I find a lot of things involving her conviction to be quite troubling. If you take away her alleged “confession”, then there’s not much to go on it seems. It also appears that some of the logs showing who was on duty when babies died were incorrect which was another key thing in her conviction.
Obviously if she is guilty of these crimes then she is a complete monster, but a potential miscarriage of justice in such a high profile case is incomprehensible
It may be that she is guilty as charged, but the way the two cases against her were conducted is rather troubling.
It seems quite a lot of selecting the evidence that fits her being guilty, while ignoring-even burying evidence that doesn’t fit, has gone on.
Some rather shaky science has been deployed by expert witnesses for the prosecution, without it’s basis being thoroughly explained to the jury, who are of course not scientifically trained people.
It does, however, seem rather strange to me that the defence does not appear to have really queried any of that science. I do wonder about the advice she was given by defence counsel and the competence of her representation.
There’s a documentary probably still available on Channel 5 over here that really casts a lot of shade on the trial. For example the defence did not call a single expert to counter the testimony of the 7 that the prosecutors called, and did not defend the damning statistic on the on-duty spreadsheet that was the central argument of the prosecution case.
TV doc Phil Hammond has been covering the medical side for Private Eye, I believe, and features heavily in the programme.
The upcoming public enquiry could be worse for her chances of an appeal, given that the remit is not to question her guilt or otherwise (reasonable, given the verdicts already handed down).
If Phil Hammond thinks it’s unsafe then she must be guilty
Never has someone taken the wrong view so consistently as Covid Phil
I feel that this has somehow become a culture war topic out there in the unreal world of social media. News sites have figured out it gets clicks, too. Let the legal system do whatever it has to do. I don’t have an opinion on the trial at all; it is not my place to do so.
I don’t know whether she is guilty or not but having total faith in the British legal system has not necessarily always brought the right results in the past.
I think the principle is that it is not perfect but, on the whole, it does a decent job. Interestingly, there is far more noise from the general public about the leniency of convictions and sentencing than harsh or wrongful convictions. The balance the legal system has to take makes the BBC’s task look like child’s play.
That’s a nicer summary of what Lord Denning said.
About the appeal of the Guildford Four.
I don’t know the rights and wrongs but ‘someone’ is flooding my Twitter For You timeline with posts defending her. I have spotted dozens in the past four hours; more than Ukraine, Gaza, Winter Fuel and anything else, frankly.
Tells you all you need to know about social media like X.
String em up by the neck!
It’s the only language they understand!
Don’t get me started about fly-tippers! I’d swing for… etc
Not seen anything on Bluesky which is a very nice place.
The prospect of another trial must be so awful for the parents of the babies