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

[catsmate]

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

Exactly.

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).

The evidence against Huntley has stood up to scrutiny. The evidence against Letby has not.

 

[catsmate]

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.

As has been pointed out by others, this is ignorant rubbish, simply not true.

 

[Vixen]

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.

Ok my bad. I didn't follow the Shipman trial.

 

[Rolfe]

Ok my bad. I didn't follow the Shipman trial.

That's not the point. The point is your propensity to state anything that comes into your head as fact without any care at all for truth or accuracy.

 

[Vixen]

That's not the point. The point is your propensity to state anything that comes into your head as fact without any care at all for truth or accuracy.

Not so. If you look at the OP's of which I am one (see post #15) - merged thread - you can see I followed the trial from the start. I notice most people who believe it is an MOJ got their info from a woman called Slivena, who wrote a long article for NY Times trying to influence the case whilst it was under sub judice, Private Eye or the appearance of Dr Shoo Lee, who is part of Macdonald's defence team.

The claim by a poster that this is a thread for arguing innocence is simply not correct.

 

[jeremyp]

Can I ask why you think Huntley's conviction is sound but Letby's not?

Because the evidence in Letby's case is deeply flawed. In fact, if you watch the video that was posted earlier, you'll see that there isn't really any evidence that any murder was committed.

After all, there is hard scientific evidence in the Letby case.

Watch the video. The so called hard scientific evidence is fatally flawed.

For example, the insulin applied to two babies is DEFINITELY synthetic, no two ways about it.

I'd it? What's your evidence for that?

Huntley's conviction is entirely 'circumstantial'

If you count his own admission that he killed the girls but claiming he did it accidentally as "circumstantial".

: - a term pro-LL claim as being proof a 'guilty' verdict cannot be sound.

Nope. That's a straw man. People are claiming that the evidence does not clear the bar of reasonable doubt.

Huntley claims the girls both died by accident. Yet strangely there is no campaign to overturn his conviction.

Because nobody believes him.

Anyway, if you want to discuss your theory that Ian Huntley didn't do the Soham murders, please start a new thread to discuss it and stop polluting this one. It is irrelevant.

 

[catsmate]

That's not the point. The point is your propensity to state anything that comes into your head as fact without any care at all for truth or accuracy.

This.

 

[jeremyp]

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.

So your opinion is that the British justice system is fallible.

Next question. Please treat the following scenario as entirely hypothetical and be honest with your answer.

Suppose you are on trial for murder. During the trial, a newspaper publishes a letter from somebody who saw you two hundred miles away from the scene of the crime at the moment you were supposed to be committing the murder. Your defence counsel fails to call them as a witness and you get convicted. Their evidence is disallowed at your appeal because it was available at the time of your original trial.

Does that make you guilty of the crime?

 

[zooterkin]

Ok my bad. I didn't follow the Shipman trial.

Then perhaps you should have thought twice before you stated categorically that he wasn't convicted of anything?

 

[Vixen]

Because the evidence in Letby's case is deeply flawed. In fact, if you watch the video that was posted earlier, you'll see that there isn't really any evidence that any murder was committed.


Watch the video. The so called hard scientific evidence is fatally flawed.


I'd it? What's your evidence for that?


If you count his own admission that he killed the girls but claiming he did it accidentally as "circumstantial".


Nope. That's a straw man. People are claiming that the evidence does not clear the bar of reasonable doubt.


Because nobody believes him.

Anyway, if you want to discuss your theory that Ian Huntley didn't do the Soham murders, please start a new thread to discuss it and stop polluting this one. It is irrelevant.

No, you missed the point, which is the popular Letby-supporter canard 'it's circumstantial' implying it was all guesswork is flawed. I was using an EXAMPLE where it was even more 'circumstantial' - so to speak - as to why that is misconceived. It is certainly nothing to do with the pros and cons about other cases such as Shipman but to illustrate how evidence is weighed and a verdict reached. This comes in because the Letby-supporters keep bringing up Lucia de Berk and even - astonishingly - the Birmingham Six or the Guildford Four, as if that proves Criminal Law in England & Wales is fatally flawed. I for one am a great advocate for looking at the cold objective facts of THIS case and how and why the jury (x 2) reached their verdicts, plus the two Court of Appeals, one of which heard Dr. Shoo Lee in person, legal experts trained to be coldly objective, who rejected both. So now it is at the CCRC, good luck with that.

 

[Darat]

Who are these "Letby-suppoters" - are any in the room with us now?

 

[Vixen]

So your opinion is that the British justice system is fallible.

Next question. Please treat the following scenario as entirely hypothetical and be honest with your answer.

Suppose you are on trial for murder. During the trial, a newspaper publishes a letter from somebody who saw you two hundred miles away from the scene of the crime at the moment you were supposed to be committing the murder. Your defence counsel fails to call them as a witness and you get convicted. Their evidence is disallowed at your appeal because it was available at the time of your original trial.

Does that make you guilty of the crime?

What you are describing there is similar to the campaign to get the so-called A6 killer, James Hanratty, a posthumous pardon on the grounds a bed and breakfast landlady affirmed he was elsewhere. Hanratty was convicted and hanged because the jury believed the testimony of the girlfriend of the murdered victim - left disabled for life - who identified Hanratty in an ID parade. Years later as a result of the campaigning - not dissimilar to this one - his body was exhumed and his DNA matched to the murder scene. Now Paul Foot - who wrote a book on it - believed to his death the DNA was flawed. But I believe the surviving victim. Victims of crime deserve justice and in my view it would be a great travesty of justice for a heinous serial killer of children, such as Letby, to get off on some cooked up 'legal technicality' just because of some obscure sentimental notion.

 

[Vixen]

Who are these "Letby-suppoters" - are any in the room with us now?

Oh well, if it's going to descend into the usual insult throwing, I am out.

 

[jeremyp]

No, you missed the point, which is the popular Letby-supporter canard 'it's circumstantial' implying it was all guesswork is flawed.

But the Letby supporters are not claiming the evidence is flawed because it is circumstantial. They are claiming it is flawed because there are deep problems with it. For example, the symptoms which were claimed to imply the babies had air embolisms are often not indicative of air embolisms. Take that away and there is no evidence that those babies were murdered.

I was using an EXAMPLE where it was even more 'circumstantial' - so to speak - as to why that is misconceived.

The evidence in the other cases you mentioned was actually pretty strong, circumstantial or not. And they are irrelevant. In this thread we are talking about Lucy Letby. Not Harold Shipman. Not Ian Huntley. The doubters opinions on those other cases is not important.

It is certainly nothing to do with the pros and cons about other cases such as Shipman but to illustrate how evidence is weighed and a verdict reached. This comes in because the Letby-supporters keep bringing up Lucia de Berk and even - astonishingly - the Birmingham Six or the Guildford Four, as if that proves Criminal Law in England & Wales is fatally flawed. I for one am a great advocate for looking at the cold objective facts of THIS case and how and why the jury (x 2) reached their verdicts, plus the two Court of Appeals, one of which heard Dr. Shoo Lee in person, legal experts trained to be coldly objective, who rejected both. So now it is at the CCRC, good luck with that.

Shoo Lee's evidence was never heard by the court. It was deemed inadmissible due to a legal technicality. It should have been allowed in the moral sense, if not in the British legal sense because it shows Letby's conviction was unsafe.

Really: Watch. The. Video.

 

[Mojo]

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.

Ok my bad. I didn't follow the Shipman trial.

That's not the point. The point is your propensity to state anything that comes into your head as fact without any care at all for truth or accuracy.

Not so. If you look at the OP's of which I am one (see post #15) - merged thread - you can see I followed the trial from the start.

Another point is your propensity to forget what is being discussed.

 

[Darat]

Oh well, if it's going to descend into the usual insult throwing, I am out.

You seem to be out of evidence.

 

[jeremyp]

What you are describing there is similar to the campaign to get the so-called A6 killer, James Hanratty, a posthumous pardon on the grounds a bed and breakfast landlady affirmed he was elsewhere. Hanratty was convicted and hanged because the jury believed the testimony of the girlfriend of the murdered victim - left disabled for life - who identified Hanratty in an ID parade. Years later as a result of the campaigning - not dissimilar to this one - his body was exhumed and his DNA matched to the murder scene. Now Paul Foot - who wrote a book on it - believed to his death the DNA was flawed. But I believe the surviving victim. Victims of crime deserve justice and in my view it would be a great travesty of justice for a heinous serial killer of children, such as Letby, to get off on some cooked up 'legal technicality' just because of some obscure sentimental notion.

I said treat the case as entirely hypothetical and then answer the question. I did not ask you to bring up other cases. Do you think the inadmissibility on a technicality of the testimony of a witness who can alibi you makes you guilty? Yes or no?

[edited to add "in" to "admissibility"]

 

[Vixen]

But the Letby supporters are not claiming the evidence is flawed because it is circumstantial. They are claiming it is flawed because there are deep problems with it. For example, the symptoms which were claimed to imply the babies had air embolisms are often not indicative of air embolisms. Take that away and there is no evidence that those babies were murdered.


The evidence in the other cases you mentioned was actually pretty strong, circumstantial or not. And they are irrelevant. In this thread we are talking about Lucy Letby. Not Harold Shipman. Not Ian Huntley. The doubters opinions on those other cases is not important.


Shoo Lee's evidence was never heard by the court. It was deemed inadmissible due to a legal technicality. It should have been allowed in the moral sense, if not in the British legal sense because it shows Letby's conviction was unsafe.

Really: Watch. The. Video.

Shoo-Lee was heard by zoom in front of the Appeal Court panel. You can search this thread or Google to read the written judgment for yourself as to why it rejected his arguments.

 

[Vixen]

I said treat the case as entirely hypothetical and then answer the question. I did not ask you to bring up other cases. Do you think the admissibility of the testimony of a witness who can alibi you on a technicality makes you guilty? Yes or no?

It needs to reach the legal criteria ceteris paribus of (a) is it new evidence, i.e., not known of as of the time of the trial AND does it (b) reach the criteria of having the threshold of a reasonable prospect of success in changing the verdict. In addition, under police caution you are warned that what you later rely on in court can be used against you, so if you can't be bothered to inform the police of your alibi as of the time of the crime, why is it someone else's fault?

 

[Vixen]

You seem to be out of evidence.

Please explain.