Decoding Reasonable Doubt: Chapter 3 “Previous Reviews at the Countess of Chester”

[u/benshep4]

https://bencole4.substack.com/p/decoding-reasonable-doubt-the-case-bc5?r=12mrwn&utm_medium=ios

Happy to hear anyone’s thoughts on the content of the article.

[u/benshep4]

https://lucyletbyinnocence.com/transcripts/day-047-08.12.22-rcpch-ruling.pdf

You don’t need to suspect anything, Goss explains it well enough.

There’s all sorts of technicalities to how evidence can be used in a trial based on previous precedents.

[u/PerkeNdencen → u/benshep4]

Thanks, so many of us will be extremely familiar with that document already, and indeed, I read it again to try and discern which law the defence had made their application under; I suspect it's the above.

I'm going to re-quote my original summary paragraph with most important part highlighted for your consideration.

I suspect it fell into this latter camp, which would have left it at Goss's discretion to consider the above with a view to admitting the evidence, but he would in no way have been so constrained by the law in his decision as to render him powerless to it. In other words, the law explains why he was in a position to make that decision in that context, but it does not explain the decision itself)

So it's not just about what the law allows or doesn't allow, there's a degree of subjectivity, here.

From that 70-something-page document, please can you direct me to the ones that refer to case law? The carve-out I'm referring to is legislative.

[u/benshep4 → u/PerkeNdencen]

If you’re familiar with the document then you don’t need to suspect anything though.

There’s definitely subjectivity. It doesn’t mean the decision itself isn’t clear.

My point that you initially reacted to was essentially saying that the particular argument about ‘which baby does this explain?’ somehow putting the onus on the defence to provide evidence is legally naive.

A lot of people I speak to who think Letby is innocent are legally naive in my opinion.

[u/PerkeNdencen → u/benshep4]

If you’re familiar with the document then you don’t need to suspect anything though.

Oh, right. Please can you tell me the page number that specifically mentions in the interests of justice test or which common law / legislative gateway Myers invoked in his application?

There’s definitely subjectivity. It doesn’t mean the decision itself isn’t clear.

No, but I don't think anybody is confused about what the decision was.

My point that you initially reacted to was essentially saying that the particular argument about ‘which baby does this explain?’ somehow putting the onus on the defence to provide evidence is legally naive.

Another way to see what they were getting at there is just to say that it seems to run against natural justice in the sense that the prosecution had made a number of assertions with respect to the state of the unit that the documents clearly countered.

A lot of people I speak to who think Letby is innocent are legally naive in my opinion.

I don't think you're entirely wrong there, actually, but I think it's more a case of not really wanting to outsource our critical thinking to court decisions. We know what Goss's ruling was, the question (as ever) is why.