One of UK's most prolific serial killer is convicted of murdering 7 babies and for 6 murder attempts

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

And Dr Scott McLachlan?

Fenton was interviewing him.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Legal aid for pretty much everything cil was done away with years ago. It was all lumped on to lawyers willing to take cases on with no win no fee type stuff. That turned out to be a right can of worms.

Tell me about it.

The fact is Oldcarpy2 money talks where the law is concerned to a certain extent.

And kind of does dictate the kind of cases that can be prosecuted by the shall we say people of lesser means against the system or those of means.

For instance how hard is it to sue the Police, you need the likes of actively showing malice towards you for a start, which requires all sorts of evidence or even repetition.

To think otherwise is simply wishful thinking in this day of age.

But you know that buddy it's your trade after all.

I'm sure you are well aware of the difference between having a good brief as opposed to council counsel considering what you do.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Ok....thanks for the link

Wiki says about Norman Fenton ,under the heading:

Fields

Combinatorics.....Bayesian networks....Artificial intelligence....Legal reasoning...Software engineering....Software metrics.

"Legal reasoning"

a reply to: quintessentone

No.

www.healthline.com...

a reply to: Itisnowagain

"Legal reasoning"?

What might that be?

I'm a qualified lawyer with decades of experience of amongst other things, major Jury trials

But, you know better.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

You tell me.....what it means to be in the 'field of legal reasoning'.....

You supplied the link.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Do you imagine that Dr Scott McLachlan MCSE, MCT, DSysEng, GDipInfSc, GDipBus, DipLaw, GDL, GCTTLP, MPhilSc, LLM is not qualified enough to have questions about the evidence presented in the trial?

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

I am not sure why you are focusing on Professor Norman Fentons field of expertise, when it was him doing the interviewing.

He was interviewing Dr Scott McLachlan MCSE, MCT, DSysEng, GDipInfSc, GDipBus, DipLaw, GDL, GCTTLP, MPhilSc, LLM .....on concerns about the evidence in the Lucy Letby case.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: quintessentone

No.

www.healthline.com...

I wonder what, if any, other probes or investigations were done regarding these air embolisms.

Nowadays, post-mortem imaging is very well developed [Citation1,Citation2], and a contrast agent can be used to obtain a very detailed view of the vascular system [Citation3,Citation4]. Gas accumulated in the body can be precisely located and quantified using post-mortem imaging [Citation5], and an assessment of any post-mortem changes [Citation6] can be made by a forensic radiologist to differentiate between an exogenous or an endogenous (i.e. putrefactive) origin of the gas [Citation7]. Analysis of the gas to determine its composition can confirm the imaging findings and help to differentiate between endogenous and exogenous origins [Citation8]. Gas analysis results can indicate if the gas is from air embolism or physiological changes occurring during the perimortem phase [Citation9,Citation10].

www.tandfonline.com...

a reply to: Itisnowagain

He's your guy.

Why should I spoon feed you.

If you want to cheer lead for convicted baby killers and abusers, that's your choice.

Me, colour me nauseated.

Go fund her appeal, if she has one.

Tired of arguing with barrack room lawyers sticking up for a total nonce.

a reply to: quintessentone

OK, Doctor Google.

Let's just let her out, eh?

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Itisnowagain

He's your guy.

Why should I spoon feed you.

If you want to cheer lead for convicted baby killers and abusers, that's your choice.

Me, colour me nauseated.

Go fund her appeal, if she has one.

Tired of arguing with barrack room lawyers sticking up for a total nonce.

We are not arguing law with you, nor could we, we are looking at this case through different sets of data as others are doing.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: quintessentone

OK, Doctor Google.

Let's just let her out, eh?

Why do you have a problem with these types of exploratory questions being asked?

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

I don't need spoon feeding....

You wanted to know his field of expertise......not me.

It's not about Professor Norman Fenton anyway.....he was the interviewer.

a reply to: quintessentone

Because, you have no answer as to what causes air embolisms in blood vessels?

And because this nonce had a team of lawyers and medical experts, all paid for by us taxpayers, who had and did have the opportunity to raise all these issues before a Jury who found her guilty as Hell.

It is you that has a problem with that.

As far as I'm concerned, let's see what the Public Inquiry finds and if you're not happy with that then you can sound off about it.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

Like I said, there is going to be a full Public Inquiry into this case.

Suggest you raise your concerns with that.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: quintessentone

Because, you have no answer as to what causes air embolisms in blood vessels?

And because this nonce had a team of lawyers and medical experts, all paid for by us taxpayers, who had and did have the opportunity to raise all these issues before a Jury who found her guilty as Hell.

It is you that has a problem with that.

As far as I'm concerned, let's see what the Public Inquiry finds and if you're not happy with that then you can sound off about it.

My exploring into this case is a ongoing learning experience and I will continue to bring up what I consider to be gaps or tunnel vision from the lawyers and medical experts in this case, so sure you can wait to see what the Pubic Inquiry finds and we here will continue to look beyond the tunnel.

a reply to: quintessentone

Good for you.

Me?

I'm not so invested in sticking up for baby murderers so, you do you.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

It's incredible, but hardly shocking coming from you, that you frame what's being discussed here as sticking up for baby murderers.

You have come to your conclusion......

But some are concerned with the evidence in her trial.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

Coming from me?

Excuse me, but the Jury came to it's conclusion.

Having heard the evidence and the Defendant having had the benefit of very expensive legal representation and medical evidence.

As she is a convicted baby murderer, until such time as she might successfully appeal against said conviction, you are, by definition, sticking up for a baby murderer.

So, come back to me when and if there is any appeal.