Today's discussion about the news
Comments
-
Raw Therapee is free. I prefer LR and PS for £10 per month though.
0 -
Your rubbish posts knocked my informative one's off the page!
0 -
I quit LR years back when they went subscription, AND announced that buying the one off licence would no longer be supported by any software update. F*ck 'em.
Open One+ BMC TE29 Seven 622SL On One Scandal Cervelo RS0 -
-
-
-
-
The suggestion is that the prosecution relied heavily on scribbled notes that Letby was encouraged to write by counsellors, when she was being counselled for stress during the very earliest stages of investigation. Some of these notes appear extremely incriminating others quite the opposite. I think the argument is that taken in the round, they are not reliably indicative of anything other than Letby being under a lot of stress. I don't think anyone who hasn't reviewed ALL of the evidence is remotely in a position to comment, but being the internet...
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
The cases were all circumstantial, but the prosecution relied most heavily on the extraordinary amount of such evidence.
Using those notes was, arguably, a poor choice. However, an appeal court would have to find firstly that they are not relevant or admissible and secondly that there is a likelihood of a different verdict had they not been put forward as evidence. The appeal court would also consider what witnesses said about those notes. The defence team was, after all, at liberty to make the points you have just made.
0 -
-
I've not looked into it and am not going to. I just think it's a bit silly to make statements one way or the other on the basis of reading a couple of articles. Convictions are usually safe, but sometimes they do get things wrong. As you say, there's a process. Some people seem to take the attitude that it's not that important who is convicted just so long as we have a head on a spike.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Not sure what you mean?
0 -
If it was an ugly man who had nonce glasses on, no-one would be digging it all up again and declaring him innocent.
0 -
You do come out with some mad stuff from time to time.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition2 -
FWIW, Phil Hammonds of Private Eye has his concerns about the strength of the evidence - he's not saying she's innocent, but in particular questions the way that the opinions of professionals was presented, and the fact that the defence called no expert witnesses to counter those of the prosecution.
0 -
That last point is salient. She could get a retrial if counsel was ineffective.
0 -
-
You realise this is basically why she got away with it for so long?
0 -
You do remember the case of Christopher Jefferies?
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
What, that she looked well put together? Yes, that's exactly the point i'm making.
Unless there is some new evidence or there is evidence that the trial wasn't conducted properly, I think it's pretty appalling to be discussing it in this way, especially for the families of the victims.
0 -
Well stop then.
0 -
The defence may well have instructed a number of experts to provide reports but wouldn't have relied upon them if their conclusions weren't going to assist. The Legal Aid Agency will not pay for the defence to keep instructing experts until they find one who will say what they want them to say. You have to apply for prior authority to incur a disbursement and justify why it is necessary.
0 -
She was represented by Benjamin Myers KC who, it is fair to say, knows what he is doing. It is noteworthy that she was happy to be represented by him again in her second trial.
0 -
The new evidence is opinions from various experts. People should be able to discuss that and question the verdict.
0 -
Fair enough.
0 -
-
Here ya go. Free pdf downloads of Phil Hammond's argument.
I think he argues cogently for why an appeal should be allowed in this case. He looks at how the judgement was arrived at, rather than her guilt or otherwise, and in particular how expert witness evidence is presented to a jury, given it carries so much weight. His suggestion is that expert witness evidence is not provided in a scientific way, in essence.
0 -
Because you live in a black and white world.
0 -
I think we all know that you need to be shown to the guilty beyond reasonable doubt. If there is new evidence or facts that introduce the possibility of reasonable doubt then an appeal should be allowed.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]1 -
It's not any of his business. If there's a case to be made ,she can do that with her lawyer and take it to the judge.
She'll have enough time to, it's not like she's doing anything else for the rest of her life.
0
