This nurse Letby case

Rita_Poon said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yes, absolutely agree with all that.
I approach this case and all others from a purely Sociology and Criminology background both from interest and practice.
The comments I made above, while flippant obviously were weighed upon the balance of both probability and the weight of evidence.
Yes, the baying masses want blood and yes there are more courts than the one of Law where verdicts and opinions are passed down (and not for the betterment of society, law or humankind) and they all want someone to make them feel better about themselves.
Back in the day I read Frances Hiedensohn and Dale Spender texts about the 'double jeopardy' that female suspects/convicts experience, that they are judged both on their gender/sex and their crime and the race to judge and convict is even more bllodthirsty.
BUT, having watched it, albeit not as closely as I would have done in the past and stripping away prejudices of class, location, gender and role, the evidence did seem to be pretty damning.
I don't want this to come across as patronising mind, or even 'look at me and how objective I am', just that by the same token, I don't want to people to think Im starting from the "ah her eyes are too close together and she looks shady so therefore she's guilty" stance either, which seems to be the Atavistic basis most argue from.
 
Nowhere else to put this, apologies for it being sky news, a bbc source currently unfounf.

In 2022 she concluded that catastrophic failures there may have led to the deaths of more than 200 babies.
news.sky.com

Nottingham maternity scandal: Families still tell of 'poor care' a year after review launched

An investigation is looking into more than 1,700 cases of possible harm to newborn babies and mothers.
news.sky.com news.sky.com

This just hit the news because the police have been called in.
 
Rita_Poon said:
Nowhere else to put this, apologies for it being sky news, a bbc source currently unfounf.

In 2022 she concluded that catastrophic failures there may have led to the deaths of more than 200 babies.
news.sky.com

Nottingham maternity scandal: Families still tell of 'poor care' a year after review launched

An investigation is looking into more than 1,700 cases of possible harm to newborn babies and mothers.
news.sky.com news.sky.com

This just hit the news because the police have been called in.
Click to expand...

www.bbc.co.uk

Nottingham maternity deaths: Police announce criminal inquiry

Police are to investigate deaths at a trust in Nottingham, already the subject of a major review.
www.bbc.co.uk
 

bring the ghost on said:
What is your point, Rob? There is some new evidence (not yet tried) raised by defence lawyers on a completely unrelated case, so what?
Click to expand...
No. As I have said before, from what you heard of the case it appears her guilt was highly likely but there did not appear to be anything that was definitive and for me that is not comfortable.
 
See they`re deciding on whether to have a fresh trial over the cases that the jury was hung on.

It`s a bit of a tricky one this morally, as she`s never getting out, so you could argue, what`s the point in spending all that money and putting the parents / jury etc through another harrowing trial, when even if she`s found guilty again, she`s already serving a whole life tariff.

On the other hand, what price justice ?
 
COYBL25 said:
See they`re deciding on whether to have a fresh trial over the cases that the jury was hung on.

It`s a bit of a tricky one this morally, as she`s never getting out, so you could argue, what`s the point in spending all that money and putting the parents / jury etc through another harrowing trial, when even if she`s found guilty again, she`s already serving a whole life tariff.

On the other hand, what price justice ?
Click to expand...
Who pays for all this legal stuff, legal aid ? The tax payer - just throw away the key, shes never coming out .....
 
COYBL25 said:
See they`re deciding on whether to have a fresh trial over the cases that the jury was hung on.

It`s a bit of a tricky one this morally, as she`s never getting out, so you could argue, what`s the point in spending all that money and putting the parents / jury etc through another harrowing trial, when even if she`s found guilty again, she`s already serving a whole life tariff.

On the other hand, what price justice ?
Click to expand...
they could lie them on file and have an inquest, then the facts get heard in public at the inquest, a lower burden of proof would probably result in unlawful killing verdicts, and if she ever tries to apply for a release they can be restarted to make sure she stays in. Not really in the public interest to have a retrial for my view but the families off those kids may be satisfied if the facts are heard before an inquest
 

COYBL25 said:
See they`re deciding on whether to have a fresh trial over the cases that the jury was hung on.

It`s a bit of a tricky one this morally, as she`s never getting out, so you could argue, what`s the point in spending all that money and putting the parents / jury etc through another harrowing trial, when even if she`s found guilty again, she`s already serving a whole life tariff.

On the other hand, what price justice ?
Click to expand...
If there is any evidence of more murders then there must be a trial. Yes it will reopen wounds of the bereaved but ultimately gives them some sense of justice which is some crumb of comfort. That your grief was disregarded for expediency must never happen.

The disgusting Legacy Bill going through Parliament is an abomination on morality.
 
Armaghtoffee said:
Are you saying she should not face further murder trials as it may cost public money?
Click to expand...
As @COYBL25 stated, she has got life forever, but if it satisfies the families where the jury were uncertain on certain deaths, & she is proved to murdering their babies - I can see where you are coming from - if someone murdered one of our children you would want the correct verdict as there is no closure for such families -

I personally would like to see a public enquiry & members of that NHS health board if Guilty or suspected of wrong doing - being put in the dock too & the NHS pensions removed from them too, as they are lucrative to them ....

A Barrister once told me There is no such thing as justice ......
 

Welcome to GrandOldTeam

Get involved. Registration is simple and free.

Register
Back
Top