Nurse Lucy Letby charged with 8 counts of murder and 10 counts of attempted murder

S

SirGalahad

Joined
1 Apr 2016
Messages
13,610
Reaction score
552
Country
United Kingdom
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ering-eight-babies-trying-murder-10-more.html

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ing-eight-babies-deaths-Chester-Hospital.html

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...-murdering-eight-babies-trying-kill-nine.html

She looks like such a wonderful nurse.


35574308-8939431-image-m-22_1605133248778.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Reminiscent of the woman who was imprisoned for the two cot deaths and was then released when the experts got it wrong about the statistical “odds” of it being coincidence.

Even though top academic statistical experts -in maths and in medicine - are raising questions, it is not premature to be continuing the inquiry which is based on the finding of guilt. The experts are not paid consultants, so someone would -at least initially- need to pay for the lawyers etc to put a case together and appeal.
 
blup said:
Reminiscent of the woman who was imprisoned for the two cot deaths and was then released when the experts got it wrong about the statistical “odds” of it being coincidence.

Even though top academic statistical experts -in maths and in medicine - are raising questions, it is not premature to be continuing the inquiry which is based on the finding of guilt. The experts are not paid consultants, so someone would -at least initially- need to pay for the lawyers etc to put a case together and appeal.
Click to expand...
Sir David Davis is looking at the case, to see if, in his opinion, it's worth pursuing.
He has a track record of pursuing unsafe convictions with some good results.
 
Harry Bloomfield said:
On the face of it, from what I have read, the convictions seem very unsafe. I'm not saying she is innocent, rather there is a lot of room for doubt.
Click to expand...
Regardless then of any final outcome, guilty or not.
It's an example why death penalty is wrong,
If guilt is guilt there would be no going back.
No axe to grind in this case but it looks like it will not lie down yet.
 
Just heard the experts on R4, they are arguing the terms of reference of the inquiry should be broadened to examine the statistical techniques used in these cases generally; but that surely undermines the whole basis of the inquiry. Another commentator implied that the police only handed those cases to tne prosecution expert where LL had been present at or around the incidents in question. So creating the case...??
 
blup said:
Just heard the experts on R4, they are arguing the terms of reference of the inquiry should be broadened to examine the statistical techniques used in these cases generally; but that surely undermines the whole basis of the inquiry. Another commentator implied that the police only handed those cases to tne prosecution expert where LL had been present at or around the incidents in question. So creating the case...??
Click to expand...
Yes, there were baby deaths when LL was not on duty.
In addition, apparently she did extra shifts raising the probability that she would have been on shift when babies died.
There was another issue not examined, Babies can naturally produce insulin. But this is different to the manufactured insulin. There was no tests carried out to discern if there was any differences in the insulin that caused the deaths.
I understand that these were not aspects considered during the trial.
 
Its anyones guess whether the inquiry takes longer than a further court of appeal claim. Id put my money on the latter. If so and if successful, the independent experts can say with some confidence we told you so. And tens of millions wasted. The court of appeal doesn't rerun the trial so the experts will have come up with something fundamentally wrong with the first one
 
blup said:
Its anyones guess whether the inquiry takes longer than a further court of appeal claim. Id put my money on the latter. If so and if successful, the independent experts can say with some confidence we told you so. And tens of millions wasted. The court of appeal doesn't rerun the trial so the experts will have come up with something fundamentally wrong with the first one
Click to expand...
I don't think appeals consider arguments not presented by the defence at the original trial.
If those arguments existed but were not used, then I think the appeal is rejected.
The lack of a good defence lawyer, or poor performance of that lawyer is not grounds for appeal, as I understand it.
The appeal considers new evidence, not evidence that existed, and was known about, but was not used by the defence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
  • Locked
Lucy Letby found guilty.
8 9 10
Replies
145
Views
10K
Roy Bloom
R
Back
Top