By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Whatever the answer, I hope it gets resolved asap. The poor, poor parents of those deceased babies, Lucy's parents, and Lucy herself all need this whole affair done and dusted.
There is an element of unavoidable tragedy about how much attention and time the case takes up when one of the principal factors was understaffing, and in the wake of Steven Wright's confession on a conviction that was made from overwhelming circumstantial evidence we have to wonder what to make of the circumstantial evidence in this case.
Interesting observation from this article.
" We were understaffed - that's generally true in most departments on most wards on the NHS," he said. "But we had had those same staffing pressures before 2015 and 2016 and we'd not had those increased deaths then."
0
Lucy Letby. The doubt simply doesn't go away.... on 16:43 - Feb 5 with 1060 views
Just finished the Netflix doc while “working” from home.
Turning into a really messy situation by all accounts, the fact we work on a “beyond reasonable doubt” protocol - but there is an amount of doubt that seems to be growing over this.
For the record I still think she’s guilty, but I think she deserves a re trial.
0
Lucy Letby. The doubt simply doesn't go away.... on 19:45 - Feb 5 with 1019 views
Much of the evidence might be circumstantial, but that doesn’t mean it’s not credible.
If there’s been a big miscarriage of justice then that’s obviously awful, I find it hard to believe though when you look at the substance of the evidence against her, circumstantial or otherwise.
I find it odd that her defence only called up the hospital cleaner, why wouldn’t they call someone medical or technical if the arguments against her were so paper thin?
0
Lucy Letby. The doubt simply doesn't go away.... on 20:00 - Feb 5 with 1000 views
Lucy Letby. The doubt simply doesn't go away.... on 19:45 - Feb 5 by MrPotatoHead
Much of the evidence might be circumstantial, but that doesn’t mean it’s not credible.
If there’s been a big miscarriage of justice then that’s obviously awful, I find it hard to believe though when you look at the substance of the evidence against her, circumstantial or otherwise.
I find it odd that her defence only called up the hospital cleaner, why wouldn’t they call someone medical or technical if the arguments against her were so paper thin?
The bulk of it has actually been discredited by numerous experts at the top of their fields in statistics, neonatal medicine, anaesthesia, analysis of drugs including insulin, etc. etc.
Suggest you read, listen and view more widely, including previous threads on this on here. It’s all out there.
Lucy Letby. The doubt simply doesn't go away.... on 20:00 - Feb 5 by Ryorry
The bulk of it has actually been discredited by numerous experts at the top of their fields in statistics, neonatal medicine, anaesthesia, analysis of drugs including insulin, etc. etc.
Suggest you read, listen and view more widely, including previous threads on this on here. It’s all out there.
And I suggest you don’t make assumptions about how familiar people are with the case.
Why didn’t her defence call up any experts? what was the purpose of calling the cleaner to the box?
0
Lucy Letby. The doubt simply doesn't go away.... on 20:14 - Feb 5 with 977 views
Lucy Letby. The doubt simply doesn't go away.... on 20:10 - Feb 5 by MrPotatoHead
And I suggest you don’t make assumptions about how familiar people are with the case.
Why didn’t her defence call up any experts? what was the purpose of calling the cleaner to the box?
Your ”familiarity with the case doesn’t seem to have extended as far as reading the first page of this thread, where your question was answered multiple times.
Lucy Letby. The doubt simply doesn't go away.... on 20:14 - Feb 5 by Ryorry
Your ”familiarity with the case doesn’t seem to have extended as far as reading the first page of this thread, where your question was answered multiple times.
There are more reliable sources than you spouting nonsense on a TWTD thread.
-1
Lucy Letby. The doubt simply doesn't go away.... on 21:04 - Feb 5 with 924 views
Lucy Letby. The doubt simply doesn't go away.... on 21:44 - Feb 5 by bartyg
Repeating that there are hundreds of experts that agree with you without giving any sources is very compelling
Sorry, I made the mistake of assuming that everyone replying to my “nonsense” had gone into the case sufficiently themselves to be aware of the mass of evidence that has been widely available in the public domain for the past 6-12 months.
Lucy Letby. The doubt simply doesn't go away.... on 23:31 - Feb 5 by Ryorry
Sorry, I made the mistake of assuming that everyone replying to my “nonsense” had gone into the case sufficiently themselves to be aware of the mass of evidence that has been widely available in the public domain for the past 6-12 months.
Many more have testified during the course of numerous documentaries & articles. I simply do not have the time to re-watch, re- listen or re-read the large volume of material on the case that I've gone through during the course of the past year.
Really not sure why dissenters are expecting me to be Wiki on this tbh, when it looks like few or none of them are prepared to take in even what was said on p1 of this thread.
Lucy Letby. The doubt simply doesn't go away.... on 21:21 - Feb 5 by coote
She doesn’t deserve a retrial. Anyone who watched that doc and thought she wasn’t guilty needs to have their head looked at.
[Post edited 5 Feb 21:21]
Lucy Letby. The doubt simply doesn't go away.... by Ryorry3 Feb 16:25 The statistical and behavioural evidence has also been ripped to shreds by experts in those fields.
Other similar (same symptoms) infant deaths have been attributed to other reasons, ie biological infections, in at least one hospital abroad (Holland iirc).
There were numerous well documented failures in hygiene systems at the C o Chester hospital, including faecal backflow into the handwash basins on a regular basis.
None of us know whether LL is guilty or not, but on all the evidence available, her convictions are not safe, and at the very minimum, her new team’s appeal needs to be heard.
And yes, I do feel for the parents of the babies. But they deserve *sound* justice too.
Lucy Letby. The doubt simply doesn't go away.... on 23:31 - Feb 5 by Ryorry
Sorry, I made the mistake of assuming that everyone replying to my “nonsense” had gone into the case sufficiently themselves to be aware of the mass of evidence that has been widely available in the public domain for the past 6-12 months.
There’s more out there, I don’t have the time right now but I’m sure most on here are capable of searching if they wish to.
I haven't followed the case but our justice system (indeed all justice systems) isn't perfect. It wouldn't be the first time a jury has failed to understand statistics and their limitations.
The question is why it hasn't been seen worthy of a retrial. Clearly those who make the decision have decided it isn't for whatever legal reasons.
The most notable case that springs to my mind is the woman convicted after suffering 3 cot deaths.
Lucy Letby. The doubt simply doesn't go away.... on 08:18 - Feb 6 by Nthsuffolkblue
I haven't followed the case but our justice system (indeed all justice systems) isn't perfect. It wouldn't be the first time a jury has failed to understand statistics and their limitations.
The question is why it hasn't been seen worthy of a retrial. Clearly those who make the decision have decided it isn't for whatever legal reasons.
The most notable case that springs to my mind is the woman convicted after suffering 3 cot deaths.
Her new legal team's leader, barrister Mark McDonald, stated in a recently repeated TV docu, that it's a strange & unacceptable quirk of the UK's judicial system that
'appeals cannot be granted unless there is completely new evidence which was not available at the time of trials in which the verdicts were reached' (I've paraphrased, but that was the essence).
The flaw in the ointment in this case was that the evidence *was* available at that time, but back then it was either not recognised as being significant, and/or simply not presented to the court.
So, in his words, a potentially innocent person could serve a lengthy prison sentence because current legislation dictates that new evidence can't be given later if it could have been given at the time of the trial but wasn't ...
Yes, the sad cot deaths & trials- (incorporating the now discredited "shaken baby syndrome" theory) did come to mind - also those of the alleged "Satanic ritual abuse" & removal of children from their homes on Orkney. Both incorporating dreadful damage to families & a lot of deserved reputational damage to the supposed 'professionals'.
Many more have testified during the course of numerous documentaries & articles. I simply do not have the time to re-watch, re- listen or re-read the large volume of material on the case that I've gone through during the course of the past year.
Really not sure why dissenters are expecting me to be Wiki on this tbh, when it looks like few or none of them are prepared to take in even what was said on p1 of this thread.
Documentaries and articles arent "testimony". Not that we do testifying in this country anyway.
One of those links is a list of every expert who has made any public comment, in one direction or the other or peripherally. And the other is an old bbc article. once again referring to the same group of 14 which have been referenced above and explains the heart of the matetr; namely that whilst there is a dispute over the interpretation of a certain piece of research / work and the expert at trial may have been wrong in that regard, it was not a piece of evidence fundamental to the findings made after a trial with vastly more evidence than just that.
The whol conspiracy theory appears to stem from that. Evidence is rarely perfect in any case. You dont get to point to one thing and say that it means everything is hopeless.
Lucy Letby. The doubt simply doesn't go away.... on 01:28 - Feb 7 by Ryorry
Her new legal team's leader, barrister Mark McDonald, stated in a recently repeated TV docu, that it's a strange & unacceptable quirk of the UK's judicial system that
'appeals cannot be granted unless there is completely new evidence which was not available at the time of trials in which the verdicts were reached' (I've paraphrased, but that was the essence).
The flaw in the ointment in this case was that the evidence *was* available at that time, but back then it was either not recognised as being significant, and/or simply not presented to the court.
So, in his words, a potentially innocent person could serve a lengthy prison sentence because current legislation dictates that new evidence can't be given later if it could have been given at the time of the trial but wasn't ...
Yes, the sad cot deaths & trials- (incorporating the now discredited "shaken baby syndrome" theory) did come to mind - also those of the alleged "Satanic ritual abuse" & removal of children from their homes on Orkney. Both incorporating dreadful damage to families & a lot of deserved reputational damage to the supposed 'professionals'.
When did it become acceptable to defend a convicted mass murderer of children on a football forum. It’s absolutely disgusting and I can’t believe the moderators have not removed this thread. You should be utterly shamed trying to defend a mass baby killer.
[Post edited 7 Feb 11:01]
-2
Lucy Letby. The doubt simply doesn't go away.... on 11:23 - Feb 7 with 406 views
Lucy Letby. The doubt simply doesn't go away.... on 01:28 - Feb 7 by Ryorry
Her new legal team's leader, barrister Mark McDonald, stated in a recently repeated TV docu, that it's a strange & unacceptable quirk of the UK's judicial system that
'appeals cannot be granted unless there is completely new evidence which was not available at the time of trials in which the verdicts were reached' (I've paraphrased, but that was the essence).
The flaw in the ointment in this case was that the evidence *was* available at that time, but back then it was either not recognised as being significant, and/or simply not presented to the court.
So, in his words, a potentially innocent person could serve a lengthy prison sentence because current legislation dictates that new evidence can't be given later if it could have been given at the time of the trial but wasn't ...
Yes, the sad cot deaths & trials- (incorporating the now discredited "shaken baby syndrome" theory) did come to mind - also those of the alleged "Satanic ritual abuse" & removal of children from their homes on Orkney. Both incorporating dreadful damage to families & a lot of deserved reputational damage to the supposed 'professionals'.
Crucially, that is not the ONLY basis for appeals. And the appeal court actively looked at the additional evidence and heard directly from the expert during the appeal as well.
Have you read the judgment? It explains an awful lot.
Lucy Letby. The doubt simply doesn't go away.... on 11:00 - Feb 7 by jimmyvet
When did it become acceptable to defend a convicted mass murderer of children on a football forum. It’s absolutely disgusting and I can’t believe the moderators have not removed this thread. You should be utterly shamed trying to defend a mass baby killer.
[Post edited 7 Feb 11:01]
I don't think anyone is 'defending a mass baby killer' we are having a discussion about whether or not the conviction was safe under the law of the United Kingdom. Big difference, and pretty sad that you resort to accusations rather than see the nuance here.
Edited to add, there is an option to only view the Football Thread forum, if you don't like the discussions being had on the General Thread.
Lucy Letby. The doubt simply doesn't go away.... on 12:17 - Feb 7 by Hugoagogo_Reborn
I don't think anyone is 'defending a mass baby killer' we are having a discussion about whether or not the conviction was safe under the law of the United Kingdom. Big difference, and pretty sad that you resort to accusations rather than see the nuance here.
Edited to add, there is an option to only view the Football Thread forum, if you don't like the discussions being had on the General Thread.
[Post edited 7 Feb 12:20]
By the same token, he’s got a right to offer his view on the discussion about the convicted multiple child murderer.
Not sure telling him to stick to the football is quite fair.
Who knows where his comments come from. One of the many unnecessary comments on this thread.
Lucy Letby. The doubt simply doesn't go away.... on 08:26 - Feb 7 by redrickstuhaart
Documentaries and articles arent "testimony". Not that we do testifying in this country anyway.
One of those links is a list of every expert who has made any public comment, in one direction or the other or peripherally. And the other is an old bbc article. once again referring to the same group of 14 which have been referenced above and explains the heart of the matetr; namely that whilst there is a dispute over the interpretation of a certain piece of research / work and the expert at trial may have been wrong in that regard, it was not a piece of evidence fundamental to the findings made after a trial with vastly more evidence than just that.
The whol conspiracy theory appears to stem from that. Evidence is rarely perfect in any case. You dont get to point to one thing and say that it means everything is hopeless.
Apologies for not using the correct word, my comment was merely an explanation of not having the time to sit for hours going back through numerous documentaries, articles etc. in which various experts had *stated* why the prosecution's evidence was incorrect. I didn't realise I was required to use legal language.
Lucy Letby. The doubt simply doesn't go away.... on 13:17 - Feb 7 by Ryorry
Apologies for not using the correct word, my comment was merely an explanation of not having the time to sit for hours going back through numerous documentaries, articles etc. in which various experts had *stated* why the prosecution's evidence was incorrect. I didn't realise I was required to use legal language.
No one says you have to use legal language.
But testify makes it sound far more official and formal (and evidential) than "saying stuff on the internet or in an article".
Importantly, officially given evidence (or testimony in the US) is subject to detailed professional cross examination.
Lucy Letby. The doubt simply doesn't go away.... on 12:33 - Feb 7 by vapour_trail
By the same token, he’s got a right to offer his view on the discussion about the convicted multiple child murderer.
Not sure telling him to stick to the football is quite fair.
Who knows where his comments come from. One of the many unnecessary comments on this thread.
He does have that right, yes, just felt he barged in a bit too robustly with a takeaway that was misguided.
To suggest the thread ought to be deleted, when we've had previous civil and informative discussions on this same subject, in which site admins have also joined, seems a bit OTT.
However, no disrespect intended - on reflection the poster may have personal reason to feel strongly about discussion of this case.. 🤷
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
