The Jolly Contrarian

Lucy Letby: the ineffable truth: Difference between revisions

← Older editNewer edit →
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
{{a|crime|{{wmc|aleebee.png|“She has no ''[[aleebee]]''.”}}}}{{drop|S|potted routinely in}} the trenches, culverts, comments sections and [[Twitter|mentions]] of the keyboard war that yet rages — though I sense it is blowing itself out — over Ms. Letby’s conviction we find this rhetorical:
{{a|crime|{{wmc|aleebee.png|“She has no ''[[aleebee]]''.”}}}}{{drop|S|potted routinely in}} the trenches, culverts, comments and [[Twitter|mentions]] of the keyboard war that yet rages — though I sense it is blowing itself out, with only a couple of [[Burmese Jungler]]<nowiki/>s yet resisting — over Ms. Letby’s conviction, you often variations on this rhetorical:


{{quote|Were ''you'' at the trial? That anyone who was not present, and who therefore has extremely limited knowledge of the facts, can have an opinion on her innocence, is preposterous.}}
{{quote|''You were not at the trial''. Unless you sat through ten months of evidence — unless you saw everything the jury saw, and looked into the whites of the defendant’s eyes — you cannot know the facts and cannot have a viable opinion on her innocence.}}


Of all the dwindling commonplaces advanced in favour of [[Lucy Letby]]’s convictions, this is surely among the weakest.
Of all the dwindling commonplaces advanced to prop up these sagging convictions, this is surely the weakest.  


Run as it is by those who ''also'' were not at the trial, who by their own logic have no better idea of how compelling a spectacle the trial was, it really amounts to this declaration:  
Run as it routinely is by prosecution supporters who ''also'' were not at the trial — who by their own logic have no better idea of how compelling a spectacle it was — it really amounts to this declaration:  


{{quote|“The outcome of this trial is agreeable to me. I wish to entertain no further debate about it.”}}
{{quote|“The outcome of this trial is agreeable to me. I wish to entertain no further debate about it.”}}
====Impermeability====
{{drop|I|t is as}} if, ''[[res ipsa loquitur]]'' the process is presumed so immaculate and so infallible as to be impervious to later inspection. The trial was conducted according to the arcane rules of criminal procedure, laws of evidence, and oft-derided principles governing [[expert evidence]]. Its midwife was the fork-tongued swordplay of duelling barristers. These institutions have been set up to vouchsafe justice, but they are prime numbers: no later factorisation is possible.


It is as if, ''[[res ipsa loquitur]]'' the process is presumed so immaculate, infallible, to be impervious to later inspection. It was orchestrated by the arcane rules of court: the curious rules of criminal procedure, the law of evidence, the oft-derided principles governing [[expert evidence]]. Its midwife was the fork-tongued swordplay of duelling barristers.  
From that tremendous ''melée'', we are asked to suppose that 12 random citizens, with no particular powers of critical analysis between them, carried off a special feat: from months of fact, parry, thrust and counterthrust they extracted a simple impression free enough from reasonable doubt to form a verdict, but yet at the same time so mystical, magical and ''ineffable'' that it cannot thereafter be replayed, explained or rationalised to an increasingly sceptical public.  


From that tremendous melée, we are asked to suppose that 12 random citizens, with no particular powers of critical analysis between them, carried off a special feat: from months of fact, parry, thrust and counterthrust they are supposed to have extracted a simple impression clear enough of reasonable doubt to form a verdict but yet at the same time so mystical and magical and ''ineffable'' that it cannot thereafter be replayed, explained or rationalised to an increasingly sceptical public. No one can now make sense of it, and this is meant to be okay.  
“What happened during the trial” is, apparently, immune to synopsis. Its salient points may not be drawn out, distilled or decanted, in broad strokes or fine, for those who were not there. Like the peace of God, it passeth all understanding. It is immune to mortal analysis. The holy spirit was upon these jurors, they spoke in tongues, their word was made flesh, a guilty soul was condemned and the spirit is gone. We who remain must silently abide.


“What happened during the trial” is, apparently, immune to synopsis. Its salient points may not be drawn out, distilled or decanted, in broad strokes or fine, for those who were not there. Like the peace if God, it passeth all understanding. It is immune to mortal analysis. The holy spirit was upon these jurors, they spoke in tongues, their word was made flesh, a guilty soul was condemned and the spirit is gone. We who remain must silently abide.
The verdict is a brute ontological fact. Justice has visited, done its thing and gone again, leaving no trace. None can now make sense of it.  


A curious feature of this argument is that itd force depends on what we cannot see. It stays in the shadows. It strikes from the dark. What we cannot apprehend we cannot challenge.
Even senior members of the bar will say this. This is meant to be okay.  If it were true, it would not be okay. But it is ''not'' true. Not remotely.
====What the eye don’t see====
{{drop|A|curious feature}} of this kind of argument is its dependence on what we cannot see. The truth is comprised of darkness. It stays in the shadows. What we cannot apprehend, we cannot challenge.


This quality of impermeability it shares with two other kinds of intellectual construct: conspiracy theories and sacred faiths. To hold these beliefs we must subordinate the causes of movement across the landscape’s surface to something unseen, inferred machinations beneath it. These are deep impressions, not readily rendered in argument, matters of deep, unmentionable faith; allegiance to certain people whom we place upon a pedestal, and dark imputations of base instinct — primordial corruptions of the human spirit from villainous others, whom we assuredly don’t.
This quality of impermeability it shares with two other kinds of intellectual constructs: [[conspiracy theory|conspiracy theories]] and sacred faiths. To hold these beliefs we must subordinate the causes of movement across the landscape’s surface to something unseen, inferred machinations beneath it. These are deep impressions, not readily rendered in argument, matters of deep, unmentionable faith; allegiance to certain people whom we place upon a pedestal, and dark imputations of base instinct — primordial corruptions of the human spirit from villainous others, whom we assuredly don’t.


But explicitly, the criminal law does not work like this. It is — to a fault — rational. It is unfailingly evidence-based. Evidence is the be-all and end-all. Admissibility rules are strict. All that is allowed to matter is what lies on the surface. Innuendos and prejudicial suspicions are sponged from the record, unless they can be raised to the surface and put in full view of everyone for inspection and test. Everything is open to audit. ''A concluded case cannot defy comprehension.''
But explicitly, the criminal law does not work like this. It is — to a fault — rational. It is unfailingly evidence-based. Evidence is the be-all and end-all. Admissibility rules are strict. All that is allowed to matter is what lies on the surface. Innuendos and prejudicial suspicions are sponged from the record, unless they can be raised to the surface and put in full view of everyone for inspection and test. Everything is open to audit. ''A concluded case cannot defy comprehension.''
Retrieved from "https://jollycontrarian.com/index.php?title=Lucy_Letby:_the_ineffable_truth"