• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Putin & Russia

SpurMeUp said:
Sorted it for you; you are quite welcome :) 😅

I think of GG as an old coffee house, a gathering place for gentlemen and intelligent lady or two, to debate current affairs, and the far more vital matters concerning Spurs! A lot came out of coffee houses...
Click to expand...

I could not agree more.
 
Silly McSilly Face said:
Pretty much all criminal cases that go through an actual trial are based on circumstantial evidence. I.e. if you have, say, CCTV footage of someone murdering someone, then a guilty plea is likely entered early. Those that claim the evidence against Letby is too weak to convict would probably not convict anyone of any crime where the sort of slam-dunk evidence I've mentioned didn't exist.

On the point about the defence not calling their own experts, this isn't odd at all really. The defence legal team's first job is to prevent their client from convicting themselves. That means avoiding any "own goals" in front of the jury. While the defence could likely have found experts (such as Dr. Lee and his team) that could look at the evidence and say "these deaths can be explained by natural causes" the defence will then test them under light cross-examination. Because the prosecution will be going at anyone put up by the defence and asking Qs in front of the jury such as "can you rule out foul play", "would it possibly be explainable by the explanation given by Dr's X, Y and Z" and "are you saying your fellow medical professionals have got it wrong?" And if they then start waffling or answer in the wrong way that's a disaster for the defence. It's likely that the defence couldn't find an expert witness that could maintain a categorical rule-out stance under cross examination and therefore felt it safer for Letby to go with nobody and let the prosecution try to prove guilt.

Killers and other criminals are often careless with evidence. You kind of seem to imply that the police finding evidence potentially pointing to guilt when searching her house actually implies that she is innocent, which just kind of sums up the craziness around the "free Letby" movement
Click to expand...
“Pretty much all criminal cases that go through an actual trial are based on circumstantial evidence.”

I’m sorry but this simply isn’t true. It can be true particularly when dealing with trial by jury the jury are specifically told that they cannot convict on the basis of circumstantial evidence.
 
Crab.C.Nesbitt said:
“Pretty much all criminal cases that go through an actual trial are based on circumstantial evidence.”

I’m sorry but this simply isn’t true. It can be true particularly when dealing with trial by jury the jury are specifically told that they cannot convict on the basis of circumstantial evidence.
Click to expand...
As ive stated, pretty much all trials I've been involved in involve weight of circumstantial evidence, so what you've said there isn't true. You can convict on circumstantial evidence if the weight of it when put together means the jury is able to draw an irresistible inference, I.e. when put together the evidence which is circumstantial on its own is capable of proving guilt beyond rrasonable doubt: e.g.:
- evidence places suspect in vicinity at relevant period (circumstantial)
- evidence shows a relationship between suspect and another suspect that has been proven to be involved in planning the crime (circumstantial)
- evidence shows suspect purchased items known to match items suspected to be used in crime, in the lead up to crime being committed (circumstantial)
- evidence shows suspect drove to home address of main planner the day after items were purchased (circumstantial)
- evidence shows victim had a major disagreement with both suspects in the lead up to crime (circumstantial)

And so on and so forth. On their own these are circumstantial and cannot be used to convict. DNA evidence cannot be used to convict on its own as it is too sensitive to contamination and contrary to public perception you cannot convict on DNA evidence for example.

It's weight of these little bits that tip the scales to beyond reasonable doubt in many cases.
 
Last edited:
Silly McSilly Face said:
As ive stated, pretty much all trials I've been involved in involve weight of circumstantial evidence, so what you've said there isn't true. You can convict on circumstantial evidence if the weight of it when put together means the jury is able to draw an irresistible inference, I.e. when put together the evidence which is circumstantial on its own is capable of proving guilt beyond rrasonable doubt: e.g.:
- evidence places suspect in vicinity at relevant period (circumstantial)
- evidence shows a relationship between suspect and another suspect that has been proven to be involved in planning the crime (circumstantial)
- evidence shows suspect purchased items known to match items suspected to be used in crime, in the lead up to crime being committed (circumstantial)
- evidence shows suspect drove to home address of main planner the day after items were purchased (circumstantial)
- evidence shows victim had a major disagreement with both suspects in the lead up to crime (circumstantial)

And so on and so forth. On their own these are circumstantial and cannot be used to convict. DNA evidence cannot be used to convict on its own as it is too sensitive to contamination and contrary to public perception you cannot convict on DNA evidence for example.

It's weight of these little bits that tip the scales to beyond reasonable doubt in many cases.
Click to expand...
Apologies you’re right I was getting mixed up thinking you can’t convict unless the evidence is beyond reasonable doubt, my bad!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back