Lucy Letby guilty

[Boo Khaki]

17 minutes ago, GHF-23 said:

I must have missed them saying they didn't want to come forward at the time, would it not be more the case that it's unwise to comment on a live case? 

Of course. My point is not why were none of these experts commenting from the outside while the case was in progress, rather, why were they not cited by her defence if there is so much doubt about the veracity of the prosecution's argument re the specifics of how each incident unfolded.

This is what I was getting at about reticence. I've seen more than one person interviewed who has said that there is a fundamental reluctance to go and provide evidence for a Defence because of fear of reputational damage. I know that it's not the expert on trial, and their input should be viewed as information and not "evidence", but if there genuinely is a reluctance to come forward then there is an obvious problem inherent in the system.

Quote

It seems a number of experts were consulted by the defence, who decided not to use them as it would be counterproductive to their acceptance of the argument that there had to be a massive murderer working on the ward. This seems, in retrospect, a slightly batshit decision. 

Indeed.

I think I'm guilty of looking at the reaction on SM and people doubting LL's guilt, when in reality it's not really a case of "this expert says xxx therefore Letby is innocent", and more a case of "why wasn't this brought up in her defence?".

Suggesting that she, perhaps, did not receive the best of representation or that her team put forward a poor defence is different to jumping to the conclusion that she must be innocent because random expert on the telly says X or Y, but that's how these "did she really do it?" things appear to be interpreted.

There are folk out there who genuinely believe Luke Mitchell is innocent because of a completely quack and biased C5 "documentary" that completely misrepresented fact and deliberately omitted anything that undermined their specious argument. It also posited two disgraced coppers as "experts". This is off on a tangent, but I'm trying to explain why I'm a bit reluctant to pay much heed to "letby didnae dae it" stuff when there has been a years long police investigation, and a months long criminal trial which would have examined fact that was never in public domain, and her appeals have since been rejected. There doesn't appear to be any doubt of her guilt in the places where it actually matters. 

[velo army]

4 hours ago, Boo Khaki said:

Of course. My point is not why were none of these experts commenting from the outside while the case was in progress, rather, why were they not cited by her defence if there is so much doubt about the veracity of the prosecution's argument re the specifics of how each incident unfolded.

This is what I was getting at about reticence. I've seen more than one person interviewed who has said that there is a fundamental reluctance to go and provide evidence for a Defence because of fear of reputational damage. I know that it's not the expert on trial, and their input should be viewed as information and not "evidence", but if there genuinely is a reluctance to come forward then there is an obvious problem inherent in the system.

Indeed.

I think I'm guilty of looking at the reaction on SM and people doubting LL's guilt, when in reality it's not really a case of "this expert says xxx therefore Letby is innocent", and more a case of "why wasn't this brought up in her defence?".

Suggesting that she, perhaps, did not receive the best of representation or that her team put forward a poor defence is different to jumping to the conclusion that she must be innocent because random expert on the telly says X or Y, but that's how these "did she really do it?" things appear to be interpreted.

There are folk out there who genuinely believe Luke Mitchell is innocent because of a completely quack and biased C5 "documentary" that completely misrepresented fact and deliberately omitted anything that undermined their specious argument. It also posited two disgraced coppers as "experts". This is off on a tangent, but I'm trying to explain why I'm a bit reluctant to pay much heed to "letby didnae dae it" stuff when there has been a years long police investigation, and a months long criminal trial which would have examined fact that was never in public domain, and her appeals have since been rejected. There doesn't appear to be any doubt of her guilt in the places where it actually matters. 

And for me, given that her guilt is based on coincidence and probability then there really should be. I'm not necessarily in the "didn't dae" it camp, but like you I'm thinking increasingly that her defence was inept.

That her journals and scribbling were permitted as evidence is risible. That should have been meat and drink for her defence. That the defence never presented any experts of their own means that we have the continuing doubt over her guilt which must be terrible for the families of the babies. 

[hk blues]

17 hours ago, velo army said:

And for me, given that her guilt is based on coincidence and probability then there really should be. I'm not necessarily in the "didn't dae" it camp, but like you I'm thinking increasingly that her defence was inept.

That her journals and scribbling were permitted as evidence is risible. That should have been meat and drink for her defence. That the defence never presented any experts of their own means that we have the continuing doubt over her guilt which must be terrible for the families of the babies. 

In some cases, coincidence and probability are all they have, circumstantial evidence if you like.  And it's perfectly acceptable to make a judgement based on just that as long as there is enough of it.  

The legal test is proof beyond reasonable doubt, not beyond any doubt.  

[scottsdad]

3 hours ago, hk blues said:

In some cases, coincidence and probability are all they have, circumstantial evidence if you like.  And it's perfectly acceptable to make a judgement based on just that as long as there is enough of it.  

The legal test is proof beyond reasonable doubt, not beyond any doubt.  

If she ended up in court, it's because she was guilty. 

[Soapy FFC]

20 minutes ago, scottsdad said:

If she ended up in court, it's because she was guilty. 

Unfortunately recent history is littered with "guilty" people who were convicted and later found innocent and released due to various miscarriages. 

[scottsdad]

8 minutes ago, Soapy FFC said:

Unfortunately recent history is littered with "guilty" people who were convicted and later found innocent and released due to various miscarriages. 

Nah. What happened there was the Wokerati took charge of the courts and let out all manner of criminals. 

Only Trump and Boris can reverse this awful trend. 

[highlandmac]

14 hours ago, scottsdad said:

Nah. What happened there was the Wokerati took charge of the courts and let out all manner of criminals. 

Only Trump and Boris can reverse this awful trend. 

Oh,I see what you're about now

[hk blues]

15 hours ago, scottsdad said:

If she ended up in court, it's because she was guilty. 

I wouldn't go that far, but would go as far as if she was found guilty it's because the evidence presented was overwhelming.  

 

[scottsdad]

1 hour ago, highlandmac said:

Oh,I see what you're about now

[Wee Bully]

2 hours ago, hk blues said:

I wouldn't go that far, but would go as far as if she was found guilty it's because the evidence presented was overwhelming.  

 

You’ve been banging on about this since the first page, and cannot (for whatever reason) seem to entertain that she might be innocent. Your faith in the legal system also seems to fly in the face of the evidence. 

[hk blues]

1 minute ago, Wee Bully said:

You’ve been banging on about this since the first page, and cannot (for whatever reason) seem to entertain that she might be innocent. Your faith in the legal system also seems to fly in the face of the evidence. 

The reason I don't entertain the idea she might be innocent is I've heard nothing during her trial and after that suggests she's innocent.  I am not her judge and jury so I have no obligation to need to be convinced beyond a shadow of doubt of her guilt.  I believe she's guilty and that's based on everything I've read.  

 

 

 

 

[doulikefish]

She is a "wid" 

There endeth my legal professional knowledge 

[hk blues]

6 minutes ago, doulikefish said:

She is a "wid" 

There endeth my legal professional knowledge 

She looks like a horse.

So, aye, a wid.

[scottsdad]

19 minutes ago, hk blues said:

She looks like a horse.

So, aye, a wid.

It's a neigh from me

[hk blues]

Just now, scottsdad said:

It's a neigh from me

You'd be a foal not to. 

[The DA]

16 minutes ago, hk blues said:

You'd be a foal not to. 

Dam, wish I'd thought of that one.

[velo army]

4 hours ago, hk blues said:

The reason I don't entertain the idea she might be innocent is I've heard nothing during her trial and after that suggests she's innocent.  I am not her judge and jury so I have no obligation to need to be convinced beyond a shadow of doubt of her guilt.  I believe she's guilty and that's based on everything I've read.  

 

 

 

 

It could also be that you're looking at all of this circumstantial evidence through a lens of her being guilty. If you start with a presumption of innocence I don't see how the evidence stands up. 

By the looks of it her defence lawyers were shite. It shouldn't have taken much to poke holes in the case against her.