Lucy Letby Guilty
Discussion
OutInTheShed said:
Greendubber said:
How many trials have you been involved in?
I've done jury service twice, four cases in total.That's enough for me not to have much faith in the legal system for anything other than very simple cases.
Tindersticks said:
Thanks for pointing things out to an actual lawyer 
Thing to remember about lawyers is that half of them are on the losing side of every case...I really cvan't see what point AGT was trying to make about some inferred difference between ''sure' and reasonable doubt' in this context?
But the reality seems to be a lot of jurors DGAS about the finer points of doubt or certaintly.
The man in the street has zero understanding of probability and statistics.
Or that 'unlikely' stuff happens.
Are you 'sure' your car will start in the morning?
I'd say I was, but in reality, hundreds of cars 'randomly' fail to start every day.
This might make sobering reading for a few:
https://deliverypdf.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=27908...
OutInTheShed said:
Thing to remember about lawyers is that half of them are on the losing side of every case...
And yet, they inevitably understand the law better than you do. It's fair to say that when acting in defence you may have to advance the most ludicrous arguments and tortured explanations, to keep a straight face whilst trying to offer mitigation for the most wretched, perverted dregs that have ever walked the earth...... but they do it because they are professionals to whom the payday trumps all. We all have bills to pay. Perhaps one of the most unfortunate aspects of the internet is the giving of an 'equal' voice to those who have no background in law but fancy themselves a unique talent.
As for Letby, let her rot. Justice has been done. Let her unending incarceration stand as a reminder to all criminals that justice will sometimes prevail.
OutInTheShed said:
Thing to remember about lawyers is that half of them are on the losing side of every case...
If you're measuring their success on wins and losses then that shows your lack of understanding of what they do. It's not just about 'winning' but about advising their clients. An example would be where the inevitable outcome will be a guilty verdict, overwhelming evidence etc but the defendant still has representation. Why do you think those cases still have a defence, what's the point right?It's to make sure that the defendant is properly represented and that the process and evidence used against them is sound etc. It'll never be a win, but they still need representation hence why saying 'well half the time they're losing' is a bit daft.
Ken_Code said:
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
Unlike you, I saw *no* evidence of guilt in that document - perhaps because I have seemingly very different life experience.
A lot of the other “evidence” was testimony from other doctors - not expert pathologists - saying they didn’t know what else could have caused symptoms and therefore (with the benefit of hindsight) that LL “must” have done something.
It was IMHO shockingly bad of the defence not to put up actual pathologists to speak to death and it’s causes. Some of the views expressed made literally no scientific sense. As we’ve seen with the Post Office debacle, the English legal system can be terrible.
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said: 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.
I thought the length of the trial was mainly because each case was considered separately, despite many of the same experts saying essentially the same thing in several cases.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.
What was truly surprising was the lack of rebuttal on the part of LL. Was it a lack of funds? Lack of engagement? The medical literature seems to provide scant support for the theories put forward by non-pathologists in this case, yet as English law AIUI does not allow for appeals founded in errors, in failures of defence, or in foolhardy overuse of common experts, it isn’t obvious how an appeal could now be launched.
And all of that said, perhaps she really is guilty? My discomfort with the process of the trial isn’t related to whether I think her guilty or not; it lies solely in a very real concern at the apparent (ab)use of science.
skwdenyer said:
I don’t think it inane waffle to consider why someone might put words on paper in the manner LL did.
Unlike you, I saw *no* evidence of guilt in that document - perhaps because I have seemingly very different life experience.
A lot of the other “evidence” was testimony from other doctors - not expert pathologists - saying they didn’t know what else could have caused symptoms and therefore (with the benefit of hindsight) that LL “must” have done something.
It was IMHO shockingly bad of the defence not to put up actual pathologists to speak to death and it’s causes. Some of the views expressed made literally no scientific sense. As we’ve seen with the Post Office debacle, the English legal system can be terrible.
Perhaps you missed it the last time this was explained but it’s not beneficial to your defence if the expert pathologist agrees with the prosecution’s. Unlike you, I saw *no* evidence of guilt in that document - perhaps because I have seemingly very different life experience.
A lot of the other “evidence” was testimony from other doctors - not expert pathologists - saying they didn’t know what else could have caused symptoms and therefore (with the benefit of hindsight) that LL “must” have done something.
It was IMHO shockingly bad of the defence not to put up actual pathologists to speak to death and it’s causes. Some of the views expressed made literally no scientific sense. As we’ve seen with the Post Office debacle, the English legal system can be terrible.
PRO5T said:
Ken_Code said:
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?
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?Any others?
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.
thisnameistaken said:
skwdenyer said:
I don’t think it inane waffle to consider why someone might put words on paper in the manner LL did.
Unlike you, I saw *no* evidence of guilt in that document - perhaps because I have seemingly very different life experience.
A lot of the other “evidence” was testimony from other doctors - not expert pathologists - saying they didn’t know what else could have caused symptoms and therefore (with the benefit of hindsight) that LL “must” have done something.
It was IMHO shockingly bad of the defence not to put up actual pathologists to speak to death and it’s causes. Some of the views expressed made literally no scientific sense. As we’ve seen with the Post Office debacle, the English legal system can be terrible.
Perhaps you missed it the last time this was explained but it’s not beneficial to your defence if the expert pathologist agrees with the prosecution’s. Unlike you, I saw *no* evidence of guilt in that document - perhaps because I have seemingly very different life experience.
A lot of the other “evidence” was testimony from other doctors - not expert pathologists - saying they didn’t know what else could have caused symptoms and therefore (with the benefit of hindsight) that LL “must” have done something.
It was IMHO shockingly bad of the defence not to put up actual pathologists to speak to death and it’s causes. Some of the views expressed made literally no scientific sense. As we’ve seen with the Post Office debacle, the English legal system can be terrible.
The jury (of only 11 - why on Earth we don’t have alternates is a mystery to me) were expected to test the reliability of scientific-sounding evidence without any baseline or benchmark. You can’t decide on science based upon whether you like or instinctively trust the expert - either the science is sound or it is not.
skwdenyer said:
thisnameistaken said:
skwdenyer said:
I don’t think it inane waffle to consider why someone might put words on paper in the manner LL did.
Unlike you, I saw *no* evidence of guilt in that document - perhaps because I have seemingly very different life experience.
A lot of the other “evidence” was testimony from other doctors - not expert pathologists - saying they didn’t know what else could have caused symptoms and therefore (with the benefit of hindsight) that LL “must” have done something.
It was IMHO shockingly bad of the defence not to put up actual pathologists to speak to death and it’s causes. Some of the views expressed made literally no scientific sense. As we’ve seen with the Post Office debacle, the English legal system can be terrible.
Perhaps you missed it the last time this was explained but it’s not beneficial to your defence if the expert pathologist agrees with the prosecution’s. Unlike you, I saw *no* evidence of guilt in that document - perhaps because I have seemingly very different life experience.
A lot of the other “evidence” was testimony from other doctors - not expert pathologists - saying they didn’t know what else could have caused symptoms and therefore (with the benefit of hindsight) that LL “must” have done something.
It was IMHO shockingly bad of the defence not to put up actual pathologists to speak to death and it’s causes. Some of the views expressed made literally no scientific sense. As we’ve seen with the Post Office debacle, the English legal system can be terrible.
The jury (of only 11 - why on Earth we don’t have alternates is a mystery to me) were expected to test the reliability of scientific-sounding evidence without any baseline or benchmark. You can’t decide on science based upon whether you like or instinctively trust the expert - either the science is sound or it is not.
thisnameistaken said:
skwdenyer said:
The jury (of only 11 - why on Earth we don’t have alternates is a mystery to me)
Because it’s hard to have a fair trial when some of the jury haven’t been present at all the trial. skwdenyer said:
thisnameistaken said:
skwdenyer said:
The jury (of only 11 - why on Earth we don’t have alternates is a mystery to me)
Because it’s hard to have a fair trial when some of the jury haven’t been present at all the trial. thisnameistaken said:
Im not really looking to debate the scientific evidence for free on a car forum. I’d be surprised if anyone with the requisite knowledge to robustly debate it would. I’m just explaining again why it’s very often not advantageous to appoint your own expert when they agree with the prosecution’s own expert. It’s not an oversight to not have one, it’s a decision.
That last I accept. But since - as people like to say in respect of UFOs - extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The evidence in LL’s case makes me - as someone with a scientific background - really quite uncomfortable as to how it seems to be decidedly scant as regards proof, as opposed to constructing a hypothesis as to how someone might have killed a baby.skwdenyer said:
thisnameistaken said:
Im not really looking to debate the scientific evidence for free on a car forum. I’d be surprised if anyone with the requisite knowledge to robustly debate it would. I’m just explaining again why it’s very often not advantageous to appoint your own expert when they agree with the prosecution’s own expert. It’s not an oversight to not have one, it’s a decision.
That last I accept. But since - as people like to say in respect of UFOs - extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The evidence in LL’s case makes me - as someone with a scientific background - really quite uncomfortable as to how it seems to be decidedly scant as regards proof, as opposed to constructing a hypothesis as to how someone might have killed a baby.Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff