|
Post by lawrieleslie on Sept 6, 2024 8:35:49 GMT
Getting dodgier by the day this conviction. It’s too high profile to go down as a miscarriage of justice Or If she gets out because the conviction is unsafe the parents will still believe she did it. It’s impossible to put yourself in the dreadful position of a parent of one of the babies that died. But I’m pretty sure if it was me I’d want a safe & truthful outcome of any trial. I feel very sorry for the affected parents but if Lucy Letby is innocent then her wrongful whole life incarceration transcends the current plight of the parents imo.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Sept 6, 2024 12:07:18 GMT
Police had wrongly thought that the swipe data showed nurses leaving the neonatal unit and going into the labour ward, when in fact they were returning to the neonatal unit.
This is utterly staggering incompetence in a trial of such magnitude.
Virtually beyond comprehension ...
I wouldn't trust that TV Doctor or the other senior practitioner as far as I could throw them. There are most certainly some people on the inside who have tried to point the finger at Lucy. Whether that's for self preservation or pressure from elsewhere I'm not too sure. But it's been a co-erced effort in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by spitthedog on Sept 6, 2024 15:18:18 GMT
This conviction has sent shivers down me ever since I read up on the way the case was handled.
Appalling. It reads like a 16th century witch trial.
|
|
|
Post by Ariel Manto on Sept 6, 2024 21:01:18 GMT
Police had wrongly thought that the swipe data showed nurses leaving the neonatal unit and going into the labour ward, when in fact they were returning to the neonatal unit. This is utterly staggering incompetence in a trial of such magnitude. Virtually beyond comprehension ...
The CPS decided to proceed based on the evidence, NOT the Police.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Sept 7, 2024 9:36:34 GMT
This is utterly staggering incompetence in a trial of such magnitude. Virtually beyond comprehension ...
The CPS decided to proceed based on the evidence, NOT the Police. The CPS acted on the (completely and very significantly) wrong evidence that the police supplied them with.
|
|
|
Post by numpty40 on Sept 7, 2024 22:56:44 GMT
The jury listened to ten months of evidence and not a snapshot of sensationalist headlines. The jury at the second trial were fully aware of the supposed 'wrong evidence' yet still convicted Letby. An appeal has also failed. In the absence of forensic proof there will always be doubts about a conviction based on circumstantial evidence. The original jury, after hearing all the evidence over ten months convicted her and I'm absolutely sure that they wouldn't have made that decision lightly.
|
|
|
Post by Ariel Manto on Sept 8, 2024 18:47:33 GMT
The jury listened to ten months of evidence and not a snapshot of sensationalist headlines. The jury at the second trial were fully aware of the supposed 'wrong evidence' yet still convicted Letby. An appeal has also failed. In the absence of forensic proof there will always be doubts about a conviction based on circumstantial evidence. The original jury, after hearing all the evidence over ten months convicted her and I'm absolutely sure that they wouldn't have made that decision lightly. Agree. Unless the Defence KC Myers (or someone else for that matter) puts forward a comprehensive case to the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) everything everyone else says about it is just nonsense ranting from the same conspiracy theorists who blame immigration for all of societies ills.
|
|
|
Post by AlbertTatlock on Sept 8, 2024 21:13:03 GMT
This could turn into Barry Bulsara MKII Gouranga.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Sept 9, 2024 6:59:05 GMT
The jury listened to ten months of evidence and not a snapshot of sensationalist headlines. The jury at the second trial were fully aware of the supposed 'wrong evidence' yet still convicted Letby. An appeal has also failed. In the absence of forensic proof there will always be doubts about a conviction based on circumstantial evidence. The original jury, after hearing all the evidence over ten months convicted her and I'm absolutely sure that they wouldn't have made that decision lightly. cant fault the jury, plus human nature suggests that there is no way the second trial could not be predjudiced by the first trial The CPS decided to proceed based on the evidence, NOT the Police. The CPS acted on the (completely and very significantly) wrong evidence that the police supplied them with.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Sept 9, 2024 7:10:26 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Rick Grimes on Sept 9, 2024 8:31:09 GMT
I’ve seen the examples of dodgy evidence but I’m still far from convinced that this is a wrongful conviction at this point. A large part of the 10 month trial was spent proving that the 7 deaths in the Letby case were unnatural, which means it is either homicide, suicide or an accident. I know medical and other experts have expressed concerns over the potential causes of death but they cannot have had access to all of the relevant evidence in the case. The jury cleared her of two counts and couldn’t agree on a further 5 with a total of 110 hours deliberating. This podcast by journalists who were fully present at the trial pull apart concerns raised by one of the statisticians asking for an unsafe conviction, who evidently knows next to nothing about the case. podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/the-trial-of-lucy-letby-the-inquiry/id1711621408The court of appeal judgement shows the defence consulted many experts and had access to expert advice but ultimately chose not to call any evidence.
|
|
|
Post by Rick Grimes on Sept 9, 2024 8:45:03 GMT
The CPS decided to proceed based on the evidence, NOT the Police. The CPS acted on the (completely and very significantly) wrong evidence that the police supplied them with. The evidence in its entirety has not been proven to be completely and very significantly wrong though has it.
|
|
|
Post by Rick Grimes on Sept 9, 2024 8:51:26 GMT
The jury listened to ten months of evidence and not a snapshot of sensationalist headlines. The jury at the second trial were fully aware of the supposed 'wrong evidence' yet still convicted Letby. An appeal has also failed. In the absence of forensic proof there will always be doubts about a conviction based on circumstantial evidence. The original jury, after hearing all the evidence over ten months convicted her and I'm absolutely sure that they wouldn't have made that decision lightly. cant fault the jury, plus human nature suggests that there is no way the second trial could not be predjudiced by the first trial The CPS acted on the (completely and very significantly) wrong evidence that the police supplied them with. The more I’ve looked into it the less I’m convinced Letby has been wrongfully convicted.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Sept 9, 2024 9:28:18 GMT
The CPS acted on the (completely and very significantly) wrong evidence that the police supplied them with. The evidence in its entirety has not been proven to be completely and very significantly wrong though has it. The specific piece we were discussing has, God knows where you got the word 'entirety' from, if you actually read what has been written.
|
|
|
Post by mickeythemaestro on Sept 9, 2024 9:39:26 GMT
The evidence in its entirety has not been proven to be completely and very significantly wrong though has it. The piece we were discussing has. Either way there seems to be enough doubt popping up post conviction for this to be looked at in serious detail again. Every last person should want this because for me the thought of someone serving a full life term when they could potentially be innocent is the stuff of the worlds worst nightmares. Just imagine being sat in a cell fearing retribution for the remainder of your life knowing full well you hadn't done it. If this turns out to be some kind of cover up the absolute shit will hit the fan..
|
|
|
Post by Rick Grimes on Sept 9, 2024 9:47:03 GMT
The evidence in its entirety has not been proven to be completely and very significantly wrong though has it. The specific piece we were discussing has, God knows where you got the word 'entirety' from, if you actually read what has been written. It’s because of the way you’ve worded it ‘completely and very significantly’. If you’re only discussing a specific piece then I don’t understand why you’ve said completely. It’s a possible misunderstanding on my part though. Getting back to the piece you’re referring to though I wouldn’t have said it was very significant in the CPS deciding to proceed and the subsequent conviction.
|
|
|
Post by Rick Grimes on Sept 9, 2024 9:49:47 GMT
The piece we were discussing has. Either way there seems to be enough doubt popping up post conviction for this to be looked at in serious detail again. Every last person should want this because for me the thought of someone serving a full life term when they could potentially be innocent is the stuff of the worlds worst nightmares. Just imagine being sat in a cell fearing retribution for the remainder of your life knowing full well you hadn't done it. If this turns out to be some kind of cover up the absolute shit will hit the fan.. The doubt is coming from people who were not present at the trail and do not have full access to all the evidence at the case though. The cover up suggestions don’t make any sense to me.
|
|
|
Post by mickeythemaestro on Sept 9, 2024 9:57:24 GMT
Either way there seems to be enough doubt popping up post conviction for this to be looked at in serious detail again. Every last person should want this because for me the thought of someone serving a full life term when they could potentially be innocent is the stuff of the worlds worst nightmares. Just imagine being sat in a cell fearing retribution for the remainder of your life knowing full well you hadn't done it. If this turns out to be some kind of cover up the absolute shit will hit the fan.. The doubt is coming from people who were not present at the trail and do not have full access to all the evidence at the case though. The cover up suggestions don’t make any sense to me. Guess you didn't watch the post office enquiry..
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Sept 9, 2024 10:04:30 GMT
The specific piece we were discussing has, God knows where you got the word 'entirety' from, if you actually read what has been written. It’s because of the way you’ve worded it ‘completely and very significantly’. If you’re only discussing a specific piece then I don’t understand why you’ve said completely. It’s a possible misunderstanding on my part though. Getting back to the piece you’re referring to though I wouldn’t have said it was very significant in the CPS deciding to proceed and the subsequent conviction. This is how the discussion went (in full). 1. "Police had wrongly thought that the swipe data showed nurses leaving the neonatal unit and going into the labour ward, when in fact they were returning to the neonatal unit." 2. This is utterly staggering incompetence in a trial of such magnitude. Virtually beyond comprehension ... 3. The CPS decided to proceed based on the evidence, NOT the Police. 4. The CPS acted on the (completely and very significantly) wrong evidence that the police supplied them with. This piece of evidence wasn't suspect, it wasn't open to interpretation, it was in fact, COMPLETELY wrong it was actually the complete OPPOSITE of what the police had suggested it was. I don't think I really should need to explain why this is significant.
|
|
|
Post by stokefc on Sept 9, 2024 10:29:12 GMT
I wonder what the baby death rate at the COC is now since the Letby conviction ? be interested to know
|
|
|
Post by Ariel Manto on Sept 9, 2024 10:36:26 GMT
It’s because of the way you’ve worded it ‘completely and very significantly’. If you’re only discussing a specific piece then I don’t understand why you’ve said completely. It’s a possible misunderstanding on my part though. Getting back to the piece you’re referring to though I wouldn’t have said it was very significant in the CPS deciding to proceed and the subsequent conviction. This is how the discussion went (in full). 1. "Police had wrongly thought that the swipe data showed nurses leaving the neonatal unit and going into the labour ward, when in fact they were returning to the neonatal unit." 2. This is utterly staggering incompetence in a trial of such magnitude. Virtually beyond comprehension ... 3. The CPS decided to proceed based on the evidence, NOT the Police. 4. The CPS acted on the (completely and very significantly) wrong evidence that the police supplied them with. This piece of evidence wasn't suspect, it wasn't open to interpretation, it was in fact, COMPLETELY wrong it was actually the complete OPPOSITE of what the police had suggested it was. I don't think I really should need to explain why this is significant. Typically, as with all conspiracy theories, you are either deliberately or unfortunately conflating fact with fiction. The Police's role is to present the evidence to the CPS as it finds it, and the CPS then decides whether to prosecute. You're wrong about the swipe data - swipe data relating to one door crucial in tracking nurses' and doctors' movements in the intensive care ward had been "mislabelled". The Police were provided with faulty evidence during the first trial, and this was corrected during the second trial (it was the prosecution KC which referred to this to establish mismanagement within the hospital, NOT the defence KC). To be clear - the CPS confirmed that the discrepancy related to one door in the neonatal unit and was subsequently corrected for the retrial. That data was then amended for the retrial, which showed the nurse had returned within moments. This meant that Letby was not alone at the time the prosecution originally argued she was. At the retrial, both sides accepted that the mistake was genuine, leading to Letby being convicted of Baby K's attempted murder. You seem to have a confused picture of the role of the CPS. The CPS decides which cases should be prosecuted; determines the appropriate charges in more serious or complex cases, and advises the police during the early stages of investigations; prepares cases and presents them at court; and provides information, assistance and support to victims and prosecution witnesses. Prosecutors (CPS) are objective and independent. When deciding whether to prosecute a criminal case, CPS lawyers must follow the Code for Crown Prosecutors which means that to charge someone with a criminal offence and put them before a court, prosecutors (CPS) must be satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction, and that prosecuting is in the public interest.
The CPS is staffed by barristers and legal experts who sift through the evidence provided by Police to establish whether a case (and successful prosecution) can be brought. Crown Prosecutors must be satisfied that there is enough evidence to provide a "realistic prospect of conviction" against each defendant on each charge and it is the CPS which considers whether the evidence can be used and is reliable. They must also consider what the defence case may be and how that is likely to affect the prosecution case. A "realistic prospect of conviction" is the only objective test, which means that a jury or a bench of magistrates will be more likely than not to convict the defendant of the charge alleged. If the case does not pass the CPS' initial evidential stage, the CPS makes sure the prosecution does not go ahead, no matter how important or serious the case may be.
|
|
|
Post by Rick Grimes on Sept 9, 2024 10:40:12 GMT
The doubt is coming from people who were not present at the trail and do not have full access to all the evidence at the case though. The cover up suggestions don’t make any sense to me. Guess you didn't watch the post office enquiry.. Just because there was a cover up in the Post Office inquiry it doesn’t mean there is a cover up in this scenario.
|
|
|
Post by mickeythemaestro on Sept 9, 2024 10:49:28 GMT
Guess you didn't watch the post office enquiry.. Just because there was a cover up in the Post Office inquiry it doesn’t mean there is a cover up in this scenario. There has been enough discovered post conviction to throw serious doubt on procedure and therefore soundness of that conviction. So let's find out just in case is all im saying. She's on a full life term so I want to make sure the case is bullet proof.
|
|
|
Post by Ariel Manto on Sept 9, 2024 10:53:25 GMT
Just because there was a cover up in the Post Office inquiry it doesn’t mean there is a cover up in this scenario. There has been enough discovered post conviction to throw serious doubt on procedure and therefore soundness of that conviction. So let's find out just in case is all im saying. She's on a full life term so I want to make sure the case is bullet proof. While we're at it....can we just definitively establish that man did land on the moon as well?
|
|
|
Post by mickeythemaestro on Sept 9, 2024 10:58:51 GMT
There has been enough discovered post conviction to throw serious doubt on procedure and therefore soundness of that conviction. So let's find out just in case is all im saying. She's on a full life term so I want to make sure the case is bullet proof. While we're at it....can we just definitively establish that man did land on the moon as well? You can be as flippant as you wish. This needs a full review. Or should we just dunk her in the river and see if she sinks or swims hey..
|
|
|
Post by Ariel Manto on Sept 9, 2024 10:59:53 GMT
While we're at it....can we just definitively establish that man did land on the moon as well? You can be as flippant as you wish. This needs a full review. Or should we just dunk her in the river and see if she sinks or swims hey.. That seems to be the way your approach to justice is going...... I'm only surprised you aren't recommending holding a séance for the victims to find out.
|
|
|
Post by mickeythemaestro on Sept 9, 2024 11:01:53 GMT
You can be as flippant as you wish. This needs a full review. Or should we just dunk her in the river and see if she sinks or swims hey.. That seems to be the way your approach to justice is going...... Lol. I'm asking for it to be reviewed properly in further detail so I'm hardly supportive of witch hunts. Your response literally makes zero sense..
|
|
|
Post by Ariel Manto on Sept 9, 2024 11:12:03 GMT
That seems to be the way your approach to justice is going...... Lol. I'm asking for it to be reviewed properly in further detail so I'm hardly supportive of witch hunts. Your response literally makes zero sense.. Literally all of the evidence presented in court pointed to Letby. If there is any evidence which suggests she is innocent, I'd suggest Myers KC (or you, if you feel so inclined given your expert legal opinion) gets off his well-paid arse and puts it before the Criminal Cases Review Commission so that the commission can refer Letby's case back to an appeals court - but it can only do so if Myers KC (or someone else) puts forward the evidence and then if the CCRC finds that it represents new evidence that could have changed the verdict had the jury known about it.
|
|
|
Post by Rick Grimes on Sept 9, 2024 11:24:27 GMT
It’s because of the way you’ve worded it ‘completely and very significantly’. If you’re only discussing a specific piece then I don’t understand why you’ve said completely. It’s a possible misunderstanding on my part though. Getting back to the piece you’re referring to though I wouldn’t have said it was very significant in the CPS deciding to proceed and the subsequent conviction. This is how the discussion went (in full). 1. "Police had wrongly thought that the swipe data showed nurses leaving the neonatal unit and going into the labour ward, when in fact they were returning to the neonatal unit." 2. This is utterly staggering incompetence in a trial of such magnitude. Virtually beyond comprehension ... 3. The CPS decided to proceed based on the evidence, NOT the Police. 4. The CPS acted on the (completely and very significantly) wrong evidence that the police supplied them with. This piece of evidence wasn't suspect, it wasn't open to interpretation, it was in fact, COMPLETELY wrong it was actually the complete OPPOSITE of what the police had suggested it was. I don't think I really should need to explain why this is significant. As Ariel Manto has pointed out this error was corrected in the 2nd trial. It’s also not the reason the CPS decided to go ahead with the prosecution. Dewi Evans first identified suspicious collapses and deaths by looking at medical records. Each suspicious incident was then handed to a different detective to investigate in isolation. When detectives then discussed the cases they discussed the similarities, one of them being Letby. The whole case comes down to whether or not the babies were intentionally harmed. If they were intentionally harmed it can only have been Letby. The 2nd trial was 10 months long which is one of the longest in history and they have clearly gone through a massive amount of evidence. The jury have been convinced via the evidence presented that Letby is guilty of intentionally harming the babies for which she has been convicted of. Letby was cleared of two other counts and the jury couldn’t agree on a further five. Some experts who are not privy to the full details of the case are suggesting there are alternative explanations for the deaths. The issue for people like me and you, and these experts is that we are not aware of the full details of the case. What we do know, confirmed in the CPS appeal is that Letby’s lawyer Ben Myers QC had experts look at the evidence that was presented and decided not to call any of them up as a witness to contradict the expert evidence put forward by the CPS. Anything else like notes etc are irrelevant.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Sept 9, 2024 11:25:34 GMT
This is how the discussion went (in full). 1. "Police had wrongly thought that the swipe data showed nurses leaving the neonatal unit and going into the labour ward, when in fact they were returning to the neonatal unit." 2. This is utterly staggering incompetence in a trial of such magnitude. Virtually beyond comprehension ... 3. The CPS decided to proceed based on the evidence, NOT the Police. 4. The CPS acted on the (completely and very significantly) wrong evidence that the police supplied them with. This piece of evidence wasn't suspect, it wasn't open to interpretation, it was in fact, COMPLETELY wrong it was actually the complete OPPOSITE of what the police had suggested it was. I don't think I really should need to explain why this is significant. Typically, as with all conspiracy theories, you are either deliberately or unfortunately conflating fact with fiction. The Police's role is to present the evidence to the CPS as it finds it, and the CPS then decides whether to prosecute. You're wrong about the swipe data - swipe data relating to one door crucial in tracking nurses' and doctors' movements in the intensive care ward had been "mislabelled". The Police were provided with faulty evidence during the first trial, and this was corrected during the second trial (it was the prosecution KC which referred to this to establish mismanagement within the hospital, NOT the defence KC). To be clear - the CPS confirmed that the discrepancy related to one door in the neonatal unit and was subsequently corrected for the retrial. That data was then amended for the retrial, which showed the nurse had returned within moments. This meant that Letby was not alone at the time the prosecution originally argued she was. At the retrial, both sides accepted that the mistake was genuine, leading to Letby being convicted of Baby K's attempted murder. You seem to have a confused picture of the role of the CPS. The CPS decides which cases should be prosecuted; determines the appropriate charges in more serious or complex cases, and advises the police during the early stages of investigations; prepares cases and presents them at court; and provides information, assistance and support to victims and prosecution witnesses. Prosecutors (CPS) are objective and independent. When deciding whether to prosecute a criminal case, CPS lawyers must follow the Code for Crown Prosecutors which means that to charge someone with a criminal offence and put them before a court, prosecutors (CPS) must be satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction, and that prosecuting is in the public interest.
The CPS is staffed by barristers and legal experts who sift through the evidence provided by Police to establish whether a case (and successful prosecution) can be brought. Crown Prosecutors must be satisfied that there is enough evidence to provide a "realistic prospect of conviction" against each defendant on each charge and it is the CPS which considers whether the evidence can be used and is reliable. They must also consider what the defence case may be and how that is likely to affect the prosecution case. A "realistic prospect of conviction" is the only objective test, which means that a jury or a bench of magistrates will be more likely than not to convict the defendant of the charge alleged. If the case does not pass the CPS' initial evidential stage, the CPS makes sure the prosecution does not go ahead, no matter how important or serious the case may be. I'm not conflating anything or offering any conspiracy theory whatsoever. All I have done, is said that the incompetence of the police over one single piece of evidence (demonstrating whether Letby was alone or not) was staggering. You've then gone off at a massive tangent arguing something that is completely irrelevant to what I actually said. And I responded by saying that the CPS make their decision to prosecute, based on the evidence that is put in front of them, surely that is not such a difficult concept to grasp? Go back and READ what I've actually said and I don't come back to me with a reply based around something which you THINK I've said.
|
|