Highly detailed website detailing why Letby is likely innocent and the victim of a massive miscarriage of justice. There is a shorter article covering some of the same justifications for this position here:
Both links talk about the culpability of the managers, and I know exactly what these people are talking about. The same closed door dicussions and closed meetings where they can decide things like, me lying about medications that my doctor was supposed to prescribe me. There is no truth or justice behind these closed doors.
You could say these are a lie, but there is no way this girl just willingly went along with this, she wouldnt even look at her own mother in court or offer any kind of explanation. So whats your thinking, they offered her a billion dollars and then renegged after they had everything setup?
Seems unlikely, even to me, considering her appearance in the courtroom, or how she refused to come back out in front of her mother.
Just really seems like she lost her shit and became a angel of death. That shit happens more than you think. Pretty sure someone was killing the old people at my partners work. When I first brought it up they thought I was crazy, but as the years went by they admit its weird how there is always one person who seems to be involved. They were let go a while ago.
Truth and justice are a farce I can agree with you on that.
The argument for her innocence is multi faceted, scientifically and statistically based. The same case made for her guilt (just without the garbled note) could be made of any nurse working there at that time. The state of the evidence is literally that weak. Watch the Norman Fenton interview for a quick summary:
https://youtu.be/k12f_VFCbtI
The sewerage issue is serious and there have been similar cases in the past of sewerage problems in hospitals killing premies. And indeed they speak about one example where they were going after a nurse for a baby's death before the sewerage problem became apparent.
No one saw her inject air into any baby, and the air in one baby has multiple possible explanations and causes. Indeed, the expert for the prosecution quoted a study to back up his testimony that was about the wrong type of air embolism as was supposed to have killed a particular baby, showing he was talking out of his ass. No one picked up on it because it takes people familiar with the literature to have that knowledge and spot the "mix up" (if it wasn't intentional)
The alleged over-doses of insulin again has other possible explanations, and one of the alleged "spiked bags" of insulin used to kill one baby was chosen at random and given to the baby by another nurse when Letby wasn't working. All babies were declared death by natural causes in each and every autopsy done contemporaneously, yet the Jury was told by one unqualified, professional-expert (who tendered his services as a professional expert directly to the police) they were all wrong.
Are you saying she didn't behave as if innocent? That's not very convincing and highly circumstantial, like every single bit of "evidence" in the case. It could be she is simply browbeaten by the MSM and her former bosses seeming so certain she's guilty. She's young and has no money. I would wonder if she's not the sharpest tool in the box either. Like just an ordinary, somewhat simple person. Not cynical. They had some doubts about her competence, and after the critical report of their hospital, these doubts blossomed into accusations of murder.
I know women who trained to be nurse who aren't smart. You don't need to be smart to be a nurse, you're trained. But to battle egotistical doctors trying to cover their asses in court you need to be smart, cynical, well off and have great council.
Video seems very dumb and longwinded. Reading from wikipedia and presuming her guilt. Does he get into a discussion of the evidence? The sources I've provided give very specific reasons why the evidence given in the trial is either weak, full of errors, incorrect and/or falsely presented. The only thing that the prosecution really had was the note, which is garbled babble written by a messed up woman of average intelligence who knew she was being investigated and that her bosses blamed her for the death of babies. It's not a confession nor evidence of anything other than her state of mind when she wrote the note.
There's no discussion whatsoever of the highly detailed arguments made on the "science on trial" website. Did they even read it? Did you?
I want to see a detailed point by point take down if there is one. Neither the video you linked, nor that thread, are anything close to that.
Much of it is covered in this video by Prof Nrom Fenton if you want a shorter, less detailed overview:
I don't know why this is being made a feminist argument - it's simply that the evidence is extremely weak, the expert witness lied, and there are various more plausible causes for the babies deaths.
I'd compare it almost to the Chauvin trial whereby it's clear from the evidence and autopsy that Floyd died from fentanyl overdose, but people's emotions were whipped up to obscure that simple fact, egged on by corrupt "expert witness", misleading and biased interpretation of circumstantial evidence, and strong emotions about the relationship between defendant and victim/victims. I would say Letby is even more obviously innocent than Chauvin.
I'm surprised she wasn't let off like most other female criminals are
My theory of why they want to get her off is that it's very uncomfortable for Team Women that the most prolific serial killer, with a possible 200+ attempts (This is the high bound of the investigation) is a normie woman.
only the woo woo interpretation of her sticky note
I read that thing. Top corner should be what everyone focuses on.
The idea that they're pushing, that it was written over time as the investigation develops, is irrelevant - Brearey's notes show that every time he challenged Letby, she was notified.
She could easily conjure up a narrative of her own with that knowledge, knowing someone might be onto her.
As for the "biological arguments" - Just because you've found a few papers claiming it, doesn't mean it's true.
You can find an academic paper that says anything, most of the time. Normies don't know how to analyse the quality of an academic journal.
Where did Science on Trial's money come from?
Well...this isn't the first time a female killer has been busted out of prison with conspiracy theories.
Enter stage left, Julie Bindel and her sugar mommy, JK Rowling.
Julie Bindel is an unironic advocate for the SCUM Manifesto, who started an organization called "Justice for Women", that fought "misogynistic corruption in the justice system"
IMO, Science on Trial = Justice for Women.
Why would the extremely feminist UK government want a female scapegoat?
If it was government backed, why didn't it blow up into protests like Sarah Everard "murder" did?
Why would the UK give people an excuse to hate women?
Highly detailed website detailing why Letby is likely innocent and the victim of a massive miscarriage of justice. There is a shorter article covering some of the same justifications for this position here:
https://dailysceptic.org/2023/09/11/lucy-letby-must-be-allowed-an-appeal/#comments
I'm surprised I haven't seen much coverage of this. News reports I read described the case as slam dunk. It's anything but.
Another less technical summary article can be found here:
https://www.scienceontrial.com/the-project
I doubt it, the woman who blew the whistle was reprimanded and ended up wanting to sue or something after the conviction?
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/23/world/europe/lucy-letby-murder-babies-nhs-warnings.html
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/lucy-letby-stephen-brearey-whistleblowers-b2397246.html
Both links talk about the culpability of the managers, and I know exactly what these people are talking about. The same closed door dicussions and closed meetings where they can decide things like, me lying about medications that my doctor was supposed to prescribe me. There is no truth or justice behind these closed doors.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/18/uk/lucy-letby-nurse-guilty-gbr-intl/index.html
You could say these are a lie, but there is no way this girl just willingly went along with this, she wouldnt even look at her own mother in court or offer any kind of explanation. So whats your thinking, they offered her a billion dollars and then renegged after they had everything setup?
Seems unlikely, even to me, considering her appearance in the courtroom, or how she refused to come back out in front of her mother.
Just really seems like she lost her shit and became a angel of death. That shit happens more than you think. Pretty sure someone was killing the old people at my partners work. When I first brought it up they thought I was crazy, but as the years went by they admit its weird how there is always one person who seems to be involved. They were let go a while ago.
Truth and justice are a farce I can agree with you on that.
The argument for her innocence is multi faceted, scientifically and statistically based. The same case made for her guilt (just without the garbled note) could be made of any nurse working there at that time. The state of the evidence is literally that weak. Watch the Norman Fenton interview for a quick summary: https://youtu.be/k12f_VFCbtI The sewerage issue is serious and there have been similar cases in the past of sewerage problems in hospitals killing premies. And indeed they speak about one example where they were going after a nurse for a baby's death before the sewerage problem became apparent. No one saw her inject air into any baby, and the air in one baby has multiple possible explanations and causes. Indeed, the expert for the prosecution quoted a study to back up his testimony that was about the wrong type of air embolism as was supposed to have killed a particular baby, showing he was talking out of his ass. No one picked up on it because it takes people familiar with the literature to have that knowledge and spot the "mix up" (if it wasn't intentional) The alleged over-doses of insulin again has other possible explanations, and one of the alleged "spiked bags" of insulin used to kill one baby was chosen at random and given to the baby by another nurse when Letby wasn't working. All babies were declared death by natural causes in each and every autopsy done contemporaneously, yet the Jury was told by one unqualified, professional-expert (who tendered his services as a professional expert directly to the police) they were all wrong. Are you saying she didn't behave as if innocent? That's not very convincing and highly circumstantial, like every single bit of "evidence" in the case. It could be she is simply browbeaten by the MSM and her former bosses seeming so certain she's guilty. She's young and has no money. I would wonder if she's not the sharpest tool in the box either. Like just an ordinary, somewhat simple person. Not cynical. They had some doubts about her competence, and after the critical report of their hospital, these doubts blossomed into accusations of murder. I know women who trained to be nurse who aren't smart. You don't need to be smart to be a nurse, you're trained. But to battle egotistical doctors trying to cover their asses in court you need to be smart, cynical, well off and have great council.
Why would I not be surprised to find out she's innocent? Not saying she is, just saying it wouldn't surprise me
Prof Norman Fenton did an interview about this:
https://youtu.be/k12f_VFCbtI
And it's just been announced she will face retrial for the attempted murder charges:
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-merseyside-66910521
Video seems very dumb and longwinded. Reading from wikipedia and presuming her guilt. Does he get into a discussion of the evidence? The sources I've provided give very specific reasons why the evidence given in the trial is either weak, full of errors, incorrect and/or falsely presented. The only thing that the prosecution really had was the note, which is garbled babble written by a messed up woman of average intelligence who knew she was being investigated and that her bosses blamed her for the death of babies. It's not a confession nor evidence of anything other than her state of mind when she wrote the note.
this sticky?:
https://communities.win/c/feminism/p/16c2MsSWUp/a-californian-feminist-group-is-/c
There's no discussion whatsoever of the highly detailed arguments made on the "science on trial" website. Did they even read it? Did you?
I want to see a detailed point by point take down if there is one. Neither the video you linked, nor that thread, are anything close to that. Much of it is covered in this video by Prof Nrom Fenton if you want a shorter, less detailed overview:
https://youtu.be/k12f_VFCbtI
I don't know why this is being made a feminist argument - it's simply that the evidence is extremely weak, the expert witness lied, and there are various more plausible causes for the babies deaths.
I'd compare it almost to the Chauvin trial whereby it's clear from the evidence and autopsy that Floyd died from fentanyl overdose, but people's emotions were whipped up to obscure that simple fact, egged on by corrupt "expert witness", misleading and biased interpretation of circumstantial evidence, and strong emotions about the relationship between defendant and victim/victims. I would say Letby is even more obviously innocent than Chauvin.
I'm here, unfortunately.
My theory of why they want to get her off is that it's very uncomfortable for Team Women that the most prolific serial killer, with a possible 200+ attempts (This is the high bound of the investigation) is a normie woman.
I read that thing. Top corner should be what everyone focuses on.
The idea that they're pushing, that it was written over time as the investigation develops, is irrelevant - Brearey's notes show that every time he challenged Letby, she was notified.
She could easily conjure up a narrative of her own with that knowledge, knowing someone might be onto her.
https://communities.win/c/feminism/p/16c2I3ordB/lucy-letbys-note--ill-never-know/c
As for the "biological arguments" - Just because you've found a few papers claiming it, doesn't mean it's true.
You can find an academic paper that says anything, most of the time. Normies don't know how to analyse the quality of an academic journal.
Where did Science on Trial's money come from?
Well...this isn't the first time a female killer has been busted out of prison with conspiracy theories.
Enter stage left, Julie Bindel and her sugar mommy, JK Rowling.
Julie Bindel is an unironic advocate for the SCUM Manifesto, who started an organization called "Justice for Women", that fought "misogynistic corruption in the justice system"
IMO, Science on Trial = Justice for Women.
Why would the extremely feminist UK government want a female scapegoat?
If it was government backed, why didn't it blow up into protests like Sarah Everard "murder" did?
Why would the UK give people an excuse to hate women?