I haven’t posted a New York Times article.
The author of the article you posted basically tries to make out the jury trial process is infallible. That’s their main “point”. As well as trying to make out that everybody who has quite obviously genuine concerns about an unsafe verdict is automatically a conspiracy theorist. It’s ludicrous.
That’s a terrible article. There’s nothing in that that isn’t in the NY one
Er the bit about the scan?
So some of the badge swipe data used in the original trial which showed her being present at the time of some collapses was wrong?
The scan of air?
I see Private Eye has also published some good articles with plenty of interesting points…
“a key X-ray image that showed a white line of air tracking a dead baby’s spine which would show how air was deliberately forced into their tiny bodies.”
however,
doesnt air show up as black in an xray?
but even if it was air, which is debateable, how can they prove letby put it there?
Why did she find this unreal method of killing babies and then abandon it again?
‘Confessions’ written on the advice of counsellors to deal with extreme stress. Whole case is falling apart now.
There seems to be an awful lot of people questioning this case now and what was presented as evidence during the trial. I’m wondering why her defence team didn’t bring these things up at the time.
I wonder exactky the sane thing. Seems notably odd.
The ‘Lucy Letby is likely innocent’ articles all get a bit jittery, though, when the nub comes. And the nub remains: can ‘negligence’ and ‘understaffing’ explain the death of seven infants and severe injuries to more again? There is a fierce recourse to the conditional tense when this nub hoves.
the nub you refer to probably fits into the balance of probabilities but isnt within an asses roar of beyond a reasonable doubt.
But why is a Doctor walking all the way across a ward watching her watch a baby die? Why does she write all that inculpatory stuff in her journal? Why do the babies happen to be attached to the attractive doctor she had a fling with whose attention she wants to regain? Why does she relish interacting with grieving parents so much?
She is benefitting from being somewhat attractive and coming from a nice background to me, but maybe I’m just judging everyone else by my own low standards here. I think she did it.
the diary stuff was on the advice of the hospital therapist. theres as much inculpatory as there is exculpatory.
none of the above meets the threshold for beyond a reasonable doubt
You are entitled to that opinion – or any other one – and I think it is good to discuss such topics on a forum like this one. I happen to disagree on ‘reasonable doubt’ in a big way.
The reality remains that LL conceded, under oath, someone had sought to injure two infants in her unit. Her defence, in those instances, was assertion: that the guilty party was not her.
I find it intriguing how arch Brexiteers, such as David ‘Thick as Mince’ Davis, are weighing in behind LL. Further agenda there, of course? An open goal on attacking the NHS. Wait for the articles along this line: ‘Lucy Letby case proves NHS should be privatized’.
you’ve all of that with everything else is my point really
The diary, in all likelihood, carried the most weight with the jury who I’d imagine saw it as a mea culpa. The rest is circumstantial
The fact that LL made that concession, under oath, is not circumstantial.
so the fact that has been established, and ocnfirmed by LL, that 2 infants in the unit were injured by someone. the extrapolation that it was LL is conjecture unless established by other facts: i.e. circumstantial