woolley Posted August 20 Author Share Posted August 20 45 minutes ago, manxman1980 said: 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. Do we have to have Brexit in every thread 8 years on? Get over it. Dodgy sources appear to be what the prosecution relied on in this case, and the more times goes by, the dodgier it seems to get. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman1980 Posted August 20 Share Posted August 20 1 hour ago, woolley said: Do we have to have Brexit in every thread 8 years on? Get over it. Dodgy sources appear to be what the prosecution relied on in this case, and the more times goes by, the dodgier it seems to get. Simply highlighting the lack of qualifications and attention to detail that Mr Davis has. It simply backs up your point that he should not be pretending to be knowledgeable in this field and should use his position to raise the case in Parliament and leave the rest to legal experts. Sorry if you don't like the people who helped deliver what you wanted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman1980 Posted August 20 Share Posted August 20 It would also be a great shame if a miscarriage of Justice could not be taken to the ECHR... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted August 20 Author Share Posted August 20 1 hour ago, manxman1980 said: It would also be a great shame if a miscarriage of Justice could not be taken to the ECHR... No. Let's clean up our own mess. I'm no more enamoured of supranational courts than I am of supranational legislatures. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted August 20 Share Posted August 20 4 hours ago, woolley said: 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. I read about this over the weekend: In the initial trial, the prosecution said Dr Ravi Jayaram, a consultant, had discovered Letby standing over Baby K at 3.50am on 17 February 2016. The baby was deteriorating and its breathing tube had been dislodged. The prosecution said door-swipe data showed that the baby’s designated nurse had left the intensive care unit at 3.47am. But the data was amended in the retrial to show the nurse had returned at that time, meaning Letby was not alone. During the retrial, the prosecution and the defence accepted that it was a genuine mistake, and the nurse was convicted of the attempted murder of Baby K. A CPS spokesperson said: “Two juries and three appeal court judges have reviewed a multitude of different evidence against Lucy Letby, and she has been convicted on 15 separate counts following two separate jury trials. “We confirm that accurate door-swipe-data was presented in the retrial. “We have been transparent in clarifying this issue and rectified it for the retrial. We are confident that this issue did not have a meaningful impact on the prosecution, which included multiple strands of evidence.” https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/aug/16/evidence-in-first-lucy-letby-trial-was-incorrect-cps-admits Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted August 20 Share Posted August 20 3 hours ago, woolley said: Dodgy sources appear to be what the prosecution relied on in this case, and the more times goes by, the dodgier it seems to get. Maybe in your opinion. But not in mine. Because the CPS fessed up to the fuck-up... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted August 20 Author Share Posted August 20 7 minutes ago, P.K. said: We are confident that this issue did not have a meaningful impact on the prosecution, The system doesn't like being challenged. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted August 20 Author Share Posted August 20 6 minutes ago, P.K. said: Maybe in your opinion. But not in mine. Because the CPS fessed up to the fuck-up... And will have to fess up to quite a few more before this is done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman1980 Posted August 21 Share Posted August 21 6 hours ago, woolley said: The system doesn't like being challenged. Which is why a Supranational Court can be useful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted August 21 Share Posted August 21 8 hours ago, woolley said: The system doesn't like being challenged. This old news was presented at the retrial and the verdict was guilty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted August 21 Share Posted August 21 8 hours ago, woolley said: And will have to fess up to quite a few more before this is done. Saturdays lottery numbers please. With your level of prescience they should be a breeze... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted September 5 Author Share Posted September 5 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3d93kpkl83o Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted September 6 Share Posted September 6 I don't think there has been a miscarriage of justice but Letby has certain rights like the rest of us. So she is exercising them which is fair enough. Especially as I posted way back when that convictions based on circumstancial evidence alone will always be open to challenges and in fairness so they should be. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheTeapot Posted Friday at 05:34 PM Share Posted Friday at 05:34 PM Read a bit of the reporting from the inquiry that has begun. So far it seems to have made her look a bit less 'innocent'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted Friday at 11:36 PM Author Share Posted Friday at 11:36 PM 5 hours ago, TheTeapot said: Read a bit of the reporting from the inquiry that has begun. So far it seems to have made her look a bit less 'innocent'. I don't think it's a case of asserting her innocence at this stage. It's more that many eminent professional people in relevant fields believe that the evidence at the trial was a) incomplete, and b) flawed. It's difficult to understand the stance taken at the start of the inquiry about the speculation causing distress to the bereaved parents. If the convictions turn out to be unsafe, how does brushing it all under the carpet ease their pain? If she was innocent does it make them feel better that she remains in prison for life? 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.