They weren’t the words of an innocent person. If you or I were accused of such heinous crimes, we’d be fighting tooth and nail to prove our innocence. I wouldn’t be writing incredibly suspicious things, I’d be writing about my anger and frustration at the injustice I was experiencing.
They very well could be.
In the same page of notes she also wrote things like ‘I didn’t do anything wrong’.
It’s not just the notes, no. I didn’t attend the trial and sit through the months of testimony, interview transcripts and reams of physical evidence and statistics. And I wasn’t on the jury, so I’m not in a position to judge anything “beyond reasonable doubt”, either her guilt or her innocence.
Perhaps in her mind she felt responsible for the deaths because she may have started to believe that she had been incompetent in some way with her care. After all everyone seemed to be saying that she caused the deaths. I think it's reasonable in that instance that she would use the words she did in those notes.
Yes - this bit concerns me. Experts are meant to be a bit better than coming out with 'something must have happened'.If you want something shorter to read than the Private Eye stuff (which is a time commitment) then try this article
‘My kind of case’: intense focus falls on Lucy Letby trial expert witness
Dr Dewi Evans’s evidence has been criticised, even ridiculed, but he maintains his work stands up to scrutinywww.theguardian.com
One particular extract from the above article is (Dr Evans being the lead expert for the prosecution):
Months into the trial, damning criticisms of Evans were made by a senior judge, Lord Justice Jackson, in a different civil case. He dismissed Evans’s report as “worthless” and stated that Evans had breached his expert’s duty by deciding on an outcome he wanted, then “working out an explanation” to achieve it.
“Of greatest concern,” Jackson wrote in the decision, “Dr Evans makes no effort to provide a balanced opinion.” The judge said Evans had either not taken steps to inform himself about other medical experts’ conclusions, or he had disregarded them. “Either approach amounts to a breach of proper professional conduct.”
That seems like a leap. I don’t think the suggestion is that she was mentally ill, just suffering with stress, and writing down her thoughts was a technique given to her by her therapist.
It has also been argued that being on trial for multiple murders is in itself a cause of enormous stress.
I was specifically asked if I believed beyond reasonable doubt, a legal standard. To that end, no, I couldn’t render for certain her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, because I didn’t see all the evidence the jury saw, hear the judge’s instructions and I wasn’t deliberating on the case. However, given the information available that I have read, it is my opinion that she is guilty.
www.bljsolicitors.co.uk
In hindsight that wasn’t a great question from me (the beyond reasonable doubt) as clearly you wouldn’t have heard all of the evidence. I suppose a better question would be given the doubts about the expert witnesses etc do you think the conviction is safe or is there enough evidence to warrant a retrial?I was specifically asked if I believed beyond reasonable doubt, a legal standard. To that end, no, I couldn’t render for certain her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, because I didn’t see all the evidence the jury saw, hear the judge’s instructions and I wasn’t deliberating on the case. However, given the information available that I have read, it is my opinion that she is guilty.
It’s quite simple really. Here’s a more thorough explanation, though:
Understanding the Standard of Proof in Criminal Cases
The standard of proof refers to the amount of evidence that's necessary and needed to prove an assertion in a trial in court. Read here to learn more.
Wow ... misogyny is alive and well on NSC. What a disgusting comment to make about any woman let alone introduce it in a thread about a woman that has been jailed for killing babies.
When AI juries become the way forward it will do away with
AI juries will never become the way forward. AI doesn’t think, it doesn’t consider nuance. It will never happen.
You possibly know more about the French system than I do!
