HeyI've gone for unsure. Been reading and observing but not got any useful insight to add for now.
Yeah I have made that point a fair few times, but I haven't watched it and should really seems as I'm following this so closely. I didn't know that, that is bold. I just don't know though. The medical evidence we've heard isn't great but the fact the deaths were initially ruled to have happened due to other causes does cast doubt in my mind. The texts aren't exactly a 'gotcha' moment for the prosecution. I see what other posters say a picture is starting to emerge though and that's probably what's swayed me to unsure. Things from both sides have me thinking hmmmmmm.Hey, I wanted to discuss a point you have brought up a few times over the previous threads (I think it was you). You know when you couldn’t get your head around the timing of baby A’s death how letby was so brazen to murder her first alleged victim after starting he shift so shortly before! Well I don’t know if you have watched the Beverly Allit documentaries ? But she murdered or attempted to (can’t remember which) her first victim after only working in the unit for four bloody days! Madness so it isn’t I’d say that crazy in comparison to that. Just a thought doesn’t prove anything but made me think of your post last night x
That's it, the evidence has to be strong enough so there's no grounds for appeal. That's why I was concerned about experts going down data traps and using statistics. Even through my own personal experience, I've never thought this was negligence...I couldn't even wrap my head around that.I've never voted, but I've always felt she was guilty and nothing has yet changed my mind. I think I said before, I almost 'want' her to be guilty, because if she's not then there is the most horrendous cover up ever, and/or there's someone else running around killing babies. Obviously she should have a fair trial, not least because if she is guilty and gets life I dont want her to have grounds for appeal.
Id give it a watch! Another big point I took from the documentary which is comparable here, was those children were also ruled as dying from other causes. It wasn’t until they delved deeper, made the professional (can’t remember the job title) take another look that it changed the reason for their collapse’s. They also later on managed to get hold of old blood samples which showed poisoning for many of the victims! The said blood samples should have been thrown out after 6 months but they weren’t because the lab where they were held hadn’t got round to it (sheer luck). Allit could have so easily walked free or been found NG for many of her victims. The only one they had any real proof of prior to the above was from a child poisoned by insulin, but again that could have easily been thrown out if they couldn’t prove she was linked to other collapse’s.Yeah I have made that point a fair few times, but I haven't watched it and should really seems as I'm following this so closely. I didn't know that, that is bold. I just don't know though. The medical evidence we've heard isn't great but the fact the deaths were initially ruled to have happened due to other causes does cast doubt in my mind. The texts aren't exactly a 'gotcha' moment for the prosecution. I see what other posters say a picture is starting to emerge though and that's probably what's swayed me to unsure. Things from both sides have me thinking hmmmmmm.
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?