Random Irritations

Bazz said:
Remember that argument for and against the death penalty on here the other week? The news coming out about Lucy Letby and how the panel have found no murders have taken place, wouldn't have helped her now would it?
Click to expand...

If she is innocent - what a terrible, terrible miscarriage of justice. I've been sure she was an evil murderer. I can't put into words...
 
Lord Tyrion said:
So we would need a system of guilty and really guilty going forwards?
Click to expand...
If it were to go that way then there would have to be absolutely no doubt whatsoever...ie a guy keeps shooting until he runs out of ammo then gets arrested and there's plenty of people who saw it, witnessed it and there is absolutely 100% no doubt....even then I'm not sure it's the right way to go...
But Letby wouldn't have got the death sentence as that kind of proof isn't available..
Enough to convict her - although that may change - but nowhere near enough to go that one step further.
 
Re the complexity of the medical evidence in the Letby case, is there a need for specialist juries chosen for their expertise? Without picking out any particular demographic are some people almost not suited for jury service on a complex case?

The idea of 12 randomly chosen individuals sounds all well and good but…
 
Hobbit said:
Re the complexity of the medical evidence in the Letby case, is there a need for specialist juries chosen for their expertise? Without picking out any particular demographic are some people almost not suited for jury service on a complex case?

The idea of 12 randomly chosen individuals sounds all well and good but…
Click to expand...
Did anyone see the Channel 4(maybe) series last year about juries? They had a real life case (with actors) and got 2 juries to watch the case and pass judgement. All the people in the juries were just standard members of the public with no legal knowledge or knowledge of the case. The juries followed the same protocols as they would in a real case, debating the facts and coming to a verdict. Neither jury knew about the other and were unaware of their presence in the exact same courtroom at the exact same time.

The juries came to different verdicts.
 
Imurg said:
If it were to go that way then there would have to be absolutely no doubt whatsoever...ie a guy keeps shooting until he runs out of ammo then gets arrested and there's plenty of people who saw it, witnessed it and there is absolutely 100% no doubt....even then I'm not sure it's the right way to go...
But Letby wouldn't have got the death sentence as that kind of proof isn't available..
Enough to convict her - although that may change - but nowhere near enough to go that one step further.
Click to expand...
I was saying this slightly tongue in cheek as we just have guilty or not guilty. We don't have shades of guilt. I do get what Slime was saying but that would need a wholesale change in our system. The legal bods would have a meltdown, it would just not happen.
 
Hobbit said:
Re the complexity of the medical evidence in the Letby case, is there a need for specialist juries chosen for their expertise? Without picking out any particular demographic are some people almost not suited for jury service on a complex case?

The idea of 12 randomly chosen individuals sounds all well and good but…
Click to expand...
There's a lot of mileage in that.
Not to trivialise it, but the average person can't work out how many shots to deduct from their golf score when all the info is laid out for them, how can the average person listen to days and weeks of technical and extremely complicated medical evidence and come to an informed and intelligent decision?
 
I subscribe to Private Eye and their MD column has examined this case quite thoroughly.
I would personally say there's reasonable doubt and more than enough to review the case again.
 
Neilds said:
Did anyone see the Channel 4(maybe) series last year about juries? They had a real life case (with actors) and got 2 juries to watch the case and pass judgement. All the people in the juries were just standard members of the public with no legal knowledge or knowledge of the case. The juries followed the same protocols as they would in a real case, debating the facts and coming to a verdict. Neither jury knew about the other and were unaware of their presence in the exact same courtroom at the exact same time.

The juries came to different verdicts.
Click to expand...

It’s not just juries. Imagine attending a Coroner’s Inquest at which the coroner comes from a legal background, not a medical background. It was a “for the want of a nail” escalating situation. The coroner didn’t link the evidence…
 
Bazz said:
Remember that argument for and against the death penalty on here the other week? The news coming out about Lucy Letby and how the panel have found no murders have taken place, wouldn't have helped her now would it?
Click to expand...

You've completely missed the salient point about 'irrefutable evidence'.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Imurg
DPWT Fantasy League 2026
3 4 5
Replies
81
Views
2K
Imurg
Imurg
Tashyboy
Should this be in random irritations
Replies
1
Views
645
rulefan
R
D
Random aches and illness thread
2 3
Replies
40
Views
5K
williamalex1
williamalex1
N
Christmas Random Irritations
7 8 9
Replies
178
Views
20K
Hobbit
Hobbit
D
Drug deaths in Scotland
2
Replies
25
Views
4K
Backache
B
Top