National News Disorder & Protests

Innocent until found guilty, unless we’re not sure she’s guilty cos she can’t be because she looks so nice.

The murders happened when she was on shift, she wrote horrible rambling notes about how she’d done wrong and was found guilty at trial, on a thorough basis.

What evidence is needed for the conviction to be safe?

By any measure given out by those that want capital punishment she should hang……
Just to be clear "circumstantial evidence" is still evidence and more than sufficient to conviction. Many murders have little in the way of forensics or independent witness statements, but those responsible are still convicted due to circumstantial evidence, behavioural analysis or confessions. All of these existed in the Letby case which resulted in her conviction.

It’s always slightly shocking to me how little many people seem to know about the criminal and justice system, and blindly think that because someone is found guilty they are, and if some is found not guilty they definitely didn’t do it. As anyone who has worked closely with the police, CPS and court systems will know, this very much isn’t the case!

But to address the specific points in the posts quoted above:

1. There were other nurses on shift when those babies died. Other babies died in that same unit when she wasn’t on shift:

A staffing rota also showed she had been on duty for every suspicious death or collapse between June 2015 and June 2016. The rota was a key part of the case – a striking visual symbol of the case against her. But a number of statisticians have publicly questioned its usefulness. One is Peter Green, a professor of statistics and a former President of the Royal Statistical Society. "The chart appears to be very convincing, but there are a number of issues with it," he said. "A big thing is that it only describes 25 of the bad events which happened in this period. It doesn’t include any of the events that happened when Lucy was not on duty."

The prosecution purposefully left off deaths which happened when Letby wasn’t on shift to make it look like deaths only happened when she was on. That simply wasn’t the case. They also ignored the fact that she worked so much overtime that she was on more often than she wasn’t.

There are plenty of other neo-natal units in the country with high numbers of deaths. If you looked at every one I’m sure you’d find nurses who were on for most of them, as Lucy Letby was. Are they serial killers too?

2. There was absolutely no confession whatsoever. In some notes found she had written “I am evil I did this,” “I killed them on purpose because I am not good enough to care for them and I am a horrible evil person,” and “hate.” however these were apparently written on the advice of professionals as a way of dealing with extreme stress, and also included: “Not good enough”, “Why me?”, “I haven’t done anything wrong”, “Police investigation slander discrimination victimisation”.

Notes written by a person under extreme stress which also include ‘I haven’t done anything wrong’ in no way are the same as a confession - and confessions even in a police interview don’t have a huge amount of weight in UK law anyway. Pleading guilty is a different thing, although innocent people have been known to in order to receive the hefty sentencing discount.

Again, there are plenty of medical professionals who feel a huge amount of guilt when people under their care die. It doesn’t necessarily make them murderers.

3. Circumstantial evidence is a perfectly fine aspect of evidence in a criminal trial. However, it is, in my experience, rarely the only form of evidence - and usually it can actually be proved that the victims were in fact murdered. Again, the prosecution tried to twist this: ‘Phrases such as “the baby was really, really well” were given by the prosecution expert witnesses on several occasions for several of the babies. One senior doctor has said “And it was my view and is my view that they weren't really, really well, they had signs of significant illness.”

(Anyway, Mods feel free to move this into it’s own topic as it’s not really about disorder / protests / the death penalty)
 
It’s always slightly shocking to me how little many people seem to know about the criminal and justice system, and blindly think that because someone is found guilty they are, and if some is found not guilty they definitely didn’t do it. As anyone who has worked closely with the police, CPS and court systems will know, this very much isn’t the case!

No one has suggested otherwise. The point that I and others have made is that there are only two tiers needed - guilty and not guilty. We don't need to add really guilty as Essex was saying.

If there is doubt in the Letby case then that should be tested through the appeal process which is an entirely legitimate way to hold the justice system to account.

I'd already said that we have a pretty good judicial system in this country. It's not perfect, nothing ever is. But it's a hell of a lot better than seen across many other countries.
 
No one has suggested otherwise. The point that I and others have made is that there are only two tiers needed - guilty and not guilty. We don't need to add really guilty as Essex was saying.

If there is doubt in the Letby case then that should be tested through the appeal process which is an entirely legitimate way to hold the justice system to account.

I'd already said that we have a pretty good judicial system in this country. It's not perfect, nothing ever is. But it's a hell of a lot better than seen across many other countries.
Nothing to do with "really guilty".
Its more to do with having an exceptional punishment available in exceptional circumstances.
Premeditated (preparation & planning)
No doubt of guilt (arrested at the scene with the murder weapon)
Heinous. (beyond savage)
 
Nothing to do with "really guilty".
Its more to do with having an exceptional punishment available in exceptional circumstances.
Premeditated (preparation & planning)
No doubt of guilt (arrested at the scene with the murder weapon)
Heinous. (beyond savage)

I would be very interested if anyone thinks he has any grounds to appeal. Still its all conjecture because we will be paying to keep him alive for decades........... unless another inmate does us a favour.

If we had the death penalty, and if he didn't wanted to die and wanted to appeal, then I'm pretty sure the grounds would be along those suggested by Scotchers a few pages ago - killer was mentally ill, didn't get the help he needed, wasn't in control of actions etc. etc.

Not saying I agree with any of that, or believe that he would win such an appeal, but I do believe that any fair justice system would grant him the right to have those arguments heard between sentencing and execution.

And that's how any fair justice system has to be set up.
Trial and appeals system is there to determine guilt beyond reasonable doubt. But once you've determined guilt, the punishment for the same crime has to be the same. Which is not to say that all murders are the same. It would be absolutely reasonable to classify them differently based on whether they are premeditated and heinous vs. crimes of passion - this is what New York, for example, does. You're just not classifying based on level of doubt, when the law says that the appropriate level of doubt for all convictions is the same.
 
It’s always slightly shocking to me how little many people seem to know about the criminal and justice system, and blindly think that because someone is found guilty they are, and if some is found not guilty they definitely didn’t do it. As anyone who has worked closely with the police, CPS and court systems will know, this very much isn’t the case!

But to address the specific points in the posts quoted above:

1. There were other nurses on shift when those babies died. Other babies died in that same unit when she wasn’t on shift:

A staffing rota also showed she had been on duty for every suspicious death or collapse between June 2015 and June 2016. The rota was a key part of the case – a striking visual symbol of the case against her. But a number of statisticians have publicly questioned its usefulness. One is Peter Green, a professor of statistics and a former President of the Royal Statistical Society. "The chart appears to be very convincing, but there are a number of issues with it," he said. "A big thing is that it only describes 25 of the bad events which happened in this period. It doesn’t include any of the events that happened when Lucy was not on duty."

The prosecution purposefully left off deaths which happened when Letby wasn’t on shift to make it look like deaths only happened when she was on. That simply wasn’t the case. They also ignored the fact that she worked so much overtime that she was on more often than she wasn’t.

There are plenty of other neo-natal units in the country with high numbers of deaths. If you looked at every one I’m sure you’d find nurses who were on for most of them, as Lucy Letby was. Are they serial killers too?

2. There was absolutely no confession whatsoever. In some notes found she had written “I am evil I did this,” “I killed them on purpose because I am not good enough to care for them and I am a horrible evil person,” and “hate.” however these were apparently written on the advice of professionals as a way of dealing with extreme stress, and also included: “Not good enough”, “Why me?”, “I haven’t done anything wrong”, “Police investigation slander discrimination victimisation”.

Notes written by a person under extreme stress which also include ‘I haven’t done anything wrong’ in no way are the same as a confession - and confessions even in a police interview don’t have a huge amount of weight in UK law anyway. Pleading guilty is a different thing, although innocent people have been known to in order to receive the hefty sentencing discount.

Again, there are plenty of medical professionals who feel a huge amount of guilt when people under their care die. It doesn’t necessarily make them murderers.

3. Circumstantial evidence is a perfectly fine aspect of evidence in a criminal trial. However, it is, in my experience, rarely the only form of evidence - and usually it can actually be proved that the victims were in fact murdered. Again, the prosecution tried to twist this: ‘Phrases such as “the baby was really, really well” were given by the prosecution expert witnesses on several occasions for several of the babies. One senior doctor has said “And it was my view and is my view that they weren't really, really well, they had signs of significant illness.”

(Anyway, Mods feel free to move this into it’s own topic as it’s not really about disorder / protests / the death penalty)

How can somebody be found guilty and not guilty. I find it utterly patronising when people suggest one one hand someone who has been found guilty of a crime should be hung up but when someone else is found guilty of the same crime on a larger scale they shouldn’t be hung up?

My point in all of this is that no one should be killed by the state having been found guilty precisely because of an element of doubt or mitigating circumstances.
 
How can somebody be found guilty and not guilty. I find it utterly patronising when people suggest one one hand someone who has been found guilty of a crime should be hung up but when someone else is found guilty of the same crime on a larger scale they shouldn’t be hung up?

My point in all of this is that no one should be killed by the state having been found guilty precisely because of an element of doubt or mitigating circumstances.

What’s the element of doubt or mitigating circumstances in the Southport murders?
 
What’s the element of doubt or mitigating circumstances in the Southport murders?
He pled guilty so none.
are you suggesting that only cases where it’s open and shut pled guilty case people get strung up?
Would he have pled guilty if he thought he’d get killed?
 
He pled guilty so none.
are you suggesting that only cases where it’s open and shut pled guilty case people get strung up?
Would he have pled guilty if he thought he’d get killed?

Had he pled not guilty what would have been the element of doubt or mitigating circumstances?

This was an open shut guilty whether he pled that or not, if you are going to execute someone then this is as watertight as you will ever get.
 
Had he pled not guilty what would have been the element of doubt or mitigating circumstances?

This was an open shut guilty whether he pled that or not, if you are going to execute someone then this is as watertight as you will ever get.
In law then he’s more guilty than letby?

In law you are either guilty or innocent not more or less guilty.

Daft argument about when it’s ok to kill a prisoner.
 
Just because a journalist has a point of view, it doesn’t make it correct.

The media are the problem with their bias reporting. The BBC are one of the most dangerous organisations in this country for bias reporting.

Straight after the Southport stabbings took place, Farage immediately jumped on the bandwagon and started undermining the police and implying their were some sort of conspiracy theories underfoot just because they weren't giving much information away. Firstly they are not allowed by law to name the accused because he was under 18 at the time. The police and Kier Starmer would have been breaking the law if they had named him. Plus there was an ongoing investigation, so it's important not to jump to conclusions.

Farage had needlessly whipped up a storm of anger, which all kicked off on social media where misinformation spread like wildfire about the perpetrator being a Muslim and arriving in the country via a dinghy from hate-mongers like Katie Hopkins and Andrew Tate (who Farage himself named as a reliable source of information).

Then when it all kicked off, and party leaders like Starmer, Sunak and Ed Davey strongly condemned the violence, Farage stayed quiet. It was only after after about a week that Farage half-heartedly condemned, by adding 'but people are angry' as though that is an excuse for throwing bricks at the police, setting fire to vehicles, attacking random members of the public because they are not white, and trying to burn down buildings holding asylum seekers.
 
Nice to see rehabilitation and letting folk out works well...............

"Builder Steve Sansom was out of prison on life licence when he killed Sarah Mayhew, 38, and disposed of her remains in different locations around London, the Old Bailey heard.
The 45-year-old, who murdered a taxi driver in 1998, and his partner Gemma Watts both admitted murder and also perverting the course of justice by dismembering Ms Mayhew's body."


"It was Christmas Eve 1998 that Sansom, then aged 19, murdered cab driver Terrence Boyle.
When the taxi reached his destination, Sansom cut the throat of the 59-year-old, and stole £25.
Boyle staggered to a nearby house to call for help but collapsed and died on the doorstep before the ambulance arrived. His wife, Emelin, said her husband had been working overtime to earn enough money to buy Christmas presents for their sons, Matthew and James, who were then aged 11 and 16."

So, in my world he would have gone down the road the first time (no doubt, premeditated, heinous) and his second victim would still be alive................ now we pay for him to be kept for 30-40+ years....
 
Nice to see rehabilitation and letting folk out works well...............

"Builder Steve Sansom was out of prison on life licence when he killed Sarah Mayhew, 38, and disposed of her remains in different locations around London, the Old Bailey heard.
The 45-year-old, who murdered a taxi driver in 1998, and his partner Gemma Watts both admitted murder and also perverting the course of justice by dismembering Ms Mayhew's body."


"It was Christmas Eve 1998 that Sansom, then aged 19, murdered cab driver Terrence Boyle.
When the taxi reached his destination, Sansom cut the throat of the 59-year-old, and stole £25.
Boyle staggered to a nearby house to call for help but collapsed and died on the doorstep before the ambulance arrived. His wife, Emelin, said her husband had been working overtime to earn enough money to buy Christmas presents for their sons, Matthew and James, who were then aged 11 and 16."

So, in my world he would have gone down the road the first time (no doubt, premeditated, heinous) and his second victim would still be alive................ now we pay for him to be kept for 30-40+ years....
While I don’t necessarily disagree with you, keeping him in prison for actual life rather than letting him out would have had the same effect.

People will wave this away but it’s totally incomprehensible to me that a human being’s life has been taken away because we as a society decided to give someone a second chance when they’ve shown that they’re capable of murdering someone.
 
While I don’t necessarily disagree with you, keeping him in prison for actual life rather than letting him out would have had the same effect.

People will wave this away but it’s totally incomprehensible to me that a human being’s life has been taken away because we as a society decided to give someone a second chance when they’ve shown that they’re capable of murdering someone.

We gave a second chance to someone who murdered a completely innocent man for £25, a man working an extra shift to buy Christmas presents for his kids. Our cowardice to punish the evil fucker properly then cost another completely innocent person their life. Makes you feel sick.
 
No we are locking Letby up on a WLT because there is an element of doubt despite the verdict of the jury.

Scientists, journalists and others are already openly discussing the evidence and surrounding issues in the NN Unit. It normally takes years for such people to get onboard campaigns for review etc.



We don't lock up the Southport killer because of the 0% possibility it wasn't him, the preparation, the pre-meditation and the heinous crime.


Well I never.................

 
She’s still guilty and her defence team are trying everything to get the trial re run.

If you read it her other requests for appeal have been turned down and that even if you dismiss the medical evidence, the circumstantial evidence still stacks up.

She is convicted and either we have capital punishment or we don’t……. The difference between the cases discussed here relate to being caught red handed or not, and have nothing to do with the conviction.

For me this is the perfect example as to why you don’t allow the state to kill convicted people.
 
But you were happy for her to be locked up for the rest of her natural life but she wasn't really guilty enough for the death penalty under your test?

I feel the need to explain again..........in this instance there is, and always has been, a level of DOUBT compared to others where there is absolutely none.

Ergo if they go "down the road" there is no bringing them back, if they are in prison on a WLT the CCRC can do their work.

You save the ultimate sanction for the very rare cases that meet the 3 tests.

Premeditated/pre-planned.
No doubt of the perpetrator.
Heinous crime.

This case would fail the second test so the WLT is the appropriate course of action.
 
Back
Top Bottom