This nurse Letby case
- Thread starter davek
- Start date
davek
Player Valuation: £150m
Wow.
Where do you start with a story like that: https://www.theguardian.com/law/202...es-review-commission-ccrc-watchdog-leadership
And these are the scumbags sitting in judgement of appeals like the Letby case.
Where do you start with a story like that: https://www.theguardian.com/law/202...es-review-commission-ccrc-watchdog-leadership
And these are the scumbags sitting in judgement of appeals like the Letby case.
johnjoeefc
Player Valuation: £25m
I've watched a lot of stuff on this case. Multiple documentaries, YouTube vids etc and I'm still non the wiser. I would say I'm almost 50/50 on her being guilty or not guilty perhaps slightly leaning towards more likely guilty.
While it's totally plausible what the defence are saying regarding medical inaccuracies and calling into question the opinions of the lead medical experts. And it's also plausible looking into the statistician evidence being somewhat flawed. I'm still not sure this is taking into account other factors.
Many journalists have suggested her behaviour in court was odd, this will be batted away by some questioning how one would react in such a situation and say being under stress could lead to this behaviour. I also don't think the scribbled notes which confess guilt and in the same page say she didn't do it have any relevance at all. She was allegedly asked to write these notes by a councillor during the time of investigation and clearly was under duress and I think they are irrelevant and unsafe to use as any indication of guilt.
I was trying to look for reasoning against her being innocent when not considering the medical or statistical evidence. This comment i read seemed to offer a valid reason worth considering. 'This is why the evidence of the on-site clinicians is so important and generally underestimated. They knew these babies as people - they knew from their first-hand experiences they should not have been collapsing and dying.
The experts witnesses for both prosecution and defence are only really producing theories based on recording.'
I however don't think it's helpful when people immediately jump to either side of the argument, when looking on YouTube comments for example there are multiple people adamant of her innocence. I would question how these people could really truly know based on everything available that she is 100% innocent. Particularly when you consider that it appears many including the jury and journalists who attended the trial felt the guilty verdict was a correct one.
My belief would be that if you were to discount the statistical and medical evidence. It leaves too much chance to it being an unsafe or unjust trial. And while I would still actually slightly believe that she was guilty all things considered, to imprison someone for life I think requires stronger evidence because there is still a high enough chance that she's innocent. This is unless there was something that was in the original trial that was so damning that it would be impossible to believe any other than in her guilt, however that doesn't appear to be the case from all information currently available.
While it's totally plausible what the defence are saying regarding medical inaccuracies and calling into question the opinions of the lead medical experts. And it's also plausible looking into the statistician evidence being somewhat flawed. I'm still not sure this is taking into account other factors.
Many journalists have suggested her behaviour in court was odd, this will be batted away by some questioning how one would react in such a situation and say being under stress could lead to this behaviour. I also don't think the scribbled notes which confess guilt and in the same page say she didn't do it have any relevance at all. She was allegedly asked to write these notes by a councillor during the time of investigation and clearly was under duress and I think they are irrelevant and unsafe to use as any indication of guilt.
I was trying to look for reasoning against her being innocent when not considering the medical or statistical evidence. This comment i read seemed to offer a valid reason worth considering. 'This is why the evidence of the on-site clinicians is so important and generally underestimated. They knew these babies as people - they knew from their first-hand experiences they should not have been collapsing and dying.
The experts witnesses for both prosecution and defence are only really producing theories based on recording.'
I however don't think it's helpful when people immediately jump to either side of the argument, when looking on YouTube comments for example there are multiple people adamant of her innocence. I would question how these people could really truly know based on everything available that she is 100% innocent. Particularly when you consider that it appears many including the jury and journalists who attended the trial felt the guilty verdict was a correct one.
My belief would be that if you were to discount the statistical and medical evidence. It leaves too much chance to it being an unsafe or unjust trial. And while I would still actually slightly believe that she was guilty all things considered, to imprison someone for life I think requires stronger evidence because there is still a high enough chance that she's innocent. This is unless there was something that was in the original trial that was so damning that it would be impossible to believe any other than in her guilt, however that doesn't appear to be the case from all information currently available.
It`s incredibly, callous, disrespectful and upsetting for the parents of the children that Letby murdered too.
By all means explore all avenues of appeal, but do it with consideration, humility, grace and decorum, not turn the whole thing into a PR driven exercise in spin, with the sole purpose of sowing the seeds of doubt before the latest appeal had even been held.
From hospital to hospital, death and near misses followed Letby around and then it all stopped once she was arrested or finished her placement at which ever hospital she was at. at the time. Irrelevant of everything else, there`s just too much similar fact evidence for Letby not to have been the culprit.
This doesn't look or feel like a safe thread either.
Welcome
Join Grand Old Team to get involved in the Everton discussion. Signing up is quick, easy, and completely free.
Shop
