This nurse Letby case

[COYBL25]

It has definitely been trial (and assumed guilt) by media. If she's guilty then so be it but if found not guilty she's finished in the eyes of the general public anyway as her photo is displayed every day on all TV channels so no chance of anonymity.

She’ll clean up if she’s found not guilty.

The gutter press loves cases like this

 

[COYBL25]

as long as she doesn't sign for Rangers

Or date Nathan Patterson.

 

[davek]

You mean a serial killer, who hid her evil, behind the failings of the NHS and who has tried to use it as her defence ?

That's yet to be established.

 

[Nymzee]

Sad to see the Ale House get clogged with CA threads just because the lemon is banned.

 

[lancs blue]

Or date Nathan Patterson.

Bill's after a nurse

 

[lancs blue]

Sad to see the Ale House get clogged with CA threads just because the lemon is banned.

Is he feeling the squeeze

 

[davek]

It has definitely been trial (and assumed guilt) by media. If she's guilty then so be it but if found not guilty she's finished in the eyes of the general public anyway as her photo is displayed every day on all TV channels so no chance of anonymity.

Big compensation claim would be her only solace.

 

[Rita_Poon]

Sad to see the Ale House get clogged with CA threads just because the lemon is banned.

 

[Blue 1]

Is this case no longer sub judice, then?

 

[Shevin Keedy]

She might well be. But that defence lawyer took apart the evidence against her over the last few days and started to point the finger of a failing Trust scapegoating a health worker for their own failings.

That wouldn't surprise me tbh.

I;m sure there'll be people more informed than me on this who work in the NHS.

Well to be honest anyone who's drawn a conclusion over what's been reported over the last few weeks / months would be an idiot, as it's only the prosecution that had presented a case thus far. One side of the story will always give you a biased result. I had to keep explaining to my missus that we need to hear everything before we can draw conclusions. My missus is far from an idiot by the way, she just sometimes needs pointers with critical thinking.

 

[davek]

Well to be honest anyone who's drawn a conclusion over what's been reported over the last few weeks / months would be an idiot, as it's only the prosecution that had presented a case thus far. One side of the story will always give you a biased result. I had to keep explaining to my missus that we need to hear everything before we can draw conclusions. My missus is far from an idiot by the way, she just sometimes needs pointers with critical thinking.

Exactly.

I switched off from this early last year. I thought with all that smoke there must be fire. She may well be guilty, btw. But the prosecution case looks very flimsy and based on hearsay that's all but crumbled. Some of the evidence against Letby was given by witnesses who prior to being called as witnesses offered their services to the crown prosecution as advisers...paid presumably. Then there was the matter of Letby being accused of turning off the machine keeping a baby alive and then it was established it was two doctors who did that. And the science concerning the injection of air and its effect on newborns was pretty much reliant on a medical paper written in 1989 about the effect of air embolism on infants - and misrepresented that paper.

I'd keep an open mind on this one.

 

[Davidoff]

Exactly.

I switched off from this early last year. I thought with all that smoke there must be fire. She may well be guilty, btw. But the prosecution case looks very flimsy and based on hearsay that's all but crumbled. Some of the evidence against Letby was given by witnesses who prior to being called as witnesses offered their services to the crown prosecution as advisers...paid presumably. Then there was the matter of Letby being accused of turning off the machine keeping a baby alive and then it was established it was two doctors who did that. And the science concerning the injection of air and its effect on newborns was pretty much reliant on a medical paper written in 1989 about the effect of air embolism on infants and misrepresented that paper.

I'd keep an open mind on this one.

I must say from what bits I've read/seen, it's all looked very circumstantial

 

[davek]

I must say from what bits I've read/seen, it's all looked very circumstantial

I always think when the media are searching about for a ducking stool there might be more to it.

The British media are vermin and I wouldn't mind betting the rats have got another one wrong.

 

[COYBL25]

Bill's after a nurse

He’d see her off.

 

[arch stanton]

Has anyone been following this?

The media have set her up as an evil witch for the past year. I wasn't that interested in it but the last few days summing up of their case by the defence has you thinking there's something more to this than her actions.

one thing I do know about these things is that you cant make a judgement on snippets one hears/reads, a proper judgement can only be made if all of the evidence is heard and really, only if you have seen the people give their evidence. Words cant always portray how shifty/convincing a person is. Barristers are incredibly good at what they do. I know her barrister from his other life as a children's author, he is very good.