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?
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?