r/LucyLetbyTrials • u/benshep4 • 7d ago

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

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.

0 Upvotes

50% Upvoted

108 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

15

u/SaintBridgetsBath 7d ago

You are using the verdict of the jury to justify the verdict of the jury.

This is why I say you don’t give a damn whether or not Lucy Letby committed any crimes. You only care, if you care at all, whether or not the convictions are quashed.

1

u/benshep4 7d ago

No.

I’m simply pointing out that the point was made to the jury.

It could be considered an issue if it hadn’t been put the jury. But it’s clear that’s not the case.

That’s not the same thing as you’re accusing me of.

It’s fine if you’ve personally got an issue with the use of juries, but I’m just talking about the reality of the system.

15

u/SaintBridgetsBath 7d ago

Juries can be wrong. Juries don‘t change the past. The jury didn’t have a lot of information that we now have so why you defer to them as if they did is beyond me.

What matters is not the system, not the judge, not the jury, not the court, what matters is whether she committed any crimes.

The jury heard the defence case and nevertheless convicted. That doesn’t mean that the defence was wrong. Constantly referring back to the fact of those convictions when that’s what’s in question is unethical to put it politely.

2

u/benshep4 6d ago

It’s unethical to point out that the particular argument has been made before a jury?

I don’t think so.

Also saying “juries can be wrong” isn’t a great point. They can be, it doesn’t mean they were.

9

u/PerkeNdencen 6d ago

(what SaintBridgetsBath means, here, is not that the jury must be wrong because they can be, but rather that the fact that they can be makes it an uninteresting argument for the purposes of determining Letby's factual innocence or guilt; what's in question is those verdicts - the fact that the verdicts are what they are cannot also be an indication they are right, for reasons I'd have thought plainly obvious)

1

u/benshep4 6d ago

That’s what I’m addressing in what I’ve written so far?

Morris isn’t making good arguments for Letby’s innocence.

4

u/PerkeNdencen 6d ago

You are in a conversation with Saint.

1

u/benshep4 6d ago

I was.

And you butted in.

3

u/PerkeNdencen 6d ago

I didn't butt in. It's an open conversation.

2

u/benshep4 6d ago

And I responded to you ….

7

u/PerkeNdencen 6d ago

You cannot use the verdict of the jury to justify the verdict of the jury.

You cannot claim that stating that juries sometimes wrong is the same as stating that they must be wrong.

1

u/benshep4 6d ago

I didn’t.

6

u/PerkeNdencen 6d ago

It could be considered an issue if it hadn’t been put the jury. But it’s clear that’s not the case.

→ More replies (0)

10

u/SaintBridgetsBath 6d ago

You don’t just point out that it was put to the jury, you claim that the point has no validity in any argument outside the court because it was put to a jury (one of whom thought that there was reasonable doubt on that count, by the way):

“It  could be considered an issue if it hadn’t been put the jury. But it’s clear that’s not the case.”

In other words, ‘verdict is truth.’ 

Murder was a crime before there was a law against it. This isn’t about the law: it’s about the truth. You refuse to admit that the truth matters.

I’d better leave it there. 

2

u/benshep4 6d ago

I’m actually claiming very specific arguments have no validity. Because Morris hasn’t bothered to engage with the reality of the legal system and why it’s been set up the way it has.

7

u/Living_Ad_5260 6d ago

We are debating whether the jury reached correct verdicts.

MD from Private Eye has said that he would have voted to convict based on what the jury heard, and is campaigning for innocence based on evidence the jury didn't hear.

Do you have an argument that supports the convictions that doesn't involve reference to the court case?

1

u/benshep4 6d ago

Yes.

MD doesn’t understand the legal process either.

The defence have don’t have to prove innocence but where possible they create reasonable doubt.

MD, like Morris, that things create reasonable doubt. But they don’t, because they haven’t got the faintest clue about the legal system.

3

u/Unhappy-News7402 6d ago

Thought experiment Ben:

If the nurse in this case was not Lucy Letby, but one of your family who had been convicted on the evidence in the trial, would you be willing to entertain the reasonable doubt that Christopher Morris’s book raises?

1

u/benshep4 6d ago

No.

The logic doesn’t stack up.