shmmeee
Well-Known Member
New evidence or argument according to this: Lucy Letby application received by Criminal Cases Review Commission - Criminal Cases Review Commission
Letby's legal team has applied to the Criminal Cases Review Commission to have the case go back to appeal - that can't happen unless new evidence is presented, and that's what's happened today.
According to the air embolism expert (in the Times interview above) Letby's defence team asked him to review the way the prosecution had used his studies during the original case. When he saw how it had been used, he asked Letby's team if he could review the evidence with an independent panel.How did they get access to the evidence?
It's weird how this case seems to have been taken up by both some of the most serious and storied institutions in medicine and journalism, and also some of the world's biggest lunatics.Did I imagine it or were there people from a Facebook group in pictures celebrating her birthday in a pub? That's fucking weird. Check their hard drives.
According to the air embolism expert (in the Times interview above) Letby's defence team asked him to review the way the prosecution had used his studies during the original case. When he saw how it had been used, he asked Letby's team if he could review the evidence with an independent panel.
The conviction was based on various pieces of evidence, yes. All of it disputed to various degrees, as you might expect - in the case of this new independent panel, they dispute all seven of the murders. But if Letby's defence team can show the jury was misled on the first two murders that supposedly took place, would that be material grounds for a retrial? (It's a genuine question, I don't know the answer)And did the case rest on his evidence?
The point I’m driving at here is that it wasn’t just that paper that she was convicted on but witness statements as well. The defence seems to be focusing on this (they would wouldn’t they?) but the conviction wasn’t based on this alone.
And did the case rest on his evidence?
The point I’m driving at here is that it wasn’t just that paper that she was convicted on but witness statements as well. The defence seems to be focusing on this (they would wouldn’t they?) but the conviction wasn’t based on this alone.
There were no witnesses to anything though was there? There was circumstantial evidence that Letby had been on duty.
Wes ever the opportunist. Talks utter shite as well, NHS leadership is exceedingly white.
Streeting went on to say he believed addressing those challenges was a political fight he was willing to take on, but added that he would “also need the profession to help”.
But he added: “Sometimes there are some really daft things being done in the name of equality, diversity and inclusion, which [have] undermined the cause. For example, there was one member of NHS staff who was merrily tweeting a job ad online and saying part of her practice was anti-whiteness.”
They are experts who may well be called as expert witnesses. Certainly more than interested third parties and, as people likely to be giving evidence, they will obviously have access to the evidence.But they’re just interested third parties, not the appeals panel or people with access to the evidence?
Wrong.This is still just randoms who haven’t seen all the evidence and are going of media reports right?
They are experts who may well be called as expert witnesses. Certainly more than interested third parties and, as people likely to be giving evidence, they will obviously have access to the evidence.
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?