I've just been looking at it! I wonder who lives there now? How weird must that be.
UK - Nurse Lucy Letby, Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #25
- Thread starter sleuth777
- Start date
- Status
I've just been looking at it! I wonder who lives there now? How weird must that be.
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2020
- Messages
- 3,547
- Reaction score
- 20,045
What on earth is the point of that? Cashman got a huge sentence and I'd put money on the suggestion that the vast majority of people who do this are looking at big sentences anyway so what benefit will it have? No one is going to change their mind if their minimum sentence is going to be 42 years rather than 40 years had they decided to turn up!Yes, it happens all to frequently.
Faces of selfish killers who refused to appear in court for their sentencing
Thomas Cashman became the latest killer to not appear in court for sentencing - an act Justice Yip branded 'disrespectful' as he said his case had turned into a 'circus'www.mirror.co.uk
Thomas Cashman: Renewed call to force criminals to attend sentencing
A murder victim's aunt also wants judges to be able to punish criminals who refuse to attend court.www.bbc.co.uk
"The BBC understands the government is looking to bring in the new legislation before the next general election.
Following McSweeney's sentencing, Mr Raab said in February he was examining whether judges should be able to impose longer terms on those who refused to come to court."
As I say above, a prisoner - especially one who has actually been convicted as opposed to being on remand - has been legally deprived of their liberty. The notion that you then get to choose where you go, or refuse to go, when instructed is bizarre, quite frankly!
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2020
- Messages
- 3,547
- Reaction score
- 20,045
It's definitely there as it's been posted here before, including by me. The pics, however, are from after she sold it. It would appear that it was listed briefly soon after she sold it.
Yes, good point.
Ah thank you for sharing, I’ll have a look!
I completely agree, for whatever reason there appear things that we, the public, the media etc are not being told (or perhaps the media are but cannot yet report on it/restrictions).
In some way I guess; rightly so for the right to a fair trial. But having read some of the views out there, I see a lot where there are many others who feel a similar way- something very strange going on indeed.
If guilty.
IMO MOO
Thanks for sharing, I must have missed this, I certainly couldn’t see yesterday. Will have another look.
When I attended the trial in person there were around 10-15 plain clothed police officers present in the public courtroom for every single day of the proceedings.
They each had laptops and were taking notes on what was being said in court.
<modsnip - sub judice>
They each had laptops and were taking notes on what was being said in court.
<modsnip - sub judice>
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2020
- Messages
- 3,547
- Reaction score
- 20,045
Are you sure they were all definitely cops?
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes 100%
There is a sign in the middle section of the room where they all sit which states "Reserved for Police" or something to that affect.
Plus,you can tell a copper a mile away
They were all very polite and some quite chatty with the regular attenders and during the breaks they would congregate outside together for a smoke.
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2018
- Messages
- 1,113
- Reaction score
- 14,362
Brilliant post! I agree with everything you’ve said. Power and control seems to be a running theme IMO, like the messages about wanting to be in room 1 after the death of baby A, she messaged a colleague angry that she wasn’t getting her own way, she talks about a ‘lack of team spirit’ being the reason for her little tantrum, when colleague didn’t agree with her she says ‘just forget I said anything’, and 6 minutes later baby C collapsed. If guilty I think this could have been an effort to claw back some control and assert her power in the unit IMO.
Personally if guilty I could imagine maybe friends and family having to pamper to her needs all her life and had to apologise for ‘upsetting’ her. I think if guilty it’s possible she had little temper tantrums where she’d give people the silent treatment IMO, and if family or friends had anything to do with someone she’d fallen out with then she’d have a big problem with that. I could imagine if guilty she had the ability to turn any disagreement about her behaviour or attitude around onto everyone else and managed to get people to apologise to her when they weren’t really in the wrong. If found guilty I think she was quite entitled, indifferent to others’ feelings and could be manipulative in order to get her own way.
Obviously some people are masters at this behaviour and those around them are sometimes completely unaware until they look back with hindsight and see all these little events in a different light.
I don’t doubt even if found guilty that there will be family and friends who refuse to believe her capable of these acts and rally for her to be real leased from her wrongful conviction IMO.
MOO
Yes great point, nursery room 1 was a prime example of this behaviour! Complete wrath at the move being ‘done to’ her, something which arguably was entirely in her best interests. Then an attempt to control and manipulate the situation through others.
Another one potentially was resisting the removal of a deteriorating baby from her care. Maintaining control of the baby but also exerting power over a colleague by over- ruling them.
JMO imo moo moo
<modsnip - discussion of material not presented at trial>
If Baby A happened the way it has been reported then she had already developed a calculated way of killing that was very difficult to detect - and that would likely never have been detected or even suspected as an intentional act had she left it there instead of moving on to 16 others.
I struggle with the idea that someone turns from apparently dedicated HCP to a sadistic and apparently extremely well-organised mass murderer with multiple victims in a short period of time without some kind of intervening stage.
If Baby A happened the way it has been reported then she had already developed a calculated way of killing that was very difficult to detect - and that would likely never have been detected or even suspected as an intentional act had she left it there instead of moving on to 16 others.
I struggle with the idea that someone turns from apparently dedicated HCP to a sadistic and apparently extremely well-organised mass murderer with multiple victims in a short period of time without some kind of intervening stage.
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes it most certainly is! It got a lot of press earlier this year after Cashman, who shot Olivia Pratt-Korbel in Liverpool during a gangland hit refused to appear - and Dominic Raab said he was looking at measures to prevent it - although not all think they will be achievable or effective - see Will imposing longer sentences on prisoners who refuse to enter the dock for sentencing have the desired effect?
edited for typos
To tell the truth I cannot imagine somebody being dragged for the verdict or victims' statements if a person doesn't want to.
I agree it shows cowardice, but, on the other hand, imagine if a criminal full of rage started behaving in a disrespectful way causing commotion or shouting rudely at the victims' families.
Or listening smiling/laughing.
We are talking about people with no morals or conscience.
JMO
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2022
- Messages
- 4,249
- Reaction score
- 31,509
In the case of gang land killers, I can see not wanting to turn up in court could be because they're afraid of being shot at or something?
Also, I suppose if someone knew they're going down for decades, maybe they think 'what's the point?' / laziness, or maybe it's a way of wrestling back some control and power and evading giving people the chance to see your face as you're sentenced.
If it were me, I'd probably be glad of a day out of prison and curious to hear what the judge has to say even though it's not going to be very palatable.
“If you are satisfied so that you are sure in the case of any baby that they were deliberately harmed by the defendant then you are entitled to consider how likely it is that other babies in the case who suffered unexpected collapses did so as a result of some unexplained or natural cause rather than as a consequence of some deliberate harmful act by someone.
“If you conclude that this is unlikely then you could, if you think it right, treat the evidence of that event and any others, if any, which you find were a consequence of a deliberate harmful act, as supporting evidence in the cases of other babies and that the defendant was the person responsible.
“When deciding how far, if at all, the evidence in relation to any of the cases supports the case against the defendant on any other or others, you should take into account how similar or dissimilar, in your opinion, the allegations and the circumstances of and surrounding their collapses are."
Judge tells Lucy Letby trial jurors to set aside emotion
Coming back to the judge's legal directions, and the fact that if the jury decides that she is responsible for deliberately harming any of the babies they can use that as supporting evidence that she was responsible for others, bearing in mind similarities, I feel almost certain that the legal basis for this is that if they have decided she is guilty of one or more, it is then a matter of equity under the law and treating her as if she had a previous conviction of substantially the same or similar offence, which would be treated as admissible evidence in the trial. They would be entitled to treat her as having a previous conviction from the minute they decide she is guilty of one of the charges, based on them being the deciders of whether she will be convicted of it.
JMO
See that law here Section 101 Criminal Justice Act 2003
(a)all parties to the proceedings agree to the evidence being admissible,
(b)the evidence is adduced by the defendant himself or is given in answer to a question asked by him in cross-examination and intended to elicit it,
(c)it is important explanatory evidence,
(d)it is relevant to an important matter in issue between the defendant and the prosecution,
(e)it has substantial probative value in relation to an important matter in issue between the defendant and a co-defendant,
(f)it is evidence to correct a false impression given by the defendant, or
(g)the defendant has made an attack on another person’s character.
(2)Sections 102 to 106 contain provision supplementing subsection (1).
(3)The court must not admit evidence under subsection (1)(d) or (g) if, on an application by the defendant to exclude it, it appears to the court that the admission of the evidence would have such an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings that the court ought not to admit it.
(4)On an application to exclude evidence under subsection (3) the court must have regard, in particular, to the length of time between the matters to which that evidence relates and the matters which form the subject of the offence charged.
And Section 103 Criminal Justice Act 2003
(a)the question whether the defendant has a propensity to commit offences of the kind with which he is charged, except where his having such a propensity makes it no more likely that he is guilty of the offence;
(b)the question whether the defendant has a propensity to be untruthful, except where it is not suggested that the defendant’s case is untruthful in any respect.
(2)Where subsection (1)(a) applies, a defendant’s propensity to commit offences of the kind with which he is charged may (without prejudice to any other way of doing so) be established by evidence that he has been convicted of—
(a)an offence of the same description as the one with which he is charged, or
(b)an offence of the same category as the one with which he is charged.
(3)Subsection (2) does not apply in the case of a particular defendant if the court is satisfied, by reason of the length of time since the conviction or for any other reason, that it would be unjust for it to apply in his case.
(4)For the purposes of subsection (2)—
(a)two offences are of the same description as each other if the statement of the offence in a written charge or indictment would, in each case, be in the same terms;
(b)two offences are of the same category as each other if they belong to the same category of offences prescribed for the purposes of this section by an order made by the Secretary of State.
(5)A category prescribed by an order under subsection (4)(b) must consist of offences of the same type.
(6)Only prosecution evidence is admissible under section 101(1)(d).
[...]
“If you conclude that this is unlikely then you could, if you think it right, treat the evidence of that event and any others, if any, which you find were a consequence of a deliberate harmful act, as supporting evidence in the cases of other babies and that the defendant was the person responsible.
“When deciding how far, if at all, the evidence in relation to any of the cases supports the case against the defendant on any other or others, you should take into account how similar or dissimilar, in your opinion, the allegations and the circumstances of and surrounding their collapses are."
Judge tells Lucy Letby trial jurors to set aside emotion
Coming back to the judge's legal directions, and the fact that if the jury decides that she is responsible for deliberately harming any of the babies they can use that as supporting evidence that she was responsible for others, bearing in mind similarities, I feel almost certain that the legal basis for this is that if they have decided she is guilty of one or more, it is then a matter of equity under the law and treating her as if she had a previous conviction of substantially the same or similar offence, which would be treated as admissible evidence in the trial. They would be entitled to treat her as having a previous conviction from the minute they decide she is guilty of one of the charges, based on them being the deciders of whether she will be convicted of it.
JMO
See that law here Section 101 Criminal Justice Act 2003
Criminal Justice Act 2003
101Defendant’s bad character
(1)In criminal proceedings evidence of the defendant’s bad character is admissible if, but only if—(a)all parties to the proceedings agree to the evidence being admissible,
(b)the evidence is adduced by the defendant himself or is given in answer to a question asked by him in cross-examination and intended to elicit it,
(c)it is important explanatory evidence,
(d)it is relevant to an important matter in issue between the defendant and the prosecution,
(e)it has substantial probative value in relation to an important matter in issue between the defendant and a co-defendant,
(f)it is evidence to correct a false impression given by the defendant, or
(g)the defendant has made an attack on another person’s character.
(2)Sections 102 to 106 contain provision supplementing subsection (1).
(3)The court must not admit evidence under subsection (1)(d) or (g) if, on an application by the defendant to exclude it, it appears to the court that the admission of the evidence would have such an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings that the court ought not to admit it.
(4)On an application to exclude evidence under subsection (3) the court must have regard, in particular, to the length of time between the matters to which that evidence relates and the matters which form the subject of the offence charged.
And Section 103 Criminal Justice Act 2003
103“Matter in issue between the defendant and the prosecution”
(1)For the purposes of section 101(1)(d) the matters in issue between the defendant and the prosecution include—(a)the question whether the defendant has a propensity to commit offences of the kind with which he is charged, except where his having such a propensity makes it no more likely that he is guilty of the offence;
(b)the question whether the defendant has a propensity to be untruthful, except where it is not suggested that the defendant’s case is untruthful in any respect.
(2)Where subsection (1)(a) applies, a defendant’s propensity to commit offences of the kind with which he is charged may (without prejudice to any other way of doing so) be established by evidence that he has been convicted of—
(a)an offence of the same description as the one with which he is charged, or
(b)an offence of the same category as the one with which he is charged.
(3)Subsection (2) does not apply in the case of a particular defendant if the court is satisfied, by reason of the length of time since the conviction or for any other reason, that it would be unjust for it to apply in his case.
(4)For the purposes of subsection (2)—
(a)two offences are of the same description as each other if the statement of the offence in a written charge or indictment would, in each case, be in the same terms;
(b)two offences are of the same category as each other if they belong to the same category of offences prescribed for the purposes of this section by an order made by the Secretary of State.
(5)A category prescribed by an order under subsection (4)(b) must consist of offences of the same type.
(6)Only prosecution evidence is admissible under section 101(1)(d).
[...]
Personally I think the judge's sentencing remarks should be broadcast very loudly across the tannoy system if they refuse to attend, so they still have to hear it wherever they are.
JMO
I didn't know this side of you hahaha
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2021
- Messages
- 170
- Reaction score
- 861
So they're reckoning the jury's going out on about Monday the third of July?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
Online statistics
- Members online
- 53
- Guests online
- 2,440
- Total visitors
- 2,493