Lucy Letby

[Mussels]

In law 'probably' means essentially more likely than not. It is shorthand for balance of probabilities. Even if you take your definition of 'highly likely', that still doesn't cut it in criminal cases. The standard of proof is 'Beyond all reasonable doubt', which is 'virtually certain'. 'Probably' means a truck load of innocent people going to jail. Virtually certain might mean some guilty people go free, but it also means that for innocent people to go to jail it usually involves some sort of malfeasance on behalf of the police.

Or, a defence that doesn't do their job properly and a jury that doesn't understand technical evidence as presented by the grown..

When the law means the balance of probabilities the law uses the phrase "the balance of probabilities". "Beyond reasonable doubt" means very probable or very, very* probable, otherwise it would be "beyond any doubt", wouldn't it?

* Add another "very" and another and another if you want but "beyond reasonable doubt" still means "probable" not "certain".

One man's word against another seems to be close enough sometimes.

Graham Linehan's conviction for damaging trans activist's phone overturned

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czx2vk4zx3xo

[Skub]

malfeasance

I like it. Another perfect word for the actions of politicians.

Today and at other times I shall mostly be actively using the word in it's adjective form.

[JackyJoll]

One man's word against another seems to be close enough sometimes.

Graham Linehan's conviction for damaging trans activist's phone overturned

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czx2vk4zx3xo

The word of the young fellow was somehow called into question at the appeal.

[Horse]

One man's word against another seems to be close enough sometimes.

Graham Linehan's conviction for damaging trans activist's phone overturned

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czx2vk4zx3xo

The word of the young fellow was somehow called into question at the appeal.

" ... there was no contemporaneous evidence demonstrating the condition of the phone immediately before or after the incident."

So, from that, not questioning whether or not he did *something*, instead no evidence that [any] damage wasn't pre-existing.

[JackyJoll]

One man's word against another seems to be close enough sometimes.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czx2vk4zx3xo

The word of the young fellow was somehow called into question at the appeal.

" ... there was no contemporaneous evidence demonstrating the condition of the phone immediately before or after the incident."

So, from that, not questioning whether or not he did *something*, instead no evidence that [any] damage wasn't pre-existing.

The complainant said Linehan damaged the phone. That was insufficient evidence that Linehan damaged the phone.

[Bobzilla]

In law 'probably' means essentially more likely than not. It is shorthand for balance of probabilities. Even if you take your definition of 'highly likely', that still doesn't cut it in criminal cases. The standard of proof is 'Beyond all reasonable doubt', which is 'virtually certain'. 'Probably' means a truck load of innocent people going to jail. Virtually certain might mean some guilty people go free, but it also means that for innocent people to go to jail it usually involves some sort of malfeasance on behalf of the police.

Or, a defence that doesn't do their job properly and a jury that doesn't understand technical evidence as presented by the grown..

When the law means the balance of probabilities the law uses the phrase "the balance of probabilities". "Beyond reasonable doubt" means very probable or very, very* probable, otherwise it would be "beyond any doubt", wouldn't it?

* Add another "very" and another and another if you want but "beyond reasonable doubt" still means "probable" not "certain".

No, beyond all reasonable doubt mean virtually certain. Beyond all doubt means certain. I will point you to a chapter in The Secret Barrister's book (which is very good) about what BARD means, and why.

[Bobzilla]

The word of the young fellow was somehow called into question at the appeal.

" ... there was no contemporaneous evidence demonstrating the condition of the phone immediately before or after the incident."

So, from that, not questioning whether or not he did *something*, instead no evidence that [any] damage wasn't pre-existing.

The complainant said Linehan damaged the phone. That was insufficient evidence that Linehan damaged the phone.

In other words it was virtually certain that the phone was damaged after the exchange, but it was not virtually certain that the phone was not damaged before the exchange.

[Saga Lout]

...
No, beyond all reasonable doubt mean virtually certain. Beyond all doubt means certain. I will point you to a chapter in The Secret Barrister's book (which is very good) about what BARD means, and why.

If I say "You're probably right", what does that mean to you? If you said it to me I'd take it to mean you think there's about a 90% chance that I'm right. You seem to think that it means just more than 50% right. I think that's where our disagreement comes from. We're arguing over the vague meaning of a deliberately vague word.

By the way, I think you're probably wrong.

[MyLittleStudPony]

I suspect the legal profession have a robust, defined and well understood grasp of what on the balance of probability and beyond reasonable doubt mean.

[Taipan]

Never mind the legal bollocks, let her out and give her her job back! Okay, maybe not the job back just yet...

[Bobzilla]

...
No, beyond all reasonable doubt mean virtually certain. Beyond all doubt means certain. I will point you to a chapter in The Secret Barrister's book (which is very good) about what BARD means, and why.

If I say "You're probably right", what does that mean to you? If you said it to me I'd take it to mean you think there's about a 90% chance that I'm right. You seem to think that it means just more than 50% right. I think that's where our disagreement comes from. We're arguing over the vague meaning of a deliberately vague word.

By the way, I think you're probably wrong.

I write legal opinions for a living. If I say that something is probably right, at best it's 60%. If it is only 51% then it's more likely than not. If it is pretty likely, it's 'should', about 70-75%. More than that is strong should. We don't do 'will' opinions because there is always the risk of a bad actor, even if it is blindingly obvious on any rational level.

But I will say this. If you think that it's acceptable to give someone a criminal conviction on the basis that you could be wrong about your judgment even once in every ten cases, when it is your turn for jury service, please just say no. You're unfit, beyond all reasonable doubt.

[Druid]

Saga's too old for jury service, like most of us here

[Saga Lout]

...
No, beyond all reasonable doubt mean virtually certain. Beyond all doubt means certain. I will point you to a chapter in The Secret Barrister's book (which is very good) about what BARD means, and why.

If I say "You're probably right", what does that mean to you? If you said it to me I'd take it to mean you think there's about a 90% chance that I'm right. You seem to think that it means just more than 50% right. I think that's where our disagreement comes from. We're arguing over the vague meaning of a deliberately vague word.

By the way, I think you're probably wrong.

I write legal opinions for a living. If I say that something is probably right, at best it's 60%. If it is only 51% then it's more likely than not. If it is pretty likely, it's 'should', about 70-75%. More than that is strong should. We don't do 'will' opinions because there is always the risk of a bad actor, even if it is blindingly obvious on any rational level.

But I will say this. If you think that it's acceptable to give someone a criminal conviction on the basis that you could be wrong about your judgment even once in every ten cases, when it is your turn for jury service, please just say no. You're unfit, beyond all reasonable doubt.

I don't write legal opinions for a living so I have no claim to authority and know nothing about the English language.

[IccyV2]

I suspect the legal profession have a robust, defined and well understood grasp of what on the balance of probability and beyond reasonable doubt mean.

Fortunately AI will take over soon and the law will be balanced properly, rather than left to a room full of chancers.
If I were a solicitor or barrister now I'd start retraining as a plumber, their days are numbered.

[Bobzilla]

I suspect the legal profession have a robust, defined and well understood grasp of what on the balance of probability and beyond reasonable doubt mean.

Fortunately AI will take over soon and the law will be balanced properly, rather than left to a room full of chancers.
If I were a solicitor or barrister now I'd start retraining as a plumber, their days are numbered.

AI literally makes things up of it doesn't know. There are numerous cases against litigants in person (and a small number of layers) who have cited non existent cases that Chat GPT has told them about.

AI will give you *an* answer, but it needs a skilled professional to work out if it's the correct answer, or if there is something that they have missed. I don't doubt it's value, but I do doubt its ability to deliver a final product without significant human involvement.

[IccyV2]

I suspect the legal profession have a robust, defined and well understood grasp of what on the balance of probability and beyond reasonable doubt mean.

Fortunately AI will take over soon and the law will be balanced properly, rather than left to a room full of chancers.
If I were a solicitor or barrister now I'd start retraining as a plumber, their days are numbered.

AI literally makes things up of it doesn't know. There are numerous cases against litigants in person (and a small number of layers) who have cited non existent cases that Chat GPT has told them about.

AI will give you *an* answer, but it needs a skilled professional to work out if it's the correct answer, or if there is something that they have missed. I don't doubt it's value, but I do doubt its ability to deliver a final product without significant human involvement.

It's not perfect yet, but neither is the current system and that's been going for a while.

The problem with the law is it's open to too much interpretation and the application of the law has more to do with how charismatic your barrister is than the actual application of principle. Same in contract law, it's how to blindside the opposition rather than work on the mutual equity of principles.

I had my eyes opened during the first few weeks of my LLB, I thought the law was set, but it's a malleable thing that can be manipulated until it suits a case and a decent argument by a smarter advocate. Statutory interpretation is a good example at the root of it, you just keep applying different principles and interpretations until you get one that fits.

It's a bit like tax law, it's got so many arms and legs the cleverest/most expensive advocate will win the day, instead of the rule of law being incorruptible.

[MyLittleStudPony]

I suspect the legal profession have a robust, defined and well understood grasp of what on the balance of probability and beyond reasonable doubt mean.

Fortunately AI will take over soon and the law will be balanced properly, rather than left to a room full of chancers.
If I were a solicitor or barrister now I'd start retraining as a plumber, their days are numbered.

My partner uses AI for legal work. It's helpful but it's no-where near ready to do it all itself yet. She thinks she'll be retired before that happens.

Just as well, I don't think she'd be very good at plumbing. Nor I suspect do most plumbers earn what a senior director or equity partner of a major international law firm earn.

Back when I was working for the major corporate multinationals, about five years ago, we trialled an allegedly cutting edge AI system for bidding large scale contracts. At that point it was worse than useless. I imagine it'll get there but probably not for a while yet.

[Soupdragon]

In an increasingly bonkers little country, it's easy to suspect conspiracy theories may have some weight. I don't know if she's innocent or not, but I believe there's enough of a question mark over her guilt that a re-trial is warranted, and that some of the suggestions of a cover-up should be investigated. "Let all the poisons that lurk in the mud, hatch out!"

The 12 good people and true who sit in judgement can only make a decision based on the evidence presented to them at the time, but it now seems there's plenty more evidence to be scrutinised. Perhaps the case went to trial too quickly?

[Saga Lout]

I suspect the legal profession have a robust, defined and well understood grasp of what on the balance of probability and beyond reasonable doubt mean.

Fortunately AI will take over soon and the law will be balanced properly, rather than left to a room full of chancers.
If I were a solicitor or barrister now I'd start retraining as a plumber, their days are numbered.

AI literally makes things up of it doesn't know. There are numerous cases against litigants in person (and a small number of layers) who have cited non existent cases that Chat GPT has told them about.

AI will give you *an* answer, but it needs a skilled professional to work out if it's the correct answer, or if there is something that they have missed. I don't doubt it's value, but I do doubt its ability to deliver a final product without significant human involvement.

But humans aren't perfect either. (I'm assuming you're probably human. )

[Mussels]

I would like the CPS to explain why they have decided the latest Letby evidence from the police is not suitable for a trial.
The police seemed surprised which indicates this evidence is a similar standard to the first lot. Usually the CPS like to pile on more charges after a conviction, should normally be an easy win.

This is not the outcome that we had anticipated throughout our investigation; we were confident that we held enough evidence to take to the CPS.

“We believed the evidence submitted met the CPS charging standard. The CPS did not agree and despite our representations we must respect the decision that has been made

.