You do.

Yeah I actually do but you...don't. You seem to think that only your personal criteria for evidence should suffice for a conviction and that's not how reality works. There's a standard criteria for what will be considered sufficient evidence to convict you and Letby more than met that criteria. You just immediately, uncritically and unquestionably accept any old bollocks you read on innocence advocating blogs, subreddits or watch on youtube. From what I've seen so far, you never actually study cases in depth or even go by evidence highlighted by MSM, just bullshit and agenda driven supporter sources, which is apparently good enough for you.

Me and I still think they're guilty af.

He thinks this serial baby murderer is innocent
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_Letby

Btw I see this chick- suspected of up to 96 murders and who took grinning selfies with corpses got acquitted over your way a while back
https://www.unionesarda.it/en/italy/...equot-g18upawj

96 corpses is nothing compared to what Lucifer has in mind.

College protestor yells "You're hurting me! Oww!" as the officer leads him gently by the arm. They should try giving these kids the George Floyd treatment.

Well, I guess the first sentence here will have to serve as the summary for a video post that was just removed. Eventually the officer got fed up and just started carrying the guy like he weighed nothing.

Too soon bro!

It's less than the bolded. There are standard criteria for deciding whether evidence is admissible. It is the job of the fact finder to decide how persuasive the admissible evidence is.

washoe's argument (to the extent it is comprehensible) is that this evidence is too unreliable for the fact finder to even be allowed to consider it.

And he claims that his argument is supported by lawyers, which I find hard to believe.

Yeah I probably phrased that wrongly and pretty much meant the bolded in your comment. Very broadly speaking prosecution argue based on the evidence they successfully submit and defence argues against it. Whatever argument the finders of fact/jury find most persuasive ensues the verdict. If the evidence was so unreliable it wouldn't have been accepted by the court. The cops took around three years to bring Letby to trial (and she was arrested and then released without charge more than once) so they were clearly making sure they had valid grounds and evidence to charge her on. This doesn't compute with washoe because well, washoe.

It actually wouldn't surprise me if some mouthpiece lawyers do make a case for Letby's innocence or re any other number of cases, as innocence fraud/false conviction chic is quite the trend these days with all sorts of outlandish arguments made. The ongoing Karen Read case springs to mind
https://www.cbsnews.com/boston/news/...n%20the%20snow.
If Read is convicted you'll very probably get the same argument from online supporters, which washoe will then uncritically accept as gospel. He claimed serial rapist Daniel Holtzclaw was somehow due to pressure from BLM, I kid you not. But that's washoe.

"Let's murder teenagers like we did George Floyd," just the saddest, most broken husks of humanity here.

Thank you. It's always good to have an early morning laugh.

The difference betwen Holtzclaw and other cases is that Holtzclaw's case was taken up by the Innocence Project.

They are an organization whose purpose is to get innocent people freed-- something that they've had success with. Could you see how that might lend some credibility to the idea that Holtzclaw is innocent?

It's not like Holtzclaw is just some random person that Washoe picked out of a hat.

washoe for mod.

Yeah it actually very probably is washoe randomly picking someone out of a hat due to it popping up on his recs on youtube.

Screw the innocence project they have a very bad habit of falsely proclaiming overturned convictions as actual exonerations. Innocence farud is a cottage industry as "Innocent triumphs against all odds like in the Shawshank Redemption" makes better headlines than "Cops catch guilty dude, courts duly convict". I can't take them seriously at all.

Innocence Project also stanned for this bloke


Doesn't mean he's innocent.

You probably think Ryan Fergusson is guilty as well.

Can't tale corpus seriously - next he'll be insisting that OJ was guilty.

He thinks that everyone is guilty.

And of course 99+ percent of the time he is going to be correct. His issue though is that when there is actual controversy and serious dispute about the guilt or innocence of a person up to and including when organizations devoted to freeing innocent people are fighting for their release-- he still thinks they are guilty.

In the Corpus world prosecutors do not make mistakes or railroad innocent people.

Don't know enough about the case to comment on one way or the other, except to say that his co defendant was released on parole, without his conviction being overturned and that Ferguson's conviction was vacated, not an exoneration. I'll also say that his lawyer Kathleen Zellner is an utter charlatan. That said again I don't know enough on the case to opine on his innocence or guilt.

This is untrue. Of course such things happen in a fallible system.
Out of certain high profile so called "miscarriages of Justice" cases, I do think the likes of Amanda Knox, (who couldn't be guiltier if she tried) Steven Avery & Brendan Dassey, The WM3, Adnan Syed and the Central Park Five are all guilty. I also suspect Ray Buckey in the McMartin trial was probably guilty of child molestation anyway.

Your problem is you evidently tend to take a piecemeal approach to evidence, as your comments re Holtzclaw victim testimony being crackheads seems to indicate, as if witness testimony was the sole thing which convicted him when there was dna and gps evidence against him also. You don't view the totality of the evidence, it seems.

And yes 99% of the time I will be correct and any high profile so-called "wrongful conviction" case I've studied has fallen under that category, so far. I'm sure in time I'll be empirically shown to be wrong and of so I'll be very happy as I certainly don't wish to see innocents imprisoned. But neither Holtzclaw or Letby are innocent. I'll eventually look into Ferguson's case and draw my own conclusions, whether innocent, guilty or undecided.

I think perhaps I should have added a sarcasm emoji.

His co-defendant is almost certainly innocent as well. His issue is that he confessed-- which is something that mentally unstable people sometimes do for crimes they didn't commit that police and prosecutors take advantage of.

Again I can't comment on that specific case either way as I don't know enough about it.
After googling though I find this interesting
https://abc17news.com/news/columbia/...er-conviction/
Why did he plead guilty and not raise issue at the time re the plea? Why didn't his lawyer? Why did his lawyer go with the guilty plea? More mental instability? You any evidence he's mentally unstable?
Like I said I'll eventually check the case out.

lol

For those not familiar, the Central Park 5 were exonerated by both DNA evidence and the confession of the actual rapist, the city wound up paying them millions, only the mostly absolutely deranged wingnuts think they did it.

Central Park five weren't exonerated, their convictions were vacated and Reis didn't act alone and this was already discussed on another thread where you consistently refused to discuss the case on its merits and made a bunch of false claims, the way you're doing now. Cities tend to settle as a matter of course, doesn't ultimately mean anything and I'm not rehashing the case just so you can go through the same tiresome rigmarole all over again. Trolly gonna trolly.