- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
Ah sorry I was confused there but I’ve re-read it and see what you were meaning!
You can’t convince on common sense though, you need proof, there is none, there is also massive amount of reasonable doubt because on top of no physical proof that she hit him there are injuries that they can’t explain and never bothered to investigate.
Indeed, and that is an unfortunate fact! Although, a majority vote for the jury would almost certainly see her convicted.
As outsiders we have so much knowledge about the case it's easy for us to put all the evidence together to come up with the scenario we best think explains what happened. But if I was looking at the case with just the information the jury has been given so far I think I'd have a hard time convicting her of second degree murder. There's just not enough evidence. Vehicular manslaughter and leaving the scene of an accident are still on the table, but highly dependent on what the prosecution's accident reconstruction team say. This could also all change depending on what the defense says.
(Lucy Letby is guilty as sin though. There's just so much evidence which points towards her)
(Lucy Letby is guilty as sin though. There's just so much evidence which points towards her)
I find your last line so interesting as I actually feel there’s *less* evidence in Letby’s case
For me with Letby it's the whole picture of circumstantial evidence that points to her being the common denominator in every death. The judge giving the jury instruction on not needing to know how she caused the deaths, just that she had caused them (I might be paraphrasing that). So for me it's easier to think she's guilty, as I wouldn't need to know the ins and the outs of exactly how she did it.I find your last line so interesting as I actually feel there’s *less* evidence in Letby’s case
If do wonder if I would still think she was guilty if she had called experts to testify in her defense. I imagine the reason they didn't was to avoid a similar situation like what happened with the medical examiner yesterday not finding injuries consistent with being hit by a car. Except in her case I imagine the experts would support the prosecution case of deliberate harm.
I find our system so much more ‘straightforward’ and almost more common sense like. They absolutely went into a very thorough investigation, but the American trials are wild; car system data, iPhone data experts, reconstructionists etc.
An example that springs to mind is the trial of the little murdered boy Logan Mwangi. His mother’s phone was found to have been searching and watching random videos on tik tok etc during the time her partner was removing his body from the house (
). She denied this of course, but there was no ‘iPhone search data analysis expert’ called, it was just taken as fact that she was lying.Of course that could go both ways and in this case it would have absolutely thrown a massive spanner in the works had Jen actually searched on her phone at 2.34am, but it’s definitely interesting to see the difference in approach.
American trials are so wild! I do think if there was more evidence then the prosecution wouldn't need to be using car system data or iPhone data experts, but they're having to work with what's available. The differences in federal law vs state laws is also huge (like how Hannah Gutierrez-Reed the armourer in the Rust shooting was given 18 months for involuntary manslaughter, but the parents of the Oxford High Shooter were given 10-15 years for the same conviction.
I wish our justice system was more open and transparent, but maybe not to the extent that US trials are televised.
It needs to be a unanimous vote, that’s where the appeal on counts 1 and 3 came from as there were jurors who came forward and said they were unanimous on not guilty on those counts. Count 2 was split.
I think if anything it’ll be a hung jury and a mistrial again as it’s so muddy but then everyone thought it would be a quick not guilty last time.
I think a lot of us (myself included) get hung up on the "she's innocent" or "she's guilty". Sadly, it doesn't even really matter, and we will probably never know. The commonwealth has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she is guilty. I have a hard time believing they are doing that. But, like all the lawyers are saying, you never know what a jury of one's peers will do.
If I was on the jury I would be so curious who this *former Trooper Proctor* is and what the story is behind that.
If I was on the jury I would be so curious who this *former Trooper Proctor* is and what the story is behind that.
Yep, that’s what I mean - had a majority verdict been available, she’d have been convicted.
The CW have just shown an extract from a Karen Read interview in which she's telling how, when she found John on the ground and cleared his face of snow, she pulled a small shard of taillight out of the side of his nose! That seems to put his face at the same level as the tail light when she clipped him, which makes sense of him having no damage on his legs.
She did not say taillight, she said glass. The taillight is plastic.
Thanks, I wasn't too sure. So do you think that could have been part of the glass from the Waterfall? He's unlikely to have broken his glass and pushed it into his face, and it probably accounts for the cut above his eye too. Summit odd happened.
Dratted life keeps getting in the way of my being glued to the TV so I'm having to grab what I can!
Shall I set up a Lori Daybell thread to discuss her various goings on?
They had her travelling at 15mph in the snow - that was the evidence brought by Whiffin I think
I don’t ever remember that, was that in the last trial?
Oh yes please!
The O'Keefe family could still win a civil case against Karen even if she is found not guilty in the criminal case - different standard of proof and look at the OJ Sinpson case.
I think she did it, it was an accident or she didn't realise but it's what makes sense to me. I also see that the investigation was a tit show so whilst I do believe she is guilty I can see why she could be acquitted.
Long and the short of it is you kinda expect police to take more care when it's one of their own so how crappy are this force.
I think she did it, it was an accident or she didn't realise but it's what makes sense to me. I also see that the investigation was a tit show so whilst I do believe she is guilty I can see why she could be acquitted.
Long and the short of it is you kinda expect police to take more care when it's one of their own so how crappy are this force.
- Status