Lucy Letby: the ineffable truth: Difference between revisions

Line 3:

{{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 commonplaces advanced to prop ~~the Crown’s~~ sagging case, this is surely the weakest.

Of all the commonplaces advanced to prop up this sagging case, this is surely the weakest.

~~Run~~ by those who ''also'' were not at the trial and so, by ~~the same~~ logic, ~~have~~ no better idea of how good a spectacle it was, it really amounts to saying:

And strangest. Advanced by those who ''also'' were not at the trial and who have, by their own logic, no better idea of how good a spectacle it was, it really amounts to saying:

{{quote|~~“The~~ outcome ~~of this trial is~~ agreeable ~~to me. I~~ wish to entertain no further debate about it.”}}

{{quote|“I find the trial’s outcome agreeable and wish to entertain no further debate about it.”}}

====Impermeability====

~~The trial~~ was conducted according to ~~the~~ arcane rules ~~of the criminal courts~~: the ~~criminal~~ law, the rules of procedure, the law of evidence, and long established (if ~~often~~ criticised) principles governing [[expert evidence]].

{{Drop|L|Ike all criminal}} trials in the UK it was conducted according to arcane rules: statute, the common law, the rules of procedure, the law of evidence, and long established (if roundly criticised) principles governing [[expert evidence]].

These institutions ~~have been set up~~ to vouchsafe justice, and generally do, but they are not infallible. Miscarriages of justice can and do happen. Even outrageous ones.

These institutions are meant to vouchsafe justice, and generally do, but they are not infallible. Miscarriages of justice can and do happen. Even outrageous ones.

From ~~all~~ the evidence-in-chief, cross-examination, ~~the~~ fork-tongued ~~duels~~ between ~~wigged barristers~~ and ~~ornery experts, from from this tremendous ''melée'',~~ we ~~must suppose that~~ 12 random citizens formed ~~a collective~~ impression ~~free~~ enough ~~from doubt to form~~ a guilty verdict — but yet at the same time so mystic and ''ineffable'' that it cannot now be explained or rationalised. The verdict is a brute ontological fact, immune now to mortal analysis.

From this tremendous ''melée'' — the [[evidence-in-chief]] and [[cross-examination]], each submission and each fork-tongued duel between barrister and witness — we expect 12 random citizens formed between them an impression sure enough for a guilty verdict — but yet at the same time so mystic and ''ineffable'' that it cannot now be explained or rationalised. The verdict is a brute ontological fact, immune now to mortal analysis.

To the question:

Line 23:

The Holy Spirit was upon these jurors. A guilty soul was justly condemned. Now ~~that spirit has passed. Like the peace of God, it passeth all understanding.~~

The Holy Spirit was upon these jurors. A guilty soul was justly condemned. Now justice has visited, done its thing and gone again, leaving no trace. None can now make sense of it. We must, instead, obediently abide.

~~Justice~~ has visited, done its thing and gone again, leaving no trace. None can now make sense of it. We must, instead, obediently abide.

====What the eye don’t see —====

{{drop|A|curious feature}} of this argument is its dependence on ''what we cannot see''. There is a “truth”, but it is comprised of darkness. We cannot apprehend it, so we cannot challenge it.

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 {{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 commonplaces advanced to prop the Crown’s sagging case, this is surely the weakest.
+Of all the commonplaces advanced to prop up this sagging case, this is surely the weakest.
-Run by those who ''also'' were not at the trial and so, by the same logic, have no better idea of how good a spectacle it was, it really amounts to saying:
+And strangest. Advanced by those who ''also'' were not at the trial and who have, by their own logic, no better idea of how good a spectacle it was, it really amounts to saying:
-{{quote|“The outcome of this trial is agreeable to me. I wish to entertain no further debate about it.”}}
+{{quote|“I find the trial’s outcome agreeable and wish to entertain no further debate about it.”}}
 ====Impermeability====
-The trial was conducted according to the arcane rules of the criminal courts: the criminal law, the rules of procedure, the law of evidence, and long established (if often criticised) principles governing [[expert evidence]].
+{{Drop|L|Ike all criminal}} trials in the UK it was conducted according to arcane rules: statute, the common law, the rules of procedure, the law of evidence, and long established (if roundly criticised) principles governing [[expert evidence]].
-These institutions have been set up to vouchsafe justice, and generally do, but they are not infallible. Miscarriages of justice can and do happen. Even outrageous ones.
+These institutions are meant to vouchsafe justice, and generally do, but they are not infallible. Miscarriages of justice can and do happen. Even outrageous ones.
-From all the evidence-in-chief, cross-examination, the fork-tongued duels between wigged barristers and ornery experts, from  from this tremendous ''melée'', we must suppose that 12 random citizens formed a collective impression free enough from doubt to form a guilty verdict — but yet at the same time so mystic and ''ineffable'' that it cannot now be explained or rationalised. The verdict is a brute ontological fact, immune now to mortal analysis.
+From this tremendous ''melée'' — the [[evidence-in-chief]] and [[cross-examination]], each submission and each fork-tongued duel between barrister and witness — we expect 12 random citizens formed between them an impression sure enough for a guilty verdict — but yet at the same time so mystic and ''ineffable'' that it cannot now be explained or rationalised. The verdict is a brute ontological fact, immune now to mortal analysis.
 To the question:
@@ Line 23: / Line 23: @@
 {{Quote|You had to be there.}}
-The Holy Spirit was upon these jurors. A guilty soul was justly condemned. Now that spirit has passed. Like the peace of God, it passeth all understanding.
+The Holy Spirit was upon these jurors. A guilty soul was justly condemned. Now justice has visited, done its thing and gone again, leaving no trace. None can now make sense of it. We must, instead, obediently abide.
-Justice has visited, done its thing and gone again, leaving no trace. None can now make sense of it. We must, instead, obediently abide.
 ====What the eye don’t see —====
 {{drop|A|curious feature}} of this argument is its dependence on ''what we cannot see''. There is a “truth”, but it is comprised of darkness. We cannot apprehend it, so we cannot challenge it.