FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to Politics

Letby

Jump to newest
 

By *melie LAL OP   Woman
12 weeks ago

Peterborough

Unsafe conviction?

If it turns out this is an unsafe conviction, it'll definitely fuel evidence for never returning the death penalty.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *usybee73Man
12 weeks ago

in the sticks


"Unsafe conviction?

If it turns out this is an unsafe conviction, it'll definitely fuel evidence for never returning the death penalty. "

Been watching it from the start, some of the evidence don't add up and the reasoning...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *iman2100Man
12 weeks ago

Glasgow

Considering the nature of her crimes it is both extremely difficult to keep emotion out of any verdict, as well as finding hard evidence to convict. If, however, there is any element of her trial that is unsafe she is entitled to have it reviewed.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *atEvolutionCouple
12 weeks ago

atlantisEVOLUTION Swingers Club. Stoke

If she is guilty of just one death - then she's in the right place. Sadly, it won't be till 'she' dies.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ouple in LancashireCouple
12 weeks ago

in Lancashire

Given that some of the evidence is purely scientific in its nature it's not surprising that other scientists will have different opinions as they did during the trials..

But clearly if new evidence casts doubts upon the original findings then that should be looked at..

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ophieslutTV/TS
12 weeks ago

Central

I've been thinking for a while that it was probably an inappropriate conviction and wrong for everyone involved as well as society in general.

It does seem a real mess of a conviction and it's shocking that it could have happened so very badly. It should be given rightful attention ASAP, so that we get closure, if possible. Worst case, there's still loss of life, which could be preventable

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ggdrasil66Man
12 weeks ago

Saltdean

I’m still all for bringing back capital punishment, but not if there is any kind of doubt over the conviction of the accused.

I doubt this one is totally innocent, but there is probably enough doubt in some of the cases to exclude her from the death penalty if we had the option.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *melie LAL OP   Woman
12 weeks ago

Peterborough

Unsafe convictions are very scary in this day and age. One would assume that someone convicted of multiple deaths, the evidence would be overwhelming.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *9alMan
12 weeks ago

Bridgend


"Unsafe convictions are very scary in this day and age. One would assume that someone convicted of multiple deaths, the evidence would be overwhelming."

the shear number of suspicious deaths connected to her care makes her look very guilty to me. If she manages to wriggle out of some of the convictions with a cleaver lawyer she should still be locked up for life for the other convictions .

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *emma StonesTV/TS
12 weeks ago

Crewe

I listened to one of the experts questioning the conviction. He is a professor who specialises in statistics.

I wonder what he thinks the odds are on an innocent person writing in their diary that they had killed the babies and that they were evil.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *atEvolutionCouple
12 weeks ago

atlantisEVOLUTION Swingers Club. Stoke


"I listened to one of the experts questioning the conviction. He is a professor who specialises in statistics.

I wonder what he thinks the odds are on an innocent person writing in their diary that they had killed the babies and that they were evil."

Nailed.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *melie LAL OP   Woman
12 weeks ago

Peterborough


"If she is guilty of just one death - then she's in the right place. Sadly, it won't be till 'she' dies."

What makes you say that? She is one of the few people in prison who will never be paroled.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *mateur100Man
12 weeks ago

nr faversham


"Unsafe conviction?

If it turns out this is an unsafe conviction, it'll definitely fuel evidence for never returning the death penalty. "

You have to trust the system and accept that nothings perfect otherwise you'll never convict anyone for fear of making that one mistake in a million

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *abluesbabyMan
11 weeks ago

Gibraltar/Cheshire/London


"Unsafe conviction?

If it turns out this is an unsafe conviction, it'll definitely fuel evidence for never returning the death penalty.

You have to trust the system and accept that nothings perfect otherwise you'll never convict anyone for fear of making that one mistake in a million "

Ok. For absolute clarity you are saying you will have to trust the system.

Especially if the death penalty is reinstated?

So if your closest loved one is arrested, convicted and executed for a crime which is later established they could not have committed and the conviction is quashed then you will still simply accept it and not want the law even changed because "Hey, nothing's perfect, right?"

That is what you are saying yes?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *hawn ScottMan
11 weeks ago

london Brixton

Think she is guilty but don't think she should be in prison.

Think she should be in a mental institution and possibly "studied" if possible to find out what exactly was going on in her head

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *rDiscretionXXXMan
11 weeks ago

Gilfach


"I listened to one of the experts questioning the conviction. He is a professor who specialises in statistics.

I wonder what he thinks the odds are on an innocent person writing in their diary that they had killed the babies and that they were evil."

I have personal knowledge of a man that wrote a diary saying that he had killed several people, and saying that the devil made him do it. He hadn't killed anyone, we proved that he wasn't in the area at the time the killings took place. But he was convinced that he had killed those people, and that demons had made him do it, and were covering up for him.

There are some very self-destructive people out there.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ouple in LancashireCouple
11 weeks ago

in Lancashire


"Unsafe conviction?

If it turns out this is an unsafe conviction, it'll definitely fuel evidence for never returning the death penalty.

You have to trust the system and accept that nothings perfect otherwise you'll never convict anyone for fear of making that one mistake in a million "

Like all the cases where innocent people have been convicted of murder and then later released..

That sort of trust?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *esparate danMan
11 weeks ago

glasgow


"I listened to one of the experts questioning the conviction. He is a professor who specialises in statistics.

I wonder what he thinks the odds are on an innocent person writing in their diary that they had killed the babies and that they were evil.

I have personal knowledge of a man that wrote a diary saying that he had killed several people, and saying that the devil made him do it. He hadn't killed anyone, we proved that he wasn't in the area at the time the killings took place. But he was convinced that he had killed those people, and that demons had made him do it, and were covering up for him.

There are some very self-destructive people out there."

Was he also a credible suspect ?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *emma StonesTV/TS
11 weeks ago

Crewe


"I listened to one of the experts questioning the conviction. He is a professor who specialises in statistics.

I wonder what he thinks the odds are on an innocent person writing in their diary that they had killed the babies and that they were evil.

I have personal knowledge of a man that wrote a diary saying that he had killed several people, and saying that the devil made him do it. He hadn't killed anyone, we proved that he wasn't in the area at the time the killings took place. But he was convinced that he had killed those people, and that demons had made him do it, and were covering up for him.

There are some very self-destructive people out there."

But she was in the area. Sometimes it really is that simple.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *rDiscretionXXXMan
11 weeks ago

Gilfach


"I listened to one of the experts questioning the conviction. He is a professor who specialises in statistics.

I wonder what he thinks the odds are on an innocent person writing in their diary that they had killed the babies and that they were evil."


"I have personal knowledge of a man that wrote a diary saying that he had killed several people, and saying that the devil made him do it. He hadn't killed anyone, we proved that he wasn't in the area at the time the killings took place. But he was convinced that he had killed those people, and that demons had made him do it, and were covering up for him.

There are some very self-destructive people out there."


"Was he also a credible suspect ?"

At first, which is why the diary got found. He was ruled out fairly early in the investigation. Which was lucky for him, because if he had been in those places, or even just if he couldn't prove he wasn't, he would have become the prime suspect.

My point with the above post is that someone admitting a crime isn't a slam dunk that they definitely did it. Ask any policeman and they'll tell you about those who claim responsibility for things they haven't done.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ebauchedDeviantsPt2Couple
11 weeks ago

Cumbria

If she does turn out to be not guilty then she will have suffered one of the biggest miscarriages of justice in decades.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *mateur100Man
11 weeks ago

nr faversham


"Unsafe conviction?

If it turns out this is an unsafe conviction, it'll definitely fuel evidence for never returning the death penalty.

You have to trust the system and accept that nothings perfect otherwise you'll never convict anyone for fear of making that one mistake in a million

Ok. For absolute clarity you are saying you will have to trust the system.

Especially if the death penalty is reinstated?

So if your closest loved one is arrested, convicted and executed for a crime which is later established they could not have committed and the conviction is quashed then you will still simply accept it and not want the law even changed because "Hey, nothing's perfect, right?"

That is what you are saying yes? "

Who mentioned the death penalty?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *mateur100Man
11 weeks ago

nr faversham


"Unsafe conviction?

If it turns out this is an unsafe conviction, it'll definitely fuel evidence for never returning the death penalty.

You have to trust the system and accept that nothings perfect otherwise you'll never convict anyone for fear of making that one mistake in a million

Like all the cases where innocent people have been convicted of murder and then later released..

That sort of trust?"

The ratio is, I suspect heavily in favour

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ouple in LancashireCouple
11 weeks ago

in Lancashire


"Unsafe conviction?

If it turns out this is an unsafe conviction, it'll definitely fuel evidence for never returning the death penalty.

You have to trust the system and accept that nothings perfect otherwise you'll never convict anyone for fear of making that one mistake in a million

Like all the cases where innocent people have been convicted of murder and then later released..

That sort of trust?

The ratio is, I suspect heavily in favour"

Heavily in favour is simply not good enough when we are talking about taking away innocent peoples liberty for years..

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *mateur100Man
11 weeks ago

nr faversham


"If she does turn out to be not guilty then she will have suffered one of the biggest miscarriages of justice in decades."

Yes, she will....IF she's found not guilty but that doesn't mean no-one can be sent down for fear of getting it wrong. The evidence is compelling

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *allySlinkyWoman
11 weeks ago

Leeds


"If she does turn out to be not guilty then she will have suffered one of the biggest miscarriages of justice in decades."

Thinking of Jeremy Bamber and Michael Stone still in prison. Andrew Malkinson recently released after 17 years imprisoned innocent.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *3nsesMan
11 weeks ago

Dublin

There have been so great articles about the case. The evidence seems all very circumstantial and the mistakes presenting the evidence by the CPS also wouldn't fill one with confidence.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *arakiss12TV/TS
11 weeks ago

Bedford

Always thought something a bit weird about the case, time will tell if it's a miscarriage.

If it is who or what caused the babies deaths?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *allySlinkyWoman
11 weeks ago

Leeds

The most compelling evidence to me is a doctor seeing her standing by an incubator with alarm deactivated, watching oxygen level falling and not reacting

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *rDiscretionXXXMan
11 weeks ago

Gilfach


"The most compelling evidence to me is a doctor seeing her standing by an incubator with alarm deactivated, watching oxygen level falling and not reacting"

Did the trial see evidence that the alarm has been deactivated? Were the jury shown proof that the baby died of anoxia? Was Letby demonstrated to be in the room at that point?

Or is your compelling evidence just you reading a newspaper report of what someone else said?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *allySlinkyWoman
11 weeks ago

Leeds


"

Or is your compelling evidence just you reading a newspaper report of what someone else said?"

It is evidence I would have heard if I was a juror.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *rDiscretionXXXMan
11 weeks ago

Gilfach


"Or is your compelling evidence just you reading a newspaper report of what someone else said?"


"It is evidence I would have heard if I was a juror."

Unless you were a juror, you don't know that. Those of us that weren't in the court room can only know what the papers report, and that's rarely the whole truth.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ebauchedDeviantsPt2Couple
11 weeks ago

Cumbria


"If she does turn out to be not guilty then she will have suffered one of the biggest miscarriages of justice in decades.

Yes, she will....IF she's found not guilty but that doesn't mean no-one can be sent down for fear of getting it wrong. The evidence is compelling"

I don’t think anyone is saying no one should get sent down if the case can be proven beyond reasonable doubt, but in highly emotive cases like this we have to make certain people aren’t swayed by the fact it is dead babies and someone needs to pay.

The evidence needs to be more than compelling, it needs to be conclusive.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *olly_chromaticTV/TS
11 weeks ago

Stockport


"I listened to one of the experts questioning the conviction. He is a professor who specialises in statistics.

I wonder what he thinks the odds are on an innocent person writing in their diary that they had killed the babies and that they were evil."

But hasn't it come out now that the diary is something she was encouraged to write by a psychiatrist that she was having counselling from, some high up at the same hospital? (Honestly not too sure of the details here, I've just heard a few snippets on the radio)

So now we might have a situation where:

1. There is no direct physical evidence of Letby actually harming the babies.

2. Letby being overworked and under resourced (same as every other health professional over the last 15 years or so), suffering from depression, anxiety, low self esteem, and pressure from superiors who didn't like her.

3. Hospital systems where department is under funded, badly run, faulty equipment (same as every other hospital over the last 15 years, several of which have been actually found to be so bad that patients have been mistreated and harmed by the system and administration, not by individual low level staff).

4. Letby being encouraged by MH therapist, a senior person at same hospital, to write down bad thoughts and self worries as a way to process her extreme stress and overwork.

5. Prosecution not properly revealing all the circumstances around these "confession diaries".

6. It being very convenient for hospital administration if blame could be placed on a single junior staff member, rather than there being the type of high level investigation of hospital malpractice that has occurred at some other hospitals.

Be clear that I'm not saying that Letby is definitely innocent. But that there does seem to be a possibility that not all the evidence was presented, that the prosecution might have been selective in their disclosure, and that it could have been very convenient for some of the high ups at the hospital to have all blame placed on a single nurse rather than any wider investigation occurring. That there may be a possibility of this being an unsafe conviction and a massive miscarriage of justice.

I don't know. But I worry that if it is a bad conviction, the true reason for the deaths of these babies is still unknown, an innocent person could be being punished, and the true guilty person(s) could cause further harm in the future.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ulie.your. bottom. slutTV/TS
11 weeks ago

Glasgow

After watching the documentary of Andrew Malikson, it wouldn't surprise me if she's been stitched up.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
11 weeks ago

The whole thing felt wrong. The case was widely reported in media as it happened... Not in an informative way, more in a persuasive way. Meanwhile other cases often get blocked for media reporting.

The NHS has cocked up too many times to be trusted. Royal Stoke only last year had excess baby deaths. Is there a murderer there too or perhapa an indicator of something more systemic. Stressed staff and understaffed wards?

We can't say for sure if she's innocent but there's not enough to frame her as guilty. They cherry picked timetables for less than half the deaths and found Letby was working on all of them. What about the other deaths?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *melie LAL OP   Woman
11 weeks ago

Peterborough


"Unsafe conviction?

If it turns out this is an unsafe conviction, it'll definitely fuel evidence for never returning the death penalty.

You have to trust the system and accept that nothings perfect otherwise you'll never convict anyone for fear of making that one mistake in a million

Ok. For absolute clarity you are saying you will have to trust the system.

Especially if the death penalty is reinstated?

So if your closest loved one is arrested, convicted and executed for a crime which is later established they could not have committed and the conviction is quashed then you will still simply accept it and not want the law even changed because "Hey, nothing's perfect, right?"

That is what you are saying yes?

Who mentioned the death penalty?"

First post!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *mateur100Man
11 weeks ago

nr faversham


"Unsafe conviction?

If it turns out this is an unsafe conviction, it'll definitely fuel evidence for never returning the death penalty.

You have to trust the system and accept that nothings perfect otherwise you'll never convict anyone for fear of making that one mistake in a million

Ok. For absolute clarity you are saying you will have to trust the system.

Especially if the death penalty is reinstated?

So if your closest loved one is arrested, convicted and executed for a crime which is later established they could not have committed and the conviction is quashed then you will still simply accept it and not want the law even changed because "Hey, nothing's perfect, right?"

That is what you are saying yes?

Who mentioned the death penalty?

First post!"

You referred to it,I didn't

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *iman2100Man
11 weeks ago

Glasgow


"I listened to one of the experts questioning the conviction. He is a professor who specialises in statistics.

I wonder what he thinks the odds are on an innocent person writing in their diary that they had killed the babies and that they were evil.

But hasn't it come out now that the diary is something she was encouraged to write by a psychiatrist that she was having counselling from, some high up at the same hospital? (Honestly not too sure of the details here, I've just heard a few snippets on the radio)

So now we might have a situation where:

1. There is no direct physical evidence of Letby actually harming the babies.

2. Letby being overworked and under resourced (same as every other health professional over the last 15 years or so), suffering from depression, anxiety, low self esteem, and pressure from superiors who didn't like her.

3. Hospital systems where department is under funded, badly run, faulty equipment (same as every other hospital over the last 15 years, several of which have been actually found to be so bad that patients have been mistreated and harmed by the system and administration, not by individual low level staff).

4. Letby being encouraged by MH therapist, a senior person at same hospital, to write down bad thoughts and self worries as a way to process her extreme stress and overwork.

5. Prosecution not properly revealing all the circumstances around these "confession diaries".

6. It being very convenient for hospital administration if blame could be placed on a single junior staff member, rather than there being the type of high level investigation of hospital malpractice that has occurred at some other hospitals.

Be clear that I'm not saying that Letby is definitely innocent. But that there does seem to be a possibility that not all the evidence was presented, that the prosecution might have been selective in their disclosure, and that it could have been very convenient for some of the high ups at the hospital to have all blame placed on a single nurse rather than any wider investigation occurring. That there may be a possibility of this being an unsafe conviction and a massive miscarriage of justice.

I don't know. But I worry that if it is a bad conviction, the true reason for the deaths of these babies is still unknown, an innocent person could be being punished, and the true guilty person(s) could cause further harm in the future."

Good points. I hear that if you want a copy of the full court transcript it will cost £100,000. That is not going to make it easy for anyone to get familiar with her case.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *atEvolutionCouple
10 weeks ago

atlantisEVOLUTION Swingers Club. Stoke

https://news.sky.com/story/breathing-tubes-dislodged-during-trainee-shifts-worked-by-lucy-letby-at-liverpool-hospital-prior-to-killings-13213518

'Breathing tubes dislodged' during Lucy Letby shifts prior to killings, inquiry told

On the third day of an inquiry into how serial killer Lucy Letby was able to murder seven babies, Richard Baker KC said the convictions against her "did not tell the full story".

Breathing tubes became "dislodged" during 40% of trainee shifts worked by serial killer Lucy Letby in Liverpool, prior to the murder and attempted murder of babies at another hospital in Chester, an inquiry has heard.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By *ustoassingMan
9 weeks ago

Blyth


"Unsafe convictions are very scary in this day and age. One would assume that someone convicted of multiple deaths, the evidence would be overwhelming.

the shear number of suspicious deaths connected to her care makes her look very guilty to me. If she manages to wriggle out of some of the convictions with a cleaver lawyer she should still be locked up for life for the other convictions . "
Why do you not feel the same way about all the male doctors who worked in a failing hospital that was downgraded because of its low standards of care? You know, the same doctors who blamed Letby on the basis of purely circumstantial evidence?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top