[News] Baby murder nurse case

[Molango's visa]

I had a feeling this was going to be one of those threads where you try and join in again.

And the troll has given you his thumbs up. I think he thinks this is àll a bit of a laugh.

 

[A1X]

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.

It’s simple really, all the people who didn’t do it get to appeal and all the people who did, don’t. Problem solved.

 

[jcdenton08]

The fact is Letby was convicted due to the sheer weight of circumstantial evidence, and an appeal was all but guaranteed. Doesn’t mean **** in the great scheme of things and the Crown and defence undoubtedly knew this was likely to be granted. Crossing the T’s and dotting the i’s.

 

[A1X]

What do you mean?

Everyone deserves fair and equal treatment in the eyes of the law, which includes a fair trial and the right of access to the legal system. Anything other than that opens up a Pandora’s box I’d rather we kept firmly shut, thanks.

 

[Sheebo]

Everyone deserves fair and equal treatment in the eyes of the law, which includes a fair trial and the right of access to the legal system. Anything other than that opens up a Pandora’s box I’d rather we kept firmly shut, thanks.

Sure - I’ve answered it above. I was just unsure on the angle as per ‘terrifying’. It is understandable in this case that many wil say that though - but I do agree with you better to be very safe than very sorry. Assuming she did do it, it’s pretty disgusting from her given the crimes and parents - so you will get that reaction frol many of the public…

 

[Iggle Piggle]

Before I start, I'm not implying innocence or making direct comparisons about the cases as some amateur detectives have done for click bait. That said, There was a similar story in Holland where the nurse was exonerated (haven't read all the thread, so apologies if bought up already)

Lucia de Berk - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Only point being that an appeal was more or less inevitable and as reprehensible as the crimes are, that is the law and the process.

 

[DavidRyder]

An appeal was always going to happen - she has nothing to lose, it’s not as if her term in prison can be extended. I really feel for her parents who must be distraught, because this will be a little bit of hope for them that will come to nothing. And I feel more sorry for the parents of the babies, who probably just wanted their closure and justice, and now they have an appeal to deal with. I hope for their sake it’s done and dusted quickly.

 

[Commander]

Long read in the New Yorker about this case.

https://archive.ph/AWpyz#selection-2281.512-2286.0

Difficult to have read all that and not be troubled by the verdict.

 

[KZNSeagull]

Long read in the New Yorker about this case.

https://archive.ph/AWpyz#selection-2281.512-2286.0

Difficult to have read all that and not be troubled by the verdict.

There is an article similar to this in the latest issue of Private Eye - they wanted to publish earlier but were prevented from doing so because of her retrial. It does sound like there should be doubts about this conviction.

 

[Tubby Mondays]

There is an article similar to this in the latest issue of Private Eye - they wanted to publish earlier but were prevented from doing so because of her retrial. It does sound like there should be doubts about this conviction.

Yeah read the Private Eye one yesterday and it does raise concerns.

I, like the article says, can’t say whether the conviction is right or wrong.

But I think there’s enough there to justify another look at it.

 

[The Clamp]

Not saying her conviction is wrong but large institutions do tend to be quick to blame individuals rather than their systems.

 

[Baldseagull]

I think its more likely that she is innocent than gullty, and there is at the very least, enough doubt as to make the conviction unsafe.

 

[Surf's Up]

There is surely enough doubt about the safety of the original decision to justify a re-trial? it sounds as though she needs a new defence team too!