Main Edition
US
FR
→ New Yorker publishes article challenging Lucy Letby verdict
The New Yorker has today published a 13,000-word article challenging the verdict against Lucy Letby, the nurse who last year was sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of seven infants and a further six attempted murders. The piece, written by staff writer Rachel Aviv, is available to US readers but is blocked on the UK version of the site for legal reasons. It is still available to British users of the New Yorker app and subscribers to the print magazine.
Rachel Aviv reports on the case against Lucy Letby, a British neonatal nurse who was found guilty of killing seven babies, despite troubling questions about the evidence. https://t.co/xWqU6bjYo7
— The New Yorker (@NewYorker) May 13, 2024
Letby’s trial lasted almost a year, from October 2022 to August 2023. During that time, she was accused of injecting babies with air and physically abusing them with medical instruments. Having pled not guilty to the 18 charges brought against her, she faces a retrial next month on a single charge for which the jury was unable to reach a verdict last year. After kickstarting an investigation into Zac Brettler’s death, the American magazine is once again providing important journalism on legal cases.
→ German government calls ‘From the river to the sea’ a Hamas slogan
The pro-Palestinian chant “From the river to the sea” was banned in Germany last autumn, and the position of the country’s government evidently hasn’t softened since then. A tweet today from the German Ministry of Justice refers to the phrase as a “Hamas slogan”, and claims that “depending on the circumstances of the individual case, the use of the slogan may […] be a use of propaganda from a banned organization.” It adds, ominously: “This is punishable.”
Zur Erklärung: „From the river to the sea“ ist ein Hamas-Slogan. Für die Hamas besteht in 🇩🇪 ein Betätigungsverbot. Je nach Umständen des Einzelfalles kann deshalb die Verwendung des Slogans eine Verwendung von Propaganda einer verbotenen Organisation sein. Das ist strafbar.
— Bundesministerium der Justiz (@bmj_bund) May 13, 2024
Even in countries with robust free speech protections, the phrase has been interpreted as a call to genocide for Israelis, inspiring government pressure on private institutions to crack down on the phrase. In chanters’ defence, they don’t always know which river and sea they’re referring to…
→ Metro deletes X account after Doctor Who backlash
Editors want pieces to “break the internet”, but destroying the outlet’s online account is a different matter entirely. An article published in the Metro opinion section at the weekend, titled “Sorry straight white men, Doctor Who was never made for you [sic]” caused such an angry response among Whovians and telly-watchers that the newspaper deleted its main X page on Sunday night. A full day later, the account remains down.
Down goes Metro UK!!#RIPDoctorWho pic.twitter.com/8ojFKBypNf
— Nerdrotic (@Nerdrotics) May 12, 2024
Metro did have the good grace to tweak its headline. The piece is now titled: “Sorry straight white men, Doctor Who was never made just for you [italics added]”. The article’s author argues that “while the haters continue shouting into the void about the identity of a fictional alien, I’ll be switching on every Saturday night to see the human race celebrated in all its glory”, adding, “if someone has a problem with that, they know where the door is.” After you.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeWith regard to the Metro headline about Dr. Who, has anyone else noticed how institutionally sanctioned hatred of white people has so easily expanded to include hatred of Jews? It’s high time that we held our institutions accountable – especially those who lead them: not just newspaper editors and university presidents, but their governing boards too. They are no longer fit for purpose.
They seem to have lost control, their Golem was only supposed to attack white people, it would take a heart of stone not to laugh
Jews are, for the left’s purposes, “honorary whites” as a certain failed painter from central Europe would have put it.
I’m not confident the Letby conviction was sound. It was a highly charged and emotive trial.
At the time, I believed the verdict to be correct, but now I’m not so sure.
With all due respect, it’s irrelevant what you, or the NYT think. You, and they, aren’t privy to all the evidence which was produced in the court of law.
Agreed, but it is doubt raised by public concern which leads to review of convictions which may be unsound.
Yes we are – there are transcripts and reports available. She appears to have been very badly served by her defence who called just one witness – a plumber. Even then though his testimony that the whole unit was contaminated with sewage – including the roof space above the rooms where these deaths occured – should have been enough to have seen her acquitted. See my other comment to a link to a substack from a doctor who has been through the transcripts in detail.
Bang on the nail. Spot on. Shame on Rachel Aviv of The New Yorker.
I think you are too optimistic about the ability of most defence lawyers and juries to evaluate scientific or medical evidence. They believe too easily “expert” witnesses and trust too much pseudo scientific evidence. Defence lawyers often fail to critique properly impressive sounding BS. I am thinking of in particular of the false imprisonment of a woman accused of “munchausen by proxy” i.e. murdering her own babies on the basis of some spurious statistics provided by an impressive looking professor emeritus who based his evidence on a dodgy paper he had read. In two trials the defence lawyers barely attacked his evidence. Fortunately, if I remember correctly, the appeal judge smelt a rat and intervened.
There are two underlying problems
1) The legal establishment is scientifically illiterate. See the current Covid Inquiry which is thrashing around unable to evaluate the evidence properly because neither the chair or the counsel are equipped to do so.
2) A blame culture in many hospitals which often leads to the deflection of all blame towards a convenient scapegoat – sometimes a nurse, family member or even the victim.
I did not follow the Letby trial in detail but from the media it appears the key exhibit was a spreadsheet which it was claimed proved she had to be responsible – but actually did no such thing. I am sceptical it was a safe conviction.
The New Yorker not the NYT. Perhaps your attention to detail here suggests you didnt read the New Yorker article, the author of which did review all the evidence.
Is it not the jury’s view that matters? Assuming that they were guided correctly in matters of law by the judge.
And evidence, of course…if the contra evidence is not before the jury it can’t come to a proper decision…
What do you mean “it adds ominously”? Is death-chanting and hate-speech okay with editorial here?
Probably not “okay”, but free speech certainly should be, whether anyone likes it or not.
Of course that’s not been the case in the UK for a long time.
This is excellent news regarding Lucy Letby. If you think she’s guilty then please check out Dr Scott MacLachlan’s substack articles in which he looks at the case. He goes through each of the babies Letby allegedly murdered and found sepsis to be a definite risk for every single one. Start here (it includes due disclaimers for UK readers):
https://lawhealthandtech.substack.com/p/ll-part-1-hospital-wastewater?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2
Never mind Dr Who what I want to know is why white men are prevented from winning the 100 metre sprint finals at the Olympics. It’s Institutional racism obviously, as black and white sprinters, just like every other occupation, have equal ability. This injustice must be tackled now! And don’t get me started on Basketball and Marathons.