Apparently it does as you seem to be implying that circumstantial evidence isn't enough to convict someone but simply knowing the NHS is in a terrible state right now is enough circumstantial evidence for you to infer that it either wasn't her or that it was simply NHS being in a terrible state right now.
Nurse arrested for murdering babies
- Thread starter neocon
- Start date
Associate
- Joined
- 5 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 2,182
Well for what I have seen and read it's seems pretty clear she did it....so I guess that's all sorted...
Just so sad.....
Just so sad.....
Last edited:
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 21 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 46,295
Who needs a jury or to go to court, just ask this guy, she’s innocent. What a muppet.
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 Feb 2009
- Posts
- 4,988
- Location
- South Wirral
There are many issues with the jury trial system. The problem is the alternatives are worse.
If you have evidence the state of the NHS was to blame I'm sure her legal team would be very interested.
I don't see the need for personal insults, As I suggested I just want to know what hard evidence the CPS had that convinced the jury. If you actually read my earlier replies I said, I am not saying she did or didn't do it, I just want to know how it came about.
I think we haven't got every exact detail because there is still an investigation in to the other hospitals she's worked at, and looking at every baby death in areas she was in the vicinity of.
Though I have to say finding evidence were she wrote that she killed them is quite damning in my opinion.
I'm surprised she hasn't claimed to be suffering from some psychological disorder. Because her claiming she's innocent when she's written that she killed them seems contradictory.
I don't think she wants to admit to herself what she did.
I think some public observers can't acknowledge what happened either. I've seen a cps conspiracy on here. On social media some are calling her a scape goat for hospital deaths etc.
Some people really do have a very dark aura around them. Selfish and narcissistic. These people exist.
Though I have to say finding evidence were she wrote that she killed them is quite damning in my opinion.
I'm surprised she hasn't claimed to be suffering from some psychological disorder. Because her claiming she's innocent when she's written that she killed them seems contradictory.
I don't think she wants to admit to herself what she did.
I think some public observers can't acknowledge what happened either. I've seen a cps conspiracy on here. On social media some are calling her a scape goat for hospital deaths etc.
Some people really do have a very dark aura around them. Selfish and narcissistic. These people exist.
Last edited:
People love the idea of a conspiracy theory. People love to say how incompetent public sector is. People love to think they know something other people don't. People love to feel like they are the few that can see the truth.
This is a very serious crime if true so I doubt they will be working on "she probably did it". Thats not how courts work at the best of times, let alone on a case of this profile and severity.
Will be interested to hear more information as it comes out.
This is a very serious crime if true so I doubt they will be working on "she probably did it". Thats not how courts work at the best of times, let alone on a case of this profile and severity.
Will be interested to hear more information as it comes out.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,304
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
You do realise that if they released the evidence to you that you would also need that same amount of time to come to a verdict?
You would also need professionals nearby to answer questions like they did.
You could not come to a verdict in 10 seconds so giving the full evidence to you is pointless.
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 12,486
Well, since there's presumably no CCTV footage or anything, the evidence of her guilt must be what they've essentially deduced.
Therefore my first question is about all the ones of which she was found not guilty - If not her, then WFT happened there?
It's also big business, from the various novels and non-fic books, to films, to entire TV channels with nothing but Real Crime/True Crime programmes.
Therefore my first question is about all the ones of which she was found not guilty - If not her, then WFT happened there?
A lot of people make hobbies and even lifestyles from cases like this - The Kennedy Assassination, for example.
It's also big business, from the various novels and non-fic books, to films, to entire TV channels with nothing but Real Crime/True Crime programmes.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 1 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 53,721
- Location
- Welling, London
Have they said anything about the possibility of her having Munchausen by proxy syndrome?
I have no idea what evidence they had but for most of us I expect it would take us a lot to say someone was guilty of murders like this.
You’d have to ask yourself: could I ever say that someone is guilty without hard evidence that they were? Doing so requires deduction, reasoning and necessarily a bit of faith in your own logic.
Did she really do it? Nobody will ever know (except her… possibly… maybe she doesn’t even know!) - but being convicted by a jury in a case like this should mean that there is enough that can be deduced to put it beyond reasonable doubt.
You’d have to ask yourself: could I ever say that someone is guilty without hard evidence that they were? Doing so requires deduction, reasoning and necessarily a bit of faith in your own logic.
Did she really do it? Nobody will ever know (except her… possibly… maybe she doesn’t even know!) - but being convicted by a jury in a case like this should mean that there is enough that can be deduced to put it beyond reasonable doubt.
Last edited:
If nobody knows then how can they find her guilty. They must have evidence that she did it, therefor people must know.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Nov 2002
- Posts
- 7,709
- Location
- Under the Hill
I guess they have the common denominator plus the info from searching her flat. In theory two people working together could frame a third innocent party yet avoid circumstantially implicating themselves, but that is a further leap and there are of course the letters.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 17 Sep 2018
- Posts
- 1,476
The case has shedloads of reports of the trial released, which lasted for longer than 6 months. In short they had hard evidence the babies were murdered in unnatural deaths caused by numerous murder methods. She was the only one at the scene and able to commit all the murders alone. A nurse witnessed her with a baby that had it's vital signs in deep destress through suffocation and as soon as Letby was removed from the scene the baby recovered. And she had written her killing the babies in her personal notes. She wrote some other stuff about them deserving it because they had husbands and babies and she didn't. There's loads other stuff but that's just some of it that I remember. I had her guilty from the first few days of the case. The evidence was damning.
Not sure if serious… but I’ll answer.
People in juries are presented with evidence and have to decide based on that evidence. To convict her of being guilty they would have to be free from reasonable doubt.
Of course people are convicted based on deduction and deciding how much emphasis they place on certain aspects of evidence. If that wasn’t the case, wrongful convictions would be literally impossible. But wrongful convictions do occur.
Hence, the conviction in this instance means it’s as clear as it could be that she did it based on the evidence presented.
Associate
- Joined
- 17 Sep 2018
- Posts
- 1,476
It's simple, she did it but there wasn't enough evidence to remove doubt that she did it to some of the jury. It will be a few annoying ones on the jury holding out. Because if they've proven the baby was killed and they've convicted her of a numerous baby murders they should be convicting the other ones on the patern of pathology evidence.
I feel really heart broken for the famalies of those babies that didn't get a conviction
They had a lot of individual cases to go through and each one was complicated, the jury did well tbh, I’d hate think what the jury I was on would have come up with, bunch of thick idiots the probably would have said guilty hang her straight away and then gone down the pub.
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Jul 2021
- Posts
- 4,590
- Location
- Land of Gin (I wish)
Victims' parents: 'Letby is a hateful human being who took everything from us'
The mum and dad whose two boys were victims of nurse Lucy Letby have spoken exclusively to the BBC.
www.bbc.co.uk
The parallels of these parents is very similar to Beverley Allitt and the twins she cared for - one died and the other badly disabled https://www.theguardian.com/uk/1999/jul/20/2
Wondered if Letby admired Allitt?
Can see some of the parents of surviving children of Letby such as the child F in the BBC article will get some compensation
The evidence presented is obviously important, but the judge's directions to the jury are also incredibly important. They help them understand the laws that apply to the case and how to apply them to the evidence.
The fact that some people here, without proper legal training, think they could take the evidence and interpret it all on their own and come to a more valid decision than a jury is silly.