Lucy Letby: the ineffable truth: Difference between revisions

Line 11:

{{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 are meant 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 are not infallible. Miscarriages of justice can and do happen. Even outrageous ones.

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.

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

To the question:

Line 23:

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.

The Holy Spirit was upon these jurors. A guilty soul was justly condemned. Justice visited, did its thing and left, leaving no trace. None can now make sense of it. But still we must, all the same, quietly 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.

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

But, explicitly, the criminal law does not work like this. Quite the opposite: it is, to a fault, ''rational''. It is unflinchingly evidence-based: evidence is the be-all and end-all. There are strict rules governing what may be admitted. All of it may be interrogated. Everything that can influence an outcome must lie on the surface. If it cannot be made to float — if it comprises innuendo or prejudice, we must sponge it from the record.

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 {{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 are meant 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 are not infallible. Miscarriages of justice can and do happen. Even outrageous ones.
-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.
+From this tremendous ''melée'' — the [[evidence-in-chief]] and [[cross-examination]], each submission and each fork-tongued duel between barrister and witness — we expect that 12 random citizens formed between them an impression sure enough to condemn a defendant — but yet at the same time so mystic and ''ineffable'' that it cannot later be explained or rationalised. The verdict passes intractably into the record,  a brute ontological fact, immune 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 justice has visited, done its thing and gone again, leaving no trace. None can now make sense of it. We must, instead, obediently abide.
+The Holy Spirit was upon these jurors. A guilty soul was justly condemned. Justice visited, did its thing and left, leaving no trace. None can now make sense of it. But still we must, all the same, quietly 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.
+{{drop|A|curious feature}} of this argument is how it depends on ''what we cannot see''. There is a “truth”, but it is comprised of darkness. We cannot apprehend it, so we cannot challenge it.
 But, explicitly, the criminal law does not work like this. Quite the opposite: it is, to a fault, ''rational''. It is unflinchingly evidence-based: evidence is the be-all and end-all. There are strict rules governing what may be admitted. All of it may be interrogated.  Everything that can influence an outcome must lie on the surface. If it cannot be made to float — if it comprises innuendo or prejudice, we must sponge it from the record.