I'm in the UK, I've just finished listening to this, and one of the most horrifying parts of this case for me was the sentencing - a whole life order without parole, for a case based on circumstantial evidence. These "victims" were already incredibly unstable, unwell babies with a tiny chance of survival. Compare this to Axel Rudakubana,…
I'm in the UK, I've just finished listening to this, and one of the most horrifying parts of this case for me was the sentencing - a whole life order without parole, for a case based on circumstantial evidence. These "victims" were already incredibly unstable, unwell babies with a tiny chance of survival. Compare this to Axel Rudakubana, who stabbed 3 little girls to death at a dance class and critically injured many more, and had ricin in his home - he's on a long sentence but not a life order because he was 17, not 18+. On both cases, the online discussion has deliberately been targeted and stifled by the British state, blaming "prejudicial" reporting, even though some aspects brought out in online discussion forums have been proven to be true. And in both cases, it is the British state defending massive mistakes and underfunding in state organisations - the National Health Service, and counter-terrorism police & MI5.
Nadine, listen to the Trial of Lucy Letby podcast with every piece of evidence against her. You will understand why the whole life order was imposed. There are miscarriages of justice in the British legal system - this is not one of them.
That's your opinion. I'd rather listen to the opinions of the panel of experts in their field who have said this could be an unsafe conviction. A whole life order is completely unnecessary - I could understand not being allowed to practice medicine again due to a breakdown in trust, if the conviction is overturned, but the whole life order has been misused, she's not an imminent danger to the wider public.
There were many experts called in the trial itself - neonatologists, haematologists, paediatric endocrinologists, forensic pathologists. Most of Lee's explanations for the deaths were already discussed in court and ruled out as implausible. The only single piece of new evidence he offered was his own insistence that skin discoloration is not seen in venous air embolisms - but he left out an example that should have been in his review, from a study by Prof Johan Smith, an expert in the field, who described exactly that in a case of venous embolism.
Even if I agreed with you over the verdict, I still think the Whole Life Order is cruel and unnecessary punishment. There are rapists and paedophiles who have been given suspended sentences with no jail time, and really violent homicides including those linked to organised crime that still didn't get a WLO. Its inconsistent and based on public outcry rather than justice being served.
Agree, sentencing often seems senseless in the UK. I think the remedy is to properly issue murderers, rapists and paedophiles with long custodial sentences though, not to let a baby killer off with a lenient sentence. But we can agree to disagree and I appreciate your good faith response :)
I was excoriated here for musing on the purely circumstantial conviction of Alex Murdaugh, to the point where I was pedantically explained-to what circumstantial evidence is. Yeah I know what it is, it’s just remarkable, ok? Rant over; good points.
I'm in the UK, I've just finished listening to this, and one of the most horrifying parts of this case for me was the sentencing - a whole life order without parole, for a case based on circumstantial evidence. These "victims" were already incredibly unstable, unwell babies with a tiny chance of survival. Compare this to Axel Rudakubana, who stabbed 3 little girls to death at a dance class and critically injured many more, and had ricin in his home - he's on a long sentence but not a life order because he was 17, not 18+. On both cases, the online discussion has deliberately been targeted and stifled by the British state, blaming "prejudicial" reporting, even though some aspects brought out in online discussion forums have been proven to be true. And in both cases, it is the British state defending massive mistakes and underfunding in state organisations - the National Health Service, and counter-terrorism police & MI5.
Nadine, listen to the Trial of Lucy Letby podcast with every piece of evidence against her. You will understand why the whole life order was imposed. There are miscarriages of justice in the British legal system - this is not one of them.
That's your opinion. I'd rather listen to the opinions of the panel of experts in their field who have said this could be an unsafe conviction. A whole life order is completely unnecessary - I could understand not being allowed to practice medicine again due to a breakdown in trust, if the conviction is overturned, but the whole life order has been misused, she's not an imminent danger to the wider public.
There were many experts called in the trial itself - neonatologists, haematologists, paediatric endocrinologists, forensic pathologists. Most of Lee's explanations for the deaths were already discussed in court and ruled out as implausible. The only single piece of new evidence he offered was his own insistence that skin discoloration is not seen in venous air embolisms - but he left out an example that should have been in his review, from a study by Prof Johan Smith, an expert in the field, who described exactly that in a case of venous embolism.
Even if I agreed with you over the verdict, I still think the Whole Life Order is cruel and unnecessary punishment. There are rapists and paedophiles who have been given suspended sentences with no jail time, and really violent homicides including those linked to organised crime that still didn't get a WLO. Its inconsistent and based on public outcry rather than justice being served.
Agree, sentencing often seems senseless in the UK. I think the remedy is to properly issue murderers, rapists and paedophiles with long custodial sentences though, not to let a baby killer off with a lenient sentence. But we can agree to disagree and I appreciate your good faith response :)
You too! :-)
I was excoriated here for musing on the purely circumstantial conviction of Alex Murdaugh, to the point where I was pedantically explained-to what circumstantial evidence is. Yeah I know what it is, it’s just remarkable, ok? Rant over; good points.