The inquiry won’t make a difference because the scope is too narrow. There is an opportunity to find out the consultants were scapegoating Lucy and weren’t as knowledgeable as they thought they were and their expert witness was far from an expert. No comparison with other neonatal units in the country to put theirs into context in the first place. So many missed opportunities in this inquiry.
A lot more of the media comments would have stayed in the second lot of jury members minds in my opinion. I don't think the 'fade factor' applied to the Lucy Letby case - surely it's all relative to the amount and the tone of headlines and comments. Do you really think images of Myra Hindley and comments like Nurse Death, Devil and Monster would 'fade' - No.
The jury was told they had to be sure she was guilty of other cases (decided by the original jury) before deciding guilt on the re-verdict of baby K. That same original jury who didn't in majority believe she's guilty of attempted murder of baby K. That sureness is a reliance on previous majority decisions not unanimous.
I don’t know how you two sleep at night. Not only the damage you’ve caused to an innocent person but you’re losing more and more credibility as ‘journalists’ by the day.
One often hears of the Innocent Project in the US. I feel sure this focus is specifically on the person charged without so much broodiness. Does this possibly have a place in UK systems? Surely this could speed up things...one hears often of the tardiness due to lack of funding etc ?
After the war, in the Netherlands, the women who had gotten into bed with the devil were taken out into the streets and had their heads shaved. I'm wondering how Caroline and Liz would look bald.
How did she get away with it??? How about how is Liz and Caroline getting away with this disgusting slander every week. This podcast is surely so slanderous its completely criminal.
Hahaha. This is exquisite. That you think a convicted murderer being called a convicted murderer meets the legal definition of 'slander' tells us all we need to know about your grasp of law, and therefore how little we need to heed your thoughts on Letby's case.
The evidence is overwhelming. She literally wrote it in her diary. People come to her defence because of their own biases of what criminals look like. Pretty women have been getting away with murder since the beginning of time, because people just give them the benefit of the doubt.
No they don’t. It’s because the evidence against her is so weak and contradictory. Your assertion about the diaries shows you are about a year out of date. It is now known the diaries contained notes written on the advice of her therapist after she was accused. They also contain statements refuting the allegations but these were not mentioned in court. This is how innocent people end up in prison because prosecutors use every trick in the book including engaging biased and deluded expert witnesses who should not be allowed anywhere near a criminal case, except possibly as defendants.
![Wolfram Physics Project: Working Session Wednesday, May 6, 2020 [Finding Black Hole Structures]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/qdVSOLL1mls/mqdefault.jpg)
The inquiry won’t make a difference because the scope is too narrow. There is an opportunity to find out the consultants were scapegoating Lucy and weren’t as knowledgeable as they thought they were and their expert witness was far from an expert. No comparison with other neonatal units in the country to put theirs into context in the first place. So many missed opportunities in this inquiry.
release this innocent woman who has been made a patsy of a failing system and prosecute Dr Evans for perjury
A lot more of the media comments would have stayed in the second lot of jury members minds in my opinion. I don't think the 'fade factor' applied to the Lucy Letby case - surely it's all relative to the amount and the tone of headlines and comments. Do you really think images of Myra Hindley and comments like Nurse Death, Devil and Monster would 'fade' - No.
The idea of fade factor is silly. Heightened emotions bed memories even deeper, not fade.
@meganwilliams2962 💯
The jury was told they had to be sure she was guilty of other cases (decided by the original jury) before deciding guilt on the re-verdict of baby K. That same original jury who didn't in majority believe she's guilty of attempted murder of baby K. That sureness is a reliance on previous majority decisions not unanimous.
I don’t know how you two sleep at night. Not only the damage you’ve caused to an innocent person but you’re losing more and more credibility as ‘journalists’ by the day.
They are just reporting what's happening!! They haven't caused any damage 🤷♂️
Pipe down soft lad a judge and jury have found her GUILTY END OF AND NO APPEAL
This is just shabby journalism.
I thought this was supposed to be a public enquiry? Where is the transcript?
you can look up the document section (click all) when searching for the Thirlwall Inquiry on the web searchbar
One often hears of the Innocent Project in the US. I feel sure this focus is specifically on the person charged without so much broodiness. Does this possibly have a place in UK systems? Surely this could speed up things...one hears often of the tardiness due to lack of funding etc ?
After the war, in the Netherlands, the women who had gotten into bed with the devil were taken out into the streets and had their heads shaved. I'm wondering how Caroline and Liz would look bald.
How did she get away with it??? How about how is Liz and Caroline getting away with this disgusting slander every week. This podcast is surely so slanderous its completely criminal.
She was found guilty. Twice. It can't be slanderous if it's entirely true.
Cope cope cope, moan moan moan, cry cry cry. It's so entertaining watching people lose their minds because they don't like something, and delusional
@@aaronbaird8724 she was found guilty by idiot Jurers, doesn't make ANYTHING true. If they said the earth was flat, doesn't make it so.
the only disgusting person is the troll called Mervyn
Hahaha. This is exquisite. That you think a convicted murderer being called a convicted murderer meets the legal definition of 'slander' tells us all we need to know about your grasp of law, and therefore how little we need to heed your thoughts on Letby's case.
If her name was Lubna Lakhani and not Lucy Letby, she'd never have been arrested.
If her name was Lubna Lakhani, people wouldn't be so eager to believe she's innocent. Lovely White Lucy gets the benefit of your doubt though.
@@8964TS Especially if Lubna Lakhani had notes where she wrote explicitly “I killed them.”
The evidence is overwhelming. She literally wrote it in her diary. People come to her defence because of their own biases of what criminals look like.
Pretty women have been getting away with murder since the beginning of time, because people just give them the benefit of the doubt.
No they don’t. It’s because the evidence against her is so weak and contradictory. Your assertion about the diaries shows you are about a year out of date. It is now known the diaries contained notes written on the advice of her therapist after she was accused. They also contain statements refuting the allegations but these were not mentioned in court. This is how innocent people end up in prison because prosecutors use every trick in the book including engaging biased and deluded expert witnesses who should not be allowed anywhere near a criminal case, except possibly as defendants.
Sorry for typo..broadness, not broodiness
use edit )