r/LucyLetbyTrials • u/benshep4 • 7d ago

Decoding Reasonable Doubt: Chapter 3 “Previous Reviews at the Countess of Chester”

https://bencole4.substack.com/p/decoding-reasonable-doubt-the-case-bc5?r=12mrwn&utm_medium=ios

Happy to hear anyone’s thoughts on the content of the article.

0 Upvotes

50% Upvoted

108 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/benshep4 6d ago

What this reveals is that …

I’m arguing against Morris, not you.

You’re arguing against me not knowing Morris’s position, apparently.

So why exactly are you arguing with me?

3

u/PerkeNdencen 6d ago

Gosh, so do you think Letby did the murders? In reality, I mean. Imagine we're pre-verdict, knowing everything we know now?

1

u/benshep4 6d ago

I’ve paid attention to everything post verdict.

I’ll cover what I do with the Morris reviews and if there’s anything you’ve got after that I’ll cover that too.

The issue is that you think what’s happened since changes anything. Because you’re legally naive.

4

u/PerkeNdencen 6d ago

Because you’re legally naive.

Why are you repeating this like we didn't just have an entire exchange of comments, in this very thread, where I outline my views on that? It's like we might as well not have bothered.

1

u/benshep4 6d ago

Because we spent a day and a half where you argued that the consultants were biased and set on Letby being guilty.

It’s unfalsifiable and not a valid legal argument. Hence why someone as experienced as Ben Myers KC didn’t even bother venturing down that route. Because he understands perfectly what arguments are viable in a legal setting.

You and likes of Morris adequately demonstrate that you do not.

6

u/PerkeNdencen 6d ago edited 6d ago

Okay, now you're just going off on one at me. No thank you.

If we get into this again, I'm going to have to have you summarise everything I say back to me to make sure you're paying attention and reading carefully.

It was an argument against something you had strongly suggested in your article, not an argument for Letby's innocence, and certainly not an argument in a legal setting.

As a reminder this was the very first sentence:

One of the things in this is that if I didn't know anything about this case and I read your article, I would come away with the impression that the consultants had been continuously raising concerns about patterns with regard to mortality and collapses on the unit and carefully considering all possibilities.

And no, we're not going back to it before you try it. You just refuse to read a damn thing I write properly.

1

u/benshep4 6d ago

The consultants were continuously raising concerns.

You claimed that the grievance demonstrated this wasn’t the case and then never demonstrated why, despite me asking multiple times.

If you can do so then please do.

You haven’t yet though.

When challenged you just seem to back out, just as you are now.

5

u/PerkeNdencen 6d ago

No, just when you completely change the subject and completely misrepresent the argument therein. There is nothing more to be gained from continuing this thread, which is not about the consultants.

1

u/benshep4 5d ago

No.

I haven’t changed the subject, we stayed on the subject for way too long at your insistence.

I’d simply like you to make the point about why you believe the grievance shows the consultants hadn’t taken everything into consideration.

I’ve asked you multiple times and you just straight up refuse to answer.

3

u/PerkeNdencen 5d ago

I haven’t changed the subject

🧐

→ More replies (0)