Install the app
How to install the app on iOS

Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.

Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.

This nurse Letby case

davek said:
www.theguardian.com

‘The case became a witch hunt’: how ‘killer nurse’ Daniela Poggiali fought to clear her name

Italy’s ‘angel of death’ was imprisoned and demonised by the press before her convictions were overturned. Now the expert who came to her defence has turned his attention to Lucy Letby’s case
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
Click to expand...
Yes, let's pity the women who stole from her employer and mocked seriously ill or even posed over their dead bodies.

Or pity the one currently in prison for murdering babies.
 
GoldenToffee said:
I wonder how those kin idiots that were falling over themselves to have her exonerated a few weeks ago will explain this.
Click to expand...
To be honest, I'm of the opinion she did it but some of the prosecution evidence was sketchy to say the least. It's a slippery slope when you start accepting flawed evidence and outright incorrect information just because she deserves it.
 

trueblue84 said:
To be honest, I'm of the opinion she did it but some of the prosecution evidence was sketchy to say the least. It's a slippery slope when you start accepting flawed evidence and outright incorrect information just because she deserves it.
Click to expand...

What’s sketchy about the evidence ?

You do realise that her defence team had full disclosure of all the evidence and information prior to both her trial, her appeal and then her second trial ?

What we’ve got now are internet detectives and experts who weren’t involved now going to bat for her.

It’s almost becoming a re trial by social media.
 
GoldenToffee said:
I wonder how those kin idiots that were falling over themselves to have her exonerated a few weeks ago will explain this.
Click to expand...
It's exactly the same problem. The 'evidence' is cherry picked and proves nothing. The only time a sick baby deteriorates soon after a nurse starts their shift is when that nurse is Lucy Letby? Really?
 
COYBL25 said:
What’s sketchy about the evidence ?

You do realise that her defence team had full disclosure of all the evidence and information prior to both her trial, her appeal and then her second trial ?

What we’ve got now are internet detectives and experts who weren’t involved now going to bat for her.

It’s almost becoming a re trial by social media.
Click to expand...
They incorrectly reported entry/exit information from swipe cards as part of the prosecution case. They've said it didn't have a material impact on the case.

The prosecution's expert witness has had countless other experts dismiss his theories. He has apparently shifted his story and is now refusing to answer any further questions.

They were able to speculate about how a baby died, despite letby not being on shift between the baby being born and dying. I think they said something along the lines of "she could've snuck in".

As I say, I don't think she's innocent, but there has to be a high standard applied to both prosecution and defence cases. The flawed prosecution case has caused the doubt.

Another example is the postmaster who was convicted of murdering his wife. He was prosecuted on the evidence that he was stealing from the post office and tried to hide his debt. That could be true, but it is based on horizon data, which has now led to him claiming he is innocent and wants a retrial. That's what flawed evidence does. He's either guilty or innocent, but would you declare him guilty knowing what you know about the horizon scandal?
 
This Panorama programme tonight - just to put it into context, as it's an attack on the scientists who have challenged her conviction: it's been out together by a reporter called Judith Moritz who covered the trial for the BBC every day. She's took every occasion on screen to frame Letby as guilty long before the verdict was handed down.

She had a piece on the BBC website 2 months ago where she "tried to look into her soul but drew a blank". Oh well, that's that then.

This is the type of Salem witch trials journalism that's dogged this case.

Her conclusion tonight is that, though there's no way of knowing for sure whether Letby is guilty, questioning the verdict is "grossly negligent and distressing to the families involved" - the implication being that any investigation of a possible miscarriage of justice should be shut down.

What a pathetic hack. Just about par for the course at the BBC. .
 
davek said:
This Panorama programme tonight - just to put it into context, as it's an attack on the scientists who have challenged her conviction: it's been out together by a reporter called Judith Moritz who covered the trial for the BBC every day. She's took every occasion on screen to frame Letby as guilty long before the verdict was handed down.

She had a piece on the BBC website 2 months ago where she "tried to look into her soul but drew a blank". Oh well, that's that then.

Her conclusion tonight is that, though there's no way of knowing for sure whether Letby is guilty, questioning the verdict is "grossly negligent and distressing to the families involved" - the implication being that any possible miscarriage of justice should be shut down.

What a pathetic hack. Just about par the course at the BBC. .
Click to expand...

In your opinion.
 

COYBL25 said:
What’s sketchy about the evidence ?

You do realise that her defence team had full disclosure of all the evidence and information prior to both her trial, her appeal and then her second trial ?

What we’ve got now are internet detectives and experts who weren’t involved now going to bat for her.

It’s almost becoming a re trial by social media.
Click to expand...

….i think there’s definitely lessons to be learned from the trial. More specifically, the statistical evidence was quite compelling (e.g the tick list of nurses on duty when events happened) but has subsequently been found to be extremely flawed and created an incorrect bias.

The jury might have come to the right conclusion but it’s important the evidence is fairly represented, it’s vital for future cases that these issues are captured and understood. It’s why ‘case law’ is so important in court references.
 
COYBL25 said:
In your opinion.
Click to expand...
Of course.

And that's the key isn't it...that in the absence of hard incontrovertible evidence this case has come down to opinions that were formed about Letby...in particular the 'confession' stick it notes...notes we now know she was instructed to write by a psychologist to relieve stress.

She may be guilty, she may not be. It's all about avoiding reasonable doubt, and despite the protestations of hacks like Judith Moritz, who believes she cant locate Letby's soul!!, there is reasonable doubt....very much so.
 
Eggs said:
….i think there’s definitely lessons to be learned from the trial. More specifically, the statistical evidence was quite compelling (e.g the tick list of nurses on duty when events happened)
Click to expand...
The statistical evidence is the main problem. That tick list, for example, did not include every baby that died nor every nurse that was in attendance. In statistical terms, it is hopelessly flawed yet was considered compelling enough to convict ...
 
davek said:
This Panorama programme tonight - just to put it into context, as it's an attack on the scientists who have challenged her conviction: it's been out together by a reporter called Judith Moritz who covered the trial for the BBC every day. She's took every occasion on screen to frame Letby as guilty long before the verdict was handed down.

She had a piece on the BBC website 2 months ago where she "tried to look into her soul but drew a blank". Oh well, that's that then.

This is the type of Salem witch trials journalism that's dogged this case.

Her conclusion tonight is that, though there's no way of knowing for sure whether Letby is guilty, questioning the verdict is "grossly negligent and distressing to the families involved" - the implication being that any investigation of a possible miscarriage of justice should be shut down.

What a pathetic hack. Just about par for the course at the BBC. .
Click to expand...
That was a very uncomfortable watch. The Welsh medical expert who supported the prosecution seemed to have a very twisted take on the whole thing.
 
trueblue84 said:
That was a very uncomfortable watch. The Welsh medical expert who supported the prosecution seemed to have a very twisted take on the whole thing.
Click to expand...
He's a dinosaur. Completely out to lunch. Basically his answer to all doubts raised by other experts was "well they're wrong".
 

Welcome to GrandOldTeam

Get involved. Registration is simple and free.

Register
Back
Top