• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

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

catsmate said:
You don't have the slightest idea what 'sub-judice' means do you?
Click to expand...
Perhaps explain why the New York Times article was blocked* and Dr. Richard Gill was told he would be arrested if he turned up in the UK with his campaign during the trial.

*Yes, the silly article which was embarrassingly inaccurate and scientifically incorrect re insulin was blocked on UK search engines, yet you decided we should all read it here, having decided Letby was an MOJ before the trial had even concluded.
 
Elaedith said:
He is registered. He doesn't have a licence to practice because he is retired. Do you think people lose all their knowledge when they retire?
Click to expand...
Being a GP" doesn't give you any additional insight in a murder trial. He is paid to churn out 'investigative' stuff. He doesn't have the ability to determine guilt or innocence. For him, it's just an easy column to churn out.

"He is no longer registered in the UK.
 
Last edited:
Matthew Best said:
In that spirit, here's news that Letby has changed her legal team:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3d93kpkl83o

Her new barrister plans to take her case to the Criminal Cases Review Commission, whose Chairman was recently described as “unfit to fulfil her duties” by the Justice secretary, but who resisted calls to resign as a result of the failures in the Malkinson case.
Click to expand...
But, but, I thought MacDonald had a photo op last February (last year) outside the CCRC building saying he had delivered everything for urgent review. We discovered in December it was still waiting for Letby's waiver of privilege.
 
Last edited:
Roboramma said:
In a Bayesian sense, being convicted in a court of law is certainly evidence of guilt. But we all already know that.

When you're having a discussion about the possible miscarriage of justice, bringing up the fact that someone was convicted in a court of law isn't adding any new information.

And acting like it demonstrates guilt, which is what Vixen's statement was doing, is just wrong.
Click to expand...
No, this was in relation to JeremyP's hypothetical example. If a court finds you guilty based on a trial that's the legal situation. Just like the person named on your birth certificate is your legal father yet might not be in actual fact.
 
Vixen said:
Perhaps explain why the New York Times article was blocked* and Dr. Richard Gill was told he would be arrested if he turned up in the UK with his campaign during the trial.

*Yes, the silly article which was embarrassingly inaccurate and scientifically incorrect re insulin was blocked on UK search engines, yet you decided we should all read it here, having decided Letby was an MOJ before the trial had even concluded.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:
As I said, you don't know what you're talking about, as usual.
 
Vixen said:
Being a GP" doesn't give you any additional insight in a murder trial. He is paid to churn out 'investigative' stuff. He doesn't have the ability to determine guilt or innocence. For him, it's just an easy column to churn out.

"He is no longer registered in the UK.
Click to expand...
Then why are you bringing the matter up? Other than a puerile, and inaccurate, attempt at smearing hin.
 
Vixen said:
Being a GP" doesn't give you any additional insight in a murder trial. He is paid to churn out 'investigative' stuff. He doesn't have the ability to determine guilt or innocence. For him, it's just an easy column to churn out.

"He is no longer registered in the UK.
Click to expand...
What are your medical qualifications?
 
Vixen said:
So, Person A is accused of shooting Person B.

Person A denies it or that there was any murder.

Britain's top medical doctors and pathologists testify under gruelling cross-examination witnessed by a jury of twelve drawn randomly from the electoral register (i.e., Person A's peers). The expert medics all swear under oath Person B died of a gunshot wound.

Person A has their own defence experts listed to challenge this view. Person A instructs their top drawer silk not to let their experts take the witness box.

Having heard all of the evidence presented in the hearing - and ONLY in the hearing, not a columnist in PRIVATE EYE or a propagandist writing sub judice articles in foreign newspapers to get around the CONTEMPT OF COURT, or some bimbo MP with a crush on BoJo writing a column in a clickbait tabloid - the jury after weeks of deliberation comes to its verdict.

Let's stop being fanciful and start being factual.

The court appointed experts in the Letby case are UK top endocrinologists, haematologists et al.

A whole selection of defence experts were lined up. Letby INSTRUCTED BEN MYERS, KC., a top silk, not to call them.

We can infer they were not called because it would become glaringly obvious that either (a) they couldn't disagree with the other medics, or (b) they would be forced to admit under oath and cross examination that (i) the death/s was unnatural and unexpected or (ii) a third party killed or harmed the baby in question.

Failing to send the case back to trial, along comes a PR agency to flood the media with an 'innocence' campaign to prey on the people's sympathies and gullibility, like the scammers they are.

Retired Canadian Dr. Shoo Lee is a mountebank and actually announced he was rewriting his paper for the purpose of helping Letby to evade justice.
Click to expand...
Doctor Lee assembled a panel of world experts to review all of the cases in Letby's original trial (he did this after her appeal) and this panel of world experts couldn't find a single case where murder was indicated.

This was all in the video you didn't watch.
 
Vixen said:
No, this was in relation to JeremyP's hypothetical example. If a court finds you guilty based on a trial that's the legal situation. Just like the person named on your birth certificate is your legal father yet might not be in actual fact.
Click to expand...
You still haven't addressed that properly.

Yes if the court finds you guilty, you are guilty in the legal sense but the courts sometimes get it wrong and the fact that a guilty verdict has been wrongly delivered does not magically retrospectively make you commit the crime.
 
jeremyp said:
You still haven't addressed that properly.

Yes if the court finds you guilty, you are guilty in the legal sense but the courts sometimes get it wrong and the fact that a guilty verdict has been wrongly delivered does not magically retrospectively make you commit the crime.
Click to expand...

We're never going to get that through to her, even in words of one syllable. Absolute proof of innocence can be discovered, and still not be allowed as a ground of appeal, if the CCRC believes that that evidence was available to the defendant at the time of the trial. Or, as Vixen would say, you don't get another bite at the cherry.

This doesn't mean the person actually committed the crime.

(I think Prof Lee is facing the same difficulty I had, in that all the evidence he relies on was available at the time of the original trial, and what he is presenting is a new analysis. Which is why I'm interested to see where this one goes.)
 
jeremyp said:
You still haven't addressed that properly.

Yes if the court finds you guilty, you are guilty in the legal sense but the courts sometimes get it wrong and the fact that a guilty verdict has been wrongly delivered does not magically retrospectively make you commit the crime.
Click to expand...
Indeed. @Vixen clearly hasn't learned much from the Post Office scandal... almost a thousand people were "guilty in court" but they turned out be in effect framed by the Post Office, and they have since had their convictions thrown out. But in @Vixen's eyes, using her standard, they are still guilty.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom