Lucy Letby Guilty
Discussion
sebdangerfield said:
Sorry, I know this has been answered by others but I’m unsure what HR is and In my line of work (criminal) it’s significantly different. The expert witnesses will set out in a joint statement the basic science and accepted principles underlying their field of expertise and the points where they agree and disagree. These points are then presented to the jury in a formal admission. The jury then decide on the contentious points.
Because it’s a joint statement there are always phrases the expert will be comfortable with and those they are not and as such the statement is carefully worded to be cautious.
That’s not to say issues dont happen though. For example, some areas are ISO accredited, digital forensics for example. Telecommunications data however isn’t yet. It will be in the next few years. Some experts I’ve come head to head with on telecommunications evidence are doctors in chemical engineering with 15 years experience in DNA analysis but have a week’s course on comms data. Accreditation is dealing with that but so does joint statements from the experts.
Human Resources Seb and in my line of work Employment Tribunals (which have a judge) disciplinary hearings, internal and professional. No juries - typically a panel of up to three (including lay members) hearing the evidence and making the decision but lawyers are often present as well.Because it’s a joint statement there are always phrases the expert will be comfortable with and those they are not and as such the statement is carefully worded to be cautious.
That’s not to say issues dont happen though. For example, some areas are ISO accredited, digital forensics for example. Telecommunications data however isn’t yet. It will be in the next few years. Some experts I’ve come head to head with on telecommunications evidence are doctors in chemical engineering with 15 years experience in DNA analysis but have a week’s course on comms data. Accreditation is dealing with that but so does joint statements from the experts.
I'm not a lawyer. I give lawyers and others the ammunition to undermine or give them some extra bullets.
Unreal said:
Human Resources Seb and in my line of work Employment Tribunals (which have a judge) disciplinary hearings, internal and professional. No juries - typically a panel of up to three (including lay members) hearing the evidence and making the decision but lawyers are often present as well.
I'm not a lawyer. I give lawyers and others the ammunition to undermine or give them some extra bullets.
Ah understood, thankyou. That makes sense, I think expert witnesses are treated differently in your line of work. I may be completely wrong but aren’t experts appointed differently for civil court? Ie, the expert just needs to have experience and be deemed an expert by the court? I'm not a lawyer. I give lawyers and others the ammunition to undermine or give them some extra bullets.
Pflanzgarten said:
The defence called no expert witnesses.
Aside the defendant they called only one defence witness at all - he was the hospital duty plumber called Mario who testified that the hospital had an old system which could sometimes fail and see systems overflowing however they produced no evidence linking the callout dates to the NeonatalCU and the actual baby deaths so by association ruling out any element of infection - all rather pointless sebdangerfield said:
Unreal said:
Human Resources Seb and in my line of work Employment Tribunals (which have a judge) disciplinary hearings, internal and professional. No juries - typically a panel of up to three (including lay members) hearing the evidence and making the decision but lawyers are often present as well.
I'm not a lawyer. I give lawyers and others the ammunition to undermine or give them some extra bullets.
Ah understood, thankyou. That makes sense, I think expert witnesses are treated differently in your line of work. I may be completely wrong but aren’t experts appointed differently for civil court? Ie, the expert just needs to have experience and be deemed an expert by the court? I'm not a lawyer. I give lawyers and others the ammunition to undermine or give them some extra bullets.
In my area yes the prosecution for want of a better word will appoint their expert usually for a fixed fee.
hellorent said:
Slowboathome said:
I think I read on here that an investigative journalist has already produced a lengthy analysis of why the conviction might be unsafe.
I've followed this case a little bit and I wouldn't be surprised at that.Shaw Tarse said:
Durzel said:
Presumably the previous thread was binned because people were discussing a live case?
There's a reason the BBC and co have opened the floodgates with their Letby coverage now that there has been a verdict. Discussing live cases risks prejudicing a jury who might see stuff online and draw inferrences beyond what they see and are told in the courtroom.
I think that was the reason.There's a reason the BBC and co have opened the floodgates with their Letby coverage now that there has been a verdict. Discussing live cases risks prejudicing a jury who might see stuff online and draw inferrences beyond what they see and are told in the courtroom.
PH can now discuss the details.
M4cruiser said:
Makes sense .. the BBC were saying yesterday that "reporting restrictions have now been lifted" so they can release all the stuff they've clearly been preparing for several months, i.e. interviews with various people.
PH can now discuss the details.
Reporting restrictions related to the last ten days or so as the jury began delivering guilty verdicts - they could not be reported until all the charges were finalised which was yesterday.PH can now discuss the details.
As soon as the first guilty ones came in LL refused to attend court further and will not attend sentencing on Monday
M4cruiser said:
Makes sense .. the BBC were saying yesterday that "reporting restrictions have now been lifted" so they can release all the stuff they've clearly been preparing for several months, i.e. interviews with various people.
PH can now discuss the details.
And they've not dug up anything remotely controversial or weird about her. PH can now discuss the details.
In five years of background work since the initial, cancelled, arrest. Nothing.
I'm NOT saying she's definitely innocent, because I couldn't say that YOU, or I, are Definitely innocent. Impossible to prove innocence.
But this case has nowhere near proved guilt. The much discussed chart - colouring ONLY her name in red....., is statistically near worthless for the reasons I and others have outlined.
In any similar cases, such a chart might be the starting point for looking for hard evidence. In this case, it's the entirety of the case against her.
Willhire89 said:
Pflanzgarten said:
The defence called no expert witnesses.
Aside the defendant they called only one defence witness at all - he was the hospital duty plumber called Mario who testified that the hospital had an old system which could sometimes fail and see systems overflowing however they produced no evidence linking the callout dates to the NeonatalCU and the actual baby deaths so by association ruling out any element of infection - all rather pointless Hammersia said:
And they've not dug up anything remotely controversial or weird about her.
In five years of background work since the initial, cancelled, arrest. Nothing.
I'm NOT saying she's definitely innocent, because I couldn't say that YOU, or I, are Definitely innocent. Impossible to prove innocence.
But this case has nowhere near proved guilt. The much discussed chart - colouring ONLY her name in red....., is statistically near worthless for the reasons I and others have outlined.
In any similar cases, such a chart might be the starting point for looking for hard evidence. In this case, it's the entirety of the case against her.
she was following/ messaging bereaved parents on social media. That cant be normal.In five years of background work since the initial, cancelled, arrest. Nothing.
I'm NOT saying she's definitely innocent, because I couldn't say that YOU, or I, are Definitely innocent. Impossible to prove innocence.
But this case has nowhere near proved guilt. The much discussed chart - colouring ONLY her name in red....., is statistically near worthless for the reasons I and others have outlined.
In any similar cases, such a chart might be the starting point for looking for hard evidence. In this case, it's the entirety of the case against her.
but id like to see a complete chart. That cant be every death or non breathing event for the year in question, because that is saying there were zero non suspicious such events in a unit for premature and ill babies
Hammersia said:
And they've not dug up anything remotely controversial or weird about her.
In five years of background work since the initial, cancelled, arrest. Nothing.
I'm NOT saying she's definitely innocent, because I couldn't say that YOU, or I, are Definitely innocent. Impossible to prove innocence.
But this case has nowhere near proved guilt. The much discussed chart - colouring ONLY her name in red....., is statistically near worthless for the reasons I and others have outlined.
In any similar cases, such a chart might be the starting point for looking for hard evidence. In this case, it's the entirety of the case against her.
I’ve previously said to you, bbc have redacted the chart you’ve seen. The chart in court was far more detailed and was discussed over many days. In five years of background work since the initial, cancelled, arrest. Nothing.
I'm NOT saying she's definitely innocent, because I couldn't say that YOU, or I, are Definitely innocent. Impossible to prove innocence.
But this case has nowhere near proved guilt. The much discussed chart - colouring ONLY her name in red....., is statistically near worthless for the reasons I and others have outlined.
In any similar cases, such a chart might be the starting point for looking for hard evidence. In this case, it's the entirety of the case against her.
Hammersia said:
And they've not dug up anything remotely controversial or weird about her.
In five years of background work since the initial, cancelled, arrest. Nothing.
I'm NOT saying she's definitely innocent, because I couldn't say that YOU, or I, are Definitely innocent. Impossible to prove innocence.
But this case has nowhere near proved guilt. The much discussed chart - colouring ONLY her name in red....., is statistically near worthless for the reasons I and others have outlined.
In any similar cases, such a chart might be the starting point for looking for hard evidence. In this case, it's the entirety of the case against her.
You do realise that the small extract of the chart that you keep mentioning wasn't the ONLY bit of evidence presented in the longest murder trial in British history? Unless you sat through every day of the case, like the jury did, it's impossible for you to say that guilt has not been proved.In five years of background work since the initial, cancelled, arrest. Nothing.
I'm NOT saying she's definitely innocent, because I couldn't say that YOU, or I, are Definitely innocent. Impossible to prove innocence.
But this case has nowhere near proved guilt. The much discussed chart - colouring ONLY her name in red....., is statistically near worthless for the reasons I and others have outlined.
In any similar cases, such a chart might be the starting point for looking for hard evidence. In this case, it's the entirety of the case against her.
Mr_J said:
You do realise that the small extract of the chart that you keep mentioning wasn't the ONLY bit of evidence presented in the longest murder trial in British history? Unless you sat through every day of the case, like the jury did, it's impossible for you to say that guilt has not been proved.
The longest murder trial in British history, and yet the defence called only one witness? No attempt to disprove the medical theories using actual evidence?I suppose it is possible that not a single medical professional in the country - or the world - would offer an alternative PoV.
Hammersia said:
sebdangerfield said:
I’ve previously said to you, bbc have redacted the chart you’ve seen. The chart in court was far more detailed and was discussed over many days.
Yes, you've said it, twice, and not linked any evidence that that is a redacted chart. In all honesty, it’s a little late for you to prove her innocence using your statistical analysis skills on evidence gathered from a car forum, but in court it was exhibit CEH/16 or you could google ‘Lucy Letby graph’.
I, like some others, have for some time held a nagging doubt that something doesn't sit right with this case. That said, I'm not saying she isn't necessarily guilty.
One thing I thought I'd research, using the dates from arrest, to the date of sentencing, of some other prolific UKs serial killers. All dates are aprox, rounded to the nearest month count.
Lucy Letby was sentenced 61 months after her initial arrest.
Beverley Allitt is the nearest in profile to LL that I can think of. She claimed 13 victims, 4 of which were deaths, and 3 of which were attempted murder. Her arrest to sentencing period (henceforth referred to as A/S) was 18 months
Harold Shipman A/S was 16 months (murdered a minimum of 215 indivuals)
Fred West A/S was 21 months
Dennis Nilsen A/S was 8 months
Peter Sutcliffe A/S was 16 months
Levi Bellfield A/S was 39 months
Does this not seem a little odd?
The average arrest to sentencing period is about 19.7 months. It took more than 3 times from Letby being arrested to being convicted.
One thing I thought I'd research, using the dates from arrest, to the date of sentencing, of some other prolific UKs serial killers. All dates are aprox, rounded to the nearest month count.
Lucy Letby was sentenced 61 months after her initial arrest.
Beverley Allitt is the nearest in profile to LL that I can think of. She claimed 13 victims, 4 of which were deaths, and 3 of which were attempted murder. Her arrest to sentencing period (henceforth referred to as A/S) was 18 months
Harold Shipman A/S was 16 months (murdered a minimum of 215 indivuals)
Fred West A/S was 21 months
Dennis Nilsen A/S was 8 months
Peter Sutcliffe A/S was 16 months
Levi Bellfield A/S was 39 months
Does this not seem a little odd?
The average arrest to sentencing period is about 19.7 months. It took more than 3 times from Letby being arrested to being convicted.
Fermit said:
I, like some others, have for some time held a nagging doubt that something doesn't sit right with this case. That said, I'm not saying she isn't necessarily guilty.
One thing I thought I'd research, using the dates from arrest, to the date of sentencing, of some other prolific UKs serial killers. All dates are aprox, rounded to the nearest month count.
Lucy Letby was sentenced 61 months after her initial arrest.
Beverley Allitt is the nearest in profile to LL that I can think of. She claimed 13 victims, 4 of which were deaths, and 3 of which were attempted murder. Her arrest to sentencing period (henceforth referred to as A/S) was 18 months
Harold Shipman A/S was 16 months (murdered a minimum of 215 indivuals)
Fred West A/S was 21 months
Dennis Nilsen A/S was 8 months
Peter Sutcliffe A/S was 16 months
Levi Bellfield A/S was 39 months
Does this not seem a little odd?
The average arrest to sentencing period is about 19.7 months. It took more than 3 times from Letby being arrested to being convicted.
Were any of the other trials impacted by a global pandemic?One thing I thought I'd research, using the dates from arrest, to the date of sentencing, of some other prolific UKs serial killers. All dates are aprox, rounded to the nearest month count.
Lucy Letby was sentenced 61 months after her initial arrest.
Beverley Allitt is the nearest in profile to LL that I can think of. She claimed 13 victims, 4 of which were deaths, and 3 of which were attempted murder. Her arrest to sentencing period (henceforth referred to as A/S) was 18 months
Harold Shipman A/S was 16 months (murdered a minimum of 215 indivuals)
Fred West A/S was 21 months
Dennis Nilsen A/S was 8 months
Peter Sutcliffe A/S was 16 months
Levi Bellfield A/S was 39 months
Does this not seem a little odd?
The average arrest to sentencing period is about 19.7 months. It took more than 3 times from Letby being arrested to being convicted.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff