I'd read a long article in The New Yorker magazine a few weeks ago that raised doubts about her guilt but for some reason couldn't be published in Britain. Must be the one that was read to the H. of Commons under Parliamentary privilege. It seems harsh that some evidence was ruled inadmissible by the Court of Appeals on legal technicalities, as they appear to a layman. The parents of the babies that died will understandably never want to hear her name again but I hope the people fighting for her don't give up. Not much left by way of appeals now, is there only the House of Lords?
Lucy Letby: killer or coincidence? Why some experts question the evidence
Exclusive: Doubts raised over safety of convictions of nurse found guilty of murdering babieswww.theguardian.com
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Lucy Letby infant murders trial - Guilty verdict (P 13)
- Thread starter PannickAtTheDisco
- Start date
Betterdeedthan red
Well-Known Member
Are you saying she's not guilty ?I'd read a long article in The New Yorker magazine a few weeks ago that raised doubts about her guilt but for some reason couldn't be published in Britain. Must be the one that was read to the H. of Commons under Parliamentary privilege. It seems harsh that some evidence was ruled inadmissible by the Court of Appeals on legal technicalities, as they appear to a layman. The parents of the babies that died will understandably never want to hear her name again but I hope the people fighting for her don't give up. Not much left by way of appeals now, is there only the House of Lords?
LangleyBlue1970
Well-Known Member
The loonies on X have created a cult following that is about this piece of shit **** being guilty and victim of the NHS and its culling of society. When you put it to them that if sooner believe the law and the legal process to Damian on X, it’s met with all kinds of abuse.
I hate social media at times.
I hate social media at times.
I'm far away and didn't follow the trial at the time. I'm saying that based on the long article I read in The New Yorker, which is not known for sensationalism, I have a reasonable doubt. On some things, like Donald Trump being a ****, my mind is made up, but not on this one.
LangleyBlue1970
Well-Known Member
The green note gave it away for me. ‘I am evil. I did this. I killed them on purpose’I'm far away and didn't follow the trial at the time. I'm saying that based on the long article I read in The New Yorker, which is not known for sensationalism, I have a reasonable doubt. On some things, like Donald Trump being a ****, my mind is made up, but not on this one.
Powerful evidence but not utterly convincing. Other distressed scribblings she made include "I didn't do anything wrong." It's the medical evidence I think needs most looking at, but I'm even less able to understand that than I am the rules of the Appeals Court.The green note gave it away for me. ‘I am evil. I did this. I killed them on purpose’
Anyway I will stick with my "reasonable doubt" for now.
Alan Harper's Tash
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Dec 2010
- Messages
- 58,117
There was an ongoing trial at the time that the article was published, meaning it couldn’t be published in the U.K. then.I'd read a long article in The New Yorker magazine a few weeks ago that raised doubts about her guilt but for some reason couldn't be published in Britain. Must be the one that was read to the H. of Commons under Parliamentary privilege. It seems harsh that some evidence was ruled inadmissible by the Court of Appeals on legal technicalities, as they appear to a layman. The parents of the babies that died will understandably never want to hear her name again but I hope the people fighting for her don't give up. Not much left by way of appeals now, is there only the House of Lords?
She was found guilty at that trial too.
LangleyBlue1970
Well-Known Member
If I go out and murder someone now and come home write it on my whiteboard, I’d say that’s a home run for the prosecution.Powerful evidence but not utterly convincing. Other distressed scribblings she made include "I didn't do anything wrong." It's the medical evidence I think needs most looking at, but I'm even less able to understand that than I am the rules of the Appeals Court.
Anyway I will stick with my "reasonable doubt" for now.
A jury of '12 good men and true' who sat through months of very painful, harrowing evidence, presented by an extremely clever barrister, but equally he was tested by a similar barrister, then ultimately presided over by a judge doesn't convince you of her guilt but a newspaper article written by a person with no legal background makes you doubt the conviction ! Each to his own I suppose.Powerful evidence but not utterly convincing. Other distressed scribblings she made include "I didn't do anything wrong." It's the medical evidence I think needs most looking at, but I'm even less able to understand that than I am the rules of the Appeals Court.
Anyway I will stick with my "reasonable doubt" for now.
denislawsbackheel
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 28 May 2008
- Messages
- 25,907
- Team supported
- We went to Rotherham…
Maybe not.If I go out and murder someone now and come home write it on my whiteboard, I’d say that’s a home run for the prosecution.
According to Wiki 250 people confessed to the 1932 kidnapping of the Lindbergh baby which received headlines around the world. Approximately 500 people confessed to the murder of Elizabeth Short in 1947 which also received enormous media attention—some of those who confessed were not even born when she died.