Lucy Letby - new thread (part 2)

[anonymousamy]

A thread for anyone who was on the last one and wanted to continue the discussion.

What I cannot wrap my head around is Letby’s seemingly completely normal upbringing. Usually serial killers have displayed some kind of markers by the time they start killing, but AFAIK she literally had none. 100% believe she is guilty BTW - just cannot begin to understand it.

Yep, let's keep blaming the mothers.

Or the nurses.

The easy targets . . .

So your point is that the cases are similar because they involve mothers and nurses but no other particular reason?

@EmilyBrontesGhost

I haven’t blamed the mothers. I’ve made the fair point that Trupti Patel’s case can’t be characterised as a miscarriage of justice because she was acquitted (unless you believe she was in fact guilty), and that a finding that a conviction is unsafe is not a finding of innocence. Because it isn’t.

No one is allowed to talk about it if they think their children are of concern though

Threads get deleted.

So does that mean we should automatically regard every conviction as unsafe? Or is it just the high profile ones?

Sally Clark is a pertinent case here.

A mother convicted of killing her two babies, later exonerated and found to be totally innocent.

So not only did she suffer the unimagable loss of two babies dying, she was convicted of murdering them so had to also bear the injustice of being accused of their deaths.

It destroyed her, of course it would, no-one could survive that.

Do NOT try and say our justice system is perfect and makes the right decisions in every case. It destroys lives.

So are you saying none of that was evidence? What was it, then? Bear in mind that the trial process involves the prosecution putting its case by calling evidence, then the defence putting its case in the same way if it wants to call evidence. Witnesses swear to tell the truth about the evidence they are about to give, not about the "going through the circumstances" the are about to give.

I I wish you could explain what point it is that you are making just once. Are you saying that the fact that Sally Clark was wrongfully convicted automatically makes anyone convicted of killing babies innocent? Or just Lucy Letby whilst everyone else who has been convicted is probably guilty? Or what?

No one says the justice system is perfect. Miscarriages of justice happen. In a perfect world the Birmingham bombers would come forward (or perhaps the people in Sinn Fein or the IRA who know who they are would identify them.)

In the meantime we just have the justice system with enough safeguards to make miscarriages of justice rare.

The very fact that miscarriages of justice receive so much publicity shows how rare they are. If they were an every day routine occurrence the newspapers wouldn't bother reporting them.

This is interesting. My child was premature and the whole unit had expectations of how they should behave, feed, and what their body temperature should be and any other opinions were dismissed. I've also seen this with care within different depatments of hospitals. It's like everybody is treated as universal and anyone that isn't the norm is ignored and invalidated. People are individual, not statistics. Investigating causes of deaths is impotrant but investigating biases of causes of deaths is also important

Extremely rare, not.

ccrc.gov.uk/news/more-than-one-miscarriage-of-justice-overturned-every-week-this-year/

There are many miscarriages of justice and probably why they go unreported. It’s just the big cases that hit the headlines.

I sat in on a case some 17 years ago where the murderer was found to be innocent after the victims suicide note was found some 2 years later and verified.

That headline’s misleading. It goes on to say

meaning that during its quarter century of operation a total of 540 convictions or sentences have now been overturned thanks to CCRC referral

I make that 20 a year and there are multiple convictions related to a single case. 44 of them relate to the postmaster’s convictions. Whoever wrote that press release has scant regard for accuracy.

So basically you’re saying because there have been miscarriages of justice Letby’s innocent? Despite the absence of evidence in her defence and the overwhelming body of evidence presented by the prosecution?

Grasping at straws now. I don't think anyone is claiming there are never errors made, but now this threads worked through well what about x and its been explained it was addressed at trial the last point is to say well some trials give the incorrect verdict so this one might be. Its very strange.

"There are many miscarriages of justice"
so what is it many or rare?

Do you have a league table, where one person or persons miscarriage is less worthy (not to them though) than any others?

As for LL, I have never said anything about her guilt or innocence, because I don't know, I do not believe her trial was conducted in a fit and proper manner though.

As for LL, I have never said anything about her guilt or innocence, because I don't know, I do not believe her trial was conducted in a fit and proper manner though.

You still haven't said why though?

So basically you’re saying because there have been miscarriages of justice Letby’s innocent?

what I’m suggesting is that questioning how things are done should be done. Any decent justice system shouldn’t ever shy away from being questioned.

Mistakes or some parts of the system not working?

The postmasters cases were horrific incompetence and certainly not justice

This is a good point that I think many don't understand.

People are found guilty on the basis of reasonable doubt. There will be times guilty people are found innocent because there's enough reasonable doubt and innocent people are found guilty because a piece of evidence that provides reasonable doubt wasn't heard or even found at that time.

So it stands to reason that guilty people found guilty can then be acquitted because someone finds something that casts reasonable doubt.

But reasonable doubt is not a complete fail safe - it's just the best system the world has.

So being acquitted on reasonable doubt doesn't make you innocent. But you also may well be.

This is human emotions, fallacy and error. Not an exact science.

But I 100% believe LL is guilty based on the evidence. There is either 1 serial killer who was present at all deaths and collapses or multiple killers which is highly unlikely statistically.

No it doesn't make the right decision in every case.

But because it made the wrong decision in a few cases doesn't automatically mean that the same applies here which is what you appear to be claiming?

"You still haven't said why though?"

I really have, look up res gestae, it may or may not help you.

Post mortems which have been explained and then links to some verdicts being overturned?

In fairness to you, it's more accurate to say that you've put some objections forward (Evans, and the post-mortems in the main and you've been told why you're wrong. You haven't answered that though- you've simply kept repeating the same objections. Cribbing a bit of dead language won't help your arguments.

You really haven’t. You just keep dropping snippy little one liners. Why don’t you think Letby’s lengthy trial was conducted in a fit and proper manner?

Ah I get it, because there have been historic miscarriages of justice in other cases involving babies unless a serial killer is caught with a smoking gun in their hand they should be free to continue murdering babies?

I prefer our system of justice that can convict killers unless reasonable doubt can be established.

I prefer that murdering psychopaths be kept away from babies based on the wealth of evidence the jury deliberated over rather than be free to continue killing.

Some of these posts are frankly shocking and so disrespectful to the victims of this crime. LL is not a victim no matter how many are coming over to try to paint her as such.