I wanted to see the British side of the Lucy Letby story, so I looked at the Lucy Letby subreddit. I was expecting fierce debate about the case and the UK justice system. Instead, the atmosphere was eerie: the users (and many of the mods?) all wanted Letby dead and were banning anyone who (roughly) cited arguments from outside the trial.
"We do not permit posts or discussions that run contrary to evidence and outcomes legally accepted, because such sources have not survived cross examination the way that admitted evidence has."
The British consensus seems to be that the New Yorker ignored enormous amounts of anti-Letby evidence. It's not the kind of reaction I'm used to in my own internet spaces, but I'd be curious to see some LessWronger examine both sides the way folks were doing with Amanda Know back in the day, especially to summarize which parts of the prosecution's case were left out of the article.
Haven't done a deep dive, but it looks like the New Yorker article left out some claims that Letby falsified medical records, and that some of the deaths looked a lot more intentional than the New Yorker article makes them sound.
The Wikipedia page on Lucy Letby is pretty negative, dedicating only a few throwaway sentences to arguments in her defense, so there's a decent summary of the pro-guilt arguments there.
I've come to the conclusion that ToT link posts are the best link posts among the substacks I follow. I not only click through quite a few of the links but also find really interesting stuff at the other ends. Thank you for compiling those! I realise this is a completely useless comment from the "information or stimulation value" point of view, but I can't think of anything to add to increase that.
>this regulation is, if anything, less strict than regulations about other dangerous technologies, such as nuclear power plants and airplanes.
Probably not the examples I would jump to of industries that are clearly not over-regulated. (Actually, I guess I don't have a super strong opinion of whether planes are over-regulated in general or every other form of transport is under-regulated, but I'm suspicious.)
In the United States, jurors are generally prohibited from discussing the case while they are serving on the jury, but after the jury has been dismissed they can talk to anyone about anything.
I wanted to see the British side of the Lucy Letby story, so I looked at the Lucy Letby subreddit. I was expecting fierce debate about the case and the UK justice system. Instead, the atmosphere was eerie: the users (and many of the mods?) all wanted Letby dead and were banning anyone who (roughly) cited arguments from outside the trial.
"We do not permit posts or discussions that run contrary to evidence and outcomes legally accepted, because such sources have not survived cross examination the way that admitted evidence has."
The British consensus seems to be that the New Yorker ignored enormous amounts of anti-Letby evidence. It's not the kind of reaction I'm used to in my own internet spaces, but I'd be curious to see some LessWronger examine both sides the way folks were doing with Amanda Know back in the day, especially to summarize which parts of the prosecution's case were left out of the article.
Haven't done a deep dive, but it looks like the New Yorker article left out some claims that Letby falsified medical records, and that some of the deaths looked a lot more intentional than the New Yorker article makes them sound.
The Wikipedia page on Lucy Letby is pretty negative, dedicating only a few throwaway sentences to arguments in her defense, so there's a decent summary of the pro-guilt arguments there.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_Letby
I've come to the conclusion that ToT link posts are the best link posts among the substacks I follow. I not only click through quite a few of the links but also find really interesting stuff at the other ends. Thank you for compiling those! I realise this is a completely useless comment from the "information or stimulation value" point of view, but I can't think of anything to add to increase that.
Oh don't worry I never get tired of people praising me. :)
>this regulation is, if anything, less strict than regulations about other dangerous technologies, such as nuclear power plants and airplanes.
Probably not the examples I would jump to of industries that are clearly not over-regulated. (Actually, I guess I don't have a super strong opinion of whether planes are over-regulated in general or every other form of transport is under-regulated, but I'm suspicious.)
I love Admiral Cloudberg! I wrote about some of my favorite of her articles on my blog:
https://jablevine.com/older/february_2024#:~:text=is%20perfectly%20hypnotic.-,Admiral%20Cloudberg,-Admiral%20Cloudberg
> Qualitative interviewing of the jurors in the Smithfield case
How was this interview possible? Aren't jurors prohibited from publicly sharing anything that went on in their deliberations?
In the United States, jurors are generally prohibited from discussing the case while they are serving on the jury, but after the jury has been dismissed they can talk to anyone about anything.
Source: I served on a jury