 | Back to forum list |
| Back to The Lounge |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I personally think she's innocent and is being used as a scapegoat " There seems to be a lot of weight behind that assertion. Do you read Private Eye? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I personally think she's innocent and is being used as a scapegoat There seems to be a lot of weight behind that assertion. Do you read Private Eye?" What does Private Eye say? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Tried and found guilty in a court of law. Need I say more?" Acquitted murder convictions in the last few years, Acquitted or set aside postmaster convictions in the last few years . Need i say more | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I personally think she's innocent and is being used as a scapegoat " Ditto. Given the supporting evidence, the constant refusal to allow a retrial is more than a little suspect. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Lucy Letby's legal team are doing a very good job of planting these imaginary seeds of doubt that she is innocent. I'm not taken in by any of these red herrings, there is an overwhelming amount of evidence, both direct and circumstantial, proving her guilt. " You can say that again. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don't think she should be in prison for sending a tweet ok ban her from twitter for 5 years but prison just wrong " Wrong case. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I personally think she's innocent and is being used as a scapegoat There seems to be a lot of weight behind that assertion. Do you read Private Eye?" It's happened before, the same way. Read "Bad Science". | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Lucy Letby's legal team are doing a very good job of planting these imaginary seeds of doubt that she is innocent. I'm not taken in by any of these red herrings, there is an overwhelming amount of evidence, both direct and circumstantial, proving her guilt. You can say that again." Say it as many times as you like, you're wrong. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don't think she should be in prison for sending a tweet ok ban her from twitter for 5 years but prison just wrong " For fucks sake man. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don't think she should be in prison for sending a tweet ok ban her from twitter for 5 years but prison just wrong " Err, she is in prison after being found guilty of killing a number of babies - think you are thinking of someone else, and she was found guilty because she was inciting violence. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Tried and found guilty in a court of law. Need I say more?" So we're the Birmingham six etc. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I personally think she's innocent and is being used as a scapegoat There seems to be a lot of weight behind that assertion. Do you read Private Eye? What does Private Eye say? " MD who is a consultant paediatrician in Bristol has run countless articles over the last year or so where he has been reporting on the work of others in reviewing the evidence and commenting on their thoughts about how likely it is that deliberate acts of harm were the most likely cause of death. Quite harrowing reading, but wildly interesting and raise some questions. He has also spent time examining the testimony of the primary technical witness for the prosecution and shown how unsafe their evidence has been. He has never once said he thinks Letby is innocent but is convinced that her conviction is unsafe and a retrial is required. This is starting to become mainstream news now in typical fashion. Private eye report for years, Channel 4 run a documentary and something happens. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The very fact that this discussion is taking place shows clearly “that guilt was not proven beyond all reasonable doubt “ That is the standard of proof that must be arrived at in any criminal conviction. This clearly was NOT the case " It was in the trial. Her defence team called no witnesses. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The very fact that this discussion is taking place shows clearly “that guilt was not proven beyond all reasonable doubt “ That is the standard of proof that must be arrived at in any criminal conviction. This clearly was NOT the case " It clearly WAS the case. There was a lengthy, detailed hearing at which the jury found her overwhelming guilty. They heard all of the evidence, or at least the stuff that wasn't ruled out as it may have been prejudicial to her. Quite often, very damning evidence is not allowed to be heard, which goes in favour of the accused. She is guilty. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The very fact that this discussion is taking place shows clearly “that guilt was not proven beyond all reasonable doubt “ That is the standard of proof that must be arrived at in any criminal conviction. This clearly was NOT the case It clearly WAS the case. There was a lengthy, detailed hearing at which the jury found her overwhelming guilty. They heard all of the evidence, or at least the stuff that wasn't ruled out as it may have been prejudicial to her. Quite often, very damning evidence is not allowed to be heard, which goes in favour of the accused. She is guilty." Have you read anything about the trial, subsequent appraisals of the prosecution case and witnesses and the prosecution’s decision to call no witnesses and the reasons behind it? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The very fact that this discussion is taking place shows clearly “that guilt was not proven beyond all reasonable doubt “ That is the standard of proof that must be arrived at in any criminal conviction. This clearly was NOT the case It clearly WAS the case. There was a lengthy, detailed hearing at which the jury found her overwhelming guilty. They heard all of the evidence, or at least the stuff that wasn't ruled out as it may have been prejudicial to her. Quite often, very damning evidence is not allowed to be heard, which goes in favour of the accused. She is guilty. Have you read anything about the trial, subsequent appraisals of the prosecution case and witnesses and the prosecution’s decision to call no witnesses and the reasons behind it?" Eh? The prosecution called numerous witnesses, many of them experts such as consultant paediatrician. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The very fact that this discussion is taking place shows clearly “that guilt was not proven beyond all reasonable doubt “ That is the standard of proof that must be arrived at in any criminal conviction. This clearly was NOT the case It clearly WAS the case. There was a lengthy, detailed hearing at which the jury found her overwhelming guilty. They heard all of the evidence, or at least the stuff that wasn't ruled out as it may have been prejudicial to her. Quite often, very damning evidence is not allowed to be heard, which goes in favour of the accused. She is guilty. Have you read anything about the trial, subsequent appraisals of the prosecution case and witnesses and the prosecution’s decision to call no witnesses and the reasons behind it? Eh? The prosecution called numerous witnesses, many of them experts such as consultant paediatrician." Yes, it was a typo, I meant to say defence! Not very helpful, sorry. The consultant the prosecution called has wildly discredited himself since the trial and even himself has argued that many of the assertions he made during the trial were unsafe. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It would seem the Letby case is to become another 'medical conspiracy.' No matter how much credible evidence is provided 'believer' will grasp the small shreds of evidence that support their view, whether it be MMR, Covid vaccines & vaccines in general, and now Lucy Letby" What? Lucy Letby is an agent of Bill Gates the WHO and all the rest of them? Enquiring minds need to know | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have considerable professional experience in hospital based healthcare as does my wife (a retired senior intensive care nurse). At the very start of the saga we both thought that there were numerous anomalies in the case against her and that the whole scenario didn’t add up. Something was “fishy “. Having followed the case closely, our opinions are unchanged. The recent examination of the evidence by leading world authorities in their fields (medical, neonatal paediatricians, legal authorities , statisticians etc) found no evidence of any deliberate harm. NO EVIDENCE OF ANY DELIBERATE HARM! So…. none of us can know for sure but on what we have available, my opinion is that Lucy Letby was set up as a scapegoat to cover up for massive institutional failings in the hospital and by consultants covering their own backs. There also appears to be an implicit suggestion that one consultant may have committed perjury although the full facts are not yet available. And so it came to pass the what appeared “fishy” is now hugely more so. I strongly suspect that she is innocent and the victim of a massive miscarriage of justice." If you are right, I hope the perpetrators go to jail for a very long time. A VERY LONG TIME! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"For all those who say she was tried and found guilty, just remind yourselves of the huge cover up and corruption of the Post Office scandal. Police, Post Office Directors, even Govt Officials lied and denied the truth to so many and painted them all as guilty beyond doubt. That didn't end to well did it. " Did they also write confessions in their diaries, and plant other incriminating evidence in their homes? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It would seem the Letby case is to become another 'medical conspiracy.' No matter how much credible evidence is provided 'believer' will grasp the small shreds of evidence that support their view, whether it be MMR, Covid vaccines & vaccines in general, and now Lucy Letby" Agree 100%. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"For all those who say she was tried and found guilty, just remind yourselves of the huge cover up and corruption of the Post Office scandal. Police, Post Office Directors, even Govt Officials lied and denied the truth to so many and painted them all as guilty beyond doubt. That didn't end to well did it. Did they also write confessions in their diaries, and plant other incriminating evidence in their homes? " The confession was part of an exercise with a psychiatrist, she was instructed to do it to try to come to terms with what was happening. It doesn’t actually have any relationship with reality, it was an exercise. Other incriminating evidence? Such as? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It would appear a can of worms is opening x Also brings into question the death penalty argument as I’m quite sure after apparently killing lots of babies she would have been a contender for it" There isn’t really a death penalty argument though is there? There maybe one or two fringe nutters bumping their gums, but that doesn’t constitute an argument. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Tried and found guilty in a court of law. Need I say more?" . There has been many many cases where people have been sent to prison who were innocent. And some back in the day were put to death. The law system and our courts are not always correct. A lot of evidence in these cases is lost or not put forward. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"For all those who say she was tried and found guilty, just remind yourselves of the huge cover up and corruption of the Post Office scandal. Police, Post Office Directors, even Govt Officials lied and denied the truth to so many and painted them all as guilty beyond doubt. That didn't end to well did it. Did they also write confessions in their diaries, and plant other incriminating evidence in their homes? The confession was part of an exercise with a psychiatrist, she was instructed to do it to try to come to terms with what was happening. It doesn’t actually have any relationship with reality, it was an exercise. Other incriminating evidence? Such as?" A green Post-It note found inside a 2016 diary, contained what appeared to look like a confession: "I AM EVIL I DID THIS." On the same note, Letby wrote: "I killed them on purpose because I'm not good enough." On a separate note featuring similar small writing scrawled across every inch of space on the page, the killer nurse wrote: "I'm sorry that you couldn't have a chance at life," and "help" in capital letters. In another, she said 'I don't want to do this anymore.' Officers raiding Letby's bedroom also found some 257 confidential hospital documents, including handover and resuscitation sheets and blood gas readings, hidden away in bags. Some related to the babies she had been found guilty of hurting or killing. Letby repeatedly said on the witness stand that she simply liked to "collect paper" or had forgotten to remove the documents from her uniform before heading home. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"For all those who say she was tried and found guilty, just remind yourselves of the huge cover up and corruption of the Post Office scandal. Police, Post Office Directors, even Govt Officials lied and denied the truth to so many and painted them all as guilty beyond doubt. That didn't end to well did it. Did they also write confessions in their diaries, and plant other incriminating evidence in their homes? The confession was part of an exercise with a psychiatrist, she was instructed to do it to try to come to terms with what was happening. It doesn’t actually have any relationship with reality, it was an exercise. Other incriminating evidence? Such as? A green Post-It note found inside a 2016 diary, contained what appeared to look like a confession: "I AM EVIL I DID THIS." On the same note, Letby wrote: "I killed them on purpose because I'm not good enough." On a separate note featuring similar small writing scrawled across every inch of space on the page, the killer nurse wrote: "I'm sorry that you couldn't have a chance at life," and "help" in capital letters. In another, she said 'I don't want to do this anymore.' Officers raiding Letby's bedroom also found some 257 confidential hospital documents, including handover and resuscitation sheets and blood gas readings, hidden away in bags. Some related to the babies she had been found guilty of hurting or killing. Letby repeatedly said on the witness stand that she simply liked to "collect paper" or had forgotten to remove the documents from her uniform before heading home. Yea, so someone being used as a scapegoat by their employer for a horrendous set of crimes was role playing as their psychologist told them to. I don’t believe taking documents home from work, which I do daily, is tantamount to murder. What about the documents which had nothing to do with the babies she was accused of killing? Why are only the ones related to the dead children relevant and the others are not? This is very contrived and many competent commentators have stated that clearly. " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It would appear a can of worms is opening x Also brings into question the death penalty argument as I’m quite sure after apparently killing lots of babies she would have been a contender for it There isn’t really a death penalty argument though is there? There maybe one or two fringe nutters bumping their gums, but that doesn’t constitute an argument. " There is however a serious downside to not having a death penalty. And that is the number of people who have been convicted of murder ( and manslaughter ) then served a sentence in custody, then let out (sometimes after only a few years ) and have then killed again. That constitutes a death penalty for the victims of the repeat crime. I am old enough to recall the contentious debate about whether the death penalty should be stopped ( after the Ruth Ellis case ) Those who were reluctant to see the DP ended were promised that it would be replaced by 'Life Sentences" whith the mantra "Life will mean life. But with so many murders returning amongst us after less than say 8 years, the public were totally mislead. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I personally think she's innocent and is being used as a scapegoat There seems to be a lot of weight behind that assertion. Do you read Private Eye?" Nope I've just read news reports | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"For all those who say she was tried and found guilty, just remind yourselves of the huge cover up and corruption of the Post Office scandal. Police, Post Office Directors, even Govt Officials lied and denied the truth to so many and painted them all as guilty beyond doubt. That didn't end to well did it. Did they also write confessions in their diaries, and plant other incriminating evidence in their homes? The confession was part of an exercise with a psychiatrist, she was instructed to do it to try to come to terms with what was happening. It doesn’t actually have any relationship with reality, it was an exercise. Other incriminating evidence? Such as? A green Post-It note found inside a 2016 diary, contained what appeared to look like a confession: "I AM EVIL I DID THIS." On the same note, Letby wrote: "I killed them on purpose because I'm not good enough." On a separate note featuring similar small writing scrawled across every inch of space on the page, the killer nurse wrote: "I'm sorry that you couldn't have a chance at life," and "help" in capital letters. In another, she said 'I don't want to do this anymore.' Officers raiding Letby's bedroom also found some 257 confidential hospital documents, including handover and resuscitation sheets and blood gas readings, hidden away in bags. Some related to the babies she had been found guilty of hurting or killing. Letby repeatedly said on the witness stand that she simply liked to "collect paper" or had forgotten to remove the documents from her uniform before heading home. " Still not evidence she's a murderer. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"For all those who say she was tried and found guilty, just remind yourselves of the huge cover up and corruption of the Post Office scandal. Police, Post Office Directors, even Govt Officials lied and denied the truth to so many and painted them all as guilty beyond doubt. That didn't end to well did it. Did they also write confessions in their diaries, and plant other incriminating evidence in their homes? The confession was part of an exercise with a psychiatrist, she was instructed to do it to try to come to terms with what was happening. It doesn’t actually have any relationship with reality, it was an exercise. Other incriminating evidence? Such as? A green Post-It note found inside a 2016 diary, contained what appeared to look like a confession: "I AM EVIL I DID THIS." On the same note, Letby wrote: "I killed them on purpose because I'm not good enough." On a separate note featuring similar small writing scrawled across every inch of space on the page, the killer nurse wrote: "I'm sorry that you couldn't have a chance at life," and "help" in capital letters. In another, she said 'I don't want to do this anymore.' Officers raiding Letby's bedroom also found some 257 confidential hospital documents, including handover and resuscitation sheets and blood gas readings, hidden away in bags. Some related to the babies she had been found guilty of hurting or killing. Letby repeatedly said on the witness stand that she simply liked to "collect paper" or had forgotten to remove the documents from her uniform before heading home. Still not evidence she's a murderer." I'm surprised you say that, seeing how the jury, who listened to all the evidence (with the exception of the large amount of material ruled out during Voir dire), found her guilty. You've told us previously that you were a police officer although I'm not sure for how long. Does your experience run to major investigations of this nature, including the gathering, processing and presentation of complicated evidence such as this? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Lucy Letby? Any thoughts? Difficult wank "Believe she is innocent Easy wank | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"On the balance of probability, I’d say she’s guilty. However, a guilty verdict in a murder case isn’t on the ‘balance of probability’, it should be ‘beyond reasonable doubt’, and I’m not sure that Lucy Letbys case was proven beyond reasonable doubt." Exactly, hers is not a Civil case it is criminal and the requirements are quite different. there is very clearly some doubt. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"On the balance of probability, I’d say she’s guilty. However, a guilty verdict in a murder case isn’t on the ‘balance of probability’, it should be ‘beyond reasonable doubt’, and I’m not sure that Lucy Letbys case was proven beyond reasonable doubt. Exactly, hers is not a Civil case it is criminal and the requirements are quite different. there is very clearly some doubt." Seriously? You have both either missed, or are choosing to ignore something that is patently obvious. She WAS found guilty in a criminal court, therefore the case WAS proved beyond all reasonable doubt by people who heard all of the evidence. Also, her bid to challenge these convictions have twice been dismissed by the Court of Appeal. It's very clear that the defence's continual scattergun approach to discrediting her convictions are having the desired affect on people unfamiliar with legal procedure. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If she was innocent wouldn’t babies at that hospital still be getting killed or has the real killer stopped to make her look guilty?They worked out she was the only one on duty every time a baby was killed.If she’s innocent demand a lie detector & pass don’t think she will do that. " The point is there wasn’t a killer. Babies were dying because of sub standard care across the whole department. There is very strong evidence emerging that a scapegoat was arranged. Evidence such as the causes of death not being as described in the trial, Lucy Letby not being on shift and therefore not being on the premises when some of the babies died. The expert witness for the prosecution saying after the trial that the cause of death which was given in the trial was probably not the cause of death of more than one of the babies. The whole thing reeks, and we are also forgetting the parents of these babies who have been told their child was murdered when the truth may very well be totally different. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Tried and found guilty in a court of law. Need I say more?" I'm sure that the Guildford Four & Birmingham Six wouldn't put much weight on that. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And you know that for a fact? ☝️ No you don't!" Well yes, much of what I wrote there is known as fact. Causes of death will always be a medical opinion, and that’s where the arguments centre, there is a growing cadre of international pediatric consultants who have been reviewing the evidence bit by bit and all are saying that deliberate acts were unlikely to be the cause of death for the babies involved. The deaths didn’t stop once Letby was detained. Many of these things are facts. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And you know that for a fact? ☝️ No you don't! Well yes, much of what I wrote there is known as fact. Causes of death will always be a medical opinion, and that’s where the arguments centre, there is a growing cadre of international pediatric consultants who have been reviewing the evidence bit by bit and all are saying that deliberate acts were unlikely to be the cause of death for the babies involved. The deaths didn’t stop once Letby was detained. Many of these things are facts. " Of course babies die naturally, but have the number of deaths dropped to the natural attrition rate or are they still high? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Let her take a lie detector only way I’d believe her. " You've been watching too much TV, lie detectors are completely unreliable and have never been permitted as evidential tools in the UK. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Let her take a lie detector only way I’d believe her. " Lie detectors do not work. That won’t help anyone. If they did, don’t you think they would be used widely? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And you know that for a fact? ☝️ No you don't! Well yes, much of what I wrote there is known as fact. Causes of death will always be a medical opinion, and that’s where the arguments centre, there is a growing cadre of international pediatric consultants who have been reviewing the evidence bit by bit and all are saying that deliberate acts were unlikely to be the cause of death for the babies involved. The deaths didn’t stop once Letby was detained. Many of these things are facts. Of course babies die naturally, but have the number of deaths dropped to the natural attrition rate or are they still high?" Well today is a long way on from when this happened so other things have changed, but babies kept dying at a higher rate than normal after Letby was removed. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'd fuck her. Bet she's gagging for one by now!" I think she's incredibly cute. I'd definitely give her one. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"On the balance of probability, I’d say she’s guilty. However, a guilty verdict in a murder case isn’t on the ‘balance of probability’, it should be ‘beyond reasonable doubt’, and I’m not sure that Lucy Letbys case was proven beyond reasonable doubt. Exactly, hers is not a Civil case it is criminal and the requirements are quite different. there is very clearly some doubt. Seriously? You have both either missed, or are choosing to ignore something that is patently obvious. She WAS found guilty in a criminal court, therefore the case WAS proved beyond all reasonable doubt by people who heard all of the evidence. Also, her bid to challenge these convictions have twice been dismissed by the Court of Appeal. It's very clear that the defence's continual scattergun approach to discrediting her convictions are having the desired affect on people unfamiliar with legal procedure." I’m going on the expert witnesses at and after the trial. I said that on the balance of probability she is guilty, but I don’t think that the evidence now shows that beyond a reasonable doubt. I was fully aware of the legal procedure that imprisoned her. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"On the balance of probability, I’d say she’s guilty. However, a guilty verdict in a murder case isn’t on the ‘balance of probability’, it should be ‘beyond reasonable doubt’, and I’m not sure that Lucy Letbys case was proven beyond reasonable doubt. Exactly, hers is not a Civil case it is criminal and the requirements are quite different. there is very clearly some doubt. Seriously? You have both either missed, or are choosing to ignore something that is patently obvious. She WAS found guilty in a criminal court, therefore the case WAS proved beyond all reasonable doubt by people who heard all of the evidence. Also, her bid to challenge these convictions have twice been dismissed by the Court of Appeal. It's very clear that the defence's continual scattergun approach to discrediting her convictions are having the desired affect on people unfamiliar with legal procedure. I’m going on the expert witnesses at and after the trial. I said that on the balance of probability she is guilty, but I don’t think that the evidence now shows that beyond a reasonable doubt. I was fully aware of the legal procedure that imprisoned her." That same expert witness changed his story and conclusions after the trial. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Wouldn't ever get this attention if she was a different demographic. It was also incompetent of panorama to leave out discuss her note where she literally admits the crime in the last episode. Many many many babies died or almost died in her care. She was taken off her job and they stopped. It's a joke tbh." The note was an exercise her psychiatrist told her to undertake. That’s why it was left out. It wasn’t an admission of guilt it was a coping exercise. Panorama also had to remove parts of their last episode because they were baseless and singularly incorrect relating to feeding tubes becoming dislodged and the number of times it happened. There is a lot of misinformation out there and it’s clear people aren’t getting all the relevant elements. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"On the balance of probability, I’d say she’s guilty. However, a guilty verdict in a murder case isn’t on the ‘balance of probability’, it should be ‘beyond reasonable doubt’, and I’m not sure that Lucy Letbys case was proven beyond reasonable doubt. Exactly, hers is not a Civil case it is criminal and the requirements are quite different. there is very clearly some doubt. Seriously? You have both either missed, or are choosing to ignore something that is patently obvious. She WAS found guilty in a criminal court, therefore the case WAS proved beyond all reasonable doubt by people who heard all of the evidence. Also, her bid to challenge these convictions have twice been dismissed by the Court of Appeal. It's very clear that the defence's continual scattergun approach to discrediting her convictions are having the desired affect on people unfamiliar with legal procedure." Well it wouldn't be the first criminal trial to be later found to be very unsound and have to be reversed | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Let her take a lie detector only way I’d believe her. You've been watching too much TV, lie detectors are completely unreliable and have never been permitted as evidential tools in the UK." Were is your evidence they are unreliable reason they are not used is because lawyers would be out of work. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Let her take a lie detector only way I’d believe her. You've been watching too much TV, lie detectors are completely unreliable and have never been permitted as evidential tools in the UK. Were is your evidence they are unreliable reason they are not used is because lawyers would be out of work. " Truly wild https://www.apa.org/topics/cognitive-neuroscience/polygraph The truth about lie detector tests https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45736631 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/domestic-abuse-bill-2020-factsheets/mandatory-polygraph-tests-factsheet Where is your evidence they do? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don’t care if she a racist ,that’s up to her . I be honest I rather live amongst my own culture . I lived within Asian dominated area where I felt like foreigner . Called me old fashioned , but I’m a free speech believer . And seen lot worse then that on Facebook. Anyway what happened to 3 rent boys who torched Starmer car front door . The ones of Grinder . " Wrong thread pal. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Let her take a lie detector only way I’d believe her. You've been watching too much TV, lie detectors are completely unreliable and have never been permitted as evidential tools in the UK. Were is your evidence they are unreliable reason they are not used is because lawyers would be out of work. Truly wild https://www.apa.org/topics/cognitive-neuroscience/polygraph The truth about lie detector tests https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45736631 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/domestic-abuse-bill-2020-factsheets/mandatory-polygraph-tests-factsheet Where is your evidence they do? " He used to watch Jeremy Kyle. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Let her take a lie detector only way I’d believe her. You've been watching too much TV, lie detectors are completely unreliable and have never been permitted as evidential tools in the UK. Were is your evidence they are unreliable reason they are not used is because lawyers would be out of work. Truly wild https://www.apa.org/topics/cognitive-neuroscience/polygraph The truth about lie detector tests https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45736631 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/domestic-abuse-bill-2020-factsheets/mandatory-polygraph-tests-factsheet Where is your evidence they do? He used to watch Jeremy Kyle." That would do it | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Let her take a lie detector only way I’d believe her. You've been watching too much TV, lie detectors are completely unreliable and have never been permitted as evidential tools in the UK. Were is your evidence they are unreliable reason they are not used is because lawyers would be out of work. " They are widely used in America. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don’t care if she a racist ,that’s up to her . I be honest I rather live amongst my own culture . I lived within Asian dominated area where I felt like foreigner . Called me old fashioned , but I’m a free speech believer . And seen lot worse then that on Facebook. Anyway what happened to 3 rent boys who torched Starmer car front door . The ones of Grinder . " Its all gone quiet. Starmer needs to be outed if hes not going to do it himself. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don’t care if she a racist ,that’s up to her . I be honest I rather live amongst my own culture . I lived within Asian dominated area where I felt like foreigner . Called me old fashioned , but I’m a free speech believer . And seen lot worse then that on Facebook. Anyway what happened to 3 rent boys who torched Starmer car front door . The ones of Grinder . Its all gone quiet. Starmer needs to be outed if hes not going to do it himself. " It hasn't gone quiet at all. All three suspects remain in custody awaiting trial, provisionally set for April next year, with a plea and directions hearing set for October 17. To suggest that an arson attack on this country's leader, quite possibly planned and funded by Russia, is to do with him being involved with gay sexual liaisons with young men is both perverse and bewildering. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cq851ve9jexo | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Let her take a lie detector only way I’d believe her. You've been watching too much TV, lie detectors are completely unreliable and have never been permitted as evidential tools in the UK. Were is your evidence they are unreliable reason they are not used is because lawyers would be out of work. They are widely used in America." They aren't: In the 1998 US Supreme Court case United States v. Scheffer, the majority stated that "There is simply no consensus that polygraph evidence is reliable [...] Unlike other expert witnesses who testify about factual matters outside the jurors' knowledge, such as the analysis of fingerprints, ballistics, or DNA found at a crime scene, a polygraph expert can supply the jury only with another opinion." The Supreme Court summarized their findings by stating that the use of polygraph was "little better than could be obtained by the toss of a coin." In 2005, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals stated that "polygraphy did not enjoy general acceptance from the scientific community" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygraph | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" They are widely used in America." Oh the irony. Not widely enough, obviously. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Tried and found guilty in a court of law. Need I say more?" Birmingham Six? So many cases, and recently the chap who was cleared of r@pe after 25 years or something. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Let her take a lie detector only way I’d believe her. You've been watching too much TV, lie detectors are completely unreliable and have never been permitted as evidential tools in the UK. Were is your evidence they are unreliable reason they are not used is because lawyers would be out of work. They are widely used in America. They aren't: In the 1998 US Supreme Court case United States v. Scheffer, the majority stated that "There is simply no consensus that polygraph evidence is reliable [...] Unlike other expert witnesses who testify about factual matters outside the jurors' knowledge, such as the analysis of fingerprints, ballistics, or DNA found at a crime scene, a polygraph expert can supply the jury only with another opinion." The Supreme Court summarized their findings by stating that the use of polygraph was "little better than could be obtained by the toss of a coin." In 2005, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals stated that "polygraphy did not enjoy general acceptance from the scientific community" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygraph" Oh but they are 😆. 👍 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Tried and found guilty in a court of law. Need I say more? Birmingham Six? So many cases, and recently the chap who was cleared of r@pe after 25 years or something." More like a miniscule number of cases, and many of those whose convictions are 'found to be unsafe' really are guilty. Look at the Murder of Alison Shaughnessy case, a prime example. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" The note was an exercise her psychiatrist told her to undertake. That’s why it was left out. It wasn’t an admission of guilt it was a coping exercise. Panorama also had to remove parts of their last episode because they were baseless and singularly incorrect relating to feeding tubes becoming dislodged and the number of times it happened. There is a lot of misinformation out there and it’s clear people aren’t getting all the relevant elements." No. She was told to write her feelings on a note. Not write a confession on her note. You've intentionally attempted to underplay this. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" The note was an exercise her psychiatrist told her to undertake. That’s why it was left out. It wasn’t an admission of guilt it was a coping exercise. Panorama also had to remove parts of their last episode because they were baseless and singularly incorrect relating to feeding tubes becoming dislodged and the number of times it happened. There is a lot of misinformation out there and it’s clear people aren’t getting all the relevant elements. No. She was told to write her feelings on a note. Not write a confession on her note. You've intentionally attempted to underplay this." This is exactly what her defence wants - people like YOU underplaying it. All this nonsense is coming after her conviction, by so-called experts, and others speculating as to why she wrote these notes. No evidence was ever called by the defence from whoever you imagine told her to make these notes. The suggestion of it being a part of counselling was not mentioned. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" The note was an exercise her psychiatrist told her to undertake. That’s why it was left out. It wasn’t an admission of guilt it was a coping exercise. Panorama also had to remove parts of their last episode because they were baseless and singularly incorrect relating to feeding tubes becoming dislodged and the number of times it happened. There is a lot of misinformation out there and it’s clear people aren’t getting all the relevant elements. No. She was told to write her feelings on a note. Not write a confession on her note. You've intentionally attempted to underplay this." I’ve intentionally attempted to underplay this? What makes you say that and what makes you think that’s a helpful approach? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" The note was an exercise her psychiatrist told her to undertake. That’s why it was left out. It wasn’t an admission of guilt it was a coping exercise. Panorama also had to remove parts of their last episode because they were baseless and singularly incorrect relating to feeding tubes becoming dislodged and the number of times it happened. There is a lot of misinformation out there and it’s clear people aren’t getting all the relevant elements. No. She was told to write her feelings on a note. Not write a confession on her note. You've intentionally attempted to underplay this. This is exactly what her defence wants - people like YOU underplaying it. All this nonsense is coming after her conviction, by so-called experts, and others speculating as to why she wrote these notes. No evidence was ever called by the defence from whoever you imagine told her to make these notes. The suggestion of it being a part of counselling was not mentioned." Herein is the problem. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Has anyone been following the unfolding shitstorm around the conviction of Lucy Letby? Any thoughts?" I just don't think about such people or their disgusting crimes. The witch should face the capital ounishment | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Has anyone been following the unfolding shitstorm around the conviction of Lucy Letby? Any thoughts? I just don't think about such people or their disgusting crimes. The witch should face the capital ounishment" Excellent, I wonder if you could have stoped after 6 words and said the same thing? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
