Lucy Letby press conference

[Viviennemary]

There is a press conference going on now trying to get Lucy Letby's conviction overturned. From what I read the guilty verdict was sound. All those ill babies dying when she was alone with them. Just a coincidence? Already been refused an appeal.

You haven’t. A link to the Webster dictionary definition of “conviction” isn’t proof that most criminal convictions are based on circumstantial evidence. You should be smart enough to understand the sample sentences in a dictionary are just that, examples, not facts.

Anyhoo, the standard of proof to convict requires multiple strands of different types of evidence. You can’t convict on the basis of circumstantial evidence alone. Letby was convicted using a mixture of partially true circumstantial evidence and expert evidence from a now discredited so-called “expert”.

@FlowerUser as per the RCPCH byelaws, the control and management of the affairs of the College are vested in the Board of Trustees - this is basic governance. https://www.rcpch.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2024-04/rcpchbyee_laws.pdf

Not only was Modi a public figurehead as president, she was also accountable as a member of the board for pretty much everything the organisation did.

You can’t convict on the basis of circumstantial evidence alone.

You can. And many murder convictions have been secured on it. Peter Sutcliffe, the Wests and Brady and Hindley are all prime examples.

@Liveandletlive18 a friend of mine was on jury service and finished appalled at the other jurors who didn't give a damn and voted guilty just so they could go home.
(Bit more nuance in what they told me but that's the headline)

I would say the tapes played in court were more than circumstantial evidence.

🤣😂
You are embarrassing yourself.

Sutcliffe confessed to being the Yorkshire Ripper and murder weapons used to kill some of the victims were found exactly where he said they were. He was arrested wearing a much used v-neck jumper with his legs in the arms and his dick coming out the neck of the jumper.

He was convicted due to both direct evidence(confession) and forensic evidence (murder weapons matching the wounds)

I won’t even bother to go through the rest of your list because you have proven beyond a reasonable doubt imho you have no idea what circumstantial evidence is or how it is used.

Why are you arguing over circumstantial evidence?

It can and is used to convict people

The stats are online

And as you should know the Board delegates those powers to the CEO. Modi didn't carry out the review herself.

You are obviously not convinced by the evidence produced by the experts this week. You have your reasons, no doubt, but you're trying to draw me into a pig wrestling contest and while you might enjoy getting muddy, it's not my bag.

I will be ignoring any further comments from you.

You’re right. The tapes were evidence in one Moors murder conviction. The rest of the numerous convictions in the examples I quoted were based on circumstantial evidence, as were Shipman’s.

I dont know the ins and outs of the West and Sutcliffe cases, but Hindley/Brady were caught because an eyewitness (Hindley’s brother-in-law) literally watched them murder someone and helped clean up the body, before going straight to police. Do you consider that circumstantial evidence?

There are many dreadful stories. A friend was called to jury duty a few years ago. It was a rape case where the woman was not the smartest tool in the box & she had been drinking although not excessively.She insisted she was seriously assaulted & raped. The jury with this evidence decided the perpetrator was not guilty. My friend stood up & said I'm withdrawing my not guilty verdict & went on to give reasons & the verdict became guilty. It turned out the rapist had a long line of similar convictions & he was within minutes of being set free.

@FlowerUser I know you are ignoring me now, but you are wrong on this. The board can delegate responsibility, but never accountability. Again, this is basic governance.

There is no new evidence. Only new people interpreting evidence already presented which isn't sufficient grounds for a retrial or overturning the verdict. That's why appeals were refused. Obviously folk have an agenda to get this overturned. I hope they don't bow to this kind of pressure.

Yes, circumstantial evidence is used to support a conviction, but blossom toes is under the delusion that most murder convictions are based on circumstantial evidence- as in it is the only evidence or the most important evidence used when it is neither.

She probably does, when it’s not, it’s direct evidence.

Because they are. You’re presumably unable to provide any evidence that isn’t the case otherwise you’d have done so.

@Viviennemary yes and people in here are at pains to ignore that! I mean it’s obvious

If they’d bothered to understand the appeal ruling then they would know already but they are spouting any old nonsense to suit their own beliefs

It’s ironic when they are talking about a serial
killer and banging on about justice yet the majority have done nothing to educate themselves in the intricacies of the case

On not in!

I've heard some jury horror stories too.

Dh's friend was on a jury where a woman was accusing a family member of historic child abuse.

He decided that the woman was lying because she called her vagina a fanny.

I have no opinion on Lucy Letby either way. I watched some of the press conference but it's beyond me. I wouldn't want to be on a jury listening to medical evidence that I couldn't even understand.

Part of me struggles to see any motive and she could be the scapegoat for a cover up.

She did behave strangely stalking the families on Facebook, the notes, the lack of emotion. But acting strangely doesn't make someone a murderer.

There are no new FACTS there is new EVIDENCE.

You are confusing the two. Evidence supports claims about a fact. The medical facts about the deaths of babies are in the medical reports. How they are interpreted is EVIDENCE. The new evidence is the rigorous re-evaluation of the medical facts by a panel of experts.

Yeah ok. Here you go. Use that handy dandy dictionary of yours and look up the different types of evidence. Then compare to the cases you listed.

You will see none of those cases were convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence. There was a lot of other more weighty evidence in addition to circumstantial evidence used to secure the convictions.

Yes and read the judgement it does not matter if different experts want to conclude something different

Letby instructed her own experts and they did not take the stand in her defence

You can’t just instruct a new set of experts because your previous ones didn’t do a good job!

@Quitelikeit Well actually you can. You can present their alternative views to the CCRC. Whether that gets LL any further towards an appeal is up to CCRC. They now have to decide what happens next as they look at cases that have failed to get an appeal or have not been successfully appealed. Getting new information or opinion is not unusual.

What about the thought that your baby could have died due to negligence, lack of funding and lack of staff and then their death pinned on someone innocent? That doesn't fill you with terror?

If due to expert evidence a person is found wrongfully guilty & jailed then later the true perpetrator of the crime admits guilt & has strong evidence to prove it, does this in your opinion as stated by a judge mean there is still no reason after the event to have a retrial. Again in the LL case I don't know whether she is guilty or not guilty & I'm referring to your post in general.