UK - Nurse Lucy Letby, Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #26

[sleuth777]

Sky News link:

Healthcare worker arrested on suspicion of murdering eight babies

Media, Maps & Timeline *NO DISCUSSION* thread

Thread #1 Thread #2 Thread #3 Thread #4 Thread #5 Thread #6 Thread #7 Thread #8 Thread #9 Thread #10 Thread #11 Thread #12 Thread #13 Thread #14 Thread #15 Thread #16 Thread #17 Thread #18 Thread #19 Thread #20 thread #21 Thread #22 Thread #23 Thread #24 Thread #25

 

[Sillybilly]

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

 

[Sillybilly]

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.

 

[Marantz4250b]

I understood that. I agree. I still think that in the case of a gangland killer it could be to avoid getting attacked by rivals is fairly 'reasonable'. I imagine the prison service and courts might feel the same way for the sake of their own personal safety JMO.

That might be of relevance but not when you've spent the whole trial there and have even given evidence.

Also, the notion that defendants get attacked in court is so far beyond credible that it is literally no rational argument for not showing up.

 

[Marantz4250b]

I guess it saves the courts and prison service money if a prisoner doesn't want to be escorted to court for their sentencing and since they're already detained, the argument is based on cost to the tax payer as much as someone's 'right' to not appear?

That is no argument at all. They are taken to court on the day. They don't get that choice.

In the cash of Cashman he refused to come up from the cells at the court! That should simply not be allowed to ever happen. He is a convicted murderer - he goes were the state tells him to go!

Imagine the extreme example; if capital punishment were still a thing, would Cashman be allowed to refuse to walk to the noose?

 

[Dotta]

I imagine because a person literally doesn't *need* to be there in front of the judge and jury answering to questions.

As long as they're detained in prison then the cost of transporting them, guarding them, and the risk of disruption, escape, attack is always there, then for everyone's sake if the defendant stays in prison it's a lot easier and far cheaper to the tax payer. Also some, many, defendants are probably unwell for one reason or another and demotivated, heavily medicated, or don't even care if they're repeat offenders or know they're getting a life sentence.

For the defendant, it's probably more a case of arguing for one's right to be present in court at the time of sentencing. And hoping to be found not guilty. JMO

I understand all this
I was just answering a poster with rhetorical question haha

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

That is no argument at all. They are taken to court on the day. They don't get that choice.

In the cash of Cashman he refused to come up from the cells at the court! That should simply not be allowed to ever happen. He is a convicted murderer - he goes were the state tells him to go!

Imagine the extreme example; if capital punishment were still a thing, would Cashman be allowed to refuse to walk to the noose?

Well obviously they do get the choice or we wouldn't be debating the fact they can elect not to appear for their sentencing.

Are you saying that if a detained defendant chooses not to appear for sentencing then they are still brought to the court by prison transport and security? I assumed they can 'stay at home', ie in prison?

 

[Marantz4250b]

So why is it allowed for them to skip it?
I have no idea.
But it happened in UK trials I followed on WB.
1. Sabina N murderer
2. Olivia PK murderer

I have no idea either!

It will likely be some ridiculous and misinterpreted "Human Rights" issue.

Sorry but the rights of convicted murderer (or any serious criminal) to choose not to go to a certain place are massively outweighed by everyone else's rights to see justice to be done and to see the criminal receive his sentence i the face of society in the form of the court,

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

I understand all this
I was just answering a poster with rhetorical question haha

Seems I may be mistaken anyway. Declining to appear for one's sentencing might be done within the court building and not mean that a person doesn't need transporting. I wouldn't know for sure IANAL and thankfully also never been in this situation.

 

[Marantz4250b]

Well obviously they do get the choice or we wouldn't be debating the fact they can elect not to appear for their sentencing.

Are you saying that if a detained defendant chooses not to appear for sentencing then they are still brought to the court by prison transport and security? I assumed they can 'stay at home', ie in prison?

That's exactly what I'm saying. Cashman was brought to court but refused to come up from the cells.

And, even if they did refuse to leave the prison then they should be made to. I'm not disputing that they appear to be able to refuse, legally, but they should not be.

The arguments as to saving public funds do not stand up because they have a right to attend the court so the prison van is already paid for, as is any necessary security; it's all private security these days anyway so will be on an agreed contract basis so G4S - or whoever - is getting paid anyway. The security argument is also bogus for the same reason and because of the fact that whatever it costs is miniscule compared with the benefit of society seeing justice done and being able to see major criminals receive their lawfully decreed sentences.

 

[Dotta]

Also, the notion that defendants get attacked in court is so far beyond credible that it is literally no rational argument for not showing up.

I remember reading about a case of a German woman who shot a defendant during trial.
She was a mother of an abused and murdered girl.

She somehow smuggled a gun to the Court.

She was later imprisoned but not for long. The public stood by her.

Has anybody here heard about this case?

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

That's exactly what I'm saying. Cashman was brought to court but refused to come up from the cells.

And, even if they did refuse to leave the prison then they should be made to. I'm not disputing that they appear to be able to refuse, legally, but they should not be.

The arguments as to saving public funds do not stand up because they have a right to attend the court so the prison van is already paid for, as is any necessary security; it's all private security these days anyway so will be on an agreed contract basis so G4S - or whoever - is getting paid anyway. The security argument is also bogus for the same reason and because of the fact that whatever it costs is miniscule compared with the benefit of society seeing justice done and being able to see major criminals receive their lawfully decreed sentences.

We would need to find out more about this.

I'm certain that leaving a detained person in their cell is far safer and far cheaper than bringing them in front of the judge so on those grounds only IMO it 'works' to leave them locked up but otherwise it's pretty rubbish that they can swerve their sentencing and hide in a room somewhere else in the court. Having said that, maybe some of them do things like pass out from shock or puke or even worse when they hear the words being said... so maybe not!

 

[Becci]

I remember reading about a case of a German woman who shot a defendant during trial.
She was a mother of an abused and murdered girl.

She somehow smuggled a gun to the Court.

She was later imprisoned but not for long. The public stood by her.

Has anybody here heard about this case?

Yeah i remember reading that

 

[Parker Knoll]

I remember reading about a case of a German woman who shot a defendant during trial.
She was a mother of an abused and murdered girl.

She somehow smuggled a gun to the Court.

She was later imprisoned but not for long. The public stood by her.

Has anybody here heard about this case?

Yes it rings a bell Dotta, I am sure I have heard about this happening in the US as well or maybe I have had too much sun !
Will do some digging !

 

[Parker Knoll]

You are quite right Dotta, it was in Germany and her name was Marianne Bachmeier.
I recall listening to a podcast about it.

 

[Dotta]

Yeah i remember reading that

Marianne Bachmeier - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[notsure]

That's exactly what I'm saying. Cashman was brought to court but refused to come up from the cells.

And, even if they did refuse to leave the prison then they should be made to. I'm not disputing that they appear to be able to refuse, legally, but they should not be.

The arguments as to saving public funds do not stand up because they have a right to attend the court so the prison van is already paid for, as is any necessary security; it's all private security these days anyway so will be on an agreed contract basis so G4S - or whoever - is getting paid anyway. The security argument is also bogus for the same reason and because of the fact that whatever it costs is miniscule compared with the benefit of society seeing justice done and being able to see major criminals receive their lawfully decreed sentences.

Respectfully, I want justice to be done, but I don't feel the need to see their faces.

 

[Sundial]

Did I mention the people in the town were chanting 'shredder, shredder' to the jaws theme tune?

But, he seemed to be the star of the show, nothing to fear here.. can’t believe he didn’t get an invite

 

[Becci]

Would the jury have been given access to reports from that year highlighting the recommendations & stuff?

 

[esther43]

Would the jury have been given access to reports from that year highlighting the recommendations & stuff?

It's a good question. I don't think so though.
I think brief reference to it was made in relation to how the investigation evolved but that was it.