Today's discussion about the news
Comments
-
Unless you read the Hammond articles, I'll assume you're happy to argue from a point of ignorance in a very complex case. If you feel confident you can say that the verdict is sound despite Hammond's doubts, then your aspersions are merely aspersions, and not arguments.
0 -
I mean, I’m happy to abide by the actual judgment from the original case.
We can’t all have read everything on everything so it’s not unreasonable to assume that the judgment on a high profile case is the correct one. Indeed, the actual press are perfectly allowed to refer to her factually as the baby serial killer, as the courts have found her to be that.
If you think that is unreasonable, I wonder how you actually navigate the world on a daily basis.
0 -
Thought you would be, as you seem to find doubt problematic.
FTR, some big court cases get overturned on appeal. Your assumption is therefore entirely incorrect.
Seriously, read the articles. You might learn something about the specific case and about the need to recognise uncertainty. As I say, if you refuse to read the articles, I can only assume you would rather hold firm with your certainty born of partial reading than consider that you might be wrong.
1 -
I feel she'll end up appealing it successfully - thought that for a while.
I've seen a number of retired nhs staff say some of the stuff that was used to imply guilt like not always adding stuff to medical records and taking files home may be against rules but is unusual. Also not acting immediately when a monitor shows something is up - because often these monitors have a temporary misread so you might wait 20 seconds to see. They understood the reluctance of people to testify to that given how it would impact their career. It's also turned out the nhs trust advised staff not to testify in her defence.
Also never thought her personal writings were admissions and with todays revelations they can be pretty much discounted.
[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]1 -
To be clear, it wouldn't be ME being wrong, but the judge and jury in the original case.
You may think I'm big headed, but I am not so big headed that I think I know more than what the people in the trial who actually went through all the evidence and the arguments.
You may find delegating to the more well informed difficult. I take no such trouble, and comfortably do so in every day life.
0 -
Stay ignorant then, if you won't even read an argument as to why the evidence presented might not reliable. But don't expect anyone to engage with you if you won't. I'm certainly not.
0 -
OK I've skimmed the first part from private eye. What the article doesn't seem to do at all is explain why this wasn't brought up in the original trial. Did this doctor not want to volunteer his expertise for the defence if he's so sure of it all?
If it's so compelling, then it should be brought to the court and if it's compelling, enough, they can go for a retrial or whatever it is.
I don't really see the need for people to argue the toss incompletely in a fairly unsatisfactory setting; a newspaper article.
I don't for a minute believe the justice system is foolproof, and I don't doubt that there are significant wrongful convictions. I find it hard to see the point of discussing a case like this, beyond elevating the profile of the people doing the arguing.
You seem to think I am desperate for her to be guilty. I don't really care tbh. I just think the solution to a miscarriage of judgement does not go through the newspapers, but through the courts, and I am sceptical of the motives of those seeking to do so through the press, and I think they totally ignore the impact it in turn has on the victims.
Lastly, I am sceptical of the motives around why they're so invested in this.
This is not the post office. There are clear routes for her to appeal.
0 -
Delighted you've read 1000 words in private eye and think you know more than the judge and jury who saw thousands of documents and heard endless witnesses and experts discuss the case. Good for you.
0 -
Is discussing to on a cycling forum any more appropriate? Zzzzzzzzz
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.1 -
FFS Rick. No doubts? fine. I don't know more than Hammond, but you obviously do. Carry on then.
0 -
-
-
How does your binary world cope when, for example, the father of a victim of the Lockerbie bombing campaigned for the release of the convicted murderer on the basis of his likely innocence?
1 -
Is he right or not, would be the obvious question.
Legal stuff is pretty binary right? You have all this grey during the trail, but either you're guilty on the charge or you're not.
That is a binary world, my friend.
0 -
Miscarriages of justice occur far more frequently than we dare to believe (Yant, 1991; Naughton, 2009) and quite simply, ruin people’s lives. Many of these injustices have been revealed and ultimately rectified as a result of work by journalists who have dedicated energy and resources to investigating and publicising them. However, the involvement of the media in this area appears to have diminished over time, leading campaigners to claim that prisoners protesting their innocence should not now place too much faith in the informal involvement of journalists in their cases (Allison, 2004, n.p.). Such claims are of particular concern in the light of recent criticism that the Criminal Cases Review Commission, the formal investigator of miscarriages of justice, is not ‘fit for purpose’
0 -
Al-Megrahi was convicted of the bombing and did not successfully appeal the conviction.
The conviction was highly questionable when further details became known, but the wheels of justice turned slowly and involved considerable politics, so there was no retrial.
Was a he guilty of the bombing? Probably not. Was he guilty of something else? Probably. So a man who committed many crimes spent a number of years in prison for a crime he did not commit.
Meanwhile, the actual bombers got away with it.
1 -
More recently we might remember that it was an ITV drama programme that led to the reopening of the Sub Postmasters convictions.
0 -
Unless you are being tried in Scotland.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
If I ruled the school, not only would every day be the first day of spring, but my school 'mantra' would start with these two 'instructions':
embrace doubt - feed curiosity - [I'm still working on the third one]
It's unsettling to never be sure of anything, but pretty much everything we think is 'true' turns out later to be either wrong or at least only partial. On the other hand, not being sure is also liberating.
0 -
You do realise the judge doesn't decide on guilt don't you?
FWIW I sort of agree with you though, if there was a counter-argument to expert testimony it should have been put forward at the trial. If it was and the jury found guilty it's reasonable to assume it didn't put reasonable doubt in the juries mind. If new evidence had come forward that casts doubt on the convinction being sound then there is an established process to appeal.
0 -
I think a someone posting about it on a quiet unremarkable cycling forum is quite different from an apparently respectable politician gobbing off about it on national TV...
Obviously the justice process isn't infallible. There may be sufficient aspects in the Lucy Letby case to warrant an appeal. That doesn't mean the appeal is likely to be successful nor does it mean she is innocent.
1 -
The potential to ruin lives is also why we have the principle of proving someone guilty beyond reasonable doubt: on the basis that it is better a guilty person occasionally walks free than convicting an innocent person. (Clearly it doesn't work all the time, but the aim is the right one in my view).
So while it may be entirely possible that Letby did commit those crimes, if they can't it prove it beyond reasonable doubt then she walks. That may be what Rick is struggling with.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]1 -
Although given the reasoning ability of some jurors in my experience you can sometime see why it doesn't always work. I was on the jury for a case which was a total slam dunk acquittal (no forensic, video or other evidence), no witnesses and the accusers story so full of holes on cross examination that it was a total no brainer and the only thing most of us were wondering was how this ever came to trial.
The judge had clearly explained the principle of 'beyond reasonable doubt' and told us he wanted a unanimous verdict. One fellow juror persisted in her view that he was guilty on the basis that 'he could have done it' - what followed was a bit like that scene from Father Ted where Ted tries to explain to Dougal the difference between 'small' and 'far away'. Does make you worry about the outcome in some of the more complex cases.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
"... A jury of your peers"
"Oh f***!"
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
All that Hammond is saying that, on informed reflection, he doesn't think that the conviction is sound enough, and warrants an appeal. Of course that is hard on the parents, but I hope that they'd rather someone wasn't unsatisfactorily convicted because of flawed expert evidence, just to give them a sense of 'closure'. It can't have been any easier for the victims of the Lockerbie bomber.
Just because I really hate David Davis, I shouldn't ignore what he's saying in this case, just because he's an arse. That said, I am kinda ignoring him as my views have been swayed rather by Phil Hammond, for whom I have quite a bit of respect, as he does tend to be a reasonable and pragmatic voice. He doesn't seem to be coming at this from any other angle than wanting to be sure.
0 -
-
We know. I can see why you're struggling with this.
Appeals are possible in certain circumstances, as mentioned above.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]1 -
The "beyond reasonable doubt" can only be based on the evidence presented. Hammond's argument is that, for whatever reason, the sum total of the expert witnesses' evidence didn't present the doubts about the evidence that should have been presented, and that should be grounds for an appeal.
He makes wider points about expert witnesses in trials, and how their evidence should be presented to a non-expert jury, provoked by his reflections on this case.
0 -
Agreed. This potentially falls into the 'doesn't work all the time category' that I mentioned above.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
As I said, Zzzzzzzzz.
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0
