Toast 16,232 Posted August 29 6 minutes ago, RoverAndOut said: the defence called no expert witnesses during the trial, which is odd. I didn't follow the trial closely, but I was shocked at the brevity of the defence case, compared with the months-long prosecution case. I expected them to address each charge thoroughly. I've already said that I thought it would be fairer to allow the defence to respond on a charge-by charge basis rather than waiting until the end. But I was left with the impression that they didn't make as much effort as they could have. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RoverAndOut 4,755 Posted August 29 48 minutes ago, Toast said: I didn't follow the trial closely, but I was shocked at the brevity of the defence case, compared with the months-long prosecution case. I expected them to address each charge thoroughly. I've already said that I thought it would be fairer to allow the defence to respond on a charge-by charge basis rather than waiting until the end. But I was left with the impression that they didn't make as much effort as they could have. The suggestion made in the BBC overview I posted was that the only reason they wouldn't have used expert witnesses is because their evidence wouldn't have helped her out very much...which perhaps further suggests the weight of evidence against her. I don't know... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Charles De Gaulle 487 Posted August 29 1 hour ago, RoverAndOut said: For those interested in a broad overview, the BBC have given a very good account of the reasons she was convicted and the arguments for and against conviction. I still trust the process, one thing that is emphasised is that a case is built on a body of evidence and one questionable piece doesn't undermine all the rest of the case. Two interesting things stood out on first reading: the defence called no expert witnesses during the trial, which is odd. And the expert witness who analysed the deaths in the Countess of Chester during this period did eliminate certain deaths and incidents from the investigation because he did not consider the cases to be suspicious given the circumstances and the medical notes (which are never mentioned during the 'inaccurate chart' row). It was only once that work was completed that it was cross-referenced and realised that Letby was on duty for all the questionable incidents, which is what's shown in the supposedly dodgy chart. Most currently suggesting there's questions about the safety of the conviction, rather than that Letby is innocent. I do suspect that even with her supporters, it will be very difficult to reach the high bar to challenge the verdict and get a re-trial, or get her conviction quashed. Here's the BBC'S unbiased overview: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c39k44n8j1mo I'm even more convinced of her guilt after reading this. The defence's main theory is that faulty plumbing could explain the deaths. For something like that to happen it would strike multiple babies at the same time, not sporadically kill them off one at a time. The defence makes much ado about how the test which showed increased insulin levels can't differentiate between synthetic insulin and insulin produced by the body. The problem is that these babies have yet to be diagnosed with anything that would explain why their bodies would organically produce such high amounts of insulin leaving the only logical conclusion to be artificial injection. There's also what William Lee said. To my knowledge there isn't any photograph that exists of this rash. What's really happening here is that the defence is using the muddled memory of witnesses to create doubt. As the article notes the Dewi Evans came to the air embolism conclusion based on a variety of sources not just the pattern. Lucy Letby wants everyone to believe she is a modern case of the Guildford Four or Birmingham Six but what she really is, a modern Jeremy Bamber. And like Mr Bamber, Lucy Letby is a child murdering narcissist who will die in prison 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RoverAndOut 4,755 Posted August 29 8 minutes ago, Charles De Gaulle said: I'm even more convinced of her guilt after reading this. The defence's main theory is that faulty plumbing could explain the deaths. For something like that to happen it would strike multiple babies at the same time, not sporadically kill them off one at a time. The defence makes much ado about how the test which showed increased insulin levels can't differentiate between synthetic insulin and insulin produced by the body. The problem is that these babies have yet to be diagnosed with anything that would explain why their bodies would organically produce such high amounts of insulin leaving the only logical conclusion to be artificial injection. There's also what William Lee said. To my knowledge there isn't any photograph that exists of this rash. What's really happening here is that the defence is using the muddled memory of witnesses to create doubt. As the article notes the Dewi Evans came to the air embolism conclusion based on a variety of sources not just the pattern. Lucy Letby wants everyone to believe she is a modern case of the Guildford Four or Birmingham Six but what she really is, a modern Jeremy Bamber. And like Mr Bamber, Lucy Letby is a child murdering narcissist who will die in prison I'm not prepared to categorically say she's guilty, beyond the fact that several judges, juries and courts have found her guilty of multiple offences, but I am leaning that way because that's what I'm supposed to think. I have to have faith in the legal system, despite miscarriages of justice existing. I do wonder if she has a few more supporters because she's a beautiful, young, blonde woman. It's incredibly hard seeing that picture of her in her uniform holding a newborn's knitted cardigan and imagine her indiscriminately killing babies. Would there be quite the same outrage if the accused was called Ibrahima Mahmood? You've got to ask. And Bamber's is another case that looks like it has legs but the only logical verdict based on the evidence is that he did it, whatever he claims. All very unsettling. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
maryportfuncity 10,682 Posted October 1 Not saying owt re guilt, innocence - I'm truly confused here but it does strike me as significant that those thinking the conviction unsafe can build enough of an argument to make a decent documentary. Downloadable etc. here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0023vnp Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
maryportfuncity 10,682 Posted October 24 Latest appeal denied - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpdvl3v2x7jo Not that this is over, by a long way Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Youth in Asia 1,088 Posted October 25 On 29/08/2024 at 18:43, Charles De Gaulle said: Lucy Letby wants everyone to believe she is a modern case of the Guildford Four or Birmingham Six but what she really is, a modern Jeremy Bamber. And like Mr Bamber, Lucy Letby is a child murdering narcissist who will die in prison Jeremy bamber is not the best example to use. His conviction is extremely unsafe, and I wouldn't be surprised if it eventually gets overturned. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
harrymcnallysblueandwhitearmy 1,704 Posted October 25 On 29/08/2024 at 12:56, RoverAndOut said: ….because she's a beautiful, young, blonde woman…. I must have missed that memo. Whatever you think about the veracity or otherwise of BBC articles about this or any other news stories, the corporation has its agendas like any media outlet. That pompous self-congratulatory ident/trailer with Clive Myrie about how trustworthy the glorious BBC journos are makes me arch at least one eyebrow. All we’ll/everyone’ll ever really know about Letby’s guilt or innocence is that we’ll never really know. Sorry if that sounds like a bargain-bin Confucianism. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Old Crem 3,628 Posted Monday at 15:38 Lawyers say they have new Evidence. https://news.sky.com/story/lucy-letbys-lawyers-to-share-new-evidence-they-claim-significantly-undermines-convictions-13274913 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Imelda 625 Posted 19 hours ago 22 hours ago, The Old Crem said: Lawyers say they have new Evidence. https://news.sky.com/story/lucy-letbys-lawyers-to-share-new-evidence-they-claim-significantly-undermines-convictions-13274913 OH NO THEY DON'T! https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cz6l0dynz7zo (It is panto season, after all) 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
maryportfuncity 10,682 Posted 16 hours ago 3 hours ago, Imelda said: OH NO THEY DON'T! https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cz6l0dynz7zo (It is panto season, after all) Reading between the lines, her lawyers have sent him difficult questions, he's been obtuse regarding answers and they're trying to bounce him into more. He's attacking them publicly but not being dogmatic about believing what he said in court. So, if they dragged him back and faced him with a few of the same questions he faced on the road to convicting her, it could get lively Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
.thumb.jpg.e0a481723da899e2f862c2ca8e2390a2.jpg)