This nurse Letby case

I honestly wanted this to go one of two ways: a clear conviction based on a wealth of undenaiable evidence that she'd done what she was accused of, or a acquital based on the reverse. We got neither, I believe.

Not sure how else you can construe this one Davek, but likewise, keep digging - based on everyone else’s reactions, your credibility is in the toilet anyway.
 

The key words in all of that are “ reasonable force ”

This is very subjective and I should imagine some smart arse lawyer, would be all over it, if someone was forcibly restrained and then bounced into court.

Reasonable force needs defining.
 



"Case details: Deportation police from the SO1(3) squad arrived at the north London home of Joy Gardner in the early hours of the morning of 8 July 1993. In front of her 5-year-old son, they held her down to stop her struggling and placed a body belt around her waist, bound her wrists to handcuffs attached to a belt and tied her thighs and ankles with leather belts. They then wrapped 13 feet of tape around her mouth to stop her screaming. She was taken to hospital in a coma from which she never recovered."

And of course the murder of Jimmy Mubenga

It takes a special kind of person to believe vengeance is justice. 'Reasonable' eh?

I wonder what the news and social media will whip a certain number of people into a frenzy over next.
 
The current situation might be the least worst. How would those on trial be forced to attend verdicts? beat em up? sedate them? gun point? What if they just shout for hours through it? Threats abuse and worse.
A very worrying topic has again reared it's head - Andrew Malkinson was found guilty of rape - wrongly. Once upon a time he'd have been executed, and his blood on the hands of the state, and those that fit him up.
Yep, still this.
 


"Case details: Deportation police from the SO1(3) squad arrived at the north London home of Joy Gardner in the early hours of the morning of 8 July 1993. In front of her 5-year-old son, they held her down to stop her struggling and placed a body belt around her waist, bound her wrists to handcuffs attached to a belt and tied her thighs and ankles with leather belts. They then wrapped 13 feet of tape around her mouth to stop her screaming. She was taken to hospital in a coma from which she never recovered."

And of course the murder of Jimmy Mubenga

It takes a special kind of person to believe vengeance is justice. 'Reasonable' eh?

I wonder what the news and social media will whip a certain number of people into a frenzy over next.

Quite.

Making a law based on media fueled "outrage" rarely works well. Maybe its just me, but if I was a parent of a baby she had killed, she would be the person on earth I would want to be in a room with.
 
Quite.

Making a law based on media fueled "outrage" rarely works well. Maybe its just me, but if was a parent of a baby she had killed, she would be the * person on earth I would want to be in a room with.
I'm guessing you've missed 'last' there. "Reasonable force", Imagine forcing iron mike tyson into the dock versus the same job on lucy letby. Doesn't equate.
 
I'm new to this thread, but read yesterday on, I Think it was the BBC website, that friends and some colleagues are still sure of her innocence.
Now I know I'm not the brightest, but there's nothing quite like multiple babies dying on your watch and then none dying when you;re off and then a months long, in depth trial with unanimous verdicts and then an a massive inquiry into failings after massive concerns were raised about her conduct and a 'cover up' that shouts INNOCENT.
Maybe I'm just overly cynical mind.
 

I'm guessing you've missed 'last' there. "Reasonable force", Imagine forcing iron mike tyson into the dock versus the same job on lucy letby. Doesn't equate.

Indeed I did. No idea what the Merican rules even are.

But, again, its just me, but if you have not got the stones to face your sentence in person, well, that says it all.
 
I'm new to this thread, but read yesterday on, I Think it was the BBC website, that friends and some colleagues are still sure of her innocence.
Now I know I'm not the brightest, but there's nothing quite like multiple babies dying on your watch and then none dying when you;re off and then a months long, in depth trial with unanimous verdicts and then an a massive inquiry into failings after massive concerns were raised about her conduct and a 'cover up' that shouts INNOCENT.
Maybe I'm just overly cynical mind.
Maybe you need some new glasses.
 
Did you follow the case and the trial? Do you have any reservations or doubts about the verdicts passed down?
Not a loaded question in any way mind.
Just asking your take on it.
I have to have faith for the time being until more details are known. The state has spoken with absolute surety previously and let itself down terribly, so my faith is jaded. 'overwhelming circumstantial evidence' is what it says, there is nothing definitive. very difficult case, very emotive, and once the news and media get their teeth into it suddenly there's enough strength of feeling for the government to rush through legislation to alter a system, (the longest current judicial system on the planet!) an alteration not required for hundreds of years*.

People want blood, the stupider the person the more blood they want. I have pointed to miscarriages of justice previous, no one wanted to even acknowledge them. Quite the situation. Still, the kardashians are on tv later and then there's love island and mrs browns boys....etc.
 

Welcome to GrandOldTeam

Get involved. Registration is simple and free.

Back
Top