UK - Nurse Lucy Letby, Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #24

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
CS2C said:
When I attended on Tuesday the Judge mentioned he was made aware of the Jurors absence "Over the weekend". He then went on to state "Hopefully we can make contact with that juror at some point today"

It all sounded very uncertain from where I was standing, hence the reason I didn't stay over in Manchester last night as it appeared as though there would be no court resumption today either.

The judge did tell the Jury however that they still had to attend today, even if it is just to be told the court cannot proceed.
Click to expand...

Wow it makes me wonder if someone has just gone AWOL! I just can’t see how either the prosecution or defence aren’t going to have a problem with all these delays, wouldn’t be surprised if we hear that tomorrow will be delayed for ‘legal arguments’.. if the judge did dismiss a juror could either side argue against this or could BM try and move for a mistrial?

If she is eventually found guilty, I wonder if there would be grounds for appeal after all the delays and now ‘juror issues’?
 
Blondiexoxo said:
Wow it makes me wonder if someone has just gone AWOL! I just can’t see how either the prosecution or defence aren’t going to have a problem with all these delays, wouldn’t be surprised if we hear that tomorrow will be delayed for ‘legal arguments’.. if the judge did dismiss a juror could either side argue against this or could BM try and move for a mistrial?

If she is eventually found guilty, I wonder if there would be grounds for appeal after all the delays and now ‘juror issues’?
Click to expand...
The judge was very reluctant to go into any details regarding the juror but the impression I got was that it was some kind of "Life event".

It all felt very disjointed and uncertain from my point of view.
 
Blondiexoxo said:
I even feel for LL at this point, with the much discussed ‘hour and a half journey’ to and from court.. if innocent (and of course at this point she is considered innocent) it’s quite cruel to have hyped yourself up with nerves about testifying just to be sent back IMO. Then again if you’re a prisoner you might be greatful for the time out!

If this was going to be an issue though, I’m sure if the juror(s) had informed the judge before hand then he’d have given them all the week off. From what we’ve heard he seems to be quite understanding, but if this trial continues into the summer holidays July and August then childcare would again be an issue and I doubt they could possibly adjourn for the whole 6 weeks!
Click to expand...
At Chester Crown Court - obviously LL trial move to Manchester - I really feel for the prisoners. They are brought in and out from a very steep entrance at the top of which are cobblestones.

The van really bumps around a lot! I feel for the prisoners being rattled around inside!

It’s also next to a nursery. I remember taking my young son to the nursery there and being shocked at all the armed officers on the street - there was a gangland trial transferred from Manchester !
 
CS2C said:
The judge was very reluctant to go into any details regarding the juror but the impression I got was that it was some kind of "Life event".

It all felt very disjointed and uncertain from my point of view.
Click to expand...
That could mean the possibility of a bereavement or family member taking ill. If so it would only be fair IMO to release the juror and let them focus on their family and dealing with the event without having to worry about attending court and concentrating on evidence. In those circumstances it would be completely understandable to not attend IMO.
 
What are the odds that the missing juror is right now sunning themselves on a gorgeous beach somewhere in the Caribbean, book in one hand and a drink in the other? :)
 
Kemug said:
What are the odds that the missing juror is right now sunning themselves on a gorgeous beach somewhere in the Caribbean, book in one hand and a drink in the other? :)
Click to expand...
If by sunning themselves you mean on a sunbed and by Caribbean you mean sipping a lambrini with a slice of pineapple I reckon your correct.
 
Justice delayed is justice denied!
This trial is already very protracted, I can see why jurors are starting to flag given there is no guaranteed date for it to conclude. How much longer can they realistically expect jurors to not make plans or book holidays for? I really hope this doesn’t end in a mistrial.
 
WaxLyrical said:
It’s quite ridiculous when you think about it. In what other decision-making role would you not have a detailed note for record or transcript available to you, and instead expected to rely on memory or scibbled notes taken at the time. Especially a matter that’s dragged on for months like this one and involves such a volume of charges.

The courts really need to get themselves into the 21st century.
Click to expand...
I don't really think transcripts are necessary because it can be the way someone says something that creates a very strong impression on others, making it memorable in context with the matter/s at issue. When the witness said something were they emotional, blushing, smiling, repeating the same answer over and over to different questions as if bored or oppositional, hesitant, convincing - or not, etc. None of these things would be reflected in words on paper, and whatever system is used for transcribing, software or a stenographer, is not 100% reliable, so jurors notes will be by far the most relevant for them.

Take for example the incident with the lighting in the nursery. Jurors will have heard the designated nurse testifying that the light was off, it was dark except for lighting from the corridor, LL said the baby looked pale from the doorway, and the nurse put the light on because she couldn't see the baby. They will have her nursing notes in evidence, which stated at the time that she put the light on to look at the baby. They will have impressions about her testimony. Jurors will have also heard LL's police interviews read out in court, when she said the light was off and maybe she spotted her paleness because she was more experienced than Ashleigh. They will have heard LL testifying under direct examination that the nursery light is never off it's just dimmed, so that they can always see the babies, and they will have their impressions of that. And they will have heard LL being cross-examined on her defence statement which was that they turned the lighting up before she noticed the paleness, and answering that she doesn't know if the lights were off and had just approached the nursery doorway from the lit corridor. The jurors will have probably formed opinions already on what they believe happened, without needing to see LL's testimony transcribed. And the arguments will be made again by defence and prosecution in closing, and a summary of all the evidence they've heard about that incident will be given again by the judge. If any jurors came away with conflicting impressions of what happened, they then deliberate over this, and there are 12 people who have been witness to all of this to make the task easier. IMO

I think worrying about the jurors' memories is not really an issue. JMO
 
Last edited:
Tortoise said:
I don't really think transcripts are necessary because it can be the way someone says something that creates a very strong impression on others, making it memorable in context with the matter/s at issue. When the witness said something were they emotional, blushing, smiling, repeating the same answer over and over to different questions as if bored or oppositional, hesitant, convincing - or not, etc. None of these things would be reflected in words on paper, and whatever system is used for transcribing, software or a stenographer, is not 100% reliable, so jurors notes will be by far the most relevant for them.

Take for example the incident with the lighting in the nursery. Jurors will have heard the designated nurse testifying that the light was off, it was dark except for lighting from the corridor, LL said the baby looked pale from the doorway, and the nurse put the light on because she couldn't see the baby. They will have her nursing notes in evidence, which stated at the time that she put the light on to look at the baby. They will have impressions about her testimony. Jurors will have also heard LL's police interviews read out in court, when she said the light was off and maybe she spotted her paleness because she was more experienced than Ashleigh. They will have heard LL testifying under direct examination that the nursery light is never off it's just dimmed, so that they can always see the babies, and they will have their impressions of that. And they will have heard LL being cross-examined on her defence statement which was that they turned the lighting up before she noticed the paleness, and answering that she doesn't know if the lights were off and had just approached the nursery doorway from the lit corridor. The jurors will have probably formed opinions already on what they believe happened, without needing to see LL's testimony transcribed. And the arguments will be made again by defence and prosecution in closing, and a summary of all the evidence they've heard about that incident will be given again by the judge. If any jurors came away with conflicting impressions of what happened, they then deliberate over this, and there are 12 people who have been witness to all of this to make the task easier. IMO

I think worrying about the jurors' memories is not really an issue. JMO
Click to expand...
I wasn’t suggesting the jurors don’t make their own notes. But juror’s discussions around what might have been said months ago would be far easier if they could refer back to what was actually said, and potentially avoid any disputes, because it shouldn’t be a memory contest. And I’m not saying it should only be LL’s testimony, that will be fairly fresh in their mind, a lot of stuff has been said on that stand, by experts and witnesses, dating back to October.

Personally, from the perspective of someone who does an analytical job, the idea of relying on conversations that happened a long time ago without any record fills me with anxiety!
 
WaxLyrical said:
I wasn’t suggesting the jurors don’t make their own notes. But juror’s discussions around what might have been said months ago would be far easier if they could refer back to what was actually said, and potentially avoid any disputes, because it shouldn’t be a memory contest. And I’m not saying it should only be LL’s testimony, that will be fairly fresh in their mind, a lot of stuff has been said on that stand, by experts and witnesses, dating back to October.

Personally, from the perspective of someone who does an analytical job, the idea of relying on conversations that happened a long time ago without any record fills me with anxiety!
Click to expand...
I don't think it's a memory contest when the evidence that's been given is made the focus of ongoing examination and is given to them all over again in comprehensive wrapping up at the end. I think it's more a question of strength or lack of conviction/belief, based on opinions formed as the evidence was being received from each witness, rather than a remembering or recording of words. Every single alleged incident has been gone over again in LL's direct, and again in her cross-exam, refreshing everyone's memories of what the parents said, what the colleagues said, what the experts said, what LL said to police, etc. It isn't that they have to remember something heard once six months ago. JMO
 
Tortoise said:
I don't think it's a memory contest when the evidence that's been given is made the focus of ongoing examination and is given to them all over again in comprehensive wrapping up at the end. I think it's more a question of strength or lack of conviction/belief, based on opinions formed as the evidence was being received from each witness, rather than a remembering or recording of words. Every single alleged incident has been gone over again in LL's direct, and again in her cross-exam, refreshing everyone's memories of what the parents said, what the colleagues said, what the experts said, what LL said to police, etc. It isn't that they have to remember something heard once six months ago. JMO
Click to expand...
Of course. I was just saying it feels like a relic of the olden days, as are many things in our judicial system. Just feels like a no brainer to support the jury as much as possible.
 
I still think American system is the most pragmatic one.
15 Jurors (12+3 alternates) - all present and then 12 chosen randomly for deliberations.

In my country we have bench trials only - with a panel of 3 experienced Judges for complex cases.
With 2 or 3 Jurors giving their opinions - they are usually retired folks with the recommendations and of highest morale.
It is a privilege to be a Juror.

JmO
 
Last edited:
The jury illnesses/life events are irritating, but perhaps not unavoidable. I'm surprised just how many days court doesn't sit for other reasons. Whenever there is a Bank Holiday, there seems to be days either side where they don't sit. It also seems there have been a lot of extended weekends, with Fridays/Mondays not used. Legal discussions, perhaps?
 
CS2C said:
When I attended on Tuesday the Judge mentioned he was made aware of the Jurors absence "Over the weekend". He then went on to state "Hopefully we can make contact with that juror at some point today"

It all sounded very uncertain from where I was standing, hence the reason I didn't stay over in Manchester last night as it appeared as though there would be no court resumption today either.

The judge did tell the Jury however that they still had to attend today, even if it is just to be told the court cannot proceed.
Click to expand...
It's crazy that the other jurors need to come in even when they know it is not going to proceed. Poor jurors, what a mess.
 
I feel so sorry for the parents of the Babies :(

They attend the trial either in Manchester or in Chester via video link.
I wonder about their jobs - how can they lead normal lives being tied to the trial for months on end?
 
Dotta said:
I feel so sorry for the parents of the Babies :(

They attend the trial either in Manchester or in Chester via video link.
I wonder about their jobs - how can they lead normal lives being tied to the trial for months on end?
Click to expand...
We can only hope that through this long-drawn-out process, they will get some sense of justice being done.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 97 more.
Total: 2,248 (members: 98, guests: 2,150)

Online statistics

Members online
98
Guests online
2,150
Total visitors
2,248
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
600,137
Messages
18,104,521
Members
230,991
Latest member
lyle.person1
Back
Top