MalcSB
Well-Known Member
That’s what I said
That’s what I saidBang on
The only thing I’d add is it’s not beyond doubt but beyond reasonable doubt
Absolutely correct but seems fundamentally wrong when it would appear that defence counsel were incompetent.No the jury decide on the evidence presented if there is reasonable doubt or not.
They concluded a guilty verdict placed on the evidence
For a retrial new evidence has to be presented
Happens a lotAbsolutely correct but seems fundamentally wrong when it would appear that defence counsel were incompetent.
Happy if it was you? Or one of your loved ones? At least the families would have closure eh?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.
Of course not, but on balance of probability and having been found guilty by a jury of her peers, then it needs imo to be pretty strong persuasive argument imo to release and I stated in the post above that, I think either scenario is difficult but I'd rather that way than let a murderer on the streets. It seems some here have made their minds up she's innocent from a few one side tabloid articles. However poor her counsel may have been, I'd like to think professionally trained legal teams know a bit more than the members of a football forum.Happy if it was you? Or one of your loved ones? At least the families would have closure eh?
Not necessarily referring directly to this case, but as just a general principal it seems pretty fucked up to me. Just make sure someone gets convicted regardless.
Not made up my mind that she is innocent, but think there is at least reasonable doubt that she is guilty. And it’s not one sided tabloid articles, it’s opinion written by professionals, in many cases eminent academics.Of course not, but on balance of probability and having been found guilty by a jury of her peers, then it needs imo to be pretty strong persuasive argument imo to release and I stated in the post above that, I think either scenario is difficult but I'd rather that way than let a murderer on the streets. It seems some here have made their minds up she's innocent from a few one side tabloid articles. However poor her counsel may have been, I'd like to think professionally trained legal teams know a bit more than the members of a football forum.
Perhaps they also know more than an Oxford-educated, multi-prize-winning neuroscientist?I'd like to think professionally trained legal teams know a bit more than the members of a football forum.
Perhaps they also know more than an Oxford-educated, multi-prize-winning neuroscientist?
Letby’s conviction is unsafe, says Boris Johnson’s former science adviser
Evidence presented to the jury was so flawed as to make it not a fair trial, argues James Phillipswww.telegraph.co.uk
James Phillips, who worked as a special adviser to the former prime minister and to the secretary of state for science during the Covid pandemic, said he believed evidence presented to the jury in Letby’s trial was flawed.
He said that the case bore similarities to how Covid was dealt with by the Government, with too much “group think”, poor science literacy, and experts not thinking mathematically or statistically.
Mr Phillips said: “My view is that the presentation of data and expert evidence was so flawed as to render the conviction unsafe.
“This is not to say Letby is definitely innocent. But I am effectively certain that this was not a fair trial based on the widespread problems in the way scientific evidence was presented at the trial and, just as, or even more importantly, what was not presented to the jury.
“This case is now about more than itself alone. It is about whether the judicial system is able to handle cases which hinge critically on scientific evidence, and whether there is a need for substantial reform in how a certain subcategory of trial is conducted.
“It was not, and is not, apparent to me that anyone in the chain of events leading from Letby being placed under suspicion by the consultants to the three-judge appeal being turned down had the skillset or perspective needed to detect potentially catastrophically weak links in this web of evidential relationships.”
Was it correct that the prosecution spent three days on their introduction, quite excessive IMO?That is brilliantly put, and exactly how I feel about this case.
Scientific evidence is so complicated these days that it would hardly be surprising if juries were bedazzled by it, confused, lacking a full understanding. This is especially the case if defence counsel does not present expert witnesses - and it has been shown that some (especially if still employed by the NHS) are fearful of taking the stand.
Part of the issue is the extreme adversarial nature of the English legal system - I think it is less so in France for example. There could really do with there being a system of "neutral" experts who could be called on to explain scientific evidence to juries without there being the inevitable bias if it is the prosecution expert doing so.
The prosecution expert in this case is getting quite angry at the challenges being put forward. Clearly, if the verdicts were ever overturned it would show that he is not such an expert after all.
In terms of appeals / reviews requiring new evidence - is the fact that the damning jottings on a post it note were done at the suggestion of an NHS counsellor new evidence? It probably wont be allowed to count as such despite the fact that it wasn't produced at trial. Another defence counsel cock up!
That is brilliantly put, and exactly how I feel about this case.
Scientific evidence is so complicated these days that it would hardly be surprising if juries were bedazzled by it, confused, lacking a full understanding. This is especially the case if defence counsel does not present expert witnesses - and it has been shown that some (especially if still employed by the NHS) are fearful of taking the stand.
Part of the issue is the extreme adversarial nature of the English legal system - I think it is less so in France for example. There could really do with there being a system of "neutral" experts who could be called on to explain scientific evidence to juries without there being the inevitable bias if it is the prosecution expert doing so.
The prosecution expert in this case is getting quite angry at the challenges being put forward. Clearly, if the verdicts were ever overturned it would show that he is not such an expert after all.
In terms of appeals / reviews requiring new evidence - is the fact that the damning jottings on a post it note were done at the suggestion of an NHS counsellor new evidence? It probably wont be allowed to count as such despite the fact that it wasn't produced at trial. Another defence counsel cock up!
My opinion and observed experience also.Part of the problem is that (in my experience) a lot of the medical experts will come with a huge egos, who do not like being challenged on their view of the "facts" and expect evryone just to nod their head in agreement. Remember, these experts have spent a career building up their reputation and do not expect to be questioned with 'alternative facts' such as how they may have misinterpreted something. They will jealously guard their reputation and (in my opinion) not hesitate to throw a nurse under the bus to maintain it.
Are we in ‘we’ve had enough of experts’ territory?Part of the problem is that (in my experience) a lot of the medical experts will come with a huge egos, who do not like being challenged on their view of the "facts" and expect evryone just to nod their head in agreement. Remember, these experts have spent a career building up their reputation and do not expect to be questioned with 'alternative facts' such as how they may have misinterpreted something. They will jealously guard their reputation and (in my opinion) not hesitate to throw a nurse under the bus to maintain it.
Just need some balance,Are we in ‘we’ve had enough of experts’ territory?
I agree, but Letby’s guilt or innocence ultimately lies in the scientific evidence. If that’s the case, you need expert testimony and probably also experts on the jury.Just need some balance,
See post 360I agree, but Letby’s guilt or innocence ultimately lies in the scientific evidence. If that’s the case, you need expert testimony and probably also experts on the jury.
Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.A serious miscarriage of justice should be looked at....but anything backed by Peter Hitchens doesn't pass the smell test
(Why are the Right sooooo susceptible to conspiracy theories?)
Yep that’s rightI agree, but Letby’s guilt or innocence ultimately lies in the scientific evidence. If that’s the case, you need expert testimony and probably also experts on the jury.
In terms of understanding of medical and scientific matters, it probably wasn’t even a jury of her peers.Yep that’s right
Tried by a jury of your peers doesn’t always lead to the best decisions
More that there none produced by her defence I believe but don't take that as gospel?Are we in ‘we’ve had enough of experts’ territory?
I imagine because it looked such an open and shut guilty case that nobody wanted to come forward in defence of a mass murderer. I must be honest and say I still need an awful lot of convincing that she isn’t guilty.More that there none produced by her defence I believe but don't take that as gospel?
there's now beyond reasonable doubt of her guilt thoughI imagine because it looked such an open and shut guilty case that nobody wanted to come forward in defence of a mass murderer. I must be honest and say I still need an awful lot of convincing that she isn’t guilty.
Or to have a do over in the first instance!there's now beyond reasonable doubt of her guilt though
legal incompetence and evidence misrepresented to a jury doesn't sit well with me.
as I said it's in everyone's interests to have a do over and try it again with all the evidence properly presented and properly challenged
The Judge leading did say it isn't in her or the enquiries domain to decide guilt which is true.This enquiry has now started and, whilst understandable to a certain extent, no explanation other than Letby's guilt appears to be being considered. There is so much "reputation" being built up around this that it will be almost impossible to get an unbiased review.
A serious miscarriage of justice should be looked at....but anything backed by Peter Hitchens doesn't pass the smell test
(Why are the Right sooooo susceptible to conspiracy theories?)
Yes, it's true - however it doesn't make it right. Conversely there was a civil case recently where a family successfully blocked their mothers husband from inheriting millions. He had been found not guilty many ears ago by the criminal court: the civil case judge declared him guilty.The Judge leading did say it isn't in her or the enquiries domain to decide guilt which is true.
Not at all, am only speaking from my experience of dealing with a similar cohort of experts (and I have no axe to grind), but by their very nature they struggle to accept that there may be an alternative narrative to the one they have nailed their colours to.Are we in ‘we’ve had enough of experts’ territory?
the enquiry will go on for ages and then take ages more to deliver it's verdictYes, it's true - however it doesn't make it right. Conversely there was a civil case recently where a family successfully blocked their mothers husband from inheriting millions. He had been found not guilty many ears ago by the criminal court: the civil case judge declared him guilty.
What on earth would happen if this enquiry laid the blame firmly on Letby, and then there was a retrial. Two things to consider
a) could she have a fair trial if this hearing had excluded all other causes of these babies deaths?
b) what would be the status of the inquiry, and all involved in it, if she was subsequently cleared?
As I think I said, reputations are being built on the basis of her guilt which those individuals will be very reluctant to relinquish. I don't think I can ever remember another case where there has been so much disquiet about a verdict. The sensible thing to do would be to have a review looking at all the evidence and refutations of that evidence that have subsequently emerged.
Ouch, the consultants really won’t have liked that.Not at all, am only speaking from my experience of dealing with a similar cohort of experts (and I have no axe to grind), but by their very nature they struggle to accept that there may be an alternative narrative to the one they have nailed their colours to.
At some point in the process the Consultants were instructed to apologise to LL by the hospital management, which I think they grudgingly did. I don't think this helped her at all in the long run. Draw your own conclusions.
That doesn't help, if there is a retrial the defence and claim she'd never get a fair trialLucy Letby hospital inquiry: Anyone questioning Lucy Letby’s guilt ‘should be ashamed’, lawyer tells inquiry
The inquiry, which is examining the NHS response to Lucy Letby's crimes, heard that "expert medical evidence" showed her guilt "beyond reasonable doubt".www.bbc.co.uk
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?