3 hours ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/sep/03/i-am-evil-i-did-this-lucy-letbys-so-called-confessions-were-written-on-advice-of-counsellors

Supposedly, some of the "clocking in" evidence that showed her on the ward at the time, was actually the wrong way round- and she was actually off. Not challenged in court.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/lucy-letby-news-nurse-appeal-trial-guilty-nhs-b2606669.html

Quite a fascinating story; which casts some doubt on her conviction. 

Doesn't mean she didn't do it if course, but there is the possibility of retrials etc, which will be shit for the families. 

starting to look like she will get off to me

I'm sure a decent defence will be able to convince a jury, or cast doubt, that she wasn't admitting guilt

key will be the chart of when she was in and when things happened

“The chart appears to be very convincing, but there are a number of issues with it.

“A big thing is that it only describes 25 of the bad events which happened in this period.

“It doesn’t include any of the events that happened when Lucy was not on duty.”

if those bad things are other babies dying in similar circumstances, then will be difficult to say she's guilty of the ones when she was in, but something else unknown caused the others

1 minute ago, wakey said:

Not sure on details on this one, but there've been a couple of successful appeals with similar cases abroad where statistics have been used as evidence and later proven to be flawed.

Doesn't surprise me- this seems even more than statistics; undue emphasis on certain evidence which seemingly wasn't challenged by the defence team.

Some serious questions about her team's competence being asked.

This should have been done properly, so that whatever the outcome of the trial, there is no room for such concerns. 

If she didn't kill all the babies, who did?

14 minutes ago, Zico said:

starting to look like she will get off to me

I'm sure a decent defence will be able to convince a jury, or cast doubt, that she wasn't admitting guilt

key will be the chart of when she was in and when things happened

“The chart appears to be very convincing, but there are a number of issues with it.

“A big thing is that it only describes 25 of the bad events which happened in this period.

“It doesn’t include any of the events that happened when Lucy was not on duty.”

if those bad things are other babies dying in similar circumstances, then will be difficult to say she's guilty of the ones when she was in, but something else unknown caused the others

The thing about the chart that is not being heavily reported is that the 'expert' went through all potential cases initially and highlighted the ones he thought were suspicious, others that looked dodgy but explainable were left off.

Then he overlayed this against who was on duty at the time and Letby was the only one in for all of them. The expert did not know Letby was a consideration at that time.

People casting doubt on the conviction are now including the other incidents and saying she was not on duty for those. So basically she was not on duty for the explainable events but she was for the others. 
 

Also no one is saying she did not do it, but some people are saying that some of the individual elements circumstantial evidence could be explained in other ways.  
 

There was a big article on the whole evidence that I read a couple of weeks so this is my patchy recollection of the article. One thing that did strike me reading the article was that if the case against he is defined as 'not safe' it means a few experts having to eat humble pie and it seemed their egos were not prepared to consider that was an option. 

29 minutes ago, Ani said:

The thing about the chart that is not being heavily reported is that the 'expert' went through all potential cases initially and highlighted the ones he thought were suspicious, others that looked dodgy but explainable were left off.

Then he overlayed this against who was on duty at the time and Letby was the only one in for all of them. The expert did not know Letby was a consideration at that time.

People casting doubt on the conviction are now including the other incidents and saying she was not on duty for those. So basically she was not on duty for the explainable events but she was for the others. 
 

Also no one is saying she did not do it, but some people are saying that some of the individual elements circumstantial evidence could be explained in other ways.  
 

There was a big article on the whole evidence that I read a couple of weeks so this is my patchy recollection of the article. One thing that did strike me reading the article was that if the case against he is defined as 'not safe' it means a few experts having to eat humble pie and it seemed their egos were not prepared to consider that was an option. 

first bit about the chart, cheers, makes sense

the bit in bold

no, I know, but that's what appeals are about, bringing new "evidence" and "explanations" to the table, all the defence are trying to do is get her off, whether she did it not, i.e. casting reasonable doubt

if those scribbled post it notes played a big part in convicting her first time round, and then you discount them, then it's a totally different case and prosecution

folk never get found innocent, they get found not guilty, and all that means is if any element of doubt, and you're free to go

the chart bit by your explanation should be easy enough for the prosecution to rip apart

the notes, well, less so

34 minutes ago, Zico said:

first bit about the chart, cheers, makes sense

the bit in bold

no, I know, but that's what appeals are about, bringing new "evidence" and "explanations" to the table, all the defence are trying to do is get her off, whether she did it not, i.e. casting reasonable doubt

if those scribbled post it notes played a big part in convicting her first time round, and then you discount them, then it's a totally different case and prosecution

folk never get found innocent, they get found not guilty, and all that means is if any element of doubt, and you're free to go

the chart bit by your explanation should be easy enough for the prosecution to rip apart

the notes, well, less so

Her appeal was turned down as there was no new evidence presented by her defence team that merited a retrial . 

As all the court documents could not be released till after the appeal, as if there was another trial it would affect her chances of a fair trial. That was the Court of Appeal. 
 

All the people saying bits of evidence MIGHT be unsafe do not have the full details. So they are basically saying 'as far as I know' whereas the jury in the case did have the full details. So someone turns up on the internet and says they are an expert and starts churning out stories based on half the story.
 

There is an argument that for medical trials just expecting a jury of ordinary people to turn up and understand all the evidence is crazy as it is all so technical , but that is the rules. This really hits home when look at a snippet of info presented in this case really complicated. 

5 minutes ago, Ani said:

Her appeal was turned down as there was no new evidence presented by her defence team that merited a retrial . 

As all the court documents could not be released till after the appeal, as if there was another trial it would affect her chances of a fair trial. That was the Court of Appeal. 
 

All the people saying bits of evidence MIGHT be unsafe do not have the full details. So they are basically saying 'as far as I know' whereas the jury in the case did have the full details. So someone turns up on the internet and says they are an expert and starts churning out stories based on half the story.
 

There is an argument that for medical trials just expecting a jury of ordinary people to turn up and understand all the evidence is crazy as it is all so technical , but that is the rules. This really hits home when look at a snippet of info presented in this case really complicated. 

This is one of the key things with appeals.

If your defence team just did a basically shit job of the trial (but not outstandingly shit) you're a bit fucked if all the evidence was considered in the first place and nowt new comes up.

I'm happy to think she did it in this case and is where she should be, with the caveat that my opinion is entirely shaped by media reporting.

17 minutes ago, Ani said:

Her appeal was turned down as there was no new evidence presented by her defence team that merited a retrial . 

As all the court documents could not be released till after the appeal, as if there was another trial it would affect her chances of a fair trial. That was the Court of Appeal. 
 

All the people saying bits of evidence MIGHT be unsafe do not have the full details. So they are basically saying 'as far as I know' whereas the jury in the case did have the full details. So someone turns up on the internet and says they are an expert and starts churning out stories based on half the story.
 

There is an argument that for medical trials just expecting a jury of ordinary people to turn up and understand all the evidence is crazy as it is all so technical , but that is the rules. This really hits home when look at a snippet of info presented in this case really complicated. 

banged to rights then

maybe they should've got this serial killer expert involved in the original trial

56 minutes ago, wakey said:

This is one of the key things with appeals.

If your defence team just did a basically shit job of the trial (but not outstandingly shit) you're a bit fucked if all the evidence was considered in the first place and nowt new comes up.

I'm happy to think she did it in this case and is where she should be, with the caveat that my opinion is entirely shaped by media reporting.

She kept the same legal team , her appeal was I think based around advice from the judge. All these other points that Zico mentions were not raised, presumably because with access to all the info they did not think there was any grounds. 
 

Think her barrister was a senior respected guy.,

15 minutes ago, Ani said:

She kept the same legal team , her appeal was I think based around advice from the judge. All these other points that Zico mentions were not raised, presumably because with access to all the info they did not think there was any grounds. 
 

Think her barrister was a senior respected guy.,

Wouldn't have been cheap.

Who the hell is paying for all that?

3 minutes ago, gonzo said:

Wouldn't have been cheap.

Who the hell is paying for all that?

Us, assumed she would get legal aid. 

Always thought this case was a bit " hole in the corner"

Scapegoat!!!!

Same going on with Grenfell tower.

If me and my wife got burned to death tonight in our 3 bed semi it would be sad but tough shit.

 

 

 

Just saying like.

Edited September 4, 20241 yr by Whitestar
Spelling

It's always felt a bit fishy this case. Part of me wondered whether she was being thrown under the bus to hide systematic failings. The way the medics testified that they didn't say anything because they were worried hospital management would just brush it under the carpet stank too. They should have been advocating for their patients or alerting the police. 

Imagine being a Consultant admitting that you suspected a nurse was killing babies but didn't raise it! 😬

6 minutes ago, Whitestar said:

Always thought this case was a bit " hole in the corner"

Scapegoat!!!!

Same going on with Grenfell tower.

If me and my wife got burned to death tonight in our 3 bed semi it would be sad but tough shit.

 

 

 

Just saying like.

Nice edit.

Snowflakes everywhere init

 

49 minutes ago, Whitestar said:

 

Same going on with Grenfell tower.

If me and my wife got burned to death tonight in our 3 bed semi it would be sad but tough shit.

 

 

 

Just saying like.

Even if the whole incident could've been avoided if folk did their jobs properly?

 

1 hour ago, Whitestar said:

Always thought this case was a bit " hole in the corner"

Scapegoat!!!!

Same going on with Grenfell tower.

If me and my wife got burned to death tonight in our 3 bed semi it would be sad but tough shit.

 

 

 

Just saying like.

You’ve lost me with Grenfell here.

Are you suggesting a load of companies who fabricated test results on cladding are being made scapegoats?

There should be some massive jail sentences handed out for what’s taken place there.

Kingspan are shitting themselves and rightly so the fucking slimy Irish cunts.

Lets just forget that things just happen in this country should we?

All hospitals will have the signage changed to On purpose & emergency department.

 

Traffic signs will be changed to slow down, on purpose ahead.

 

All car insurance will go up to cover on purpose damage.

 

People will never need to politely apologise ever again as every little mishap will have been on purpose.

1 minute ago, Whitestar said:

Lets just forget that things just happen in this country should we?

All hospitals will have the signage changed to On purpose & emergency department.

 

Traffic signs will be changed to slow down, on purpose ahead.

 

All car insurance will go up to cover on purpose damage.

 

People will never need to politely apologise ever again as every little mishap will have been on purpose.

You been on the mushy peas?

😂😂

4 minutes ago, Spider said:

You been on the mushy peas?

😂😂

I told you that in the strictest confidence and you expose me ON PURPOSE!!

24 minutes ago, gonzo said:

Even if the whole incident could've been avoided if folk did their jobs properly?

 

The unedited version was even better 🤣

What if we still had hanging for child killers

37 minutes ago, Whitestar said:

Lets just forget that things just happen in this country should we?

All hospitals will have the signage changed to On purpose & emergency department.

 

Traffic signs will be changed to slow down, on purpose ahead.

 

All car insurance will go up to cover on purpose damage.

 

People will never need to politely apologise ever again as every little mishap will have been on purpose.

What the fck have I just read 😅

10 minutes ago, London Wanderer said:

What the fck have I just read 😅

Get used to it mate, only today a mate of mine on purposely stood in some dog shit, yes we laughed at 1st too, but luckily this has been reported and an expensive enquiry has lead to the dog being traced and obviously destroyed for having a little on purpose in a public place.

Win win for everyone 👍

5 minutes ago, Whitestar said:

Get used to it mate, only today a mate of mine on purposely stood in some dog shit, yes we laughed at 1st too, but luckily this has been reported and an expensive enquiry has lead to the dog being traced and obviously destroyed for having a little on purpose in a public place.

Win win for everyone 👍

Just fuck off