Lucy Letby

[thommo2010]

21 minutes ago, woolley said:

Sorry, but a lot of detail has been posted in this thread by people engaging seriously with the subject. I don't think you are incapable of understanding the concept of the justice system possibly getting things wrong, and the distinction between being found guilty and having committed the crimes, so I conclude you are merely trolling.

Why would I be trolling? 

 

She is a convicted baby killer. At this point no sympathy from me as I say if evidence comes to light that throws a different perspective then so be it but up until then she's no better than the likes of Myra Hindley, Beverly Allitt or Rose West 

[Gladys]

2 minutes ago, thommo2010 said:

Why would I be trolling? 

 

She is a convicted baby killer. At this point no sympathy from me as I say if evidence comes to light that throws a different perspective then so be it but up until then she's no better than the likes of Myra Hindley, Beverly Allitt or Rose West 

It is not a matter of sympathy, at least not from me, but wanting to be reassured that the judicial system is fair and works.  Something I have always believed, but there have been some high profile cases where it has been shown not to be as conclusive as we believe. 

[woolley]

5 minutes ago, thommo2010 said:

Why would I be trolling?

How would I know? Ask yourself.

[woolley]

30 minutes ago, Gladys said:

It is not a matter of sympathy, at least not from me, but wanting to be reassured that the judicial system is fair and works.  Something I have always believed, but there have been some high profile cases where it has been shown not to be as conclusive as we believe. 

The internet has revolutionised the world in many ways. It is an immense resource that has ushered in a great deal of change. The list is long, both positive and negative. There are countless unintended consequences, and I've wondered if it will one day make the world ungovernable.

In this regard, however, and pertinent to this thread, one effect is that it is far more difficult to keep things under wraps, and certain institutions have not yet caught up. At one time it would have been much easier to sustain an injustice, but now networking is fast, far and wide, and there is a lot more scrutiny. Much of it uninformed, necessarily, but some of it coming from those learned in their fields, and this has a galvanising effect on others in the network who might otherwise have remained silent.

The Post Office scandal may never have come to light had it not been for victims comparing notes over the internet, and others taking up their cause. Likewise, in the Letby case, what are the chances that the New Yorker would have published its in depth article in pre-internet days? Unlikely. It's a very connected world now. Aspects of constraints on reporting of the Letby case in the UK have been raised a couple of times in the Commons under Parliamentary privilege. Transparency is positive. It shines lights in dark corners.

[manxman1980]

1 hour ago, woolley said:

I agree, although there are some cases that would. I think the distinction would be useful though, and I can't see that it would do any harm.

I understand where you are coming from but I realistically think the number of cases in which it could apply would be tiny.

Short of actually catching someone in the act, and having all the evidence recorded you would struggle to apply a beyond any doubt measure. 

Take the Southport case.  The individual wasn't arrested at the scene.  They were picked up at their home address.  Let's assume he dumped the weapon and clothes suffiently well that the Police can't locate them.  That leaves an avenue to argue mistaken identity, by a sufficiently smart defence lawyer or KC. 

That would be compounded further if witnesses couldn't accurately describe the attacker.

So you can't reach a decision that they are guilty beyond all doubt, however, you could conclude that the same person was guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.  

It's a high barrier to cross.

[P.K.]

3 hours ago, woolley said:

Interesting take. Load of bollox, but interesting.

Bit like your precious "sovrinty" then...

The jury found her "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" which was the bit you ignored. Plus two appeals.

One ward doctor concluded she must have tampered with a baby's breathing tube on three occaisions. But admitted he never caught her doing it. Why would he lie about that...?

[The Voice of Reason]

Lucy Letby was tried by the justice system as is now ( due process) and was found guilty.

If anyone has an alternative method to this tried and tested system then they should offer it up.

Miscarriages of justice will unfortunately always happen ( look at that recent  case of the poor fellow banged up for 17 years for rapes he didn’t commit). Which is a good reason for us not having capital punishment anymore

The “system” will never be perfect. It never can be but I can’t see how you can improve on the one we’ve got at the moment

From all that I have seen and read about this case it points to her being guilty. But it’s not my opinion that matters . It is that of the jury of her peers.

 

[woolley]

1 hour ago, manxman1980 said:

I understand where you are coming from but I realistically think the number of cases in which it could apply would be tiny.

Short of actually catching someone in the act, and having all the evidence recorded you would struggle to apply a beyond any doubt measure. 

Take the Southport case.  The individual wasn't arrested at the scene.  They were picked up at their home address.  Let's assume he dumped the weapon and clothes suffiently well that the Police can't locate them.  That leaves an avenue to argue mistaken identity, by a sufficiently smart defence lawyer or KC. 

That would be compounded further if witnesses couldn't accurately describe the attacker.

So you can't reach a decision that they are guilty beyond all doubt, however, you could conclude that the same person was guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.  

It's a high barrier to cross.

Indeed. I take that on board. It's an instinctive intuition that would distinguish somebody like Lucy Letby from somebody like, say Eltiona Skana (caught at the scene), or even Wayne Couzens (evidence overwhelming). As things stand, they are all viewed with the same infamy in the eyes of the law despite the differing levels of proof (or lack of proof) that secured the guilty verdict, and this does not seem just.

Perhaps it could even fall to the jury to state "Guilty beyond all doubt" or "Guilty beyond reasonable doubt" on returning the verdict. I'm not saying that this would have changed anything in the Letby trial. It might, it might not. Just musing on the issues that this problem throws up.

[woolley]

52 minutes ago, P.K. said:

The jury found her "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" which was the bit you ignored. Plus two appeals.

One ward doctor concluded she must have tampered with a baby's breathing tube on three occaisions. But admitted he never caught her doing it. Why would he lie about that...?

No. I didn't ignore that. I know they did.

Nobody said he lied. He could merely have been mistaken in his conclusion. It could have been incorrectly fitted. It could have become dislodged. Aspects of the medical evidence at the trial have been called implausible or inaccurate by other medical experts. Pathologists who actually examined the bodies rather than merely concocting a report later for the prosecution reported no unnatural findings in post mortems. And then why wasn't the jury told about 6 other deaths on the unit in the same period with which Letby was not charged? Is this not relevant information?

None of this proves Letby's innocence beyond doubt of course, but at the same time nothing has been presented that proves her guilt beyond doubt either. It is not incumbent on her to prove her innocence, but this is what she was invited to do by the prosecution. She has been found guilty, but her guilt has not been proven in the opinion of a growing number of health and other professionals.

[woolley]

53 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

From all that I have seen and read about this case it points to her being guilty. But it’s not my opinion that matters . It is that of the jury of her peers.

 

Read some more.

[P.K.]

11 hours ago, woolley said:

No. I didn't ignore that. I know they did.

Nobody said he lied. He could merely have been mistaken in his conclusion. It could have been incorrectly fitted. It could have become dislodged. Aspects of the medical evidence at the trial have been called implausible or inaccurate by other medical experts. Pathologists who actually examined the bodies rather than merely concocting a report later for the prosecution reported no unnatural findings in post mortems. And then why wasn't the jury told about 6 other deaths on the unit in the same period with which Letby was not charged? Is this not relevant information?

None of this proves Letby's innocence beyond doubt of course, but at the same time nothing has been presented that proves her guilt beyond doubt either. It is not incumbent on her to prove her innocence, but this is what she was invited to do by the prosecution. She has been found guilty, but her guilt has not been proven in the opinion of a growing number of health and other professionals.

 You mean just like you could be mistaken in concluding what you have...? And please don't bother to direct me back to read more as I've already read enough speculation on this.

As I posted way back when "beyond a reasonable doubt" is a tad subjective. Plus juries can be overwhelmed by highly technical evidence.

Now courts etc are run by people. And as we all know people fuck up.

But her colleagues ended up being highly suspicious of her actions over time and there must have been good reasons for that i.e. they wouldn't have just made it up now would they...?

[woolley]

1 hour ago, P.K. said:

 You mean just like you could be mistaken in concluding what you have...?

Yes, exactly like that, but the burden of proof is on the prosecution. The case is full of holes.

[P.K.]

27 minutes ago, woolley said:

Yes, exactly like that, but the burden of proof is on the prosecution. The case is full of holes.

Circumstantial evidence is far from ideal I quite agree.

But there is also Letby's obvious aquiescence in court and the seemingly deranged unexplained scribblings at her abode to add to the disquiet of her close colleagues...

[thommo2010]

55 minutes ago, woolley said:

Yes, exactly like that, but the burden of proof is on the prosecution. The case is full of holes.

But the prosecution reached a burden of proof to allow a jury to come to their decisions. 

[quilp]

1 hour ago, thommo2010 said:

But the prosecution reached a burden of proof to allow a jury to come to their decisions. 

Well yes, juries reach verdicts evaluated on the evidence provided and its presentation by the prosecution. With all the available evidence and full disclosure thereof, at the time. With the best will in the world juries have still got it wrong, sometimes with fatal consequence. Timothy Evans in his trial connected to serial killer John Reginald Christie's case. An innocent man hanged on the available evidence. It's now alleged that not all 'available' evidence was presented in Letby's trial; expert medical witnesses not called, statements unheard. Elements of 'hearsay' appear to've gone unchallenged.

I was like you @thommo2010convinced by the evidence and swayed by a very public demonisation of Letby. @woolley's and others' posts made me look a bit more closely at the case. Juries are far from infallible, and as has been stated, were they intellectually capable of understanding the nuances of the evidence they were presented with?

Not really a fan of Peter Hitchens but he can be succinct and convincing. A 21 minute video interview where he states his case, foe those genuinely interested. It may've already been posted but cba going back in the thread... 

The interviewer does a reasonable impression of a 'devil's advocate', and Hitchens' words are quite compelling.