this post was submitted on 12 Apr 2025
0 points (50.0% liked)

United Kingdom

4719 readers
113 users here now

General community for news/discussion in the UK.

Less serious posts should go in [email protected] or [email protected]
More serious politics should go in [email protected].

Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.

Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.

Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.

If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.

Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.

Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 6 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

To be clear: this does not mean Letby is definitely innocent. It is possible that she murdered seven babies and attempted to murder others.

Also this article...

[–] uthredii 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Agreed, but it does mean the evidence at her trial was not stall sufficient to prove guilt (beyond reasonable doubt).

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago

But she was found guilty.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 weeks ago

Nah, this journalist can't say that the jury would reach a different verdict even in light of the challanged evidence - for him to announce they would today find her "clearly not beyond reasonable doubt" is incredibly arrogant. The jury spent 10 months of their lives on this - not a few hours writing this blog and he's phrasing it like they were stupid.

The biggest red flag for me and still is the handwritten notes and its funny seeing him try rinse away with word salad. I've never ever written nor know anyone - including those who have been to therapy - who has a written the words I AM EVIL and I DID THIS. And I Killed them on purpose. Its not careless admin, its damn creepy and certainly would alone be enough for me to feel zero empathy for her. Yes, one may say a normal killer would surely destroy the evidence, but we're not talking about a normal killer. This guy wants the families to go through hell all over again to likely (by his own admission) reach the same result. Guilty.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 weeks ago

The issue here is people are trying to apply scientific reasoning in a legal setting. The two are not the same. There is a legal process for bringing in scientific reasoning - you can't just hash it out in court like you would in an academic paper.

I say the case needed a statistician. Incredibly, the prosecution deliberately decided to avoid using one to assess questions like “How unusual is this shift pattern for a random nurse?” or “How likely was it that said nurse was personally drawn to caring for the sickest infants? How were shifts assigned?”

Yes, it might have been better for Lucy if there was a statistician. However, it's not the prosecution's job to prove her innocence, it's her's and her solicitor's. If there needed to be a statistical analysis and sworn statement from an expert, it would be on the defendant to arrange that.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago

The case is with the Criminal Cases Review Commission and if they find there is significant evidence that an appeal could be granted it will be referred back to the court of appeal, as it should.

Unqualified, random bloggers online are not capable of assessing the evidence sufficiently and therefore should keep their sensationalised bullshit to themselves.