rob9872
Well-Known Member
Pretty much what I said above. Also conveniently stopped when she was no longer there. But definitely innocent
Pretty much what I said above. Also conveniently stopped when she was no longer there. But definitely innocentThe main factor that contributed to her being found guilty was the matrix that showed she was the only one present at every death and that during her time at the unit deaths has multiplied exponentially
This is good for balanced details of the whole court case
This is good for balanced details of the whole court case
It seems very detailed, so yes.Based on 1 aticle?
You would need to find a medical refutation for each death/near death.It seems very detailed, so yes.
Just needs someone professional to look at it really doesn't it. It's not asking a lot. Someone like Inside Justice. Just for someone to give it a read and see if it warrants further scrutiny.
It seems very detailed, so yes.
Just needs someone professional to look at it really doesn't it. It's not asking a lot. Someone like Inside Justice. Just for someone to give it a read and see if it warrants further scrutiny.
It’s not a jurors decision it’s a judges oneAnd? Can you tell one thing in the linked argument that would change a jurors mind?
I’ve read some today but like most if not all in here I don’t know enough medically or legally to know enoughYou would need to find a medical refutation for each death/near death.
There wasn't any real evidence that that had actually happenedHow else can one account for babies having been found injected with air if not done so to them?
Let's be honest though a jury trial in a high profile case like this where he name was made public very early is difficult not to be influencedDoesn't take much to win you over. A short piece by a writer at the New Yorker. I suspect those in the court room had a bit more to go off.
Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk
Better than one person but not infallibleLet's be honest though a jury trial in a high profile case like this where he name was made public very early is difficult not to be influenced
The article in the New Yorker points out that she wasn't actually present at every death so the matrix being the starting point weakens the caseThe main factor that contributed to her being found guilty was the matrix that showed she was the only one present at every death and that during her time at the unit deaths has multiplied exponentially
Pretty much what I said above. Also conveniently stopped when she was no longer there. But definitely innocent
Yep by allegedly not treating really prem babies with complex needsOr conveniently stopped when the hospital realised how poor conditions were and decided to actually do something about it?
This was 2015. Are we blaming Labour for this decade of underinnvestment then or the Lib Dems coalition immediately pulled the funding to quickly spiral it out of control?The talk of cramped space, outdated machinery & long, stressful working hours isn't unique to the hospital but a symptom of over a decade of underinvestment and neglect that is felt across the NHS.
A few things really, but seems a lot of the equipment was inadequate and staff had complained about it and only having one vent for 5 babies etc. That she wasn't actually present at every death, as the prosecution implied.What detail concerns you?
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.This was 2015. Are we blaming Labour for this decade of underinnvestment then or the Lib Dems coalition immediately pulled the funding to quickly spiral it out of control?
Or was she simply a bit of a nutter and there is no political angle despite trying to shoehorn one and blame the wrong government?
LG's post literally said the conditions spoken about in direct relation to the time were as a result of 'a decade of under investment and neglect'. As usual a dig at the government on here, I merely pointed out that as her 'crimes' were 2015, that 10 years took us back to 2005 when Labour were still in full swing. Still, you go ahead and use that journalistic licence to pretend it didn't mean that at all. Ffs you'd look for a fight in a phone box.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.
I assume LG knows that, which is why he didn’t mention any specific political parties. It was you who decided to take issue and try and apportion blame to individual groups. I needn’t have said anything if you hadn’t, but if you don’t like being called out on stuff, don’t post on a discussion board I guess.LG's post literally said the conditions spoken about in direct relation to the time were as a result of 'a decade of under investment and neglect'. As usual a dig at the government on here, I merely pointed out that as her 'crimes' were 2015, that 10 years took us back to 2005 when Labour were still in full swing. Still, you go ahead and use that journalistic licence to pretend it didn't mean that at all. Ffs you'd look for a fight in a phone box.
You assume ... but are happy to tell me what he means by your interpretation of it, that I'm wrong. Okie dokie thenI assume LG knows that, which is why he didn’t mention any specific political parties. It was you who decided to take issue and try and apportion blame to individual groups. I needn’t have said anything if you hadn’t, but if you don’t like being called out on stuff, don’t post on a discussion board I guess.
Which random US medics are you referring to?The assumptions are still that a random US medic can better judge than the entirety of the UK medical establishment. That the UK system is uniquely corrupt against defendants in a way the US one isn’t (might want to check conviction rates), that none of the things that a random asks on first sight were considered in a months long trial, and that standard reporting restrictions are proof of a cover up.
The journalist themselves on Twitter has repeatedly shown they don’t understand the case or the system it was tried under.
Which random US medics are you referring to?
The journalist who wrote the piece hasn’t posted on Twitter in almost a year. Are you sure you’ve read the right article?
Don’t agree personally. The New Yorker is not exactly renowned for sensationalism. But if you’d rather go with what’s been reported in the British press…It’s incredibly sensationalist
Don’t agree personally. The New Yorker is not exactly renowned for sensationalism. But if you’d rather go with what’s been reported in the British press…
It’s a quote from a UK government inquiry. I mean, I’m not here to personally defend every individual paragraph of the story on the writer’s behalf. But if you want to play a game of sensationalism tennis between this article and the British coverage of the case so far, I’m sure I could keep going for quite some time.So referencing Harold Shipman was a physician only 40 miles from Chester and people were trained to “think dirty” is suggesting what exactly?
It’s a quote from a UK government inquiry. I mean, I’m not here to personally defend every individual paragraph of the story on the writer’s behalf. But if you want to play a game of sensationalism tennis between this article and the British coverage of the case so far, I’m sure I could keep going for quite some time.
Sorry to be pedantic she didn’t even get to make an appeal her request to do so has been rejectedHer appeals have been rejected
Sorry to be pedantic she didn’t even get to make an appeal her request to do so has been rejected
The full reasons for the judges' decision were not made public, with the full details of Letby's appeal bid also unable to be published for legal reasons.
From the BBC article on it:
There does seem to be an awful lot of secrecy and legal red tape around this case
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?