Really enjoyed this analysis and just subscribed. I’ve followed the case through court transcripts read on the YouTube channel Crime Scene 2 Courtroom. One thing that stood out to me is that Lucy did not dispute the disputable—namely, whether insulin poisoning occurred—and simply denied doing it. I’ve come to interpret that response as a sign of innocence because many convicted poisoners falsely deny the act occurred. Lucy was instead accepting. It also symbolizes the general failure of her trial team to attack the flawed investigation. Her other problem was the prosecuting barrister is brilliant.
Yes, I was speaking to one of the main accounts following her case and he agreed: Myers seemed to have a blind spot about the insulin. He was excellent on the air embolus nonsense. That is over page a defence expert might have been useful!
Really enjoyed this analysis and just subscribed. I’ve followed the case through court transcripts read on the YouTube channel Crime Scene 2 Courtroom. One thing that stood out to me is that Lucy did not dispute the disputable—namely, whether insulin poisoning occurred—and simply denied doing it. I’ve come to interpret that response as a sign of innocence because many convicted poisoners falsely deny the act occurred. Lucy was instead accepting. It also symbolizes the general failure of her trial team to attack the flawed investigation. Her other problem was the prosecuting barrister is brilliant.
Yes, I was speaking to one of the main accounts following her case and he agreed: Myers seemed to have a blind spot about the insulin. He was excellent on the air embolus nonsense. That is over page a defence expert might have been useful!