fly high
Well-known member
Expect we are paying for it.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[News] Baby murder nurse case
- Thread starter El Presidente
- Start date
clapham_gull
Legacy Fan
- Aug 20, 2003
- 25,876
Not that surprising given the nature of the evidence and no I'm not suggesting she is innocent.
There was an awful lot of it, but it was circumstantial. Not that surprisingly there is an appeal, just as it wasn't that surprising that the murdering Clapham policeman put in an appeal against his full life tariff. He lost.
Last edited:
Thunder Bolt
Silly old bat
Mitigating circumstances are for sentencing.
Given leave to appeal means she thinks the conviction was wrong, completely.
Already seen multiple people saying she shouldn’t be allowed to, which is frankly terrifying
Icy Gull
Back on the rollercoaster
- Jul 5, 2003
- 72,015
Every convicted criminal will try that one won’t they? Surely there has to be a reasonable doubt about the conviction to allow an appeal? So something has to mitigate the conviction surely? She has been convicted of killing babies, what possible appeal can there be?
Is it PotG?
Thrifty non-licker
She does, or her counsel do?
clapham_gull
Legacy Fan
- Aug 20, 2003
- 25,876
It will be her lawyers.
The judge in his summing up said the vast majority of the evidence is circumstantial, so I'm not surprised there is an attempt to appeal.
The Clapham Common murder was very close to me in a number of ways so I followed it very closely. I was genuinely surprised he got a full life tariff but very happy he did. I wasn't surprised he appealed either and was very happy with the outcome.
Just let it take its course. A whole life tariff on mostly circumstantial (but a lot of) evidence deserves to be tested.
You have to have confidence in the justice system, that's the most important thing.
Is it PotG?
Thrifty non-licker
A single bullet is far cheaper.
clapham_gull
Legacy Fan
- Aug 20, 2003
- 25,876
But in the hands of a single brain cell, not the sort of country you'd want to live in.
ManOfSussex
We wunt be druv
I had a feeling this was going to be one of those threads where you try and join in again.
clapham_gull
Legacy Fan
- Aug 20, 2003
- 25,876
People misunderstanding the justice system. This is one of those odd ones where you are not surprised she was convicted but not surprised her lawyers appealed.
When I read the judges comments I though it somewhat inevitable.
Our press aren't great at reporting things either. It's just a story to them.
The jury convicted her and saw the evidence first hand, but it's worth the money to have this one looked at (even if the appeal is dismissed) to make sure the system is working.
Is it PotG?
Thrifty non-licker
Sheebo
Well-known member
- Jul 13, 2003
- 29,319
Yes I understand it all — but why is it terrifying? People just don’t want a baby murderer to have rights that’s all that is. Of course she has the right to appeal so not unexpected but people will want to give her no rights at public expense too…
Weststander
Well-known member
A conviction from circumstantial evidence is no way a tainted or a less solid verdict, especially when the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming.
- Jul 10, 2003
- 27,750
Of course everyone should have the right to appeal, but surely not people that WE ALL KNOW are wrong'uns
clapham_gull
Legacy Fan
- Aug 20, 2003
- 25,876
Well, as you've seen with this poor bloke recently who was banged up for years the justice system and the police sometimes get it very wrong.
After conviction didn't he have rights either ? He was labelled a murderer too, but wasn't.
.. and as for public expense, well that's gonna be very expensive. Far more expensive than an appeal.
Much cheaper to get it right first time or soon after. As Weststander says above there was a lot of evidence against her albeit circumstantial but the jury convicted her.
I'll repeat about the Clapham murder. The full life tariff looked at again and dismissed. That was really important, because it doubled down on the unusualness of a single murder leading to a full life tariff.
A policeman misusing using his existing powers and on top some once in a lifetime extraordinary powers to rape and murder a women deserves to die in prison.
So I'm comfortable that the case of a mass murdering nurse convicted on substantial circumstantial gets looked at again because we have to have confidence in our justice system.
If you couldn't care less whether it is operating effectively and should be subject to check and balances, then yes I find that terrifying too.
Thunder Bolt
Silly old bat
A judge decides if a criminal is given leave to appeal. It’s not automatic like a prisoner stamping their foot saying it’s not fair.
In this situatio, as Clapham has said, it is mainly circumstantial, but that doesn’t mean she’ll win. It just means three appeal judges will look at the evidence again.
Thunder Bolt
Silly old bat
The judge who awarded the leave to appeal.
prisoners cannot just appeal, they have to be given leave (permission) to appeal.
Then three appeal judges will look at all the evidence if the appeal is granted.
Sheebo
Well-known member
- Jul 13, 2003
- 29,319
No I’m with you completely, I just understand the public outcry (who are 100% sure she did it) will be far from ‘she deserves the chance to appeal’ so don’t find it terrifying. I don’t know the case or evidence majorly well and want to make sure it’s correct of course. I’m a see it to believe it type person. But I can understand others have no time for it as that’s the way they’re wired up. It’s not surprising to me they have these opinions. Obviously a case like this brings out huuuuuge emotions in the public.