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.

"You really haven’t."

I doubt I can help you any further, your closed mind is an obvious barrier, so much so, that you don't understand the legal term in answer, have a lovely day.

I think there is always a small minority of the population who do not research properly and make erroneous conclusions , in this instance it’s letbys trial was a miscarriage of justice, in other instances, flat earth, covid is a hoax, Elvis is alive etc. there is Always something undeniable which they deny,

obviously it’s very distasteful and disrespectful in this case, not just due to the evidence but as it’s a serial killer of babies.

I think this thread proves there is no point trying to convince those people though, just move on by.

I doubt it too because you don’t have an argument to make.

Your idea that a murderer should walk free unless they are carrying a smoking gun is the dangerous idea here.

You think that she should be free to continue to murder, that's the dangerous belief to hold!

"In fairness to you" despite your obvious bias, hopefully fairness does prevail, that being a retrial with all evidence admitted no matter whom it favours or not, you have a nice day too.

Re read baby I, baby E, the attempted murders by insulin and most damning of all, Lucy Letby on the stand. Yes there are miscarriages of justice, yes we can ask questions but LL is guilty of torturing and murdering defenseless babies. Its hard to believe someone would do such a thing and that's the real reason for all this hand wringing.

@978q

the term res gestae as used in English law literally has no relevance here.

🤣🤣🤣🤣

🙄

Ahhhhhh. It's that old sound bite.

I'm saying things that others have counteracted with evidence and opinion.

They don't agree with me. They've pointed out where I'm wrong.

But it must be everyone else at fault.

Probably best you do toddle off if people not bowing down to your underhand insults is upsetting you 👋🏻

Her cross examination was pretty damning.

The irony is it is you with a 'closed mind'. Everyone else has been asking for why you see it as unfair or whatever else, they're open to listening and considering different viewpoints but you're doing the opposite and are just resolute in thinking the trial must have not been conducted thoroughly (but funny enough can't articulate why).

That will be because you don't understand it.

@978q why do you think she lied about the blood around baby E's mouth? How did she know a baby was pale when the other nurse couldn't see as it was dark? Why did she draft a sympathy card for three babies when one was still alive? Why do think she remembered some things clearly that could help her but forgot things that would hinder her? Why did she tell police she didn't know much about the consequences of air embolism when she did a course about it?

Res gestae is an exception to heresay, I absolutely do understand it…how does it answer the question you were asked, which is why the Defence wouldn’t have realised there would be post mortems completed and asked for disclosure of them?

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.

So on your basis, being guilty on reasonable doubt would mean it doesn’t make you guilty, but you also maybe.

it would have to work both ways

I think there should be some estoppel principle that applies to online discussions when someone repeats refuted claims as you are doing.

@978q what on earth are you talking about?!

Have you read up on the evidence?

You can’t have otherwise you would know this vile specimen is an evil murdering dangerous psychopath!!!

Res gestae isn't relevant here as you are not talking about legal principles.

Your reasoning seems to be that you say that PM reports should have been put in evidence and the coroner or pathologist called. This has been responded to in some detail but you haven't explained why you still maintain this argument in the face of those responses which seem to defeat the argument pretty conclusively. So you haven't actually said why you think the trial went wrong, so far as I can see. If I'm wrong, however, do refer me to the relevant post.

I am probably on about the sort of people, who see certainty as their bag, you know, the sort who wanted unspeakable things done to Sally Clark, they eventually got their wish, she killed herself with alcohol.

She was innocent, perhaps you didn't know.

"refuted claims as you are doing"

Your refutals are the bench mark here, thanks for letting me know, I will tread warily around your exalted presence in future.

No, because convictions are meant to be when there isn't reasonable doubt. That's the whole concept.

Instead of talking about other cases, why don't you explain why you think Letby is innocent? So far all I've seen is you talking about the original post-mortems, which has been addressed several times. Do you simply not accept that the subsequent investigation found evidence that means those post-mortems are not valid? Why do you think the defence didn't use them? Why were they unable to find medical experts who could look at those post-mortems and other medical evidence and say they didn't show deliberate harm, if this is your contention?

Well, until you can come up with some sort of answer to my replies to you, that's really where it is, isn't it?

Once again- I've explained why the PMs weren't in evidence and I've explained why Evans' evidence was probably sound.

I'm still waiting for your reply to those explanations.

I think s/he is trying to be ever so clever and basically say that the PM reports were admissible under this rule. However, you really don't have to tie yourself up in legal knots like this. Undoubtedly they were admissible if someone wanted to bring that evidence to court.

The point which @978q keeps ignoring is that it's obvious that neither side did want to, because that evidence didn't help. It was no secret to the jury that in some cases there had been post mortem which resulted in findings of natural causes, not least because the evidence available to coroners was available to them. What was also no secret to the jury was that they were hearing and seeing much more evidence than the coroner was, and they had to decide on the basis of that evidence.

Letby's supporters do keep ignoring the fact that she had highly reputable lawyers who didn't accidentally forget to bring relevant evidence, and who would have discussed these decisions with her. They would have to be insane to appeal on the basis of an argument that "X piece of irrelevant evidence which we didn't call should have been called even though no-one thinks it would have made any difference to the verdict."

Hey guys @978q is just here 'to help' us - we should take note of his superior knowledge and intellect!!

Tried engaging with the spurious assertions about 'PM Reports' yesterday [as did several others] and didn't get any kind of meaningful response

Don't think @978q is here to discuss or debate anything - just here to correct and inform us so I'll just be ignoring from now on

But if you’re not innocent why would you be allowed to walk free?