scottsdad Posted May 24 Share Posted May 24 The thread title remains safe, for now. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
btb Posted June 12 Share Posted June 12 (edited) I imagine it would be difficult to find 12 individuals with no prior knowledge of the case to form a jury but the prosecution case seems pretty much to be "she killed the others , so she must've killed Baby K too". Quote “Putting it in a nutshell, we are saying – we assert – that her status as a multiple murderer and attempted murderer is an important piece of the evidence that you can, if you wish, take into account when you are considering whether we have made you sure that she attempted to murder [Baby K].” Lucy Letby’s convictions are ‘significant evidence’ in current trial, prosecutor says | UK news | The Guardian Edited June 12 by btb 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Ferrino Posted June 12 Share Posted June 12 What do women do in prisons when they don't like PlayStations? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottsdad Posted June 12 Share Posted June 12 1 hour ago, Tony Ferrino said: What do women do in prisons when they don't like PlayStations? Xbox. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Ferrino Posted June 12 Share Posted June 12 (edited) 1 hour ago, scottsdad said: Xbox. Men and women are so divided. Edited June 12 by Tony Ferrino 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Florentine_Pogen Posted June 12 Share Posted June 12 1 hour ago, scottsdad said: Xbox. Ha, very good. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hk blues Posted June 13 Share Posted June 13 19 hours ago, btb said: I imagine it would be difficult to find 12 individuals with no prior knowledge of the case to form a jury but the prosecution case seems pretty much to be "she killed the others , so she must've killed Baby K too". Lucy Letby’s convictions are ‘significant evidence’ in current trial, prosecutor says | UK news | The Guardian That's not what was said though - you even quoted what was said and it's not that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
btb Posted June 13 Share Posted June 13 28 minutes ago, hk blues said: That's not what was said though - you even quoted what was said and it's not that. Um, yeah it is, I quoted it and I'll repeat the quote - in a nutshell. Quote “Putting it in a nutshell, we are saying – we assert – that her status as a multiple murderer and attempted murderer is an important piece of the evidence that you can, if you wish, take into account when you are considering whether we have made you sure that she attempted to murder [Baby K].” 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salt n Vinegar Posted June 13 Share Posted June 13 (edited) Without going too far and having someone call the analogy police, is the article suggesting that it would be reasonable to accuse a face eating leopard of eating one more face, when it had a proven relatively recent history of eating other faces? Just so I'm clear... Edited June 13 by Salt n Vinegar 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tamthebam Posted June 13 Share Posted June 13 It sounds like an English criminal law equivalent of what in Scots law is known as The Moorov Doctrine You can look that up on Wikipedia yourselves and drop it into polite conversation next time you're at a party. I'm not sure any previous convictions would be talked about in Scots criminal law before determination of the verdict though. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hk blues Posted June 14 Share Posted June 14 14 hours ago, Salt n Vinegar said: Without going too far and having someone call the analogy police, is the article suggesting that it would be reasonable to accuse a face eating leopard of eating one more face, when it had a proven relatively recent history of eating other faces? Just so I'm clear... Reasonable yes - but UK law doesn't work on the principle of reasonableness. So, while it's certainly fair game to bring the leopard's recent past into it there has to be other evidence to supplement it. And, despite what has been suggested above, from what I've read so far the prosecution in the Letby case has already offered supporting evidence and has not simply relied on "she killed the others so she must've killed this one too" reasoning. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
velo army Posted June 14 Share Posted June 14 I was already a little iffy about this case being mostly tried on probability, but hearing what the "expert witness" had to say in the New Yorker article was pretty alarming. It does seem that a lot of "evidence" is in fact supposition aided by a predetermined narrative of guilt. The scribbled notes she wrote shouldn't have been used at all and there seems to be so many confounding variables as well as a frankly innumerate use of stats. I have a real fear that this could be the greatest non-lethal miscarriage of justice in British legal history. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nkomo-A-Gogo Posted June 14 Share Posted June 14 13 hours ago, velo army said: I was already a little iffy about this case being mostly tried on probability, but hearing what the "expert witness" had to say in the New Yorker article was pretty alarming. It does seem that a lot of "evidence" is in fact supposition aided by a predetermined narrative of guilt. The scribbled notes she wrote shouldn't have been used at all and there seems to be so many confounding variables as well as a frankly innumerate use of stats. I have a real fear that this could be the greatest non-lethal miscarriage of justice in British legal history. Will she get her job back? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hauzen Posted June 15 Share Posted June 15 15 hours ago, Nkomo-A-Gogo said: Will she get her job back? Celebrity Big Brother and OnlyFans beckons. Velo army angling for VIP membership I reckon. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
superwell87 Posted July 5 Share Posted July 5 A 15th whole life term handed to the evil **** https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cljyn2e7l3yo 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
btb Posted August 17 Share Posted August 17 Another irregularity in this case. Evidence in first Lucy Letby trial was incorrect, CPS admits | Lucy Letby | The Guardian 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thistle_do_nicely Posted August 18 Share Posted August 18 https://www.private-eye.co.uk/pictures/special_reports/lucy-letby.pdf https://www.private-eye.co.uk/pictures/special_reports/lucy-letby-2.pdf interesting. Didn't know that the defence hadn't really relied on medical experts/medical reports. It's short, but there's enough there to leave me wondering if 99 percent certainty / "beyond a reasonable doubt" has been met... "ONE hallmark of the justice system is that you don’t have to offer any defence – expert or otherwise – and it is entirely down to the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Letby and her barrister Ben Myers KC did not call their single expert witness to give evidence, secure in the knowledge that the evidence against her was largely circumstantial, and perhaps mindful that the prosecution had six expert witnesses and seven consultant paediatricians who were united in believing her to be guilty because it seemed the most plausible explanation for the spate of sudden and unexplained collapses. Myers did a very competent job challenging the prosecution witnesses. But the glaring weakness in the process was that the jury only heard expert evidence from one side. MD can make no judgement either way as to the guilt or innocence of Lucy Letby, but the way expert witnesses are used – or not used – in criminal trials with complex and uncertain science is simply not fit for purpose and risks miscarriages of justice. It should be mandatory for the jury to hear expert witnesses from both sides or – better still – it should be a duty of, say, the Royal Colleges and Royal Statistical Society to provide a team of the best, current expert witnesses on behalf of the court, not paid or employed by one side or the other. This is vital for justice to be done and to be seen being done." 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RH33 Posted August 18 Share Posted August 18 MD used to be decent insight but mid COVID and on his coloums been bit weird. Stopped reading them. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gnash Posted August 29 Share Posted August 29 The questioning of the evidence used to convict Letby has become mainstream: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c39k44n8j1mo 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sherrif John Bunnell Posted August 29 Share Posted August 29 Despite their mostly very good investigative journalism (they were onto the Post Office scandal years ago) , Private Eye were completely hooked in by the MMR vaccine/autism hoax, so I would be wary of anything they have to say regarding the Letby case. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.