UK - Nurse Lucy Letby, murder of babies, 7 Guilty of murder verdicts; 8 Guilty of attempted murder; 2 Not Guilty of attempted; 5 hung re attempted #35

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Sweeper2000 said:
EH?
Click to expand...
Para.193 onwards; after jury deliberations had gone on for days and some verdicts had been delivered the Court received an email alleging that a juror was frequenting a cafe and talking about the case to all and sundry and that they'd already made their minds up months back that she was guilty.

Just read the whole of that section and it's truly effing bizarre!

You literally could not make this stuff up!
 
Marantz4250b said:
Well, logically, we can.

Yes, that evidence might be evidence of her having an intent to kill but it could also reasonably be evidence of her intention to cause suffering without death or simply wanting to cause a scene to bring attention to herself.

Remember that the crime of attempted murder requires a definite and unambiguous intention to cause death. Engineering a situation which comes very close to death, even extremely close, or being entirely uncaring as to whether death actually occurred is not attempted murder.
Click to expand...
Well, if it is a choice between finding her Guilty or Not Guilty, I would have to go with GUILTY because of the irreversible damage done to many of the surviving babies. Some were blinded or paralysed permanently. She should not be able to receive a 'not guilty' verdict when the surviving victims have life long disabilities because of her vile actions.

I don't think there is any evidence that she wanted to avoid the death of her victims. Everyone one of them had a reasonable chance of death because of her actions. IMO
 
It sounds unbelievable. "Random person walks into cafe, starts shouting all info about the trial including something quite obviously designed around the rule about a " fair trial".

Impersonal vocabulary, lack of detail, lack of corroborating evidence, lack of certification, That's a fool or a nuts attempt. Fool to think they would take it at face level as well.
 
Marantz4250b said:
Then you could not convict her of attempted murder!
Click to expand...
YES, you could if you proved she pumped air into her lungs or dislodged her oxygen. Who cares whether she wanted her to die or just wanted her to be on the verge of death and be revived? BOTH of those scenarios are AT, IMO.
 
Sweeper2000 said:
It sounds unbelievable. "Random person walks into cafe, starts shouting all info about the trial including something quite obviously designed around the rule about a " fair trial".

Impersonal vocabulary, lack of detail, lack of corroborating evidence, lack of certification, That's a fool or a nuts attempt. Fool to think they would take it at face level as well.
Click to expand...
Indeed. And it all seems to have stemmed from an argument over a phone!

Just bonkers!
 
elliefant said:
Answering my own question…

In seeking the reference re murder definition I found the bit that says about causing serious harm BUT it states that in attempted murder cases the serious harm part does not apply, only the intent to kill applies

“Murder
  • with intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (in contrast to the offence of attempted murder, where only intent to kill will suffice)”

Homicide: Murder, manslaughter, infanticide and causing or allowing the death or serious injury of a child or vulnerable adult | The Crown Prosecution Service

www.cps.gov.uk www.cps.gov.uk
Click to expand...
It looks like the jury didn't care about that question of intent but looked at the results----GUILTY
 
katydid23 said:
It looks like the jury didn't care about that question of intent but looked at the results----GUILTY
Click to expand...
Of course they cared about the intent element - it's an absolutely essential part of the crime. The judge will have said that in no uncertain terms!

No intent = no attempted murder conviction.
 
Marantz4250b said:
Of course they cared about the intent element - it's an absolutely essential part of the crime. The judge will have said that in no uncertain terms!

No intent = no attempted murder conviction.
Click to expand...
Ok, then how do you interpret the Guilty verdict?

It's been said that she wouldn't be able to be determined to have committed AT because there is reasonable evidence that she wasn't trying to actually kill ---just push them to the edge.

So if they cared about 'lack of intent' wouldn't they have voted Not Guilty? I think they rejected the notion that one needed to prove that it had to be absolute and not 'a reasonable chance' of death occurring.
 
katydid23 said:
Ok, then how do you interpret the Guilty verdict?

It's been said that she wouldn't be able to be determined to have committed AT because there is reasonable evidence that she wasn't trying to actually kill ---just push them to the edge.

So if they cared about 'lack of intent' wouldn't they have voted Not Guilty? I think they rejected the notion that one needed to prove that it had to be absolute and not 'a reasonable chance' of death occurring.
Click to expand...
As a guilty verdict!

The jury heard the evidence. We did not.

They clearly found that her actions and the other evidence, taken as a whole, made them sure that she had the relevant intent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 213 more.
Total: 1,121 (members: 214, guests: 907)

Online statistics

Members online
214
Guests online
907
Total visitors
1,121
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
598,301
Messages
18,079,115
Members
230,600
Latest member
rzoof
Back
Top