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.
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.