Lucy Letby (2 Viewers)

Forums New posts
MalcSB

MalcSB

Well-Known Member
dutchman said:
www.telegraph.co.uk

Lucy Letby hospital outlines 15 reasons why ‘baby killer’ was innocent

Neonatal ward manager lists why nurse, who would eventually be convicted of murder, could not be behind the deaths of babies
www.telegraph.co.uk www.telegraph.co.uk
Click to expand...
Tye trouble with the inquiry is that it is working from the position that it was Letby that killed those babies. If it was anything to do with the standard / quality/ competence of the unit itself, including the “hygeine” issues that have been raised it will all just get swept under the carpet.
 
Sky Blue Pete

Sky Blue Pete

Well-Known Member
MalcSB said:
Tye trouble with the inquiry is that it is working from the position that it was Letby that killed those babies. If it was anything to do with the standard / quality/ competence of the unit itself, including the “hygeine” issues that have been raised it will all just get swept under the carpet.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily
And factually at the moment she has been found guilty
I’m with you though
 
MalcSB

MalcSB

Well-Known Member
Sky Blue Pete said:
Not necessarily
And factually at the moment she has been found guilty
I’m with you though
Click to expand...
Yes , the fact is that she has been found guilty following a potentially flawed process.( Flawed in That her defence team don't seem to have presented a particularly competent or complete defence. Had they done that, all this stuff that has come out since would have been both unnecessary and irrelevant.

There is clearly quite widespread doubt among the general public which would not have been the case if all these post trial challenges had actually been made at the correct time, I,e, during the trial By letsby’s defence team defence team.
 
Last edited:
rob9872

rob9872

Well-Known Member
MalcSB said:
Yes , the fact is that she has been found guilty following a potentially flawed process.( Flawed in That her defence team don't seem to have presented a particularly competent or complete defence. Had they done that, all this stuff that has come out since would have been both unnecessary and irrelevant.

There is clearly quite widespread doubt among the general public which would not have been the case if all these post trial challenges had actually been made at the correct time, I,e, during the trial By letsby’s defence team defence team.
Click to expand...
Out of interest Malc, what is your legal background?

Not having a pop, but I keep reading what a poor defence was put up, but to my knowledge it's a throwaway comment and not by anyone with any legal training or background.
 
MalcSB

MalcSB

Well-Known Member
rob9872 said:
Out of interest Malc, what is your legal background?

Not having a pop, but I keep reading what a poor defence was put up, but to my knowledge it's a throwaway comment and not by anyone with any legal training or background.
Click to expand...
The fact that no defence expert witnesses were put up is pretty self evident of an inadequate defence. I have no legal training but have represented myself in a couple of situations having done quite a lot of relvant case research, quite easy to do theses days. Not criminal stuff, I am a fully qualified barrack room lawyer. “ Won“ against a building society who were represented by solicitors. Something else is coming down the tracks related to pension overpayment. Will be mking an arguemenet based on laches and estoppel.

letsby’s new legal team seem quite clear that their predecessors did a poor job.. I suppose they would say that, wouldn’t they. Time will tell,
 
Last edited:
S

StrettoBoy

Well-Known Member
MalcSB said:
The fact that no defence expert witnesses were put up is pretty self evident of an inadequate defence.
Click to expand...

I don’t see that the absence of expert witnesses is necessarily “self-evident” of an incompetent defence. It could just be that no experts could be found at the time who were prepared to support the defence case.

The whole affair came to light when consultants (obviously experts) in the unit reported their concerns about her.

Please note that I am not saying that you are wrong, simply that I don’t think that on this particular point at least it is obviously clear cut. I make the point purely in the interests of balance.

My 47 years of experience in the legal profession have, if nothing else, taught me that there are usually two sides to every story.
 
S

SBT

Well-Known Member
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Top