Lucy Letby - innocent?

BRACES of Bristol - Sauer 100 XTA Stainless Package
Status
Not open for further replies.
GlennUK said:
Can you quote your source for this info?
Click to expand...
Have you not been watching any news or done any reading about the case ?
The lack of license or current experience was public knowledge a while back

Sir Dave David held a press conference two days ago , I’d look it up and have a watch
Mind blowing stuff actually
 
timbrayford said:
And need not bother with trials and juries either. Forgot about evidence, all you need is a handful of opinionated experts and its job done. But it does make you wonder why the letby defence didn't call them as witnesses doesn't it?
Click to expand...
They weren’t available as witnesses and were based abroad mostly.
This is basically a massive peer review to look into a possible miscarriage of justice
And they found it by the looks of it
 
Rake Aboot said:
They weren’t available as witnesses and were based abroad mostly.
This is basically a massive peer review to look into a possible miscarriage of justice
And they found it by the looks of it
Click to expand...
Or perhaps they just didn't fancy having their so called expertise being subject to expert cross examination? Irrelevant really as the evil bitch is banged up for life and no amount of whingeing by middle class do-gooders will make a jot of difference.
 
enfieldspares said:
No because the judge will apply reporting restrictions that the verdict be not made known. These are still obeyed in the UK. You will see many recent headlines saying that "the BBC can now reveal that at an earlier trial XXX's co-defendants Mr YYY and Mr ZZZ pleaded guilty and will now appear for sentence along with XXX".
Click to expand...
That is only the case when there is another charge or conviction of a similar nature that could create bias in the minds of the jury.
Each trial should be held independently of any other set of proceedings, as just because someone may have been charged with two similar offences, it doesn’t mean that they are guilty of either.
 
Rake Aboot said:
Have you not been watching any news or done any reading about the case ?
The lack of license or current experience was public knowledge a while back

Sir Dave David held a press conference two days ago , I’d look it up and have a watch
Mind blowing stuff actually
Click to expand...
Ive only read several articles none of the make the claims you do specifically, hence asking.
 
maximus otter said:
"To help guarantee a fair trial a defendant has the right to be provided with any material which could assist them in defending themselves. They have a right to an open and honest prosecution which reveals any weakness in the case against them. Investigators must pursue all reasonable lines of enquiry and this includes investigating matters which could point towards innocence as well as guilt.

When a defendant is charged with an offence, prosecutors are required to provide the defence with any material that undermines the case for the prosecution or assists the case for the defendant. This could be, for example, CCTV footage, statements from witnesses, mobile phone messages, social media conversations or photographs.

The CPS and the police have a duty to keep disclosure under review throughout the life of a case. If new material comes to light in the lead up to a trial, or during a trial, then that material will be reviewed by prosecutors who will determine if it has any impact on the proceedings.

Etc."

Disclosure | The Crown Prosecution Service

www.cps.gov.uk www.cps.gov.uk

maximus otter
Click to expand...
Correct.
However the jury still only hear what is presented to them. The prosecution and defence decide which material, from that in their possession, they decide to use/not use.
Besides every coin has two sides.
 
timbrayford said:
Or perhaps they just didn't fancy having their so called expertise being subject to expert cross examination? Irrelevant really as the evil bitch is banged up for life and no amount of whingeing by middle class do-gooders will make a jot of difference.
Click to expand...
this article explains how the Dr Lee became involved because one of his papers was relied upon by the prosecution.

he also offered to give evidence at the court of appeal.

www.bbc.co.uk

Lucy Letby did not murder babies, claim medical experts - BBC News

Former nurse Lucy Letby was convicted of murdering seven babies and trying to murder seven others.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk
 
Clearly there are a few people on here who believe that our judicial system is faultless..............
That Lucy Letby has been made a scapegoat for the failings of others is rapidly becoming a very strong possibility which needs to be re-examined.

D
 
timbrayford said:
Or perhaps they just didn't fancy having their so called expertise being subject to expert cross examination? Irrelevant really as the evil bitch is banged up for life and no amount of whingeing by middle class do-gooders will make a jot of difference.
Click to expand...
Yeh, probably not that though eh ?

Somehow I don’t think it will be irrelevant either.
 
This article gives a very good summary of the latest evidence. Key is that there are plenty of alternative conclusions that can be drawn.

www.theguardian.com

‘Strong reasonable doubt’ over Lucy Letby insulin convictions, experts say

Exclusive: ‘No scientific justification’ to say former nurse definitely poisoned babies with insulin, according to study authors
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com

Premature births are always going to be difficult. Go back to when most of us where born, very premature babies didn’t survive, and a bit premature where very much touch and go. I have a cousin born at 7 1/2 months who survived for about 10 days. My grandfather was a leading paediatric specialist at the time and even he had no ability to do very much.

A neighbour had a wee boy at just over 7months last year. With a lot of intense medical care over a two month post birth period he was discharged and is now growing well.

There is huge difference between knowingly doing harm, or simply that those in the Cheshire hospital were under trained, under skilled and under resourced.
 
Listened to a expert explaining what you would expect to find if they had been killed with a overdose of insulin, none of the markers were there, not his opinion but a fact, this case reminds me of the post office scandal, all the evidence presented, proved they were guilty. As to the notes written by her, completely taken out of context as any decent psychologist would point out, you are encouraged to write down what you think you may have done, how you feel other people think about you, what you think other people think you have done.
As to the jury finding her guilty, emotions were used by the prosecutor, having sat on a difficult nasty case of abuse, where 3 of the jury were utterly convinced that the child was a no good from a bad family and obviously lying, due to the defence ridiculing the family it was only after we asked why the partner of the accused was not giving evidence? The judge said this was not a question we could ask, we found him guilty with a majority, we were told after the conviction by the judge that the accused had been released from jail after serving 7yrs for another offence, and his partner was in jail having pleaded guilty for this offence. Jury’s are not infallible.
 
Rake Aboot said:
Another judge contacted the trial judge at the time expressing concerns about Dewi and his lack of credentials
It was decided to continue using him .
All this info is freely available
Click to expand...
as i said, what you posted was not found in the articles i read. If you cannot substantiate your comments, that isnt an issue, it just helps to be specific.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Our passion is your passion... stalk with us!
Back
Top