Comments by "Master Blaster" (@MasterBlaster3545) on "The Lucy Letby Case" video.

Did she do it though? The evidence for all the babies was sketchy at least. To me it looks like a cover up of failings by consultants. I just would not have convicted whether she did or didn’t do it because that is what an element of doubt is. They were pushed towards that verdict. The hospital took on a load of babies from another hospital so was overwhelmed. If you look at the evidence for every death or supposed attempted one, her legal team picked massive holes in every one. It just looks like the rich at the top gas got away as usual with failings and chucked her under the bus as someone has to be to blame. Like I say I might be wrong but after listening to her legal team not one was cut and dry like at least a few should be. No one is that good at getting away with so many without slipping up. She also must have been a mastermind to know about so many ways. No M.O really which is strange for a serial killer. No searches online to find out what is the best way. A letter that was ambiguous to say the least. She was going through it and it seemed to be made to blame for what was going on which led her to actually question her professionalism, hence writing I did it. Her head must have been all over the place. Like I say again I might be wrong but there is enough for me not to convict on grounds of not enough evidence on at least one of the babies. They were forced to make a guilty or not guilty verdict and I would have refused or made her non guilty regardless.
9
@sh.4409 No she was questioning herself because she was getting the blame. You can’t convict or say she did do it or did not. There was no searches online which is strange to say the least. Usually they look up on how to get away with it or the best way to commit the crime. There was no damning evidence as her legal team ripped holes in the prosecution evidence. Look at the lawyer who was convicted a years back of her 2 children. The prosecution lied and held stuff back and she was released on appeal, but it was too late and she drank herself to death because of the mental trauma it caused her. She was wrongly convicted. This trial had no unrefutable evidence on one child so how could anybody convict her? Obviously you would because you just hear what the MSM tells you without really listening to all the evidence for and against. There is no way anybody of sound mind who can critically think would convict. Isn’t that what an element of doubt is? It was more than just an element as the defence pointed out. Whether she did or didn’t there was no cut and dry evidence on one child at all and if you had to make a decision of guilty or not guilty then it had to be not guilty.
1