Fund Started To Appeal Sentence For Lucy Letby

[harvey19]

7 hours ago, Prettytom said:

It would be a better view if she’d bothered to read some of the details from the trial.

 

Without knowledge of that, her view is worthless.

 

A bit like yours.

My view is entirely valid, you're remark is ridiculous.

How many people on here know the full facts of the case when making comments.

Have you read the transcript of the trial in order to make objective comments based on the facts of the case or are you basing your comments on media reports.

Different people interpret things differently and have different perceptions.

Anna is a very sensible poster on this forum and whether we agree or disagree with some of her views is irrelevant when considering her legitimacy to post them.

 

[HeHasRisen]

1 minute ago, harvey19 said:

Anna is a very sensible poster on this forum

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

 

Shes literally defending a baby killer without reading any of the facts, jesus christ if that's sensible show me stupidity. 

2 minutes ago, harvey19 said:

Have you read the transcript of the trial in order to make objective comments based on the facts of the case or are you basing your comments on media reports.

The sensible members of the forum are probably happy to believe the 11 jurors who sat through months of harrowing testimony. Maybe you should too. 

Edited August 28, 2023 by HeHasRisen

[harvey19]

2 minutes ago, HeHasRisen said:

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

 

Shes literally defending a baby killer without reading any of the facts, jesus christ if that's sensible show me stupidity. 

I do not think she is defending a killer just asking if the person was actually a killer.

Massive difference.

[HeHasRisen]

1 minute ago, harvey19 said:

I do not think she is defending a killer just asking if the person was actually a killer.

Massive difference.

And as I said, the sensible members of the forum, hopefully yourself included, are happy to have let 11 men and women of our peers sit through it all and make the decision on our behalf. 

[RollingJ]

Like everyone on here, I can only go on published information, but from what I have seen, it appears she was a killer. Presumably she was assessed to ensure she was mentally stable enough to stand trial, and having been so decided, was subject to the rule of law.

 

Although the verdicts were not unanimous, they were sufficient to ensure her conviction, and considering the the length of time from her arrest to the case coming to court, I would venture to suggest that a great deal of investigation had taken place. Hence, the evidence presented was strong enough to prove the prosecutions case.

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, harvey19 said:

My view is entirely valid, you're remark is ridiculous.

How many people on here know the full facts of the case when making comments.

Have you read the transcript of the trial in order to make objective comments based on the facts of the case or are you basing your comments on media reports.

Different people interpret things differently and have different perceptions.

Anna is a very sensible poster on this forum and whether we agree or disagree with some of her views is irrelevant when considering her legitimacy to post them.

Anna is perfectly entitled to express her opinion, obviously.  However, when she writes, within an hour of the verdict being announced and without following the trial because it 'wasn't in the news' (it was, every day, and covered extensively), that Letby has been made a scapegoat and there are too many doubts in the case, you can expect some incredulity.  That's especially the case when she admits that the opinion is based on little else than a gut feeling and a belief that people can't really be that evil.

[harvey19]

1 minute ago, Hecate said:

Anna is perfectly entitled to express her opinion, obviously.  However, when she writes, within an hour of the verdict being announced and without following the trial because it 'wasn't in the news' (it was, every day, and covered extensively), that Letby has been made a scapegoat and there are too many doubts in the case, you can expect some incredulity.  That's especially the case when she admits that the opinion is based on little else than a gut feeling and a belief that people can't really be that evil.

As you say her view is based on a "gut feeling and  belief "

She has not specifically tried to argue against the evidence given in court.

 

[RollingJ]

Just now, harvey19 said:

As you say her view is based on a "gut feeling and  belief "

She has not specifically tried to argue against the evidence given in court.

 

So, based on that evidence, she has to accept the verdict?

[Prettytom]

38 minutes ago, harvey19 said:

My view is entirely valid, you're remark is ridiculous.

How many people on here know the full facts of the case when making comments.

Have you read the transcript of the trial in order to make objective comments based on the facts of the case or are you basing your comments on media reports.

Different people interpret things differently and have different perceptions.

Anna is a very sensible poster on this forum and whether we agree or disagree with some of her views is irrelevant when considering her legitimacy to post them.

 

Views are only really valid if they are based on a reasonable knowledge of the issue that they are commenting upon.

 

Anna clearly doesn’t have that knowledge.  I presume that you don’t either, because, as you repeatedly tell us, you don’t follow the news.

 

 

Edited August 28, 2023 by Prettytom

[HeHasRisen]

I don't think Peter Sutcliffe did the murders he was accused of. He seemed a lovely bloke and I can't believe he would have killed 15 prostitutes and young women like that, can we get this looked at again? 

Edited August 28, 2023 by HeHasRisen