Search results

Didn’t mean to make you feel insecure about your fave YouTuber!

I didn’t watch the video, so I’m only talking about the messenger really.

Neither Liquid Gold’s post, nor the New Yorker article mention a single political party at any point. The article certainly doesn’t look to apportion blame to any political party, so not sure why you’d get upset about this - but then again you haven’t read it.

Whether or not this ends up as one of them, there are all kinds of examples of miscarriages of justice being exposed by individual pieces of journalism.

To be on the side of my profession? The idea that I would take “sides” with a woman convicted of murdering children out of some weird loyalty to a journalist I’ve never met is pretty ridiculous - go back and look at the posts I’ve made questioning the media’s coverage of this case to date...

I gotta admit, I know this is a truly disturbing case to consider, but I thought after the Mr Bates vs the Post Office stuff there would be a bit more skepticism over the workings of the British legal system. And I certainly didn’t expect people to openly come out and say “The case took a long...

What’s my agenda? Bizarrely dismissive thing to say given you openly admit to not even trying to read the piece. I’m glad you have that much faith in the justice system though!

Are you a regular viewer of Napolitano’s show? He has quite the career history.

The article is most interesting to me not because it provides a smoking gun to her guilt/innocence, but because it casts so much doubt on a story that the media would have you believe was sewn up long ago. I don’t see how people could confidently predict this was an “open and shut” case (let...

The article goes over the discrepancies with the high insulin levels - and the feasibility of whether it could be used to murder a baby - in detail, citing multiple medical experts.

The prosecution claimed she may have used a plastic medical tube to injure one of the babies: Lucy Letby trial: Medical tool may have injured baby, expert says Your version of the photos story sounds like it’s untrue: Lucy Letby sent couple a photo of their baby - and they spotted chilling detail

One of the central themes of the article is the tendency to look for a compelling, coherent and obvious explanation for something horrific and often unexplainable. The defence argued that her writing those words was the stream-of-consciousness ramblings of an overworked nurse crumbling under...

Also, there’s a grand total of one US doctor quoted in the piece (well, South African, but working at Harvard) and he doesn’t talk about the UK healthcare system at all. So I have to ask, did you actually read it?

I don’t see why the nationalities are that relevant here. As for “familiarity of the case”, both the prosecution and defence relied on expert witnesses who weren’t familiar with the case until being tasked with it - that’s how a trial works, isn’t it? Yes, there are assumptions and heart...

If Nick is concerned about the legal implications then I’ll happily remove the link.

I think I saw it’s 13,000 words - it’s not a short article by any journalistic or academic standard. Still not sure what your point is - we don’t decide someone’s guilt by word count.

The journalist (it’s a woman btw) is openly critical of the sensationalist coverage of murder trials in the article, which I assume you’ve read. This is The New Yorker, not a Netflix series. She seems to have spoken to many of the key players involved in the case, including some of the key...

What’s your point?

It’s a deeply reported piece, with dozens of interviews with hospital administrators, former colleagues, medical experts, and key figures from the prosecution and the defence. It will have taken months if not years to put together, and The New Yorker’s approach to fact checking is notoriously...

It was a genuine question - I don’t recall it happening in the past, have no idea if they’d offer anything competitive.