Put this here as its probably a bit heavy and trigger for The Lounge.
So her application for appeal has been rejected but due to the same laws that stop us accessing the New Yorker article on the evidence analysis means the reasons can't be published.
As I understand this is because she is due to be go on retrial for the charges that had no verdict returned so its to prevent potential jurors having preconceptions.
Has anyone accessed the article from outside of UK or via VPN?
I'm going to Italy in a few weeks and will look it up there. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Oh yes not asking that, sorry if it came off that way. Also it was still available via their app not the website in UK
Let me ask you this though.
Do you think that it is a good thing that it has been restricted or should we the people be able to read about a case that interests us and have the autonomy to say on the highly miniscule chance we were actually selected to be on her jury "I have to say that I am unable to sit as I have read XYZ" |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
 |
By *atEvolutionCouple 31 weeks ago
Open Tonight Fri 27 CLOSED Saturday 28 |
The New Yorker may simply be restricted by the fact that there are copyrighting or EU restrictions on Privacy in place that has nothing to do with the case and jury selection.
I use a VPN but also have a BBC Radio Journalist in the family, so I can read most stuff through paywalls and such as above.
I can say that having read the article it does seems to be more an OPINION piece and a bit of a whodunnit that real factual based reporting. It could however colour people's thinking, I guess. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I see.
No it's primarily down to the English law.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/may/15/mp-uses-parliamentary-privilege-to-ask-why-lucy-letby-story-blocked-in-uk
Thanks for engaging and opinion |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *atEvolutionCouple 31 weeks ago
Open Tonight Fri 27 CLOSED Saturday 28 |
"I see.
No it's primarily down to the English law.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/may/15/mp-uses-parliamentary-privilege-to-ask-why-lucy-letby-story-blocked-in-uk
Thanks for engaging and opinion"
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ockforplay66Man 31 weeks ago
Southampton/isle of wight/ everywhere |
I agree in principal that information of cases of this type, and in fact all criminal cases, should be available to the public. Complete transparency is a simple way of reducing the abundance of conspiracy theories that circulate about many cases.
However, there is a need to protect the discipline of the jury based court system, and having articles published where trials or retrials are pending, doesn’t just create a risk of one juror reading one article and being biased because of it. It creates a risk of wider circulation, leading to social media and non-facts getting mixed in, so larger numbers of potential jurors become influenced by “trial by social media” before even setting foot in the courtroom.
It is a tricky one. There will always be people that disagree with anything put forward whether it’s secrecy or openness |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
