I wouldn’t let a stranger babysit, no.
The defence rests
2 Likes
I think that was one of the problems with the trial
And you’d be wrong about most of that.
2 Likes
Pretty dumb response.
Of all the things that might be wrong with the case the jury being disinterested and or unserious seems to me unlikely to a degree approaching impossible.
Yes juries are infallible and entirely made up of a special breed of super-person with boundless intelligence and patience.
That’s me told anyway.
Another dumb response.
Yes my obviously ironic response is apparently dumb.
But you unironically claiming that it’s IMPOSSIBLE that jurors might sometimes be disinterested or unserious is apparently NOT dumb.
A court goes through a jury selection process and ends up with twelve people who are disinterested and unserious about a case of serial killing of babies. I’d say that’s approaching impossible, yes. It’s just a really stupid hot take that you’ve decided to double down on for some reason.
Explain the jury selection process there, so.
Google it.
I have. But I’d like you to explain it in your own words, given you’re the expert. I value expertise.
50% of all jurors are of below average intelligence.
The role of juries is arrive at an impartial verdict after careful consideration of the evidence presented; i.e. they should be disinterested to achieve this. Uninterested however, that’s a different kettle of cod.
Interesting point about a Liverpool hospital here.
1 Like
*''Baker revealed that babies’ breathing tubes were dislodged at a disproportionate rate during Letby’s placements in late 2012 and early 2015 at Liverpool women’s hospital.
He told the inquiry that collapses of babies in neonatal units caused by events such as dislodgement of endotracheal tubes – a feature of some of the allegations levelled at Letby during her criminal trials – was “uncommon”.
He said: “It generally occurs in less than 1% of shifts"*
Let’s see what twitter man says
Was this point raised at the trial?
Calling a wide spectrum of very credible people with genuine concerns about the verdict “conspiracy theorists” is not helpful to anybody, not least to the case itself that Letby is really guilty. It’s deliberately emotive bollocks.
I mean to follow that logic, Gareth Pierce and Chris Mullin could have been simply dismissed as “conspiracy theorists.”