Associate
- Joined
- 17 Sep 2018
- Posts
- 1,474
This sounds like someone who painstakingly studied every day of the 10 months of court transcripts to conclude none of it was real evidence
Nurse arrested for murdering babies
- Thread starter neocon
- Start date
This sounds like someone who painstakingly studied every day of the 10 months of court transcripts to conclude none of it was real evidence
Caporegime
It's odd but I suspect if this was a man you'd not see anywhere near as many people so certain of their innocence.
As far as I read insulin poisoning is conjecture. It’s not definitive at all. Many experts say this is not concrete at all. I can’t say I have an axe to grind but there have been some cases where ‘expert witnesses’ theories were just taken as fact, I remember the cot baby deaths where the expert just multiplied the chances together to come up with some crazy odds of it happening and then the person was convicted.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 May 2009
- Posts
- 21,456
Heard this.
First thing I thought of, was this was the utter tard who said Brexit negotiations could be worked out in a morning over a cup of tea, turned up with no pen paper or any sort of of files or folders, and then quit the role after failing miserably.
How the hell can we take anything he states as serious or indeed potentially correct?
A sinfully idiotic human, who would be one of the last I'd ever want backing a campaign, but he chooses one to herald the release of a mass murderer.
Associate
Appeals to this case (and all others) should be encouraged/welcomed; as the worst thing the justice system can do is convict an innocent.
Though this circus must be torture for the parents - some of the theories are demented.
Though this circus must be torture for the parents - some of the theories are demented.
Soldato
Surely no sane person actually thinks she's innocent
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 May 2009
- Posts
- 21,456
The MP David Davies who negotiated our Brexit deal thinks so. Make of that what you will.
Soldato
Since it was all very circumstantial evidence with nothing concrete, when some of that evidence is called in to question by other experts (not failed politicians), its perfectly reasonable to want this considered to ensure a miscarraige of justice doesn't occur.
The PO Scandal pretty much should make anyone allow robust expert scrutiny after the fact..
Many people had a similar opinion at the time, any sane person could not think the Post Master was innocent when there was a paper trail showing the defecit?
The Lucia de Burk case in the Netherlands had a lot of similar evidence used as this case:
Lucia de Berk case - Wikipedia
I don't need to be an armchair expert, I am of the opinion that the new expert testimony and criticism of the original experts by other experts in the field should be allowed and followed up on to ensure a more robust conviction.
Have you read the court of appeal judgement?
The reason the appeal was rejected, is that the 'new expert testimony' is just that; another opinion from another expert. At the time - numerous experts and doctors recognised in their fields gave input and it led to a conviction.
The problem is, with all of the evidence against Letby - is it worth dragging everybody (and I mean everybody) through a whole full-fat retrial, the families, the witnesses, the doctors, everybody - just because some other experts disagree on some very fine details, and are not considering the big picture?
Then you're going to have to put evidence like this infant of a Jury again, and somehow expect a different result:
Associate
- Joined
- 17 Sep 2018
- Posts
- 1,474
The prosecution presented two test results, the only empirical scientific evidence in the case. An expert witness in court – who, when approached by the Guardian, said he could not comment – said the test results indicated that a steady flow of synthetic insulin had been administered. Biochemists testified in court that the lab that conducted them was accurate and working well.
But while the test results had provided a helpful clinical guide for diagnosing hypoglycaemia, the type of test used does not measure insulin itself. Instead it measures antibodies to insulin and can cross-react with other molecules.
Several experts challenged the use of results from this type of immunoassay test as evidence of crime, including the forensic scientist Prof Alan Wayne Jones, who is one of Europe’s foremost experts on toxicology and insulin. He has written about the limitations of immunoassay tests in criminal convictions, and said they needed to be verified by a more specific analytical method to provide binding evidence in criminal cases.
I suspect this witness would say while it doesn't prove insulin poisoning, it is quite likely that is what happened. And that's why the defense didn't even call witnesses to dispute insulin poisoning.
Since it was all very circumstantial evidence with nothing concrete, when some of that evidence is called in to question by other experts (not failed politicians), its perfectly reasonable to want this considered to ensure a miscarraige of justice doesn't occur.
The PO Scandal pretty much should make anyone allow robust expert scrutiny after the fact..
Many people had a similar opinion at the time, any sane person could not think the Post Master was innocent when there was a paper trail showing the defecit?
The Lucia de Burk case in the Netherlands had a lot of similar evidence used as this case:
Lucia de Berk case - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
I don't need to be an armchair expert, I am of the opinion that the new expert testimony and criticism of the original experts by other experts in the field should be allowed and followed up on to ensure a more robust conviction.
It really didn't. That case didn't have a doctor observe Letby watch over an incubator, with a removed air tube from a baby, with the alarm turned to off to stop people realising the baby tube had been removed. The only person who could have done those 2 actions was Letby. Letby not doing anything to aid the baby when it was obviously critical because of the removal of the air tube shows intent
There was not a baby with a damaged liver, damage that could only be done with huge physical impact such as a car crash or similar.
Her case didn't have notes saying 'I killed them, I'm a terrible person'. And loads more
De Burk wasn't caught lying about bleeding coming from a babies mouth who later died. Letby was
Last edited:
Isn't it possible that the air tube wasn't removed but it became dislodged on its own, and he walked in on her just after she had got there and turned off the alarm? So after Dr Ravi Jayaram caught her red handed, Letby removed the air tube again later on and the baby died? He was already suspicious of her so perhaps confirmation bias played a part in his recollection. After witnessing what you believed was attempted murder you'd surely call the police at that point, so I'm a little bit skeptical of his testimony.
Associate
- Joined
- 17 Sep 2018
- Posts
- 1,474
This would be against protocol. She was watching over a baby that needed a breathing tube that didn't have a breathing tube. And you think her first priority would be to turn off the alarm? And not refit the breathing tube? Perhaps she isn't capable of refitting the breathing tube. Then the alarm absolutely needs to go off and she should be sprinting to get help from someone that can. Instead she's standing over a baby in critical condition, stopping the alarm being raised and not taking any action to save the baby. Should the police have been called for? Probably. Was Doctor Jayaram unsure whether Letby was incompetent or a baby killer? Probably. He probably couldn't imagine a nurse killing a baby as it would be hard to process that mentally.
If he already had suspicions that she was killing babies beforehand, then yes he obviously could imagine a nurse killing a baby and should have called the police immediately if he believed he witnessed an attempted murder as he claimed. Not calling the police after supposedly witnessing an attempted murder makes him an unreliable witness in my opinion. He also had his 5 minutes of fame doing TV interviews afterwards and was working on a TV drama about it.
Last edited:
Soldato
Clearly you haven't bothered to read her case then.. She literally had her Diary brought up which had her writing how she had given in to her compulsion on the day a baby died.. what do you think that compulsion was inferred to be?
The parallels in much of the evidence is striking..
I have, and I don't see the relevance, if new evidence comes forward at any time, should we not allow that to ever be appealed?
All I am saying is I don't mind another appeal, get that aired/considered and move on in whatever direction that takes, the more robust the conviction the better, especially if its all highly circumstantial.
Didn't a bunch of doctors have to apologise to Letby for taking actions after becoming suspicious of her.
Doing the right thing isn't necessarily the same as the right thing according to the workplace rules.
Soldato
It's pretty clear is a complete nut case, are some of you forgetting what her bedroom was like and her diary's ect, all a bit twisted
I just can't comprehend why he wouldn't go to the police after witnessing what he believed to be an attempted murder, and suspecting her of already killing multiple babies. At that point what does it matter what your bosses have said about it, surely the babies lives are more important than potential consequences for your career.
Right, but you realise that one of the main reasons the court rejected the appeal was because there was no new evidence.
There was a new opinion from a fresh expert, but no new evidence put forward.
I think one of the reasons there are worries the conviction may be unsafe, is not just that the evidence was circumstantial (albeit a lot of circumstantial evidence) as that was known before the trial. But that some of it was, not misrepresented by the prosecution per say but definitely portrayed to the jury in an overly favourable light to their case, and the defence failed to challenge it properly.
Now weather inadequate representation should be grounds to redo the whole thing I don't think so, however considering we now know some of the things the jury were told were fact were in fact ambiguous should IMO pose enough concern to warrant examination of some of the issues and for a judge to decide if any material differences could/should have made a difference to the verdict.
Hopefully the public enquiry will clear some things up.
Last edited: