
Trump threatens that "a whole civilization will die tonight" in new post
Crumpsatunt
35K posts

@BullingdonAlex
Previously banned for Monty Python Holy Grail clip. Anti-Kleptocracy. Superority macerator. Hypocrisy incinerator.

Trump threatens that "a whole civilization will die tonight" in new post














The chief of staff for a top Republican official in Alaska has been indicted for sex trafficking children. Officials believe there may be at least 12 minors who were victims of his operation.




Casone: If President Trump's got a problem with women, why is Susie Wiles his chief of staff?





🧵9/10 Proving Lucy Letby is not guilty in just one case is enough for the rest to fall. The Baby C case would suffice. If not the ridiculous "smoking gun" insulin cases. Judge Goss told the jury this (exact words from his 15 June 2023 cross admissibility direction): “If you are satisfied so that you are sure in the case of any baby that they were deliberately harmed by the defendant then you are entitled to consider how likely it is that other babies in the case who suffered unexpected collapses did so as a result of some unexplained or natural cause rather than as a consequence of some deliberate harmful act by someone. If you conclude that this is unlikely then you could, if you think it right, treat the evidence of that event and any others which you find were a consequence of a deliberate harmful act as supporting evidence in the cases of other babies and that the defendant was the person responsible. When deciding how far, if at all, the evidence in relation to any of the cases supports the case against the defendant on any other or others, you should take into account how similar or dissimilar, in your opinion, the allegations and the circumstances of and surrounding their collapses are.” A bit garbled I know. But that's judges for you. Anyway, let's paraphrase it and see how it would show the importance of the Baby C case, for example, in exonerating Lucy Letby in all other cases: If you are satisfied so that you are sure in the case of Baby C that the baby was not deliberately harmed by Lucy Letby, then you are entitled to consider how likely it is that other babies in the case who suffered unexpected collapses did so as a result of some deliberate harmful act by someone rather than as a consequence of some unexplained or natural cause. If you conclude that this is unlikely, then you could, if you think it right, treat the evidence of that event and any others which you find were a consequence of an unexplained or natural cause as supporting evidence in the cases of other babies and that Lucy Letby was not the person responsible. When deciding how far, if at all, the evidence in relation to any of the cases supports the case against Lucy Letby on any other or others, you should take into account how similar or dissimilar, in your opinion, the allegations and the circumstances of and surrounding their collapses are. jollycontrarian.com/index.php?titl… #JusticeForLucyLetby #FreeLucyLetby 👇