Just came over here for the same!
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
I’m all good 
fo sho!
fo sho!Anouk Curry is up to her old tricks again.
www.telegraph.co.uk
Key Letby witness accused of flawed evidence in shaken baby conviction
Jailed father seeks to overturn judgment by challenging expert who helped convict nurse
Not really surprising that the jailed father say anything to get out of prison. There is clear medical evidence of deliberate harm in that case.Anouk Curry is up to her old tricks again.
Key Letby witness accused of flawed evidence in shaken baby conviction
Jailed father seeks to overturn judgment by challenging expert who helped convict nurse
They can all shout and speak crap all they want but the reality is Letby is having another miserable Christmas in jail, watching her back and counting down the years till she passes in there.
Hoepfully we will hear the appeals have failed again soon and they will all move on to another case.
Also 2026 maybe hear if she’s going to be charged again, and also if any of the management team will be joining her!
Merry Christmas everyone!
Hoepfully we will hear the appeals have failed again soon and they will all move on to another case.
Also 2026 maybe hear if she’s going to be charged again, and also if any of the management team will be joining her!
Merry Christmas everyone!
Agreed !
Yes Merry Christmas all of us left on this thread !
Yes Merry Christmas all of us left on this thread !
Haven’t been on this thread in a long time, in all honesty I began to forget she existed. Saw this video pop up and the comments are full of people lacking brain cells entirely all claiming they knew she was innocent from the beginning 🥱
I’ve said all along, if she was a man or a less ‘attractive’ woman, (I don’t find her attractive, she is the absolute spit of my ex girlfriend
), then no one would be defending her and claiming she’s innocent.
Wonder did she have a nice birthday
Hope the plain Jane bleep rots in jail
Just gone down another side-track - Sky documentary about the Diane Garbutt / Post Office murder. It's interesting to see how the case splits the community / families and how some people are still deeply invested in the idea of the accused's innocence to the point it dominates their lives. Notable that they 'just don't believe' the person they knew could murder someone, implying that the police / trial lawyers have wrongly interpreted the evidence or worse.
There's a very familiar pattern in their arguments i.e. that if you take separate pieces of evidence in isolation from one another, you can speculate there's an alternative explanation for several of them individually - the court defence in the PO murder made these type of arguments: as discussed on the Letby threads, that's pretty much all a defence barrister can do when the totality of the evidence points at their client.
Also a familiar tactic of referring the verdict to the appeals court and CCRC by claiming different 'new evidence' each time, finding an expert witness prepared to widen the parameters of a piece of forensic evidence to cause 'debate' against majority expert opinions.
I remember Sarah Koenig having a moment towards the end of the original 'Serial' where she wonders if you could question the individual pieces of evidence in any criminal conviction and raise doubts - wondering what she herself might have just done perhaps.
With podcasts and social media it's a potent way of encouraging 'engagement' which I guess Letby's ghost train of supporters are trying to get.
This engagement provides defence teams with a sort of second public-opinion jury, all the people who are following online, going through evidence - not all of it the actual evidence presentable in court - to 'make their own minds up' independently of the actual court cases. Lots of people seem primed to choose 'sides', for every case to have a 'twist in the narrative' or be a 'miscarriage of justice' story because that's how HBO and Netflix structure their high- ratings doccos. I wonder how much this can interfere with proper judicial process.
I think it was Tofino who said some news outlets switched 'sides' re Letby to 'is she innocent after all?' after the guilty verdicts because there's no engagement left in her proven guilt - which is beyond cynical of them.
There's a very familiar pattern in their arguments i.e. that if you take separate pieces of evidence in isolation from one another, you can speculate there's an alternative explanation for several of them individually - the court defence in the PO murder made these type of arguments: as discussed on the Letby threads, that's pretty much all a defence barrister can do when the totality of the evidence points at their client.
Also a familiar tactic of referring the verdict to the appeals court and CCRC by claiming different 'new evidence' each time, finding an expert witness prepared to widen the parameters of a piece of forensic evidence to cause 'debate' against majority expert opinions.
I remember Sarah Koenig having a moment towards the end of the original 'Serial' where she wonders if you could question the individual pieces of evidence in any criminal conviction and raise doubts - wondering what she herself might have just done perhaps.
With podcasts and social media it's a potent way of encouraging 'engagement' which I guess Letby's ghost train of supporters are trying to get.
This engagement provides defence teams with a sort of second public-opinion jury, all the people who are following online, going through evidence - not all of it the actual evidence presentable in court - to 'make their own minds up' independently of the actual court cases. Lots of people seem primed to choose 'sides', for every case to have a 'twist in the narrative' or be a 'miscarriage of justice' story because that's how HBO and Netflix structure their high- ratings doccos. I wonder how much this can interfere with proper judicial process.
I think it was Tofino who said some news outlets switched 'sides' re Letby to 'is she innocent after all?' after the guilty verdicts because there's no engagement left in her proven guilt - which is beyond cynical of them.
Great post and very true. The idea of Letby being guilty and therefore basically putting the case to bed, isn't really beneficial to the media, and social media. They want clicks and engagement.
The key pieces of evidence showing the babies were deliberately harmed are rarely mentioned now; such as the X rays showing air, the post mortem reports showing air not a blood clot for baby A and baby O's puncture liver injury showing no blood loss because it occured after death. This evidence requires specialised experts such as paediatric radiologist, paediatric pathologist and endogologist to analyse the insulin evidence, McDonald doesn't appear to have any of these experts and just skims over this evidence in his press releases.
The public are then fed unrelated stories of other miscarriages of justice or maternity scandals. Dewi Evans is painted as a pantomime villian while the work of the other experts is ignored.
Yes documentaries will frequently miss out the prosecution evidence giving a false impression of the case. Over the years even the BBC have broadcast "is X innocent?" programmes.
The judge sentencing Garbutt said his story of a robbery was ludicrous from beginning to end and he was right. Luke Mitchell is another one for whom a persuasive case can be made if you leave out the prosecution evidence.
Luke
Luke Mitchell campaigners are strangers to the truth and evidence all to suit their own grifting narrative. Blame anyone and everyone but Luke Mitchell for the murder without any evidence. Even the victims brother. They ignore actual evidence and court transcripts,block anyone that questions their narrative, threaten and stalk people including a journalist. Constantly put it out there that there was no dna of luke on the victim when they're corrected that their was dna and that it was agreed by defense and prosecution not to use it as evidence as victim and luke were in a relationship and it would be expected his dna would be on her. Anyone pointing this out is a liar . They go to any lengths to protest his innocence except actually look properly at evidence. They're all off their heads.
This behaviour is very common amongst innocence campaigners - Jeremy Bamber has them too. The late Paul Foot was convinced that James Hanratty was innocent - even when they dug up his body and made a DNA match he wouldn't accept it. He still has campaigners even now.
I can't understand why the Daily Mail - despite the obvious answer that they are a shitrag - continue to champion this baby killer with the reverence of a hard core religious type hysteria seen in the old south bible belt.
Is it purely a class thing? There must be more to it when it seems obvious to me she's guilty as sin???
Have been convinced the wretched Peter Hitchens just fancies her for a while, tbh.
Is it purely a class thing? There must be more to it when it seems obvious to me she's guilty as sin???
Have been convinced the wretched Peter Hitchens just fancies her for a while, tbh.
I think it's something I've said before but some people will continue to maintain their position even in the face of overwhelming contradictory evidence because they cannot bear to lose face. It shows an incredible lack of humility. I think, also, that some will maintain a contradictory stance because there's money and attention in it for them (i.e. tabloid writers). I've got much more respect for those who are brave enough to admit they were wrong, explain their position on something and why it has changed. There were posters who did it on here, back in the day. That kind of person has true moral fibre and an ability to take a 360 around a topic, examining it from different perspectives. I can't stand people who just persist with the 'I'm right, I'm right, I'm right' narrative (We all know someone like that, personally, and have seen it online). Their ego and defences must be so sensitive that they will never, ever concede fault nor flaw in their thinking. Not one person alive is 100% 'right' all of the time.
The DM always puts money over compassion. It always seems to be Mail on Sunday that publishes the pro Letby articles, I guess they must have different editors to DM. But dont they ever stop to think about the poor families who've lost their beautiful babies and now have to suffer all these stupid articles.
- Status