Lucy Letby

What a Bizzare statement. Ffs.
I watched the lucy letby programme. The defence were totally incompetent in my view. Not bringing forward expert opinion on how the children could and most likely died via other means.
I haven't a clue whether she is innocent or not based on that programme. But as I say total incompetence.

 

Not bizarre at all. Usually with a mass murderer you get lots of comments like "looks the type". With Lucy a lot of people mentioned her appearance with comments like "doesn't look the type".

 

That works well when the prosecution and the defence give professional competence. Her defence didn't. By not bringing forward Star witness experts. Thinking it would work out better later. On appeal.

 

No one suspected Harold Shipman, his victims were similarly vulnerable, could e

Were you part of the defence team? For all you know she may have admitted her guilt to them. I don't think you can call them unprofessional without the full facts.

 

But to wonder if her supporters. Not joe public. have those views. Is stretching it.

 

Watch the programme. Then come back to me. Many expert witnesses were not brought to give evidence that would have given other reasons as to why the children could have and more than likely died. As I say I haven't a clue if she's innocent or not.
But there are many cases I've seen covered by such as private eye that have done better investigative work. Paul Foot was another brilliant investigator. Championing the innocent for many years afore getting true justice.

 

What does that mean though, it annoys the hell out of me when people say that.
Things like "whether he's innocent or not, he does look like one!" (a murderer or a rapist etc).

 

Subconsciously a lot of people have a stereotype of what a particular type of person looks like. For example Joanne Dennehy is in the same boat as a female locked up for life for killing more than one person. But based off first impressions (which all humans have) they "look" totally different. Killers can look like anything.

 

That's one programme @Hooky feller . There was a 9 month trial He wasn't a rooky KC. There may well have been legitimate reasons why these experts weren't called, we don't know.

 

It's pretty good grounds for appeal though, no?

 

Did you watch it ?. Please do if not. Channel 4 'lucy letby did she do it ' on catch up. I watched it a couple of months back and mentioned it on here in connection with something similar. All will be explained as to why I say what I do. It's not claiming she's not done it. But highlights the defence. Or not as in her case. Some experts were quite prepared to stand up in court. A few wouldn't for fear of a backlash on their careers. Some of the deaths were easy to explain away. 1 claimed the child was injected with an overdose of insulin. Yet no puncture marks were found and other explanations were common with the same symptoms as natural causes in deaths of premature babies.
Another showed she was on duty on the same day a baby died. But what it didn't show was it was outside of the hrs the day she did a night shift.

 

Yeah I know, and that's the most worrying thing, they can hide out in plain sight, and nobody knows a thing.
Then think of when friends and colleagues and neighbours talk about them, when they've been caught.
Saying things like "I'm shocked, he/she always looked so nice and friendly, like they wouldn't hurt a fly!" etc.

 

I've not watched it, but I've read quite a bit around it.

 

If she'd admitted it to them then I don't think they'd have been permitted to advance a positive argument that she wasn't guilty.

 

Do yourself a favour. You may have a different angle on the matter.

 

I suppose it depends what was said, and obviously we'll not get to know that.

 

I'm not saying one way or another. The jury made their decisions on way more evidence than will be on an hours tv programme, it took the best part of a year.

 

Neither am I. I'm just saying what i saw. The jury were not given evidence to suggest the deaths could have been natural in some if not all cases. Hence how can you make a sound judgement if it's only one way. Please watch it and then tell me there isn't some doubt over some of the the evidence presented. If you have no doubt then fine. But thousands of people have been convicted of crimes by juries they didn't commit. Some executed. I've explained why some defence witnesses would not stand. For fear of losing their jobs, the programme highlights that issue..
Why do you think others on here that watched the programme have a similar view. That some evidence is flawed. And counter evidence was not given.
OJ simpson found not guilty in a criminal court by a jury. But found to be liable to the deaths. In effect guilty in a civil court by a different jury. Who were given evidence not used in the original trial. Eg All the tapes that Nicole produced.
How many on here would go with the former. None (including me) I imagine.

 

It's not as simple as that - the threshold for a verdict in a civil trial is balance of probabilities (i.e. they only need to be 50.000001% sure he did it) rather than beyond all reasonable doubt.

 

Many episodes were written by John Godber as a sideline while he was our drama teacher at Minsthorpe High School, before he left to become a full time playwright.