Lucy Letby

Yet another one jailed for being a serial rapist today too. I think Clive's post is a timely reminder that all cops are bastards.

 

In the evidence that was given during the trial, it is repeated over and over again that the babies were 'stable' until Letby did her insulin or air injection, or gave them too much milk or did "unknown sabotage of some sort".

Reading a long document by scientists raising concerns about the scientific evidence used in the trial. They point out:

"An infant diagnosed with jaundice or admitted to the neonatal unit for ventilation by definition is NOT clinically stable."

It's a very interesting article, although some of it is a bit impenetrable for a non-scientific dullard like me. I'd recommend having a read:

https://rexvlucyletby2023.com/

 

Did your innocent train ticket friend have documents at home that she’d written explaining that she’d taken the money and that she was a terrible person for doing so ?

 

Was this post an attempt at humour? Either way it's a fairly unfair way to describe somebody. I imagine the last few years investigating this appalling crime or crimes must be incredibly hard on somebody, especially their mental health so to come out and say that is pretty distasteful to be honest

 

And yet, when you don’t have a psychotic killer on the ward, the death rate amongst these NOT clinically stable babies is still only about 1 in 1000.

 

An 8 pinter is what I'm seeing here.

 

And yet the number of infant mortalities at that hospital during the years in question, 2015-2016, was below the national average.

And the mortality rate increased in 2017-2018 when Letby wasn't there.

 

Where did you get that info from?

Doesn't tally with what's reported elsewhere.

Lucy Letby: Newborn deaths doubled at hospital where nurse arrested on suspicion of babies' murders worked | The Independent | The Independent

Death rate at Countess of Chester maternity unit among highest in country - Cheshire Live (cheshire-live.co.uk)

 

No one has suggested she is psychotic. That implies specific symptoms and she has no diagnosis I have heard of. This is one of the discomforts of the case. There is nothing of that sort to hang this on.

If you mean sociopathic, then she is almost by default because of her crimes.

 

You or her?

 

I see her best friend is now in the papers, passionately defending her friend and saying it's impossible she could have done the crimes.

Is there any precedent for this? I mean I can't recall Harold shipman's bestie coming out and defending his honour.

Another strange aspect of the case imo.

 

According to that scientists article I linked to:-

• The cumulative infant mortality rate at the Countess of Chester Hospital, for 2015 and 2016 was lower than the national average.
• The number of perinatal deaths in 2017 and 2018 was higher than in 2015 and 2016, but Lucy Letby was not on the ward in these years
  

Perhaps they're measuring different statistics? All of the statements in the article you linked to AND those above may well all be true.

 

I suspect this is correct. The links I posted were reporting on neonatal deaths, while as near as I can tell (it's dense and not well sourced, plus I only had time for a quick scan) the site you posted is referring to total infant mortality rate and not scoped to neonatal.

If anything, that makes the situation in the neonatal unit worse. If the hospital was doing well everywhere except on the neonatal unit, it doesn't paint a picture of administrative incompetence or negligence being to blame for the deceased neonatal infants.

 

Surely it was the very opposite of a miscarriage of justice, as according to you, the court did the right thing and found her not guilty on all counts? Isn't that justice working properly?

 

You would bang my brains out. Trust me. I'm a 10/10.

 

That's a f***ing disgrace mate. Such an attack on a person of colour would have been removed in minutes and the person banned for a long time. I thought you were better than that.
Why is the post still there?

 

Yes, we really should confine ourselves to slagging off only children and the religious.

 

With a hammer I'd imagine.

 

I was confused why so few have mentioned what Clive posted, now I understand.

 

My #161 torpedoes that little chestnut and there have been lots of other comments. But you haven’t explained why you think it’s ok for you to slag off people according to your blanket prejudices.

 

Yes, but not all cops are brutish, not all Anglo-Saxons are evil and not all people not lucky enough to have pink skin are saintly.

 

The religious deserve everything they get. Bigoted, brainwashed idiots, in turn filling their own kids heads with a lack of self worth, subjugated to the whims of some mad man from thousands of years ago and taught that those who don't share their views are somehow less human.

 

I’m 100% atheist, but neither atheists or religious people have a monopoly on moral behaviour or bringing up kids badly.

They tuck you up, your mum and dad, said Phillip Larkin or maybe it was Harry Hill.

 

I think that may be more the misrepresentation of what a certain ‘mad man from thousands of years ago’ is reported as actually saying. The tragedy was the fact that how subsequent ‘explanations’ of what we should believe he meant to say became more important than what was actually said…

 

I think if you have take Christianity and Islam, both are pretty clear on a various controlling, exclusive and unpleasant stuff. If anything these parts are glossed over in the mainstream or some mental gymnastics is applied to make them less nasty.

Just take the concept of hell for non believers for starters.

 

But to revert to Since 63's post, did the concept of hell play much of a role in Jesus' original teachings, or was it a point of Jewish theology later adapted and emphasised by the medieval church?

 

I thought @Clive's post was quite funny. Certainly nothing racist about it. Not everyone sees the same thing when they look at a picture

 

Exactly my point. Jesus wasn’t liked by ‘organised Jewish Orthodoxy’ and a large part of that was his concentration upon love and forgiveness at the expense of the less ‘emollient’ aspects of orthodoxy.

 

The literal word of religion is frankly bonkers and yes, often repellent. Fundamentalists who try to follow it and impose their view of it on others are deplorable.

But I don’t believe many Christians actually have that medieval conception of hell in their minds, either for them or others. For most Christians I meet belief is a more personal matter that can positively inspire them, sometimes to help others. Most are fine or at least no worse than anyone else and that’s enough.

 

You sound like a Church of England vicar

 

You sure it was "tuck" ?

 

Hell is hot. That's never been disputed by anybody.

 

Isn't it creepy that vicars get called "father".

Also "reverend" as we're supposed to revere someone who's only read one book.