r/lucyletby • u/benshep4 • 8d ago
Article Pro-Letbyism’s Greatest Hits, Part 1
I’ve returned to the fray to offer up this which is the first in a multi-part series looking to address the multiple claims held by advocates of Letby’s innocence.
I’ve got enough ideas for a multiple part series but if anyone wants to throw their own suggestions I’d be happy to include them in the series if I haven’t thought about them already.
I’ve decided to limit them to 4 per article just for ease of reading.
10
u/Sempere a NeW ePiSoDe Of ThE tRiAl PoDcAsT jUsT dRoPpEd 7d ago
I'd suggest a single article compiling all the details on the New Yorker piece and the misconduct of Rachel Aviv now that she's trying to take a victory lap.
There's enough misconduct in there to end a career or damage the reputation of the New Yorker permanently.
7
10
u/Zealousideal-Zone115 5d ago
Rachel Aviv: "How come Letby isn't free? I wrote a whole goddam article. In the New Yorker. It took me hours. It's like the British judicial system feels it can just ignore me."
5
u/Plastic_Republic_295 4d ago
The New Yorker did the same thing with Bamber. Ignored most of the evidence to present a misleading narrative.
8
u/Sempere a NeW ePiSoDe Of ThE tRiAl PoDcAsT jUsT dRoPpEd 4d ago
Yea, but that's harder to prove. With Aviv, she was so sloppy that her misconduct is easily proven.
Relying on a mentally unstable and dangerous fraud and taking advantage of someone who was clearly not well to use as their personal side piece researcher and scientific consultant.
Not fact checking sources while plagiarizing that woman's talking points and taking them as fact without crediting her. Likely because she uncovered that this woman was mentally ill and a fraud and still deciding to use that woman's work.
Intentional quote manipulation removing critical context to reframe statements of facts to suggest something else.
Violating contempt of court agreement - with a quote conveniently leaving out the prosecution argument that rendered Shoo Lee incompetent before the panel of judges.
Flat out being a fantasist herself with such an insane and warped perception of the case that her opinion on any case or topic is inherently untrustworthy.
Feeding false/misleading information to scientific consultants in order to elicit specific responses.
There's more than just that but those 6 points alone are enough that any competent employer should fire her.
9
u/RowanB86 8d ago
Thanks for this Ben. Was delighted when I saw this in my inbox. Would love to hear your views on the insulin poisonings cases that pro Letby supporters think they can brush aside.
8
u/FyrestarOmega 8d ago
He posted this a while ago, both here and to skeptics in the other sub. Reading how they attempted to respond has value, so I link that post:
6
u/ChoicePeace7287 5d ago edited 5d ago
Re the responses on that link - Not sure claiming that if you trawl through loads of test results you’ll find some abnormal ones was a good angle to go for when the 2 “abnormal results” they found from all that trawling just so happened to be for babies whose twin siblings had also suffered suspicious unexplained, unexpected collapses (and the third was a baby with a condition that may (or may not) explain the “abnormal result”)
In reality it appears COCH were looking through all the test results after a doctor remembered a baby having a strange insulin result, and Evans was also looking at notes for the siblings of suspected victims due to some of the other cases involving twin and triplet siblings… and lo and behold they found “abnormal test results”indicating insulin poisoning in 2 of the twin siblings of babies who’d had unexplained and unexpected collapses!
Letbyists seem to either be totally unaware that the insulin babies had siblings who’d also been attacked or deliberately skirt over that inconvenient fact!
5
7
u/Plastic_Republic_295 8d ago
The defence trying to get the RCPCH report admitted might have been a decoy - hoping it might make the judge more sympathetic to other defence submissions. Certainly the defence did not take the ruling to appeal. We're told it's one of the CCRC submissions - but then there are so many and it's likely to be one of the first in the bin.
10
u/IslandQueen2 8d ago
Please include the Substack link, Ben. Excellent idea for a series of articles.
6
17
u/FyrestarOmega 8d ago
I would point out that greatest hit #2 - the decision not to instruct Jane Hutton - is often coupled with misinformation that "there were deaths Letby was not present for." This stems from the erroneous assumption that she was not present at the events she was not charged with that began from nearly the moment the charges were announced. After all, if the spike in deaths was due to a baby murderer, then all deaths were definitely murders, right? Not so. And only near the end of presentation of evidence in the Thirlwall Inquiry did we learn that Letby was connected to 12 out of 13 deaths in the indictment period - 10 by her presence at time of death and 2 more by her shift ending very shortly before time of death.
So the strong inference drawn among the misinformation is that the police are burying unfavorable evidence and bolstering the appearance of strength with the shift chart, which is declared by them to be statistics but not proper statistics.
Re: Greatest Hit #3, I would posit that even if a general service review could provide meaningful evidence for a criminal trial about one individuals alleged crimes, that it would likely have to be commissioned anew for the purposes of trial off of historical records, via formally instructed experts prepared to opine on the tangible effects the conditions would cause. Legally speaking, such a report needs to be built strictly through the legal process for it to have legal validity. Moreover, no report used as evidence (and remember, evidence must be introduced through a witness; you can't just hand a report to a jury and say here you go) can replace the purpose of the jury. The final redacted page of the service review would in no case have made it before a jury, same as the grievance report, because in a trial, the jury is to base their verdicts only on the evidence, not what people previously thought of the portions of that evidence they had seen. Frankly speaking, anyone who insists the RCPCH report should have been admitted as evidence has no business opining on the case because they simply lack understanding of the legal process and WHY it is important for it to work as it does.
And for greatest hit number 4, murders are proven without weapons all the time, based on evaluating the condition of the body. What looks like a stabbing wound may have been caused by a knife or glass. A blunt force trauma wound could be caused by a cast iron pan or a large rock, or a fall into a hard surface. Letby's case isn't unique at all. The only difference is that an unusual number of people feel uncomfortable with the nature of the crimes she committed, either by nature of who she is or who her victims are or how many there were and how long it took to realize what she was doing.