Lucy letby
- Thread starter Legz
- Start date
JonnyHistory
Well-known member
I agree and the meanig of middles class has been warped somewhat over the years ( I always thought it meant one came from inherited wealth).
JonnyHistory
Well-known member
No, she has brought a new person into the team for a fresh appeal but still has same legal council.
Millbrook
Well-known member
P[ease correct me if I am wrong but I think the public comment which is your first sentence is a misrepresentation of how this evidence was used. Nor do I think the prosecution used it in a misleading way. I think the way it has been portrayed that the prosecution used it is misleading.
It seems some people think that what the prosecution said was Letby was on duty on each of the occasions when these babied died and she is a common denominator so she killed them but we won't mention that she wasn't present for these other deaths.
Not so. The prosecution did not assert that the babies which died when Letby was not present were murdered. They put forward charges based on medical opinion and showed that Letby was present at all of them. Of course there was significant other evidence as well.
Bear in mind that she was acquitted of 2 cases and no verdict in 6 cases when she was present so the finding of murder or attempted murder was the key thing not her presence.
From reading the Court of Appeal Judgement it seem that he defence team robustly challenged the prosecution evidence where they could.
People saying they seem to have done a poor job are saying this without any knowledge of what they did and didn’t do in her defence.
The main question seems to be - Why didn’t they use a Defence expert? when in fact few people know what evidence any expert would provide - what if the defence experts didn’t help Letby and may have even assisted in convicting her?
A final point - while they will have advised Letby in reality they are instructed by Letby.
FabioPorkpie
Well-known member
Every person found guilty can use the excuse their legal team made a poor case.
Even guilty people can say it.
Even joe public looking at a minuscule amount of vast swathes of information unknown to them, can suppose it.
Probably only the defence team themselves truly know whether they did a poor job. But maybe some need to consider that they just couldn’t offer much defense because their client was guilty. As indeed she was found to be.
FabioPorkpie
Well-known member
I’d be really interested to know if you still hold this position after listening to the two double jeopardy podcasts and the Newsagent one linked in posts 351, 352 and 368.
Laughing
Well-known member
I gave you the source a report by the criminal case review commission in 2019.Most cases rely on a combination of evidence yes, but circumstantial evidence features very prominently within that. My statement that most conviction rely on circumstantial evidence did not state solely and is correct! I have provided some sources below that talk about the validity, importance and use of circumstantial evidence below to evidence my claims.
Undue influence: the decisive impact of circumstantial evidence | Ashfords
We delve into two cases which show that the details matter when judges are considering whether a will should be set aside for undue influence.www.ashfords.co.uk
You assertion that direct evidence is stronger is also not accurate, especially if that direct evidence is eye witness testimony which can be very unreliable and again have cited sources below that evidence this.
Research indicates that circumstantial evidence can result in convictions when it has a logical and compelling narrative. Though it requires inference, it is treated with equal weight as direct evidence when the evidence is strong enough to meet the burden of proof. Eye witness testimony based on one study was responsible for 75% of wrongful convictions. Again sources below. https://repository.uclawsf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1043&context=judgesbook
How reliable is eyewitness testimony?
Psychologists are helping police and juries rethink the role of eyewitness identifications and testimony.www.apa.org
The Marshall Project
A nonprofit news organization covering the U.S. criminal justice system.www.themarshallproject.org
Most convictions are garnered on a combination of factors and evidence type and one is not necessarily better than the other and its accurate to say that most convictions rely (to differing extents) on circumstantial evidence but as you rightly stated combined with other evidence types also.
I am still waiting for your source of 14% because last I checked those type of statistics are not tracked and measured.
It's not generally tracked but for whatever reasons the ccrc decided to do a review. Shouldn't be too difficult to find.
You are right about eyewitness testimony being unreliable. Something I have argued myself before.
I would however argue strongly that circumstantial evidence alone is weak and is usually backed up by direct evidence.
You are right the law makes no direct distinction between the two, but it is much harder to reach the bar of beyond reasonable doubt with circumstantial evidence alone. That's the difference and it's a big one.
I would also strongly argue that many cases rely on circumstantial evidence is wholly wrong. Rely means to attach faith to a thing. It's why there almost always has to be supporting direct evidence,certainly to get a conviction.
I understand that you seem to be using rely to mean just use circumstantial evidence. That's not nearly the same thing as rely on. The two things are not the same.
We had this argument earlier in the thread and I said at the time that the quote didn't say what you thought it said.
In this particular case my feeling is way too much evidence was circumstantial and formed a key part of the prosecution evidence.
I have no idea whether Lucy letby is guilty or not. That people want the case looking at again is a long way from a conspiracy theory. Let's be honest, it's hardly rare for people to be released after spending substantial amounts of time in jail. 86 overturned convictions in the horizon convictions alone. I think it was in 2015 when Joshua roszenborg wrote about the ccrc should be referring more cases to the supreme Court for review and that the supreme Court should be prepared to usurp jury decisions when the conviction is considered unsafe.
Our legal system is pretty good but has flaws.
Laughing
Well-known member
Yes I do fabio. As I said at the time I don't know if she is guilty or not. Not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is not the same as innocent. You can think someone is probably guilty and still think they shouldn't be in jail.
It's nuanced. I don't think her guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
FabioPorkpie
Well-known member
But it was though, legally.
Laughing
Well-known member
I am aware of this. You do miss a pertinent fact though.
She was only charged with deaths that occurred when she was on shift. The question you probably have to ask is why we're other deaths discounted? Well obviously because it couldn't have been letby and the case falls apart.
The cps, possibly, picked infant deaths to suite their narrative.
Laughing
Well-known member
Indeed it was, not for me though.
No one is asking for her to be released. The case should be reviewed though.
Millbrook
Well-known member
You could be right although it could also be true that they were satisfied that the other cases were not suspicious.
The fact there were aquitals and unproven verdicts does not suggest cherry picking.
FabioPorkpie
Well-known member
I can’t take this seriously.
I don’t actually know how to say politely what I’m thinking, so I should best just move on.
Jonny Ingbar
Well-known member
I'm sorry but I can't take that last comment seriously.
I'd hope it's an obvious statement to make, but CPS charging decisions are driven by evidence and evidence alone, not "narratives".
It's certainly the care that other deaths weren't charged because the evidence doesn't meet the threshold, although this may change in time of course.
ForssAwakens
Well-known member
Philip Hammond asked in the channel 5 doc- what was the threshold for a suspicious event
They were other collapses and deaths on the ward, but only ones classified as suspicious were the rota correlated, which Lucy letby was the common denominator.
To pick up on the point about confirmation bias. The person who wrote the article on air and change of skin, said this didn’t happen in the letby murders, but the doctor who made the claim stood behind his claim that this was incorrect.
They were other collapses and deaths on the ward, but only ones classified as suspicious were the rota correlated, which Lucy letby was the common denominator.
To pick up on the point about confirmation bias. The person who wrote the article on air and change of skin, said this didn’t happen in the letby murders, but the doctor who made the claim stood behind his claim that this was incorrect.
FabioPorkpie
Well-known member
Meanwhile, at the Thirlwall enquiry -
‘Babies' breathing tubes were dislodged at an unusual rate during Lucy Letby's placements at Liverpool Women's Hospital, the public inquiry into her crimes has heard.
"It is unusual, and you will hear that it occurs generally in less than 1% of shifts."
The audit found that there were recorded incidents of the tubes being dislodged on 40% of the shifts Letby worked at Liverpool Womens' Hospital.’
‘Babies' breathing tubes were dislodged at an unusual rate during Lucy Letby's placements at Liverpool Women's Hospital, the public inquiry into her crimes has heard.
"It is unusual, and you will hear that it occurs generally in less than 1% of shifts."
The audit found that there were recorded incidents of the tubes being dislodged on 40% of the shifts Letby worked at Liverpool Womens' Hospital.’
Lucy Letby inquiry: 'Tubes dislodged' during placement at other hospital
Lucy Letby worked two placements at Liverpool Women's Hospital in 2012 and 2015.
www.bbc.co.uk
JonnyHistory
Well-known member
So your sou
Have you actually read the verdict, any sources I and others have posted?
You make a lot of claims but back nothing up with evidence, you said only 14% of cases wholly relied on circumstantial evidence and I have asked for that source several times now.
You think the conviction is not safe, try and show some evidence to back up your claim and then we can have a discussion, I have provided numerous sources about the value and use of circumstantial evidence and more sources that show your claim that direct evidence is more valued in the legal system is flawed. So far you opinion and evidence amounts to trust me bro.
So your source is trust me bro???
Have you actually read the verdict, any sources I and others have posted?
You make a lot of claims but back nothing up with evidence, you said only 14% of cases wholly relied on circumstantial evidence and I have asked for that source several times now.
You think the conviction is not safe, try and show some evidence to back up your claim and then we can have a discussion, I have provided numerous sources about the value and use of circumstantial evidence and more sources that show your claim that direct evidence is more valued in the legal system is flawed. So far you opinion and evidence amounts to trust me bro.
Laughing
Well-known member
Jesus, go look it up. I gave you the the source the criminal case review commission. I have you the date the report was produced. Google is your friend. Trust me, or assume I am making stuff up. I am good either way.
I think the conviction may be unsafe and warrants looking at.
You seem a bit worked up about this. Maybe take a break watch some TV, read a book. I have no idea why you are so antagonistic and to be frank, I don't really care.
Laughing
Well-known member
Of course they are. Based largely on what is presented to them by the police.
Are you trying to say the cps don't make decisions that are wholly wrong. Horizon, for example?
Blind faith in our judicial system would see a lot of innocent people stay in jail, it's why we have criminal reviews.
Perhaps a 22% funding cut since 2010 had damaged the judicial system.
What I am saying is the police investigated the deaths during Lucy letby shifts with a preconceived notion that she murdered them and probably didn't look too closely at babies she couldn't have murdered.
Was it a statistical cluster or murder? I don't know.
A bit fed up with saying this, but I'll repeat it one more time. I think it's likely Lucy letby murdered those babies. Our burden of proof is beyond reasonable doubt. Likely to be true is a long way from beyond reasonable doubt.