Man of Honour
It doesn't bother me, if he thinks she's innocent that's his view.
Nurse arrested for murdering babies
- Thread starter neocon
- Start date
It doesn't bother me, if he thinks she's innocent that's his view.
Caporegime
To be fair, I don't think people are saying it's OK. It's just an obvious bias that some people have when it comes to family and friends. If they've never seen horrible behaviour in front of them, it can be quite a shock to the system, even when they're presented with evidence.
I can't really see anyone claiming Letby's innocence from the recent posts either.
Soldato
Excellent strawman. Perhaps you should look at what I wrote
I didn't say they should still think she's innocent. I merely challenged your position where you are ok that the parents should be punished by moving their daughter to the other end of the country if/when they move closer to her and you double-downed on it.
Last edited:
Thus perfectly at the level of the post I was replying to
Exactly. It's not unusual for parents to still support or even not believe their child could have done the terrible crime they have been convicted of and as long as they aren't harrassing the bereaved over it then it's a non-issue. They don't have to be 'forced' to accept it and they don't need knuckledraggers with pitchforks going round calling for them to be taught lessons.
That pov doesn't mean I think Letby was innocent, far from it I thought she was guilty from the start, which was the herp derp conclusion SGF seemed to leap to.
Last edited:
Permabanned
Letby was living alone, holding down a job, in her own house, allegedly in a relationship with a senior doctor. It would be very hard if not impossible to bring charges against her parents for her actions, given her age and situation.
It would be an entirely different matter for parents with youngsters living in their home, and for whom they have a duty of care. The parents/ parent of feral kids of school age engaging in truancy or other criminality should definitely be held to some level of account for their children's behaviour. The same should be said of Social Services when in charge of young people in a home.
Soldato
As a child, Beverley Allitt played being ill when she wasn’t and convinced a surgeon she needs her appendix removed - when it was fine.
Did Letby do something similar when she was younger?
Did Letby do something similar when she was younger?
Soldato
Then you have pivoted the argument to suit.
My response was, quite obviously, to SGF advocating punishing the parents of Letby and you responded to that suggesting that parents should be penalised for failing to discipline your kids through criminal charges/court action.
At least argue the point being brought up.
Last edited:
Permabanned
I prefer and agree more with your unredacted version below, stand firm! Spit it out
"Then you have pivoted the argument to suit.
My response was, quite obviously, to SGF advocating punishing the parents of Letby and you responded to that suggesting that parents should be penalised for failing to discipline your kids through criminal charges/court action.
We all know you would like the "good 'ol days" to come back where you can walk down the street without seeing non-English people, kids are seen and not heard and nothing wrong with giving the secretary a slap.on the arse for a job well done; but at least argue the point being brought up."
I don't see how it's unreasonable for the parents to still believe she's innocent? All the evidence is circumstantial, there's no smoking gun and no motive. If it was your child you'd probably be saying the same thing. For the record I do think she probably did it, but it's not a certainty just because 10 out of 11 jurors think she did.Try and think how those babies parents feel knowing that her Mum and Dad with all the evidence provided still think she did nothing
Man of Honour
Seriously you really believe this?
Permabanned
Whilst wreathing in angst over what proportion of blame this woman's parents should or should not shoulder let it not escape comment how several high ranking NHS professionals chose to ignore well presented concerns from those doctors actually working with this monster. On a blame scale of 1 to 10 I give her parents an arbitrary 2, but the NHS managers a well deserved 9+, such a heinous score should accompany some serious financial and also probably custodial retribution.
But "lessons will be learned", trusts will quietly shuffle their detritus, probably only for something similarly dire to be re-enacted elsewhere as a result of such a laissez-faire attitude..
But "lessons will be learned", trusts will quietly shuffle their detritus, probably only for something similarly dire to be re-enacted elsewhere as a result of such a laissez-faire attitude..
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Sep 2005
- Posts
- 4,343
She hasn't even tried to deny any of it has she? If you were innocent you would be screaming it from the rooftops. Not to mention.... you know... evidence and stuff.
Man of Honour
Just like to say I don't think they should shoulder any blame, she was probably bought up right as far as we know however they have their heads in the sand.
But then again we have posters above who think it's all curcumstantial evidence even though it's one of the longest court cases and the Jury were out for six weeks with Experts.
It's a fact so of course. That's like asking do you really believe fire is hot.
Man of Honour
No it really isn't circumstantial evidence.
Perhaps circumstantial until you've been in the Jury room for six weeks with the Experts being called in.
Either I missed the part where someone directly witnessed her killing a baby, or you don't understand what circumstantial evidence means.
Man of Honour
I work in a Trust Legal Department so I'm very aware of Circumstantial Evidence, however when you've sat in a Jury room for six weeks with Experts stitching it together it turns into overwhelming Circumstantial Evidence and Proof of Guilt as in the case of Letby.
Last edited:
Actually it's more like asking if you really believe the Earth is flat, just because Facebook/Twitter say something is a fact does not make it so.
One of the cases was circumstantial, that's why she was convicted of seven murders and not eight.
Out of interest while you're dividing up blame what score would you give the government? I mean, had it not been for their cutbacks and pay freezes directly causing the departments understaffing she would have been incredibly lucky to get to three kills without being caught, nevermind several.
Last edited:
So after sitting in a jury room for six weeks circumstantial evidence turns into circumstantial evidence. Got it.
Man of Honour
It can go either way - it turns into Overwhelming circumstantial evidence to prove guilt or innocence.
You are acting like it means nothing.
Last edited: