There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
On ITV, just finished
I know that there's been other TV programmes questioning her convictions, but once again I couldn't help thinking that she needs a retrial which she has been constantly denied
Her defence counsel in the original trial must have been the most inept team of barristers going... Or, was it a deliberate cover up to sacrifice her and save those higher up?
I know that there's been other TV programmes questioning her convictions, but once again I couldn't help thinking that she needs a retrial which she has been constantly denied
Her defence counsel in the original trial must have been the most inept team of barristers going... Or, was it a deliberate cover up to sacrifice her and save those higher up?
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 199
|
By:
The Evans character appears to have been making it up as he Goes Along,Just watching on Plus 1
|
|
By:
I didn't believe she, or anyone else, murdered them at the time.
Poor care killed them and she was the patsy imo. |
|
By:
what about all of her notes, confessing to the murders?
|
|
By:
What about 7 murder victims with no conclusive cause of death.
|
|
By:
Swifty, the so called confession notes seem to be the main reason for the jury finding her guilty. The actual medical and technical stuff was too difficult for non medical experts to understand.
The notes were written, and overwritten, during the two years after she was taken off the wards and before she was arrested. She was placed in an office role at the hospital and knew all her work colleagues were suspecting her. She was having counselling during which she was encouraged to write down her thoughts, a normal practice in counselling apparently. It is suggested that she was having doubts about her own nursing ability and that her incompetence had led to the deaths, not that she was admitting to deliberately doing anything bad. Also in the notes are phrases like, I didn't do it. I just think that she deserves a retrial with a decent defence counsel that can bring in all the experts that her first trial did not have, for whatever reason. As others have said, there may also have been a cover up by those higher up which also needs investigating |
|
By:
Why doesn't she take a lie detector test? It worked with convicted murderer Adrian Prout after he conned people, including his new fiancee that he hadn't killed his wife.
|
|
By:
Adamski, as far as I know, they are not 100% accurate nor valid for legal purposes
|
|
By:
well she played her part then,because soon as she wasnt on wards the poor care/deaths stopped
 , unless their was another murderer who stopped when she took the fall for it   |
|
By:
her greatest defence is that DHODGES of daiy mail fame/infamy,thinks she,s 101% guilty as charged and it,ll be the 1st time he,s been right about anything in his career as a journo if he,s right
,thats whats upwith all these docus ,they all start out to prove their sider,they could out another one from the other side tonight and we,d all be on here saying she,s a 100% guilty, |
|
By:
No one with half a brain could now think she's 100% guilty.
You'd struggle to find a less safe conviction in recent times. |
|
By:
Having watched previous programmes, guilty or not, she's said herself she's evil, being locked up is the best place for people like her.
|
|
By:
I feel that is a distinct possibility Reg.
There’s another one up in Scotland. Luke Mitchell. Not a shred of forensic evidence against him. The community went for him en masse and the media jumped on the bandwagon to get him because of local hatred and prejudice. He continues to refuse to accept guilt so simply can’t get released. No guilt no parole. |
|
By:
I've saw numerous programs about the Luke Mitchell case, I don't know if he is guilty but 100% that conviction isn't safe.
|
|
By:
saddo
Date Joined: 04 Dec 05 Add contact | Send message 04 Aug 25 11:08Joined: 04 Dec 05 | Topic/replies: 52,750 | Blogger: saddo's blog No one with half a brain could now think she's 100% guilty. You'd struggle to find a less safe conviction in recent times. Dear God, even Shipman's conviction is dodgy... |
|
By:
Really quite disturbing program, the real experts condemned the "trial experts" for misinterpreting their research. Definitely needs looking at again and hopefully will get a retrial.
As said before the notes the police found in her bedroom were notes that a councilor had told her to write down her feelings to help her cope with her anxiety, a common technique, but these probably swayed the jury to believe she was admitting she'd killed the children. There was very little incriminating evidence of her actually doing anything wrong and another Dr actually changed what he said at the trial, afterwards. I can remember the Birmingham 6 being jailed for bombing 2 pubs in b'ham early 70s, convicted by and large on the so called expert witness of Frank Skuse a home office forensic scientist who said the men had all handled Nitroglycerine. This was later proven to be an unreliable test as same results came from handling playing cards which the men had been playing on their trip to Ireland. |
|
By:
How often, in our lifetimes, have we seen trial verdicts overturned, many years later, because of discredited forensic and/or “expert” evidence.? Or concealed evidence.
It is a national scandal. One civil servant invented a speck of ammunition evidence to jail Barry George and years later admitted to the press that pressure had been put upon him ( and his future pension ) to do so. It is disgusting. |
|
By:
I’m not so sure, didn’t see program, she had he day in court, convicted
On 7 murder charges, and 6 attempted. After hearing all the evidence Refused leave to appeal too. And no re trial either?? |
|
By:
True crime obsession still going well as ever with amateur. Occam's razor. She clearly did it.
|
|
By:
Son of... What does that mean?
|
|
By:
emily fox and that crime physcology fella will be along in about 8 yrs time when someone working alongside letby has died or serving life for another murder and they,ll fit them up as THE PATSY
 , they usually get you to watch for around 47 mins before revealing their new prime suspect is dead |
|
By:
Reg , son of just thinking it's a case of the simplest solution and one with the fewest assumptions being correct this time.
|
|
By:
Occums razor is the most likely scenario??
|
|
By:
Cheers Hayden, never heard that expression before
|
|
By:
the police found in her bedroom were notes that a councilor had told her to write down her feelings to help her cope with her anxiety
that's not what she told the police or what she said at the trial - so not even letby herself claims this letby agreed two babies were poisoned with insulin it just wasn't her - although noone else was in the frame all she's done now is shopp-around to find some doctors who disagree with the trial doctors - she already had her own experts at trial which she didn't use because they agreed with the prosecutions. now she wants another go. two juries have convicted her. two appeal courts have upheld the convictions - she's never getting out of prison. obviously she did it - and the police have recommended the CPS charge her with more murders/attempted murders |
|
By:
What she agreed was that if medical experts say they were poisoned with insulin then they must have been. It was a ridiculous question for prosecution to ask her.
|
|
By:
she had experts of her own she was under no obligation to agree with the prosecution's
|
|
By:
The whole issue concerns evidence, pure and simple. Enough people seem to be of the opinion that the original evidence is questionable to say the least?
I have been of the opinion that is the case and the original trial was stacked in favour of the prosecution reminiscent of a Federal trial in the US where circumstantial evidence is the mainstay of the prosecution and so called "Expert" witnesses are the crux of what the jury have to consider despite what the defence offer. Any doubt at all and given the doubts a new trial is the least of what should be expected whether she is actually guilty or not? |
|
By:
The whole issue concerns the VERACITY of the evidence.
|
|
By:
Some people are more concerned with vengeance than veracity.
|
|
By:
What are you going on about, vengeance, no one is in any way vengeful
She either done or she didn’t, who said anything about vengeance?? She was tried and convicted, vengeance doesn’t come in to it |
|
By:
Enough people seem to be of the opinion that the original evidence is questionable to say the least?
This was raised at her second appeal - she'd had months to challenge the evidence but came up with nothing. Now a doctor whose evidence was rejected at her first appeal has contacted doctors he knows from around the world and surprise, surprise they think she's innocent. her barrister is a well-known stirrer - he's got other murderers in prison he claims are innocent and has been to appeal numerous times. They aren't getting out and neither is letby jeremy bamber another one the true crime internet sleuths think is innocent |
|
By:
Have you had much experience to give you so much confidence A-T or are you one of the "internet" sleuths or BF Forum Jury members who refuse to have an open mind regarding evidence?
1.01 you have never seen a gavel banged in an English Court trial? |
|
By:
if she's tried on further charges she'll have a chance to challenge the convictions if they are admitted as evidence. she could have done this at her retrial but instead she agreed the convictions as evidence because she had nothing with which to challenge them.
|
|
By:
Shows your ignorance that "She" actually is doing the challenging? Now no offers you have never witnessed a banged gavel in an English Court trial?
|
|
By:
if her evidence convinces the appeal court she'll get a retrial - if it doesn't she won't. simple as that.
|
|
By:
She looks like a convenient pawn sacrificed to save those
hospital specialists who were far from special. Incompetence and negligence will probably be the conclusion if she gets a retrial and acquittal. It would make a lot of people higher up the food chain look bad or stupid, they won't want that. |
|
By:
Once again, in a “blanket” statement A_H your argument is discredited. I do not think Bamber is innocent. I don’t necessarily think Letby is innocent, however, I feel there is more than reasonable doubt that she may be and certainly feel that the contradictory “expert” and in one instance contrived evidence that got her convicted is unsafe.
This lady wasn’t tried, she was systematically blamed by public opinion and deliberately singled out as responsible for the deaths. |
|
By:
Oh dear, this lady, as you describe was charged after an extensive
Police investigation,they gathered all the evidence , presented it to the CPS, she was tried and convicted of 7 murders, and 6 attempted murder, was described In court as a pathological liar. Absolutely nothing to do with the public And no one singled her out. Ffs, your ineptness knows no bounds |
|
By:
|