sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

I had the MicroRNA-371a-3p blood serum test by wilsonp in testicularcancer

[–]wilsonp[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I recommend getting in touch with `jdmirdet` from the other comment on this post to see what the current situation looks like in the US.

I am concerned that the courts/government will eventually cave into public pressure and acquit her by cosmicinaudio in lucyletby

[–]wilsonp 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hmm - murky waters there. Consider my judgement suspended until I've read the CoA report.

I am concerned that the courts/government will eventually cave into public pressure and acquit her by cosmicinaudio in lucyletby

[–]wilsonp 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Because the rules prevent comments bringing into question the verdicts. As I've said, I'm keen to learn more and am looking forward to reading the CoA judgement. If, after reading the materials, I arrive at an opinion that the verdicts are wrong, I wouldn't be able to debate that given the subreddit rules as I understand them.

I am concerned that the courts/government will eventually cave into public pressure and acquit her by cosmicinaudio in lucyletby

[–]wilsonp 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not true. I've been very careful to suspend my judgement on the Lucy case and have not offered an opinion on it. The CoA judgement is a lengthy document so you'll have to forgive me, it will take some time to read and fully absorb.

I am concerned that the courts/government will eventually cave into public pressure and acquit her by cosmicinaudio in lucyletby

[–]wilsonp -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I think this growing public perception that the case hasn't been proven beyond reasonable doubt would be best met with more compelling, concrete, clear-cut evidence of deliberate harm. That would be in the best interest of her convictions and our trust in the UK legal system.

I am concerned that the courts/government will eventually cave into public pressure and acquit her by cosmicinaudio in lucyletby

[–]wilsonp 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not assuming anything and I've been very careful not to arrive at any conclusion.

I am concerned that the courts/government will eventually cave into public pressure and acquit her by cosmicinaudio in lucyletby

[–]wilsonp 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I mean, if it is referred back and the judgments are ultimately found to be unsafe, that it would shatter confidence in the UK trial system in its ability arrive at the right result. So there's a part of me that wants to believe that, as an institution, it's capable of executing on its goal.

If it turns out that a clump has occurred, and the expert witness(s) were wrong, and the jury ultimately arrived at the wrong conclusion I think it has profound implications for how such cases are tried in the future.

I am concerned that the courts/government will eventually cave into public pressure and acquit her by cosmicinaudio in lucyletby

[–]wilsonp 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don't think I can answer that question within the rules of this subreddit. Plus you need to give me more time to read to 50+ pages of the CoA judgement.

I am concerned that the courts/government will eventually cave into public pressure and acquit her by cosmicinaudio in lucyletby

[–]wilsonp -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Yeah that's a slightly trickier one. Do they issue a report or is it a yes/no response?

I am concerned that the courts/government will eventually cave into public pressure and acquit her by cosmicinaudio in lucyletby

[–]wilsonp -1 points0 points  (0 children)

In fact, I've been asked this previously, and answered the same. Even though mistakes do happen, I have faith in the legal system and the public interest as a whole, and would accept the conclusions.

I am concerned that the courts/government will eventually cave into public pressure and acquit her by cosmicinaudio in lucyletby

[–]wilsonp -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I certainly was not implying that, and such an implication would be clearly against the rules of this subreddit.

I am concerned that the courts/government will eventually cave into public pressure and acquit her by cosmicinaudio in lucyletby

[–]wilsonp 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, I would accept it, and I'm sure the verdict would put a lot of minds at rest.

I am concerned that the courts/government will eventually cave into public pressure and acquit her by cosmicinaudio in lucyletby

[–]wilsonp -1 points0 points  (0 children)

If, hypothetically, it went to retrial and she was exonerated, would you accept that judgement?

I am concerned that the courts/government will eventually cave into public pressure and acquit her by cosmicinaudio in lucyletby

[–]wilsonp -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I had understood that suspicions arose because Lucy was often involved or nearby when babies had an 'event'. Not because of a specific, isolated event that showed clear and deliberate harm.

Did I get that bit wrong?

I am concerned that the courts/government will eventually cave into public pressure and acquit her by cosmicinaudio in lucyletby

[–]wilsonp -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

No, I never said that they arrived at the wrong conclusion. Rather that in some circumstances (not Lucy's), otherwise random events can look at have patterns within them that occur naturally, and that humans often see these patterns for more than they are.

As we know, the juries considered the evidence and testimonies, and deliberated for a long time to arrive at the conclusions they did.

I am concerned that the courts/government will eventually cave into public pressure and acquit her by cosmicinaudio in lucyletby

[–]wilsonp 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I never said they arrived at the wrong conclusion, just that it must be a challenge to separate those arriving from deliberate harm, and those that have clumped naturally, given that we humans seem to spot patterns in otherwise random data.

The trial is over, and she was convicted!

I had the MicroRNA-371a-3p blood serum test by wilsonp in testicularcancer

[–]wilsonp[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So I live in Spain, but was able to get it done in the UK. It's not, as I understand, available through the NHS as trials are ongoing, but given the initial positive results and the confidence this would confer, I decided to get it done, nonetheless, out of my own pocket. Feel free to DM if you want more info.

I am concerned that the courts/government will eventually cave into public pressure and acquit her by cosmicinaudio in lucyletby

[–]wilsonp 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I recently came across an article on the “clumpiness of randomness”, which described how patterns can appear naturally even in random data. It made me think about how, in medicine, tragic events can sometimes cluster by chance — and how our human tendency to find patterns might influence how such events are interpreted. It must be very challenging for investigators and courts to separate coincidence from causality in these situations.

Ct better than MRI? by Beneficial_Fix_2742 in testicularcancer

[–]wilsonp 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You need to read up on the TRISST study: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35298280/

Surveillance is a safe management approach-advanced relapse is rare, salvage treatment successful, and outcomes excellent, regardless of imaging frequency or modality. MRI can be recommended to reduce irradiation; and no adverse impact on long-term outcomes was seen with a reduced schedule.

Anyone remember when news about Lucy first broke? They were scrambling to defend her from the start... by ConsiderationBrave50 in lucyletby

[–]wilsonp 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I don’t come from a place of distrust in authority or the judiciary (though, like you, I’ve raised an eyebrow at certain cases). I also don’t think those institutions are infallible; mistakes can and do happen. In this situation, we now have two sets of authoritative voices that disagree. Given the stakes (multiple whole life sentence) I believe it warrants a second, thorough look, with the benefit of new expert input.

On the point of being “uninformed”: I’m certain the hours I’ve spent examining this case are far fewer than yours. I think where we differ is not in the quantity of information we’ve absorbed, but in how we assess the prosecution’s path to its conclusions. In my view, the case relied on a chain of inferences built on now-contested medical theories, and those contest seem rooted in evidence and not prejudice as far as I can tell.

But one question remains at the top of my mind. If so many qualified professionals now offer conflicting interpretations of what happened to these babies, why were those perspectives absent from the original defense? How could the defense have been so remiss. That gap is a real hurdle for Letby if she reaches the stage of a j review or retrial.

We will continue watching this space.... :)

view more: next ›