Nurse arrested for murdering babies

[Richie]

I've just done a search on this and can't find her parents being targeted, any links?
I can find stories where they want to move to be closer to her which is weird, if it was my daughter I now wouldn't have one.

Lucy Letby's parents 'to move closer to prison to be near their daughter'

A neighbour reportedly said: 'She’s their life really, and they’re convinced of her innocence.'

metro.co.uk

I'd let them move and then transfer her to the other side of the country.

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.

So they shouldn't take any blame (I agree) but you're ok with them being punished by moving their daughter to the other side of the country after they have moved closer to her?

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.

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.

So is it circumstantial evidence or not?

Your arguments/POV seem to change like the wind...


(I've bolded the relevant bits as don't want to be accused of missing entire quotes regardless if the rest is actually relevant)

 

[ANDREW GREEN]

So they shouldn't take any blame (I agree) but you're ok with them being punished by moving their daughter to the other side of the country after they have moved closer to her?

So is it circumstantial evidence or not?

Your arguments/POV seem to change like the wind...


(I've bolded the relevant bits as don't want to be accused of missing entire quotes regardless if the rest is actually relevant)

You 'circumstancial evidence' lads didn't understand alegebra in school did you?

 

[SexyGreyFox]

@Richie
You know and I know that words can be added to an original word and completely change the meaning.
In this case circumstantial evidence has been turned into overwhelming circumstantial evidence.
I'm not going to explain it again.

 

[Akagi]

Overwhelming circumstantial evidence in simple terms...

You go to sleep at night and there is no snow on the ground. You wake up and there is lots of snow on the ground. You didn't see it snow (direct evidence) but based on the circumstances and your knowledge of the world, you know that it snowed. This is overwhelming circumstantial evidence. Considered to be conclusive.

If the next night you went to bed and there was snow on the ground, but when you woke up some of the snow was gone, and you know your neighbour 2 doors down recently bought a snow shovel, that is inconclusive circumstantial evidence.

 

[Dis86]

Overwhelming circumstantial evidence in simple terms...

You go to sleep at night and there is no snow on the ground. You wake up and there is lots of snow on the ground. You didn't see it snow (direct evidence) but based on the circumstances and your knowledge of the world, you know that it snowed. This is overwhelming circumstantial evidence. Considered to be conclusive.

If you went to bed and there was snow on the ground, but when you woke up some of the snow was gone, and you know your neighbour 2 doors down recently bought a snow shovel, that is inconclusive circumstantial evidence.

You missed the bit where the weather forecast said it would snow and its cold enough to snow.

 

[Akagi]

You missed the bit where the weather forecast said it would snow and its cold enough to snow.

Etc etc, yeah.

 

[Richie]

You 'circumstancial evidence' lads didn't understand alegebra in school did you?

You're mis-reading my post... That may be my fault for not writing it clearly however, I'm not debating the evidence given merely that one poster is challenging another who is, in fact, incorrect themselves (see below)

@Richie
You know and I know that words can be added to an original word and completely change the meaning.
In this case circumstantial evidence has been turned into overwhelming circumstantial evidence.
I'm not going to explain it again.

There is no legal definition of Overwhelming Circumstantial Evidence.... Circumstantial Evidence can be overwhelming due to its volume/veracity but that's not the same thing... As you infer - words matter.

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.

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.

You're trying to pass off the made up term of "Overwhelming Circumstantial Evidence" as different from the legal term of "Circumstantial Evidence" and then saying that posters that say the evidence is all circumstancial are wrong... they are correct.


You don't have to explain it again. I know what circumstancial evidence is and how it's formed in order to bring a prosecution and/or conviction.

 

[ANDREW GREEN]

You're mis-reading my post... That may be my fault for not writing it clearly however, I'm not debating the evidence given merely that one poster is challenging another who is, in fact, incorrect themselves (see below)

There is no legal definition of Overwhelming Circumstantial Evidence.... Circumstantial Evidence can be overwhelming due to its volume/veracity but that's not the same thing... As you infer - words matter.

You're trying to pass off the made up term of "Overwhelming Circumstantial Evidence" as different from the legal term of "Circumstantial Evidence" and then saying that posters that say the evidence is all circumstancial are wrong... they are correct.

You don't have to explain it again. I know what circumstancial evidence is and how it's formed in order to bring a prosecution and/or conviction.

But it essentially is allegabra, where circumstancial evidence creates irrefutable evidece

X = Babies were definitely 100% killed
Y = Only 1 person was present at all murders - meaning it's either person Y or a conspiracy of other people
A = only 1 person was seen where a babies vital signs were suffering and as soon as they were removed from the seen the baby recovered - this is the same person as Y. This is not circumstancial evidence, it's a witness statement of a crime
B = Person that equals Y admitted in writting that she killed the babies - this in itself isn't circumstancial, it's disputable but it's direct evidence
C = Person that equals Y stalked the victims of the crimes
D = Y person took documents of victims parents

There's loads of other evidence too though but that in itself makes it pretty obvious who the killer is.

 

[dowie]

All the evidence is circumstantial, there's no smoking gun and no motive.

A smoking gun is circumstantial evidence.

A suspected murderer caught with a blood stain from the victim has circumstantial evidence connecting him to the crime.

DNA and fingerprints are circumstantial evidence too.

You don't need direct evidence that Billy the Bank robber did in fact rob another bank if he's later caught in possession of some of the stolen bank notes, has left his fingerprints on the sawn-off shotgun used in the robbery and has been on a big spending spree recently. That he's wearing a mask on the CCTV footage and it's merely someone who fits his description but no direct witness testimony that it was him isn't necessarily a barrier to securing a conviction as there is already plenty of circumstantial evidence.

 

[LeeUK]

Her parents think she is innocent.

 

[Sythe79]

But it essentially is allegabra, where circumstancial evidence creates irrefutable evidece

X = Babies were definitely 100% killed
Y = Only 1 person was present at all murders - meaning it's either person Y or a conspiracy of other people
A = only 1 person was seen where a babies vital signs were suffering and as soon as they were removed from the seen the baby recovered - this is the same person as Y. This is not circumstancial evidence, it's a witness statement of a crime
B = Person that equals Y admitted in writting that she killed the babies - this in itself isn't circumstancial, it's disputable but it's direct evidence
C = Person that equals Y stalked the victims of the crimes
D = Y person took documents of victims parents

There's loads of other evidence too though but that in itself makes it pretty obvious who the killer is.

Is it 1 in 73 million, tho ?


the whole case is odd, there might not have been enough doubt in court, but there is enough doubt that it will probably drag on in some form or another.

 

[Silly Goose On The Loose]

I see the media are now going after her parents. Her parents have committed no crime.

 

[Richie]

But it essentially is allegabra, where circumstancial evidence creates irrefutable evidece

X = Babies were definitely 100% killed
Y = Only 1 person was present at all murders - meaning it's either person Y or a conspiracy of other people
A = only 1 person was seen where a babies vital signs were suffering and as soon as they were removed from the seen the baby recovered - this is the same person as Y. This is not circumstancial evidence, it's a witness statement of a crime
B = Person that equals Y admitted in writting that she killed the babies - this in itself isn't circumstancial, it's disputable but it's direct evidence
C = Person that equals Y stalked the victims of the crimes
D = Y person took documents of victims parents

There's loads of other evidence too though but that in itself makes it pretty obvious who the killer is.

Yeah you're arguing the wrong point with me here.

I am not arguing the evidence in the case or if she did it or not. I'm disagreeing with SGF saying people posting that the evidence is circumstantial are wrong but he thinks he is right saying the evidence "turned into overwhelming circumstantial evidence".

It's either circumstantial or not, be that overwhelmingly so... or not.

Personally I have no beef if he wants to use the phrase "overwhelming circumstantial evidence" just don't sit there saying others are wrong for saying just "circumstantial evidence" when they aren't,. especially when both phrases essentially mean the same thing in this case.

Anyways, I've said my bit, I'm not going round in circles now.... I'm a little... overwhelmed by it all...

 

[ANDREW GREEN]

Yeah you're arguing the wrong point with me here.

I am not arguing the evidence in the case or if she did it or not. I'm disagreeing with SGF saying people posting that the evidence is circumstantial are wrong but he thinks he is right saying the evidence "turned into overwhelming circumstantial evidence".

It's either circumstantial or not, be that overwhelmingly so... or not.

Personally I have no beef if he wants to use the phrase "overwhelming circumstantial evidence" just don't sit there saying others are wrong for saying just "circumstantial evidence" when they aren't,. especially when both phrases essentially mean the same thing in this case.

Anyways, I've said my bit, I'm not going round in circles now.... I'm a little... overwhelmed by it all...

Well on technicalities I think pointing out that would be fine. But you have a written confession, which isn't circumstancial. You have someone witnessing her standing over a child with it's vital signs dropping and as soon as she was removed from the scene the baby started to recover. Those 2 evidences surely aren't circumstancial.

 

[SexyGreyFox]

Overwhelming circumstantial evidence is a term I hear all the time in the department, boss comes back from Court, I ask how it went and he uses the phrase which means it's become innocent or guilty.
Fair enough it might not be an official legal term but it's a term I hear a lot.
Type the term into Google and you'll see it's used by others.

 

[cheesefest]

I see the media are now going after her parents. Her parents have committed no crime.

See told you/

 

[ubersonic]

You know and I know that words can be added to an original word and completely change the meaning.
In this case circumstantial evidence has been turned into overwhelming circumstantial evidence.

It's quite embarrassing that so many seem unable to understand this concept xD

It's even more embarrassing that they seem to think their inability to understand it must mean it's incorrect xD

And then you have the fact that it's all irrelevant anyway as when there's enough of it circumstantial evidence has the same value as direct evidence in law. The "It's only circumstantial" thing is literally a fictional trope of US crime dramas.

 

[Silly Goose On The Loose]

See told you/

I said this days ago and was roundly told it wasn't happening or wouldn't happen. This is why there should be anonymity.

 

[SexyGreyFox]

I said this days ago and was roundly told it wasn't happening or wouldn't happen. This is why there should be anonymity.

I still can't find anything https://www.google.co.uk/search?cli...kQ0pQJegQICBAB&biw=384&bih=667&dpr=2.81#mmc=1

 

[dowie]

I think part of the problem is that a lot of the coverage didn't focus on the evidence but has gone into true crime podcast-style psychoanalysis stuff.

It's either circumstantial or not, be that overwhelmingly so... or not. [...]
just don't sit there saying others are wrong for saying just "circumstantial evidence" when they aren't

This is incorrect, there was both direct evidence and circumstantial evidence:

Lucy Letby - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

A few days later, Child C, a boy in good condition, died.[26] He collapsed as soon as another nurse left the nursery.[28] Despite not being the designated nurse for the child, Letby was witnessed standing over his monitor as his alarm sounded when the other nurse came back in.[26][28] Letby's shift leader had already told her to focus on her designated patient, and the shift leader later testified that she had to keep pulling her away from the family room as Child C died.[28]

On 22 June 2015, baby girl Child D collapsed three times in the early hours and died.[26] Those who attempted to save the child noticed the girl's skin had been discoloured.[26] The mother had noted Letby "hovering around" the family hours before the baby collapsed.[28]

On 2 July, Dr Stephen Breary raises his concerns over the sudden collapses and deaths.[26] No action is taken against Letby.[26] The suspicious cases stop for a month.[26]

On 4 August 2015, a mother walked into the unit to give her baby boy, Child E, his milk, only to find Letby apparently in the process of attacking the child.[26] She found the baby distressed and bleeding from the mouth.

That's direct evidence; a witness seeing Letby stand by doing nothing while an alarm sounds, another witness seeing Letby attack a baby.