Lucy Letby Guilty
Discussion
PRO5T said:
I'm allowed to disagree, as are you and this case will forever be a discussion that goes round and around. Have you read the New Yorker article?
You may want to claim that the confession is just “coincidence”, but that’s not what the word means.If you want to re-define normal English words then there’s no point engaging.
PRO5T said:
Very debatable as to whether that is a "confession" (the inverted commas are intentional). As the jurors didn't find her guilty on all charges it would seem they debated it too and didn't take it into consideration.
Any others?
A not guilty verdict does not mean the jury "didn't take [confession evidence] into consideration." It simply means not sure of guilt. In criminal proceedings, probably guilty but not sure = not guilty.Any others?
agtlaw said:
PRO5T said:
I'm allowed to disagree, as are you and this case will forever be a discussion that goes round and around. Have you read the New Yorker article?
Ten month trial > New Yorker article.I'll bow out, these threads get tedious when folk who can't agree try to convince one another.
PRO5T said:
Ah come on now Andrew, I didn't say one trumped the other. Regardless some jurors believed some things, some others. It's a bit daft to believe the public can't do the same.
I'll bow out, these threads get tedious when folk who can't agree try to convince one another.
At the risk of repetition, probably guilty but not sure = not guilty. A not guilty verdict does not mean the jury accepted the defence case. I'll bow out, these threads get tedious when folk who can't agree try to convince one another.
Ken_Code said:
It was a letter she wrote saying that she had killed the babies. Are you pretending it was the start of a novel she was writing?
However you wish to categorise it, you really can’t pretend that it’s not evidence that goes beyond coincidences.
You are also ignoring the distressed baby with blood in its mouth, among myriad other pieces of evidence.
No, the claim that the prosecution case was based only on coincidences isn’t true.
What letter? You mean the random notes on a piece of paper? Do you have any experience with mental health crises, the thoughts and fears that stem from that? Do you know the context of those scribblings?However you wish to categorise it, you really can’t pretend that it’s not evidence that goes beyond coincidences.
You are also ignoring the distressed baby with blood in its mouth, among myriad other pieces of evidence.
No, the claim that the prosecution case was based only on coincidences isn’t true.
When you say “a letter she wrote saying that she had killed the babies” common usage would suggest that meant a “Dear Xx, here’s my letter of confession.” There was no such thing.
The prosecution presented it as they wanted to, and the defence did a frankly piss poor job of presenting it in any other way. To me it reads entirely differently - but then I have far more experience than I wish I had dealing with issues of mental health crisis, depression, feelings of worthlessness and so on.
Even if you exclude my interpretation, the “letter” could just as easily be a list of allegations made against her, not a confession. It as about as watertight as a colander.
agtlaw said:
At the risk of repetition, probably guilty but not sure = not guilty. A not guilty verdict does not mean the jury accepted the defence case.
Nope.The jury should vote 'not guilty' if they are not 'sure beyond reasonable doubt'.
But in reality, they feel the accused is a wrong 'un and vote 'guilty'.
OutInTheShed said:
Nope.
The jury should vote 'not guilty' if they are not 'sure beyond reasonable doubt'.
'.
Nope!? The jury should vote 'not guilty' if they are not 'sure beyond reasonable doubt'.
'.
The standard jury direction refers to being sure of guilt; see below.
Nothing is said by the judge about ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ unless an advocate used that expression in his closing speech.
Edited by agtlaw on Saturday 25th May 05:59
skwdenyer said:
What letter? You mean the random notes on a piece of paper? Do you have any experience with mental health crises, the thoughts and fears that stem from that? Do you know the context of those scribblings?
Inane waffle snipped. The claim was that the only evidence was the coincidence that she was on duty when the babies died. That’s wrong, and I gave the note as an example of other evidence.Edited by Ken_Code on Saturday 25th May 07:38
Greendubber said:
I guess all those that sat through trial and heard all available evidence would be best to comment, not a load of people on the internet thinking they know more about it.
I followed it quite closely. Not as close as the Jury, of course, but close enough to know that some of the claims made on here are rubbish.The idea that the prosecution was based mainly (let alone fully) on her being the only person present for each death is risible.
Greendubber said:
I guess all those that sat through trial and heard all available evidence would be best to comment, not a load of people on the internet thinking they know more about it.
Honestly threads like this fascinate me.The length of this trial and the sheer volume of evidence that must have been presented in court has me scratching my head around on what basis anyone can be thinking they know better based on a couple of articles on the Internet
The whole thing has the vibe of those Daily Mail "could this be the piece of bombshell evidence that exonerates..." type articles.
I think it's quite bizarre.
agtlaw said:
OutInTheShed said:
Nope.
The jury should vote 'not guilty' if they are not 'sure beyond reasonable doubt'.
'.
Nope!? The jury should vote 'not guilty' if they are not 'sure beyond reasonable doubt'.
'.
The standard jury direction refers to being sure of guilt; see below.
Nothing is said by the judge about ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ unless an advocate used that expression in his closing speech.
Edited by agtlaw on Saturday 25th May 05:59
what goes on in the room may diverge fro mthe textbooks.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff