Terry_dactyl
Well-Known Member
People are discussing it on here because people (some seemingly quite reputable people) are discussing it elsewhere.
People are discussing it on here because people (some seemingly quite reputable people) are discussing it elsewhere.Some of you looking for angles to let this murdering bitch out is more disgusting than any errors the defences team might have made.
You appear to know everything from selective articles, dismissing science, expert witnesses, the balance of probability and coincidence and a jury of her peers who have listen to ALL of the evidence presented. I believe that should be enough without knowing or having access to any more than any of you to feel she should rot for eternity.
If any of you are patents and dont put the parents and the poor victim babies at the front of your mind over potential legal inconsistencies and ramblings, then you should be ashamed.
Discussion is fine. It seems our 'experts' on here are looking for holes, suggesting the defence isnt adequete and that there is resonable doubt to free her.People are discussing it on here because people (some seemingly quite reputable people) are discussing it elsewhere.
Isn’t that what’s going on in the media as well?Discussion is fine. It seems our 'experts' on here are looking for holes, suggesting the defence isnt adequete and that there is resonable doubt to free her.
There seems to be enough reasonable doubt that a review / retrial should be undertaken.Discussion is fine. It seems our 'experts' on here are looking for holes, suggesting the defence isnt adequete and that there is resonable doubt to free her.
I have seen it happen, blame gets pushed as far down the chain as is possible.My only problem with it is. If that hospital is poorly run and is failing in many areas, including that unit.
The hospital management would have no hesitation in throwing a member of staff under a bus.
oh pipe downSome of you looking for angles to let this murdering bitch out is more disgusting than any errors the defences team might have made.
You appear to know everything from selective articles, dismissing science, expert witnesses, the balance of probability and coincidence and a jury of her peers who have listen to ALL of the evidence presented. I believe that should be enough without knowing or having access to any more than any of you to feel she should rot for eternity.
If any of you are patents and dont put the parents and the poor victim babies at the front of your mind over potential legal inconsistencies and ramblings, then you should be ashamed.
also no one has actually said she is innocent, the most people have said as per the experts the case looks on the surface pretty unsafe nowWell…I think if there have been mistakes in the trial, which seems to be being reported that’s fair enough to discuss.
Reasons for any potential mistakes and why it came to trial is pure speculation isn’t it? I’m not sure you can apply personal experiences - not that I’m doubting them - of working in the nhs to the case. Is that not right?
And I'll go with science, experts, witness accounts, the balance of probability and coincidence and the jury who haven't selected biased articles. Thanks!oh pipe down
It has been pointed out by many actual experts that the evidence was presented as being something it isn't
I'll go with what the actual experts think thanks
People here are quoting science, experts, statisticians (probability being a statistical construct). Coincidence is just that - coincidence, and isn’t evidence. The jury were presented with selected evidence.And I'll go with science, experts, witness accounts, the balance of probability and coincidence and the jury who haven't selected biased articles. Thanks!
Of course the victims should be at the forefront.Some of you looking for angles to let this murdering bitch out is more disgusting than any errors the defences team might have made.
You appear to know everything from selective articles, dismissing science, expert witnesses, the balance of probability and coincidence and a jury of her peers who have listen to ALL of the evidence presented. I believe that should be enough without knowing or having access to any more than any of you to feel she should rot for eternity.
If any of you are patents and dont put the parents and the poor victim babies at the front of your mind over potential legal inconsistencies and ramblings, then you should be ashamed.
Think the system has been really let down by her defence team I think. Probably a little by the prosecution too.
As have the victims families and potentially Letby herself
It does seem bizarre that the discussions that probably should have been had during the court case are happening in the media.
For me truth js important but sometimes we don’t and won’t ever know the full truth so our legal system as we all know is based on innocent until found guilty and that someone can be found guilty by their peers if they are convinced beyond reasonable doubt.
However being judged by our peers only works if those peers understand the science and there are other areas like fraud that you probably need training in before judging and I think that needs some thought. I know a few magistrates and the learning and training they do is significant
What did they refer to?Can you explain why when her house was searched she had around 270 confidential documents found hidden in her bedroom taken from the hospital?
What did they refer to?
Yep that's suspect! I thought most of the doubt about her conviction was the statistical evidence by specialists and worthy of challenge which the defence team appeared to neglect at trial?Handover sheets, resuscitation information - confidential documents relating to the dead and injured babies.
She said she kept leaving them in her uniform and accidently took them home. She then said she had a hoarding mentality and had to keep them because of this
What evidence was produced to verify she had a hoarding mentality, I mean my granddad was a ledgend for hoarding his full wage packets from his wife going back to around a year?Handover sheets, resuscitation information - confidential documents relating to the dead and injured babies.
She said she kept leaving them in her uniform and accidently took them home. She then said she had a hoarding mentality and had to keep them because of this
There you go, you’ve given an explanation.Handover sheets, resuscitation information - confidential documents relating to the dead and injured babies.
She said she kept leaving them in her uniform and accidently took them home. She then said she had a hoarding mentality and had to keep them because of this
There you go, you’ve given an explanation.
That's circumstantial. It's not evidence.Details emerging that on 40% of the shifts Letby was on at Liverpool Womens’ Hospital, baby breathing tubes had been dislodged. The usual shift rate is 1%.
Another coincidence?
I really don’t know whether she did It or not. You are rightly quoting evidence that would have weighed heavily with the jury as they came to their guilty verdict. I feel uneasy however as the defence does not seem to have done a great job and it is not that common to have a host of experts casting doubt on and thereby challenging the medical and statistical evidence which was presented unopposed at trial. I don’t recall this happening with, say, Beverley Allitt.How about the consultant paediatrician who saw Letby standing over a baby watching blood levels dropping and not raising any alarms - the doctor resuscitated the baby
Letby says in her defence she can’t remember it happening
That's circumstantial. It's not evidence.
If (big if) there is found to be inconsistencies or errors in the trial, then an independent judicial review should be carried out.
Imo She should stay in prison until that review has been done, if the review concludes that enough errors and/or omissions were found, then a retrial should be done. If not then she remains in prison to serve her time.
In my opinion, she's more than likely guilty, but others within the NHS should probably be facing charges of gross negligence and/or neglect for their failings in not preventing or highlighting the obvious excess death rate, and for the cover ups that followed.
If she's not witnessed, or cctv recorded tampering with the lines then it ISNT evidence, it's purely circumstantial.If course it’s evidence
I think I heard recently that there’s a misconception from Joe Public that circumstantial evidence isn’t also important.If she's not witnessed, or cctv recorded tampering with the lines then it ISNT evidence, it's purely circumstantial.
For example, a defence lawyer would argue that the figures could be wrong, who says the normal failure rate was 1% ? Based on what? From where, collated by who? do different nurses have different failure rates? Do different hospitals or wards have different rates? Who's to say Letby wasn't just poor at fixing breathing tubes?
Was she trained? If so When? by who?
Was her failure rate monitored? Was it too high? If so, why wasn't any action taken?
If no action was taken, was her work deemed to be acceptable? Etc etc.
Honestly a defence lawyer would drive a bus through that data. To call it evidence is rediculous.
I still think she's guilty though.
I totally agree.I think I heard recently that there’s a misconception from Joe Public that circumstantial evidence isn’t also important.
Theres seems to be lots of circumstantial evidence that suggests she did it. Although most of the noise is now about how there may be discrepancies in some of this.
Importantly, all the experts coming forward say that they aren’t making an overall judgement on her guilt/innocence but that things have been done incorrectly in terms of the case and the evidence presented. It seems there’s enough coming out to at least discuss this further.
Im afraid if we are going to have our system it’s right that things are questioned, especially by people who know what they’re talking about. In what scenario is it good to not be allowed to question the judicial system?
Baby tubes being dislodged 40 times more often than normal is physical evidence that someone has observed and recorded.That's circumstantial. It's not evidence.
If (big if) there is found to be inconsistencies or errors in the trial, then an independent judicial review should be carried out.
Imo She should stay in prison until that review has been done, if the review concludes that enough errors and/or omissions were found, then a retrial should be done. If not then she remains in prison to serve her time.
In my opinion, she's more than likely guilty, but others within the NHS should probably be facing charges of gross negligence and/or neglect for their failings in not preventing or highlighting the obvious excess death rate, and for the cover ups that followed.
But not been put down to Letby, or even to malicious intent.Baby tubes being dislodged 40 times more often than normal is physical evidence that someone has observed and recorded.
it’s circumstantial evidence which is an entirely legitimate form of evidence. It’s also pretty much non refutable. It was bought up in the subsequent court case wasn’t it? The gap is statistically huge.If she's not witnessed, or cctv recorded tampering with the lines then it ISNT evidence, it's purely circumstantial.
For example, a defence lawyer would argue that the figures could be wrong, who says the normal failure rate was 1% ? Based on what? From where, collated by who? do different nurses have different failure rates? Do different hospitals or wards have different rates? Who's to say Letby wasn't just poor at fixing breathing tubes?
Was she trained? If so When? by who?
Was her failure rate monitored? Was it too high? If so, why wasn't any action taken?
If no action was taken, was her work deemed to be acceptable? Etc etc.
Honestly a defence lawyer would drive a bus through that data. To call it evidence is rediculous.
I still think she's guilty though.
No I can’tCan you explain why when her house was searched she had around 270 confidential documents found hidden in her bedroom taken from the hospital?
No I can’t
Most of the experts aren’t doubting her guilt just saying that some of the evidence needs challenging
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?