Gordon R

He was lucky. After going over the barrier and wall on the bridge, there is about a 20 feet drop onto the railway line.Always had fast cars, but I don't think he had the ability to drive safely and fast in his younger days. What saved him was not wearing his seat belt. The driver's area was crushed, but he was thrown onto the passenger side. Stupid to drive without wearing the belt, but right result. Now totally law abiding and a top lad. He is also a very decent clay shot.

One of my sons' mates, who shoots with us, landed his Cosworth on the East Lancs Railway over 20 years ago. He managed to get over the Armco and concrete bridge with some ease. He got sued as they had to cancel the steam train trips.

GHE - I note that you cannot back up what you post, which does not surprise me. However, I will bow out of this discussion and wait for the only outcome that matters.

With no respect whatsoever, I think you are clueless. I judge you on what you write, not what you should have written. Only government departments and large companies can afford to go to law in civil cases, ordinary people simply can't fund it and the general rule is that whoever has the deepest pockets wins. Utter rubbish. On the criminal side, it's always the prosecution, which has by far the deepest pockets, that can get the best barristers and the best expert witnesses Ken Dodd makes you look rather silly. Don't say he was an exception - you said "always". Even so, nearly all judges, up to the point of conviction, try to be fair, but they are very much part of the system. I am unclear as to how you claim to speak for nearly all judges. Perhaps you could provide some examples of judges who didn't try to be fair. You infer they are corrupt. Put up or shut up. Despite your touching faith in our legal system, Our system isn't perfect. but I have had a fair amount of experience in criminal trials. Your patronising manner suggests you are still at school. she is being treated very unfairly, every convicted person is. That is what you posted - garbage.

GHE - as patronising junk posts go, this is up there with the best. I have a far better understanding than you. As bad as the first part was, this just about tops it. Just explain to me how Harold Shipman was treated unfairly, as "every convicted person is".

£1k will buy you a gun which is more than enough to win a clay competition, in the right hands. £3k is way over the top. Spend a grand and get some lessons.

Rewulf - I cannot accept her therapist advised her to write notes of the type that she actually did. They go way beyond "Could I have done more?" Harold Shipman springs to mind. A lot of circumstantial evidence - his wife never accepted his guilt. Time will tell.

Rewulf - fair points. Whatever happens about the medical evidence, I remain uncomfortable with her explanations of what she wrote. Some say the excerpts were incomplete, but when you read the full script, I cannot accept she wrote them for therapeutic reasons.

Whereabouts in the North?

Some seem obsessed with how long the current process will take. It takes what it takes. If the end result of the current hearing concludes that she was guilty, I am struggling with the view that she is suddenly guilty. She's had three bites at the cherry, but a fourth bite will be accepted. Just how does that work?

Loads of babies died, but she thinks she is a suspect. I wonder why. It will get sorted in the next week or so. If I am wrong, I will hold my hands up. Will those who believe her to be innocent - despite not having heard the case - do the same, or will they continue to believe her? If she loses this hearing, will they accept the ruling? If not, why not?

And this gem "I am evil, I did this". Which additional bits did the prosecution miss out?

Did he get his info from a bloke he met in his local pub? Compared to published stats, we just accept what he says - even if if flies in the face of facts. I'm convinced. 🙂 🙂

Where does this come from? I have just Googled umpteen stats which suggest almost the complete opposite.

Letby's barrister also The jury didn't seem to accept her valid explanation. If the current experts are correct, her defence team at previous trials would seem to have been less than stellar. No defence medical witness called. They accepted the prosecution witness testimony

There are suggestions on here that there was a cover up, not merely a difference of opinion. We will only find out after the hearing, but I still think a guilty verdict was correct, despite failings elsewhere. No-one addresses any of her behaviour. All this is speculation and it won't get settled on here. We will see who is right.

We don't have enough detail to compare what expert witnesses said at the trial, compared to what this new panel of experts is claiming. Are they saying the original experts committed perjury?

Forgive me for failing to understand your logic. I can say you are completely wrong - it means nothing. I note that Letby's team are anxious to concentrate on medical issues, ignoring her behaviour - notes, Googling all the families of the dead children. She seems to have connected all the deaths concerned.

Perhaps she has a part time job as a model.

The Jury, at her trial, heard the full script. She was convicted. It is a sign of the current times that people look for conspiracy everywhere and, however ludicrous, conclude that someone is innocent. I read through the twelve points the experts came up with. Totally unconvincing. Bottom line is that either the children were actually murdered or all the deaths were natural. I know where my money is.

I thought she was lost in France.

I can only assume whoever named her "Bonnie" had a sense of humour.

If Rachel from Accounts had used her CV to obtain employment outside of the Labour Party, would she be committing the offence of "Obtaining Pecuniary Advantage" - formerly Section 16 of the 1968 Theft Act - now "fraud" under the Fraud Act 2006?

When I hear Starmer, Cooper et all saying "We'll smash the gangs", I cringe. They haven't a clue and just spout drivel. A week after the election they claimed credit for a couple of smugglers, who were investigated under the Tories. Since then - zilch.

In view of the rumoured price increase, I went buy a couple of thousand today. A couple of shops I phoned said prices were going up next week - between 4and 8%