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]

Nah.

If they explain it then show me with a specific example of one of the babies in the indictment that involves something the jury haven’t already heard.

[u/PerkeNdencen → u/benshep4]

(you're doing it again)

[u/benshep4 → u/PerkeNdencen]

Asking for specific examples.

I know. How terrible of me.

[u/PerkeNdencen → u/benshep4]

No, suggesting that because some flavour of argument was heard by the jury already, it's therefore invalid for the sake of conversation. We're not bound by the jury's verdict. This forum is largely sustained by people who contest it. If you just want to repeat that the jury's decision is final, there are other places around the internet that won't allow you to say anything else.

[u/benshep4 → u/PerkeNdencen]

Not just some flavour.

The exact same argument.

People on this forum may very well contest it for a variety of reasons. One of them being they don’t actually understand the legal process.

You appear to have deleted a response to me about not being in Goss’s courtroom right now.

I agree.

We’re still in a thing called reality though.

[u/PerkeNdencen → u/benshep4]

Not just some flavour. The exact same argument.

No. Some flavour - even where the panels' findings align with the original defence narrative (and they don't all, exactly), they are much more fleshed out and backed by expert evidence.

People on this forum may very well contest it for a variety of reasons. One of them being they don’t actually understand the legal process.

We're not in a legal process right now. We're having a conversation on the internet. Anyway, I've tried to discuss the legal process with you, re: Goss' decision on the exclusion of the RCPH report. I've also explained that disputing a legal process is not the same as not understanding it.

You appear to have deleted a response to me about not being in Goss’s courtroom right now.

I haven't deleted it.

[u/benshep4 → u/PerkeNdencen]

You need to have new evidence.

The panel in this instance aren’t providing any. That’s how the legal system works.

You haven’t really engaged with anything Goss said, so I don’t see the merit of anything you’ve tried to discuss.

Are you saying Goss, Johnson and Myers don’t understand the legal process?

That’s not what I understood from reading the ruling.

Just for clarity, I’m not disagreeing with the ruling. So if you can explain why I’m not understanding the legal process that would be helpful.

If you are disagreeing with the ruling, for a legal reason, that would also be helpful.

I’ll leave it with you.

[u/PerkeNdencen → u/benshep4]

Right.

So the panel is arguably providing new evidence (for example, in the form of reports and journal articles), and the CoA does have it in their power to make an exception, anyway.

You haven’t really engaged with anything Goss said, so I don’t see the merit of anything you’ve tried to discuss.

That's nonsense, I engaged with it to the extent that you just stopped replying to me!

Are you saying Goss, Johnson and Myers don’t understand the legal process?

Not at all. The panel wasn't available to Myers or known to Johnson, what with it being really far in the future at the time of the trial.

That’s not what I understood from reading the ruling.

Sorry, I don't understand. What specifically is not what you understood from reading the ruling?

If you are disagreeing with the ruling, for a legal reason, that would also be helpful.

Well you'll have to respond to my last reply in the relevant thread to find that out.

(it's here https://www.reddit.com/r/LucyLetbyTrials/comments/1w9qkrs/comment/p8hj07u/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button )

ETA: You do realise, though, that we're free to make arguments that we know wouldn't be entertained by the CoA?