Lucy Letby guilty

[hk blues]

11 hours ago, Peil said:

The defense didn't have to prove innocence. 

Semantics -at the very least they do have to discredit the prosecution evidence.  A 'no comment' response to all questions won't do a defendant any favours in the eyes of the jury.  

[Peil]

2 hours ago, hk blues said:

Semantics -at the very least they do have to discredit the prosecution evidence.  A 'no comment' response to all questions won't do a defendant any favours in the eyes of the jury.  

I disagree. The judges guidance to the jury is that you must only convict if you feel the prosecution has proven guilty being all reasonable doubt.

[velo army]

17 minutes ago, Peil said:

I disagree. The judges guidance to the jury is that you must only convict if you feel the prosecution has proven guilty being all reasonable doubt.

But blues is right in this regard. If yiu have a jury (normal folk, not legal scholars) and all they're presented with is a whole bunch of stuff that makes the defendant look guilty as chips, then they're going to lean towards that if they're given no reason otherwise. 

[Hedgecutter]

FWIW, I find this recent development intriguing as I have a group of technicians I use offshore and it's always 'Mike' who's on board whenever something goes tits up beyond our control. 

Supply vessel crashes into the jacket? Mike.  Tail end of a hurricane strikes and the cranes can't operate for a week?  Mike. Power supply breaks down again? Mike, both times.  It's got to the point even the Wellsite leader says (jokingly, I think) "God help us" whenever he hears that Mike is coming on.  Two days into the job: tool failure and three days lost, easily costing the company over a million quid.  Is Mike the lab technician / my company a bawhair away from being sued by the operator?

We also have a long standing history of key reservoir rock changes occurring at or close to shift change, to the point it's half-expected. It got to the point I started doubting the competence of the back-to-backs I'd trained up (and eventually myself when it occurred using multiple individuals), but whenever I QC'd their work then I'd come away with the same results as them.

Under the Letby rules, somebody in my group would be getting NRB'd (not required back).

[highlandmac]

1 hour ago, Hedgecutter said:

FWIW, I find this recent development intriguing as I have a group of technicians I use offshore and it's always 'Mike' who's on board whenever something goes tits up beyond our control. 

Supply vessel crashes into the jacket? Mike.  Tail end of a hurricane strikes and the cranes can't operate for a week?  Mike. Power supply breaks down again? Mike, both times.  It's got to the point even the Wellsite leader says (jokingly, I think) "God help us" whenever he hears that Mike is coming on.  Two days into the job: tool failure and three days lost, easily costing the company over a million quid.  Is Mike the lab technician / my company a bawhair away from being sued by the operator?

We also have a long standing history of key reservoir rock changes occurring at or close to shift change, to the point it's half-expected. It got to the point I started doubting the competence of the back-to-backs I'd trained up (and eventually myself when it occurred using multiple individuals), but whenever I QC'd their work then I'd come away with the same results as them.

Under the Letby rules, somebody in my group would be getting NRB'd (not required back).

Exactly.i used to do nightshifts that required some outside patrolling.if I was only outside one night on a week it was pissing down,I'd be the one who landed the one dry night.one of my workmates,if it was dry all week except for one night,he'd be the one landing the drenching.id not like people to draw conclusions on what was nothing but coincidence, especially in a murder trial

[Peil]

2 hours ago, velo army said:

But blues is right in this regard. If yiu have a jury (normal folk, not legal scholars) and all they're presented with is a whole bunch of stuff that makes the defendant look guilty as chips, then they're going to lean towards that if they're given no reason otherwise. 

I was on a jury a few years ago where the defence didn't call the defendant and it was pretty much just the prosecution case. Not proven, cos the case was all circumstantial and hazy recollections. 

It does happen.

[Todd_is_God]

8 hours ago, Peil said:

I was on a jury a few years ago where the defence didn't call the defendant and it was pretty much just the prosecution case. Not proven, cos the case was all circumstantial and hazy recollections. 

It does happen.

I think the defendant in high profile emotive cases like this has next to no chance of getting anything other than a guilty verdict these days.

There's no way IMO you can find 12 people (or however many are in an English Jury) that could approach a case like this with an open mind an base their verdict solely on the evidence put forward by the prosecution.