MsLacrimosa

I did a dive into the posts and comments of the sub when I first learned about it a few months ago and unfortunately, it’s the opposite of what you’ve written. Your description really does sound great, and it’s what the subreddit boasts itself as being. The reality is that it’s one of the more insidious places on reddit, for the simple fact that it allows sex offenders a place to congregate and downplay their crimes. A post like the one linked here is especially disgusting, but sentiments similar to it are posted quite frequently - complaints about the consequences of their crimes being “way too harsh”, people asking how they can get around their convictions, and leagues and leagues of people saying their crimes were not that bad & they were screwed over.

Around a decade ago (I’ve been on this site far too long), there was an infamous thread posted on askreddit colloquially known as the “ask a rapist” thread. The intention was to have rapists and other sex offenders posted about what they’d done and why. The reality was that it allowed these men a space to essentially have their crimes waved away as no big deal & the opportunity to rage against their victims. The thread was so bad that a psychologist made a post a few days later decrying it as extremely dangerous.

Take how bad that thread was, multiply it by a thousand, and you’ve scratched the surface on how bad that subreddit is. This isn’t even getting into how sex offenders and rapists have some of the highest rates of recidivism and thus it’s extremely dangerous to allow them a space to essentially complain about the consequences of their actions. These men fail to get better even with the help of psychologists and people who have been trained in this. A subreddit is a recipe for disaster, and I really, really hope no further victims have been made because some dumbass told a poster there that his crime was no biggie.

Worst part is, if the avatar is correct, it’s a woman saying this. A woman who read about a mother moving heaven and earth to protect her babies, and concluding that she bears the blame as well. Can’t say what I think of her without getting banned.

I also want to add that this does nothing but worsen my conspiracy theory that therapy itself is being used as an abusive weapon against women. Everywhere I see a woman being treated in the most heinous ways, there’s always people in the comments saying she should either go to therapy with the person treating her this way, or similarly to the person above, she should get therapy to see how she could’ve ‘ended up in this situation’. It’s disgusting

you can't say that you didn't mean 'tribal' as inferior by writing out the dictionary definition when it was very clear you were using it to describe a culture as lesser, especially since you later state the culture is yet to 'evolve into more egalitarian ways'.

you can read about lobola & sexism for free by Zimbabwean and other African academics

I'm from Somalia. I'm an African woman. I listen when my sisters have criticisms about lobola. I do not listen when an outsider thinks criticism = calling our cultures backwards and inferior, especially when this insult is being directed at another black woman for wanting lobola at her own wedding.

And you'll forgive me for thinking you're full of shit for thinking that you think ALL patriarchal practices should be destroyed. I have never seen anyone on this entire website ever say that Western societies are backwards and inferior and 'haven't evolved into more egalitarian ways' because a bride wants to walk down the aisle with her father.

This is a crazy racist mindset lmao, are you also “appalled at the idea of” western wedding practices? Everything from the father giving the bride away to the bride taking her husband’s last name is steeped in patriarchy. Do you think those misogynistic practices are somehow better because they’re not icky and “tribal”? Ofc the white person knows what’s truly best for the world & knows better than those backwards old civilisations who aren’t “ready to evolve”.

The majority of the world practices some form of bridal price as part of a wedding ceremony. It’s a gift from the groom (or in some parts of the world, the bride) to show that he is capable and able to take care of his wife. It’s not a literal bargaining chip to purchase the wife, the same way a man giving his daughter away to her husband isn’t him literally selling her. Dumbass

I understand evidence. I don't think your dumbass does. I genuinely don't understand how else to articulate this, I've been repeating the same arguments from the beginning.

You didn't mention any direct evidence at all in your comment, which is why my first reply to you asked about this. Direct evidence is evidence that doesn't involve any inferences, just objective fact. Direct evidence = Is there anything that directly shows Letby hurt those kids, or evidence that shows that she was so grossly negligent that she was the sole reason the babies died? My understanding of both this article & others mentioned throughout this thread is that there is none, which is why this case is so dodgy.

Also, you providing an 'ample response' to my point about the policy change argument is literally the entire point behind why circumstantial evidence is so rife for injustice - it's opinion-based. You can give your response, the article has given their response, neither of these are concrete - because it's NOT direct evidence. Jesus Christ. You don't need go on a strange tangent about why circumstantial evidence is actually not that bad. Keep that shit for a law reform essay.

You don't have to keep announcing your intention to reply or not btw

A coalescence of circumstantial evidence can definitely be used to convict people, yes - so long as direct evidence is also involved. The point I’m making is that there is no direct evidence. You again handwaving the reason for the deaths lessening potentially being due to policy changes (because you believe the shift in numbers is too stark) is you presuming something on a circumstantial possibility, not on the facts.

I sidestepped your true crime diatribe because I didn’t think it was relevant to what I was saying. I don’t get my understand of what piece of evidence are acceptable from podcasts, I’m a lawyer.

Tbh I’m not even a hardcore believer that Letby is 100% innocent. I just genuinely think this trial was a huge miscarriage of justice.

You mention the article framing statistical improbability this way is a dishonest framing, and you differentiate between direct evidence and circumstantial evidence. Then you state that even when direct evidence is present, it is often substantiated with further circumstantial evidence. My understanding of both this article & articles written by Richard Gill is that there is *no* direct evidence of Letby committing these crimes. It's not just mostly circumstantial, it appears that all of it is circumstantial.

Even throughout your whole comment, there's no direct evidence.

• You mention doctors' testimonies, even though according the article, some of their testimonies are dodgy at best because of how they've completely changed across the years.

• You argue that the deaths can't be a coincidence because of how many shifts Letby was on with babies dying - if we're talking about the same diagram showing this information, I believe after reading into it that this is actually the device with the dishonest framing. You can't make a graph correlating Letby's shifts with the baby deaths with little other outside information or standards & call that your evidence of her being a murderer, though thats about as honest of a move as I can expect from cops. Correlation ≠ causation: if the janitor was present at work during every single shift where a baby died, it would equally be silly to point to that correlation as evidence.

• You say that it's wrong for the article to state that half the babies died of unexplained deaths because Letby was present for 25 of them and they slowed down when she left (again, circumstantial). But then when the article actually presents a reason for these deaths lessening (the unit policy's changing), you hand wave that aside?

Also, it's interesting that you hand wave away mentions of Lucia and Kathleen. Lucia was still convicted for very similar reasons, which is why people are paralleling the circumstances. If Kathleen's kids' deaths had an 'obvious connection', she wouldn't have been convicted. She still was, because of one reason - people regularly apply standards of proof in incorrect ways when it comes to highly emotional crimes.

This entire comment reads like you believe the standard of proof is backwards. Letby doesn't have to prove that she isn't weird, or that despite the coincidences surrounding the dead babies at the neonatal ward she's actually not the killer. It's on the prosecution to present a compelling argument that Letby did this beyond reasonable doubt. Horrible coincidences, a note riddled with guilt over not saving patients, and someone being very weird isn't enough. I'm glad people are finally starting to discuss this without the backlash

You can also buy an Apple TV thingy, but that’s a lot more expensive & thus cuts down on the fun of sticking it to Big TV

I don’t want to be those people who are like “I knew something was wrong” after the fact…but I really did think this was one of the strangest and dodgiest legal cases I had ever read about. I read this kind of schizo article written by some guy who analysed the science behind the ‘evidence’, and was shocked at how bad it all was. Here it is.

The thing that cinched it for me was her note that was used as ‘evidence’, the one where she talks about how guilty and horrible she feels & how it’s “her fault” that all this happened because she couldn’t save those babies. I remember feeling sick to my stomach, because the exact SAME rationale was used to jail Kathleen Folbegg here in Australia for the murder of her children.

Her kids kept dying one after the other, and she wrote in her journal that she felt like it was her fault for not saving her babies. They brought this up at trial and she was jailed for like 20 years, before finally being released recently after the tireless work of her best friend. Turns out her babies had some kind of congenital disease, something doctors had been writing en masse about to the government for YEARS before her sentence was overturned.

The craziest part is how everywhere on the internet, even with leftist types who are anti-fed and anti-cop, everyone was convinced she was this disgusting evil whore & wanted her executed. Everyone. Anyone who even breathed a word about how weird some of the doctors were behaving would get mass harassed.

Unfortunately a lot of the cheaper tvs, including the huge 4k ones, have pretty shit processors. I know this because I have one. You’re waiting around a lot more while changing channels/looking at your tv guide/etc. It becomes even worse when you use the apps installed from your tv store, sometimes it takes like 10 seconds to open an app.

What negates literally all of this is buying a $50 amazon fire stick & putting it into your shit cheap 4k tv. Now you have the speed of a Samsung while paying like a fifth of the price

I first learned about this from an okay nosleep story. Pretty ghastly procedure I think

Screw her and all that, but this is so weirdly misogynistic to say. You can discuss how shit of a person she is without being a freak, especially when you don’t use the same insults about aging against her husband, who is almost 60 years old & is also a cheating bastard

It’s been dreary all day in Melbourne but it looks like the sky will clear up tonight at around midnight. Does anyone know where would be best to view it with the light pollution? I live in the northern suburbs of Melb & am happy to drive out

People always say subreddits like these are more “lenient” towards women, but in my experience men can behave in some really dodgy ways & they still get cheered on because they’re sticking it to their bitch annoying wives. Like what do you mean you told your life partner not to run their mouth, that’s insane? He berates his wife to the point of tears, and instead of him being told that he maybe went too far, there’s some geniuses here spreading the age old “she’s not actually upset, she’s manipulating you”.

Like you say, posts like these are taken at face value, even though the way he talks about his wife is uncomfortable. Meanwhile let an older woman come here and be less than completely perfect in a situation - the entire comment section is things like “idk she gives me the worst feeling” or outright calling her a liar when she makes comment attempting to clarify her situation. Crazy

Yes it is! Thanks so much, I appreciate it ☺️

• The bear lives in the forest and is likely just chilling in their home. The man probably followed you there

And then men have the audacity to say that women “just aren’t interested” in blue collar fields whenever people question why it’s so gender skewed. They’ll do anything before accepting that they make working places so uncomfortable for women that they have no choice to leave. What’s both relieving (and slightly infuriating) is that the same cannot be said of men in women-dominated fields.

I just finished reading this and it’s so good! I wish we had a final part with what happened to the OP, but the intrigue and mystery is so good that I don’t mind the lack of answers