Lucy Letby Guilty

[skwdenyer]

thisnameistaken said:

skwdenyer said:

thisnameistaken said:

Im not really looking to debate the scientific evidence for free on a car forum. I’d be surprised if anyone with the requisite knowledge to robustly debate it would. I’m just explaining again why it’s very often not advantageous to appoint your own expert when they agree with the prosecution’s own expert. It’s not an oversight to not have one, it’s a decision.

That last I accept. But since - as people like to say in respect of UFOs - extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The evidence in LL’s case makes me - as someone with a scientific background - really quite uncomfortable as to how it seems to be decidedly scant as regards proof, as opposed to constructing a hypothesis as to how someone might have killed a baby.

I just bought some paracetamol from someone who has a scientific background. She’s not my go to authority for infant mortality though. A relevant scientific background may give weight to your argument but then you’d probably prefer to debate with other people with a similar level of knowledge instead of being the pistonheads infant mortality and statistical analysis barrister.

If either side had called an expert in infant mortality, that would have been a positive development. Regular doctors aren't experts in death; that's why we have pathologists.

As for "scientific background" there's a considerable different between "someone with a background that utilises science" and "someone with a background in the application of the scientific method." I wouldn't put any practicing pharmacist I've ever met into the latter category (there may be some working in research who might qualify). I've not met anyone with the latter credentials who is comfortable with the LL case.

Anyhow, we're unlikely to agree, which is fine - this is a forum for discussion, not an echo chamber.

[essayer]

Even More Guilty
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c98q74dn91do

those conspiracy podcasters won't be happy

[ChocolateFrog]

Good.

Does that mean they just bury the key a little deeper.

[Southerner]

essayer said:

Even More Guilty
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c98q74dn91do

those conspiracy podcasters won't be happy

In fairness, it was hardly going to be a fair and impartial trial this time around!

[devil’s advocate mode=OFF]

[Aphrabehn]

Sounds very similar to the previous cases and subsequent trial - no forensics, no witnesses, no motive.

(Court heard) Letby was caught 'virtually red-handed' trying to murder Baby K by the lead consultant on her neonatal unit, Dr Ravi Jayaram, in the early hours of February 17, 2016

So..... NOT red handed then

(Defence said) "that if the prosecution's 'star witness' had really caught the neonatal nurse 'almost red-handed' in the act of attempted murder, he would have taken immediate action rather than being 'rendered silent' for the next 14 months."

[agtlaw]

Aphrabehn said:

Sounds very similar to the previous cases and subsequent trial - no forensics, no witnesses, no motive.

(Court heard) Letby was caught 'virtually red-handed' trying to murder Baby K by the lead consultant on her neonatal unit, Dr Ravi Jayaram, in the early hours of February 17, 2016

So..... NOT red handed then

(Defence said) "that if the prosecution's 'star witness' had really caught the neonatal nurse 'almost red-handed' in the act of attempted murder, he would have taken immediate action rather than being 'rendered silent' for the next 14 months."

Not caught "red handed" but this jury, in common with the previous jury, was sure of guilt. A jury is allowed to draw inferences. An inference is a common-sense conclusion, based on evidence which they find reliable. For example, there may be direct evidence of Fact A. There may also be direct evidence of Fact B. There may not be any direct evidence of Fact C, but if Facts A and B can only lead the jury to the logical conclusion that Fact C is true, then they can draw that inference. The jury is, however, instructed that they must not speculate or guess about something on which there is no evidence, or about what a person not called as a witness might have said.

[Aphrabehn]

agtlaw said:

Aphrabehn said:

Sounds very similar to the previous cases and subsequent trial - no forensics, no witnesses, no motive.

(Court heard) Letby was caught 'virtually red-handed' trying to murder Baby K by the lead consultant on her neonatal unit, Dr Ravi Jayaram, in the early hours of February 17, 2016

So..... NOT red handed then

(Defence said) "that if the prosecution's 'star witness' had really caught the neonatal nurse 'almost red-handed' in the act of attempted murder, he would have taken immediate action rather than being 'rendered silent' for the next 14 months."

Not caught "red handed" but this jury, in common with the previous jury, was sure of guilt. A jury is allowed to draw inferences. An inference is a common-sense conclusion, based on evidence which they find reliable. For example, there may be direct evidence of Fact A. There may also be direct evidence of Fact B. There may not be any direct evidence of Fact C, but if Facts A and B can only lead the jury to the logical conclusion that Fact C is true, then they can draw that inference. The jury is, however, instructed that they must not speculate or guess about something on which there is no evidence, or about what a person not called as a witness might have said.

Thanks, not disputing that at all, but the Jury is also allowed to consider previous relevant convictions of a Defendant. Which some of us believe were unsafe.

[agtlaw]

Aphrabehn said:

Thanks, not disputing that at all, but the Jury is also allowed to consider previous relevant convictions of a Defendant. Which some of us believe were unsafe.

It depends. Sometimes. If so then the jury is given directions, including that they must not convict wholly or mainly because of previous convictions.

[Zeeky]

Those directions would be a waste of breath in this case.

[agtlaw]

Judgment (application for leave to appeal):

https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/r-v-letby-3/

[skwdenyer]

agtlaw said:

Judgment (application for leave to appeal):

https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/r-v-letby-3/

Some unfortunate and partisan words in that judgement. It was unlikely leave would be granted; it has not been.

The handling of the allegation about the juror seems especially unsatisfactory.

[Wacky Racer]

Anyone thinking she may possibly be innocent, would you trust her with your new born baby?

[Ken_Code]

agtlaw said:

Not caught "red handed" but this jury, in common with the previous jury, was sure of guilt.

I think that the way she was found by the consultant in this case can be fairly described as red-handed. He found her standing watching the baby die as her blood desaturated, doing nothing, and with the alarms having seemingly been turned off.

[PRO5T]

Wacky Racer said:

Anyone thinking she may possibly be innocent, would you trust her with your new born baby?

Plenty of people did, plenty of her victims parents went on record in support of her in the beginning, almost all of her later accusers did until they noticed their statistical coincidence and built a theory around it, some of her colleagues still do (although very quietly) as do some of her friends and family-in fact there are no friends or family, nor work colleagues (except her superiors who came up with the theory) who have testified against her.


[This is where you can say Fred West had good reviews on Check-A-Trade as well, by the way ]

[ChocolateFrog]

This thread is mental.

You do realise you might as well be defending Levi Bellfield.

You're depraved.

[PRO5T]

Ah yes, Levi Bellfield who had forensic evidence, CCTV and witnesses to his heinous crimes as well as a long history of repeat offending. Now there were some cases with indisputable evidence.

[ChocolateFrog]

If Lucy Letby looked like this none of you would be here defending them.

[PRO5T]

Someone has a difference of opinion to someone on the internet, therefore they must be insane, gotcha

[skwdenyer]

ChocolateFrog said:

This thread is mental.

You do realise you might as well be defending Levi Bellfield.

You're depraved.

I’m not defending her. I’m concerned for the use of science in justice.

[sugerbear]

skwdenyer said:

ChocolateFrog said:

This thread is mental.

You do realise you might as well be defending Levi Bellfield.

You're depraved.

I’m not defending her. I’m concerned for the use of science in justice.

Agreed, no one is defending her, but it is right that the science should be tested and we dont end up using statistics to justify something that could equally be chance, or more likely (but maybe not this case) the failings of a hospital dept that was understaffed / undermanaged / undertrained.

Andrew Malkinson & Seema Misra spring to mind. Both Guilty. Both proven innocent.