This nurse Letby case

The binman chronicles said:
Dave she isn't going to marry you.

Actually if she stays in prison you have a chance, be her pen pal and develop from there until you get married. The media will love the story of her and the orange cat. Even more so when the latter is found dead after only four months due to an air embolism... :oops:
Click to expand...
That's of questionable taste, tbf.
Sean Ashley said:
You are right that their is a growing clamour from experts. But they aren't actually saying she is innocent, per se, what the experts are saying is they aren't convinced on the merits of her conviction based upon the evidence presented. So a mistrial.

David Davis who has been the leading voice on this recent noise and spoken to most of these experts has stated he needs a month or two of reading to determine if he thinks Letby is innocent or not. Only once he is certain will he proceed further.
Click to expand...
Yes. And she was convicted on the basis that it was circumstantial but 'being reasonable doubt'.

Is that the case now?
 
davek said:
That's of questionable taste, tbf.

Yes. And she was convicted on the basis that it was circumstantial but 'being reasonable doubt'.

Is that the case now?
Click to expand...
Well the jury come to that decision yes. I wasn't a member of of that jury for a year.

I don't think questioning evidence is a problem. But it doesn't mean she is innocent. Far from it.
 
Sean Ashley said:
Well the jury come to that decision yes. I wasn't a member of of that jury for a year.

I don't think questioning evidence is a problem. But it doesn't mean she is innocent. Far from it.
Click to expand...
That's not the threshold.

The evidence / methodology to convict is in tatters and in disrepute.

Almost every week another brick in the wall is loosened in this case.
 
davek said:
That's not the threshold.

The evidence / methodology to convict is in tatters and in disrepute.

Almost every week another brick in the wall is loosened in this case.
Click to expand...
Well the threshold given she has been found guilty means in the eyes of the law it was beyond doubt.

It doesn't stop her right to appeal or for her lawyers to bring evidence, as is in the news that the conviction in their eyes is an unsafe one.

Like the trial, any new information bought by these the experts needs to be carefully reviewed, which David Davis has stated it will take him at least a month to come to an conclusion which for him is either she is guilty so no point pushing for a mistrial or is could be innocent and discusses this with parliament.
 

davek said:
That's of questionable taste, tbf.

Yes. And she was convicted on the basis that it was circumstantial but 'being reasonable doubt'.

Is that the case now?
Click to expand...
davek said:
That's not the threshold.

The evidence / methodology to convict is in tatters and in disrepute.

Almost every week another brick in the wall is loosened in this case.
Click to expand...

Basically an article saying "PIPE DOWN @davek"

www.bbc.co.uk

What I learned about Lucy Letby after 10 months in court

The nurse was questioned for nearly 60 hours - the BBC's Judith Moritz watched it all.
www.bbc.co.uk
 

Damo_1878 said:
Basically an article saying "PIPE DOWN @davek"

www.bbc.co.uk

What I learned about Lucy Letby after 10 months in court

The nurse was questioned for nearly 60 hours - the BBC's Judith Moritz watched it all.
www.bbc.co.uk
Click to expand...
What a 'kin hack.

I remember her reports: to say they were of the witch-hunt variety is to do it an injustice.

She and the rest of the media who stood there night after night filing their reports know they got this completely wrong...because they weren't there to report in a balanced way - and now the roof is falling in on them.

Look at that line she uses: "Very rarely, as she was brought in and out, she'd look up and catch my eye, but just as quickly, she'd look away again. I tried to look into her soul. I drew a blank."

Ha Ha Ha.

The 'reporter' couldn't locate Letby's soul...oh well, better lock her up forever then.

Jesus wept, is that all they've got left to defend their actions?

Imagine being them. The sinister gets must be sleeping very uneasily now.
 
davek said:
What a 'kin hack.

I remember her reports: to say they were of the witch-hunt variety is to do it an injustice.

She and the rest of the media who stood there night after night filing their reports know they got this completely wrong...because they weren't there to report in a balanced way - and now the roof is falling in on them.

Look at that line she uses: "Very rarely, as she was brought in and out, she'd look up and catch my eye, but just as quickly, she'd look away again. I tried to look into her soul. I drew a blank."

Ha Ha Ha.

The 'reporter' couldn't locate Letby's soul...oh well, better lock her up forever then.

Jesus wept, is that all they've got left to defend their actions?

Imagine being them. The sinister gets must be sleeping very uneasily now.
Click to expand...

You're wrong on this Dave. You've been wrong many times before.

You like to take a contrarian view but I'll put one point to you.

Letby's QC/KC's in the original trial presented two witnesses?

It's been portrayed as evidence of her innocence by people like you, because she "didn't get a fair trial"

However, that is a fallacy. She did have the opportunity to call more witnesses. They declined to, probably because they may have implicated her or made her case weaker. That was their decision and no one else's.

So by all means keep putting forward fallacies. She's recently been convicted again of a attempted murder in a full retrial. By a new court and jury. That should be telling you something.
 
Damo_1878 said:
You're wrong on this Dave. You've been wrong many times before.

You like to take a contrarian view but I'll put one point to you.

Letby's QC/KC's in the original trial presented two witnesses?

It's been portrayed as evidence of her innocence by people like you, because she "didn't get a fair trial"

However, that is a fallacy. She did have the opportunity to call more witnesses. They declined to, probably because they may have implicated her or made her case weaker. That was their decision and no one else's.

So by all means keep putting forward fallacies. She's recently been convicted again of a attempted murder in a full retrial. By a new court and jury. That should be telling you something.
Click to expand...
It's pretty clear that the defence strategy was always to keep their powder dry to a time when the case was over and their own evidence and experts could be heard above the din of cranks - like that BBC hack you linked, for example - so that it gained a fair hearing in a calmer environment.

This conviction is as unsafe as any other miscarriage of justice there's been and the outcome will be to release her.
 

Welcome to GrandOldTeam

Get involved. Registration is simple and free.

Register
Back
Top