You write with precision. That takes length. It does seem that the hospital was happy to let Lucy take the rap for its many problems over which Lucy had little control.
Thanks for doing this. I simply don't have the time...but this case is deeply concerning to me, because it looks like a witch-hunt and smells like a witch-hunt. This does not mean that it IS a witch-hunt - I mean for all I know she could be as devious and murderous as Myra Hindley, but I just don't think that the prosecution proved that, against all reasonable doubt.
I suspect that the text for many of these booklets is taken straight from Wikipedia. The article about Lucy Letby takes the point of view that LL is guilty and its “reliable sources” are articles in the Daily Mail, presenting the prosecution view in detail. It is long and detailed and the same editors are active as those on the other British serial killer nurse Wikipedia articles: Ben Geen, Colin Norris, Bev Allitt, Victorino Chua.
Do we have any information about the deaths for which Lucy was not charged. Were causes established and who was present at the time? Was Lucy not charged with these because she wasn’t there or because Evan’s couldn’t find any evidence of murder?
Excellent initial review (I look forward to the rest).
Your addition of 'the hospital' strikes me as one of those things that is - or should be - so obvious that we often don't consciously think about it. We take it for granted, so to speak, so much that it never occurs to us. Like the air we breathe. That's obviously a kind of psychological, or even neuroscientific issue - the human brain needing to act heuristically, or in terms of efficiency (not to mention seeing the world in terms of stories and narratives - the more dramatic the better - the mundane never gets much of our attention - in terms of evolution, because the mundane is never a risk that needs addressing).
One thing that struck me is that we could, even, simply replace this 'wind-shadow killer' with 'the hospital'. In which case the size and positioning of Bamford's 'wind-shadow killer' is wrong, and seems just totally arbitrary (notwithstanding if he provides some rationale for sizing and positioning it in this way - should I presume he does do that in the book?).
A further thought, on the subject of 'the hospital - this is clearly the line the defence took, in calling the plumber to the stand and citing the possibility, or possible cause of death, as infection (sepsis)?
Ironically, this is the wind-shadow killer, from a certain point of view?
On another note, using a term like 'wind-shadow killer' seems like 'I want to sell lots of copies of my book so I'm going to invent a name that conjures up mystery and intrigue and dark deeds and yes, in the manner of a good detective writer, having given the reader the crucial question for the narrative, I shall pretend that I'm going to answer the question at the end of the book, like the famous detective or magician - for that is my prestige.'
Microscopic bugs, after all, just don't have the same mystique or dramatic effect. Unless you're Martians, that is (I always wondered why the silly Martians didn't send a reconnaissance probe first to get samples and then develop vaccines or whatever. That would've been a shorter story, of course, and somewhat downbeat. Unless you're a Martian).
I don't read The Wind Shadow theory as being as lacking as all that. I see it as broadening the scope of the enquiry in a novel way, offering five possible motivations by a unknown person, to satisfy ill will, or grudge or malice , or sadistic impulse. Its useful to say let's broaden out the enquiry to include others.
Hypotheses/ hunches tentative, exploratory to be rubbished or found to have some merit. I like it idea of let's check these windmills and see if they tilt or are illusions, that don't stand up under scrutiny.
its not meritless in my view to consider that people may lie (they habitually do) they may be jealous, they have grudges and they want to make themselves felt, since that is something not uncommon in human nature.
the second thing I want to say is I wish you had waited until you had read the whole book since this is more evisceration than analysis, and your thinking would be better balance from reading all that was written.
Two of the things he examines when considering whether there is more to say for that she may be innocent than the other narrative of her guilt are 1. her character , what is known of her and what is demonstrable. 2. empathy to which he devotes a chapter with a good understanding of how it is demonstrated by her in her work with the neonates. 3. the post it notes- where he draws in all that is missing to give them proper context and clarify meaning, very valuable considering how those notes were misread and amplified by the newspapers. His view finds some support as he mentions in his book in the thinking of the criminologist David Wilson who also offers an alternative reading of the post it notes. this is all further into the book than you have read so far.
His view of the insulin poisoning is that the prosecution case is watertight. in other words, he is not offering a belief of his, he is speaking of the evidence of the prosecution which he finds convincing.
I do think he has some good themes he develops , erudite vacillation for one thing and the Medusa eye attributed to Lucy ,tentative exploratory enquiry outside the box, meets the test of a willingness not to be biased, which was surely what was missing in this case. The Wind shadow theory is a lovely leap into the unknown which do yield him five possible other motivations as to what might have happened the babies.
When regular processes have failed us then being open to leaps like the Wind Shadow theory, which I don't think is to be read as a definite result but more lets explore what else is here! is a good thing.
Its a better book than you have so far described it, I think.
You write with precision. That takes length. It does seem that the hospital was happy to let Lucy take the rap for its many problems over which Lucy had little control.
Thanks for doing this. I simply don't have the time...but this case is deeply concerning to me, because it looks like a witch-hunt and smells like a witch-hunt. This does not mean that it IS a witch-hunt - I mean for all I know she could be as devious and murderous as Myra Hindley, but I just don't think that the prosecution proved that, against all reasonable doubt.
I suspect that the text for many of these booklets is taken straight from Wikipedia. The article about Lucy Letby takes the point of view that LL is guilty and its “reliable sources” are articles in the Daily Mail, presenting the prosecution view in detail. It is long and detailed and the same editors are active as those on the other British serial killer nurse Wikipedia articles: Ben Geen, Colin Norris, Bev Allitt, Victorino Chua.
Do we have any information about the deaths for which Lucy was not charged. Were causes established and who was present at the time? Was Lucy not charged with these because she wasn’t there or because Evan’s couldn’t find any evidence of murder?
Excellent initial review (I look forward to the rest).
Your addition of 'the hospital' strikes me as one of those things that is - or should be - so obvious that we often don't consciously think about it. We take it for granted, so to speak, so much that it never occurs to us. Like the air we breathe. That's obviously a kind of psychological, or even neuroscientific issue - the human brain needing to act heuristically, or in terms of efficiency (not to mention seeing the world in terms of stories and narratives - the more dramatic the better - the mundane never gets much of our attention - in terms of evolution, because the mundane is never a risk that needs addressing).
One thing that struck me is that we could, even, simply replace this 'wind-shadow killer' with 'the hospital'. In which case the size and positioning of Bamford's 'wind-shadow killer' is wrong, and seems just totally arbitrary (notwithstanding if he provides some rationale for sizing and positioning it in this way - should I presume he does do that in the book?).
A further thought, on the subject of 'the hospital - this is clearly the line the defence took, in calling the plumber to the stand and citing the possibility, or possible cause of death, as infection (sepsis)?
Ironically, this is the wind-shadow killer, from a certain point of view?
On another note, using a term like 'wind-shadow killer' seems like 'I want to sell lots of copies of my book so I'm going to invent a name that conjures up mystery and intrigue and dark deeds and yes, in the manner of a good detective writer, having given the reader the crucial question for the narrative, I shall pretend that I'm going to answer the question at the end of the book, like the famous detective or magician - for that is my prestige.'
Microscopic bugs, after all, just don't have the same mystique or dramatic effect. Unless you're Martians, that is (I always wondered why the silly Martians didn't send a reconnaissance probe first to get samples and then develop vaccines or whatever. That would've been a shorter story, of course, and somewhat downbeat. Unless you're a Martian).
I don't read The Wind Shadow theory as being as lacking as all that. I see it as broadening the scope of the enquiry in a novel way, offering five possible motivations by a unknown person, to satisfy ill will, or grudge or malice , or sadistic impulse. Its useful to say let's broaden out the enquiry to include others.
Hypotheses/ hunches tentative, exploratory to be rubbished or found to have some merit. I like it idea of let's check these windmills and see if they tilt or are illusions, that don't stand up under scrutiny.
its not meritless in my view to consider that people may lie (they habitually do) they may be jealous, they have grudges and they want to make themselves felt, since that is something not uncommon in human nature.
the second thing I want to say is I wish you had waited until you had read the whole book since this is more evisceration than analysis, and your thinking would be better balance from reading all that was written.
Two of the things he examines when considering whether there is more to say for that she may be innocent than the other narrative of her guilt are 1. her character , what is known of her and what is demonstrable. 2. empathy to which he devotes a chapter with a good understanding of how it is demonstrated by her in her work with the neonates. 3. the post it notes- where he draws in all that is missing to give them proper context and clarify meaning, very valuable considering how those notes were misread and amplified by the newspapers. His view finds some support as he mentions in his book in the thinking of the criminologist David Wilson who also offers an alternative reading of the post it notes. this is all further into the book than you have read so far.
His view of the insulin poisoning is that the prosecution case is watertight. in other words, he is not offering a belief of his, he is speaking of the evidence of the prosecution which he finds convincing.
I do think he has some good themes he develops , erudite vacillation for one thing and the Medusa eye attributed to Lucy ,tentative exploratory enquiry outside the box, meets the test of a willingness not to be biased, which was surely what was missing in this case. The Wind shadow theory is a lovely leap into the unknown which do yield him five possible other motivations as to what might have happened the babies.
When regular processes have failed us then being open to leaps like the Wind Shadow theory, which I don't think is to be read as a definite result but more lets explore what else is here! is a good thing.
Its a better book than you have so far described it, I think.