Nurse arrested for murdering babies
- Thread starter neocon
- Start date
it's disgusting.
Why? He's not an expert witness or has a shred of medical knowledge in this case... He's there to simply boost his own profile etc.
Also the paper Dr Lee is referring to was produce by him in at the end of 2024 - there is no way the findings in this paper would / could be used as legitimate independent research as it's clearly taken /used information from this case so would be very difficult to claim that it's useable as evidence or even reliable.
He also states in earlier papers that it's far too small a sample size to draw any conclusions from. Contradicting his own words/comments today.
Last edited:
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,317
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
It's important to know the 14 Expert Witnesses aren't Bob and his mates off You Tube, they are experts in NICU departments & cases.
I have no idea if she is guilty or not, I'm not an expert in infant mortality, but cases like this are why I can never agree with the death penalty. If, in the future, she was exonerated, being exonerated posthumously means nothing.
Yup
I would much rather someone who seemed "very obviously guilty" is alive and in a prison cell than killed by the government, specifically because if it turns out later on that the "very obviously" was wrong they are alive when they are cleared.
No justice system, or testing is infallible and anyone who claims that their one is, is either delusional or flat out lying.
Associate
- Joined
- 27 Jan 2022
- Posts
- 757
- Location
- UK
This is the usual trial by media. We think she's guilty because we've been told she is based on evidence that has now been overturned. We've seen photos of her in handcuffs 'looking guilty'...
Sounds like she's innocent! and will eventually be freed and should be entitled to compensation. Unless you read the Daily Mail, in which case she guilty and you should bang on her prison wagon outside of court
Then on to the hospitals.. there will need to be an investigation why they are so bad.
Sounds like she's innocent! and will eventually be freed and should be entitled to compensation. Unless you read the Daily Mail, in which case she guilty and you should bang on her prison wagon outside of court
Then on to the hospitals.. there will need to be an investigation why they are so bad.
Last edited:
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,317
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
Well last night I watched New Murder Suspect No 1.
It just so happened she lived but he got sent down for attempted murder and got a minimum of 25 years.
The evidence was 100% compelling, people had recorded him committing the crime, there was multiple CCTV of him carrying the axe, he rang the Police telling them where he was and they arrested him with the axe with all the DNA evidence in place.
He also pleaded guilty, then pleaded not guilty with no comment in his interviews, then went back and pleaded guilty because he 100% was.
Or she could be let out and free to commit the same crimes again because the media along with greedy lawyers have spun this into a Netflix’esque false conviction narrative. There was strong evidence that put her away in the first place.
Note I said system.
Individual cases may be, but we've seen so many "surefire" and "100% guilty no other possible explanation" cases, including with dna evidence* and confessions** that you can't say the system is infallible.
The problem is once you have the death penalty for the cases that do seem exceptionally clear cut it tends to be applied to cases where the evidence isn't so good.
*Which can just mean they had contact at some point with what it was found on.
**Later found to have been extremely unsafe or coerced.
Associate
- Joined
- 27 Jan 2022
- Posts
- 757
- Location
- UK
Can I suggest the film 12 Angry Men
The reporting on this panel and their report is shockingly poor. Who are there? Why were they convened? What evidence did they have access to?
Surely Dr Shoo Lee's opinion cannot be lightly dismissed since he wrote the paper that was at the core of one of the key bits of evidence presented at trial but unless they've actually got access to the actual autopsy's etc then its really just commentary.
Surely Dr Shoo Lee's opinion cannot be lightly dismissed since he wrote the paper that was at the core of one of the key bits of evidence presented at trial but unless they've actually got access to the actual autopsy's etc then its really just commentary.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,317
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
Sorry but it is Post Mortems in this country, I deal with the Coroner and Pathologists every day.
It winds me up because we're not in America
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 12,488
If she were utterly exonerated tomorrow, it would still mean nothing. Enough people would refuse to believe it that she'd never escape it.
The formal term may well be "Post Mortem" but the first recorded use of the term autopsy comes from England, it has been used in British English for centuries, and both the NHS and the Royal College of Pathologists say a Post-Mortem is "also known as an autopsy". It's not an Americanism.
Associate
- Joined
- 23 Apr 2020
- Posts
- 57
- Location
- Close enough to OcUK that my wallet hurts
Private Eyes' MD has been following this case since the initial arrest. Through out they have repeatedly pointed out the very poor record that hospital has, across the board.
They were also first to question some of the 'evidence' and also have been heavily critical of the 1 expert on the prosecution side vs none on the accused side.
I agree that trial by media should stop, right now. Also there should be a statutory crime of mishandling caseloads and evidence, especially by those that have a lot to gain from such activity.
When are the mainstream media going to be brought to book on their relentless 'sensationalism'? PE also carried on championing of the postmasters in the 'PO scandal', for decades after Computer Weekly dropped it as 'news'.
Pity much every major news story of the last two decades was broken by PE. 'MP's expenses scandal', they were offered the cd rom containing the details for £100,000 and duly reported it, before the Telegraph bought them. Cheque book jounalism has never worked.
They were also first to question some of the 'evidence' and also have been heavily critical of the 1 expert on the prosecution side vs none on the accused side.
I agree that trial by media should stop, right now. Also there should be a statutory crime of mishandling caseloads and evidence, especially by those that have a lot to gain from such activity.
When are the mainstream media going to be brought to book on their relentless 'sensationalism'? PE also carried on championing of the postmasters in the 'PO scandal', for decades after Computer Weekly dropped it as 'news'.
Pity much every major news story of the last two decades was broken by PE. 'MP's expenses scandal', they were offered the cd rom containing the details for £100,000 and duly reported it, before the Telegraph bought them. Cheque book jounalism has never worked.
Pretty much this. Are they really independent? I mean what even triggered this 'paper' review
And it has been covered multiple times throughout this thread but it's not one standalone piece of evidence that convicted this individual, it was everything combined.
She's under investigation for suspicious deaths at other hospitals too
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,317
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
I have been working with the Coroner plus Coroner staff around the country for 14 years and never seen Autopsy used on any English report.
This is one I'm currently working on.
We'll leave it there.
Last edited:
