VERDICT WATCH UK - Nurse Lucy Letby, Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #30

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
d0lphin said:
He could have had this booked 12 months ago and assumed that the trial would be completed by now and the verdicts given. It costs a lot of money to change a holiday and maybe he can only take a holiday during the school holidays due to others going with him.
Click to expand...

Well yes, that's possible... but surely that applies to everyone involved, particularly the poor jurors, the only ones I have concern for since they're the ones who've made the biggest sacrifices here, and the ones incidentally not on either a barrister's or judge's salary which offer far more 'flexibility' when it comes to holidays, pre-arranged or otherwise.

But then of course, this week may not deliver a verdict so maybe he'll be back, tan all topped up, for when it does happen...
 
Last edited:
Anxala said:
Well yes, that's possible... but surely that applies to everyone involved, particularly the poor jurors, the only ones I have concern for since they're the ones who've made the biggest sacrifices here, and the ones incidentally not on either a barrister's or judge's salary which offer far more 'flexibility' when it comes to holidays, pre-arranged or otherwise.

But then of course, this week may not deliver a verdict so maybe he'll be back, tan all topped up, for when it does happen.
Click to expand...
All that matters here is the parents of the children. What you can say however is that Mr Johnson's holiday in no way stops proceedings taking place. Sadly the same cannot be said if England are playing in the world cup or it happens to be a Monday or Friday.
 
Anxala said:
Yes, it seems a little cavalier that he'd be on hols at this stage of the game. A hol at the point the jury retired, fair enough, the expectation being that they'd be deliberating for a couple of weeks or so, leaving him ample time to top up his tan, but to be away when a looming verdict is now a realistic possibility seems off, unprofessional almost.
Click to expand...
We just booked for a Safari holiday12 months in advance, maybe he also had to book his holiday in advance and it happens to fall now.
 
RichardKimble said:
We just booked for a Safari holiday12 months in advance, maybe he also had to book his holiday in advance and it happens to fall now.
Click to expand...

Ok, right, I surrender! :D

I didn't realise an entirely random and imo reasonable observation on NJ's holiday status at this stage of the trial would generate such outpourings of defensive devotion!

:p
 
Anxala said:
Ok, right, I surrender! :D

I didn't realise an entirely random and imo reasonable observation on NJ's holiday status at this stage of the trial would generate such outpourings of defensive devotion!

:p
Click to expand...
Not at all, just giving a personal insight as to why he might be on holiday now.
 
CS2C said:
All that matters here is the parents of the children. What you can say however is that Mr Johnson's holiday in no way stops proceedings taking place. Sadly the same cannot be said if England are playing in the world cup or it happens to be a Monday or Friday.
Click to expand...
I hear what you're saying - and it's been said a lot on here - but I tend to disagree that it's the only thing that matters. This case, and criminal cases as a whole, are much more important than just the victims or those closely connected to them. We bring criminal cases against people for the good of society as a whole, not just certain sections of society.

This case, in particular, goes way, way beyond most others; it relates to the most fundamental things in British society, the NHS, trust in public services, trust in those who we are trusted, essentially, with the ultimate ability to decide whether we live or die.

<modsnip - not victim friendly>
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Marantz4250b said:
I hear what you're saying - and it's been said a lot on here - but I tend to disagree that it's the only thing that matters. This case, and criminal cases as a whole, are much more important than just the victims or those closely connected to them. We bring criminal cases against people for the good of society as a whole, not just certain sections of society.

This case, in particular, goes way, way beyond most others; it relates to the most fundamental things in British society, the NHS, trust in public services, trust in those who we are trusted, essentially, with the ultimate ability to decide whether we live or die.

<not victim friendly>
Click to expand...
Yeah this, and maybe it is unpopular but I agree and support this idea. That's why criminal cases are the state vs the defendant. Its potential civil trials that are about the parents and the harm done to them and the babies, and damages are awarded (I don't even know if they're a thing in the UK though). This is a criminal trial so its about Lucy being accused of breaking criminal law, which is a breach against society as a whole. At least where I live the only time the victims families are even considered is for sentencing, and its only one of many factors considered.

its an important distinction. Murder trials will happen even if the families didn't want it to, or they didn't care, or they'd left the country and couldn't return, or they'd died, or if the victims had no family at all (I know that doesn't make sense here, obviously newborns inevitably have present family, but its the principle of the thing). The case is being brought by the state on behalf of nobody but the state and by extension society as a whole, because nobody can go around murdering anybody, whether they be a brand new cute baby with loving grieving parents or a 100 year old curmudgeon everyone hated with no family left, or anyone in between.

If criminal trials were about "justice for the families" I think we'd see a lot more innocent people sent to jail (or worse, depending on the jurisdiction) just to please vengeful families. The reason we have the system we do is to put boundaries in, ensure justice for everyone involved including just society in general, and to equalise everyone before the courts.

ALL JMO IMO, but based on studying Legal Studies at school, sociology at uni, etc etc
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's the fifth day that the jury have been sitting since they were told that the judge would accept a majority verdict. Seriously losing hope that a verdict is going to be possible. I really don't understand why it would take so long - after the closing statements and judge summing up I thought the evidence was so overwhelming that it would be a couple of days! I'm hoping that it is just a few AM charges that they are undecided on, but I fear that that is not the case.
 
My mind keeps going from ‘there are 22 charges, it’s going to take time’ to now thinking that if the jurors were all in agreement from the start then there’d be no need to go back over the evidence with a fine tooth comb. If they all sat down and realised they all had been convinced by the evidence then all it would take would be going to each charge - perhaps one person outlining the case, asking the others which were stand out points for them which convinced them the prosecution had (or hadn’t) proven their case, then onto the next.

I think IMO anyway, it’s becoming clearer that there may well be one or two or perhaps more who weren’t initially convinced by the prosecution’s case. Therefore the jury have had to delve deeper into the evidence.

From what I understand, there’s no legal requirement that says juries have to discuss all of the evidence if they have all already come to the same conclusion during the trial. The only reason for that c peptide question for example is if one or more jurors aren’t sure the case has been proven for that charge - all JMO though.

I feel like we are going round in circles with the same discussions, I’m getting worried but then it hasn’t been long in terms of deliberation hours since the judge said he’d allow a majority.. I just expected that verdicts would be reached pretty quickly once he allowed that. Just shows you never know how each individual juror has interpreted the evidence they’ve heard.

All MOO
 
Last edited:
Jazmania said:
It's the fifth day that the jury have been sitting since they were told that the judge would accept a majority verdict. Seriously losing hope that a verdict is going to be possible. I really don't understand why it would take so long - after the closing statements and judge summing up I thought the evidence was so overwhelming that it would be a couple of days! I'm hoping that it is just a few AM charges that they are undecided on, but I fear that that is not the case.
Click to expand...
We simply do not know, though! You may be right that it's not much that they haven't decided yet but there might be lots.

They may have decided that they are going to look at each case in detail and examine every piece of evidence related to it before asking voted votes as to guilty or not guilty. Essentially, they may be "re-trying" the whole thing among themselves for all we know.

The jury are entitled to decide the case in any manner they choose and they are not allowed to say how they chose to do it even after the trial. We will never know how they approached it or what sticking points there may have been.

My personal opinion is that, yes, it's taken them quite some time already but its a massive case so I'm not unduly concerned at this point. If we get to the end of this week without hearing anything then I think they may be encountering problems, though.
 
Blondiexoxo said:
My mind keeps going from ‘there are 22 charges, it’s going to take time’ to now thinking that if the jurors were all in agreement from the start then there’d be no need to go back over the evidence with a fine tooth comb. If they all sat down and realised they all had been convinced by the evidence then all it would take would be going to each charge - perhaps one person outlining the case, asking the others which were stand out points for them which convinced them the prosecution had proven their case, then onto the next.

I think IMO anyway, it’s becoming clearer that there may well be one or two or perhaps more who weren’t initially convinced by the prosecution’s case. Therefore the jury have had to delve deeper into the evidence.

From what I understand, there’s no legal requirement that says juries have to discuss all of the evidence if they have all already come to the same conclusion during the trial. The only reason for that c peptide question for example is if one or more jurors aren’t sure the case has been proven for that charge - all JMO though.

I feel like we are going round in circles with the same discussions, I’m getting worried but then it hasn’t been long in terms of deliberation hours since the judge said he’d allow a majority.. I just expected that verdicts would be reached pretty quickly once he allowed that. Just shows you never know how each individual juror has interpreted the evidence they’ve heard.

All MOO
Click to expand...
The other thing is, we know from people who went to the trial for a day or two in person that only a fraction of the information from the witnesses ended up being reported, either in tweets or articles. So we have a really skewed idea of just how much they're having to process and transmute into a verdict for each charge.

MOO
 
iamshadow21 said:
The other thing is, we know from people who went to the trial for a day or two in person that only a fraction of the information from the witnesses ended up being reported, either in tweets or articles. So we have a really skewed idea of just how much they're having to process and transmute into a verdict for each charge.

MOO
Click to expand...
This is an extremely important point. It must be remembered that news reporting is, ultimately, a business! Sky, Chester Standard, Daily Mail, Guardian, etc, etc and all the rest are doing this for profit and they are competing with one another for views, comments, likes and suchlike. It is inevitable that the bits most likely to get clicks, views, listens and suchlike are the bits which will be reported.

Also, we need to remember that the particular area a media outlet covers is of great relevance here. Media outlets which have a strong local following must be sensitive to their readership - try and buy a copy of the Sun in Liverpool, for instance!

I do think that there is very likely a lot of evidence the jury has heard that wider society has not!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 89 more.
Total: 1,950 (members: 90, guests: 1,860)

Online statistics

Members online
90
Guests online
1,860
Total visitors
1,950
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
594,456
Messages
18,005,648
Members
229,399
Latest member
roseashley592
Back
Top