VERDICT WATCH UK - Nurse Lucy Letby, Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #28

[Sweeper2000]

A Long Sentence.
The more I think about the weight of this case and how it will be - and I wish only the babies would be - remembered for hundreds of years, literally - the more I realise that it will be not only what I earlier and deliberately termed the media ministry, but also highly likely the other obvious which again I will deliberately call the department of court cases will be, while of course ensuring that the judiciary is made to feel independent entirely and subject only to rules and histories in the common law as their guide, will in absolute terms be calling the precise shots on how this is handled inside the court, and directions in the same regard I am sure will be issued outside of the court, before the media storm ensues. Maybe a long sentence some of the barristers who didn't like my last post will make them feel that sentence and all its errata itself deserves a long sentence. However I can quite clearly see how it will be a quite obvious briefing that shall be daily given to the current LC, and the PM, and that the current M for the MoM as I have termed it, will be involved, surely, if not only to issue a national position on the matter to the M in the actual ministry's name, at the earliest possible time. All that takes positioning, a great deal of discussion, and time. I can't see how HH the J MG KC isn't going to be in regular contact at the highest of levels, and that restrictions will be very rigid until those mentioned give the go ahead (with appropriate deference to HH the J MG MC). I dare to conjecture there is far more going on in this case at the national level than Manchester CC and it is perhaps worthy of consideration as a bigger picture. That's all I am noting at the moment. Maybe that's not relevant or doesn't make a lot of sense, but for some you will realise the absolute gravity of all of this. I say this without present experience or employ in respect of such matters at such levels but with a great deal of intuition and corroborating evidence I suppose. Sorry if this adds no value whatever, just my train of thought and a mere stream of dreamy consciousness.

I understand. *.*

 

[WaxLyrical]

I genuinely have not a single clue what any of this means? Not the faintest idea!

I think it’s long sentence grammatically, not legally.

 

[CS2C]

Nick Johnson during cross examination

Let’s see what happens today

 

[Lucy6226]

Wonder if we'll have a verdict today

 

[ColourPurple]

Wonder if we'll have a verdict today

Yes, 12.45pm today. Mark my words

 

[Sweeper2000]

I think it’s long sentence grammatically, not legally.

Or coherently?

 

[Anxala]

I think it’s long sentence grammatically, not legally.

It felt like a long legal sentence, reading and trying to make sense of that long sentence.

 

[mucbetam]

It felt like a long legal sentence, reading and trying to make sense of that long sentence.

I shall take as a compliment, and consider BVC if it still exists.

 

[mucbetam]

Sorry, I've read this 3 times and can't make head nor tail of it. Could you perhaps repost in a more concise way?

I will try to improve my drafting and make the narrative less cryptic for you.

Due to the gravity of the case and the likely reaction and public discourse and representations in parliament that will follow, both right now and on a guilty verdict, I imagine (literally) the following:
(1) that relevant ministers in relevant ministries and departments of His Britannic Majesty's (UK) Government (Justice, PM, and media++++, potentially Home Office) will be being kept well briefed on where this case stands, by officials, on a daily and reactive basis.
(2) that restrictions will be politely requested of the Court on the recommendation of such officials, such that teams responsible for briefing the media (beyond their public access to the detail) have time to properly and clearly say what they want to say at the relevant time.
(3) Given the enormity of the charges and the fact this is sadly likely to become an embedded part of our cultural wiring for potentially centuries to come, I can only imagine that instructions / requests will mean His Honour Judge Goss, King's Counsel will be receiving regular communications from the top as to what is desirable, according to e.g. media communications, behavioural science specialists, views from Downing St and other experts.

It's obvious, but this isn't little Jackie stole a curly-wurly from the village shop. It has major consequences for the public psyche. And there will be a lot more interest in this right now than websleuths, journalists and the court and its actors.

Just IMHO. I have no evidence or qualification in any of this. Nor have I ever had. But, I genuinely think this case has potential to damage people's mental health and wellbeing, causing psychological harms to the unwitting consumer of media and its manipulative entertainment hooks.

Hopes some of this helps Lucy.

What I would ask the legal eagles is two things:

(A) will we get a broadcast of the sentencing like the Scottish courts seem to have been doing for high profile cases?
(B) Is the Home Office minister (Suella Braverman?) able to recommend a whole life tariff in advance of the sentencing, or is that totally at the discretion of the Judge, and in your view, on a guilty verdict (let's say all counts) how likely is that (I would say 100%). I am interested in the Judicial process following a Home Office recommendation for a WLT and whether it can be refused by the Judiciary as well.
(C) when are the US going to pay the back-tax owed since the Boston Tea Party?

have a happy Friday sleuthers

mucbetam

 

[Sweeper2000]

Due to the gravity of the case and the likely reaction and public discourse and representations in parliament that will follow, I imagine that relevant ministers in relevant ministries (Justice, PM, and digitalculturalmediasportural, HomeOffice etc) will be being kept well briefed on where this case stands, by officials, on a daily and reactive basis. I would further imagine that restrictions will be politely requested of the Court on the recommendation of such officials, such that teams responsible for briefing the media (beyond their public access to the detail) have time to properly and clearly say what they want to say at the relevant time. Given the enormity of the charges and the fact this is sadly likely to become an embedded part of our cultural wiring for potentially centuries to come, I can only imagine that instructions / requests will mean His Honour Judge Goss, King's Counsel will be receiving regular communications from the top as to what is desirable, according to e.g. media communications, behavioural science, views from Downing St and other experts. It's obvious, but this isn't little Jackie stole a curly-wurly from the village shop. It has major consequences for the public psyche. Just IMHO, I have no evidence of any of this. Hope this helps Lucy.

I think your trying to say that due to the severity of the charges and likely impact on the public’s psyche that officials going all the way to the top “Downing Street” will likely be interested and perhaps invested from a legal perspective about the trial and it’s results?

 

[Dotta]

It is obvious that if found guilty, this case will have repercussions for NHS and the public's trust.

The most important thing is to learn how to avoid such tragedies in future, how to foresee and prevent them.
How to protect the patients.

JMO

 

[mucbetam]

I think your trying to say that due to the severity of the charges and likely impact on the public’s psyche that officials going all the way to the top “Downing Street” will likely be interested and perhaps invested from a legal perspective about the trial and it’s results?

I think more from a communications, public messaging and political perspective. Without a doubt if either the verdict or sentencing appear controversial then as you say.

 

[mucbetam]

It is obvious that if found guilty, this case will have repercussions for NHS and the public's trust.

The most important thing is to learn how to avoid such tragedies in future, how to foresee them.
How to protect the patients.

JMO

It can be viewed as a black swan risk event potentially and as part of the need for High Reliability Organisations (HRO) to have exceptionally robust standards, protocols and procedure. Like anything it is a trade off between cost and risk avoidance/mitigation/acceptance. In some way there is a distant cousin parallel in the case in Hong Kong a few years ago where banker Rurik Jutting brutally butchered two Indonesian women during sex and cocaine binges. No one called him out on his behaviour around alcohol, drugs and sex workers prior to that - some might ask - why would they? No one wants to micro-police every worker, but maybe there does need to be more evidenced-based psychological opinions on responsible people and forms of more detailed accountability... I don't know what the solution is. One thing that shocked me in this case was the blurred boundaries between social media for "flirting" and social media for work related purposes. I remember long ago drawing attention to the social media policy at the hospital. There is something badly wrong with the processes and approach to risk though, even in HR.

Perhaps "shame" needs to be taken out of suspensions so they are more normalised, provided that employee protections are still well maintained. The cost of not having Letby working and the potential cost of Letby tribunaling the Trust may have been given far too much weight in letting the issue of concerns drag on and on. No doubt doctors will blame management, management will blame staff, and if guilty, everyone will ultimately blame Letby.

Do we know if there was union involvement in LL's grievance?

 

[CS2C]

Yes she did have a union rep

 

[JosieJo]

Day 5

https://twitter.com/x/status/1679785519574659074

Jurors at Manchester Crown Court have been sent out to begin their fifth day of deliberations in the trial of nurse Lucy Letby - they have so far been discussing the case for almost 20hours. Ms Letby is accused of murdering 7 babies and attempting to kill a further 10

 

[KathPlumber]

I cannot fathom messaging work colleagues about professional stuff on Facebook or What’s App, and I’m only working in schools. There’s absolutely zero chance I’d message a direct superior about a child I was teaching on FB or WA. I might message a colleague who is a friend on iMessage and chat about general stuff and the odd kid might come up, but serious details about their progress and our dealing with the families, no way. I feel like the rules about that stuff being absolutely stringently tightened and people actually sticking to them would be damn sensible outcome of this fiasco. Talk about blurring the lines unnecessarily.

 

[GoodDayToYouSir]

I had been thinking this. We’re all so certain that the verdict will come back this month! Perhaps the real smart option would’ve been to be the last person on the list so when it (inevitably?) goes over all our guesses, the last person would be the winner!

Are we having a poll? I’m interested to see who is leaning where.

The interesting part will be to see how long the judge lets them go before he asks for an update on where they are at.

 

[Parker Knoll]

I think that could be next week at the earliest for a majority.
Cannot shake the feeling there is still a twist in this abhorrent case.

 

[MissMarbles]

I think that could be next week at the earliest for a majority.
Cannot shake the feeling there is still a twist in this abhorrent case.

Yes at least one twist I would say. I get the feeling it's very complicated. Just my opinion.

 

[Marantz4250b]

I will try to improve my drafting and make the narrative less cryptic for you.

Due to the gravity of the case and the likely reaction and public discourse and representations in parliament that will follow, both right now and on a guilty verdict, I imagine (literally) the following:
(1) that relevant ministers in relevant ministries and departments of His Britannic Majesty's (UK) Government (Justice, PM, and media++++, potentially Home Office) will be being kept well briefed on where this case stands, by officials, on a daily and reactive basis.
(2) that restrictions will be politely requested of the Court on the recommendation of such officials, such that teams responsible for briefing the media (beyond their public access to the detail) have time to properly and clearly say what they want to say at the relevant time.
(3) Given the enormity of the charges and the fact this is sadly likely to become an embedded part of our cultural wiring for potentially centuries to come, I can only imagine that instructions / requests will mean His Honour Judge Goss, King's Counsel will be receiving regular communications from the top as to what is desirable, according to e.g. media communications, behavioural science specialists, views from Downing St and other experts.

It's obvious, but this isn't little Jackie stole a curly-wurly from the village shop. It has major consequences for the public psyche. And there will be a lot more interest in this right now than websleuths, journalists and the court and its actors.

Just IMHO. I have no evidence or qualification in any of this. Nor have I ever had. But, I genuinely think this case has potential to damage people's mental health and wellbeing, causing psychological harms to the unwitting consumer of media and its manipulative entertainment hooks.

Hopes some of this helps Lucy.

What I would ask the legal eagles is two things:

(A) will we get a broadcast of the sentencing like the Scottish courts seem to have been doing for high profile cases?
(B) Is the Home Office minister (Suella Braverman?) able to recommend a whole life tariff in advance of the sentencing, or is that totally at the discretion of the Judge, and in your view, on a guilty verdict (let's say all counts) how likely is that (I would say 100%). I am interested in the Judicial process following a Home Office recommendation for a WLT and whether it can be refused by the Judiciary as well.
(C) when are the US going to pay the back-tax owed since the Boston Tea Party?

have a happy Friday sleuthers

mucbetam

A government minister has the same right to ask the court to hand down a particular sentence as you or I do. We can. Ask but will be completely ignored. The Home Office, nor anyone else, has any authority to "recommend" any sentence.

Life sentencing is set by statutory guidelines and the court has to follow them.

I don't see why Ministers would be being kept "well briefed" at all. Its just a criminal trial and, as such, has nothing to do with government.

The idea that the government will be asking the court to impose any "restrictions" is completely daft. They won't and any minister seen trying to influence the work of a court will have some very serious questions to answer

The suggestion that anyone involved with this case will be receiving communications as to what course of action is "desireable" to government is ridiculous, conspiracy theory nonsense, quite frankly!