Lucy Letby Guilty
Discussion
Green1man said:
skwdenyer said:
. A part of this prosecution case was that she’s a mass murderer. AIUI the jury were specifically “encouraged” to consider that as a part of their weighing of evidence. The last jury weren’t, and couldn’t reach a verdict on this case.”
This doesn’t really add up. Surely the last jury did in fact find her guilty of a number of the charges she was up for, so by definition they were convinced she was a mass murderer. So the difference can’t just have been this later jury were considering her as a mass murderer!Put another way, if the first jury thought it was 50/50 that she was guilty of this crime on the evidence, the second jury is allowed to add her prior guilt to create a 80/20 finding of guilt.
Or put more simply still, a retrial on one count like this is inherently stacked against the defendant.
skwdenyer said:
Assuming the jury followed directions, in the second trial her prior convictions AIUI were material facts to be considered as a part of judging guilt.
Put another way, if the first jury thought it was 50/50 that she was guilty of this crime on the evidence, the second jury is allowed to add her prior guilt to create a 80/20 finding of guilt.
Or put more simply still, a retrial on one count like this is inherently stacked against the defendant.
50/50 = not sure = not guilty.Put another way, if the first jury thought it was 50/50 that she was guilty of this crime on the evidence, the second jury is allowed to add her prior guilt to create a 80/20 finding of guilt.
Or put more simply still, a retrial on one count like this is inherently stacked against the defendant.
Interesting article about being sure: https://www.newlawjournal.co.uk/docs/default-sourc...
agtlaw said:
skwdenyer said:
Assuming the jury followed directions, in the second trial her prior convictions AIUI were material facts to be considered as a part of judging guilt.
Put another way, if the first jury thought it was 50/50 that she was guilty of this crime on the evidence, the second jury is allowed to add her prior guilt to create a 80/20 finding of guilt.
Or put more simply still, a retrial on one count like this is inherently stacked against the defendant.
50/50 = not sure = not guilty.Put another way, if the first jury thought it was 50/50 that she was guilty of this crime on the evidence, the second jury is allowed to add her prior guilt to create a 80/20 finding of guilt.
Or put more simply still, a retrial on one count like this is inherently stacked against the defendant.
agtlaw said:
Interesting article about being sure: https://www.newlawjournal.co.uk/docs/default-sourc...
Interesting is one word for it.The depressing thing is the idea that we feel the need to dumb down directions. Why? Surely we can explain to jurors? If they're mentally incapable of understanding a pretty simple discussion of reasonable doubt, how can they possibly be expected to weigh up, say, medico-scientific evidence?
skwdenyer said:
That was my point. At the first trial, the jury couldn't reach a verdict on this count. AIUI no new evidence has been introduced, but the jurors were directed that they could use her prior convictions to add weight to their belief in her guilt (or not).
Then I must have misunderstood your point. I thought you implied that 50/50 meant no verdict. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/j...
Bombshell Guardian article
"Dr Svilena Dimitrova, an NHS consultant neonatologist who is part of the government-appointed Ockenden review investigating deaths and harm allegedly caused to dozens of babies in Nottingham University NHS hospital trust, is one of five who the Guardian understands has approached the GMC in relation to evidence given by Evans. She said she took this step having been approached by multiple consultant neonatologists and paediatricians, and specialist neonatal nurses, who flagged up their concerns to her but were frightened to go public.
She said that in her opinion, “the theories proposed in court were not plausible and the prosecution was full of medical inaccuracies. I wasn’t there, so I can’t say Letby was innocent, but I can see no proof of guilt”."
" But the idea that injecting air into the stomach via a nasogastric tube could cause collapse leading to death was described as nonsensical or “rubbish”, “ridiculous”, “implausible” and “fantastical”, by eight separate expert clinicians who spoke to the Guardian, seven of them specialising in neonatology.
Several said it was not practically feasible. Nasogastric tubes are tiny; it would take several refills using the 10ml syringes on neonatal units to inject a significant quantity of air. Furthermore, it would leak out or the baby would burp or vomit it up, or pass it as wind, they said"
"In autumn 2016, after the royal college report, Dr Jane Hawdon, the lead consultant neonatologist at the Royal Free hospital in London, looked at the cluster of deaths and collapses. Her review did not look at all the clinical notes, but leaked documents seen by the Guardian suggest that in 13 of the cases Hawdon reviewed she found the babies had received suboptimal care and the “death/collapse is explained but may have been prevented with different care”."
"Roger Norwich, a medico-legal expert with an interest in paediatrics and newborns, has also made complaints to the GMC. He has put in a complaint about Evans, and has also put in a complaint about the second witness, Bohin. He said he thought both had failed to provide balanced, impartial views, instead giving the court “opinions that would not be supported by most doctors”. Both Dimitrova and Norwich said they had not yet received a response to their complaints from the GMC."
Bombshell Guardian article
"Dr Svilena Dimitrova, an NHS consultant neonatologist who is part of the government-appointed Ockenden review investigating deaths and harm allegedly caused to dozens of babies in Nottingham University NHS hospital trust, is one of five who the Guardian understands has approached the GMC in relation to evidence given by Evans. She said she took this step having been approached by multiple consultant neonatologists and paediatricians, and specialist neonatal nurses, who flagged up their concerns to her but were frightened to go public.
She said that in her opinion, “the theories proposed in court were not plausible and the prosecution was full of medical inaccuracies. I wasn’t there, so I can’t say Letby was innocent, but I can see no proof of guilt”."
" But the idea that injecting air into the stomach via a nasogastric tube could cause collapse leading to death was described as nonsensical or “rubbish”, “ridiculous”, “implausible” and “fantastical”, by eight separate expert clinicians who spoke to the Guardian, seven of them specialising in neonatology.
Several said it was not practically feasible. Nasogastric tubes are tiny; it would take several refills using the 10ml syringes on neonatal units to inject a significant quantity of air. Furthermore, it would leak out or the baby would burp or vomit it up, or pass it as wind, they said"
"In autumn 2016, after the royal college report, Dr Jane Hawdon, the lead consultant neonatologist at the Royal Free hospital in London, looked at the cluster of deaths and collapses. Her review did not look at all the clinical notes, but leaked documents seen by the Guardian suggest that in 13 of the cases Hawdon reviewed she found the babies had received suboptimal care and the “death/collapse is explained but may have been prevented with different care”."
"Roger Norwich, a medico-legal expert with an interest in paediatrics and newborns, has also made complaints to the GMC. He has put in a complaint about Evans, and has also put in a complaint about the second witness, Bohin. He said he thought both had failed to provide balanced, impartial views, instead giving the court “opinions that would not be supported by most doctors”. Both Dimitrova and Norwich said they had not yet received a response to their complaints from the GMC."
Edited by Jim748 on Tuesday 9th July 11:41
agtlaw said:
skwdenyer said:
That was my point. At the first trial, the jury couldn't reach a verdict on this count. AIUI no new evidence has been introduced, but the jurors were directed that they could use her prior convictions to add weight to their belief in her guilt (or not).
Then I must have misunderstood your point. I thought you implied that 50/50 meant no verdict. I listened to the podcast about the original trial (I think it was from the DailyMail) at the time and one thing that I found surprising was that when interviewing Dewi Evans I am sure he said he put his hand up/spoke to the NCA and put forward his services as an expert witness.
That just seems a bit off to me. I am not for a minute suggesting that there is some mega conspiracy going on here. It was just surprising to hear that's how it worked.
I understand a bit of it is probably just as innocuous as him being effectively self-employed and having to sell his services if he wants to work. It just feels like there is some vested financial interest to make a proper case of it. Assuming of course that they are well paid?
I'd have liked to think that expert witnesses would be selected in a manner more like how a jury is selected (although obviously needing the qualification/expertise in said area rather than being a random off the street).
That just seems a bit off to me. I am not for a minute suggesting that there is some mega conspiracy going on here. It was just surprising to hear that's how it worked.
I understand a bit of it is probably just as innocuous as him being effectively self-employed and having to sell his services if he wants to work. It just feels like there is some vested financial interest to make a proper case of it. Assuming of course that they are well paid?
I'd have liked to think that expert witnesses would be selected in a manner more like how a jury is selected (although obviously needing the qualification/expertise in said area rather than being a random off the street).
The judge at the original trial asked a jury of lay people to decide whether the medical evidence was reliable. This is where the trial went wrong imo. Had the jury consisted of suitable professionals. Then the comment might have been appropriate.
Now we have experts of neonatology and the relevant sciences coming forward, who could've been witnesses for her at the trial - she never had that, so are we happy justice has been done?
The originally autopsies found no suspicious circumstances. Proscecution witness says otherwise, higher qualified experts say he's wrong.
A jury of medical witnesses could've brought a more reliable conclussion to this tragic story
Now we have experts of neonatology and the relevant sciences coming forward, who could've been witnesses for her at the trial - she never had that, so are we happy justice has been done?
The originally autopsies found no suspicious circumstances. Proscecution witness says otherwise, higher qualified experts say he's wrong.
A jury of medical witnesses could've brought a more reliable conclussion to this tragic story
Edited by Jim748 on Tuesday 9th July 14:15
https://x.com/drphilhammond/status/181067921772351...
"Both @Telegraph
and @guardian
publish lengthy investigative pieces on how science and statistics were misrepresented during the trial of Lucy Letby, quoting numerous very credible experts. Next week, it’s the turn of @PrivateEyeNews
. Until we get the process of hearing the totality of scientific evidence right during criminal trials, there is a high risk we will get the wrong outcome. "
"Both @Telegraph
and @guardian
publish lengthy investigative pieces on how science and statistics were misrepresented during the trial of Lucy Letby, quoting numerous very credible experts. Next week, it’s the turn of @PrivateEyeNews
. Until we get the process of hearing the totality of scientific evidence right during criminal trials, there is a high risk we will get the wrong outcome. "
Jim748 said:
https://x.com/drphilhammond/status/181067921772351...
"Both @Telegraph
and @guardian
publish lengthy investigative pieces on how science and statistics were misrepresented during the trial of Lucy Letby, quoting numerous very credible experts. Next week, it’s the turn of @PrivateEyeNews
. Until we get the process of hearing the totality of scientific evidence right during criminal trials, there is a high risk we will get the wrong outcome. "
This link is from a good source. I’m intrigued by a new account making only 3 posts, all on this topic."Both @Telegraph
and @guardian
publish lengthy investigative pieces on how science and statistics were misrepresented during the trial of Lucy Letby, quoting numerous very credible experts. Next week, it’s the turn of @PrivateEyeNews
. Until we get the process of hearing the totality of scientific evidence right during criminal trials, there is a high risk we will get the wrong outcome. "
Jim748 said:
https://x.com/drphilhammond/status/181067921772351...
"Both @Telegraph
and @guardian
publish lengthy investigative pieces on how science and statistics were misrepresented during the trial of Lucy Letby, quoting numerous very credible experts. Next week, it’s the turn of @PrivateEyeNews
. Until we get the process of hearing the totality of scientific evidence right during criminal trials, there is a high risk we will get the wrong outcome. "
The same applies to the SPM convictions and the Post Office scandal."Both @Telegraph
and @guardian
publish lengthy investigative pieces on how science and statistics were misrepresented during the trial of Lucy Letby, quoting numerous very credible experts. Next week, it’s the turn of @PrivateEyeNews
. Until we get the process of hearing the totality of scientific evidence right during criminal trials, there is a high risk we will get the wrong outcome. "
Serial killer or miscarriage of justice?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/07/09/lucy-l...
Very interesting article.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/07/09/lucy-l...
Very interesting article.
Alickadoo said:
Serial killer or miscarriage of justice?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/07/09/lucy-l...
Very interesting article.
Well, if the Telegraph is publishing this, perhaps some of those rather vocal members of this thread will at least take a moment to read it? There's been rather too much in the way of attempts to shut down any suggestion of problems with this case, on the rather touching basis that officialdom is convinced she's guilty.https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/07/09/lucy-l...
Very interesting article.
Hopefully the legacy of the Post Office cases is that we start to look a little more dispassionately at some of these cases.
skwdenyer said:
Alickadoo said:
Serial killer or miscarriage of justice?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/07/09/lucy-l...
Very interesting article.
Well, if the Telegraph is publishing this, perhaps some of those rather vocal members of this thread will at least take a moment to read it? There's been rather too much in the way of attempts to shut down any suggestion of problems with this case, on the rather touching basis that officialdom is convinced she's guilty.https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/07/09/lucy-l...
Very interesting article.
Hopefully the legacy of the Post Office cases is that we start to look a little more dispassionately at some of these cases.
Those advocating the death penalty need to read this stuff.
skwdenyer said:
Well, if the Telegraph is publishing this, perhaps some of those rather vocal members of this thread will at least take a moment to read it? There's been rather too much in the way of attempts to shut down any suggestion of problems with this case, on the rather touching basis that officialdom is convinced she's guilty.
Hopefully the legacy of the Post Office cases is that we start to look a little more dispassionately at some of these cases.
You’re just as vocal as those you’re critical of, you just have an opposing opinion. Nobody on here has expressed the legal or scientific knowledge to back up their opinion either for or against and nor would they on here if they had it. Hopefully the legacy of the Post Office cases is that we start to look a little more dispassionately at some of these cases.
bad company said:
skwdenyer said:
Alickadoo said:
Serial killer or miscarriage of justice?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/07/09/lucy-l...
Very interesting article.
Well, if the Telegraph is publishing this, perhaps some of those rather vocal members of this thread will at least take a moment to read it? There's been rather too much in the way of attempts to shut down any suggestion of problems with this case, on the rather touching basis that officialdom is convinced she's guilty.https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/07/09/lucy-l...
Very interesting article.
Hopefully the legacy of the Post Office cases is that we start to look a little more dispassionately at some of these cases.
Those advocating the death penalty need to read this stuff.
https://evidencebasedjustice.exeter.ac.uk/miscarri...
thisnameistaken said:
skwdenyer said:
Well, if the Telegraph is publishing this, perhaps some of those rather vocal members of this thread will at least take a moment to read it? There's been rather too much in the way of attempts to shut down any suggestion of problems with this case, on the rather touching basis that officialdom is convinced she's guilty.
Hopefully the legacy of the Post Office cases is that we start to look a little more dispassionately at some of these cases.
You’re just as vocal as those you’re critical of, you just have an opposing opinion. Nobody on here has expressed the legal or scientific knowledge to back up their opinion either for or against and nor would they on here if they had it. Hopefully the legacy of the Post Office cases is that we start to look a little more dispassionately at some of these cases.
skwdenyer said:
thisnameistaken said:
skwdenyer said:
Well, if the Telegraph is publishing this, perhaps some of those rather vocal members of this thread will at least take a moment to read it? There's been rather too much in the way of attempts to shut down any suggestion of problems with this case, on the rather touching basis that officialdom is convinced she's guilty.
Hopefully the legacy of the Post Office cases is that we start to look a little more dispassionately at some of these cases.
You’re just as vocal as those you’re critical of, you just have an opposing opinion. Nobody on here has expressed the legal or scientific knowledge to back up their opinion either for or against and nor would they on here if they had it. Hopefully the legacy of the Post Office cases is that we start to look a little more dispassionately at some of these cases.
The point I’m making is that you’re on the exact same rocky ground as those you’re criticising, you just have an opposing view. It carries just the same weight as theirs though. There’s a very good reason there’s been so few opinions from actually qualified people on here.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff