Lucy Letby: the ineffable truth: Difference between revisions

Line 33:

{{drop|I|f you are}} excused from having to make your case, you are excused from ''defending'' it from an all-points attack. This, again, is the hallmark of conspiracy theories — which appeal to innuendo and the general distrust of what one cannot see — and quite the opposite of criminal justice methodology. The prosecution must disclose everything it finds, however damaging to its own case to the defence in plenty of time before trial. It is understood that every point in the chain of logic is open to scrutiny.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The claim that someone meeting Ms Letby’s description would commit ''any'' act of physical violence, let alone serial murder of defenceless infants, is extraordinary. Why would a well-socialised medical professional with no known [[~~criminal~~ propensity|criminal propensities]] do that? Why would anyone even ''suspect'' it, absent direct eye-witness evidence?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The claim that someone meeting Ms Letby’s description would commit ''any'' act of physical violence, let alone serial murder of defenceless infants, is extraordinary. Why would a well-socialised medical professional with no known [[Criminal propensity|criminal propensities]] do that? Why would anyone even ''suspect'' it, absent direct eye-witness evidence?

We are told, disingenuously, that the “dodgy spreadsheet” had nothing to do with it. Well, what did then? What prompted the jury to entertain the inference that Lucy Letby was a murderer at all, let alone beyond reasonable doubt? No-one seems to be able to say. No one saw anything. No closed-circuit TV captured anything. We are just expected to believe that, somehow, this was all apparent to the court.

Line 44:

{{quote|{{Conspiracy theory capsule}}}}

It is ~~also marked~~ in ~~contrast~~ to the ~~defence case~~, ~~whether made by Ms~~. ~~Letby’s actual defence~~ team ~~and their~~ experts ~~or those~~ the ~~unaffiliated journalists~~, ~~statisticians~~, ~~doctors~~, ~~scientists~~, ~~lawyers~~ and ~~(ahem) windbags~~ who have ~~chosen to speak on her behalf~~. The defence case is by nature public, detailed, specific articulated, and welcoming of good-faith challenge. It has not had much. The credible challenges that have come back have been either ''formal'' in nature— the rules have been followed, she had her chance, ''alea iacta est'' — or somehow ''mystical'' — there are things about this process that resist intellectual inquiry and must not be disturbed.

Firstly, Mr McDonald’s putative conspiracy — orchestrating a cabal of senior neonatologists from around the world into hoodwinking the world into believing a serial murderer is innocent — is not going awfully well, since Ms. Letby is currently in prison for fifteen whole-life terms, and has exhausted her formal rights of appeal.

Nor is it clear what his unstated ulterior motive might be. What does he, or this unpaid collection of eminent neonatologists, expect to get out of perverting the course of justice?

And in what sense has anyone kept anything secret? To the contrary, Mr McDonald has shipped a fair bit of professional criticism for courting publicity. This is, among barristers, really not the done thing. It is certainly not the done thing amongst secret conspirators.

And again, rather against the conspiracy playbook, Mr McDonald has been garrulous about the arguments he and his team of experts wishes to make. He has held interminable press conferences. He has circulated slides. He has invited questions. He has set out his arguments, in the alternative, in tremendous detail. He has opened himself to detailed rebuttal. Some have, rather feebly, tried to provide it.<ref>Liz Hull’s analysis is {{Pl|https://web.archive.org/web/20250212070002/https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14386175/new-evidence-Lucy-Letby-innocent-LIZ-HULL.html|here}}. Christopher Snowdon’s is {{Pl|https://www.spiked-online.com/2025/02/08/the-devils-advocates/|here}}. The closing submissions on behalf of Family Groups 2 and 3 to the Thirlwall Inquiry — which would not hear any evidence doubting Ms. Letby’s guilt, remember — are {{Pl|https://thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Written-Closing-Submission-of-Family-Group-2-and-3-7-March-2025.pdf|here}}.</ref> In places, the alternatives have not entirely cohered.

This is not how conspirators behave.

Indeed, all the “strange band of misfits and ghouls” who have questioned the safety of the conviction have adopted the same stance. The defence case is by nature public, detailed, specific articulated, and welcoming of good-faith challenge. It has not had much. The credible challenges that have come back have been either ''formal'' in nature— the rules have been followed, she had her chance, ''alea iacta est'' — or somehow ''mystical'' — there are things about this process that resist intellectual inquiry and must not be disturbed.

This is especially perplexing since it is generally the prosecution who must makes the intellectual running. The burden of proof is such that it is the crown, not the defence, that should be best at spelling out the ingredients of its case. That the burden reverses on conviction should not alter this fact

@@ Line 33: / Line 33: @@
 {{drop|I|f you are}} excused from having to make your case, you are excused from ''defending'' it from an all-points attack. This, again, is the hallmark of conspiracy theories — which appeal to innuendo and the general distrust of what one cannot see — and quite the opposite of criminal justice methodology. The prosecution must disclose everything it finds, however damaging to its own case to the defence in plenty of time before trial. It is understood that every point in the chain of logic is open to scrutiny.
-Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The claim that someone meeting Ms Letby’s description would commit ''any'' act of physical violence, let alone serial murder of defenceless infants, is extraordinary. Why would a well-socialised medical professional with no known [[criminal propensity|criminal propensities]] do that? Why would anyone even ''suspect'' it, absent direct eye-witness evidence?
+Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The claim that someone meeting Ms Letby’s description would commit ''any'' act of physical violence, let alone serial murder of defenceless infants, is extraordinary. Why would a well-socialised medical professional with no known [[Criminal propensity|criminal propensities]] do that? Why would anyone even ''suspect'' it, absent direct eye-witness evidence?
 We are told, disingenuously, that the “dodgy spreadsheet” had nothing to do with it. Well, what did then? What prompted the jury to entertain the inference that Lucy Letby was a murderer at all, let alone beyond reasonable doubt? No-one seems to be able to say. No one saw anything. No closed-circuit TV captured anything. We are just expected to believe that, somehow, this was all apparent to the court.
@@ Line 44: / Line 44: @@
 {{quote|{{Conspiracy theory capsule}}}}
-It is also marked in contrast to the defence case, whether made by Ms. Letby’s actual defence team and their experts or those the unaffiliated journalists, statisticians, doctors, scientists, lawyers and (ahem) windbags who have chosen to speak on her behalf. The defence case is by nature public, detailed, specific articulated, and welcoming of good-faith challenge.  It has not had much. The credible challenges that have come back have been either ''formal'' in nature— the rules have been followed, she had her chance, ''alea iacta est'' — or somehow ''mystical'' — there are things about this process that resist intellectual inquiry and must not be disturbed.
+Firstly, Mr McDonald’s putative conspiracy — orchestrating a cabal of senior neonatologists from around the world into hoodwinking the world into believing a serial murderer is innocent — is not going awfully well, since Ms. Letby is currently in prison for fifteen whole-life terms, and has exhausted her formal rights of appeal.
+Nor is it clear what his unstated ulterior motive might be. What does he, or this unpaid collection of eminent neonatologists, expect to get out of perverting the course of justice?
+And in what sense has anyone kept anything secret? To the contrary, Mr McDonald has shipped a fair bit of professional criticism for courting publicity. This is, among barristers, really not the done thing. It is certainly not the done thing amongst secret conspirators.
+And again, rather against the conspiracy playbook, Mr McDonald has been  garrulous about the arguments he and his team of experts wishes to make. He has held interminable press conferences. He has circulated slides. He has invited questions. He has set out his arguments, in the alternative, in tremendous detail. He has opened himself to detailed rebuttal. Some have, rather feebly, tried to provide it.<ref>Liz Hull’s analysis is {{Pl|https://web.archive.org/web/20250212070002/https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14386175/new-evidence-Lucy-Letby-innocent-LIZ-HULL.html|here}}. Christopher Snowdon’s is {{Pl|https://www.spiked-online.com/2025/02/08/the-devils-advocates/|here}}. The closing submissions on behalf of Family Groups 2 and 3 to the Thirlwall Inquiry — which would not hear any evidence doubting Ms. Letby’s guilt, remember —&nbsp;are {{Pl|https://thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Written-Closing-Submission-of-Family-Group-2-and-3-7-March-2025.pdf|here}}.</ref> In places, the alternatives have not entirely cohered.
+This is not how conspirators behave.
+Indeed, all the “strange band of misfits and ghouls” who have questioned the safety of the conviction have adopted the same stance. The defence case is by nature public, detailed, specific articulated, and welcoming of good-faith challenge. It has not had much. The credible challenges that have come back have been either ''formal'' in nature— the rules have been followed, she had her chance, ''alea iacta est'' — or somehow ''mystical'' — there are things about this process that resist intellectual inquiry and must not be disturbed.
 This is especially perplexing since it is generally the prosecution who must makes the intellectual running. The burden of proof is such that it is the crown, not the defence, that should be best at spelling out the ingredients of its case. That the burden reverses on conviction should not alter this fact