Reply To: A TV drama

[Siderite]

I am so dogged in my opinion that I have stated I could be wrong (more than once). I said this specifically to state that it’s not some set in stone opinion. However, for it to be overturned, it has to deal with the issues that I have with their reasoning. Such as the before mentioned discrepancies over claims about skin colour, as well as others about how the adminmistered insulin in one case could be a false positive. Yet, there is evidence this spike of insulin came after administered bags and there was more than one positive test (where false positives are something like 1 in 200, from what I read when looking at this – quite a coincidence for false positives). These are some of the claims made by those claiming foul at her guilty verdict and they don’t wash because they don’t explain away what I have read, not because everyone who disagrees with you is some rigid thinker below your own rationality.

If Letby is innocent, she has the courts to go by, the proper route. So far she has failed, and instead of assuming it’s because of anything awry ith the courts, maybe the Letby defenders should self-reflect first over their understanding. Much of these ‘revelations’ came up in the court case and other experts disagreed. The jury agreed with them. It’s funny when this is being compared to Brexit thinking. It was claimed that it was Brexit arguing against due process and such.

That is my position. That it is up to the courts to decide; so far they have decided guilty and it doesn’t look like changing. To reiterate, maybe consider that there is a reason why and look into it first. My own opinion is based off what I have read. I may be wrong, but consider you might be and these claims are not that shattering for a change of opinion (and that those who disagree might not be such complete ignoramuses). For all your claims of ‘rigid thinking’ I was more sceptical of the verdict initially because of the claims made by defenders. I looked into it more, including the court notes and what it was based on, and became sceptical of the defending claims, which didn’t match with what was presented. I reiterate, I may be wrong, but I don’t think it’s because of ‘rigid thinking’ because you have a habit of dismissing anyone who disagrees as being some gammony, stuck in their ways rigid thinker. For all your talk of rigid Brexit thought, you seem to denigrate anyone who disagrees. Including a scientist and science communicator who lays out some of the issues with the defender claims. She is apparently Dame Edna and her pooch.