As I put above I think there's a question to be answered over her defense team really, they didn't put up anyone to counter as I recall?I saw this, I’ve still not seen anything conclusive and as I understand it there’s more to it than just the statistical argument. I’m not fixed either way TBH. But an article about staff leaving id want to see more than “some woman says people will leave”
I think the thing is that a guilty verdict is supposed to be beyond reasonable doubt, and I don’t think this is. The defence seem to have done a pretty poor job, the prosecution experts are going to be pretty dogmatic about things when not challenged by peers. I do think that being able to pin deaths on a murderer was pretty convenient for the Trust and I am cynical enough, or experienced enough, to think it entirely possible that Letby is a scapegoat.I saw this, I’ve still not seen anything conclusive and as I understand it there’s more to it than just the statistical argument. I’m not fixed either way TBH. But an article about staff leaving id want to see more than “some woman says people will leave”
I think the thing is that a guilty verdict is supposed to be beyond reasonable doubt, and I don’t think this is. The defence seem to have done a pretty poor job, the prosecution experts are going to be pretty dogmatic about things when not challenged by peers. I do think that being able to pin deaths on a murderer was pretty convenient for the Trust and I am cynical enough, or experienced enough, to think it entirely possible that Letby is a scapegoat.
I agree with your last sentence. I can’t remember where I saw it but there is some suggestion that cctv is being installed in some units - to protect the staff. That may be hearsay but is quite possible.
YeahFrankly I’m increasingly of the belief all staff who work with the public should have body cams for everyone’s safety. Which is kinda sad.
I think this needs urgent, not the usual turgid response to events like this, I'm suspecting corporate cover up,of what though?
I guess there will be eventually, hopefully soon, of course that's just my curious self,an investigation of the stats is paramount here and how they're presented with certainty but are anything but as we all know?There cannot be any consideration of a retrial unless new evidence is found. There is no new evidence that has been presented.
I’d have to check again but wasn’t part of the evidence that when babies are injected with air they turn a specific colour. This was presented by the prosecution.The answers to this should lie in the medical and physical evidence, not statistics. What refutation is there against the claim she injected air and insulin into babies?
Then the note's they found in her dwelling allegedly suggesting guilt in the prosecutions eyes but questioning you'd assume in the defense case?I’d have to check again but wasn’t part of the evidence that when babies are injected with air they turn a specific colour. This was presented by the prosecution.
After the case was over the Dr who wrote the paper that that the prosecution used, said the babies had not turned the specific colour. For some reason the defence did not call her.
Or something like this.
I can’t remember his name but even before the case that TV criminologist bloke, discounted that as evidence. Saying it was more likely the ramblings of someone in huge distress…she was aware of the accusations when she wrote it…rather than a confession.Then the note's they found in her dwelling allegedly suggesting guilt in the prosecutions eyes but questioning you'd assume in the defense case?
I couldn't find a 'Sharon' but I managed a Michele and an Alison:This is TBF and entire article based around “Sharon from work said…”
The insulin test used should not have been used to test for exogenous insulin. The indication for air injection was disputed after the trial by the (I think Canadian) doctor who had first published a paper about physical signs associated with it.The answers to this should lie in the medical and physical evidence, not statistics. What refutation is there against the claim she injected air and insulin into babies?
Then the note's they found in her dwelling allegedly suggesting guilt in the prosecutions eyes but questioning you'd assume in the defense case?
Letby is such a handy scapegoat.A superbug, doctor shortages and a neonatal unit ‘out of its depth’: failures at Lucy Letby hospital revealed
As the Thirwall hearings approach, the Guardian has discovered concerns were repeatedly raised about alarming shortcomings at Countess of Chesterwww.theguardian.com
Whether she is or isn’t - is there actual real evidence to suggest she didn’t commit those murders?Letby is such a handy scapegoat.
What an odd question.Whether she is or isn’t - is there actual real evidence to suggest she didn’t commit those murders?
Yeah as the case is reliant on experts interpretation of stats largely the swinging vote!Whether she is or isn’t - is there actual real evidence to suggest she didn’t commit those murders?
So you are okay if the wrong person if there was a person at all is in prison?An innocent person incarcerated for life or a potential multiple murderer let on the loose.
Whist I'm sure her mmo would mean she's unlikely to be in a position to able to offend in a similar way again, both scenarios unsavoury and I'm genuinely undecided on which I think is worse.
If pushed I think I'd lean towards keeping her locked up for the reason that one disrupted life might give the many victims families some peace, but without being appraised of all the facts, the options are a little unpalatable.
That's not how trials work, you have to prove someone is guilty and at the moment the evidence for that is getting shakier by the day it seems.Whether she is or isn’t - is there actual real evidence to suggest she didn’t commit those murders?
I'm ok with somebody being in if that helps the families closure. It's not like it's the wrong person it's either her or medical failure.So you are okay if the wrong person if there was a person at all is in prison?
Also how does not actually knowing what happened help the familes?
The justice system is predicated on the premise that it is better for a guilty person to walk free than an innocent person to be found guilty, therefore the starting point probably is the latter is better than the former.An innocent person incarcerated for life or a potential multiple murderer let on the loose.
Whist I'm sure her mmo would mean she's unlikely to be in a position to able to offend in a similar way again, both scenarios unsavoury and I'm genuinely undecided on which I think is worse.
If pushed I think I'd lean towards keeping her locked up for the reason that one disrupted life might give the many victims families some peace, but without being appraised of all the facts, the options are a little unpalatable.
It’s not meant to be an odd question, there seems to be a quell of voices suggesting she is innocent, and I don’t know enough about the case - hence me just asking.What an odd question.
That is an absolutely disgusting attitude to have.An innocent person incarcerated for life or a potential multiple murderer let on the loose.
Whist I'm sure her mmo would mean she's unlikely to be in a position to able to offend in a similar way again, both scenarios unsavoury and I'm genuinely undecided on which I think is worse.
If pushed I think I'd lean towards keeping her locked up for the reason that one disrupted life might give the many victims families some peace, but without being appraised of all the facts, the options are a little unpalatable.
It can be very difficult to prove that you didn’t do something. The prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that someone is guilt. There seems to be plenty of doubt being raised about the evidence presented to the jury as being the only cause of the babies deaths as well as plenty of potential causative factors other than foul play.Whether she is or isn’t - is there actual real evidence to suggest she didn’t commit those murders?
For fucks sake, how on earth can you say that. It is entirely possible that she actually had nothing to do with the babies deaths but was trying to provide care in an inadequately staffed unit contaminated by sewage and all the rest. If it was medical failure, it was t necessarily her failure.I'm ok with somebody being in if that helps the families closure. It's not like it's the wrong person it's either her or medical failure.
Really? Only if you're 100% she didn't do it. I know it's innocent until proven and not the other way around, but unless there is enough to clear her, then I'll save the expertise to the investigators over the SBT sleuths.That is an absolutely disgusting attitude to have.
Given the conditions on the unit at the time, it may be that corporate manslaughter charges would be the way to give victims dailies some peace. I can’t imagine all the debate and doubt being cast is giving them any peace at all.
It’s not SBT sleuths you moron, it’s a load of professionals from lots of scientific and statistical disciplines.Really? Only if you're 100% she didn't do it. I know it's innocent until proven and not the other way around, but unless there is enough to clear her, then I'll save the expertise to the investigators over the SBT sleuths.
That's not how trials work, you have to prove someone is guilty and at the moment the evidence for that is getting shakier by the day it seems.
Keep up with calling names, it really adds credit to your debateIt’s not SBT sleuths you moron, it’s a load of professionals from lots of scientific and statistical disciplines.
There only has to be some doubt she did it for a guilty verdict to be unsafe.
Bang onIt can be very difficult to prove that you didn’t do something. The prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that someone is guilt. There seems to be plenty of doubt being raised about the evidence presented to the jury as being the only cause of the babies deaths as well as plenty of potential causative factors other than foul play.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?