I guarantee she’s not a killer – they’ve made her a scapegoat.
I obviously haven’t followed his nearly as closely as the jury has, but I think the evidence against her seems quite weak, and a lot of it doesn’t seem very relevant to the accusations. This case reminds me of that of Lucia de Berk, who was wrongfully convicted based on faulty statistical evidence. There is a risk the jury will incorrectly conclude she has to be guilty because she was the common factor in so many deaths.
Can’t believe the apologists for her. If it was *anyone else* people would be convinced of her guilt. Why on earth has she gotten so much sympathy? She’s a monster.
Well, the prosecution would say that wouldn’t they. That’s literally what they are there for. Every trial where the defendant pleads “not guilty” will have the prosecution accusing them of lying.
It’s up to the jury to decide who to believe or not.
The problem in reporting cases as serious and complex as this is that reporter can only give a brief resume of the evidence. What the jury hears is what matters to come the the correct decision based on all of the evidence.
> He then asked her about her arrest, which he said she had claimed saw her being led away from her home in a nightgown.
>He said Ms Letby was actually wearing a blue Lee Cooper leisure suit at the time.
>She said she did not know why she had lied about that detail.
>”You’re a very calculating woman, aren’t you, Lucy Letby?” Mr Johnson said.
>”You tell lies deliberately and the reason you tell lies is to get sympathy and attention from people.”
Damn that’s a masterclass in destroying defendent credibility. Her poor lawyer must have been feeling helpless.
Also a fantastic reminder to be very very careful what you say in legal situations guilty or not as *everything* will be used against you, not just the directly relevant and “white lies and dramatic effect” is an awful idea.
7 comments
[deleted]
I guarantee she’s not a killer – they’ve made her a scapegoat.
I obviously haven’t followed his nearly as closely as the jury has, but I think the evidence against her seems quite weak, and a lot of it doesn’t seem very relevant to the accusations. This case reminds me of that of Lucia de Berk, who was wrongfully convicted based on faulty statistical evidence. There is a risk the jury will incorrectly conclude she has to be guilty because she was the common factor in so many deaths.
Can’t believe the apologists for her. If it was *anyone else* people would be convinced of her guilt. Why on earth has she gotten so much sympathy? She’s a monster.
Well, the prosecution would say that wouldn’t they. That’s literally what they are there for. Every trial where the defendant pleads “not guilty” will have the prosecution accusing them of lying.
It’s up to the jury to decide who to believe or not.
The problem in reporting cases as serious and complex as this is that reporter can only give a brief resume of the evidence. What the jury hears is what matters to come the the correct decision based on all of the evidence.
> He then asked her about her arrest, which he said she had claimed saw her being led away from her home in a nightgown.
>He said Ms Letby was actually wearing a blue Lee Cooper leisure suit at the time.
>She said she did not know why she had lied about that detail.
>”You’re a very calculating woman, aren’t you, Lucy Letby?” Mr Johnson said.
>”You tell lies deliberately and the reason you tell lies is to get sympathy and attention from people.”
Damn that’s a masterclass in destroying defendent credibility. Her poor lawyer must have been feeling helpless.
Also a fantastic reminder to be very very careful what you say in legal situations guilty or not as *everything* will be used against you, not just the directly relevant and “white lies and dramatic effect” is an awful idea.