Merged Concerns over baby killer ignored? / Nurse Lucy Letby killed babies in her care

[Matthew Best]

The matter at hand here is not 'Is it important?', it is whether it qualifies as a point of law on which to appeal.

No it isn't. When I'm making up MY mind about things, the matter at hand is NOT what the law says.

 

[The Common Potato]

@Vixen Imagine you, both then and now, are a member of the jury. That's what this thread is about.

 

[Vixen]

@Vixen Imagine you, both then and now, are a member of the jury. That's what this thread is about.

Imagine you see an advert for a new spread which says 'it tastes just like butter', interspersed with, 'people are rushing out to buy it - quick while stocks last!' This goes on day after day. Then, whilst out shopping you find yourself buying this spread. Do you understand you have been influenced manipulated by very sophisticated advertisers who have thrown a large budget into this? Now extrapolate that to Letby's PR Agency, Maltin. Letby doesn't have money, so who is behind this media push? Think about it. Cui bene? Could it be one of the NHS Trust executives who pocketed a couple of million quid in final pension before fleeing the UK to France and are now under police investigation for suspected gross negligence manslaughter for actively trying to cover up the crimes? Think about it. Do you really believe 'more and more' 'world-leading experts' are popping up every day, and that there are more and more 'mounting doubts' (as to the safety of the convictions)? Or are you being targetted by a sustained PR campaign? Which would you prefer, a dry well-ordered court of law or some two bit paid hack feeding your favourite news outlet with 'persuasion' and a hidden paid-for agenda, by shady characters, many of them not even British?

 

[Vixen]

No it isn't. When I'm making up MY mind about things, the matter at hand is NOT what the law says.

I don't like my tax code but who cares what I think about it. It's decided by HMRC. I am not sure why it could be decided any differently than by rule of law - Acts passed by Parliament. Ditto Criminal Law decides a case, with the safety net of appeals.

 

[catsmate]

Imagine you see an advert for a new spread which says 'it tastes just like butter', interspersed with, 'people are rushing out to buy it - quick while stocks last!' This goes on day after day. Then, whilst out shopping you find yourself buying this spread. Do you understand you have been influenced manipulated by very sophisticated advertisers who have thrown a large budget into this? Now extrapolate that to Letby's PR Agency, Maltin. Letby doesn't have money, so who is behind this media push? Think about it. Cui bene? Could it be one of the NHS Trust executives who pocketed a couple of million quid in final pension before fleeing the UK to France and are now under police investigation for suspected gross negligence manslaughter for actively trying to cover up the crimes? Think about it. Do you really believe 'more and more' 'world-leading experts' are popping up every day, and that there are more and more 'mounting doubts' (as to the safety of the convictions)? Or are you being targetted by a sustained PR campaign? Which would you prefer, a dry well-ordered court of law or some two bit paid hack feeding your favourite news outlet with 'persuasion' and a hidden paid-for agenda, by shady characters, many of them not even British?

What are these gibberings supposed to mean?

 

[Vixen]

What are these gibberings supposed to mean?

Read the post I was replying to.

 

[Matthew Best]

I don't like my tax code but who cares what I think about it. It's decided by HMRC. I am not sure why it could be decided any differently than by rule of law - Acts passed by Parliament. Ditto Criminal Law decides a case, with the safety net of appeals.

What is this gibbering supposed to mean?

 

[Elaedith]

What is this gibbering supposed to mean?

Social constructions of facts and truth are more comforting than reality.

 

[smartcooky]

I don't like my tax code but who cares what I think about it. It's decided by HMRC. I am not sure why it could be decided any differently than by rule of law - Acts passed by Parliament. Ditto Criminal Law decides a case, with the safety net of appeals.

 

[catsmate]

Read the post I was replying to.

I did. Your post had nothing to do with it

 

[Vixen]

What is this gibbering supposed to mean?

It means if you believe Letby might be a miscarriage of justice, you need to provide your reasoning instead of claiming your 'doubts' trump rule of law. The point being made is why would you think Fred down the road is equivalent to a jury's verdict?

 

[Vixen]

I did. Your post had nothing to do with it

Er, it was contrasting justice served according to well- established principles ~vs~ a paid influencer churning out 'doubts', i.e., you need to be aware of their hidden agenda (PR-sponsored, click bait, foreign interference, etc.,).

 

[Matthew Best]

It means if you believe Letby might be a miscarriage of justice, you need to provide your reasoning instead of claiming your 'doubts' trump rule of law. The point being made is why would you think Fred down the road is equivalent to a jury's verdict?

No, I don't. I can completely ignore the jury's verdict if I want to.

 

[jeremyp]

The matter at hand here is not 'Is it important?', it is whether it qualifies as a point of law on which to appeal.

No. That's only one aspect of what we are discussing. The more important question is "has there been a miscarriage of justice?" If the answer to that question is yes, it doesn't matter whether Letby has grounds for appeal, except that it offers a way to get her out of prison.

The Hindmarsh issue does not qualify under 'new evidence' as it was dealt with one way or another at the trial. No criminal trial ever knows about absolutely everything, nor does it need to. The only criteria is whether the jury is reasonably sure of guilt, which many erroneously take to mean 'absolutely sure no doubt whatsoever'.

You're getting confused again. It's clear that the jury was reasonably sure that Letby was guilty based on their understanding of the evidence they heard, Nobody is disputing that. However, they may not have heard all the evidence and they may have misinterpreted what they did hear. It's looking increasingly like this is the case.

If you have a fair hearing in front of twelve of your peers - persons who have sat through the entire hearing and deliberated with their fellow jurors - then I don't see how some guy in the street proclaiming they have a 'gut feeling' the verdict was wrong, because some hack said so in their newspaper column, trumps the jury's verdict.

Unfortunately, juries get the verdict wrong quite often, fore ll sorts of reasons. Somebody above wrote this:

Given you have a high chance of being found 'Not Guilty' by a jury of your peers (UK), who tend to empathize with the guy in the dock -

You can't claim Letby is definitely guilty because the jury said so whilst also claiming that juries can be unreliable.

Nobody here is claiming Letby is definitely innocent because of a gut feeling. They are looking at the evidence and coming to the conclusion that the conviction is unsafe.

 

[jeremyp]

Imagine you see an advert for a new spread which says 'it tastes just like butter', interspersed with, 'people are rushing out to buy it - quick while stocks last!' This goes on day after day. Then, whilst out shopping you find yourself buying this spread. Do you understand you have been influenced manipulated by very sophisticated advertisers who have thrown a large budget into this? Now extrapolate that to Letby's PR Agency, Maltin. Letby doesn't have money, so who is behind this media push? Think about it. Cui bene? Could it be one of the NHS Trust executives who pocketed a couple of million quid in final pension before fleeing the UK to France and are now under police investigation for suspected gross negligence manslaughter for actively trying to cover up the crimes? Think about it. Do you really believe 'more and more' 'world-leading experts' are popping up every day, and that there are more and more 'mounting doubts' (as to the safety of the convictions)? Or are you being targetted by a sustained PR campaign? Which would you prefer, a dry well-ordered court of law or some two bit paid hack feeding your favourite news outlet with 'persuasion' and a hidden paid-for agenda, by shady characters, many of them not even British?

But you and the jury have been manipulated by the prosecution in exactly the same way. Who benefits? Think about what it means for Letby's accusers if the babies were not murdered. It means the neonatal department they worked for had an unusually high mortality rate. What would that say about the doctors and administrators who ran it at the time?

See. We can play the conspiracy game both ways.

 

[Vixen]

No. That's only one aspect of what we are discussing. The more important question is "has there been a miscarriage of justice?" If the answer to that question is yes, it doesn't matter whether Letby has grounds for appeal, except that it offers a way to get her out of prison.



You're getting confused again. It's clear that the jury was reasonably sure that Letby was guilty based on their understanding of the evidence they heard, Nobody is disputing that. However, they may not have heard all the evidence and they may have misinterpreted what they did hear. It's looking increasingly like this is the case.



Unfortunately, juries get the verdict wrong quite often, fore ll sorts of reasons. Somebody above wrote this:



You can't claim Letby is definitely guilty because the jury said so whilst also claiming that juries can be unreliable.

Nobody here is claiming Letby is definitely innocent because of a gut feeling. They are looking at the evidence and coming to the conclusion that the conviction is unsafe.

Can I ask your thoughts on - say - the baby twins or baby triplets involved, one of whom is disabled for life and needing 24/7 care?

Had the judge ordered, say, Jessica and Holly remain anonymous, would there be a similar campaign to free Ian Huntley?

The problem for some members of the public, is a difficulty in sympathising with an intangible. In this case, the only name or photo it has is that Letby's* so there is scant compassion for her victims or bereaved families; not because they are horrid but because people are easily swayed by sophisticated PR campaigns.

*notandum : the judge ordered life-long anonymity for Letby's victims: no names, no photos.

 

[Vixen]

But you and the jury have been manipulated by the prosecution in exactly the same way. Who benefits? Think about what it means for Letby's accusers if the babies were not murdered. It means the neonatal department they worked for had an unusually high mortality rate. What would that say about the doctors and administrators who ran it at the time?

See. We can play the conspiracy game both ways.

I don't see how 'the jury was manipulated by the prosecution', when there were two trials, or maybe you think Peter Hitchens is more persuasive than a thousand-year old criminal justice system.

 

[smartcooky]

Dr Lee utterly shreds the statements made by Dr Hull and Dr Clarke in their podcast, in which they criticized Lee's group and paper for leaving out two references. One of reference was not actually left out (Hull and Clarke would have know this if they bothered to check the supplementary reference list). The other was deliberately left out because is was irrelevant to any of the cases in question, and Dr Lee explained why in this video.

Its 43 minutes, but if you are geniunely interested in the medical evidence that Dr Lee has debunked, its worth the time spent.

NOTE: Expect @Vixen to summarily dismiss this with without watching, and indulge in yet another round of evidence-free character assassination.

 

[Vixen]

Dr Lee utterly shreds the statements made by Dr Hull and Dr Clarke in their podcast, in which they criticized Lee's group and paper for leaving out two references. One of reference was not actually left out (Hull and Clarke would have know this if they bothered to check the supplementary reference list). The other was deliberately left out because is was irrelevant to any of the cases in question, and Dr Lee explained why in this video.

Its 43 minutes, but if you are geniunely interested in the medical evidence that Dr Lee has debunked, its worth the time spent.

NOTE: Expect @Vixen to summarily dismiss this with without watching, and indulge in yet another round of evidence-free character assassination.

Bless his heart (and yours).

 

[smartcooky]

Bless his heart (and yours).

Part one as expected.... now waiting for part two.