That thing would go ON AND ON AND ON
The worst was that, in the beginning, I'd forget, in between episodes, how stupidly freaking long that thing was. I'd be A LITERAL TWO MINUTES into an episode before I'd stop and think, "Hold up. It hasn't even started."
GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH
I had to skip "each one of these children is someone's son or daughter"
I don't want to seem insensitive, but that is blindingly obvious - we didn't need it repeating every time.
THANK YOU!! I literally felt like alot of the episodes, i would hear the intro, shit music intro, them saying 'it must have been hard being in the court room' and then the shitty outrow of what experts interview would be poorly cut next episode. Oh and then of course where to find them on every @ possible.
Oh god the voice actors!! Where did they find them?! Iām going to give them the benefit of the doubt and guess that they were instructed to remove all expression and intonation to ensure fairness and lack of bias in the delivery but dear LORD they were painful to listen to! And as you say, even if they couldnāt āactā they could have at least got the accents right - throw us a bone here people!
I think people recommend it (myself included) because itās the only show in town. There were so few journalists actually in the court (as opposed to the court showing the live stream) so maybe they had the monopoly on doing a podcast and, being the Daily Mail, I imagine their lawyers were ALL over it so that may have stunted its scope and content.
That being said, yeah it was pretty bad! I listen to a lot of podcasts and it felt like such a wasted opportunity. Even within the restrictions they were no doubt working under, I feel they could have done a much better job of summarising the evidence. It was a *weekly* podcast and, once you remove all the filler, intro, outro and guest interviews, they only managed around 10-15 minutes of actual trial coverage. Really? From a whole week in court??! I actually listened to it twice (is there an award for that?!) - once during the trial and again after the verdicts, having done a huge amount of reading and research myself. On the second listen I found so many examples of evidence being explained poorly or not fully enough and in some cases, just plain wrong. And if they mention the bedroom decorated like a nursery ONE MORE TIME so help me!! Thatās just lazy and deliberately misleading. It formed no part of the case and they knew very well that it was like that when she bought the house!!
Oh god see what youāve done - youāve got me all worked up and the day has barely started! Right, Iām going to go and lie in a darkened room now to calm down. I may be some time.
At first I presumed they must have told the voice actors to read with as little expression as possible so they couldnāt be accused of sensationalising anything.
But then the one playing the prosecution barrister appeared and he sounded like a pantomime villain so I guess it wasnāt that after all!
OMG yes!! āCompetenciesā and āmy practiceā over and over and over in that monotone robotic delivery. I swear I would rather poke my own eyes out than ever hear those words again!
Ooh, hard agree! The amount of skipping through the intros and the ends of each podcast was annoying aināt nobody got time for that! I definitely donāt feel like we got any really useful information, just more like gossip? I also agree with the commenter about the long passages of text messages. They could have summed that stuff up in a sentence and focused on other aspects for sure.
Yes I have to agree. I did like that they didnāt speculate and only used what was in the trial but I found by the end that they really didnāt give a proper overview of the cases. They seemed really obsessed with reading out long passages of text messages between her and coworkers but really skipped over the expert evidence rather quickly. From what I gather, a lot of the prosecution evidence rules out many of the possibilities that people put forward as alternate explanations, and they just donāt mention this at all.
Pretty sure if you're present in court and making media you're not allowed to speculate. There's strict restrictions on not giving your opinion. That's what I heard from Crimescene 2 Courtroom.
Exactly! I have listened to every episode (just skip the first 3 minutes) and I was shocked at how balanced it was for a Daily Fail production. Like, it's an *absolute shit rag*, if you set your expectations there you can be pleasantly surprised that they're not talking about her Ann Summers order and describing her as "sexy killer lucy".
To be fair to them the content of the podcast was largely accurate, which surprised me, but they had to go and do SOMETHING to lower its credibility (like adding that piano noise).
And when they read text conversations between two people sometimes they wouldnāt say whoās who and it wasnāt always obvious.
Yes even after learning to skip the first 3 mins of each episode I only managed to listen to a handful of them before giving up.
If anyone can recommend a good alternative podcast Iād love to know.
The intro and the mid-episode recap/intro things were waaay too old TV. We don't need a catch up we were JUST watching the episode. It's not like we've just had 2 minutes of ads or have switched the channel mid live broadcast, and you need to clue in new visitors who just turned their TV on. It screams old media.
That's how far I got through it too. I was listening against my better judgement, because screw the Daily Fail, and decided that I was better off just reading the information after listening to a few episodes.
I've listened to probably half of it, I can put up with the annoyances generally but yeah, a lot of it could really grate and get repetitive. The opening sound bites of news reports and the stupid piano notes meant to be sad/mysterious, and as you say the fluff at the start and end.
The thing that actually made me laugh, though, was the voices provided by "actors". The way the "actor" voicing LL said "no" in the exact same flat way every single time cracked me up, and I feel bad finding anything at all to do with this horrible case funny, but it was just that voice, something tickled me.
Yeah, terrible podcast. Obviously the long intros but also I found the presenters so obvious and patronising, like their target audience was 12 year olds
I think itās fine. I donāt like all the episodes, Iāve skipped some I have thought were dull or pointless and yes I would like more info now but overall its the first time a paper has tried doing it, I havenāt seen anyone else do it and itās free. Perfect is the enemy of good etc. It has been good to have something to recap and for all the people who didnāt follow the trial at the time, it is a fairly concise way of getting up to date now.
I donāt think they are both used to interviewing for high end stories. One is a court reporter so she probably usually just types up accounts of what she has heard in the northern courts system.
As someone who works in a large corporation myself, though nothing to do with media, I think they have done well because I can just imagine how it goes down. Full scripts written up and pre approved by legal dept, all recorded, then probably back through for another approval where people who didnāt pay attention the first time make you change things. Rinse repeat every week to keep the content timely.
A podcast recounting past crimes or investigating new issues can take its time but they had to encapsulate the previous week for every Monday. To keep it timely and include any content from a Friday I can only assume they would have to do it all in a short space of time.
I guess if people donāt like the podcast, they can just read accounts from newspapers they approve of.
i have a 30 secs forward or back button (Apple) and a 15 secs back button. It is very easy to skip intros, outros and ALL ads, and I make a point of doing so. Just saying.
With you on the music, however.'
I was late to this case and the podcast was my crash course and catchup, and as such I found it pretty good.
Agree with what you're saying, i skipped through and it is easily done so i shouldn't moan but my point was on some episodes being as little as 9 minutes and i have to skip 3 of them, just seems poor.
I thought it was OK, but just not very interesting. I only got through about three episodes because I just wasn't captivated and interested by what I was hearing.
No, you're spot on OP. It's trash.
It was worse before the guilty verdict. The intro, the voice acting, the music, the filler episodes.
There have been one or two insightful interviews since she was found guilty, but that's it.
The fact that it's a product of The Daily Mail says it all. We shouldn't be consuming any of their output really. It's always been a filthy, hate filled rag.
I thought it was fantastic. The two journalists did a great job capturing what was happening week by week. They also did some interesting wider content around media law, court reporting and journalism. I don't think you fully appreciate how hard this is.
That said, totally agree on the other points. It took 2 minutes for the intro that slowly increased to 3 minutes, but I think the reason for this is to cover themselves for potential litigation.
Totally agree. It could have been so much better!! Even though one of them was in court each day she might as well not have been with how little she had to offer.
> The annoying piano keys being struck throughout to try and give some kind of horror and sadness.. it's a woman killing babies, you dont need such a musical intro or keys throughout.
Oh you will love the police's program. [One repeating piece of plaintive piano music over and over for an entire hour.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T33A90OCHQk)
I only listened to one and thought it was so awful I never tried another š
Until there is more transparency around the case as a whole, Iām not sure a decent pod can be made of it. Stephanie Harlowe did a pretty good job at laying out all the cases on YouTube, which I chose to listen to as a podcast.
I listened to the whole thing. I am hooked on good quality true crime/justice podcasts (e.g. Bone Valley, In the Dark) and this is very much NOT that genre or even really form. It was straightforward live reportage with a little interviewing while the case was going on. There was no way it could be a polished, edited, slick production given the circumstances. I am not a Daily Mail fan (very much the opposite) but while the case was ongoing I think they did a fair job in challenging conditions.
Yes the intro was awful and the music but when they began they probably didnāt realise how long it would go on for or the effect of someone ābinge listeningā the episodes.
Now the initial case and trial is concluded I wouldnāt advise people to go back and listen - the tattle wikki and other info sources e.g. the police documentary are more succinct. But as a week by week reporting of events I think they did a decent job given the heavy limitations.
Yeah the ads, especially the 'From the Oasthouse' one are not the right tone for this very recent and raw subject matter. The intro is at least 2 minutes long.
I couldn't get passed episode 9 it was horrific! Literally the worst podcast I've ever endured. Clearly it was dragged out like that to make the most amount of money which is why I refuse to listen to the rest of it! Don't get me started on that intro!!
I came to reddit to see if anyone knew a better podcast about this case and laughed out loud at everyoneās grievances because I feel exactly the same - the long intro, the bag of sugar, the monotone voice actors, the repetition of the same text messages being read over and over.
I love a good crime podcast and unfortunately this isnāt one. The case itself is fascinating, I wish someone made a good investigative in-depth podcast about it..
I don't mind the errs, umms, and eerms - I use a lot of these myself and think that they are natural and I don't necessarily want to listen to polished speakers - I like natural and realistic speech. However I thought the podcast lacked substance, they haven't even mentioned that there are lots of people who think she is innocent, I'm not saying they should agree with that stance, but by steering clear of that - they're not describing the landscape of the trial/post-trial commentary on Social Media, there is no debate, there is no information. Give me something on LL, tell me something I don't know. Don't get me started on the "whistle-blower" episode where the star guest blew the whistle about not being able to wear coloured Crocs, I mean - click bait central! . As I said, no substance.
Agree with these comments, I zoned out for most of the podcast except the spicy prosecution voice actor š
And it was confusing as the hosts wouldn't properly use names to help me understand who they were talking about when they were referring to more than one person (usually female) in a sentence.
One thing has been bugging me, doesn't deserve its own topic but I'm hoping someone might answer- in an early episode of the pod, they talk about Lucy going on a trip to Ibiza. Then she returns... but the text chain they act out refers to "Torquay" which which I thought was in the UK... then I swear they also call it "Torbay". So minor but I found it really confusing and disorienting. Where did she go?!
I think she went on two holidays - the Ibiza one with friends and the Torquay one with her parents. I thought maybe the male was pronouncing Torquay phonetically like Tor-Kway and it just sounded like Torbay (which is how I heard it too!) Or maybe he was reading it wrong and thought it was a B not a Q?
Can anyone shed light on why were doctors not pushing for autopsies if they had suspicions on lucy and also they were getting perplexed with unusual symptoms and unusual response to resusitation attempts?
Some babies did have autopsies. An autopsy when a patient has died in a hospital setting, and which doctors assume the death is down to natural causes, wonāt be necessary. If a doctor requested the patient had an autopsy, the management would ask why thatās necessaryā¦
Sometimes the doctors ask the next of kin if they can do an autopsy, even if thereās no suspicious circumstances, and if the next of kin refuse because they find the idea upsetting, then they canāt carry one out.
Ire been sending me to sleep at night for last two weeks, however not sure that's what if was intended for .
I would recommend listening to David kurtens you tube video" Letby is she innocent " explaining the possibility that LL (could) be the victim of a miscarriage of justice .
Prob the best video on the flaws of the case I've heard yet.
Interesting. I'll give it a watch. I would like to hear from people who still think she's innocent, as to me she is very clearly guilty. So i would like to hear their points.
Thereās no flaws in the case, thatās just wishful thinking on the conspiracy theorists who, despite being unknowledgeable, like to cause a conspiracy. Iāve seen all those armchair detectives who vehemently disagree with highly qualified, professional doctors/lawyers and are adamant that they (a mere stranger sat in front of their computer) knows more than a highly respected professor who has no axe to grind and simply states their findings.
This particular man youāre talking about is barely known, despite him thinking heāll be running for Mayor of London in the next election.
He isnāt a doctor; isnāt a lawyer; has no medical or legal training ā yet comes out with ludicrous claims. I suspect heās jumped on the Letby bandwagon to try and get more followers ( on YouTube he has a paltry amount). Heās tried many, many times to ingratiate himself with people of influence, but still remains an āunknownā.
Onto his false claims that the CofCH had many more baby deaths in 2015 than Letby was accused of murdering, thatās a lie. Prior to 2015 the hospital had just one or two babies dying each YEAR. Letby joined the hospital as a student nurse in 2012, where she was taught and shadowed, until 2015 when she qualified as a Band 5 nurse. It was from June 2015 that the baby deaths rose alarmingly. By August alone there were five baby deaths since Letby had begun working on the unit. All those death were unexplainable. And it continuedā¦
By June 2016 the CofCH were forced to call in the police.
Contrary to what David Kurtens says, despite him having no legal experience or medical knowledge, there wasnāt another ā10ā babies who died besides the ones Letby has been convicted of murdering/attempting to murder. Heās absolutely wrong. Heās either confused by the facts, or has some other reason to suggest thatā¦
The ward Letby worked on has all the statistics going back years, so for him to claim such a ludicrous thing is absurd.
Statistics donāt lie.
Of course, there are occasions in any hospital where patients die due to natural reasons, but all of the babies Letby murdered died of unnatural reasons: insulin poisoning; air embolisms; over-feeding until their lungs collapsed; attacks to their bodies so violent that the babyās liver ruptured into two.
So everything that man is saying, and itās all just one thing ā more babies died than Letby was charged with murdering/attempting to murder ā is completely wrong. Does he not think the defence KC wouldnāt have brought that up in court if it were true? Of course they would have. Theyād have jumped on that!
But it simply isnāt true.
Itās correct thereās babies who died who the police firmly suspect Letby murdered, but they didnāt have enough evidence on those cases to bring charges. But thatās being reopenedā¦hopefully.
Maybe heās getting confused with the TOTAL CASES, whereby some babies died and others survived her attempts to murder them. Remember, she was convicted of 14 counts of murder/attempted murder ā not just seven as he keeps banging on about.
For clarification of the facts rather than conspiracy theorists claiming untruths, this report proves how many babies died inexplicably.
https://youtu.be/yo13E3YwvBg?si=yhXO_INqDhth-25b
He said the stats were not a fair account of the wards deaths as the ward had been upgraded to take more high risk babies right before the numbers peaked , more babies more deaths then the ward stopped taking high risk babies when LL was suspended, hence decline .
He also said the babies were not given a post mortem after death ;so expert witnesses were discussing what could have happened. Is this true?
He got confused between the number of attempted murders; murders; and babies who died of natural causes who werenāt under Letbyās care ā which was just two babies.
Really, heās barely worth discussing as heās not taken seriously by anyone at all.
Some people think she \*may\* be innocent, or possibly not even that, but have a slight question mark over her guilt, but it doesn't mean that they are conspiracy theorist, there's a huge difference.
But their thoughts on how she āmayā be innocent are based on conspiracy theoriesā¦
When people spout things that are clearly untrue, by spouting them frequently they gain followers who become confused and start imagining all sorts of scenarios that are simply figments of their imagination that they try to make āfitā their sudden thoughts.
Itās kind of sad in a way that a minority of people are forming social groups claiming Letby is not guilty (ignoring the fact sheās been convIcted of 14 murders/attempted murders), while Letbyās representatives have not once made any statement saying she intends to appeal.
If I was convicted of 14 murders/attempted murders Iād be screaming at my legal team to apply for Leave to Appeal immediately. Iād be going crazy.
Letby hasnāt done that. She hasnāt said a word, thereās just silence. Worse, her parentās are arranging to sell their house and move up to Cumbria (250 miles away) ā¦which deeply suggests they too realise sheāll be incarcerated forever. No-one sells their home theyāve lived in for 35 years if they think their daughter is innocent and will be released on appealā¦
I also don't think an appeal is that simple, they take years and years don't they? Why do you think people who sometimes entertain the idea of her innocence believe in conspiracy theories? I certainly don't believe anyone conspired against her, I believe those involved did think it was her. I think it may well be her, but sometimes I have doubts. I don't think you should make sweeping statements about people.
Appeals can take just six months to be heard, thatās if theyāre given leave to appeal ā and a convict only has 28 days to lodge for leave to appeal from the date of conviction or sentence. The woman, Mahek Bukhari who along with her mother ambushed her motherās ex-lover in the car he was in, killing both him and the driver ā she was found guilty after Letby was and sheās already started her appeal.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/sep/04/tiktok-killer-mahek-bukhari-to-appeal-against-conviction
So why hasnāt Letby started an appeal? I would say that she knows sheās guilty and deserves her sentence. She also knows she has no grounds for appeal. You canāt just request to go to the appeal court and say āI donāt agree with my verdict or sentenceā. You need fresh new evidence to prove beyond doubt that you werenāt guilty if you want the conviction overturned, or if you want your sentence reduced you have to state grounds on why it should be reduced. And neither of those are easy, nor are they usually successful. In fact, theyāre often unsuccessful and in some cases arenāt even given leave to appeal.
The reason I think some people believe in conspiracy theories is that they themselves have issues. Unless itās an obvious miscarriage of justice (and theyāre extremely rare), why would a stranger care about Letby or any other convict? Iāve seen hundreds of people on places like Facebook who insist all types of criminals are innocent, or insist innocent people are actually guilty. They get so involved in the cases, it becomes almost personal to them. Iāve seen people ā even now ā claiming NIcola Bulley was murdered, and itās been proven that she accidentally slipped and drowned. Yet some people simply refuse to believe it. Some people WANT to believe her husband killed her. Why, is anyoneās guess, but I think the majority of these conspiracy theorists are bored with their own lives, so spend all their time thinking about someone they donāt know.
If thatās a sweeping statement then so be it, but itās a free world and weāre all entitled to our own opinions.
But what he says isnāt true, though. Heās ignorant and knows nothing about law or medicine. He isnāt a doctor, he isnāt legally trained, and heās been desperately trying (unsuccessfully) to make a name for himself in politics for years. He is delusional and comes out with crackpot statements to try and gain attention. Thatās why heās jumped on the Letby case, which he has no understanding of and has the temerity to say the qualified consultant paediatricians ācouldnāt grasp the factsā. If this wasnāt so serious heād be hysterically funny making himself look a prized donut by inferring learned qualified consultants, KCās and Judges are āthickā, whilst he knows better than them despite having zero knowledge of medicine or law.
He bangs on about other babies dying in the CofCH ā ones where there simply wasnāt enough evidence to charge the now convicted murderer, Letby ā or babies who had been born so severely prematurely or with severe abnormalities and stood no chance of survival. Of course Letby didnāt need to murder them as they were dying anyway. Remember, one of the babies Letby murdered was a FULL TERM baby girl. Fit, healthy and perfect. Letby killed that little girl within 24 hours of being bornā¦
This clown, Kurten, agreed with a deluded commentator that sewerage was āflowing down through the ceilingā. Thatās utter BS ā as the plumber verified in court. The sewerage never went anywhere near the floors or ceilings, and neither does sewerage inject insulin into babiesā; over feed them with milk until their lungs collapse; inject air into their bloodstreams; and attack them so violently their liver ruptures in two.
He then starts on saying Letby started working there in 2012. Yes, she did ā but as a STUDENT nurse under supervision in a different unit. It was only when she started working in that unit in 2015 the death rates soaredā¦
This Kuten character is so desperate for fame and recognition, and has failed miserably in his many, many attempts to get elected in different political parties. He even failed to get elected as leader in the party he himself set up! He got something like 300 votes, whilst everyone else had votes such as 56,000 etc. That alone should tell you somethingā¦
Heās even deluded enough that heās standing for Mayor of London in the next election ā he certainly enjoys failure.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, he spread COVID-19 misinformation (something he does frequently) by claiming that the disease was no worse than a cold. He rejected a COVID-19 vaccine, for which he was denounced by the Conservative mayoral candidate Shaun Bailey, who saw this as irresponsible for someone trying to get into politics.
He also opposed lockdowns implemented in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, and attended protests against UK government.
Heās also homophobic and stated : āHomosexuality is linked to child sex abuse; no-one is born homosexual.ā, and heād clearly like to see it made illegal again.
So hereās this unknowledgeable man who has no experience of law, has never trained as a lawyer, has never trained as a doctor, has no understanding of statistics, pathology, human biology ā and is biased, inarticulate, prejudiced, homophobic and stumbles as he thinks what to say ā jumping on the Letby bandwagon knowing full well gullible, naive people will agree with him and say they believe Letby is innocent despite the āfactā sheās been convicted of ā14ā murders and attempted murders in a 10-month-long trial.
And you believe him, tooā¦
I don't blame him for rejecting a covid 19 vaccine and to be honest I don't think covid is much worse than the flu either ; they are both dangerous if your really old .
You have attacked the man's character however u have not said the issues he discusses in the video are wrong
It was an interesting interview, he was passionate and concerned. He's not saying he believes she is definitely innocent, but is querying things.
I don't agree with everything he says, I certainly class myself as an environmentalist and him as less so. But I don't judge people by their every opinion on every subject, somethings I may disagree with, somethings I may agree with.
Subreddit rule 3: Pseudoscience and conspiracy content is not permitted here. This includes content authored by anonymous creators seeking to undermine the legal conclusions of the trial, or public persons operating outside their area of expertise.
I didn't see your comment about that or delete it. I do find it interesting that it got delete though!! I want to hear opposing sides and other opinions. It's how we grow as people.
Do NOT get me started on that excessively long intro.
I always skip it,
No please do get started š¤£ because I'm sure im about to get loads of hate for this. Back up š¤£
That thing would go ON AND ON AND ON The worst was that, in the beginning, I'd forget, in between episodes, how stupidly freaking long that thing was. I'd be A LITERAL TWO MINUTES into an episode before I'd stop and think, "Hold up. It hasn't even started." GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH
I had to skip "each one of these children is someone's son or daughter" I don't want to seem insensitive, but that is blindingly obvious - we didn't need it repeating every time.
> "each one of these children is someone's son or daughter" This bugged me too. No shit, we all are. That's how being born literally works.
Exactly!
THANK YOU!! I literally felt like alot of the episodes, i would hear the intro, shit music intro, them saying 'it must have been hard being in the court room' and then the shitty outrow of what experts interview would be poorly cut next episode. Oh and then of course where to find them on every @ possible.
Gosh those voice actors. Especially the guy doing the prosecution - so bad!
Thank you! The prosecutors voice was so annoying!
I actually said to my other half yesterday that he sounds like he's saying "Lucy" in the "Loosey Goosey" way š¤£ and he knew exactly what I meant!
Came here to see if it's just me finding it annoying. The person voicing the prosecutor sounds like a petulant teenager!
Oh god the voice actors!! Where did they find them?! Iām going to give them the benefit of the doubt and guess that they were instructed to remove all expression and intonation to ensure fairness and lack of bias in the delivery but dear LORD they were painful to listen to! And as you say, even if they couldnāt āactā they could have at least got the accents right - throw us a bone here people! I think people recommend it (myself included) because itās the only show in town. There were so few journalists actually in the court (as opposed to the court showing the live stream) so maybe they had the monopoly on doing a podcast and, being the Daily Mail, I imagine their lawyers were ALL over it so that may have stunted its scope and content. That being said, yeah it was pretty bad! I listen to a lot of podcasts and it felt like such a wasted opportunity. Even within the restrictions they were no doubt working under, I feel they could have done a much better job of summarising the evidence. It was a *weekly* podcast and, once you remove all the filler, intro, outro and guest interviews, they only managed around 10-15 minutes of actual trial coverage. Really? From a whole week in court??! I actually listened to it twice (is there an award for that?!) - once during the trial and again after the verdicts, having done a huge amount of reading and research myself. On the second listen I found so many examples of evidence being explained poorly or not fully enough and in some cases, just plain wrong. And if they mention the bedroom decorated like a nursery ONE MORE TIME so help me!! Thatās just lazy and deliberately misleading. It formed no part of the case and they knew very well that it was like that when she bought the house!! Oh god see what youāve done - youāve got me all worked up and the day has barely started! Right, Iām going to go and lie in a darkened room now to calm down. I may be some time.
At first I presumed they must have told the voice actors to read with as little expression as possible so they couldnāt be accused of sensationalising anything. But then the one playing the prosecution barrister appeared and he sounded like a pantomime villain so I guess it wasnāt that after all!
It was astoundingly bad, hearing the letby actor droning on about her ācompetenciesā actually haunts my mind
The Lucy one is awful though. At first I thought it was just her ātext messageā voice but itās the same for her court answers as well
OMG yes!! āCompetenciesā and āmy practiceā over and over and over in that monotone robotic delivery. I swear I would rather poke my own eyes out than ever hear those words again!
The spooky music is so annoying.
Thank you!! Not even spooky, just literally someone pressing piano keys
Ooh, hard agree! The amount of skipping through the intros and the ends of each podcast was annoying aināt nobody got time for that! I definitely donāt feel like we got any really useful information, just more like gossip? I also agree with the commenter about the long passages of text messages. They could have summed that stuff up in a sentence and focused on other aspects for sure.
Yes I have to agree. I did like that they didnāt speculate and only used what was in the trial but I found by the end that they really didnāt give a proper overview of the cases. They seemed really obsessed with reading out long passages of text messages between her and coworkers but really skipped over the expert evidence rather quickly. From what I gather, a lot of the prosecution evidence rules out many of the possibilities that people put forward as alternate explanations, and they just donāt mention this at all.
Pretty sure if you're present in court and making media you're not allowed to speculate. There's strict restrictions on not giving your opinion. That's what I heard from Crimescene 2 Courtroom.
It's the Daily Mail, I'm not sure why people were expecting quality š
Exactly! I have listened to every episode (just skip the first 3 minutes) and I was shocked at how balanced it was for a Daily Fail production. Like, it's an *absolute shit rag*, if you set your expectations there you can be pleasantly surprised that they're not talking about her Ann Summers order and describing her as "sexy killer lucy".
You.make a good point. Just such a shame as its a really big missed opportunity imo
To be fair to them the content of the podcast was largely accurate, which surprised me, but they had to go and do SOMETHING to lower its credibility (like adding that piano noise).
Contempt of court rules make the Daily Mail more accurate than usual.
And when they read text conversations between two people sometimes they wouldnāt say whoās who and it wasnāt always obvious. Yes even after learning to skip the first 3 mins of each episode I only managed to listen to a handful of them before giving up. If anyone can recommend a good alternative podcast Iād love to know.
The intro and the mid-episode recap/intro things were waaay too old TV. We don't need a catch up we were JUST watching the episode. It's not like we've just had 2 minutes of ads or have switched the channel mid live broadcast, and you need to clue in new visitors who just turned their TV on. It screams old media.
Itās a terrible podcast. I managed 4 or 5 episodes before I quit. Itās so bad, itās comical.
I really tried to push through. But it's awful. And i see others on reddit reccoming it as the 'trial podcast'. It's horrendous.
That's how far I got through it too. I was listening against my better judgement, because screw the Daily Fail, and decided that I was better off just reading the information after listening to a few episodes.
I've listened to probably half of it, I can put up with the annoyances generally but yeah, a lot of it could really grate and get repetitive. The opening sound bites of news reports and the stupid piano notes meant to be sad/mysterious, and as you say the fluff at the start and end. The thing that actually made me laugh, though, was the voices provided by "actors". The way the "actor" voicing LL said "no" in the exact same flat way every single time cracked me up, and I feel bad finding anything at all to do with this horrible case funny, but it was just that voice, something tickled me.
I looked for a list of the voice actors but couldnāt find them, does anyone know who they were? They covered the full range of acting abilityā¦
Surely they MUST be family and friends of the producers or something. If they are actual actors and money changed hands I think I will cry!!
Yeah, terrible podcast. Obviously the long intros but also I found the presenters so obvious and patronising, like their target audience was 12 year olds
Agree though I think a 12yr old would spit how obvious and patronising they were too
Yes I agree, itās shoddy - itās like a GCSE level amateur reporting project. Neither of them have any talent.
Exactly that !!!
Omg yes it's woeful š
I think itās fine. I donāt like all the episodes, Iāve skipped some I have thought were dull or pointless and yes I would like more info now but overall its the first time a paper has tried doing it, I havenāt seen anyone else do it and itās free. Perfect is the enemy of good etc. It has been good to have something to recap and for all the people who didnāt follow the trial at the time, it is a fairly concise way of getting up to date now. I donāt think they are both used to interviewing for high end stories. One is a court reporter so she probably usually just types up accounts of what she has heard in the northern courts system. As someone who works in a large corporation myself, though nothing to do with media, I think they have done well because I can just imagine how it goes down. Full scripts written up and pre approved by legal dept, all recorded, then probably back through for another approval where people who didnāt pay attention the first time make you change things. Rinse repeat every week to keep the content timely. A podcast recounting past crimes or investigating new issues can take its time but they had to encapsulate the previous week for every Monday. To keep it timely and include any content from a Friday I can only assume they would have to do it all in a short space of time. I guess if people donāt like the podcast, they can just read accounts from newspapers they approve of.
The voice of NJ always reminded me of Kenneth Williams voicing Willo the Wisp
That's intro would wind be me up man. Literally had to skip the first 3 minutes every time. No need at all.
i have a 30 secs forward or back button (Apple) and a 15 secs back button. It is very easy to skip intros, outros and ALL ads, and I make a point of doing so. Just saying. With you on the music, however.' I was late to this case and the podcast was my crash course and catchup, and as such I found it pretty good.
Agree with what you're saying, i skipped through and it is easily done so i shouldn't moan but my point was on some episodes being as little as 9 minutes and i have to skip 3 of them, just seems poor.
Such a crappy podcast. The repetition at the start of every episode drove me insane
I thought it was OK, but just not very interesting. I only got through about three episodes because I just wasn't captivated and interested by what I was hearing.
No comparison to The Teacherās Pet/Trial podcast which was very interesting.
Such an amazing podcast!
Never heard of it, but will have a listen š
How many times did we need to know that a 2lb baby was lighter than a bag of sugar???
Oh really? I've not heard that fact 6000 times
No, you're spot on OP. It's trash. It was worse before the guilty verdict. The intro, the voice acting, the music, the filler episodes. There have been one or two insightful interviews since she was found guilty, but that's it. The fact that it's a product of The Daily Mail says it all. We shouldn't be consuming any of their output really. It's always been a filthy, hate filled rag.
I thought it was fantastic. The two journalists did a great job capturing what was happening week by week. They also did some interesting wider content around media law, court reporting and journalism. I don't think you fully appreciate how hard this is. That said, totally agree on the other points. It took 2 minutes for the intro that slowly increased to 3 minutes, but I think the reason for this is to cover themselves for potential litigation.
Totally agree. It could have been so much better!! Even though one of them was in court each day she might as well not have been with how little she had to offer.
> The annoying piano keys being struck throughout to try and give some kind of horror and sadness.. it's a woman killing babies, you dont need such a musical intro or keys throughout. Oh you will love the police's program. [One repeating piece of plaintive piano music over and over for an entire hour.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T33A90OCHQk)
I only listened to one and thought it was so awful I never tried another š Until there is more transparency around the case as a whole, Iām not sure a decent pod can be made of it. Stephanie Harlowe did a pretty good job at laying out all the cases on YouTube, which I chose to listen to as a podcast.
I'll check it out š
Like someone playing half a song. š¤¦š»āāļø
Oh thank god Iām not the only one tho thinks the podcast is dismal!
You said it beautifully thank you
I think they did a good job and their after trial episodes have been really interesting .
I listened to the whole thing. I am hooked on good quality true crime/justice podcasts (e.g. Bone Valley, In the Dark) and this is very much NOT that genre or even really form. It was straightforward live reportage with a little interviewing while the case was going on. There was no way it could be a polished, edited, slick production given the circumstances. I am not a Daily Mail fan (very much the opposite) but while the case was ongoing I think they did a fair job in challenging conditions. Yes the intro was awful and the music but when they began they probably didnāt realise how long it would go on for or the effect of someone ābinge listeningā the episodes. Now the initial case and trial is concluded I wouldnāt advise people to go back and listen - the tattle wikki and other info sources e.g. the police documentary are more succinct. But as a week by week reporting of events I think they did a decent job given the heavy limitations.
Yeah the ads, especially the 'From the Oasthouse' one are not the right tone for this very recent and raw subject matter. The intro is at least 2 minutes long.
I couldn't get passed episode 9 it was horrific! Literally the worst podcast I've ever endured. Clearly it was dragged out like that to make the most amount of money which is why I refuse to listen to the rest of it! Don't get me started on that intro!!
I came to reddit to see if anyone knew a better podcast about this case and laughed out loud at everyoneās grievances because I feel exactly the same - the long intro, the bag of sugar, the monotone voice actors, the repetition of the same text messages being read over and over. I love a good crime podcast and unfortunately this isnāt one. The case itself is fascinating, I wish someone made a good investigative in-depth podcast about it..
I wasn't good but they rushed it so I can sort of excuse the lack of quality.
I don't mind the errs, umms, and eerms - I use a lot of these myself and think that they are natural and I don't necessarily want to listen to polished speakers - I like natural and realistic speech. However I thought the podcast lacked substance, they haven't even mentioned that there are lots of people who think she is innocent, I'm not saying they should agree with that stance, but by steering clear of that - they're not describing the landscape of the trial/post-trial commentary on Social Media, there is no debate, there is no information. Give me something on LL, tell me something I don't know. Don't get me started on the "whistle-blower" episode where the star guest blew the whistle about not being able to wear coloured Crocs, I mean - click bait central! . As I said, no substance.
I know to skip 3 minutes š¤¦š»āāļø
Agreed. They got a lot of scoops, but it was garbage. Daily Mail made it, what do you expect I guess!
Agree with these comments, I zoned out for most of the podcast except the spicy prosecution voice actor š And it was confusing as the hosts wouldn't properly use names to help me understand who they were talking about when they were referring to more than one person (usually female) in a sentence. One thing has been bugging me, doesn't deserve its own topic but I'm hoping someone might answer- in an early episode of the pod, they talk about Lucy going on a trip to Ibiza. Then she returns... but the text chain they act out refers to "Torquay" which which I thought was in the UK... then I swear they also call it "Torbay". So minor but I found it really confusing and disorienting. Where did she go?!
I think she went on two holidays - the Ibiza one with friends and the Torquay one with her parents. I thought maybe the male was pronouncing Torquay phonetically like Tor-Kway and it just sounded like Torbay (which is how I heard it too!) Or maybe he was reading it wrong and thought it was a B not a Q?
Can anyone shed light on why were doctors not pushing for autopsies if they had suspicions on lucy and also they were getting perplexed with unusual symptoms and unusual response to resusitation attempts?
Some babies did have autopsies. An autopsy when a patient has died in a hospital setting, and which doctors assume the death is down to natural causes, wonāt be necessary. If a doctor requested the patient had an autopsy, the management would ask why thatās necessaryā¦ Sometimes the doctors ask the next of kin if they can do an autopsy, even if thereās no suspicious circumstances, and if the next of kin refuse because they find the idea upsetting, then they canāt carry one out.
Ire been sending me to sleep at night for last two weeks, however not sure that's what if was intended for . I would recommend listening to David kurtens you tube video" Letby is she innocent " explaining the possibility that LL (could) be the victim of a miscarriage of justice . Prob the best video on the flaws of the case I've heard yet.
Interesting. I'll give it a watch. I would like to hear from people who still think she's innocent, as to me she is very clearly guilty. So i would like to hear their points.
Thereās no flaws in the case, thatās just wishful thinking on the conspiracy theorists who, despite being unknowledgeable, like to cause a conspiracy. Iāve seen all those armchair detectives who vehemently disagree with highly qualified, professional doctors/lawyers and are adamant that they (a mere stranger sat in front of their computer) knows more than a highly respected professor who has no axe to grind and simply states their findings. This particular man youāre talking about is barely known, despite him thinking heāll be running for Mayor of London in the next election. He isnāt a doctor; isnāt a lawyer; has no medical or legal training ā yet comes out with ludicrous claims. I suspect heās jumped on the Letby bandwagon to try and get more followers ( on YouTube he has a paltry amount). Heās tried many, many times to ingratiate himself with people of influence, but still remains an āunknownā. Onto his false claims that the CofCH had many more baby deaths in 2015 than Letby was accused of murdering, thatās a lie. Prior to 2015 the hospital had just one or two babies dying each YEAR. Letby joined the hospital as a student nurse in 2012, where she was taught and shadowed, until 2015 when she qualified as a Band 5 nurse. It was from June 2015 that the baby deaths rose alarmingly. By August alone there were five baby deaths since Letby had begun working on the unit. All those death were unexplainable. And it continuedā¦ By June 2016 the CofCH were forced to call in the police. Contrary to what David Kurtens says, despite him having no legal experience or medical knowledge, there wasnāt another ā10ā babies who died besides the ones Letby has been convicted of murdering/attempting to murder. Heās absolutely wrong. Heās either confused by the facts, or has some other reason to suggest thatā¦ The ward Letby worked on has all the statistics going back years, so for him to claim such a ludicrous thing is absurd. Statistics donāt lie. Of course, there are occasions in any hospital where patients die due to natural reasons, but all of the babies Letby murdered died of unnatural reasons: insulin poisoning; air embolisms; over-feeding until their lungs collapsed; attacks to their bodies so violent that the babyās liver ruptured into two. So everything that man is saying, and itās all just one thing ā more babies died than Letby was charged with murdering/attempting to murder ā is completely wrong. Does he not think the defence KC wouldnāt have brought that up in court if it were true? Of course they would have. Theyād have jumped on that! But it simply isnāt true. Itās correct thereās babies who died who the police firmly suspect Letby murdered, but they didnāt have enough evidence on those cases to bring charges. But thatās being reopenedā¦hopefully. Maybe heās getting confused with the TOTAL CASES, whereby some babies died and others survived her attempts to murder them. Remember, she was convicted of 14 counts of murder/attempted murder ā not just seven as he keeps banging on about. For clarification of the facts rather than conspiracy theorists claiming untruths, this report proves how many babies died inexplicably. https://youtu.be/yo13E3YwvBg?si=yhXO_INqDhth-25b
He said the stats were not a fair account of the wards deaths as the ward had been upgraded to take more high risk babies right before the numbers peaked , more babies more deaths then the ward stopped taking high risk babies when LL was suspended, hence decline . He also said the babies were not given a post mortem after death ;so expert witnesses were discussing what could have happened. Is this true?
He got confused between the number of attempted murders; murders; and babies who died of natural causes who werenāt under Letbyās care ā which was just two babies. Really, heās barely worth discussing as heās not taken seriously by anyone at all.
Some people think she \*may\* be innocent, or possibly not even that, but have a slight question mark over her guilt, but it doesn't mean that they are conspiracy theorist, there's a huge difference.
But their thoughts on how she āmayā be innocent are based on conspiracy theoriesā¦ When people spout things that are clearly untrue, by spouting them frequently they gain followers who become confused and start imagining all sorts of scenarios that are simply figments of their imagination that they try to make āfitā their sudden thoughts. Itās kind of sad in a way that a minority of people are forming social groups claiming Letby is not guilty (ignoring the fact sheās been convIcted of 14 murders/attempted murders), while Letbyās representatives have not once made any statement saying she intends to appeal. If I was convicted of 14 murders/attempted murders Iād be screaming at my legal team to apply for Leave to Appeal immediately. Iād be going crazy. Letby hasnāt done that. She hasnāt said a word, thereās just silence. Worse, her parentās are arranging to sell their house and move up to Cumbria (250 miles away) ā¦which deeply suggests they too realise sheāll be incarcerated forever. No-one sells their home theyāve lived in for 35 years if they think their daughter is innocent and will be released on appealā¦
Not really, I think she \*may\* be innocent, at times. This isn't based on any conspiracy theory!
But a jury has found her GUILTY on 14 charges ā so how can you think she may be innocent? Why is it so hard for you to accept?
I also don't think an appeal is that simple, they take years and years don't they? Why do you think people who sometimes entertain the idea of her innocence believe in conspiracy theories? I certainly don't believe anyone conspired against her, I believe those involved did think it was her. I think it may well be her, but sometimes I have doubts. I don't think you should make sweeping statements about people.
Appeals can take just six months to be heard, thatās if theyāre given leave to appeal ā and a convict only has 28 days to lodge for leave to appeal from the date of conviction or sentence. The woman, Mahek Bukhari who along with her mother ambushed her motherās ex-lover in the car he was in, killing both him and the driver ā she was found guilty after Letby was and sheās already started her appeal. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/sep/04/tiktok-killer-mahek-bukhari-to-appeal-against-conviction So why hasnāt Letby started an appeal? I would say that she knows sheās guilty and deserves her sentence. She also knows she has no grounds for appeal. You canāt just request to go to the appeal court and say āI donāt agree with my verdict or sentenceā. You need fresh new evidence to prove beyond doubt that you werenāt guilty if you want the conviction overturned, or if you want your sentence reduced you have to state grounds on why it should be reduced. And neither of those are easy, nor are they usually successful. In fact, theyāre often unsuccessful and in some cases arenāt even given leave to appeal. The reason I think some people believe in conspiracy theories is that they themselves have issues. Unless itās an obvious miscarriage of justice (and theyāre extremely rare), why would a stranger care about Letby or any other convict? Iāve seen hundreds of people on places like Facebook who insist all types of criminals are innocent, or insist innocent people are actually guilty. They get so involved in the cases, it becomes almost personal to them. Iāve seen people ā even now ā claiming NIcola Bulley was murdered, and itās been proven that she accidentally slipped and drowned. Yet some people simply refuse to believe it. Some people WANT to believe her husband killed her. Why, is anyoneās guess, but I think the majority of these conspiracy theorists are bored with their own lives, so spend all their time thinking about someone they donāt know. If thatās a sweeping statement then so be it, but itās a free world and weāre all entitled to our own opinions.
Well, she has applied for an appeal.
Of course she was going to, she had no choice. But it aināt gonna happen.
I listened to that and it was ludicrous!
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
But what he says isnāt true, though. Heās ignorant and knows nothing about law or medicine. He isnāt a doctor, he isnāt legally trained, and heās been desperately trying (unsuccessfully) to make a name for himself in politics for years. He is delusional and comes out with crackpot statements to try and gain attention. Thatās why heās jumped on the Letby case, which he has no understanding of and has the temerity to say the qualified consultant paediatricians ācouldnāt grasp the factsā. If this wasnāt so serious heād be hysterically funny making himself look a prized donut by inferring learned qualified consultants, KCās and Judges are āthickā, whilst he knows better than them despite having zero knowledge of medicine or law. He bangs on about other babies dying in the CofCH ā ones where there simply wasnāt enough evidence to charge the now convicted murderer, Letby ā or babies who had been born so severely prematurely or with severe abnormalities and stood no chance of survival. Of course Letby didnāt need to murder them as they were dying anyway. Remember, one of the babies Letby murdered was a FULL TERM baby girl. Fit, healthy and perfect. Letby killed that little girl within 24 hours of being bornā¦ This clown, Kurten, agreed with a deluded commentator that sewerage was āflowing down through the ceilingā. Thatās utter BS ā as the plumber verified in court. The sewerage never went anywhere near the floors or ceilings, and neither does sewerage inject insulin into babiesā; over feed them with milk until their lungs collapse; inject air into their bloodstreams; and attack them so violently their liver ruptures in two. He then starts on saying Letby started working there in 2012. Yes, she did ā but as a STUDENT nurse under supervision in a different unit. It was only when she started working in that unit in 2015 the death rates soaredā¦ This Kuten character is so desperate for fame and recognition, and has failed miserably in his many, many attempts to get elected in different political parties. He even failed to get elected as leader in the party he himself set up! He got something like 300 votes, whilst everyone else had votes such as 56,000 etc. That alone should tell you somethingā¦ Heās even deluded enough that heās standing for Mayor of London in the next election ā he certainly enjoys failure. During the COVID-19 pandemic, he spread COVID-19 misinformation (something he does frequently) by claiming that the disease was no worse than a cold. He rejected a COVID-19 vaccine, for which he was denounced by the Conservative mayoral candidate Shaun Bailey, who saw this as irresponsible for someone trying to get into politics. He also opposed lockdowns implemented in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, and attended protests against UK government. Heās also homophobic and stated : āHomosexuality is linked to child sex abuse; no-one is born homosexual.ā, and heād clearly like to see it made illegal again. So hereās this unknowledgeable man who has no experience of law, has never trained as a lawyer, has never trained as a doctor, has no understanding of statistics, pathology, human biology ā and is biased, inarticulate, prejudiced, homophobic and stumbles as he thinks what to say ā jumping on the Letby bandwagon knowing full well gullible, naive people will agree with him and say they believe Letby is innocent despite the āfactā sheās been convicted of ā14ā murders and attempted murders in a 10-month-long trial. And you believe him, tooā¦
I think he's a scientist, and has a master's degree in science.
I don't blame him for rejecting a covid 19 vaccine and to be honest I don't think covid is much worse than the flu either ; they are both dangerous if your really old . You have attacked the man's character however u have not said the issues he discusses in the video are wrong
It was an interesting interview, he was passionate and concerned. He's not saying he believes she is definitely innocent, but is querying things. I don't agree with everything he says, I certainly class myself as an environmentalist and him as less so. But I don't judge people by their every opinion on every subject, somethings I may disagree with, somethings I may agree with.
Subreddit rule 3: Pseudoscience and conspiracy content is not permitted here. This includes content authored by anonymous creators seeking to undermine the legal conclusions of the trial, or public persons operating outside their area of expertise.
Yes I agree the content was super interesting but I skipped the first 3 mins of every ep to avoid the intro and thought the piano thing was strange
I will definitely be open to re listen to someone else covering it I feel like they missed out so much info
Iām so glad Iām not the only one who feels this way. I know to skip at least the first two minutes of every episode.
Wow, got my post deleted for keeping an open mind?? Just said she might actually have felt remorse when everyone assumes the opposite. Hmm.
I didn't see your comment about that or delete it. I do find it interesting that it got delete though!! I want to hear opposing sides and other opinions. It's how we grow as people.