• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Merged Concerns over baby killer ignored? / Nurse Lucy Letby killed babies in her care

lionking said:
I’m really seeing a lot of similarities to the false imprisonment of Lindy Chamberlain. Awkward demeanour, saying things that are easily misconstrued, being “weird”, not fitting standard roles, the police needing a quick result and dodgy forensic evidence.

For what it’s worth I saw through the Baby Azaria miscarriage of justice very early. It’s taken longer for Letby, but it’s clear to me now. The intransigence of the UK justice system is still powerful, but the evidence of an unsafe conviction keeps mounting up.

ETA trial by tabloid as well
Click to expand...
The lesson I have learnt from the Lindy Chamberlain case is to be wary of PR campaigns. Hers was one of the earliest. I bought her book, fully believed the hype. But then one day I saw the prosecution case (=fanatical 7th Day Adventists, who take the Bible literally, conceived a daughter, named her Azaria, as close to the Old Testament story, to literally sacrifice her in the desert, as in same). Obviously, only Lindy (and Sally, and Amanda, and Barry) know what REALLY happened but I for one am glad she was taken to court by the state acting on behalf of the poor baby who had no voice. The thing to remember about PR agencies - as with Letby's one - is that they are influencers, persuaders and advertisers. They'll only tell you good positive things about their product (=in this case a convicted murderer). They will never tell you about the empty calories, excess packaging, poor value for money and price mark-up, so to speak, so the best policy in a criminal case is to take it to a proper criminal court. Of course, we have to accept the court's verdict, which is why we accept Lindy's and Sally's convictions were unsafe. What we have in the Letby case is the old, old story of the evil villainous rogue directing the 'miscarriage of justice'; in this case, Dr. Dewi Evans, who is the new evil, wicked prosecutor, Mignini, and Letby the harmless cheery nurse, who only ever wanted to look after babies. So claim the PR influencers.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
The lesson I have learnt from the Lindy Chamberlain case is to be wary of PR campaigns. Hers was one of the earliest. I bought her book, fully believed the hype. But then one day I saw the prosecution case (=fanatical 7th Day Adventists, who take the Bible literally, conceived a daughter, named her Azaria, as close to the Old Testament story, to literally sacrifice her in the desert, as in same). Obviously, only Lindy (and Sally, and Amanda, and Barry) know what REALLY happened but I for one am glad she was taken to court by the state acting on behalf of the poor baby who had no voice. The thing to remember about PR agencies - as with Letby's one - is that they are influencers, persuaders and advertisers. They'll only tell you good positive things about their product (=in this case a convicted murderer). They will never tell you about the empty calories, excess packaging, poor value for money and price mark-up, so to speak, so the best policy in a criminal case is to take it to a proper criminal court. Of course, we have to accept the court's verdict, which is why we accept Lindy's and Sally's convictions were unsafe. What we have in the Letby case is the old, old story of the evil villainous rogue directing the 'miscarriage of justice'; in this case, Dr. Dewi Evans, who is the new evil, wicked prosecutor, Mignini, and Letby the harmless cheery nurse, who only ever wanted to look after babies. So claim the PR influencers.
Click to expand...
What is the point in this mass of incoherent drivel?

The Chamberlain conviction was comprehensively debunked, year ago. She wasn't guilty of killing her daughter, this is a simple fact.

You repeatedly refuse to address the facts of the Letby case; the disproved statistics, the dubious medical "evidence" et cetera.
 
catsmate said:
What is the point in this mass of incoherent drivel?

The Chamberlain conviction was comprehensively debunked, year ago. She wasn't guilty of killing her daughter, this is a simple fact.

You repeatedly refuse to address the facts of the Letby case; the disproved statistics, the dubious medical "evidence" et cetera.
Click to expand...
I would thank you to watch your impolite language and tone. Lionking was talking about how he knew from the outset Chamberlain was innocent and now he knows from the same intuition (?) that Letby is 'wrongly imprisoned'. But how does he 'know' this? Given there has been a lengthy trial in front of two different juries, whose verdict was 'guily' in fifteen cases, having heard ALL of the evidence, and two applications to the Court of Appeal turned down, how does Lionking intuit Letby is 'wrongly imprisoned'? It is obviously nonsense. This is why PR agencies in the guise of so-called 'innocence' campaigners are so despicable. They play on people's natural sense of fair play, compassion and justice. Maltin PR, Letby's new PR agency, has invaded public spaces such as the left-leaning GUARDIAN, relying on people's natural hatred of injustice and the DAILY MAIL/TELEGRAPH full of semi-educated readers happy to take the word of rabid columnists such as Barbara Vine, Knapton, Hitchins, Dorries as being the 'voice of the people' or Phil Hammond of PRIVATE EYE as another exciting injustice campaign, rather like the PO/Horizon one, cynically pushing a faked agenda of 'MOJ'. Why do they do this? because they know from past history - Chamberlain, et al - that it works.

A true sceptic can see right through this. Only the gullible easily taken in by PR believe the hype that females are not capable of heinous crimes beyond the imagination of most people. In any case, Lindy Chamberlain, Sally Clarke and the most recent 'unsafe' conviction in Australia of a woman who spent twenty years in jail for the murder of four of her children, is not a good analogy here, as these were mothers accused of killling their own children. Medics, such as Geen, Allitt, Norris (aka Campbell), Shipman et al are quite different types of murder. (a) They are opportunistic, (b) they are serial, (c) the victims are not known to them personally, (d) they are acting as 'god': a power thing. The idea that Letby is female, therefore she is just like all other female convicted killers is a sweeping generalisation, which is better avoided. Does she have any similarity at all to Chamberlain? I would argue none at all, other than gender. And the massive PR campaign.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
I would thank you to watch your impolite language and tone. Lionking was talking about how he knew from the outset Chamberlain was innocent and now he knows from the same intuition (?) that Letby is 'wrongly imprisoned'. But how does he 'know' this? Given there has been a lengthy trial in front of two different juries, whose verdict was 'guily' in fifteen cases, having heard ALL of the evidence, and two applications to the Court of Appeal turned down, how does Lionking intuit Letby is 'wrongly imprisoned'? It is obviously nonsense. This is why PR agencies in the guise of so-called 'innocence' campaigners are so despicable. They play on people's natural sense of fair play, compassion and justice. Maltin PR, Letby's new PR agency, has invaded public spaces such as the left-leaning GUARDIAN, relying on people's natural hatred of injustice and the DAILY MAIL/TELEGRAPH full of semi-educated readers happy to take the word of rabid columnists such as Barbara Vine, Knapton, Hitchins, Dorries as being the 'voice of the people' or Phil Hammond of PRIVATE EYE as another exciting injustice campaign, rather like the PO/Horizon one, cynically pushing a faked agenda of 'MOJ'. Why do they do this? because they know from past history - Chamberlain, et al - that it works.

A true sceptic can see right through this. Only the gullible easily taken in by PR believe the hype that females are not capable of heinous crimes beyond the imagination of most people. In any case, Lindy Chamberlain, Sally Clarke and the most recent 'unsafe' conviction in Australia of a woman who spent twenty years in jail for the murder of four of her children, is not a good analogy here, as these were mothers accused of killling their own children. Medics, such as Geen, Allitt, Norris (aka Campbell), Shipman et al are quite different types of murder. (a) They are opportunistic, (b) they are serial, (c) the victims are not known to them personally, (d) they are acting as 'god': a power thing. The idea that Letby is female, therefore she is just like all other female convicted killers is a sweeping generalisation, which is better avoided. Does she have any similarity at all to Chamberlain? I would argue none at all, other than gender. And the massive PR campaign.
Click to expand...
Your ignorance is….. impressive, as is your ability to ignore the point of anyone who disagrees with your opinion. Yet you accuse others of ignorance. Wow.

As I said earlier in this thread, your batting average on trials and errors threads is abysmal. I look forward to you eating your words when Letby is cleared.

Oh, what am I saying. You will never do that. No matter how wrong.
 
lionking said:
Your ignorance is….. impressive, as is your ability to ignore the point of anyone who disagrees with your opinion. Yet you accuse others of ignorance. Wow.

As I said earlier in this thread, your batting average on trials and errors threads is abysmal. I look forward to you eating your words when Letby is cleared.

Oh, what am I saying. You will never do that. No matter how wrong.
Click to expand...
Are you able to explain your special intuition of knowing Letby is innocent?
 
lionking said:
Looking at the new evidence. Know what? I’m actually open to changing my mind. If you
look back to early posts in this thread, I thought it was a correct conviction.

Have you ever changed your mind about a case?
Click to expand...
Having seen how effective PR is, and having read the views of others in opposition to mine, for example, Planigale, I have come to think perhaps Sally Clarke, for example, and Lindy Chamberlain, years later, were right to have come under suspicion and tried. As I said, no-one can ever know what REALLY happened, except the perp/s. A court can only weigh up the probability of whether they are guilty as charged. It is designed to give the benefit of a doubt to the defendant. To strengthen the prosecution's case before allowing it to go to court, the police have to build a convincing case - who used to make the decision to charge - the decision to charge decided by a body independent from the police, the CPS. The case is then passed over to yet another separate body, the judiciary. Again, the case is decided by a jury of twelve randomly selected members of the public 'faire and true', as described in the 16th century. I honestly cannot see how you 'just know' Letby was unfairly convicted x 15 times when her application to appeal has been refused twice.
 
Vixen said:
Having seen how effective PR is, and having read the views of others in opposition to mine, for example, Planigale, I have come to think perhaps Sally Clarke, for example, and Lindy Chamberlain, years later, were right to have come under suspicion and tried. As I said, no-one can ever know what REALLY happened, except the perp/s. A court can only weigh up the probability of whether they are guilty as charged. It is designed to give the benefit of a doubt to the defendant. To strengthen the prosecution's case before allowing it to go to court, the police have to build a convincing case - who used to make the decision to charge - the decision to charge decided by a body independent from the police, the CPS. The case is then passed over to yet another separate body, the judiciary. Again, the case is decided by a jury of twelve randomly selected members of the public 'faire and true', as described in the 16th century. I honestly cannot see how you 'just know' Letby was unfairly convicted x 15 times when her application to appeal has been refused twice.
Click to expand...
Oh please. You clearly know nothing about the Chamberlain case. Stop posting about it.
 
lionking said:
Oh please. You clearly know nothing about the Chamberlain case. Stop posting about it.
Click to expand...
You were the one who introduced 'Letby being just like Chamberlain' as your having smugly knowing Letby was innocent thanks to recent campaigns. I merely pointed out how effective her PR was that I had also believed in Chamberlain's one. I bought her freaking book and believed her every word...until I read the prosecution case, years later. Rule of law. There was sufficient probable cause to suspect her. She was freed after the courts found her conviction unsafe. ...Thanks to a massive PR campaign. We have a massive PR campaign here. Letby has hired a PR company who know how to manipulate public perceptions. So tell us, what made you change your mind she is now innocent? Perhaps you are not as independently minded as you believe.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
You were the one who introduced 'Letby being just like Chamberlain' as your having smugly knowing Letby was innocent thanks to recent campaigns. I merely pointed out how effective her PR was that I had also believed in Chamberlain's one. I bought her freaking book and believed her every word...until I read the prosecution case, years later. Rule of law. There was sufficient probable cause to suspect her. She was freed after the courts found her conviction unsafe. ...Thanks to a massive PR campaign. We have a massive PR campaign here. Letby has hired a PR company who know how to manipulate public perceptions. So tell us, what made you change your mind she is now innocent? Perhaps you are not as independently minded as you believe.
Click to expand...
You really, seriously think Chamberlain was guilty? Well there is no hope for you. I should know better than to dip into threads you feature in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom