She would've had months/years to go through that piece of evidence with her defence lawyer, and even all those times in court when it was asked what prompted her to write it, are you suggesting it didn't ONCE occur to her to say "oh yeah, actually my therapist encouraged me to write that"?

 

Seriously, pull the other one. If you believe that, I've got some magic beans you might be interested in buying.

 

We already know you’re never going to reevaluate your opinion on this

And?

 

I mean, likewise but I'm still allowed to participate in the discussion and I wouldn't try and suggest you're not.

It’s certainly not fair if the validity of the evidence that initially secured the conviction has since been called into question.

If the defence questioned the validity of the evidence in the trial, they could now challenge the judge's decision. If they didn't raise any objection, I don't think there is anything they can do. Again, the issue of whether that is right is a separate argument.

Let’s use a hypothetical right. Let’s say a gang has committed a heinous crime. This gang is well connected and has a lot of power. Two witnesses are coming forward to say they saw this gang at the scene of the crime etc etc. Members of this gang tell these witnesses it will not be good for you if you testify against us, they eventually don’t testify and the gang gets found not guilty. We can all see that was witness intimidation that likely affected the verdict.

 

 

Now in Lucy’s case there were two nurses who going to testify on her behalf. Stated she was a quiet great nurse who loved kids, worked hard never showed any bad signs and was bullied by other staff because she was quiet. That the units were a mess and understaffed etc. Both of these nurses were told by the NHS don’t testify it won’t be good for you or your career etc and both ended up not testifying.

 

Does that not seem like a problem to you guys?

 

https://www.removepaywall.com/search?url=ht...nce-lucy-letby/

 

This is just further indication that the jury did not get both sides of the story which is imperative in making the correct call at the end

i have very few words for the people both on this thread and on social media who seem to have so much energy to exert in defending this child murderer when common sense points to her ruining so many parents lives. no words really :wacko:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3d93kpkl83o There we go

There we go what? Application to appeal can be denied by the CCRC, and I wouldn't be surprised if that happens here.

If she isn’t eligible for an appeal then I can’t think of anybody who would be :lol:

If she isn’t eligible for an appeal then I can’t think of anybody who would be :lol:

 

Most likely because you haven’t obsessed over other cases like you have this one.

Most likely because you haven’t obsessed over other cases like you have this one.

 

You don’t know me at all. God forbid you have to deal with someone with a differing opinion

You don’t know me at all. God forbid you have to deal with someone with a differing opinion

 

I’m stating my own opinion, why is that an issue for you?

I’m stating my own opinion, why is that an issue for you?

 

You assuming that I’m obsessed with this case when in reality I only think about it when it’s in the news and get reminded of how infuriatingly stupid the British public can be :lol: And the stubbornness of people who refuse to even consider the possibility that they may be wrong about something.

There we go what? Application to appeal can be denied by the CCRC, and I wouldn't be surprised if that happens here.

 

Too many influential people involved on her behalf now. I don’t even know how you get a fair retrial, ultimately I think she’ll be free with the next two years maximum and it’ll be a very interesting fallout. Obviously it’s pretty messed up for the parents either way. But you can’t allow someone to rot in prison who clearly has big doubt over their guilt. It’s one of those cases that will be talked about for a long time. Did she really do it? We may never know.

You assuming that I’m obsessed with this case when in reality I only think about it when it’s in the news and get reminded of how infuriatingly stupid the British public can be :lol: And the stubbornness of people who refuse to even consider the possibility that they may be wrong about something.

 

Just my opinion, chillax.

Just my opinion, chillax.

 

I’m fine it’s the people clutching their pearls at the defence of an “evil baby killer!!” because The Sun told them so that I’m worried about :lol:

I’m fine it’s the people clutching their pearls at the defence of an “evil baby killer!!” because The Sun told them so that I’m worried about :lol:

 

That’s lovely, I’m more concerned about how the families of those poor babies are feeling.

Enough please, let's stick to debate and not bickering or the thread will be locked.

 

I would advise caution on jumping to conclusions or hinting at conspiracies at all unless there is substantial evidence and the case builds. Notes that can be interpreted many ways aren't enough.

Enough please, let's stick to debate and not bickering or the thread will be locked.

 

I would advise caution on jumping to conclusions or hinting at conspiracies at all unless there is substantial evidence and the case builds. Notes that can be interpreted many ways aren't enough.

 

I don’t think it’s fair to brand it a conspiracy when people are only questioning the strength of the evidence.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3d93kpkl83o There we go

Referring a case to the CCRC proves nothing. Andrew Malkinson will be able to tell you why. As I said before, leave to appeal generally requires new evidence. Alternatively, the defence would need to show that a judge made an incorrect ruling or misled the jury in the summing up. So, if the defence challenged the validity of a piece of evidence and the judge ruled that it was valid, the defence could demand a retrial if they could demonstrate that the judge's ruling was incorrect. If the defence didn't challenge the validity of the evidence, that path to allowing an appeal doesn't apply.

I’m fine it’s the people clutching their pearls at the defence of an “evil baby killer!!” because The Sun told them so that I’m worried about :lol:

or maybe they think she's an 'evil baby killer' because they believe the evidence they've been presented with indicates she's guilty? :mellow:

 

I don't understand you preaching 'the stubbornness of people who refuse to even consider the possibility that they may be wrong about something' when you're acting exactly the same as you described others lol