woolley Posted August 11 Author Share Posted August 11 1 hour ago, Chinahand said: Also when deciding to employ someone you do not need evidence proved to a beyond a reasonably doubt. I think they're not suitable is perfectly sufficient. Ms Letby should never be anywhere near someone else's baby ever again. Guilty verdict or no guilty verdict. And there's the rub. There isn't a good outcome for her whatever happens. There's no smoke without fire. It's a perfectly reasonable and logical conclusion that she should never be allowed near someone else's baby ever again. Even her own baby, if there is ever to be one. Yet all so wrong and outrageously unfair if she's innocent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted August 11 Author Share Posted August 11 13 hours ago, P.K. said: The fact remains that there were three deaths within 14 days. You can dress it up all you like with comments like this: "The use of the term "unexplained deaths" is inappropriate and emotive in a cohort that has a propensity to deteriorate and die for no reason that is immediately apparent." and the fact that three babies died within 14 days stays exactly the same. The reasons Letby was there, like saving for a house, is also totally irrelevant. The fact remains it was on her watch. Statistical anomoly or what? Over time her colleagues started to be concerned about Letby and it was no small thing to raise concerns about her but they still wènt ahead with it and met with "management" resistance. Yet still persisted. Yes she was never caught in the act so all the evidence is circumstantial. But the bottom line is would you want a newborn of yours under her care? Didn't think so... But again, none of this can sustain condemning a person to the situation she now finds herself in. Guilt has not been proven. I'm not some squeamish liberal. If it is proven beyond all doubt - perhaps that should be the required level rather than reasonable doubt - as in the case of the Southport or Bolton "caught in the act" child murderers, then I'm firmly in the hang 'em high camp. But the case has to be irrefutable, and this one simply has too many holes in it. "It was on her watch," you say. You sound a bit like Mr Evans, the prosecution's star witness. "In the five years leading up to the trial, some of the experts’ opinions seemed to have collectively evolved. For one of the babies, Evans had originally written that the child had been “at great risk of unexpected collapse,” owing to his fragility, and Evans couldn’t “exclude the role of infection.” The prosecution’s pathologist, Andreas Marnerides, who worked at St. Thomas’ Hospital in London, wrote that the child had died of natural causes, most likely of pneumonia. “I have not identified any suspicious findings,” he concluded. But, three years later, Marnerides testified that, after reading more reports from the courts’ experts, he thought that the baby had died “with pneumonia,” not “from pneumonia.” The likely cause of death, he said, was administration of air into his stomach through a nasogastric tube. When Evans testified, he said the same thing. “What’s the evidence?” Myers asked him. “Baby collapsed, died,” Evans responded. “A baby may collapse for any number of reasons,” Myers said. “What’s the evidence that supports your assertion made today that it’s because of air going down the NGT?” “The baby collapsed and died.” “Do you rely upon one image of that?” Myers asked, referring to X-rays. “This baby collapsed and died.” “What evidence is there that you can point to?” Evans replied that he’d ruled out all natural causes, so the only other viable explanation would be another method of murder, like air injected into one of the baby’s veins. “A baby collapsing and where resuscitation was unsuccessful—you know, that’s consistent with my interpretation of what happened,” he said. The baby collapsed and died. That's beyond debate, but where is the proof that Letby killed it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted August 11 Author Share Posted August 11 44 minutes ago, thommo2010 said: You know the jury. Why would I do research? I neither care enough about it or am I in a position to do anything about it. Like I said the people that matter listened to the evidence and found her guilty and not guilty on other charges so until new evidence comes to light she is a baby killer who deserves 0 sympathy. Well if you don't care, that's absolutely fine, isn't it? Say someone you loved was thrust into a similar ongoing nightmare though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted August 11 Share Posted August 11 21 minutes ago, woolley said: Guilt has not been proven. This is as bad as Thommo ... her guilt has been found beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury after a court case where she had full access to a defence. Sorry, but are you really saying there was some sort of conspiracy to stop her receiving a proper defence ... during a court case which lasted months? Why was her defence unable to provide a legitimate defence? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thommo2010 Posted August 11 Share Posted August 11 33 minutes ago, woolley said: Well if you don't care, that's absolutely fine, isn't it? Say someone you loved was thrust into a similar ongoing nightmare though. Well if it happened to one of my loved ones then of course I would care then but fact remains she was convicted in a court and that's good enough for me, as I say if evidence comes to light to prove she is innocent then good luck to her. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted August 11 Share Posted August 11 12 minutes ago, Chinahand said: This is as bad as Thommo ... her guilt has been found beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury after a court case where she had full access to a defence. Sorry, but are you really saying there was some sort of conspiracy to stop her receiving a proper defence ... during a court case which lasted months? Why was her defence unable to provide a legitimate defence? Read my last posts, and the links. Yes, legally she’s guilty, because she’s been convicted by a jury. But no actual direct, observed, cause of death was proved. We will have to see if, at some time, with changes in medical opinion, and after an enquiry into what actually went on in the neonatal ward, she can convince an appeal court or criminal cases review, that the conviction is unsafe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted August 11 Author Share Posted August 11 11 minutes ago, Chinahand said: This is as bad as Thommo ... her guilt has been found beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury after a court case where she had full access to a defence. Sorry, but are you really saying there was some sort of conspiracy to stop her receiving a proper defence ... during a court case which lasted months? Why was her defence unable to provide a legitimate defence? No it isn't. Thommo has told us he doesn't give a monkey's. The basis of the gathering controversy is the defence was lacking in that nothing was brought forward to challenge the dubious assertions made by experts called by the prosecution (see previous posts). This is undeniable. As I've posted previously, at least one such expert attended the court each day and was never called to testify. I haven't mentioned a conspiracy at all. I would always subscribe to the cock up theory before reaching for the conspiracy argument, but who knows? I haven't argued that her counsel was unable to provide a legitimate defence, but manifestly it did not provide a robust one, or else all of the disturbing factors being raised now by medics and statisticians would have been aired in court. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted August 11 Share Posted August 11 1 hour ago, woolley said: The basis of the gathering controversy is the defence was lacking in that nothing was brought forward to challenge the dubious assertions made by experts called by the prosecution (see previous posts). This is undeniable. As I've posted previously, at least one such expert attended the court each day and was never called to testify. I haven't mentioned a conspiracy at all. I would always subscribe to the cock up theory before reaching for the conspiracy argument, but who knows? I haven't argued that her counsel was unable to provide a legitimate defence, but manifestly it did not provide a robust one, or else all of the disturbing factors being raised now by medics and statisticians would have been aired in court. I put all the "disturbing factors being raised NOW by medics and statisticians" into the "everyone has 20/20 hindsight" category to be ignored. There may be a case of poor representation but as I didn't sit through 21 months of court proceedings unlike you I couldn't possibly comment. The jury found the case proved beyond reasonable doubt so that's it really... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted August 11 Author Share Posted August 11 10 minutes ago, P.K. said: I put all the "disturbing factors being raised NOW by medics and statisticians" into the "everyone has 20/20 hindsight" category to be ignored. Interesting take. Load of bollox, but interesting. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thommo2010 Posted August 11 Share Posted August 11 I find it interesting that there are people defending a baby killer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman1980 Posted August 11 Share Posted August 11 4 hours ago, Chinahand said: Also when deciding to employ someone you do not need evidence proved to a beyond a reasonably doubt. I think they're not suitable is perfectly sufficient. Ms Letby should never be anywhere near someone else's baby ever again. Guilty verdict or no guilty verdict. Letby would have some protection under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act if she is released or her conviction is overturned. If you are talking about dismissal in employment then you only require a "reasonable belief". That is a much lower hurdle than "beyond reasonable doubt". I don't think many cases would ever reach @woolley's suggestion of "beyond all doubt". Working with children will certainly be near impossible for her even if the conviction was thrown out. Employers will not want to risk the potential PR damage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted August 11 Share Posted August 11 4 minutes ago, thommo2010 said: I find it interesting that there are people defending a baby killer. Donna Anthony, Sally Clark and Angela Cannings, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted August 11 Author Share Posted August 11 26 minutes ago, thommo2010 said: I find it interesting that there are people defending a baby killer. 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted August 11 Author Share Posted August 11 (edited) 45 minutes ago, manxman1980 said: I don't think many cases would ever reach @woolley's suggestion of "beyond all doubt". Working with children will certainly be near impossible for her even if the conviction was thrown out. Employers will not want to risk the potential PR damage. 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 agree too that Letby could never work with children. As I've said a couple of times, there is no good outcome for her from this if she is entirely innocent. Mud sticks. But then again, would she want to go there again after her experience? Even if she had a child of her own and was allowed to keep it, she'd be in constant terror of having a cot death! These are the issues. Lucia de Berk, the Netherlands nurse acquitted after 6 years imprisonment in an almost identical case was featured in the C5 documentary. She was asked if she would return to nursing, and her answer was something like not on your nelly. Edited August 11 by woolley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted August 11 Share Posted August 11 54 minutes ago, thommo2010 said: I find it interesting that there are people defending a baby killer. No, people are defending a robust, fair and honest judicial system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.