- Notice
F1Grid
VIP Member
Speak for yourself this is going to be me four days a week without this threadI have to say, as much as I've enjoyed (enjoyed isn't the right word but you get what I mean) this thread, keeping up with it lately has felt like part time job so I'm fucking buzzing for all the free time I'll have when it's over
I'll enjoy it so much more knowing that LL is rotting in a cell, never to set foot in a matalan or sports direct ever again.
Stiltoncheese
Chatty Member
I took that as him subtly saying don't be sick again please so we can sum up and do closing statements
MmmB777
VIP Member
When I’m out of words, you know you’re fucked.Surely you of all people can find some words
DoseofReality
VIP Member
gigilouxx
VIP Member
In my defence I’ve tweeted worse to her face but it gets deleted, fucking Elon
---
They’re probably still in trauma therapy after watching her shag the absolute life out of her bathroom wall with the Fanny Stuffer 1000If only the cats could talk. Bet they’d tell some stories
DoseofReality
VIP Member
Richard mate these babies showed no signs of viral infection!! They had enough tests that would have shown it if they were.
Were there signs of viral infection? No.
Did blockages in the sinks coincide with these deaths and sudden desats? No.
Did all blockages reported affect NNU? No.
Were doctors and nurses left without hand-washing facilities? No.
Did they ever have to close down the ward because of blockages in the sinks? No.
Can a plumber testify that a blocked sink would medically affect babies? No.
Did the plumber's testimony add anything useful to the case? No. Only to appease Lucy randomly throwing that in during her testimony.
Stick it down the u-bend with the rest of the shit.
Were there signs of viral infection? No.
Did blockages in the sinks coincide with these deaths and sudden desats? No.
Did all blockages reported affect NNU? No.
Were doctors and nurses left without hand-washing facilities? No.
Did they ever have to close down the ward because of blockages in the sinks? No.
Can a plumber testify that a blocked sink would medically affect babies? No.
Did the plumber's testimony add anything useful to the case? No. Only to appease Lucy randomly throwing that in during her testimony.
Stick it down the u-bend with the rest of the shit.
elloelloello
VIP Member
Whilst I think it’s pretty hilarious that the only defence was a plumber, I can’t help but also feel terrible for all the parents. How utterly pathetic is one witness, and a plumber? What the fuck does plumbing have to do with the harm inflicted on these poor innocent souls. It’s almost insulting?! She is disgusting for putting them through this.
Stiltoncheese
Chatty Member
I feel sorry for the tattler that's on the bus hoping to catch the trial live after lunch. She will wonder what the fuck has happened.
Also, once LL is found guilty, do you think she will be one of those people who suddenly talks and grants interview as it gives her attention again or do you reckon she will always be a denier?
Also, once LL is found guilty, do you think she will be one of those people who suddenly talks and grants interview as it gives her attention again or do you reckon she will always be a denier?
LilyRose1234
VIP Member
I’m going to slightly disagree with this - jury verdicts can be, well unusual is a diplomatic way of looking at it. Even with “hard evidence” you’re not always guaranteed a guilty verdict. Whilst there may not be any cctv etc here, there is enough circumstantial evidence to create a thorough picture of what has happened - e.g air embolism, insulin etc, and then by process of elimination the only person left who could have plausibly been involved is LL but much harder to prove than if there was video footage of her doing it for sure!
In relation to the Reddit post about it being a strategic move, it is sometimes strategic not to call any witnesses, but in a case involving murder of multiple babies with the potential of a whole life order, that’s not a strategic move I think I’d make! This case is far too serious to sit on any medical evidence/character evidence/psychiatric evidence to try and gain a strategic advantage
elderflowerrose
Well-known member
I have compassion for Lucy’s parents too, they must have been through absolute hell and will continue to do so.
I’ve never wanted or needed my children to be great or do amazing things, but ‘first do no harm’ isn’t a bad philosophy for life. They must feel awful.
I’ve never wanted or needed my children to be great or do amazing things, but ‘first do no harm’ isn’t a bad philosophy for life. They must feel awful.
Wellthisisinteresting
VIP Member
Can you imagine the police’s reaction watching this knowing all of their hard work is so close to having justice. 
Deeznutslol
VIP Member
Richard Gill is a really odd character tbh. He’s not an idiot or some sort of armchair expert on twitter by any means, he’s clearly extremely intelligent and his work has featured in highly respected scientific journals such as Science and Nature.
The reason why he got De Berk’s conviction overturned is because her conviction was based partially on a really dodgy statistical analysis which concluded that the chances of her being present for all of the ‘murders’ (deaths) she was accused of carrying out was 1 in 324 million and therefore it had to be her. Richard Gill then proved that this was incorrectly calculated and it also came out that a lot of the testing which proved she had supposedly poisoned people with digoxin had been done inappropriately, so her conviction ended up being overturned.
Lucia de Berk was obviously unfairly convicted and I can see why Gill thinks that there are certain similarities between her and Letby, but I find it shocking how completely blind he is to his own blatant cognitive bias. He literally decided from the offset that Letby was an innocent scapegoat and is now absolutely determined to prove it, even though the weight of the medical evidence against her is so strong right now. I also have a feeling that in recent years, he may have fallen into conspiracy theories, his twitter is full of stuff about COVID. It’s sad really because I think at this point, he’s running the risk of ruining his own reputation if he continues to push this theory.
The reason why he got De Berk’s conviction overturned is because her conviction was based partially on a really dodgy statistical analysis which concluded that the chances of her being present for all of the ‘murders’ (deaths) she was accused of carrying out was 1 in 324 million and therefore it had to be her. Richard Gill then proved that this was incorrectly calculated and it also came out that a lot of the testing which proved she had supposedly poisoned people with digoxin had been done inappropriately, so her conviction ended up being overturned.
Lucia de Berk was obviously unfairly convicted and I can see why Gill thinks that there are certain similarities between her and Letby, but I find it shocking how completely blind he is to his own blatant cognitive bias. He literally decided from the offset that Letby was an innocent scapegoat and is now absolutely determined to prove it, even though the weight of the medical evidence against her is so strong right now. I also have a feeling that in recent years, he may have fallen into conspiracy theories, his twitter is full of stuff about COVID. It’s sad really because I think at this point, he’s running the risk of ruining his own reputation if he continues to push this theory.
BillingtonArms
New member
I'll never forget the absolute gowl over on reddit who suggested the mothers must have been abusing alcohol and drugs for all these babies to be premature. They have no shame.
Tofino
VIP Member
It was really hard and I’m not sure I’ve done enough to pass (very poor pass rate on this exam) but I’ve definitely done better than Lucy Letby’s defence
not that it’s a particularly high bar to meet… I actually have a chance of passing whereas I don’t think Lucy has any chance of being found NG.
craig84
Member
It's been mentioned before that LL lived in front of a cemetery. I thought it was a bit weird but never looked into it until today.
If you look at these photos from google maps you can see her house number 41 and directly behind the two small square areas of the cemetery. You can see this area better in street view and you’ll notice the dolphin sculpture. It’s the same one in this link
www.cheshire-live.co.uk
Surely it can’t be a coincidence that possibly the UK’s worst child killer bought a house directly in front of a baby memorial garden where her victims could be remembered. She would be able to see it from her bedroom window
There’s gonna be loads of crazy shit come out about her once she’s found guilty isn’t there
If you look at these photos from google maps you can see her house number 41 and directly behind the two small square areas of the cemetery. You can see this area better in street view and you’ll notice the dolphin sculpture. It’s the same one in this link
This special addition has been made to Chester's Baby Memorial Garden
A moving ceremony was held at Blacon Crematorium
Surely it can’t be a coincidence that possibly the UK’s worst child killer bought a house directly in front of a baby memorial garden where her victims could be remembered. She would be able to see it from her bedroom window
There’s gonna be loads of crazy shit come out about her once she’s found guilty isn’t there
Attachments
Tofino
VIP Member
The idea that BM has not called any medical experts as a defence tactic is frankly absolutely absurd.
I will add that I’m saying this based on this case only, I’m sure there may be cases it could be a valid defence tactic.
For this case, to play a tactic like that would be so dangerous for the defendant. She’s got 22 charges on the indictment. She only has to be found guilty of ONE to be locked up for life.
For BM to make this a tactical decision would mean the following
1. he decided not to find any of their own expert evidence for the causes of death / collapses and just leave it to the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt.
How likely is this? You wouldn’t ask even one other medical expert for their opinion on why these babies collapsed? What if it was actually a virus or poor care and asking another expert could have proven this? (I’m of course talking about the early stages of him building a defence for lucy)
2. he did get some evidence of other possible causes or problems with the prosecution evidence but BM decided not to share it because he thinks the prosecution evidence isn’t strong enough so jury don’t need to see it.
I mean, wtf? If my barrister was behaving like this I’d be asking for new representation. Even if I was guilty!!
Just absolutely inconceivable that BM would take this level of risk on charges of this scale as a ‘tactic’.
I will add that I’m saying this based on this case only, I’m sure there may be cases it could be a valid defence tactic.
For this case, to play a tactic like that would be so dangerous for the defendant. She’s got 22 charges on the indictment. She only has to be found guilty of ONE to be locked up for life.
For BM to make this a tactical decision would mean the following
1. he decided not to find any of their own expert evidence for the causes of death / collapses and just leave it to the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt.
How likely is this? You wouldn’t ask even one other medical expert for their opinion on why these babies collapsed? What if it was actually a virus or poor care and asking another expert could have proven this? (I’m of course talking about the early stages of him building a defence for lucy)
2. he did get some evidence of other possible causes or problems with the prosecution evidence but BM decided not to share it because he thinks the prosecution evidence isn’t strong enough so jury don’t need to see it.
I mean, wtf? If my barrister was behaving like this I’d be asking for new representation. Even if I was guilty!!
Just absolutely inconceivable that BM would take this level of risk on charges of this scale as a ‘tactic’.