Lucy Letby case - Evidence discussion thread

[noseall]

This case is way too complicated to reach a consise and reliable conclusion

And yet, that is exactly what happened.

 

[Highway Man]

It's usually where convicted murderers reside.

Murder or convicted murderers in prison?

She was convicted based upon unreliable evidence. There is no real conclusive proof that she is indeed a murderer

 

[noseall]

She was convicted based upon unreliable evidence

How did you reach that conclusion?

There is no real conclusive proof that she is indeed a murderer

Apart from the evidence, a jury trial and subsequent (failed) appeals.

 

[Highway Man]

How did you reach that conclusion?

Apart from the evidence, a jury trial and subsequent (failed) appeals.

The evidence was unreliable as announced by the worlds leading experts along with the author of the paper that helped to convict her.

 

[noseall]

The evidence was unreliable as announced by the worlds leading experts along with the author of the paper that helped to convict her.

Irrelevant.

Just as many experts will announce (and probably testify) the evidence and conviction is sound.

 

[Highway Man]

Irrelevant.

Just as many experts will announce (and probably testify) the evidence and conviction is sound.

That is my point. It all rests upon who you believe

 

[noseall]

It all rests upon who you believe

No it doesn't, because she is in prison, where she will remain, having been convicted by a trail by jury, for murder.

It would take some new and compelling evidence, just to raise an eyebrow. The opinions of naive onlookers like yourself, matter not a jot in that respect.

 

[ellal]

Irrelevant.

Tell that to the innocent victims of the shaken baby syndrome miscarriages of justice scandal

 

[noseall]

Tell that to the innocent victims of the shaken baby syndrome miscarriages of justice scandal

I'm not arguing for or against her conviction, in fact, I find the whole case a bit - odd.

I'm saying opinions of onlookers, whether that are 'experts' or otherwise, are irrelevant. New and compelling evidence does.

 

[Highway Man]

No it doesn't, because she is in prison, where she will remain, having been convicted by a trail by jury, for murder.

It would take some new and compelling evidence, just to raise an eyebrow. The opinions of naive onlookers like yourself, matter not a jot in that respect.

Evidence has come to light since the conviction, also a jury isn't a panel of medical experts, it is made up of members of the public who convicted her based upon the evidence they were presented with and their own beliefs. It would have been a very difficult "not guilty" verdct.

 

[noseall]

Evidence has come to light since the conviction

Such as?

 

[Highway Man]

Such as?

That the initial evidence was flawed, the conviction was based upon being correct which it wasn't

 

[blup]

The Sally Clark case showed how convictions relying on flawed statistical evidence create miscarriages of justice.

 

[noseall]

That the initial evidencee was flawed

Says who?

 

[pete01]

Says who?

Have you watched that itv documentary? Its an interesting watch.