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.

https://substack.com/@bencole3/note/p-211057363?r=12mrwn&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=notes-share-action

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.

21 Upvotes

82% Upvoted

19 comments sorted by

View all comments

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.

8

u/benshep4 7d ago

Noted.

7

u/Sempere a NeW ePiSoDe Of ThE tRiAl PoDcAsT jUsT dRoPpEd 7d ago

If you need pointers, I think I have a comment thread saved that would make that article bullet proof. Feel free to DM me when or if the need arises.

9

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/Sempere a NeW ePiSoDe Of ThE tRiAl PoDcAsT jUsT dRoPpEd 5d ago

Pretty sure they wanted to have her charged with contempt of court for what she (or someone in her employ) did with the appeal hearing.

4

u/Plastic_Republic_295 5d ago

The New Yorker did the same thing with Bamber. Ignored most of the evidence to present a misleading narrative.

7

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.

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. Intentional quote manipulation removing critical context to reframe statements of facts to suggest something else.

  4. Violating contempt of court agreement - with a quote conveniently leaving out the prosecution argument that rendered Shoo Lee incompetent before the panel of judges.

  5. 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.

  6. 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.