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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sweeper2000 said:
Wait. Presumably te court would be aware that this lady is pregnant from the start. Then when it became apparent that the trial would last longer than anticipated they might have taken action then? They would have known it Would go on longer but would they have known precisely? Literally no point in keeping her around. It’s a tight timeline though, I can see them not thinking it would take this long and so no need to discharge at that point.
Click to expand...
The trial has taken ten months. Any pregnancy would have begun after the trial was well underway.
 
Sweeper2000 said:
Wait. Presumably te court would be aware that this lady is pregnant from the start. Then when it became apparent that the trial would last longer than anticipated they might have taken action then? They would have known it Would go on longer but would they have known precisely? Literally no point in keeping her around. It’s a tight timeline though, I can see them not thinking it would take this long and so no need to discharge at that point.
Click to expand...
Pregnancy isn't a disability!

Firstly, if someone was pregnant at the start the baby would have been born by now. The judge couldn't instruct every person on the jury to abstain from sex for the duration in case they became pregnant! So, if for example, someone became pregnant during the course of the trial then what would be the point in discharging them at that time? They have been able to continue until this point. The trial has gone on for 4 months longer than originally thought. If they had reached a verdict yesterday then there would have been every point in "keeping her around". Equally, if pregnancy is the reason that doesn't necessarily mean it's the pregnant woman, it could be the father who is now going off for 2 weeks paternity leave.
 
Eloise said:
I think they meant, critical as in it was known this juror had a hard deadline for when their participation would no longer be possible. It wouldn't matter what the judge knew or didn't know about how close they were verdict wise if he knew that the juror didn't have long to go before they had to finish up.
Click to expand...


I reckon he just meant "critical stage" as in the deliberation stage is a critical stage. I don't think they would have allowed a juror to continue if they had a definite known deadline in the future that they couldn't work past. But then the "inevitable" comment makes me think maybe it was a medical problem that they'd been having treatment for, to delay the need for an operation but that now an operation was unavoidable.

Either way I doubt we'll get a verdict today... which probably means that we will lol.
 
Eloise said:
I think they meant, critical as in it was known this juror had a hard deadline for when their participation would no longer be possible. It wouldn't matter what the judge knew or didn't know about how close they were verdict wise if he knew that the juror didn't have long to go before they had to finish up.

I know people think the juror/s have been skylarking but I feel bad for all of them tbh, its a big ask to give up so much of your life for this for piddling compensation. I feel like jury trials just become less and less realistic as time goes on. The Internet, double income families, social media, people working longer before retirement etc, all mean fewer and fewer people able to serve especially on such long trials, fewer people who aren't already prejudiced, more chances of jurors doing their own research and adjacent risks etc. Its a medieval system that needs updating for the 21st century IMO
Click to expand...

i totally agree with this. Not sure of viable alternatives ( I think S Africa uses a 3 panel judge system) but it's definitely a huge ask, can be mentally challenging and I would imagine nowadays the demographic of a jury is not truly representative due to work/ family obligations. As you say, Eloise, the impact of social media is also immense, with cases collapsing due to jurors researching online, all at the taxpayers expense.

I started a new job a few months ago so have been taking a bit of a back seat, but thank you everyone for your updates, opinions and humour - I always follow along on here, even if I don't get chance to contribute :)
 
I wouldnt advise a pregnant woman to participate in a trial like this. To me it’s pretty clear that for her there are much more important things to be doing than focusing on what is a likely impactful trial. I don’t think it’s in anyone’s interests really.

that’s my points about the trial. The timings. Obviously people get pregnant butI think once it becomes apparent that timings may clash you might as well make the decision then. Say for instance if a month ago therewere already two months behind schedule I would say it’s very blatant in a trial like this that there is no point in that juror being present in this instance.
 
On the morning of Friday, August 4, the judge told the jury that some of them had been operating under a "false premise" that the court would not be sitting next week, with three of the jurors having made appointments or commitments for that time.

He said he would not be "unsympathetic" if rearranging those appointments was "impossible", but those jurors should make efforts to do so at the earliest opportunity.

He added the jury should continue as a jury of 11, and give unanimous verdicts at this stage.

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

Lucy Letby trial jury sent home after 14th day of deliberations

THE Lucy Letby trial jury has been sent home following the 14th day of deliberations (Friday, August 4).
www.chesterstandard.co.uk www.chesterstandard.co.uk
 
Dotta said:
Not good

"Judge Goss says he has received notes from three jurors about appointments and commitments next week. He says they have been operating on a 'false premise' that court won't be sitting next week."

https://twitter.com/x/status/1687397234168438784
Click to expand...

bbsaz said:
I wonder if the jurors felt they were almost there, and therefore made these appointments for next week. Might suggest a verdict is imminent afterall?
Click to expand...


I just had the same thought. If the juror who asked to be discharged yesterday, did so on the assumption that they wouldn't be sitting next week anyway, they're gonna be kicking themselves if they are sitting and then reach a verdict!
 
Anyhow, my new prediction for a verdict is Thursday 10th August, just because the trial started on the 10th October. The jury were sent out on 10th July. So the 10th August would fit the pattern, and also mean the trial length would be exactly 10 months. (But I've been wrong about everything so far :D)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 104 more.
Total: 542 (members: 105, guests: 437)

Online statistics

Members online
105
Guests online
437
Total visitors
542
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
608,253
Messages
18,236,876
Members
234,325
Latest member
davenotwayne
Back
Top