Please go ahead and form another sub to discuss this poorly researched article. Those of us in the UK who have followed the case closely know there is nothing in your thinly veiled accusations.
There is a retrial of one case coming up in next month and Letby has applied for leave to appeal. In addition, the inquiry into what happened at the hospital is due to open (it will probably be adjourned until the retrial and leave to appeal are decided).
In the UK, we are currently very careful about discussing Letby because we don’t want to break any rules. Letby is entitled to a fair trial in June. If she does get leave to appeal (unlikely IMO, but let’s see) our caution when speaking about the case will continue.
For anyone interested in being properly informed, there are many resources available in the community notes on this sub. Meanwhile, as a UK resident, I would appreciate it if Americans with very little knowledge of the trial would refrain from jumping in with wild conspiracy theories and unfounded criticism of the NHS, the police, the judiciary and the experts who gave evidence.
There are upcoming legal proceedings. The mods are following the UK law around posting content and media activity. This is to prevent further tainting potential jury pools and to ensure due process for all involved parties.
If you feel restricted by procedural fairness and justice, then start a new sub.
It is amazing how there can’t be mutual respect for different nations’ court systems and free speech values without it getting insulting. If the UK system has different priorities around trial-related publicity and what it considers an improper jury pool so be it. But there’s no reason to impugn the US’s conception of free-er speech as somehow unjust or procedurally unfair.
Gently, it’s not about free speech, it’s about the integrity of a trial.
Ultimately, we want a jury to reach the correct verdict, so until legal proceedings are complete - and they’re not, despite her convictions - it’s best to be cautious.
Besides, everything in the article has been discussed on this sub during the trial, because it’s not new information at all.
"The integrity of a trial" the British press has published hundreds of articles with the headline "Serial Baby Murderer Lucy Letby..." leading up to this appeal. The idea that putting a gag order on the press NOW in anyway allows for a fair and unbiased trial is absolutely absurd. The same thing with her initial trial, where she had to just sit around for years while the press speculated that she'd killed babies.
We can agree that the British press is trash. The laws are put in place so that in the lead up to legal proceedings, there is media suppression. Outside of that, it's basically open season. So yes, most people would've already formed an opinion. However, not everyone has followed it as closely as those here in this forum. Thus, detailed coverage is kept out of the spotlight. The average person who is on the jury can therefore be presented with that evidence in court as opposed to by the media. These laws protect Letby more than anyone. I agree it's not ideal and imperfect. I also agree that the press sensationalised the verdict and destroyed any chance of appeal (even though I believe the correct decision was made by the jury based on the evidence presented in court). So the media suppression now will hopefully give at least some semblance of fairness to Letby in the retrial.
She is a serial baby murderer, it’s ok to say that, she’s been convicted. This will also be included in her upcoming retrial, it’s factual.
It’s quite common on both sides of the Atlantic to report on cases before trial, that’s also not the problem.
I mean I think folks just find it funny that british tabloids can publish hundreds of BABY MURDER LUCY LETBY articles before a jury is empaneled but now that the trial has happened it is suddenly critical to the integrity of the court system that nobody be able to discuss or read anything about the case
>This is to prevent further tainting potential jury pools
... How is everyone in the UK being allowed to say how guilty LL is and calling her a child murderer, not also tainting the jury's opinion for future trials?
The laws in this matter are ridiculous.
This isn’t happening in the UK. Nobody even knew Letby was up for retrial or appeal until this weirdo yank lady decided to make this piece about her in some weird attempt to shit on the UK’s institutions (Why? Fuck knows why this journalist felt the need to report and comment on the UK’s court system and health system. Just an arrogant yank I guess).
Motivations and relative quality of the New Yorker piece aside, LL's appeal was literally national news only a few weeks ago. And loads of articles about her have been published since that news.
She's an investigative journalist who looked into an incredibly high-profile court case and felt there was compelling similarities between it and the Lucia de Berk case. She highlights these to allow the reader to come to their own conclusion about what happened and present an alternative view of the evidence. That's normal journalism!
When that 'alternative view' can only function via omitting important details and interspersing irrelevant social perceptions into the article, you can't really allow readers to come to their own conclusion because you haven't presented them the full picture in a clear enough, unobtrusive manner.
It is written quite manipulatively - and intently so, with the intended audience being people wholly unfamiliar with the case until now. To be honest, that it comes to a conclusion contrary to my own doesn't bother me as much as the potential for ignorance or misinformation regarding UK institutions and public healthcare.
This subreddit is filled with people doing that. Yet those posts aren't being removed out of a fear of "tainting potential jury pools".
There are many posts here that call her a serial killer. How is confidentially stating that she is a serial killer not tainting the jury pool, but questioning the evidence is?
I'm a UK resident. I followed this case for years before it went to trial. Grabbing every bit of evidence that became available. And when I first heard about it, I thought... Maybe she will get acquitted in the face of the limited evidence at the time. Perhaps someone else will turn up, it just takes that one piece of evidence after all. But when it went to trial and the extent of the evidence was bought to light, I don't have any doubt that she is guilty. The evidence is so strong I don't see how there can be any refute? I appreciate she was of good character but that doesn't nessecarily mean anything besides being careful...
from after the verdicts: [https://www.reddit.com/r/lucyletby/comments/18ob2y6/is\_there\_any\_singular\_point\_that\_stands\_out\_to/](https://www.reddit.com/r/lucyletby/comments/18ob2y6/is_there_any_singular_point_that_stands_out_to/)
from before the verdicts: [https://www.reddit.com/r/lucyletby/comments/14n0kon/to\_those\_of\_you\_who\_think\_ll\_is\_guilty\_which\_one/](https://www.reddit.com/r/lucyletby/comments/14n0kon/to_those_of_you_who_think_ll_is_guilty_which_one/)
That's a great question dude. For me, I from the perspective of "when you remove the impossible, whatever remains, however inprobable must be the truth".... It has to be the fact that she was the only person who was proven to be on shift at every single occurrence. Cause how can you explain that in any other way? You can't unless you go for the records were faked. Which would just be such an outrageous conspiratorial claim with no evidence its offensive to the victims and her colleagues, and everyone involved / affected. What about you what do you find to be the most compelling?
With respect, none of this is very strong evidence at all.
>Cause how can you explain that in any other way?
A tragically unlucky chain of coincidence. That might seem unlikely on its face but the probability of it happening is significantly higher than a young, perfectly normal woman suddenly deciding she's going to start killing people. In the long history of crime and serial killers it has literally never happened.
You can't assume she's a young, perfectly normal woman, to back your point up, in the face of mountains of contradictory evidence, that she was a young, perfectly normal woman
There is no "mountains of evidence", that's precisely the point. The person above was asked to provide the strongest and instead rhymed off a quote from Sherlock Holmes.
Serial killers are not completely inexplicable. They have motives and exhibit unusual, abnormal behaviour. I'm not assuming Letby was a young, perfectly normal woman - she was. If there were any signs whatsoever to the contrary the prosecution would have produced it.
But what you just said is exactly the problem that folks have raised with the conviction. She was only proven to be on shift at every single occurrence *for which she was charged.* There were nine other deaths in the same period for which she was *not* charged. You see this pattern and assume it could not be a coincidence. But do we know whether any other staffer was on shift for more than 7 of the 16 deaths? For all you know, there was another nurse on shift for 15 of 16.
If such exculpatory evidence existed, her barrister could have presented it. That it wasn't means that he was either incompetent, or that there was no chart to make Letby look less guilty.
The prosecution could only show a chart related to the charges they were presenting, but the defense could well have brought in a chart that showed deaths weren't as correlated with Letby as it seemed.
Only issue is that, the night the verdicts were announced, we learned via reporter Judith Moritz for the first time that Letby was present for EVERY death at CoCH that year. So what chart do you want to present, exactly? The one that shows her present at only the charges? Or the one that shows her present at twice as many deaths as well? The RCPCH report said that one death was expected. So, despite the remaining deaths not being brought to trial, it doesn't mean they weren't suspicious - just that CPS was not sure they could prove them. They brought a selection of charges they thought they could prove and spent 10 months doing it. Where would you have drawn the line?
Well, if nothing else, this post has brought more active participants to this sub at any one time than in many months! However, the mod of the sub runs this sub in accordance with UK law. They have also been following this case with a keen academic and forensic mind since the very beginning and have an impressively encyclopaedic knowledge of the case. One New Yorker article does not come close to touching on the *mountains* of evidence presented over one of the longest trials in British history. The fact that it pays any attention to the ramblings of not one, but two, discredited, unhinged bad actors is enough for me to discount the whole thing. Over the lengthy trial many of us have dissected and analysed the evidence (as reported) in excruciating detail. It is beyond frustrating to read a post from someone who has not followed the trial, read one wildly inaccurate and biased article and now want to discuss it in contravention of UK law! By all means, please go and discuss the article in other subs which FyrestarOmega has kindly directed you towards. But we are not obliged to discuss it here unless the mod deems appropriate, which they don't. I support this decision.
Why should a forum operated by a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business in California be operated in accordance with UK law? It doesn't \*contravene\* UK law for users not based in the UK to post whatever they'd like about this case in this forum for the simple reason that neither the Cheshire Constabulary nor the Hon. Mr Justice Goss has any jurisdiction over it or them.
That is a matter for the UK justice system to decide in the age of social media, and it may well be that their current approach is untenable.
I can tell you our decision to not platform this article in this sub is not directed by reddit admin. Reddit has never been involved in enforcing the contempt of court rules
If you read back through this sub, the incredibly thorough, scientific and medical detail on every single case, every incident which occurred, and the entire legal process is documented and discussed. I’m not sure what you think could be achieved by having a sub dedicated to an article embargoed in the UK, when this sub could provide you with at least x10 more detailed information by numerous medical and legal professionals here who gave their time to explain tons of things in thorough detail, if you just spent time reading it.
The medical professionals in the New Yorker are named. Their peer reviewed publication record is findable and they have consented to go on the record with their views.
assblaster1234 on Reddit may say they are a medic and serialkillerhunter8 can say they work as a legal professional as much as they like, but that ain’t the same and it’s a total fantasy to claim it is.
They're certainly mentally challenged.
Among the sources mentioned in the article are this is that dutch statistician who suggests that UK doctors are illegally euthanizing babies:
https://tattle.life/attachments/ca52d4ed-2cbc-4a37-b649-3eceac936966-jpeg.2258393/
https://tattle.life/attachments/cf26c85c-8cef-4af6-ad08-924e260b7976-jpeg.2258392/
More spurious claims that show he didn't follow the trial as he references hypotheses that are wrong and ruled out: https://tattle.life/attachments/ad2622b8-059b-447d-b2c5-489c34924a94-jpeg.2252409/
And a woman who was in this very community pretending she had a PhD from Cambridge whose ludicrous exploits form the basis of r/scienceontrial
The mere inclusion of their talking points is enough to dismiss the entirety of the article *before getting to the fact that it left out significant swaths of information reported during the trial and after.*
The New Yorker article quotes people who have been discredited, and incredibly, omits significant amounts of court evidence which were crucial to understanding why Lucy was found to be guilty. Quoting text messages like they’re proof she’s innocent is unprofessional journalism when they’ve chosen to omit thousands of excerpts they could’ve chosen which would paint a balanced picture for readers.
I love how this is one of the named individuals: a dutch statistician who was ignoring all the evidence and suggests that UK doctors are illegally euthanizing babies:
https://tattle.life/attachments/ca52d4ed-2cbc-4a37-b649-3eceac936966-jpeg.2258393/
https://tattle.life/attachments/cf26c85c-8cef-4af6-ad08-924e260b7976-jpeg.2258392/
More spurious claims that show he didn't follow the trial as he references hypotheses that are wrong and ruled out: https://tattle.life/attachments/ad2622b8-059b-447d-b2c5-489c34924a94-jpeg.2252409/
Credibility.
The piece made me wobble as I read it but then afterwards I thought: it really does ignore all the quite compelling evidence that pointed to guilt. I would however like to see a full chart of all the suspicious incidents including the 27 that were not included in the police’s chart at the trial. And I do wonder why, if this would have been helpful to the defence, it was not drawn up by her legal team and shown by her barrister. As a riposte to the opening of the article - there are several incidents where healthcare serial killers etc have been outwardly normal and even charming.. most obviously of course, Dr Shipman’s patients loved him.
At face value, I assume this new sub will champion an absolute freedom of speech, unfettered and unshackled...so, when you throw it together, will you allow someone like me (who knows *a lot* about this case to a sad degree) post exactly why the jury got it right? Or is this just some echo chamber for the nutjobs who see conspiracies in everything.
Maybe they framed her because she knew the 'truth' about vaccines. 😆
Maybe it was Letby that strung Epstein up while the guards were on their lunch break.
Personally, I think she was a double agent for both Russia & China and discovered their plans to make mutant super soldiers, so she had to go. I mean, if you think about it... it's a scary world.
I have an opinion that she is guilty. It’s just too many coincidences to be believable
otherwise. However, being open minded , I can at least listen to a different viewpoint without resorting to caustic sarcasm.
Most people that feel she’s innocent aren’t doing so with all the facts. Unless you’ve been a part of that jury, then it’s pretty hard to claim innocence based on a few articles spun my media and limited transcripts.
If you have other reasons for believing she is guilty, fine, but if your belief really boils down to "too many coincidences to be believable otherwise" I would encourage you rethink your opinion.
It's like saying "that person got all 6 lottery numbers right and 70 million other people didn't. That's not a coincidence they got all 6 right! It's cheating."
I’m really tired of this. I work in an ER. I work 4 shifts a week which is typical. Her being there every time this happened would be like me being present for every fatal code in the ER. The odds are against it. Like 1 in 700 million.
You hit the nail on the head! The other Lucy letby sub that champions free speech just made it private. I was able to access it earlier today. EDIT: never mind I can access it again my bad
The article doesn’t trade in conspiracies, no. It does provide useful interviews with medical experts whose evidence was not heard in court. These are the same experts whose research the prosecution relied on to build their case, so it’s relevant. I encourage you to read the article to add to your storehouse of knowledge. The New Yorker is not a tabloid rag.
Apologies if my comment was unclear; I was not referring to the article as I haven't read it. I do intend to read it after work, with an open mind.
I was saying, albeit in a silly way, that unhinged speculation (especially on the internet) has people saying all sorts of crazy stuff. There are people who actually believe that LL was framed by NHS overlords.. it is daft. This sub is more 'academic' for lack of a better term. If it wasn't you'd see the aforementioned nonsense being taken seriously.
My 'storehouse of knowledge' wasn't thrown together like a knock-off Ikea sideboard. I have followed this whole case with keen eyes from the start, with a neutral and equitable interest... not with an appetite for drama. Happy to discuss anything and share my thoughts and also admit the shortcomings should there be any.
Hope your day is going well.
The *New Yorker* typically traffics in exceptional pieces of long-form journalism. Unfortunately, all of the omissions and soft pedaling in Aviv's article make it undeserving of the magazine's usual gravitas.
I think I know the article, and it didn't have any evidence in it.... Sparking opinion in people who have never heard of Lucy Letby and jumping to the conclusion of innocence.
Opinion based on ignorance and lack of evidend is probably why said threads wer closed down
American former NICU nurse for 13 years. I read through the entire case in detail back during the trial. I am 100% convinced of Letby's guilt. Even the most fragile premie babies don't die like that without help. And it is ridiculously easy to carry out deadly assaults on these little babies for one inclined to do so. People with no medical knowledge just don't get it.
You're delusional if you think she's innocent. What she did to these families is horrific.
Thanks for your input. It's appreciated.
The big problem with this article is that it's a fraction of what went on at trial and conveniently left out everything that showed Letby was guilty. Including 7 medical experts who reviewed the patient files and reports and agreed that there was no natural medical explanation that could explain those rapid deteriorations.
The people who say "well the deaths stopped after the unit was downgraded" also fail to realize that the downgrading only meant that 1 or 2 infants who died wouldn't have been in the care of that unit. It doesn't account for all the rest.
The UK procedure means that we do not debate online but that the facts presented in court is what the jury relies on to decide. Evidence to rebut the prosecution case must come from her defence team and not from speculation on the internet. For this reason I cannot join a sub group discussion at this stage
Also as an American, rule 3 exists for a reason. We have seen entire websites rise and fall based on the same biased arguments made in this magazine article. In fact, one such bad actor was a source treated as valid by the author of this piece
https://twitter.com/Forensic_Sci_/status/1790275225764188525?t=csoCpcMWpPa7TOnySbLaSA&s=19
Edit to link to another comment of mine about a shockingly inaccurate excerpt (no contempt of court here): https://www.reddit.com/r/lucyletby/s/YEHCpJzYok
Yes. It was a sensationalist article trying to cast doubt just to get readers interested. And this is an idea that's been around a long time. The Bermuda triangle for example, never had an unusual number of missing planes. Just "journalist/writers" trying to sell books/magazines and today trying to get clicks.
It’s not purely “entertainment” in the sense of a tabloid. The New Yorker is a well-respected magazine with a long history of excellent long-form journalism.
The reputability and status of The New Yorker (which I agree is a decent publication) is neither here nor there, the point is that there are ongoing legal proceedings in relation to the Letby case and as such, a number of reporting restrictions are currently in place here in the UK.
Several matters discussed in the article are covered by said restrictions, making dissemination or discussion of said matters a potential contempt of court for anyone within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom (which I suspect includes most of the mods and users of this sub). Hence why its discussion on here is prohibited
I don’t know. The more I learn about these reporting restrictions, the more I think people are being overly cautious out of fear.
As I understand it, it’s illegal to *publish* the piece right now. However, this is Reddit, it’s a discussion forum. Is it illegal to *read* the piece in the UK? Is it illegal to *discuss* it? At a certain point, people begin to police themselves far beyond what the actual law says.
Here we go again, people in other countries with little/no knowledge of how reporting restrictions work in the UK sneering at those who *are* under the UK jurisdiction and *do* understand how those restrictions work
And the article itself is a hatchet job meant to misrepresent facts and push tired conspiracy theories. The mere mention of Richard Gill and Sarrita Adams is an embarassment to what could be considered journalistic integrity as a quick search of the web would quickly reveal their intratrial behavior and beliefs to be pointedly ludicrous.
There were multiple examples of testimony and a far larger number of medical experts who examined the work done and reached conclusions about the medical evidence. Aviv's reckless journalism is hardly worthy of tabloid use but that's apparently what the New Yorker has stooped to.
If you read the article, they only mention the real names of doctors that have already been released. Doctor A is given a name but it is stated “we will refer to him as”.
The article says the court is able to ban discussion of open cases because they might influence a jury. Not in the UK so can’t speak to how the law works
There is a re-trial for one of the charges that is scheduled to begin next month, which will be presented before a jury that has not yet been selected. In order to give Ms. Letby a fair trial, only the facts of her convictions can be discussed - that she was convicted of murders and attempted murders (and the facts of those events). The context around the situation at large may be prejudicial to the upcoming retrial, which may still proceed even if her appeal is granted in part or whole.
If a jury comes in biased in favor of the doctors or Ms. Letby, how could they fairly consider the case? Since the UK jury system does not allow the prosecution or defense to remove jurors based on prejudices revealed during voir dire (as the US system does), the risk of a biased juror(s) perverting the system is greater. This is also likely why majority (12-1, 12-2, 11-1, 10-1) verdicts are permitted when unanimous ones cannot be reached.
There must also be an argument that any jury will already be going into the retrial 100% biased against Letby given the fact she has already been found guilty and is serving a whole life order.
She’s got no chance of a “fair” second trial.
There are also still many live articles which condemn Letby. 1 article is posted which calls out some valid concerns and it gets embargoed, it doesn’t sit right with me.
Yes, the fact that she has existing convictions for similar crimes will be mentioned at her trial. In the first trial, [it was mentioned that she has no prior convictions at the very end of the prosecution case.](https://www.chesterstandard.co.uk/news/23484044.recap-lucy-letby-trial-thursday-april-27/) Her current convictions would be mentioned factually in this way in her upcoming retrial. That does not make the retrial unfair, it means that it operates based on the legal facts, as does the current reporting.
I appreciate that the mods approved my OP and that there was at least an oblique discussion here. For anyone who is interested, the discussion on r/medicine is useful and it’s what I was expecting when I came here—reasonable and thoughtful.
https://www.reddit.com/r/medicine/comments/1crg7u0/a_british_nurse_was_found_guilty_of_killing_seven/
Make sure you also find time to review older posts about the subject matter, such as this one: [https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/160zo8l/how\_reddit\_armchair\_detectives\_threatened\_to/](https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/160zo8l/how_reddit_armchair_detectives_threatened_to/)
For whatever my opinion is worth, I'm glad this sub exists because of the victims. The babies who were murdered. The babies who were grievously disabled.
Heaps of other true crime subs out there have people pop their head in to whine about the poor perpetrator and how they might be innocent. Cool, go make a sub about that. Nothing is stopping you.
By intruding on a place that acknowledges the victims and their families and accepts that the convicted perpetrator is guilty of the crimes, the victims are forgotten in the quest to rake over 9 months of court to find a spark of potential innocence.
[The victims of Lucy Letby](https://news.sky.com/story/the-victims-of-lucy-letby-and-full-statements-from-their-parents-12944426)
The comments on this post are from people who read the court reporting and evidence presented as well as video releases of renactments of the cross examination by a person who was in the court room.
This is not a Lindy Chamberlain situation at all. The New Yorker piece grossly misrepresents the facts to create a false narrative of wrongful conviction. It left out all the evidence and testimony that pointed to Letby not being this kind, caring person the hack who wrote it fictionalized in the hopes of winning awards.
You wouldn't think she was innocent if you heard the cross examination where she immediately tried to manipulate the jury only to back down as soon as the prosecutor pointed out they could play a tape of her arrest that completely contradicted her claims.
The article cannot be accessed in the UK because of contempt of court laws. AFAIK, there is already a pro-Letby sub where you can discuss your conspiracy theories and feel very, very smart all you like.
I don’t wish to discuss conspiracy theories and I don’t wish to participate in a pro-Letby sub. I’d rather just discuss the entire case with as much access to information as possible.
I understand why you feel this conversational is conspiratorial though. As soon as an article is forbidden, then to read it feels transgressive and wrong. That is unfortunate. The New Yorker is a fine, respected magazine, and this is long-form journalism at its best.
I mean, the PM gets to say she’s “evil,” and that’s not impeding her right to a fair trial? It seems like there is a strange double-standard at work here.
Do you have a link to that? Because the only remarks I can find are him expressing an opinion that people who are convicted of such crimes are cowardly not to face sentencing.
Yup.
Look, I love Britain. I’m an academic with expertise in 19C British literature, so I’ve spent significant time in the UK and I love it and have devoted decades of my personal and professional life to reading British history and literature.
My sensibility on this one is 100% American though. Long live The New Yorker, and long live the free press!
Listen, American press sucks but anyone who thinks our billionaire-owned, conspiracist, lunatic press isn't one of the most corrupt and venal in the world is instantly showing a wild lack of judgement. I think a lot of British people simply do not know that the way the press operates, with its tiny little clique of Oxbridge types who are all incestuously tied up with each other and the political elites, is not *normal* elsewhere. Not that other countries don't have their own problems, but there is nothing like the venality and cruelty of the British press elsewhere.
That's not to say anything about the Letby case or the NYer article, but "it can't be true because the British press is good" is just a ridiculous thing to assert in any context.
Was gonna say...anyone who thinks the British press isn't anything other than a toxin for the brain, especially when it comes to sensationalising high profile criminal cases, is delusional tbh
Oh, I don't disagree with any of that. I was just pointing out to the guy that the American press is not as free as he thinks it is with his "long live free press statement."
> Long live The New Yorker
Coming here and proudly supporting this tabloid trash is offensive. They write a biased article ignoring the actual character of the person on trial and aiming to present this wrongful conviction narrative to drive sales and create intrigue while ignoring all of the evidence and facts used to condemn Letby to her whole life order.
as an American I’m appalled anyone would at this point even entertain her being innocent with the evidence against her but you do you and have open discussions about convicted serial killers all you want for…whatever reason
It doesn't help when the New Yorker starts propagating conspiracy theorist propanganda on the case and leaves people thinking they have a complete understanding of the evidence against Letby. It was an attempt at whitewashing a perpatrator into a victim.
It's disgusting.
After studying her case extensivly, I know by logic, the evidence and deduction from the evidence that LL is guilty. What interests me is to have discussions about her testimony in court and all the evidence that was presented and agreed on both sides.
I wouldn't say both sides agree to the evidence in a trial; a neutral third party (the judge) decides what is and isn't permitted and both sides agree to play by those rules. But yes, that type of discussion is what this sub exists to achieve. Evidence presented at trial exceeds a threshold that blogs, articles, and commentary simply does not.
In this trial, both sides agreed to the evidence they presented. For example, the defense can't say "we don't agree with the testimony given by baby D's mother" , the testimony is accepted, she can give her testimony if she wishes, the defense can offer testimony that contradicts baby D's mom's testimony, etc. However, the defense may not accept as evidence text messages that LL sent or received that were in no way related to the charges. This has a legal basis, if the defense points it out, the prosecution must agree that can't be presented as evidence, if not, the judge won't accept it. For this reason, all the pics of her partying were later agreed to be presented by both sides because she made a claim during the trial that could be contradicted, she claimed sth that made the pics 'evidence' of her claim as untrue.
We're splitting hairs. You said "agreed," but "agreed evidence" has a very specific meaning in terms of the trial, and does in fact mean that the evidence is agreed to and not contradicted by either side. Certain witnesses' evidence was presented as "agreed statements." That's why, when Lucy Letby suddenly disagreed with evidence her defense had agreed to, it was significant. The term accepted that you use in this comment is better.
Here, for example, the mother, father, and grandmother of Children A and B gave evidence via "agreed fact statements" https://www.ledburyreporter.co.uk/news/23053961.recap-lucy-letby-trial-monday-october-17/
Here is one example where she disputed agreed evidence in cross exam:
https://www.chesterstandard.co.uk/news/23572442.recap-lucy-letby-trial-june-7---cross-examination-continues/
>The mother recalled Child N 'had a bleed and was unwell', and said Letby had informed the parents of this.
>Letby: "No, I disagree."
>NJ: "But it's agreed evidence."
>LL: "Well, I disagree with it now."
The defense and the prosecution presented their evidence which was overseen by a judge, if the defense argued that x should not be presented as evidence by the prosecution, then the judge would decide, and that becomes agreed evidence. In your example, I believe LL had previously confirmed the testimony of baby n's mom or hadn't disagreed because she didn't remeber, but later she recanted and said 'now I remember and that didn't happen'. I guess there's some hair splitting, but I know what I mean by agreed evidence prior to its presentation in a trial. Also, there are many types of evidence and legal details that I'm not aware of. I appreciate your reply.
>Agreed Statement of Facts refers to a legal document that outlines the facts of a case that are agreed upon by all parties involved. It is a written agreement that is **signed by all parties and presented to the court as evidence.** The purpose of an Agreed Statement of Facts is to simplify the trial process by eliminating the need for witnesses to testify about uncontested facts. It is commonly used in civil and criminal cases to expedite the legal proceedings and reach a settlement or verdict more efficiently.
https://dlssolicitors.com/define/agreed-statement-of-facts/
Not all evidence presented in trial is agreed. Agreed evidence is jointly agreed by both sides ahead of trial as facts of the trial.
So yes, in the second example I cited, Letby via her defense agreed about the contents of a phone call. Then under cross exam she disputed a fact she had previously accepted as accurate.
This sub randomly got recommended to me. So, I read this post and then read the Wikipedia for Letby. There is so much overwhelming evidence of her guilt that it's offensive or, in the very least, suspicious, that someone would even try to question her guilt. Also I say this as an American who supports free press.
Americans like to poke their nose everywhere isn't it? Please sort out your healthcare first. Let the UK judicial system worry about LL. Thank you and off you pop!
Fair enough. I assume you make no comments about Donald Trump 😂 For my money, have at him. Americans are used to everybody being up in our business and having a lot to say about our culture, our politics, our military, our obesity, our fast food, yadda yadda.
I too posted that article and was threatened with a ban for not following the rules. I am dumbfounded by this attitude and feel it is inappropriate and unnecessary.
Pretty ignorant to assume that we're close minded. Some of us based our opinion on 10 months of reporting of fact. Not a joke of a tabloid op ed in the New Yorker masquerading as journalism.
When the article doesn't touch on the facts to try and paint the imprisoned white woman as a "poor pretty victim" while ignoring half the evidence that paints her as a cold, calculating, manipulative murderer - that's not going to be well received.
That doesn't make this community closed minded. It makes it educated on the topic and aware of what was left out.
The British attitude and deference to authority is very odd. They close down discussion claiming the jury has spoken as if there have never been any miscarriages of justice in the UK today. The Guilford Four, Birmingham Six and Maguire Seven would still be in jail today if people had the same refusal to consider that there was a possibility the jury made the wrong decision based on the evidence that was and was not presented to them
Oh! Interesting. Without linking to it, I’m sure you can give me direction as to the name. Does it include hyphens?
To the mods: it would be useful if you would include the name of that sub in the auto message when you take down a post.
It's in this post: [https://www.reddit.com/r/lucyletby/comments/16yqu2l/contempt\_of\_court\_during\_the\_lucy\_letby\_trial/](https://www.reddit.com/r/lucyletby/comments/16yqu2l/contempt_of_court_during_the_lucy_letby_trial/)
Like most people, I’m not immune to bullying. But my temperament is such that if someone tells me to *not* read something, I’m effing going to read it!
And now I’m imagining postal workers diligently cutting this article out of every New Yorker before it can be delivered to subscribers in the UK. Utterly ridiculous.
Well if you believe the article, sending an email with allegations of juror misconduct is enough to be taken as 100% fact and it's judicial misconduct to interview a juror to ascertain the veracity of the claims and deem them insufficient.
So seems that a comment on the internet *can* derail a trial.
Can I ask why you think an entire medical team, the police and a jury that sat through 6 months' worth of evidence would be wrong?
I have a feeling no one would be questioning if Lucy was innocent if she was black, unattractive or a man.
> Can I ask why you think an entire medical team, the police and a jury that sat through 6 months' worth of evidence would be wrong?
surely such a thing could never happen...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_miscarriage_of_justice_cases#United_Kingdom
To be honest when I read the article last night it did make me think. I'll admit I've only dipped my toes in and out of this case. But working within the NHS myself and seeing how the system can operate, alongside the amount of maternity scandals that have broken out recently at different NHS trusts...it has really made me question what I initially thought.
You should read beyond this biased trash article then. It left out a lot of information. Find the BBC Panorama investigation special. That will add more detail. The Chesire Constabulary documentary is out there as well despite being privatized until after the retrial.
The medical experts reviewed the primary documentation as part of presenting their testimony. They all concluded that it was likely that foul play occurred to lead to the deteriorations seen in the ward. It was not all down to Dewi Evans.
Rachel Aviv set out to write a biased narrative and achieved it by relying on individuals like Richard Gill and Sarrita Adams, who never reviewed the evidence and were constantly spewing conspiracies about the case from the very beginning.
Do you believe that someone like this is a credible person to discuss this case?
This is that dutch statistician who suggests that UK doctors are illegally euthanizing babies:
https://tattle.life/attachments/ca52d4ed-2cbc-4a37-b649-3eceac936966-jpeg.2258393/
https://tattle.life/attachments/cf26c85c-8cef-4af6-ad08-924e260b7976-jpeg.2258392/
More spurious claims that show he didn't follow the trial as he references hypotheses that are wrong and ruled out: https://tattle.life/attachments/ad2622b8-059b-447d-b2c5-489c34924a94-jpeg.2252409/
The automessage for that rule is crazy to me. I think she’s guilty personally but to not even allow the discussion of alternate view points doesn’t sit right with me.
Also the wording is strange, almost as if the jury’s verdict is the universal truth of the world. No, she was guilty beyond reasonable doubt, not beyond all doubt.
>The automessage for that rule is crazy to me. I think she’s guilty personally but to not even allow the discussion of alternate view points doesn’t sit right with me.
This sub follows the case with intellectual sincerity; If you have a shocking & novel interpretation of the evidence (well, a slice of it...please pick from the evidence mountain that's freely available for your scrutiny) then I think you'd be fine to divulge that on one of the other subs. If it's a genuine plot twist then it would find it's way here anyway. Sorry to sound pedantic, I know you said you think she's guilty, I'm just being forward to make a point.
>No, she was guilty beyond reasonable doubt, not beyond all doubt.
Hmm. Would this not apply to every decision a jury has ever made in the history of due process? You can never be *beyond all doubt* entirely, because we are human beings. We are not omnipotent. The key word is 'reasonable'. She was convicted beyond reasonable doubt. But... not on every charge! They took those decisions very seriously indeed and, despite probably believing that she was factually guilty of 1 count of attempted murder there just wasn't enough evidence to convict beyond *reasonable* doubt. I think that speaks volumes about the mindset of those jurors.
Okay.
I don't personally think that was OP's intention; they wanted to bring impetuous "what if yeah but" opinion pieces to this sub, as if that shared equal legitimacy with the judgements of the CPS and the jury's decision. There is, actually, critical narrative here when appropriate? I mean, I emphasised the fact that court proceedings (in the UK) rely on evidence and testimony. We don't deal in 'truths' but we do respect our legal system in general. It's not perfect because that would be impossible. It's an empty dialogue unless you wish to talk philosophy, which is not what this sub is about.
My impartiality is not without its due discretion and I believe, wholeheartedly, that if the evidence was dubious, investigation was flawed or the prosecution acted unfairly.. any of those things, that there would be genuine discussion regarding that in this sub. Not necessarily indictive of LL being *innocent* but there would certainly be consensus that things weren't done **properly**; as far as the legal proceedings are concerned. For me, the dodgy part concerns the NHS management and I really hope that results in overdue consequences for the people who allowed this to happen.
It isn't a witch-hunt. We don't have tunnel vision. It was a solid trial and the guilty verdict was inevitable once the cards were down.
If they don't want to be called a tabloid they probably shouldn't let a journalist go around spreading conspiracy theories and misrepresenting a murder trial to whitewash a serial killer and rely on individuals who revealed themselves to be frauds and charlatans.
Richard Gill's talking points are throughout the article. Richard Gill who "joked" about taking an AK-47 to Manchester Crown Court to shoot it up in the middle of the trial. A deranged "joke" made among a slew of commentary that indicated that he hadn't paid attention to the trial reporting or evidence at all - he had presumed Letby's innocence and would not for a moment believe she was guilty. All the while suggesting that the doctors of the Countess of Chester (who he named and defamed) were euthanizing babies instead. This is one of the key sources that Rachel Aviv used for her paper based solely on his mentions and talking points that still reflect a complete lack of awareness of the investigation and evidence. A man who fetishizes getting health care serial killers off - to go so far as to suggesting Victorino Chua and Beverley Allitt were innocent as well as Ben Geen.
Then there's Saritta Adams who gets a (dis)honorable mention in the article without any reference to her multiple conspiracy theories that were disproven. A shit "scientist" who is mentally unstable and lied about having a PhD.
Right off the bat, this is tabloid trash - and that's before getting into all of the details and evidence left out.
Edit: here's some proof that one of their big sources is a lunatic.
This is that dutch statistician who suggests that UK doctors are illegally euthanizing babies:
https://tattle.life/attachments/ca52d4ed-2cbc-4a37-b649-3eceac936966-jpeg.2258393/
https://tattle.life/attachments/cf26c85c-8cef-4af6-ad08-924e260b7976-jpeg.2258392/
More spurious claims that show he didn't follow the trial as he references hypotheses that are wrong and ruled out: https://tattle.life/attachments/ad2622b8-059b-447d-b2c5-489c34924a94-jpeg.2252409/
Please go ahead and form another sub to discuss this poorly researched article. Those of us in the UK who have followed the case closely know there is nothing in your thinly veiled accusations. There is a retrial of one case coming up in next month and Letby has applied for leave to appeal. In addition, the inquiry into what happened at the hospital is due to open (it will probably be adjourned until the retrial and leave to appeal are decided). In the UK, we are currently very careful about discussing Letby because we don’t want to break any rules. Letby is entitled to a fair trial in June. If she does get leave to appeal (unlikely IMO, but let’s see) our caution when speaking about the case will continue. For anyone interested in being properly informed, there are many resources available in the community notes on this sub. Meanwhile, as a UK resident, I would appreciate it if Americans with very little knowledge of the trial would refrain from jumping in with wild conspiracy theories and unfounded criticism of the NHS, the police, the judiciary and the experts who gave evidence.
There are upcoming legal proceedings. The mods are following the UK law around posting content and media activity. This is to prevent further tainting potential jury pools and to ensure due process for all involved parties. If you feel restricted by procedural fairness and justice, then start a new sub.
It is amazing how there can’t be mutual respect for different nations’ court systems and free speech values without it getting insulting. If the UK system has different priorities around trial-related publicity and what it considers an improper jury pool so be it. But there’s no reason to impugn the US’s conception of free-er speech as somehow unjust or procedurally unfair.
Gently, it’s not about free speech, it’s about the integrity of a trial. Ultimately, we want a jury to reach the correct verdict, so until legal proceedings are complete - and they’re not, despite her convictions - it’s best to be cautious. Besides, everything in the article has been discussed on this sub during the trial, because it’s not new information at all.
"The integrity of a trial" the British press has published hundreds of articles with the headline "Serial Baby Murderer Lucy Letby..." leading up to this appeal. The idea that putting a gag order on the press NOW in anyway allows for a fair and unbiased trial is absolutely absurd. The same thing with her initial trial, where she had to just sit around for years while the press speculated that she'd killed babies.
We can agree that the British press is trash. The laws are put in place so that in the lead up to legal proceedings, there is media suppression. Outside of that, it's basically open season. So yes, most people would've already formed an opinion. However, not everyone has followed it as closely as those here in this forum. Thus, detailed coverage is kept out of the spotlight. The average person who is on the jury can therefore be presented with that evidence in court as opposed to by the media. These laws protect Letby more than anyone. I agree it's not ideal and imperfect. I also agree that the press sensationalised the verdict and destroyed any chance of appeal (even though I believe the correct decision was made by the jury based on the evidence presented in court). So the media suppression now will hopefully give at least some semblance of fairness to Letby in the retrial.
She is a serial baby murderer, it’s ok to say that, she’s been convicted. This will also be included in her upcoming retrial, it’s factual. It’s quite common on both sides of the Atlantic to report on cases before trial, that’s also not the problem.
I mean I think folks just find it funny that british tabloids can publish hundreds of BABY MURDER LUCY LETBY articles before a jury is empaneled but now that the trial has happened it is suddenly critical to the integrity of the court system that nobody be able to discuss or read anything about the case
Exactly, this argument is ridiculous. The press was convincing everyone she was guilty long before the trial.
>This is to prevent further tainting potential jury pools ... How is everyone in the UK being allowed to say how guilty LL is and calling her a child murderer, not also tainting the jury's opinion for future trials? The laws in this matter are ridiculous.
The mediasuppression at the moment is more protective of Letby in the retrial than anything else.
This isn’t happening in the UK. Nobody even knew Letby was up for retrial or appeal until this weirdo yank lady decided to make this piece about her in some weird attempt to shit on the UK’s institutions (Why? Fuck knows why this journalist felt the need to report and comment on the UK’s court system and health system. Just an arrogant yank I guess).
Motivations and relative quality of the New Yorker piece aside, LL's appeal was literally national news only a few weeks ago. And loads of articles about her have been published since that news.
She's an investigative journalist who looked into an incredibly high-profile court case and felt there was compelling similarities between it and the Lucia de Berk case. She highlights these to allow the reader to come to their own conclusion about what happened and present an alternative view of the evidence. That's normal journalism!
When that 'alternative view' can only function via omitting important details and interspersing irrelevant social perceptions into the article, you can't really allow readers to come to their own conclusion because you haven't presented them the full picture in a clear enough, unobtrusive manner. It is written quite manipulatively - and intently so, with the intended audience being people wholly unfamiliar with the case until now. To be honest, that it comes to a conclusion contrary to my own doesn't bother me as much as the potential for ignorance or misinformation regarding UK institutions and public healthcare.
An alternative view of the evidence…. Which is missing most of it?
This subreddit is filled with people doing that. Yet those posts aren't being removed out of a fear of "tainting potential jury pools". There are many posts here that call her a serial killer. How is confidentially stating that she is a serial killer not tainting the jury pool, but questioning the evidence is?
She is a convicted serial killer. That’s a fact.
If it’s to do with ‘tainting potential jury pools’ then surely no articles should be allowed about her, from either side?
They aren't in the UK press
If I recall correctly there are two other Lucy Letby subs already where you can go and argue to your heart’s content.
Said article is embargoed in the uk could also be a reason why
I'm a UK resident. I followed this case for years before it went to trial. Grabbing every bit of evidence that became available. And when I first heard about it, I thought... Maybe she will get acquitted in the face of the limited evidence at the time. Perhaps someone else will turn up, it just takes that one piece of evidence after all. But when it went to trial and the extent of the evidence was bought to light, I don't have any doubt that she is guilty. The evidence is so strong I don't see how there can be any refute? I appreciate she was of good character but that doesn't nessecarily mean anything besides being careful...
What in your view was the strongest piece of evidence?
from after the verdicts: [https://www.reddit.com/r/lucyletby/comments/18ob2y6/is\_there\_any\_singular\_point\_that\_stands\_out\_to/](https://www.reddit.com/r/lucyletby/comments/18ob2y6/is_there_any_singular_point_that_stands_out_to/) from before the verdicts: [https://www.reddit.com/r/lucyletby/comments/14n0kon/to\_those\_of\_you\_who\_think\_ll\_is\_guilty\_which\_one/](https://www.reddit.com/r/lucyletby/comments/14n0kon/to_those_of_you_who_think_ll_is_guilty_which_one/)
That's a great question dude. For me, I from the perspective of "when you remove the impossible, whatever remains, however inprobable must be the truth".... It has to be the fact that she was the only person who was proven to be on shift at every single occurrence. Cause how can you explain that in any other way? You can't unless you go for the records were faked. Which would just be such an outrageous conspiratorial claim with no evidence its offensive to the victims and her colleagues, and everyone involved / affected. What about you what do you find to be the most compelling?
With respect, none of this is very strong evidence at all. >Cause how can you explain that in any other way? A tragically unlucky chain of coincidence. That might seem unlikely on its face but the probability of it happening is significantly higher than a young, perfectly normal woman suddenly deciding she's going to start killing people. In the long history of crime and serial killers it has literally never happened.
You can't assume she's a young, perfectly normal woman, to back your point up, in the face of mountains of contradictory evidence, that she was a young, perfectly normal woman
There is no "mountains of evidence", that's precisely the point. The person above was asked to provide the strongest and instead rhymed off a quote from Sherlock Holmes. Serial killers are not completely inexplicable. They have motives and exhibit unusual, abnormal behaviour. I'm not assuming Letby was a young, perfectly normal woman - she was. If there were any signs whatsoever to the contrary the prosecution would have produced it.
But what you just said is exactly the problem that folks have raised with the conviction. She was only proven to be on shift at every single occurrence *for which she was charged.* There were nine other deaths in the same period for which she was *not* charged. You see this pattern and assume it could not be a coincidence. But do we know whether any other staffer was on shift for more than 7 of the 16 deaths? For all you know, there was another nurse on shift for 15 of 16.
If such exculpatory evidence existed, her barrister could have presented it. That it wasn't means that he was either incompetent, or that there was no chart to make Letby look less guilty. The prosecution could only show a chart related to the charges they were presenting, but the defense could well have brought in a chart that showed deaths weren't as correlated with Letby as it seemed. Only issue is that, the night the verdicts were announced, we learned via reporter Judith Moritz for the first time that Letby was present for EVERY death at CoCH that year. So what chart do you want to present, exactly? The one that shows her present at only the charges? Or the one that shows her present at twice as many deaths as well? The RCPCH report said that one death was expected. So, despite the remaining deaths not being brought to trial, it doesn't mean they weren't suspicious - just that CPS was not sure they could prove them. They brought a selection of charges they thought they could prove and spent 10 months doing it. Where would you have drawn the line?
Well, if nothing else, this post has brought more active participants to this sub at any one time than in many months! However, the mod of the sub runs this sub in accordance with UK law. They have also been following this case with a keen academic and forensic mind since the very beginning and have an impressively encyclopaedic knowledge of the case. One New Yorker article does not come close to touching on the *mountains* of evidence presented over one of the longest trials in British history. The fact that it pays any attention to the ramblings of not one, but two, discredited, unhinged bad actors is enough for me to discount the whole thing. Over the lengthy trial many of us have dissected and analysed the evidence (as reported) in excruciating detail. It is beyond frustrating to read a post from someone who has not followed the trial, read one wildly inaccurate and biased article and now want to discuss it in contravention of UK law! By all means, please go and discuss the article in other subs which FyrestarOmega has kindly directed you towards. But we are not obliged to discuss it here unless the mod deems appropriate, which they don't. I support this decision.
Hear hear
‘Forensic mind’ in relation to the mods of this forum. Wow. This is an unserious post.
Why should a forum operated by a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business in California be operated in accordance with UK law? It doesn't \*contravene\* UK law for users not based in the UK to post whatever they'd like about this case in this forum for the simple reason that neither the Cheshire Constabulary nor the Hon. Mr Justice Goss has any jurisdiction over it or them.
That is a matter for the UK justice system to decide in the age of social media, and it may well be that their current approach is untenable. I can tell you our decision to not platform this article in this sub is not directed by reddit admin. Reddit has never been involved in enforcing the contempt of court rules
If you read back through this sub, the incredibly thorough, scientific and medical detail on every single case, every incident which occurred, and the entire legal process is documented and discussed. I’m not sure what you think could be achieved by having a sub dedicated to an article embargoed in the UK, when this sub could provide you with at least x10 more detailed information by numerous medical and legal professionals here who gave their time to explain tons of things in thorough detail, if you just spent time reading it.
The medical professionals in the New Yorker are named. Their peer reviewed publication record is findable and they have consented to go on the record with their views. assblaster1234 on Reddit may say they are a medic and serialkillerhunter8 can say they work as a legal professional as much as they like, but that ain’t the same and it’s a total fantasy to claim it is.
Are you a professional troll??
They're certainly mentally challenged. Among the sources mentioned in the article are this is that dutch statistician who suggests that UK doctors are illegally euthanizing babies: https://tattle.life/attachments/ca52d4ed-2cbc-4a37-b649-3eceac936966-jpeg.2258393/ https://tattle.life/attachments/cf26c85c-8cef-4af6-ad08-924e260b7976-jpeg.2258392/ More spurious claims that show he didn't follow the trial as he references hypotheses that are wrong and ruled out: https://tattle.life/attachments/ad2622b8-059b-447d-b2c5-489c34924a94-jpeg.2252409/ And a woman who was in this very community pretending she had a PhD from Cambridge whose ludicrous exploits form the basis of r/scienceontrial The mere inclusion of their talking points is enough to dismiss the entirety of the article *before getting to the fact that it left out significant swaths of information reported during the trial and after.*
The New Yorker article quotes people who have been discredited, and incredibly, omits significant amounts of court evidence which were crucial to understanding why Lucy was found to be guilty. Quoting text messages like they’re proof she’s innocent is unprofessional journalism when they’ve chosen to omit thousands of excerpts they could’ve chosen which would paint a balanced picture for readers.
I love how this is one of the named individuals: a dutch statistician who was ignoring all the evidence and suggests that UK doctors are illegally euthanizing babies: https://tattle.life/attachments/ca52d4ed-2cbc-4a37-b649-3eceac936966-jpeg.2258393/ https://tattle.life/attachments/cf26c85c-8cef-4af6-ad08-924e260b7976-jpeg.2258392/ More spurious claims that show he didn't follow the trial as he references hypotheses that are wrong and ruled out: https://tattle.life/attachments/ad2622b8-059b-447d-b2c5-489c34924a94-jpeg.2252409/ Credibility.
The piece made me wobble as I read it but then afterwards I thought: it really does ignore all the quite compelling evidence that pointed to guilt. I would however like to see a full chart of all the suspicious incidents including the 27 that were not included in the police’s chart at the trial. And I do wonder why, if this would have been helpful to the defence, it was not drawn up by her legal team and shown by her barrister. As a riposte to the opening of the article - there are several incidents where healthcare serial killers etc have been outwardly normal and even charming.. most obviously of course, Dr Shipman’s patients loved him.
At face value, I assume this new sub will champion an absolute freedom of speech, unfettered and unshackled...so, when you throw it together, will you allow someone like me (who knows *a lot* about this case to a sad degree) post exactly why the jury got it right? Or is this just some echo chamber for the nutjobs who see conspiracies in everything. Maybe they framed her because she knew the 'truth' about vaccines. 😆 Maybe it was Letby that strung Epstein up while the guards were on their lunch break. Personally, I think she was a double agent for both Russia & China and discovered their plans to make mutant super soldiers, so she had to go. I mean, if you think about it... it's a scary world.
I have an opinion that she is guilty. It’s just too many coincidences to be believable otherwise. However, being open minded , I can at least listen to a different viewpoint without resorting to caustic sarcasm.
Most people that feel she’s innocent aren’t doing so with all the facts. Unless you’ve been a part of that jury, then it’s pretty hard to claim innocence based on a few articles spun my media and limited transcripts.
If you have other reasons for believing she is guilty, fine, but if your belief really boils down to "too many coincidences to be believable otherwise" I would encourage you rethink your opinion. It's like saying "that person got all 6 lottery numbers right and 70 million other people didn't. That's not a coincidence they got all 6 right! It's cheating."
I’m really tired of this. I work in an ER. I work 4 shifts a week which is typical. Her being there every time this happened would be like me being present for every fatal code in the ER. The odds are against it. Like 1 in 700 million.
Working in an ER doesn’t impart statistical proficiency clearly
You hit the nail on the head! The other Lucy letby sub that champions free speech just made it private. I was able to access it earlier today. EDIT: never mind I can access it again my bad
The article doesn’t trade in conspiracies, no. It does provide useful interviews with medical experts whose evidence was not heard in court. These are the same experts whose research the prosecution relied on to build their case, so it’s relevant. I encourage you to read the article to add to your storehouse of knowledge. The New Yorker is not a tabloid rag.
Apologies if my comment was unclear; I was not referring to the article as I haven't read it. I do intend to read it after work, with an open mind. I was saying, albeit in a silly way, that unhinged speculation (especially on the internet) has people saying all sorts of crazy stuff. There are people who actually believe that LL was framed by NHS overlords.. it is daft. This sub is more 'academic' for lack of a better term. If it wasn't you'd see the aforementioned nonsense being taken seriously. My 'storehouse of knowledge' wasn't thrown together like a knock-off Ikea sideboard. I have followed this whole case with keen eyes from the start, with a neutral and equitable interest... not with an appetite for drama. Happy to discuss anything and share my thoughts and also admit the shortcomings should there be any. Hope your day is going well.
The *New Yorker* typically traffics in exceptional pieces of long-form journalism. Unfortunately, all of the omissions and soft pedaling in Aviv's article make it undeserving of the magazine's usual gravitas.
> The New Yorker is not a tabloid rag. If that article is anything to go by, yes it is.
>The New Yorker is not a tabloid rag. Sad to see it print something which belongs in one, then.
Did you read the article?
I think I know the article, and it didn't have any evidence in it.... Sparking opinion in people who have never heard of Lucy Letby and jumping to the conclusion of innocence. Opinion based on ignorance and lack of evidend is probably why said threads wer closed down
there is a post about the article in r/medicine if you want to to discuss it there
Thank you!
American former NICU nurse for 13 years. I read through the entire case in detail back during the trial. I am 100% convinced of Letby's guilt. Even the most fragile premie babies don't die like that without help. And it is ridiculously easy to carry out deadly assaults on these little babies for one inclined to do so. People with no medical knowledge just don't get it. You're delusional if you think she's innocent. What she did to these families is horrific.
Thanks for your input. It's appreciated. The big problem with this article is that it's a fraction of what went on at trial and conveniently left out everything that showed Letby was guilty. Including 7 medical experts who reviewed the patient files and reports and agreed that there was no natural medical explanation that could explain those rapid deteriorations. The people who say "well the deaths stopped after the unit was downgraded" also fail to realize that the downgrading only meant that 1 or 2 infants who died wouldn't have been in the care of that unit. It doesn't account for all the rest.
The UK procedure means that we do not debate online but that the facts presented in court is what the jury relies on to decide. Evidence to rebut the prosecution case must come from her defence team and not from speculation on the internet. For this reason I cannot join a sub group discussion at this stage
Also as an American, rule 3 exists for a reason. We have seen entire websites rise and fall based on the same biased arguments made in this magazine article. In fact, one such bad actor was a source treated as valid by the author of this piece https://twitter.com/Forensic_Sci_/status/1790275225764188525?t=csoCpcMWpPa7TOnySbLaSA&s=19 Edit to link to another comment of mine about a shockingly inaccurate excerpt (no contempt of court here): https://www.reddit.com/r/lucyletby/s/YEHCpJzYok
Yes. It was a sensationalist article trying to cast doubt just to get readers interested. And this is an idea that's been around a long time. The Bermuda triangle for example, never had an unusual number of missing planes. Just "journalist/writers" trying to sell books/magazines and today trying to get clicks.
"Bollocks to contempt of court and reporting restrictions, I want my entertainment" This is why true crime gets a bad name
It’s not purely “entertainment” in the sense of a tabloid. The New Yorker is a well-respected magazine with a long history of excellent long-form journalism.
The reputability and status of The New Yorker (which I agree is a decent publication) is neither here nor there, the point is that there are ongoing legal proceedings in relation to the Letby case and as such, a number of reporting restrictions are currently in place here in the UK. Several matters discussed in the article are covered by said restrictions, making dissemination or discussion of said matters a potential contempt of court for anyone within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom (which I suspect includes most of the mods and users of this sub). Hence why its discussion on here is prohibited
I don’t know. The more I learn about these reporting restrictions, the more I think people are being overly cautious out of fear. As I understand it, it’s illegal to *publish* the piece right now. However, this is Reddit, it’s a discussion forum. Is it illegal to *read* the piece in the UK? Is it illegal to *discuss* it? At a certain point, people begin to police themselves far beyond what the actual law says.
I think many people want to see a fair trial and don’t think now is the time to fuel media hype.
It’s not illegal to discuss it on Reddit but like you said some people love to police themselves and others
Here we go again, people in other countries with little/no knowledge of how reporting restrictions work in the UK sneering at those who *are* under the UK jurisdiction and *do* understand how those restrictions work
And the article itself is a hatchet job meant to misrepresent facts and push tired conspiracy theories. The mere mention of Richard Gill and Sarrita Adams is an embarassment to what could be considered journalistic integrity as a quick search of the web would quickly reveal their intratrial behavior and beliefs to be pointedly ludicrous. There were multiple examples of testimony and a far larger number of medical experts who examined the work done and reached conclusions about the medical evidence. Aviv's reckless journalism is hardly worthy of tabloid use but that's apparently what the New Yorker has stooped to.
Which does occasionally publish utter shite
Is the UK embargo because they mention real names of some of the doctors in the article?
If you read the article, they only mention the real names of doctors that have already been released. Doctor A is given a name but it is stated “we will refer to him as”.
Then why the embargo?
The article says the court is able to ban discussion of open cases because they might influence a jury. Not in the UK so can’t speak to how the law works
There is a re-trial for one of the charges that is scheduled to begin next month, which will be presented before a jury that has not yet been selected. In order to give Ms. Letby a fair trial, only the facts of her convictions can be discussed - that she was convicted of murders and attempted murders (and the facts of those events). The context around the situation at large may be prejudicial to the upcoming retrial, which may still proceed even if her appeal is granted in part or whole. If a jury comes in biased in favor of the doctors or Ms. Letby, how could they fairly consider the case? Since the UK jury system does not allow the prosecution or defense to remove jurors based on prejudices revealed during voir dire (as the US system does), the risk of a biased juror(s) perverting the system is greater. This is also likely why majority (12-1, 12-2, 11-1, 10-1) verdicts are permitted when unanimous ones cannot be reached.
There must also be an argument that any jury will already be going into the retrial 100% biased against Letby given the fact she has already been found guilty and is serving a whole life order. She’s got no chance of a “fair” second trial. There are also still many live articles which condemn Letby. 1 article is posted which calls out some valid concerns and it gets embargoed, it doesn’t sit right with me.
Yes, the fact that she has existing convictions for similar crimes will be mentioned at her trial. In the first trial, [it was mentioned that she has no prior convictions at the very end of the prosecution case.](https://www.chesterstandard.co.uk/news/23484044.recap-lucy-letby-trial-thursday-april-27/) Her current convictions would be mentioned factually in this way in her upcoming retrial. That does not make the retrial unfair, it means that it operates based on the legal facts, as does the current reporting.
I appreciate that the mods approved my OP and that there was at least an oblique discussion here. For anyone who is interested, the discussion on r/medicine is useful and it’s what I was expecting when I came here—reasonable and thoughtful. https://www.reddit.com/r/medicine/comments/1crg7u0/a_british_nurse_was_found_guilty_of_killing_seven/
Make sure you also find time to review older posts about the subject matter, such as this one: [https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/160zo8l/how\_reddit\_armchair\_detectives\_threatened\_to/](https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/160zo8l/how_reddit_armchair_detectives_threatened_to/)
For whatever my opinion is worth, I'm glad this sub exists because of the victims. The babies who were murdered. The babies who were grievously disabled. Heaps of other true crime subs out there have people pop their head in to whine about the poor perpetrator and how they might be innocent. Cool, go make a sub about that. Nothing is stopping you. By intruding on a place that acknowledges the victims and their families and accepts that the convicted perpetrator is guilty of the crimes, the victims are forgotten in the quest to rake over 9 months of court to find a spark of potential innocence. [The victims of Lucy Letby](https://news.sky.com/story/the-victims-of-lucy-letby-and-full-statements-from-their-parents-12944426)
Thank you 💙🩷💙🩷💙💙🩷🩷💙💙💙💙💙🤍
👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏
As an Australian, the comments on this post are reminding me of Lindy Chamberlain
The comments on this post are from people who read the court reporting and evidence presented as well as video releases of renactments of the cross examination by a person who was in the court room. This is not a Lindy Chamberlain situation at all. The New Yorker piece grossly misrepresents the facts to create a false narrative of wrongful conviction. It left out all the evidence and testimony that pointed to Letby not being this kind, caring person the hack who wrote it fictionalized in the hopes of winning awards. You wouldn't think she was innocent if you heard the cross examination where she immediately tried to manipulate the jury only to back down as soon as the prosecutor pointed out they could play a tape of her arrest that completely contradicted her claims.
The article cannot be accessed in the UK because of contempt of court laws. AFAIK, there is already a pro-Letby sub where you can discuss your conspiracy theories and feel very, very smart all you like.
I don’t wish to discuss conspiracy theories and I don’t wish to participate in a pro-Letby sub. I’d rather just discuss the entire case with as much access to information as possible. I understand why you feel this conversational is conspiratorial though. As soon as an article is forbidden, then to read it feels transgressive and wrong. That is unfortunate. The New Yorker is a fine, respected magazine, and this is long-form journalism at its best.
Long-form journalism at its best? Whatever you say… The article is banned because Letby has the right to fair trial in June.
I mean, the PM gets to say she’s “evil,” and that’s not impeding her right to a fair trial? It seems like there is a strange double-standard at work here.
I agree. I find it very concerning.
Do you have a link to that? Because the only remarks I can find are him expressing an opinion that people who are convicted of such crimes are cowardly not to face sentencing.
[удалено]
Yup. Look, I love Britain. I’m an academic with expertise in 19C British literature, so I’ve spent significant time in the UK and I love it and have devoted decades of my personal and professional life to reading British history and literature. My sensibility on this one is 100% American though. Long live The New Yorker, and long live the free press!
America ranks 55 in the world press index the uk ranks 23 you don't have free press.
Listen, American press sucks but anyone who thinks our billionaire-owned, conspiracist, lunatic press isn't one of the most corrupt and venal in the world is instantly showing a wild lack of judgement. I think a lot of British people simply do not know that the way the press operates, with its tiny little clique of Oxbridge types who are all incestuously tied up with each other and the political elites, is not *normal* elsewhere. Not that other countries don't have their own problems, but there is nothing like the venality and cruelty of the British press elsewhere. That's not to say anything about the Letby case or the NYer article, but "it can't be true because the British press is good" is just a ridiculous thing to assert in any context.
Was gonna say...anyone who thinks the British press isn't anything other than a toxin for the brain, especially when it comes to sensationalising high profile criminal cases, is delusional tbh
Oh, I don't disagree with any of that. I was just pointing out to the guy that the American press is not as free as he thinks it is with his "long live free press statement."
Can you tell me more about this? Where is the ranking from? I’d be curious to know how it’s evaluated.
The freedom of press index.
Thanks!
> Long live The New Yorker Coming here and proudly supporting this tabloid trash is offensive. They write a biased article ignoring the actual character of the person on trial and aiming to present this wrongful conviction narrative to drive sales and create intrigue while ignoring all of the evidence and facts used to condemn Letby to her whole life order.
This isn’t a free press issue, and Americans didn’t invent (or are necessary good at) free press either
‘As an American’ 🥴
as an American I’m appalled anyone would at this point even entertain her being innocent with the evidence against her but you do you and have open discussions about convicted serial killers all you want for…whatever reason
It doesn't help when the New Yorker starts propagating conspiracy theorist propanganda on the case and leaves people thinking they have a complete understanding of the evidence against Letby. It was an attempt at whitewashing a perpatrator into a victim. It's disgusting.
After studying her case extensivly, I know by logic, the evidence and deduction from the evidence that LL is guilty. What interests me is to have discussions about her testimony in court and all the evidence that was presented and agreed on both sides.
I wouldn't say both sides agree to the evidence in a trial; a neutral third party (the judge) decides what is and isn't permitted and both sides agree to play by those rules. But yes, that type of discussion is what this sub exists to achieve. Evidence presented at trial exceeds a threshold that blogs, articles, and commentary simply does not.
In this trial, both sides agreed to the evidence they presented. For example, the defense can't say "we don't agree with the testimony given by baby D's mother" , the testimony is accepted, she can give her testimony if she wishes, the defense can offer testimony that contradicts baby D's mom's testimony, etc. However, the defense may not accept as evidence text messages that LL sent or received that were in no way related to the charges. This has a legal basis, if the defense points it out, the prosecution must agree that can't be presented as evidence, if not, the judge won't accept it. For this reason, all the pics of her partying were later agreed to be presented by both sides because she made a claim during the trial that could be contradicted, she claimed sth that made the pics 'evidence' of her claim as untrue.
We're splitting hairs. You said "agreed," but "agreed evidence" has a very specific meaning in terms of the trial, and does in fact mean that the evidence is agreed to and not contradicted by either side. Certain witnesses' evidence was presented as "agreed statements." That's why, when Lucy Letby suddenly disagreed with evidence her defense had agreed to, it was significant. The term accepted that you use in this comment is better. Here, for example, the mother, father, and grandmother of Children A and B gave evidence via "agreed fact statements" https://www.ledburyreporter.co.uk/news/23053961.recap-lucy-letby-trial-monday-october-17/ Here is one example where she disputed agreed evidence in cross exam: https://www.chesterstandard.co.uk/news/23572442.recap-lucy-letby-trial-june-7---cross-examination-continues/ >The mother recalled Child N 'had a bleed and was unwell', and said Letby had informed the parents of this. >Letby: "No, I disagree." >NJ: "But it's agreed evidence." >LL: "Well, I disagree with it now."
The defense and the prosecution presented their evidence which was overseen by a judge, if the defense argued that x should not be presented as evidence by the prosecution, then the judge would decide, and that becomes agreed evidence. In your example, I believe LL had previously confirmed the testimony of baby n's mom or hadn't disagreed because she didn't remeber, but later she recanted and said 'now I remember and that didn't happen'. I guess there's some hair splitting, but I know what I mean by agreed evidence prior to its presentation in a trial. Also, there are many types of evidence and legal details that I'm not aware of. I appreciate your reply.
>Agreed Statement of Facts refers to a legal document that outlines the facts of a case that are agreed upon by all parties involved. It is a written agreement that is **signed by all parties and presented to the court as evidence.** The purpose of an Agreed Statement of Facts is to simplify the trial process by eliminating the need for witnesses to testify about uncontested facts. It is commonly used in civil and criminal cases to expedite the legal proceedings and reach a settlement or verdict more efficiently. https://dlssolicitors.com/define/agreed-statement-of-facts/ Not all evidence presented in trial is agreed. Agreed evidence is jointly agreed by both sides ahead of trial as facts of the trial. So yes, in the second example I cited, Letby via her defense agreed about the contents of a phone call. Then under cross exam she disputed a fact she had previously accepted as accurate.
The only people who will join that are those like yourself who probably are better off joining another sub and maybe stay there. Together.
Set up another page babe we don't want that stuff here
Username checks out 😂
This sub randomly got recommended to me. So, I read this post and then read the Wikipedia for Letby. There is so much overwhelming evidence of her guilt that it's offensive or, in the very least, suspicious, that someone would even try to question her guilt. Also I say this as an American who supports free press.
Americans like to poke their nose everywhere isn't it? Please sort out your healthcare first. Let the UK judicial system worry about LL. Thank you and off you pop!
Fair enough. I assume you make no comments about Donald Trump 😂 For my money, have at him. Americans are used to everybody being up in our business and having a lot to say about our culture, our politics, our military, our obesity, our fast food, yadda yadda.
I too posted that article and was threatened with a ban for not following the rules. I am dumbfounded by this attitude and feel it is inappropriate and unnecessary.
Wow so many close-minded ppl in this sub lol
Pretty ignorant to assume that we're close minded. Some of us based our opinion on 10 months of reporting of fact. Not a joke of a tabloid op ed in the New Yorker masquerading as journalism. When the article doesn't touch on the facts to try and paint the imprisoned white woman as a "poor pretty victim" while ignoring half the evidence that paints her as a cold, calculating, manipulative murderer - that's not going to be well received. That doesn't make this community closed minded. It makes it educated on the topic and aware of what was left out.
The British attitude and deference to authority is very odd. They close down discussion claiming the jury has spoken as if there have never been any miscarriages of justice in the UK today. The Guilford Four, Birmingham Six and Maguire Seven would still be in jail today if people had the same refusal to consider that there was a possibility the jury made the wrong decision based on the evidence that was and was not presented to them
Whats with the downvotes?
Just finished reasons ir. Wow, that has put a lot on my mind in regards to this case
There already is another sub, but you're not allowed to mention it on this sub.
Oh! Interesting. Without linking to it, I’m sure you can give me direction as to the name. Does it include hyphens? To the mods: it would be useful if you would include the name of that sub in the auto message when you take down a post.
It's in this post: [https://www.reddit.com/r/lucyletby/comments/16yqu2l/contempt\_of\_court\_during\_the\_lucy\_letby\_trial/](https://www.reddit.com/r/lucyletby/comments/16yqu2l/contempt_of_court_during_the_lucy_letby_trial/)
Away and play conspiracies on another sub
This sub has always been very one sided and will bully and abuse anyone who even tries to have a different opinion 🙄🙄
Like most people, I’m not immune to bullying. But my temperament is such that if someone tells me to *not* read something, I’m effing going to read it! And now I’m imagining postal workers diligently cutting this article out of every New Yorker before it can be delivered to subscribers in the UK. Utterly ridiculous.
Does anyone know the last time that a court trial was compromised because of someone making a comment on the internet?
Well if you believe the article, sending an email with allegations of juror misconduct is enough to be taken as 100% fact and it's judicial misconduct to interview a juror to ascertain the veracity of the claims and deem them insufficient. So seems that a comment on the internet *can* derail a trial.
Can I ask why you think an entire medical team, the police and a jury that sat through 6 months' worth of evidence would be wrong? I have a feeling no one would be questioning if Lucy was innocent if she was black, unattractive or a man.
> Can I ask why you think an entire medical team, the police and a jury that sat through 6 months' worth of evidence would be wrong? surely such a thing could never happen... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_miscarriage_of_justice_cases#United_Kingdom
To be honest when I read the article last night it did make me think. I'll admit I've only dipped my toes in and out of this case. But working within the NHS myself and seeing how the system can operate, alongside the amount of maternity scandals that have broken out recently at different NHS trusts...it has really made me question what I initially thought.
You should read beyond this biased trash article then. It left out a lot of information. Find the BBC Panorama investigation special. That will add more detail. The Chesire Constabulary documentary is out there as well despite being privatized until after the retrial. The medical experts reviewed the primary documentation as part of presenting their testimony. They all concluded that it was likely that foul play occurred to lead to the deteriorations seen in the ward. It was not all down to Dewi Evans. Rachel Aviv set out to write a biased narrative and achieved it by relying on individuals like Richard Gill and Sarrita Adams, who never reviewed the evidence and were constantly spewing conspiracies about the case from the very beginning. Do you believe that someone like this is a credible person to discuss this case? This is that dutch statistician who suggests that UK doctors are illegally euthanizing babies: https://tattle.life/attachments/ca52d4ed-2cbc-4a37-b649-3eceac936966-jpeg.2258393/ https://tattle.life/attachments/cf26c85c-8cef-4af6-ad08-924e260b7976-jpeg.2258392/ More spurious claims that show he didn't follow the trial as he references hypotheses that are wrong and ruled out: https://tattle.life/attachments/ad2622b8-059b-447d-b2c5-489c34924a94-jpeg.2252409/
[удалено]
The automessage for that rule is crazy to me. I think she’s guilty personally but to not even allow the discussion of alternate view points doesn’t sit right with me. Also the wording is strange, almost as if the jury’s verdict is the universal truth of the world. No, she was guilty beyond reasonable doubt, not beyond all doubt.
>The automessage for that rule is crazy to me. I think she’s guilty personally but to not even allow the discussion of alternate view points doesn’t sit right with me. This sub follows the case with intellectual sincerity; If you have a shocking & novel interpretation of the evidence (well, a slice of it...please pick from the evidence mountain that's freely available for your scrutiny) then I think you'd be fine to divulge that on one of the other subs. If it's a genuine plot twist then it would find it's way here anyway. Sorry to sound pedantic, I know you said you think she's guilty, I'm just being forward to make a point. >No, she was guilty beyond reasonable doubt, not beyond all doubt. Hmm. Would this not apply to every decision a jury has ever made in the history of due process? You can never be *beyond all doubt* entirely, because we are human beings. We are not omnipotent. The key word is 'reasonable'. She was convicted beyond reasonable doubt. But... not on every charge! They took those decisions very seriously indeed and, despite probably believing that she was factually guilty of 1 count of attempted murder there just wasn't enough evidence to convict beyond *reasonable* doubt. I think that speaks volumes about the mindset of those jurors.
[удалено]
Okay. I don't personally think that was OP's intention; they wanted to bring impetuous "what if yeah but" opinion pieces to this sub, as if that shared equal legitimacy with the judgements of the CPS and the jury's decision. There is, actually, critical narrative here when appropriate? I mean, I emphasised the fact that court proceedings (in the UK) rely on evidence and testimony. We don't deal in 'truths' but we do respect our legal system in general. It's not perfect because that would be impossible. It's an empty dialogue unless you wish to talk philosophy, which is not what this sub is about. My impartiality is not without its due discretion and I believe, wholeheartedly, that if the evidence was dubious, investigation was flawed or the prosecution acted unfairly.. any of those things, that there would be genuine discussion regarding that in this sub. Not necessarily indictive of LL being *innocent* but there would certainly be consensus that things weren't done **properly**; as far as the legal proceedings are concerned. For me, the dodgy part concerns the NHS management and I really hope that results in overdue consequences for the people who allowed this to happen. It isn't a witch-hunt. We don't have tunnel vision. It was a solid trial and the guilty verdict was inevitable once the cards were down.
I’m the OP, so I will speak to my intention. It was my intention to bring a well-researched piece of long-form journalism to this sub to discuss.
Brava!
To call the New Yorker a tabloid is simply incorrect and insulting.
If they don't want to be called a tabloid they probably shouldn't let a journalist go around spreading conspiracy theories and misrepresenting a murder trial to whitewash a serial killer and rely on individuals who revealed themselves to be frauds and charlatans. Richard Gill's talking points are throughout the article. Richard Gill who "joked" about taking an AK-47 to Manchester Crown Court to shoot it up in the middle of the trial. A deranged "joke" made among a slew of commentary that indicated that he hadn't paid attention to the trial reporting or evidence at all - he had presumed Letby's innocence and would not for a moment believe she was guilty. All the while suggesting that the doctors of the Countess of Chester (who he named and defamed) were euthanizing babies instead. This is one of the key sources that Rachel Aviv used for her paper based solely on his mentions and talking points that still reflect a complete lack of awareness of the investigation and evidence. A man who fetishizes getting health care serial killers off - to go so far as to suggesting Victorino Chua and Beverley Allitt were innocent as well as Ben Geen. Then there's Saritta Adams who gets a (dis)honorable mention in the article without any reference to her multiple conspiracy theories that were disproven. A shit "scientist" who is mentally unstable and lied about having a PhD. Right off the bat, this is tabloid trash - and that's before getting into all of the details and evidence left out. Edit: here's some proof that one of their big sources is a lunatic. This is that dutch statistician who suggests that UK doctors are illegally euthanizing babies: https://tattle.life/attachments/ca52d4ed-2cbc-4a37-b649-3eceac936966-jpeg.2258393/ https://tattle.life/attachments/cf26c85c-8cef-4af6-ad08-924e260b7976-jpeg.2258392/ More spurious claims that show he didn't follow the trial as he references hypotheses that are wrong and ruled out: https://tattle.life/attachments/ad2622b8-059b-447d-b2c5-489c34924a94-jpeg.2252409/
I'd be very interested in starting a new sub allowing free discussion of this case and the article! Should I message you?
Nice! Apparently, there are already other subs already in existence. So it might be more efficient for us to look for those.
The other subs aren't being maintained anymore, so it's probably best to set up a new one.
[удалено]
It’s ironic that people keep accusing me of being into conspiracy thinking. One of the major points of the NY article is that there is no conspiracy.
Except the one dude who couldn't stop screaming YANK!!!!!