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

[catsmate]

Bless his heart (and yours).

So you're not going to bother to address the facts as usual........

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

The reasons to look at Letby the assumptions behind those investigations, were predicated in faulty statistics.

And the allegations of two doctors who had been previously censured when allegations they made against her to the regulatory bodies were found to be false.

This case stunk fron day one.

 

[The Common Potato]

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?

Chomsky's book is on my Amazon list so I suppose you're not totally wrong. Seriously, what are you on about? Legal errors are relatively easy to correct on appeal, evidential errors less so.

 

[jeremyp]

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?

How does it help that person to keep Letby in prison if she is not guilty?

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

There wouldn't, because there is (as far as I am aware) no question but that the right verdict was reached in Huntley's case*.

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.

The people who want to free Letby do so because they believe her conviction to be unsound, not because they don't have sufficient empathy with the victims and their families.

I think you should perhaps stop poisoning the well.

* also he is dead.

 

[jeremyp]

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.

Is it you opinion that our justice system is infallible?

 

[Rolfe]

Is it you opinion that our justice system is infallible?

We've been round this before in this forum. More than one poster has declared that miscarriages of justice are rare, therefore any random case is very unlikely to be a miscarriage of justice, so it is reasonable to presume that any case raised in the forum is vanishingly unlikely to be a miscarriage of justice, therefore those who are suggesting that it might be may be safely mocked and ridiculed as conspiracy theorists without anyone needing to trouble themselves examining the evidence. The fallacy there should be pretty self-evident.

People look at the evidence, and make up their minds. It's perfectly possible for a single person to believe that David Gilroy* is guilty beyond reasonable doubt, while believing that Luke Mitchell is innocent beyond reasonable doubt, based on the actual evidence. If you've read it. There's no cookie-cutter conclusion that's applicable to all cases. The fact is that the cases people choose to highlight will be the ones where there is a reasonable case to be made that there has been a miscarriage of justice. Nobody is proposing that in cases like Ian Huntley or Harold Shipman. Bayesian theory, people.

* My interest in Gilroy began with a question mark over his guilt, but close examination of the evidence convinced me that he did it. Interest in the case remains because of the puzzle as to where and how he disposed of his victim's body.

 

[zooterkin]

Well, I was quite prepared to believe that Letby was guilty, based on the coverage in the media at the time. The advocacy of at least one member here has led me to believe that she could actually be innocent.

 

[jeremyp]

Bless his heart (and yours).

Please watch the video. You might be educated.

 

[Rolfe]

Well, I was quite prepared to believe that Letby was guilty, based on the coverage in the media at the time. The advocacy of at least one member here has led me to believe that she could actually be innocent.

And that's how critical thinking ought to work.

 

[catsmate]

We've been round this before in this forum. More than one poster has declared that miscarriages of justice are rare, therefore any random case is very unlikely to be a miscarriage of justice, so it is reasonable to presume that any case raised in the forum is vanishingly unlikely to be a miscarriage of justice, therefore those who are suggesting that it might be may be safely mocked and ridiculed as conspiracy theorists without anyone needing to trouble themselves examining the evidence. The fallacy there should be pretty self-evident.

People look at the evidence, and make up their minds. It's perfectly possible for a single person to believe that David Gilroy* is guilty beyond reasonable doubt, while believing that Luke Mitchell is innocent beyond reasonable doubt, based on the actual evidence. If you've read it. There's no cookie-cutter conclusion that's applicable to all cases. The fact is that the cases people choose to highlight will be the ones where there is a reasonable case to be made that there has been a miscarriage of justice. Nobody is proposing that in cases like Ian Huntley or Harold Shipman. Bayesian theory, people.

* My interest in Gilroy began with a question mark over his guilt, but close examination of the evidence convinced me that he did it. Interest in the case remains because of the puzzle as to where and how he disposed of his victim's body.

Indeed.
I believe, based on the evidence, Bamber is guilty.
I believe that Garbutt is probably innocent, and at least the conviction is deeply flawed.
I believe that most of the deaths that Letby was convicted of were not intentional acts by anyone.
There are nuances.

 

[Vixen]

How does it help that person to keep Letby in prison if she is not guilty?



There wouldn't, because there is (as far as I am aware) no question but that the right verdict was reached in Huntley's case*.


The people who want to free Letby do so because they believe her conviction to be unsound, not because they don't have sufficient empathy with the victims and their families.

I think you should perhaps stop poisoning the well.

* also he is dead.

Can I ask why you think Huntley's conviction is sound but Letby's not? After all, there is hard scientific evidence in the Letby case. For example, the insulin applied to two babies is DEFINITELY synthetic, no two ways about it. Huntley's conviction is entirely 'circumstantial' : - a term pro-LL claim as being proof a 'guilty' verdict cannot be sound. Huntley claims the girls both died by accident. Yet strangely there is no campaign to overturn his conviction.

 

[Vixen]

Is it you opinion that our justice system is infallible?

My opinion is that we have a justice system by which studies show that persons pleading 'not guilty' have a fair chance of getting acquitted. The police and CPS have no right to appeal (except around protocol issues). So a jury verdict is final. The Court of Appeal exists because to err is human. I am not sure what the alternative system is. Perhaps let a disgruntled ex-NHS nurse write a 4,000 word article for New York Times and let the tabloid reading public decide.

 

[Vixen]

Indeed.
I believe, based on the evidence, Bamber is guilty.
I believe that Garbutt is probably innocent, and at least the conviction is deeply flawed.
I believe that most of the deaths that Letby was convicted of were not intentional acts by anyone.
There are nuances.

I don't know whether Garbutt is innocent or guilty but I do believe he had an unfair trial.

 

[Rolfe]

Indeed.
I believe, based on the evidence, Bamber is guilty.
I believe that Garbutt is probably innocent, and at least the conviction is deeply flawed.
I believe that most of the deaths that Letby was convicted of were not intentional acts by anyone.
There are nuances.

Exactly.

 

[catsmate]

Can I ask why you think Huntley's conviction is sound but Letby's not? After all, there is hard scientific evidence in the Letby case. For example, the insulin applied to two babies is DEFINITELY synthetic, no two ways about it. Huntley's conviction is entirely 'circumstantial' : - a term pro-LL claim as being proof a 'guilty' verdict cannot be sound. Huntley claims the girls both died by accident. Yet strangely there is no campaign to overturn his conviction.

As has already been discussed, this is wrong.

 

[The Common Potato]

Circumstantial evidence can be very powerful. Depending...

If, for example, my fingerprints were found in my burgled neighbour's home, and if I visited regularly, then that's not too useful. If, however, I maintained that I never have ben inside my other neighbour's home - the residence where the brutal killing occurred - my fingerprints there would certainly point the police in my direction.

The above examples are hypothetical, m'lud.

 

[LondonJohn]

Circumstantial evidence can be very powerful. Depending...

If, for example, my fingerprints were found in my burgled neighbour's home, and if I visited regularly, then that's not too useful. If, however, I maintained that I never have ben inside my other neighbour's home - the residence where the brutal killing occurred - my fingerprints there would certainly point the police in my direction.

The above examples are hypothetical, m'lud.

Indeed.

And may I take the chance once again to point out (since Vixen at least appears still not to understand the matter) that circumstantial evidence is ALL evidence EXCEPT for 1) a confession by the accused; 2) an eyewitness who saw the actual crime being committed; or 3) an audio/video recording of the actual crime being committed.

A person saying they saw the accused running away from the pub covered in blood, shouting "Where can I hide this knife?!", is circumstantial evidence.

All DNA and blood evidence is circumstantial evidence.

All fingerprint evidence is circumstantial evidence.

Both Letby's and Huntley's trials were entirely based on circumstantial evidence. Almost by definition, most cases with reliable (important word, obv) direct evidence never even get to trial, since the prosecution should in essence clearly have all it requires for a conviction, and it's therefore in the defendant's best interests to plead guilty pre-trial.

But... there are strong circumstantial cases and weak circumstantial cases. In Huntley's trial it was quite clearly a very strong (circumstantial) case indeed, taking into account all the evidence - including, critically, unequivocal autopsy evidence which contradicted Huntley's story = and Huntley's own shifting claims. In Letby's trials, the (circumstantial) evidence appeared compelling as it was presented and cross-examined at the time of the trials. It's what's been discovered since the conviction that has raised significant red flags.

My own view on Letby is that she may well be innocent of some if not all of the deaths, and that she might well fall short of the BARD standard on all of the deaths. If the case were tried for the first time today, that is. The problem is, appellate courts tend not to look favourably on "new" evidence which (in the courts' view) ought to have been in existence and presentable at the original trial. So my own view is that unfortunately for Letby - unless some very significant piece of genuinely new (and previously unknowable) evidence comes to light - her prospects look somewhat dim.

 

[Vixen]

Indeed.

And may I take the chance once again to point out (since Vixen at least appears still not to understand the matter) that circumstantial evidence is ALL evidence EXCEPT for 1) a confession by the accused; 2) an eyewitness who saw the actual crime being committed; or 3) an audio/video recording of the actual crime being committed.

A person saying they saw the accused running away from the pub covered in blood, shouting "Where can I hide this knife?!", is circumstantial evidence.

All DNA and blood evidence is circumstantial evidence.

All fingerprint evidence is circumstantial evidence.

Both Letby's and Huntley's trials were entirely based on circumstantial evidence. Almost by definition, most cases with reliable (important word, obv) direct evidence never even get to trial, since the prosecution should in essence clearly have all it requires for a conviction, and it's therefore in the defendant's best interests to plead guilty pre-trial.

But... there are strong circumstantial cases and weak circumstantial cases. In Huntley's trial it was quite clearly a very strong (circumstantial) case indeed, taking into account all the evidence - including, critically, unequivocal autopsy evidence which contradicted Huntley's story = and Huntley's own shifting claims. In Letby's trials, the (circumstantial) evidence appeared compelling as it was presented and cross-examined at the time of the trials. It's what's been discovered since the conviction that has raised significant red flags.

My own view on Letby is that she may well be innocent of some if not all of the deaths, and that she might well fall short of the BARD standard on all of the deaths. If the case were tried for the first time today, that is. The problem is, appellate courts tend not to look favourably on "new" evidence which (in the courts' view) ought to have been in existence and presentable at the original trial. So my own view is that unfortunately for Letby - unless some very significant piece of genuinely new (and previously unknowable) evidence comes to light - her prospects look somewhat dim.

Of course I know all or almost all evidence is circumstantial, including scientific forensics. I was mimicking Letby supporters who claim they have doubts because 'it was circumstantial' or 'no-one saw her do it!'. No-one saw Huntley do it either. I mention Huntley because piecing together what we DO know, i.e., the girls WERE at his house and bits of Man U football shirt fabrics were found in a bin accessible to him, as school caretaker, plus his shifty behaviour. None on their own prove anything yet, yet we are all sure beyond reasonable doubt he did it and probably did CSA given we later discovered he had been accused of rape in the past and faked his CV.

Think about it. Huntley killed two children. Letby killed at least seven, and police believe several more. The claim, oh she might not have killed all of them is moot because Shipman - and again, no-one doubts he did it despite never being convicted (he committed suicide) - literally killed hundreds but police didn't need to dig up every single body.

Anyway the Thirlwell Report is due to be completed and warning letters sent to the individuals who turned a blind eye.

 

[LondonJohn]

Of course I know all or almost all evidence is circumstantial, including scientific forensics. I was mimicking Letby supporters who claim they have doubts because 'it was circumstantial' or 'no-one saw her do it!'. No-one saw Huntley do it either. I mention Huntley because piecing together what we DO know, i.e., the girls WERE at his house and bits of Man U football shirt fabrics were found in a bin accessible to him, as school caretaker, plus his shifty behaviour. None on their own prove anything yet, yet we are all sure beyond reasonable doubt he did it and probably did CSA given we later discovered he had been accused of rape in the past and faked his CV.

Think about it. Huntley killed two children. Letby killed at least seven, and police believe several more. The claim, oh she might not have killed all of them is moot because Shipman - and again, no-one doubts he did it despite never being convicted (he committed suicide) - literally killed hundreds but police didn't need to dig up every single body.

Anyway the Thirlwell Report is due to be completed and warning letters sent to the individuals who turned a blind eye.

Two entirely different cases, needing to be taken strictly on their own merits and evidence sets.

Like I said, the totality of the (solely circumstantial) evidence in Huntley's case indicated a certainty of guilt. And the evidence which convicted him was sound, reliable and unchallenged (and mostly unchallengable).

In Letby's case, however, there now seems to be - at the very least - some real and substantial ambiguity over at least some of her convictions, leading to a more generalised view that Letby perhaps was not the "angel death" mass murderer as found by the convicting court. As I said though, I don't much fancy her chances of a referral to appeal.

Oh and "Think about it"?! LMAO

(And by the way, Shipman was convicted of several of his murders and was handed a whole-life tariff sentence. He took his own life in his prison cell.)

 

[Rolfe]

Shipman - and again, no-one doubts he did it despite never being convicted (he committed suicide)

Shipman was very definitely convicted of fifteen murders, though they were by way of being specimen charges. He was sentenced to multiple life terms. It was four years into his sentence when he committed suicide.

Vixen, when you reveal your poor grasp of well-known facts, easily verifiable facts like that, you simply underline that not a word of anything you say with such certainty and conviction can be trusted.