Lucy letby

I think the big difference now compared to earlier doubts is the quality of the current opinion compared to the 'medical expertise' used to convict her.

The Prof said he was interested in how his work had been used. When he found it had been misused he wanted to look at the medical evidence with no interest in whether Letby was guilty or innocent. He used a panel of world experts to examine the medical evidence and they found no evidence that a murder had been committed. They were able to explain the deaths through natural causes or inadequate medical care.
Yes, get that, saw the reports and on face value it seems compelling, I agree.

I guess what I'm saying is that the totality of the evidence needs to be considered, medical option being a significant, but not some, part of that.
 
Yes, get that, saw the reports and on face value it seems compelling, I agree.

I guess what I'm saying is that the totality of the evidence needs to be considered, medical option being a significant, but not some, part of that.
Well if you've heard of some evidence used to convince the jury of her guilt that wasn't medical opinion, I'm all ears. Without the medical opinion that murder had been committed there isn't a case to answer.
 
Well if you've heard of some evidence used to convince the jury of her guilt that wasn't medical opinion, I'm all ears. Without the medical opinion that murder had been committed there isn't a case to answer.
Some of the evidence was circumstantial, some her reaction and demeanor with colleagues etc.

If you read my post again you'll see I note that the medical evidence is significant.
 
Why didn't the judge throw the case out then?
Have you followed the route of the case at all?
When has a judge been in a position to throw it out?
The last appeal failed as the judge ruled as inadmissible the evidence that the method of murder was a load of medical nonsense.
This was because the guy telling the court of appeal that it was a load of nonsense (the same guy who wrote the paper that supposedly described the method of identifying the deaths as murder) hadn't been called by the defence in the first trial!
 
Have you followed the route of the case at all?
When has a judge been in a position to throw it out?
The last appeal failed as the judge ruled as inadmissible the evidence that the method of murder was a load of medical nonsense.
This was because the guy telling the court of appeal that it was a load of nonsense (the same guy who wrote the paper that supposedly described the method of identifying the deaths as murder) hadn't been called by the defence in the first trial!
No I haven't. You assert that without medical opinion that a murder has been committed that there is no case to answer. Why didn't the judge throw the case out at trial if this is the case. Why wasn't it stopped at half time? Why was there no application to dismiss.
 
No I haven't. You assert that without medical opinion that a murder has been committed that there is no case to answer. Why didn't the judge throw the case out at trial if this is the case. Why wasn't it stopped at half time? Why was there no application to dismiss.
I don't doubt there was a motion to dismiss before the defence put on their case. However the judge is the arbiter of law, the jury the arbiters of truth.

There was evidence of murders it's not up to the judge to weigh that evidence it's up to the jury.
 
I don't doubt there was a motion to dismiss before the defence put on their case. However the judge is the arbiter of law, the jury the arbiters of truth.

There was evidence of murders it's not up to the judge to weigh that evidence it's up to the jury.
He said there isn't a case to answer. The judge will throw it out if there isn't a case to answer before the jury get to it.
 
No I haven't. You assert that without medical opinion that a murder has been committed that there is no case to answer. Why didn't the judge throw the case out at trial if this is the case. Why wasn't it stopped at half time? Why was there no application to dismiss.
"Why didn't the judge throw the case out"
Because under our system, the jury will hear evidence that is ruled admissible, and the prosecution had an expert who was prepared to testify that a number of deaths of premature babies was due to deliberate interference with their medical care (in his opinion the only likely cause of death was murder).
 
"Why didn't the judge throw the case out"
Because under our system, the jury will hear evidence that is ruled admissible, and the prosecution had an expert who was prepared to testify that a number of deaths of premature babies was due to deliberate interference with their medical care (in his opinion the only likely cause of death was murder).
I'm sorry I don't understand this argument. You said that there wasn't any medical evidence?

Regardless. I am just trying to caution you about making judgements based on what you are reading in the media. You're getting part of the picture.

You just need to have an open mind on these things. She might have done it. She might of not. None of us are ever going to know.
 
I would imagine that's a cps decision.
The case wasnt based solely on medical evidence on my understanding so a bit of a moot discussion we are having.

But CPS bring it to court. Defence can make an application to dismiss the case prior to trial or after the crowns case is finished, before the defence case. Judges rules upon it.

Worked in the courts for 15 years. No expert and you would perhaps be surprised how little I picked up.

I did learn to be very very wary of making judgements in cases you read about in the press. Makes me cringe to be honest.
 
The case wasnt based solely on medical evidence on my understanding so a bit of a moot discussion we are having.

But CPS bring it to court. Defence can make an application to dismiss the case prior to trial or after the crowns case is finished, before the defence case. Judges rules upon it.

Worked in the courts for 15 years. No expert and you would perhaps be surprised how little I picked up.

I did learn to be very very wary of making judgements in cases you read about in the press. Makes me cringe to be honest.
The case hinged on expert witness evidence, today that expert witness evidence has been publicly called out by the man who wrote the paper the expert relied on in court.
Perhaps an analogy would help. If I was charged by the CPS with murdering someone, and the prosecution case was built on an experts evidence that the murder victim had died by drowning and I was convicted, and it then turned out that the person hadn't drowned, all the other evidence in the case wouldn't really matter an awful lot.
 
The case hinged on expert witness evidence, today that expert witness evidence has been publicly called out by the man who wrote the paper the expert relied on in court.
Perhaps an analogy would help. If I was charged by the CPS with murdering someone, and the prosecution case was built on an experts evidence that the murder victim had died by drowning and I was convicted, and it then turned out that the person hadn't drowned, all the other evidence in the case wouldn't really matter an awful lot.
How do you know that the prosecution case hinged on expert witness evidence? Because you have been told. You only know what you have been told in this case. Which will not be the full picture. My understanding is that a great deal of the case was based on probability.

I'm afraid I don't agree very much with your analogy. Cases don't tend to be based on one piece of evidence.

If you aren't looking at the totality of the evidence I don't really feel you can comment.
 
The case hinged on expert witness evidence, today that expert witness evidence has been publicly called out by the man who wrote the paper the expert relied on in court.
Perhaps an analogy would help. If I was charged by the CPS with murdering someone, and the prosecution case was built on an experts evidence that the murder victim had died by drowning and I was convicted, and it then turned out that the person hadn't drowned, all the other evidence in the case wouldn't really matter an awful lot.
This.
The case wasnt based solely on medical evidence on my understanding so a bit of a moot discussion we are having.

But CPS bring it to court. Defence can make an application to dismiss the case prior to trial or after the crowns case is finished, before the defence case. Judges rules upon it.

Worked in the courts for 15 years. No expert and you would perhaps be surprised how little I picked up.

I did learn to be very very wary of making judgements in cases you read about in the press. Makes me cringe to be honest.

How do you know that the prosecution case hinged on expert witness evidence? Because you have been told. You only know what you have been told in this case. Which will not be the full picture. My understanding is that a great deal of the case was based on probability.

I'm afraid I don't agree very much with your analogy. Cases don't tend to be based on one piece of evidence.

If you aren't looking at the totality of the evidence I don't really feel you can comment.
Once the police were convinced by the expert that the deaths were murder they were concentrating on who did it and 'finding' evidence to point to the killer.

Also the consultants were looking for a cause beyond medical failures so she had the finger pointed at her. Then it was Oh look when she was on duty and ignoring the times there were critical incidents when she was not present - not disclosed but not discovered by the defence. So the probability was inaccurate.

I believe the defence made a no case to answer plea and was turned down.

No one is saying the verdict was wrong just that there is sufficient doubt to have it re-examined.
 
How do you know that the prosecution case hinged on expert witness evidence? Because you have been told. You only know what you have been told in this case. Which will not be the full picture. My understanding is that a great deal of the case was based on probability.

I'm afraid I don't agree very much with your analogy. Cases don't tend to be based on one piece of evidence.

If you aren't looking at the totality of the evidence I don't really feel you can comment.
The cases hinged on murder, the prosecution presented what those murders where and the probability evidence was used in conjunction to the cause

The murder evidence has been countered by experts in a report
 
It may get reopened. But you are making the argument that people with more knowledge about the case than yourselves are wrong, and I don't think you are in a position to do that.

Plus the first two paragraphs are pure speculation and read to me like a decision has already been made.
 
Back
Top