Independent Leyton Orient Forum

Currywurst and Chips wrote: ↑Fri Aug 30, 2024 10:20 am

CEB2ElectricBoogaloo wrote: ↑Fri Aug 30, 2024 10:16 am The element of danger adds 1 point, and the mentalness adds 2. I don’t make the rules

Way off on this one, her bed featured her teddy bear collection and her room had “motivational” quotes like “ Leave Sparkles Wherever You Go” posted around it

Yeah, but that could just be all a show to hide the absolute filth.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/art ... ounsellors

Guardian article on Letby's confession notes.

Yeah, I’d be under “extreme stress” if I’d murdered a load of babies and everyone knew it was me too

It doesn’t change a thing

Admin wrote: ↑Tue Sep 03, 2024 7:43 pm https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/art ... ounsellors

Guardian article on Letby's confession notes.

Doctors and nurses DO experience deaths of patients they have treated/ cared for/ attended to. No doubt that they will have an emotion/ sentiment about this. They may have thoughts such as 'did I do everything I could' ? But Letby' s ramblings are way off the scale. Why now this effort to try and diminish the significance of them?

It's starting to look like she had a rubbish defence team representing her, and that the possibility of an unsafe conviction is nudging higher. But I still think she did it. That the death rate normalised after she was removed from the unit is damning.

Dunners wrote: ↑Wed Sep 04, 2024 7:18 am It's starting to look like she had a rubbish defence team representing her, and that the possibility of an unsafe conviction is nudging higher. But I still think she did it. That the death rate normalised after she was removed from the unit is damning.

“Damning”?

The questionable cause—also known as causal fallacy, false cause, or non causa pro causa —is a category of informal fallacies in which the cause or causes is/are incorrectly identified. In other words, it is a fallacy of reaching a conclusion that one thing caused another, simply because they are regularly associated.

Rich Tea Wellin wrote: ↑Wed Sep 04, 2024 8:04 am

Dunners wrote: ↑Wed Sep 04, 2024 7:18 am It's starting to look like she had a rubbish defence team representing her, and that the possibility of an unsafe conviction is nudging higher. But I still think she did it. That the death rate normalised after she was removed from the unit is damning.

“Damning”?

The questionable cause—also known as causal fallacy, false cause, or non causa pro causa —is a category of informal fallacies in which the cause or causes is/are incorrectly identified. In other words, it is a fallacy of reaching a conclusion that one thing caused another, simply because they are regularly associated.

That's what the pro-Letbyists are arguing. And their counter-argument to explain the increased death rate, whilst Letby was present, was that her unit was under-resourced/equipped to deal with so many infants requiring the degree of care they needed. And a consequence of that was loads of them died who may otherwise have survived.

What is clear is that both of these theories (baby murdering nurse v crumbling NHS) need to be interrogated in a court setting, with witnesses supporting both arguments properly interrogated and tested. But, if I were a betting man, I'd still be tempted to lump on the baby murdering nurse.

For me, one of the most damning pieces of evidence produced against her, were the strange notes that she wrote, seemingly indicating her culpability. It now transpires that she was told to write the confessional notes relied on by prosecutors to convict Lucy Letby of murdering seven infants were written by the neonatal nurse on the advice of counsellors to cope with stress, it has been reported... https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/0 ... unsellors/

This case is starting to look very dubious indeed.

Hopefully, if we can all apply the skills we've acquired when investigating Covid origins, the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the middle-east conflict, and debating the Labour election strategy, we can probably get to the bottom of this case once and for all.

Friend or faux wrote: ↑Wed Sep 04, 2024 9:16 am For me, one of the most damning pieces of evidence produced against her, were the strange notes that she wrote, seemingly indicating her culpability. It now transpires that she was told to write the confessional notes relied on by prosecutors to convict Lucy Letby of murdering seven infants were written by the neonatal nurse on the advice of counsellors to cope with stress, it has been reported... https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/0 ... unsellors/

This case is starting to look very dubious indeed.

She wasn’t told to write “confessional notes”, she was told to write about her feelings.

It seems like there’s a lot of conflation of the differing questions
1: did she do it?
2: should she be found guilty based on the case that was made in court?

A few on here seem to be working on the basis that an unsafe conviction = she didn’t do it.
Much as I hate to say it, Mick McQuaid is probably right in a lot of what he said earlier in the thread about the prosecution.

It seems to me that the way this will end up is that the botched case will result in Letby being released on the basis that the conviction was unsafe, and a lot of people will think it means she didn’t do it.
My take is she definitely did it, but the case as presented (and as poorly defended) could have allowed an innocent Letby to have been convicted, too. The principle that we should reach the threshold of “beyond reasonable doubt” is more important than any one case.

CEBTwat:-My take is she definitely did it,

So you was there at the time watching over her shoulder?

Friend or faux wrote: ↑Wed Sep 04, 2024 10:39 am CEBTwat

I really dislike this kind of abuse dished out behind anonymous usernames. No wonder people don't use the Board as much any more.

Whatever, PoopJoe!

Lots of people are starting to sound alarms about the quality of her defence and the due process of her trial, including a serious magazine like Private Eye, with decades of history exposing miscarriages of justice. I don't know if she's innocent or guilty but it sounds as if she didn't have a fair trial. It surprises me here that people with no legal / police experience are so willing to declare someone innocent or guilty over things they read on X, former Twitter, and so on.

elO wrote: ↑Wed Sep 04, 2024 11:04 am It surprises me here that people with no legal / police experience are so willing to declare someone innocent or guilty over things they read on X, former Twitter, and so on.

Have you met the general public before?

As per others above, I suspect we'll never know definitively whether she was guilty or not but a lot of things are pointing towards flaws in the prosecution and trial process, which will mean the conviction is unsafe. Not that she didn't do it, but that there's reasonable doubt somewhere along the line.

elO wrote: ↑Wed Sep 04, 2024 11:04 am Lots of people are starting to sound alarms about the quality of her defence and the due process of her trial, including a serious magazine like Private Eye, with decades of history exposing miscarriages of justice. I don't know if she's innocent or guilty but it sounds as if she didn't have a fair trial. It surprises me here that people with no legal / police experience are so willing to declare someone innocent or guilty over things they read on X, former Twitter, and so on.

Exactly the conflation of the concepts I mentioned three posts above

Friend or faux wrote: ↑Wed Sep 04, 2024 10:39 am CEBTwat:-My take is she definitely did it,

So you was there at the time watching over her shoulder?

Yes.

Dunners wrote: ↑Wed Sep 04, 2024 10:47 am Whatever, PoopJoe!

Cuntstanza gets through the filter.

My sister, who is also a white nurse, is very confident that the trial was unfair.

Well, if Letby had been falsely accused and unfairly jailed she wouldn't even be the first one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucia_de_Berk_case

Her character seems dodgy.

From someone who was there in court for 10 months https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66104004

The lack of emotion
The messages to friends
The relationship with a doctor
The Facebook searches
The lying testimony

It is very difficult coming to a judgement, even if you sit through the whole of a trial. Making a decision over innocence or guilt via TV/newspaper reports is a mugs game. Being there, watching defendants/ witnesses body language adds another dimension. However I was at a court case & I was sure that the defendant was innocent. His explanation of how he got caught " in flagrante delecto ", was so convincing and he was so confidant in his own innocence, he made mincemeat of the prosecution council.( He was accused of doctoring a chocolate dispensing machine to steal money ). The Judge part-way through the trial, ordered the Jury to bring in a " not guilty ". On On the way to Orient, years later, my stepson wanted a bar of chocolate. He put his money in a machine & nothing happened. He had an investigation & Lo! Money came pouring out. He was more street wise than me. If you know how to behave in a Court you sometimes get away with murder. Similarly if you are over-whelmed or have a personality fault you can suffer an injustice. Oscar Wilde: 'The truth is rarely pure and never simple.'

Like CEB to be really sure, you need to be right behind the defendant looking over his/her's shoulder when the crimes are comitted. CEB's Supernatural powers has now made him my hero!

Friend or Faux, talking bollock
Thought judgements were surely ad-hoc
A thief he’d acquit
Til he realised “oh 5hit!”
“It’s easy to steal vended choc!”