VERDICT WATCH UK - Nurse Lucy Letby, Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #29

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

sleuth777

Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2017
Messages
40
Reaction score
61
Last edited by a moderator:
ADMIN NOTE:

This is a trial thread to discuss the trial only. It is not a general discussion thread.

Although WS is based in the USA, we do try to manage the various discussions according to laws of other countries.

As this trial is in the UK, the case is under sub judice so please stick to discussing the trial content without posting anything that violates the following principles:

Basically anything that may prejudice the accused’s right to a fair trial
Any suggestion, opinion, or direct accusation that the accused is either guilty OR innocent
(i.e. the accused cannot be called "the killer"; use "the accused", "the alleged killer", or "the defendant")
A defendant’s previous history of any offences is off limits
Scandalizing the court (disparaging judges, lawyers, any officer of the Court) is off limits
Broadcasting anything about proceedings which happen in the jury's absence is off limits
Any non compliance with an Order of the court is off limits

Note in the event of an Appeal subsequent to verdict:

Appeals are usually heard by senior judges who are not likely to be influenced by the media, therefore responsible comment is usually considered acceptable once a trial has concluded, regardless of if there is going to be an appeal.


Reference: UK Contempt of Court Act 1981
 
ADMIN NOTE:

Please remember that WS copyright rules and copyright law require that images have a link to the original source to give credit to the source.

Also, Mods not only have to edit the OP to remove unsourced pics, they then have have to go through all subsequent pages and posts to edit where the post has been requoted by others. OR we can remove the entire post and all responses and response to responses.

All we ask is that members ensure a link is provided. It takes only a moment for the members but takes WS staff a lot of time to fix if the link is not included.
 
Why is everybody suddenly talking about a "collapsed trial", "mistrial", "Hung Jury", etc.??

2 Jurors simply could NOT attend today and maybe till the end of the week.

So what?
It has been happening for 9 months now.
And I have already got used to it.

I absolutely don't see any reason to panic.

M optimistic O
 
Dotta said:
Why is everybody suddenly talking about a "collapsed trial", "mistrial", "Hung Jury", etc.??

2 Jurors simply could NOT attend today and maybe till the end of the week.

So what?
It has been happening for 9 months now.
And I have already got used to it.

I absolutely don't see any reason to panic.

M optimistic O
Click to expand...
I agree. I was answering a question asked, but I don't think we have reason to panic.

Yet.

stay calm. We are patient people...we are patient...we have already been here for the best part of a year...it's just a few days more...
 
Tortoise said:
It won't interfere with the competition because it's based on hours spent in deliberation. It'll just pick up where we left off, when they restart deliberations.
Click to expand...
It’s a change in the schedule though which may or may not interfere with total deliberation time.
 
Dotta said:
Why is everybody suddenly talking about a "collapsed trial", "mistrial", "Hung Jury", etc.??

2 Jurors simply could NOT attend today and maybe till the end of the week.

So what?
It has been happening for 9 months now.
And I have already got used to it.

I absolutely don't see any reason to panic.

M optimistic O
Click to expand...
I'm concerned that 2 jurors being unavailable will start a juror trend. I do hope not .
 
Lincoln34 said:
I'm concerned that 2 jurors being unavailable will start a juror trend. I do hope not .
Click to expand...
If they had wanted out, they would have done so months ago.

Not at the finish.

Please, give them some credit.

They have lives, families, things to do.

PS
I wouldn't be surprised if some got indigestion issues - biscuits all week :confused:

JMO
 
Last edited:
Anxala said:
It's a bit of a lottery really, isn't it. I'd be the really indecisive one, always with a 'but what if...' followed by an 'ok, you're right, I agree...' followed by a 'I know what you're saying but what if...' on and on and on, I'd go, backwards and forwards and backwards and forwards until the other 11 jury members' eyes rolled back in their heads and they died from exhaustion.
Click to expand...
One of the 12 Angry men?
 
Hard to imagine what the last week has been like for the jurors. Finally being able to talk about it and unburden themselves must be kind of weird.
Them sitting alongside each other in court, picking up each others vibes but not being able to channel their thoughts in any way. I could see a few cases of PTSD developing as a result of being on that Jury potentially, it's never healthy to be on the edge of your seat, anxious yet silenced for so long.
 
Observe_dont_Absorb said:
Yes but there's only one of them. The whole magistrate system creeps me the eff out and I believe it should be abolished.

The jury system also raises many many issues for me and my vision of being on jury service is that of a living hell not dissimilar to an Hieronymus Bosch painting. LOL.

So what happens when you're on a jury with someone who appears to be really low intelligence and you know damn well isn't digesting the material being presented? Or someone who is a rebel and agitator and disruptive and disagreeable just for fun? Or someone on an agenda like 'eff the po po'? Or someone elderly and falling asleep and not evening listening? And someone who looks like they surely must be a class A drug addict? Or someone who loves the sound of their own voice and never stops yakking and no-one can breathe never mind think. Or someone who seems like they understood stuff but then makes a comment that reveals they blatantly didn't comprehend the arguments presented? Or someone who's just totally 'checked out' and says I honestly don't care, tell me what to vote and I'll vote. Or someone who is really irritating and has strange personal habits... on and on and on. I couldn't bear it. I hope I never get called!
Click to expand...
Most of the examples above, could be dealt with by the judge in our jury system.
If the group feels that one of the other jurors is disruptive, insincere, not taking it seriously, has a prior agenda, not listening, etc etc, they can send a note to the judge and it will be discussed. It is up to judges discretion to have them sent home. I've seen it happen before.
 
Marantz4250b said:
For your average, run-of-the-mill cases, which are the vast majority, I'd tend to agree.

When we get to potentially very long and complicated trials, though, I think professional jurors might be a good idea. I think it's been considered in relation to complicated fraud trials in the past.

Also, I do think that there should be an option for a defendant to choose whether they have a jury trial or a trial just before a panel of judges. Personally, if I were innocent, I think I would feel a lot more secure in the hands of trained judges who are a) experts in the law before them and, b) far less susceptible to bias.
Click to expand...
We do have that option in the States. The defendant can choose to have the judge decide, instead of bringing in a jury. It's called a Beach Trial:

Bench trial - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
Tortoise said:
He hasn't discharged the two jurors, so the fact they are waiting for them was more the point of relief for me.
Click to expand...
I am not sure about UK juries, but in the States there are a lot of retired folks sitting for trials. I think it is normal that one or two of them would have some short term health issues in a 9 month trial.

This has been an exhausting process for us and we haven't been there seeing medical reports and hearing the cute baby names and seeing the grieving families all year long.
 
bobbymkii said:
Very much JMO (and probably not the opinion of many others in this forum) - I think she would be almost guaranteed to be granted bail, even if that presents significant security/safeguarding issues. It's already shocking enough to me that she's been on remand for so long, even before this mammoth trial. There is no way they can keep her locked up for another 2 years until another jury is ready to decide her fate, she's not a flight risk, the very specific nature of her alleged offending makes her a very low risk to the public, and I can cite multiple examples from England & Wales in the last 12 months alone where murder accused defendants have been granted bail.
Click to expand...
If LL is guilty, then she is very dangerous. Anyone who could and would kill innocent babies is a very cruel cold-hearted dangerous soul, IMO.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 201 more.
Total: 3,850 (members: 202, guests: 3,648)

Online statistics

Members online
202
Guests online
3,648
Total visitors
3,850
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
593,540
Messages
17,988,826
Members
229,160
Latest member
Kakkilynn
Back
Top