This case reminds me of the Lindy Chamberlain (dingo) case in Australia. I lived in Darwin at the time. Both Lindy and Lucy have experienced negative and vitriolic public reaction based purely on their supposed demeanor. No actual evidence and what turned out to be flawed forensic evidence in Lindy's case. I suspect the same will be found in Lucy''s case at some point.
Correct decision . Richard Baker KC said “those questioning Lucy Letby’s guilt should be ashamed …those individuals who offer superficial opinions based upon second and third hand accounts then expressing conclusions . Those supporting Lucy Letby , as repeatedly pointed out , have not seen the evidence of the trial, the babies medical notes or have spoken to any of the consultants who have raised concerns or seen any of the evidence that will go before the inquiry over the coming months but that there is some relevance in this background noise as it highlights how society is sometimes too quick to make judgements and assumptions on first impressions.” She is still under investigation for her time at the Liverpool’s women hospital when incidents of dislodge intubation tubes rose from 1% to 40% then returned to previous levels after Lucy Letby had left the hospital . Tuned
@@turquoiseblue228 Absolutely, why WOULDN'T you trust any of these experts in their field. What makes you think they have a reason to lie in this case?
@@heycidskyja4668 I wouldn't trust Dr Evans 'cos of his past history and I wouldn't trust Dr Jayaram 'cos he's changed his story at least three times. If you trust experts in their field, then why aren't you trusting the dozens of highly qualified people who dispute Dr Evans ?
Assuming that’s the case that you needed to be at a trial of that length of nearly a year to have an opinion, isn’t it just as bad in that sense that if Letby really is innocent then the length of the trial and complexity of evidence is a barrier to an appeal and perpetuating a possible miscarriage of justice. Also how do we expect jurors of average intelligence to cope with the pure volume of information over 10 months to reach a judgement. Justice needs to be transparent in the UK - the whole case should have been televised and released after the trials and the public should be entitled to all and any information about the trial. As it stands the court service were asking £10k for the transcript and even MPs can’t access it. Crazy.
It’s interesting how someone who searched for parents on-line, has no search history for Air Embolism or Insulin poisoning. She must be one very clever cookie!
On top of that, there was an article in the BMJ where they found that a significant number of doctors had been googling their patients online. For some reason we have not heard anything about the search histories of the doctors involved in these cases.
Mmmm. These two are trying to sell a book. Can anyone imagine how a young single dedicated woman could possibly cope under the 8 years of scrutiny and accusations this poor woman has been subjected to. Odd behaviour- my God how could anyone be expected to behave under this sort of pressure??? Judith and Jonathan should try and give a bit more balance to the avalanche of information about the errors presented by the prosecution rather than passing comment about somebodys odd or unexplained behaviours. Look at the weight of evidence - then look in the mirror satisfied that you are giving her a fair trial!!!
No doubt weird, occasionally negligent and serious misdemeanours plus looking up parents and getting animated about deaths etc - perhaps some kind of penalty but rest or life sentences for serial murders? Get real.
"No witnesses" Apart from the other staff and parents who noticed her attending to babies she had no business treating and her bizarre behaviour around grieving parents.
No-one saw Lucy do anything wrong. Of course she was attending other babies she was one of the most senior nurses on the ward and would obviously go and help when an alarm was sounded. The parents had no complaints about Lucy, in fact, many of them liked her. It was only when they were told by Cheshire police that she had harmed their babies that opinions changed. From then on their opinions were biased and should not have been allowed in court.
This is shocking ! This presenter seems to have found LL guilty 'cos of her demeanor ! This country needs a serious conversation around the whole concept of what they call "circumstantial evidence". One of the reasons so many people are interested in this case is because they have no experience of the criminal justice system and were under the impression that people were sent to prison on evidence, not someone's opinion ... and this has appalled people. If it can happen to LL it can happen to you, me or anyone else.
yeah like you would know . Did you sit through the trial ? Read the transcripts of both trials ? Seen all the evidence ? Did you sit through the inquiry or Red the transcripts of the inquiry ? I would advise you to be quiet as you are relying upon second and third hand knowledge .
yeah like you would know . Did you sit through the trial ? Read the transcripts of both trials ? Seen all the evidence ? Did you sit through the inquiry or Red the transcripts of the inquiry ? I would advise you to be quiet as you are relying upon second and third hand knowledge .
@@joycejnn You're just so desperate for her to be guilty, aren't you. Sensible, intelligent experts have looked at the main evidence now and the whole case has just fallen apart. The conviction is clearly unsafe.
Even low wattage journalism keeps the case in the limelight. Basically they don't know anything new. If Letby is a bit odd (Asperger's? compulsive-obsessive? over-emotionally involved in her patients? over-worked? - she was working ridiculous hours to keep the unit going, as were the other permanent nursing staff - I don't know any more than anyone else) this may explain why the doctors at her hospital picked on her. It's likely she's sedated to cope with the ordeal she's going through. All very meaningless, but a fair attempt at plugging their book, and they are careful not to say they are convinced she is guilty given the torrent of expert criticism being aimed at the prosecution case now.
yeah like you would know . Did you sit through the trials ? Read the transcripts of both trials ? Seen all the evidence ? Did you sit through the inquiry or read. the transcripts of the inquiry ? I would advise you to be quiet as you are relying upon second and third hand knowledge .
The only 'weird' thing about this case is why Lucy Letby is in prison for murders she didn't commit. In fact, no-one committed any murders as the babies died from natural causes and sub optimal care.
I don’t think it’s weird for a nurse to look into the families online. It depends what interpretation you put on it - you could view it as prying and taking voyeuristic satisfaction of relations suffering and putting a name to a face in that sense, or you could view it as - I’ll check them out online as I really hope they don’t look like the people who could suffer and because it’s hard for me psychologically, I want to take satisfaction they won’t be the types to suffer excessively. I watched this doctor Judith in an interview with KC Mark McDonald, Letby’s barrister, and each time McDonald put forward mitigating evidence including the fact she didn’t confess to the murders, the doctor was - ‘what about this’. It struck me her mind is just immutably made up. I think lots of these doctors have huge bias to take this stance because of the NHS, for whom they work, and it hugely protects allegations against itself because otherwise it’s an affront to them as part of the organisation.
The hospital may have been involved and used her as the victim, from what I understand some experts opined during an earlier TR broadcast🙏. Besides there is a small chance that that this case should not be seen in isolation...
@@WellbeingToPeace This is conjecture that can only be confirmed by careful collection of hard evidence. Just as Letby may be a victim of circumstances beyond her control, we have to concede that without any hard evidence it's possible that the hospital itself may be the victim of circumstances beyond its control. Which set of circumstances should the court favor? I'm glad I'm not a judge!!!
The theory that she's calm in chaos is ignoring the unconscious human psychology/biology reacting to deaths. A parent describes her as cold/robotic, and then when his baby dies she's devastated. You see how that calmness goes just like that. She's in a flight or fight response, or survival mode where she withdraws from the trauma, this would explain her behaviours to stress/emotional distress. The head nurse described her distressful reactions as though acting that out is not likely.
It's astonishing that a BBC reporter who is supposed to be impartial is able to ignore all the medical and scientific evidence and instead have a ghoulish fascination with Lucy Letby's appearance in court. As was stated at the trial, Letby was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder because of the trauma of the arrests and the time spent in prison. She was on anti-depressants and was suicidal. In the circumstances it was a remarkable achievement to stand up in court and withstand the bullying line of questioning from the prosecution with ridiculous questions such as "Do you remember being born?" It's hard to understand how a journalist can have a ringside seat at the trial of the century and not have the instinct to recognise that they were witnessing one of the worst miscarriages of justice in British history.
@@DebbieKennettAm I missing something? The journalists in this clip are appearing on Times Radio, not the BBC. So they work for Times Radio, not the BBC.
Being weird does not equate with being a serial killer. There is absolutely nothing in her past to suggest that. She is clearly somewhere along the spectrum with Asbergers or even functioning autism, but again that does not mean she's a serial killer. No one ever saw her do anything, the 'evidence' that was used to convict her was clearly manipulated and has crumbled in the face of examination by real experts. This is shoddy journalism. Very poor. This pair just trying to flog their book. Cashing in on this scandalous conviction like a couple of vultures.. The CJS is broken.
@@sitrepSNAFU She was just a very dedicated but slightly odd nurse. That's why she was convicted - for not being normal. All the nice things about her nature, and there were many, were twisted into sinister characteristics by the prosecution. The actual evidence against her has been demolished by real experts.
@@joebish6629 she was failed on her final year of nursing college for being cold with patients. It all went downhill from there. I suppose Peter Sutcliffe was a misunderstood cheeky screwdriver delivery man?! 😂😂
Wouldn't it be funny if it turned out she was completely innocent and all of those so-called "weird behaviors" were the result of the traumatic stress of being constantly assigned the sickest babies by everyone else? You know, because they gave the sickest babies to the nurse with the most experience of being around sick babies? I think it's called a positive feedback loop?
There is a very demographic reason why people think she is innocent. People like Peter Hitchens have a reason for their doubt and it has nothing to do with evidence and probability.
It's got everything to do with probability. It's also got everything to do with the NHS track record on Maternity wards where huge numbers have been killed.
@@mrkeogh Lets start off with one bit of research. 20,000 a year killed by "avoidable mistakes" Avoidability of hospital deaths and association with hospital-wide mortality ratios: retrospective case record review and regression analysis BMJ 2015;351:h3239 That's just English acute hospitals. 20,000 cases of what is legally called manslaughter. Avoidable means negligence that should not happen.
@@mrkeogh You asked for sources. So lets add another. Around one in 20 (6%) of patients are affected by preventable harm in medical care, of which around 12% causes permanent disability or death, finds a study published by The BMJ today. Their findings are based on data from 70 observational studies involving 337,025 mostly adult patients. Of these, 28,150 experienced harmful incidents and 15,419 experienced preventable harmful incidents. Maria Panagioti from the NIHR Greater Manchester Patient Safety Translational Research Centre So 5% odds. Multiply that by the number of patients and you can see the scale of the problem.
@@mrkeogh For Maternity units. Care Quality Commission (CQC) records showed it deemed two-thirds (67%) of them not to be safe enough, up from 55% last autumn. **Many of the maternity failings at scandal-hit hospitals are becoming more widespread, England’s NHS regulator says.** Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital NHS Trust Mid Yorkshire teaching NHS Trust East Kent South Wales Cumbria Mid Yorkshire Teaching NHS Trust All disasters. Just google them and you will find lots more but the CQC is damning.
ok, so she's searching for parents... so she's strange... maybe emotionally caught up in the situation... for psychological reasons.. but all that really tells us is she's unhinged and not suitable for the profession she was in... right? But is she.. a killer? .. or more to the point, do they have cast iron evidence she's one? Because being strange and unhinged isn't necessarily proof of the fact.. They really need more monitoring in hospitals and process to deal with situation where there is suspicion.
yeah like you would know . Did you sit through the trial ? Read the transcripts of both trials ? Seen all the evidence ? Did you sit through the inquiry or Red the transcripts of the inquiry ? I would advise you to be quiet as you are relying upon second and third hand knowledge .
I used to work in a psychiatric hospital. If you ask 10 psychiatrists, you'll get 11 different opinions. This guy is making an assessment of a killer. If she's innocent, he'll be completely wrong.
I think sometimes people can get addicted to behaviours that act as a sort of stress release for some reason.
Well that's an interview makes eveything perfectly clear. She may have done, she may not have done it....thanks for that insight.
Lucy has already told the world 'her answer' - she turned to the judge and proclaimed 'I'm innocent!'.
Terrible headline by the way worthy of the gutter press
This case reminds me of the Lindy Chamberlain (dingo) case in Australia. I lived in Darwin at the time. Both Lindy and Lucy have experienced negative and vitriolic public reaction based purely on their supposed demeanor. No actual evidence and what turned out to be flawed forensic evidence in Lindy's case. I suspect the same will be found in Lucy''s case at some point.
Correct decision . Richard Baker KC said “those questioning Lucy Letby’s guilt should be ashamed …those individuals who offer superficial opinions based upon second and third hand accounts then expressing conclusions . Those supporting Lucy Letby , as repeatedly pointed out , have not seen the evidence of the trial, the babies medical notes or have spoken to any of the consultants who have raised concerns or seen any of the evidence that will go before the inquiry over the coming months but that there is some relevance in this background noise as it highlights how society is sometimes too quick to make judgements and assumptions on first impressions.”
She is still under investigation for her time at the Liverpool’s women hospital when incidents of dislodge intubation tubes rose from 1% to 40% then returned to previous levels after Lucy Letby had left the hospital . Tuned
So you trust the consultants 100%? And the police 100%? And the justice system 100%?
@@turquoiseblue228 Absolutely, why WOULDN'T you trust any of these experts in their field. What makes you think they have a reason to lie in this case?
@@heycidskyja4668 I wouldn't trust Dr Evans 'cos of his past history and I wouldn't trust Dr Jayaram 'cos he's changed his story at least three times. If you trust experts in their field, then why aren't you trusting the dozens of highly qualified people who dispute Dr Evans ?
@heycidskyja4668
Dewi Evans was not an expert in neonotologism, he was a retired peuadtrition, seeking to make money
Assuming that’s the case that you needed to be at a trial of that length of nearly a year to have an opinion, isn’t it just as bad in that sense that if Letby really is innocent then the length of the trial and complexity of evidence is a barrier to an appeal and perpetuating a possible miscarriage of justice. Also how do we expect jurors of average intelligence to cope with the pure volume of information over 10 months to reach a judgement. Justice needs to be transparent in the UK - the whole case should have been televised and released after the trials and the public should be entitled to all and any information about the trial. As it stands the court service were asking £10k for the transcript and even MPs can’t access it. Crazy.
It’s interesting how someone who searched for parents on-line, has no search history for Air Embolism or Insulin poisoning. She must be one very clever cookie!
good point!
You do realise she is a nurse don't you, so has medical training. She would have known this.
On top of that, there was an article in the BMJ where they found that a significant number of doctors had been googling their patients online. For some reason we have not heard anything about the search histories of the doctors involved in these cases.
@@angelanorton5975 I think you underestimate the technicalities involved.
Mmmm. These two are trying to sell a book. Can anyone imagine how a young single dedicated woman could possibly cope under the 8 years of scrutiny and accusations this poor woman has been subjected to. Odd behaviour- my God how could anyone be expected to behave under this sort of pressure???
Judith and Jonathan should try and give a bit more balance to the avalanche of information about the errors presented by the prosecution rather than passing comment about somebodys odd or unexplained behaviours. Look at the weight of evidence - then look in the mirror satisfied that you are giving her a fair trial!!!
No doubt weird, occasionally negligent and serious misdemeanours plus looking up parents and getting animated about deaths etc - perhaps some kind of penalty but rest or life sentences for serial murders? Get real.
"No witnesses"
Apart from the other staff and parents who noticed her attending to babies she had no business treating and her bizarre behaviour around grieving parents.
No-one saw Lucy do anything wrong. Of course she was attending other babies she was one of the most senior nurses on the ward and would obviously go and help when an alarm was sounded. The parents had no complaints about Lucy, in fact, many of them liked her. It was only when they were told by Cheshire police that she had harmed their babies that opinions changed. From then on their opinions were biased and should not have been allowed in court.
Exactly! Apart from all the evidence, what evidence is there?!
This is shocking ! This presenter seems to have found LL guilty 'cos of her demeanor ! This country needs a serious conversation around the whole concept of what they call "circumstantial evidence". One of the reasons so many people are interested in this case is because they have no experience of the criminal justice system and were under the impression that people were sent to prison on evidence, not someone's opinion ... and this has appalled people. If it can happen to LL it can happen to you, me or anyone else.
100% they are covering each other's backs , Lucy is innocent unlike the Evil that stitched her up.
Scandalous that her appeal was refused. Future payout when it’s finally established that the evidence the process was mismanaged etc
yeah like you would know . Did you sit through the trial ? Read the transcripts of both trials ? Seen all the evidence ? Did you sit through the inquiry or Red the transcripts of the inquiry ? I would advise you to be quiet as you are relying upon second and third hand knowledge .
yeah like you would know . Did you sit through the trial ? Read the transcripts of both trials ? Seen all the evidence ? Did you sit through the inquiry or Red the transcripts of the inquiry ? I would advise you to be quiet as you are relying upon second and third hand knowledge .
@@joycejnn You're just so desperate for her to be guilty, aren't you. Sensible, intelligent experts have looked at the main evidence now and the whole case has just fallen apart. The conviction is clearly unsafe.
Even low wattage journalism keeps the case in the limelight. Basically they don't know anything new. If Letby is a bit odd (Asperger's? compulsive-obsessive? over-emotionally involved in her patients? over-worked? - she was working ridiculous hours to keep the unit going, as were the other permanent nursing staff - I don't know any more than anyone else) this may explain why the doctors at her hospital picked on her. It's likely she's sedated to cope with the ordeal she's going through. All very meaningless, but a fair attempt at plugging their book, and they are careful not to say they are convinced she is guilty given the torrent of expert criticism being aimed at the prosecution case now.
yeah like you would know . Did you sit through the trials ? Read the transcripts of both trials ? Seen all the evidence ? Did you sit through the inquiry or read. the transcripts of the inquiry ? I would advise you to be quiet as you are relying upon second and third hand knowledge .
@@joycejnn as are you !
The only 'weird' thing about this case is why Lucy Letby is in prison for murders she didn't commit. In fact, no-one committed any murders as the babies died from natural causes and sub optimal care.
I don’t think it’s weird for a nurse to look into the families online. It depends what interpretation you put on it - you could view it as prying and taking voyeuristic satisfaction of relations suffering and putting a name to a face in that sense, or you could view it as - I’ll check them out online as I really hope they don’t look like the people who could suffer and because it’s hard for me psychologically, I want to take satisfaction they won’t be the types to suffer excessively.
I watched this doctor Judith in an interview with KC Mark McDonald, Letby’s barrister, and each time McDonald put forward mitigating evidence including the fact she didn’t confess to the murders, the doctor was - ‘what about this’. It struck me her mind is just immutably made up. I think lots of these doctors have huge bias to take this stance because of the NHS, for whom they work, and it hugely protects allegations against itself because otherwise it’s an affront to them as part of the organisation.
If Letby is found innocent on appeal, then the question remains: Why did the spike in infant deaths occur? Pure chance? Planned?
The hospital may have been involved and used her as the victim, from what I understand some experts opined during an earlier TR broadcast🙏. Besides there is a small chance that that this case should not be seen in isolation...
@@WellbeingToPeace This is conjecture that can only be confirmed by careful collection of hard evidence. Just as Letby may be a victim of circumstances beyond her control, we have to concede that without any hard evidence it's possible that the hospital itself may be the victim of circumstances beyond its control. Which set of circumstances should the court favor?
I'm glad I'm not a judge!!!
@@CONNELL19511216 What should the court favor ? If there is reasonable doubt, they should aquit.
for starters there was 9 still births between June 2015 and October 2015. That narrows down the possibilities a little.
Statisticians have shown that there wasn't a spike. The number of deaths was within statistical norms.
The theory that she's calm in chaos is ignoring the unconscious human psychology/biology reacting to deaths. A parent describes her as cold/robotic, and then when his baby dies she's devastated. You see how that calmness goes just like that. She's in a flight or fight response, or survival mode where she withdraws from the trauma, this would explain her behaviours to stress/emotional distress. The head nurse described her distressful reactions as though acting that out is not likely.
Close your eyes and listen to these two interviewees talk. Neither of them sound truly convinced of her guilt.
It's astonishing that a BBC reporter who is supposed to be impartial is able to ignore all the medical and scientific evidence and instead have a ghoulish fascination with Lucy Letby's appearance in court. As was stated at the trial, Letby was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder because of the trauma of the arrests and the time spent in prison. She was on anti-depressants and was suicidal. In the circumstances it was a remarkable achievement to stand up in court and withstand the bullying line of questioning from the prosecution with ridiculous questions such as "Do you remember being born?" It's hard to understand how a journalist can have a ringside seat at the trial of the century and not have the instinct to recognise that they were witnessing one of the worst miscarriages of justice in British history.
She appears to be completely lacking in her understanding of the human condition.
That's why they're known as 'hacks' 😅They go for the story that's going to further their careers, not to find out some truth that might damage them.
@@keithbessant But they work for the BBC who ought to know better.
@@DebbieKennettAm I missing something? The journalists in this clip are appearing on Times Radio, not the BBC. So they work for Times Radio, not the BBC.
Being weird does not equate with being a serial killer. There is absolutely nothing in her past to suggest that. She is clearly somewhere along the spectrum with Asbergers or even functioning autism, but again that does not mean she's a serial killer. No one ever saw her do anything, the 'evidence' that was used to convict her was clearly manipulated and has crumbled in the face of examination by real experts. This is shoddy journalism. Very poor. This pair just trying to flog their book. Cashing in on this scandalous conviction like a couple of vultures.. The CJS is broken.
Nothing in her past!?!? She killed one after the other. That's a past!
@@sitrepSNAFU Thank you for your considered and eloquent appraisal of the situation.
@@sitrepSNAFU She was just a very dedicated but slightly odd nurse. That's why she was convicted - for not being normal. All the nice things about her nature, and there were many, were twisted into sinister characteristics by the prosecution. The actual evidence against her has been demolished by real experts.
@@joebish6629 she was failed on her final year of nursing college for being cold with patients. It all went downhill from there. I suppose Peter Sutcliffe was a misunderstood cheeky screwdriver delivery man?! 😂😂
@@sitrepSNAFU So she was a bit cold? Then she definitely must be a serial killer. Damning evidence. Banged to rights.
My mates a nurse n he says she done it!!
Wouldn't it be funny if it turned out she was completely innocent and all of those so-called "weird behaviors" were the result of the traumatic stress of being constantly assigned the sickest babies by everyone else?
You know, because they gave the sickest babies to the nurse with the most experience of being around sick babies?
I think it's called a positive feedback loop?
There is a very demographic reason why people think she is innocent. People like Peter Hitchens have a reason for their doubt and it has nothing to do with evidence and probability.
It's got everything to do with probability.
It's also got everything to do with the NHS track record on Maternity wards where huge numbers have been killed.
@@adenwellsmith6908Go on, give us the figures and your sources...
@@mrkeogh Lets start off with one bit of research.
20,000 a year killed by "avoidable mistakes"
Avoidability of hospital deaths and association with hospital-wide mortality ratios: retrospective case record review and regression analysis
BMJ 2015;351:h3239
That's just English acute hospitals.
20,000 cases of what is legally called manslaughter. Avoidable means negligence that should not happen.
@@mrkeogh You asked for sources. So lets add another.
Around one in 20 (6%) of patients are affected by preventable harm in medical care, of which around 12% causes permanent disability or death, finds a study published by The BMJ today.
Their findings are based on data from 70 observational studies involving 337,025
mostly adult patients. Of these, 28,150 experienced harmful incidents and 15,419
experienced preventable harmful incidents.
Maria Panagioti from the NIHR Greater Manchester Patient Safety Translational Research Centre
So 5% odds. Multiply that by the number of patients and you can see the scale of the problem.
@@mrkeogh For Maternity units.
Care Quality Commission (CQC) records showed it deemed two-thirds (67%) of them not to be safe enough, up from 55% last autumn.
**Many of the maternity failings at scandal-hit hospitals are becoming more widespread, England’s NHS regulator says.**
Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital NHS Trust
Mid Yorkshire teaching NHS Trust
East Kent
South Wales
Cumbria
Mid Yorkshire Teaching NHS Trust
All disasters. Just google them and you will find lots more but the CQC is damning.
Ah Judith know better than anybody because she was at the trial.
ok, so she's searching for parents... so she's strange... maybe emotionally caught up in the situation... for psychological reasons.. but all that really tells us is she's unhinged and not suitable for the profession she was in... right? But is she.. a killer? .. or more to the point, do they have cast iron evidence she's one? Because being strange and unhinged isn't necessarily proof of the fact.. They really need more monitoring in hospitals and process to deal with situation where there is suspicion.
Need a psychic to take a look at this.
Thought she was innocent ??
Look at your own behaviour first👀
It's either a fake story or the woman is a work of fiction.
Why? You have already been saying shes guilty so has the rest of society. Bias juries..???
yeah like you would know . Did you sit through the trial ? Read the transcripts of both trials ? Seen all the evidence ? Did you sit through the inquiry or Red the transcripts of the inquiry ? I would advise you to be quiet as you are relying upon second and third hand knowledge .
@@joycejnnWhat are you relying on?
@@turquoiseblue228 This poster joycejnn has posted the exact same post 4 times already on this thread ... obviously a bot.
... or maybe Dewi Evans using a pseudonym ?
Anyone saying she didn’t do it, you should be ashamed of yourselves. Absolutely disgraceful. After what these parents have endured!
I love the idiots queuing up to defend her 😂😂 Oh yeah, you should be in New Scotland Yard tomorrow!
Only an idiot would think Lucy was guilty.
@@ruthbashford3176 2 juries unanimously find you to be an idiot too 😅
Thank you for your thoughtful and well researched analysis. I'm impressed by your acumen.
Crime scene investigation videos convinced me.....that Lucy did do this
The new yorker article is still banned in the UK.
Andrew van der Vaart MD.
He did the best psychiatric assessment of her that makes sense of her motive.
I used to work in a psychiatric hospital. If you ask 10 psychiatrists, you'll get 11 different opinions. This guy is making an assessment of a killer. If she's innocent, he'll be completely wrong.
You know it's true love when you can comfortably share a pizza without counting the slices💕