Phil
-
Re: PB Predictions Competition 2025 – The (first) results are in! – politicalbetting.com
The Unherd article is making a strong claim that the evidence that the lack of C-peptide means that the insulin found in these babies’ blood means that it must have been introduced artificially (as c… (View Post)2 -
Re: PB Predictions Competition 2025 – The (first) results are in! – politicalbetting.com
There is no legal case for appeal - hence the PR campaign to move up the CCRC board assessment. This is because the criticisms of the case are about evidence which was available to the defence at the… (View Post)1 -
Re: PB Predictions Competition 2025 – The (first) results are in! – politicalbetting.com
David Allen Green wrote about the choice as to whether a defence should call their own expert witnesses & the risk that they might say things that undermine your client here:… (View Post)1 -
Re: PB Predictions Competition 2025 – The (first) results are in! – politicalbetting.com
The defence took the view that undermining the chief prosecution witness was their best possible approach. The jury disagreed with them. As to why Letby accepted that the babies had been poisoned by … (View Post)2 -
Re: PB Predictions Competition 2025 – The (first) results are in! – politicalbetting.com
FPT: Was Hammond writing MD during the MMR debacle? Not Private Eye’s finest hour... (View Post)2
