manxman1980 Posted August 12 Share Posted August 12 16 hours ago, woolley said: 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. I do think that this comes down to the way in which cases are reported and handled by the media plus the fact that people struggle with grey areas. As you have already said mud sticks and would an innocent verdict have changed the public's perception of Letby? People also have a poor understanding of the legal system and its nuances. 16 hours ago, woolley said: 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. I don't think that would make much difference to the general public. As I have said they already have a poor understanding of the legal system. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted August 12 Share Posted August 12 17 hours ago, woolley said: 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. Scotland had Guilty, Innocent and "Not Proven" as in Murder Not Proven but I think there were steps to remove it. However would the jury in Letby's case returned the third option? Somehow I doubt it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted August 12 Author Share Posted August 12 4 hours ago, P.K. said: 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... Not really sure what you mean by acquiescence in this context. She protested her total innocence throughout the proceedings. Her deranged scribblings have been alluded to earlier in the thread as being entirely consistent with someone placed under extreme mental stress for years by such serious accusations. How stable do you think your behaviour would look if you were in the dock in this situation after all your protestations of innocence had fallen on deaf ears? Not too chipper or level-headed, I would imagine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted August 12 Author Share Posted August 12 4 hours ago, thommo2010 said: But the prosecution reached a burden of proof to allow a jury to come to their decisions. They didn't have the whole story. They were led. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thommo2010 Posted August 12 Share Posted August 12 4 minutes ago, woolley said: They didn't have the whole story. They were led. So 2 appeals have been denied also. Do you just want to keep trialling her until you get the verdict you want? Remember she was also found not guilty on some charges so by your logic the jury didn't have the full story so should the prosecution appeal those verdicts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted August 12 Share Posted August 12 13 minutes ago, woolley said: They didn't have the whole story. They were led. That's what the Prosecution is there to do - obtain a conviction! Dear me... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted August 12 Author Share Posted August 12 3 hours ago, quilp said: 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? And so was I. Life is busy, and I'd really only taken a cursory interest from what had been put in our faces by news bulletins. It's not the sort of thing I would seek out to read first, for sure. Apart from maybe wondering about her multiple arrests, and the inordinate amount of time it was all taking, I think, like most others my reaction was abhorrence at such a despicable bitch and the hope that she should rot in hell. I'm not known for my liberal views. Early on in the case, reactions I heard from within healthcare were the same as the general public as Letby became increasingly demonised. Extreme horror that she had brought shame on the whole profession and the NHS. The nurses, particularly neonatal ones, also cursed her for all of the additional hoops they had to jump through while the trusts panicked about having "another Letby" on their hands. More recently as information has come out about the trial and the paucity/quality of evidence presented, these views have changed profoundly. As I've said before, there is now huge disquiet and even sympathy for her, particularly among nurses. Thus far, only the bravest will talk candidly, and it's mainly in whispers. Now instead of damning her for the opprobrium she brought down on their vocation, many have seen what happened to her and are fearful. Some have left the profession, unable to cope with the pressure and the fear of making a mistake, or getting the blame for something they haven't done. The system doesn't like to be wrong. It certainly doesn't like to admit fallibility in the face of public pressure. It's a mess. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted August 12 Author Share Posted August 12 3 hours ago, manxman1980 said: I do think that this comes down to the way in which cases are reported and handled by the media plus the fact that people struggle with grey areas. As you have already said mud sticks and would an innocent verdict have changed the public's perception of Letby? People also have a poor understanding of the legal system and its nuances. I don't think that would make much difference to the general public. As I have said they already have a poor understanding of the legal system. All fair comment, and I agree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted August 12 Author Share Posted August 12 2 hours ago, P.K. said: Scotland had Guilty, Innocent and "Not Proven" as in Murder Not Proven but I think there were steps to remove it. However would the jury in Letby's case returned the third option? Somehow I doubt it... You make a concise and interesting point. I suppose it had to happen at some stage amidst all your other drivel. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-65397235 I think it's a retrograde step. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted August 12 Author Share Posted August 12 (edited) 58 minutes ago, thommo2010 said: So 2 appeals have been denied also. Do you just want to keep trialling her until you get the verdict you want? Remember she was also found not guilty on some charges so by your logic the jury didn't have the full story so should the prosecution appeal those verdicts? 51 minutes ago, P.K. said: That's what the Prosecution is there to do - obtain a conviction! Dear me... Not at all. Just one FAIR trial where all the evidence is heard along with countering information from multiple experts in the field rather than relying heavily on a report by one man, Dewi Evans (who touted his services), on cause of death, using a study from 1989, the author of which has disowned his work being used for criminal justice purposes. A trial where the jury is informed of other deaths in the unit, and not just the ones Letby is charged with. A trial where eminent statisticians challenge the use of shift rosters as "a textbook way of how not to use statistics". A trial where medical experts tell the jury that the methods used by Letby to murder babies alleged by the prosecution are implausible and highly improbable. That kind of trial. The denial of an appeal just makes matters worse. Edited August 12 by woolley 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quilp Posted August 12 Share Posted August 12 Nothing has been said about ongoing investigations at other units she had worked on. Maybe there's nothing to know..? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted August 12 Share Posted August 12 4 hours ago, woolley said: You make a concise and interesting point. I suppose it had to happen at some stage amidst all your other drivel. Well well well, how very interesting... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted August 13 Share Posted August 13 15 hours ago, woolley said: Not at all. Just one FAIR trial where all the evidence is heard along with countering information from multiple experts in the field rather than relying heavily on a report by one man, Dewi Evans (who touted his services), on cause of death, using a study from 1989, the author of which has disowned his work being used for criminal justice purposes. A trial where the jury is informed of other deaths in the unit, and not just the ones Letby is charged with. A trial where eminent statisticians challenge the use of shift rosters as "a textbook way of how not to use statistics". A trial where medical experts tell the jury that the methods used by Letby to murder babies alleged by the prosecution are implausible and highly improbable. That kind of trial. The denial of an appeal just makes matters worse. @woolley What do you mean "Not at all"? It is the job of the Prosecution to obtain a guilty verdict and they succeeded. All your drivel on this case seems to be just bleating about how it's "unfair" based on the opinions of other alleged "experts" with the Defence, whose job it is to defend their client, not being robust enough to include them. Thank goodness for the Appeal Court then: What did Letby argue at the appeal court? Letby’s legal team argued that her convictions were unsafe because Goss had been mistaken in law when he refused four separate applications made by the defence. First, they said the evidence of the prosecution’s key expert, Dr Dewi Evans, should have been struck out for being “dogmatic and biased”. Letby’s barrister, Benjamin Myers KC, also argued that the medical evidence behind her convictions for fatally injecting air into babies’ bloodstreams, producing what is known as an air embolus, was “very weak” and could not be relied upon. Dr Shoo Lee, an academic who researched the phenomenon of air embolus in babies in 1989, gave evidence to the appeal court on behalf of the defence, telling judges that the “only sign” of it was pink blood vessels “superimposed” on a pink or blue body. When questioned by the prosecution, Lee accepted he had not assessed any of the victims’ medical records in Letby’s case or seen any of the witness testimony provided by other medical staff, who noted strange rashes on a number of the dead babies. Letby’s third argument was that the judge was wrong to direct the jury that they did not have to be sure of the precise act, or acts, that led to a baby’s collapse or death. Finally, Myers said the judge failed to properly investigate a complaint made about a juror in the final days of the trial, when they were allegedly overheard saying they had “made up their minds from the start” about Letby’s guilt. It was later suggested that the complaint may have been made maliciously as the complaint was traced back to a cafe owner who had been in dispute with the juror’s partner over the sale of an iPhone. Why was her application thrown out? In a 59-page ruling published on Tuesday, the appeal court judges said Goss’s handling of the trial had been “thoughtful, fair, comprehensive and correct”. They ruled that none of the four legal challenges advanced by Letby were “arguable” and said they did not consider that the criteria for the admission of fresh evidence – in the form of two research papers by Lee – had been met https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/jul/02/lucy-letby-appeal-court-what-could-happen-next She's had her day in Court... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted August 20 Author Share Posted August 20 Even more evidence called into question in this farce of a prosecution case. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/08/16/we-made-mistakes-over-letby-admits-cps/ David Davis getting involved in this having received representations from experts qualified in their fields of medicine and statistics is good. He should certainly highlight the matter in Parliament to raise awareness still further. I do part company with him when he says in the interview within the link that he's going to spend the summer poring over the trial transcripts to decide to what extent HE believes in her guilt or innocence. He has no status nor expertise to carry out such a review, and should restrict himself to raising awareness that vital evidence was omitted, and much of the evidence presented is dubious in the opinions of respected experts. He's committing an error in making it a drama about himself and what he decides. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman1980 Posted August 20 Share Posted August 20 40 minutes ago, woolley said: I do part company with him when he says in the interview within the link that he's going to spend the summer poring over the trial transcripts to decide to what extent HE believes in her guilt or innocence. He has no status nor expertise to carry out such a review, and should restrict himself to raising awareness that vital evidence was omitted, and much of the evidence presented is dubious in the opinions of respected experts. That would be David Davis who as Brexit Minister attended a meeting woefully under prepared? He wants us to believe he is going to pore over the details of a trial? The last bit doesn't surprise me though. Claiming expertise and trusting dodgy sources whilst ignoring real subject matter experts is pretty much what Brexiteer Politicians and the Tory Government have been about for the last 8 years or so. 1 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.