Have you been in deep hibernation for the last 40 years?
Nurse arrested for murdering babies
- Thread starter neocon
- Start date
Have you been in deep hibernation for the last 40 years?
*psst* Don't tell him Cliff Burton's dead!
*psst* Don't tell him Cliff Burton's dead!
Now he was a talent. His anesthesia solo is truly epic.
The medical evidence used to convict her has been torn to shreds, the crème de la crème of neonatal experts around the globe have proven that not only are there alternative explanations for each baby she was accused of murdering, there is no medical evidence that any murders took place at all. The statistical evidence that was used to convict her has been similarly disproved.
The notes that she wrote down weren't a confession, her psychologist asked her to write them to deal with extreme stress after being accused of murdering babies and felt guilty for not being good enough at her job, there were also contradictory notes saying she did nothing wrong.
I was getting all gee'ed up to say Aha! But what about that hand written note she did saying she was evil and that she did it? But thought I'd better google that just to be sure cos I only vaguely heard about that being used in the trial, and sure enough, dispersions have also been cast on the reliability of that evidence too. So long story short, I obviously don't know enough about any of this to make any comment of worth, and will leave to the courts. And as I now gaze up at the post just above this one, I can see that is already been discussed and is exactly what I found in a cursory google about the note.
The fact that note has been treated as evidence against her is frankly shocking.
Soldato
- Joined
- 15 Feb 2012
- Posts
- 3,302
- Location
- 2
You'll have to forgive me if I accept the judgement of the three appeal judges on the relevance of the misinterpretation rather than your analysis.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,333
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
Don't forget the staff spreadsheet that amazingly pointed at only one person.
Apparently loads of staff were omitted from it and over that time period there would have been way more incidents than the ones listed.
IMO it just needs looking at again while she has a proper defense this time.
I wouldn't be so skeptical if the NHS management at these trusts weren't such a dumpster fire and there weren't multiple instances of decades of negligence being swept under the rug (Blood scandal, Horizon etc) to point to for examples of institutional corruption.
Not that I think she didn't do it but I have no trust in the system anymore.
Not that I think she didn't do it but I have no trust in the system anymore.
Everything's a conspiracy to some people
I think this certainly highlights the difficulties of capital punishment. If any new evidence comes to light after the fact, it's too late. There has to be a cut-off, but just how certain do you have to be? If you were seemingly guilty to the utmost degree at the time, but then a single piece of new evidence appears a few years later... what then?
I'm a moderately left-leaning person, but I support capital punishment. That said, I always try to see how I'd feel if the shoe was on the other foot. If I was accused and evidence somehow said I was guilty, but I truly wasn't, wouldn't I want the evidence and conviction to be absolute? How is absolute defined?
I'm a moderately left-leaning person, but I support capital punishment. That said, I always try to see how I'd feel if the shoe was on the other foot. If I was accused and evidence somehow said I was guilty, but I truly wasn't, wouldn't I want the evidence and conviction to be absolute? How is absolute defined?
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 12,489
In my experience court judgement means only that one lawyer has convinced the jury that their argument is the one to support.
This is how murderers, rapists and other serious offenders have been able to walk free - People have been so certain they're guilty, yet the evidence presented has been insufficient to convict...
IANAL, but they do seem to be somewhat on the 'pretty ******* useless' side, don't they...?
Personally I oppose capital punishment in practice for this very reason.
I don't oppose it in principle, I think some particularly bad murderers absolutely deserve to get put to death, but the fact that some innocent people might be put to death and the fact in some cases (such as the US) it becomes some drawn out and more expensive process than just keeping them locked up means it isn't practical.
If there was some higher level of guilt beyond "beyond reasonable doubt" - a "they definitely did it, no questions" such as the Southport Killer, or the killers of Lee Rigby etc.. no questions over their guilt, they were caught red-handed so to speak, then sure, go for it - I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be put to death for what they did. But we don't really have that and in other cases where courts claim they've "proven" the case "beyond reasonable doubt" there often can be some doubt and that's where it would be utterly tragic to put to death an innocent person.
Last edited:
Not really paid much attention but it did catch my attention when the author of the one of the studies used by the prosecution said they'd misinterpreted it.
Soldato
- Joined
- 15 Feb 2012
- Posts
- 3,302
- Location
- 2
Not sure what the relevance of your point is to my comment because there is no jury to convince at the appeal hearing. Fwiw, I have no position on her guilt nor the grounds for appeal, but I am happy that the normal legal processes are being followed and see no reason to doubt the appeal judges' findings based on media reports alone. As always it will come down to fine details, points of law, and relevant precedents. I set little store by the opinions of people who are not experts at all three with a complete knowledge of the case. And why would I when the courts have appointed such experts to the task?
Edit: removed a redundant word
Last edited:
I haven't got access to all the information, so I've no idea what to think, but I have seen people voicing concern about shaky evidence all through the trial. Miscarriages of justice that defy belief have happened in the past, so those with tangible concerns deserve to be heard out. It's definitely in the public interest.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 22 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 28,314
- Location
- Boston, Lincolnshire
I fail to see a whole load of people colluding together to frame a single person for the lolz.
I could understand a single doctor being negligent trying to cover something up but not several.
People forget how much of a mess the NHS is in yet can totally believe a group of people are capable of making a cover up frame and keep it legit super tight.
Last edited:
Do you still believe all those post masters that went to prison are all still dirty thieves ? After all, there's no way the 100s of people it would require from a failing business, the police and the CPS who both review private prosecutions and the courts could all collude to wrongfully convict so many of them.
Maybe even with all this "new evidence" she still is guilty, but the suggestion that she's guilty because the British justice systems is so pure and uncorruptible isn't it.
Associate
- Joined
- 23 Apr 2020
- Posts
- 63
- Location
- Close enough to OcUK that my wallet hurts
A defence you mean? The evidence is new to the trail.
Things is, at least one Doctor (who also gave evidence for the prosecution) was judged by his peers to have mis administered an injection on the wrong side of one of the unfortunate babies. This was after injecting air and that pushed the liver down and the injection damaged the liver and was most likely cause of death. None of that was presented at courts and as I say the Dr went on to testify against. That in itself makes the conviction unsafe IMHO.