason. I would like to see many more whole life sentencing for murder though. Don’t get this life sentence means life but if you are released, which is in the vast majority of life sentences, you will spend the rest of you life on licence whatever that means. |
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Aug 22, 2023 15:52:40 GMT
What turns a sweet innocent young child and seemingly dedicated university graduate on the left to the evil monster on the right. She will be the subject of psychiatric pondering for years to come no doubt. Are there any psychiatric or mental health nurses on here with an opinion. It baffles me. View AttachmentCan happen very early in life, 4-6 years old. For instance maybe her parents weren't very sympathetic when a pet died. It's been festering for a while, what strikes me is that it was so planned. She wanted to be in childcare at school I believe, so it's not a new thing whirling around in her head. Did she start planning then? Unlike USA where Piers did a series of visiting "lifers", that's not permitted here in the UK. We'll never know what is rattling around in that head, and maybe that's a good thing? Agreed. Beyond the benefit of trying to understand why from a psychology/psychiatry approach and potentially useful intervention in future, and to try to give the parents some closure, even if that wouldn't do anything to ease their pain, I quite like the idea of this woman being almost entirely forgotten about for the rest of her life, much like Beverley Allitt has been. |
|
|
|
Post by slippyblunger on Aug 22, 2023 15:58:44 GMT
racism is the answer to everything if you happen to be coloured
im surprised dianne abbott hasn't put her twopenneth in .
Give the racist cretin time. |
|
|
|
Post by thisisouryear on Aug 22, 2023 18:06:21 GMT
Like Andy Malkinson....hmmmm, what do we do in those cases once he's been strung up? Just shrug and say whoops? We are a civilised society and taking some one’s life is abhorrent & barbaric in my opinion regardless of the reason. I would like to see many more whole life sentencing for murder though. Don’t get this life sentence means life but if you are released, which is in the vast majority of life sentences, you will spend the rest of you life on licence whatever that means. To be honest I do agree, but this country is in such a shit state because of the Tories, we don't have a pot to piss in and everything is fucked. We just don't have the money to keep people in jail and if the cons get back in again we will be even more fucked. They shaft us over and over but they know how to win votes. Scamming people is an art and the Tories have it down to a tee. |
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on May 14, 2024 8:39:05 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2024 9:27:32 GMT
Seven babies don’t just die on a ward in such a short time. Take out the extreme premature babies and it’s also fair to say - four babies don’t just die on a ward. I don’t think that reporting like this, trying to paint this piece of shit as some sort of loving hero despite the guilty verdict, is very helpful to anyone. |
|
|
|
Post by lawrieleslie on May 14, 2024 9:42:49 GMT
Unfortunately it’s behind some sort of paywall. What does it say? I followed the trial closely and was always concerned that there was never a smoking gun to convict her, all evidence was circumstantial. Nobody ever questioned that the reason she refused to attend her sentence hearing could have been simply that she is innocent. I’m still on the fence over her guilt. |
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on May 14, 2024 11:06:22 GMT
Unfortunately it’s behind some sort of paywall. What does it say? I followed the trial closely and was always concerned that there was never a smoking gun to convict her, all evidence was circumstantial. Nobody ever questioned that the reason she refused to attend her sentence hearing could have been simply that she is innocent. I’m still on the fence over her guilt. The articles now unavailable in the UK, but if you click on the link it's the archived article from the New York Times...... |
|
|
|
Post by lawrieleslie on May 14, 2024 14:26:57 GMT
Unfortunately it’s behind some sort of paywall. What does it say? I followed the trial closely and was always concerned that there was never a smoking gun to convict her, all evidence was circumstantial. Nobody ever questioned that the reason she refused to attend her sentence hearing could have been simply that she is innocent. I’m still on the fence over her guilt. The articles now unavailable in the UK, but if you click on the link it's the archived article from the New York Times...... Yes it’s been blocked by court order which has been challenged in parliament. |
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on May 14, 2024 14:45:06 GMT
The articles now unavailable in the UK, but if you click on the link it's the archived article from the New York Times...... Yes it’s been blocked by court order which has been challenged in parliament. Got you, must have been not long before you replied it was still working as of then..... |
|
|
|
Post by Gawa on May 14, 2024 15:12:41 GMT
The articles now unavailable in the UK, but if you click on the link it's the archived article from the New York Times...... Yes it’s been blocked by court order which has been challenged in parliament. This is the archived link which still works for me - archive.is/3S7RALike yourself I've always been skeptical over this too. Feels like a bit of a fall woman. |
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on May 14, 2024 15:50:47 GMT
Disturbing indeed. I must admit I only paid a passing interest in Letby's trial other than to feel sorry for the parents of the children that died and have faith that the courts would reach a fair verdict based on the evidence Reading that Article you could easily conclude that Letby was convicted on the balance of probability as "someone must be responsible" assuming a crime had been committed. Having gained an unwelcome nickname of "Angel of Death" among her gossipy colleagues, due to her obvious presence she became an easy target for investigation. Did the Police construct the evidence to fit the narrative. An equally alternative conclusion could in some cases be Medical Misadventure exacerbated by negligence and in others insufficiency of Staff and Medical Equipment. In other cases Natural Causes brought about by complex Medical conditions of the Baby, Mother or both. Troubling |
|
|
|
Post by lawrieleslie on May 14, 2024 16:07:46 GMT
Disturbing indeed. I must admit I only paid a passing interest in Letby's trial other than to feel sorry for the parents of the children that died and have faith that the courts would reach a fair verdict based on the evidence Reading that Article you could easily conclude that Letby was convicted on the balance of probability as "someone must be responsible" assuming a crime had been committed. Having gained an unwelcome nickname of "Angel of Death" among her gossipy colleagues, due to her obvious presence she became an easy target for investigation. Did the Police construct the evidence to fit the narrative. An equally alternative conclusion could in some cases be Medical Misadventure exacerbated by negligence and in others insufficiency of Staff and Medical Equipment. In other cases Natural Causes brought about by complex Medical conditions of the Baby, Mother or both. Troubling I troubling indeed. During the months before she was suspended there was a spike of deaths at the unit over a few months. However if you remove the 7 babies she allegedly killed, there still remains a large spike than the previous or later months. |
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on May 14, 2024 16:15:55 GMT
It's all here as well if you have a Twitter account....
|
|
|
|
Post by marylandstoke on May 14, 2024 18:35:41 GMT
Very troubling.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gawa on May 14, 2024 18:50:05 GMT
Burkhard Schafer, a law professor at the University of Edinburgh who studies the intersection of law and science, said that it appeared as if the Letby prosecution had “learned the wrong lessons from previous miscarriages of justice.” Instead of making sure that its statistical figures were accurate, the prosecution seems to have ignored statistics. “Looking for a responsible human—this is what the police are good at,” Schafer told me. “What is not in the police’s remit is finding a systemic problem in an organization like the National Health Service, after decades of underfunding, where you have overworked people cutting little corners with very vulnerable babies who are already in a risk category. It is much more satisfying to say there was a bad person, there was a criminal, than to deal with the outcome of government policy.”
|
|
|
|
Post by Clem Fandango on May 15, 2024 7:33:13 GMT
Tbh I only really saw the headlines of this case as it felt like it was going to be one of those which is too grim to read more about. Thanks to Prestwich for posting the article link I had a read. Its quite disturbing. I had fully expected there to be a smoking gun but it feels like there is almost a complete lack of evidence. Sounds like there is alot me to come out on this one.
|
|
|
|
Post by Seymour Beaver on May 16, 2024 17:02:42 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by dirtygary69 on May 17, 2024 12:49:44 GMT
It's a really tough one to gauge isn't it? The cynic in me would say that she almost knew that they couldn't prove what she was doing because there really isn't any proper evidence. But how could there be if they were being poisoned? Imagine if she got found not guilty, or it doesn't even get to a trial or she wasn't even arrested at all and she was still doing it today.
It's really grey area. A lot of it is circumstantial but some of the diaries she was keeping and other things definitely won't have helped her cause. Did she put up much of a fight in court? I feel like if she was innocent, she'd have been so much more pained by it, but she just seemed pretty resigned to it. I am sure the months/years of worrying over it might have meant her fight had waned by the time it came around.
If I sat on a jury listening to what they were told, I think I'd have found it hard not to convict. Whether there also other things at play above her, who knows.
|
|
|
|
Post by lawrieleslie on May 17, 2024 14:26:27 GMT
"Broadcasting inquiry into how nurse was able to murder babies would ‘help combat offensive conspiracy theories’, hearing told" …….so people legitimately questioning the juries verdict based on purely circumstantial evidence is a conspiracy. That in itself, to me, constitutes a conspiracy of attempting a cover up of shortcomings at the Chester neonatal unit. Prestwich's link to the New Yorker article is a bombshell to her conviction and the court order banning its publication in UK just adds to the cover up conspiracy imo. |
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on May 17, 2024 15:11:49 GMT
"Broadcasting inquiry into how nurse was able to murder babies would ‘help combat offensive conspiracy theories’, hearing told" …….so people legitimately questioning the juries verdict based on purely circumstantial evidence is a conspiracy. That in itself, to me, constitutes a conspiracy of attempting a cover up of shortcomings at the Chester neonatal unit. Prestwich's link to the New Yorker article is a bombshell to her conviction and the court order banning its publication in UK just adds to the cover up conspiracy imo. I think if I were one of the parents I would feel exactly the same. The grief and overwhelming need to find someone guilty must be palpable and the Courts have told them Letby is. Also no matter how irrational at the back of their minds if they believe their child was murdered they may feel a guilt they didn't do more to protect them. Let's hope at the Inquiry and/or Appeal cooler forensic heads are in attendance I'm not saying Letby is innocent, I wasn't in Court to hear all the evidence but the Article prima facie raises questions which should be answered. In the long run this will be to the benefit of the Parents, even if they are unable to see this now |
|
|
|
Post by lawrieleslie on May 17, 2024 17:59:40 GMT
"Broadcasting inquiry into how nurse was able to murder babies would ‘help combat offensive conspiracy theories’, hearing told" …….so people legitimately questioning the juries verdict based on purely circumstantial evidence is a conspiracy. That in itself, to me, constitutes a conspiracy of attempting a cover up of shortcomings at the Chester neonatal unit. Prestwich's link to the New Yorker article is a bombshell to her conviction and the court order banning its publication in UK just adds to the cover up conspiracy imo. I think if I were one of the parents I would feel exactly the same. The grief and overwhelming need to find someone guilty must be palpable and the Courts have told them Letby is. Also no matter how irrational at the back of their minds if they believe their child was murdered they may feel a guilt they didn't do more to protect them. Let's hope at the Inquiry and/or Appeal cooler forensic heads are in attendance I'm not saying Letby is innocent, I wasn't in Court to hear all the evidence but the Article prima facie raises questions which should be answered. In the long run this will be to the benefit of the Parents, even if they are unable to see this now Good post mate. I’m on the fence regarding her guilt/innocence. Two things make me question her guilt, firstly in the year in which the babies died there were spikes in baby deaths but if you remove the deaths that Lucy Letby was found guilty of causing, there are still higher death rates than the previous years. Now reading the article in the New Yorker during that period there were several factors that question the safe running of the unit including under staffing, lack of experienced staff, over crowding of the unit and sanitary problems. The police only started investigating after senior staff saw that Lucy Letby was a common denominator in the unexplained baby deaths during 2015-16 and called in the police. Their focus was then investigating her and trying to prove her guilt and not any unit shortcomings. The second thing that makes me question her guilt was the fact that she refused to attend her sentencing hearing. If she is not guilty then who can blame her for not attending. The media along with the PM, were then hell bent on publicly labelling her as a coward. I hope I’m wrong and justice has been delivered. But also to convict someone of such a heinous crime when they are innocent makes me feel very uneasy. |
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on May 24, 2024 11:51:55 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by spitthedog on May 24, 2024 12:59:42 GMT
Something makes me feel very uneasy about this. When I have read up on the details of this conviction I just couldn't help thing...what if? Of course I have no idea if she is guilty or not, and I offer no judgement, but there seemed to be more questions than answers, many of which didn't seem to get fully addressed. |
|
|
|
Post by lawrieleslie on Jun 10, 2024 10:19:27 GMT
Something makes me feel very uneasy about this. I When I have read up on the details of this conviction I just couldn't help thing...what if? Of course I have no idea if she is guilty or not, and I offer no judgement, but there seemed to be more questions than answers, many of which didn't seem to get fully addressed. The criteria for an appeal of a criminal conviction were apparently not met viz: Poor representation at the trial; mistakes or misconduct of the trial judge; Jury Irregularities; bias; inconsistent verdicts; disclosure issues; new evidence. But there was evidence that a juror was overheard in a cafe by a whistleblower saying that the jury had made up their minds early in the trial. This was reported to the judge but the juror was allowed to continue on the jury. Doesn’t that constitute jury irregularities & misconduct by the judge? |
|
|
|
Post by flea79 on Jun 10, 2024 12:16:31 GMT
John Sweeney has set out his thoughts on Twitter/X on this he has a long history of investigating such cases and he has pointed out that the case bears strikingly similarities to the case of Sally Clark from 2002, she was accused and found guilty of murdering her two infant boys and was later acquitted I imagine its not the last we have heard of this case at all if she has done it then no place is dark enough for her i just hope its not another miscarriage of justice and a finger being pointed at what is plainly a disturbed person based on some stats.... re the doubts around this case i suggest you read into the case of Sally Clark and see the similarities |
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Jul 2, 2024 14:22:20 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by redstriper on Jul 2, 2024 16:11:44 GMT
It seems to be the modern way, to ignore the facts of two trials finding her guilty, and double down on the conspiracy theory regardless. Letby = the McCanns = Trump. People not in possession of the all the facts and/or not at the trial to hear the evidence just stick rigidly to a stance they took, either to avoid having to admit they are wrong or simply to support their own prejudices. |
|
