Comments by "Martin Parsons" (@MartinParsons-tr6wi) on "Lucy LETBY: is this a MAJOR Flaw?!" video.

 @steveblundell7766 Except, no evidence, and demonstrably flawed statistical interpretation
25
@steveblundell7766 There's a noted statistician calling for a retrial. There was no physical evidence.
19
@SlurpentisCEO You're too ready to fall for the narrative. She was convicted on wholly tenuous grounds. Statisticians have taken the supposed evidence (exclusively statistical, with a hint of entrapment) apart
17
@SlurpentisCEO "You saw and heard it all". Were you there ? The piece I watched said there was zero physical evidence
3
@ScottishAtheist I watched an in depth analysis the other day. Narrative control is the object lesson in disinformation
2
@jaywalker1233 You're clutching at straws.It's not what I was doing. Go to the newest first comments (4 days ago, 71 replies), though trying to reason with a muppet is a notorious waste of time
2
I hate myself. Probably makes me less likely to be a mass murderer
2
 @Scott1433 People are principally expressing doubts. Obviously, they don't "know", one way or the other
2
@Scott1433 Yes, I've read them, and you're right in some cases. There may be more who fervently demand that we must all adhere to the decreed narrative. I would say the majority are concerned about a miscarriage of justice.
2
@jaywalker1233 I'm not the only one to have doubts. I'll wager none of you witch burners were there, either
1
@jaywalker1233 Were you ? Me neither
1
@jaywalker1233 Me neither. I'm questioning the narrative, the point the original poster here is making. As I've said, I watched an in depth analysis, which, as here, confirmed I wasn't the only one to have doubts about the verdict
1
@jaywalker1233 Someone else here has actually cited the name of the statistician that I referred to
1
@jaywalker1233 And here you are, blindly conforming to whatever you're told, and taking the trouble to be enraged when someone dares to question a questionable premise. Get another booster, you muppet
1
@jaywalker1233 You obviously don't even know what pontificate means, booster boy
1
@jaywalker1233 Pontificating and having doubts are entirely different things, booster boy
1
 @jaywalker1233 Pontificate : Officiate as a bishop, esp. at mass. Celebrate (mass) as a bishop. Act like a pontiff, claim to be infallible. OED.
1
 @jaywalker1233 Try watching the video we're discussing, and read some of the other comments
1
 @jaywalker1233 OED = Oxford English Dictionary. You're so far up your own jacksie it must be really painful
1
 @jaywalker1233 Even by your bogus definition, it means the virtual opposite to expressing doubts
1
@jaywalker1233 Mine's the Oxford English Dictionary definition, you womble
1
@jaywalker1233 Those are the facts that I'm basing my doubts on. If it was an open and shut case, this wouldn't even be being debated. I didn't dream this up on my own, you know, try listening to the video
1
@jaywalker1233 You're too thick to be able to question a narrative
1
@jaywalker1233 You don't even know that OED stands for Oxford English Dictionary
1
@jaywalker1233 No, but the Oxford English Dictionary does.
1
@jaywalker1233 And I'm expressing doubts about the narrative, aren't I ? You're quite incapable of reason
1
@jaywalker1233 Read the court report. It says the evidence is circumstantial
1
@jaywalker1233 It says the evidence is circumstantial. I just read it
1
@jaywalker1233 He follows the herd blindly, and aspires to being a jay walker. What a saddo. You seem to be suggesting miscarriages of justice have never happened
1
 @merlin7654 Your turn, mate, let's have some of the names of the accusers
1
@merlin7654 Presumably, you were being ironic when you decided to give yourself the sobriquet "Merlin"
1
@Scott1433 I agree. There's little doubt that the herd instinct predominates. I dare say, in most cases, it's unwitting
1