Yup!
UK - Nurse Lucy Letby, Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #27
- Thread starter sleuth777
- Start date
-
MD MD - Frank Thomas Christensen, USAF, 20, Missing 8 July 1977- Latest: inmyhumbleopinion
- Status
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2021
- Messages
- 170
- Reaction score
- 861
After all this time, we could be just eight days from at least one verdict, if they make a decision on even a single charge quickly.
I thought all the verdicts are announced together on the same day.
Read one by one.
The Judge asks and the foreman answers:
Charge 1, charge 2 .....
Do you mean they will announce each verdict on odd days??
That would be a novelty - at least for me.
JMO
Last edited:
The Crown Court Compendium once again comes to the rescue. Part 1, page 506. Crown Court Compendium - June 2022 - Courts and Tribunals Judiciary
21-6 Taking partial verdicts
ARCHBOLD 4-516 and 522; BLACKSTONE’S D19.69, CrimPD 26Q.7
1. Where there are several counts (or alternative verdicts) left to the jury, the judge has a discretion in deciding when to take or ask the jury if it has reached any unanimous verdicts. The circumstances of the case may give rise to the view that it is more desirable to give the majority direction before taking any unanimous verdicts. If that is considered appropriate then, instead of being asked about each count in turn, the clerk should ask the jury: “Have you reached verdicts upon which you are all agreed in respect of all defendants and/or all counts?” If, on the other hand, it is considered to be appropriate to take the verdicts on some counts even if the jury may not have reached verdicts on all of them then the clerk can adjust the enquiry to allow for that: “Have you reached a verdict upon which you are all agreed on any count and/or in respect of any defendant?” If the jury answer in the affirmative then the clerk would proceed to ask the jury about each count/defendant in turn and any guilty verdicts can be recorded at that stage.
2. If there are a large number of counts and/or defendants, consideration could be given to inviting the jury to indicate the particular counts and/or defendants in respect of which they have reached a unanimous verdict. If that course is to be adopted, it is important that the jury are told in advance so that they understand what they are being asked to do. It would also be sensible to discuss such a course with the parties. In a case in which there are numerous counts the jury should be told that they may find it helpful to make a written record of the verdicts on each count so that the foreman does not get confused when returning verdicts.
3. Views may vary as to whether verdicts should be taken piecemeal or all at the same time. It is suggested that there is no ‘right’ answer. Taking partial verdicts may have the advantage of resolving some counts leaving the jury free to concentrate on the others. Some judges, however, consider that taking some verdicts in advance of the jury resolving all of them may potentially lead to difficulties. The jury’s assessment of the correct verdict on one count may be influenced by their decision on another and accordingly it may be better to leave the jury in a position to revisit their decision on one count in the light of their resolving another count at a later stage of their deliberations. It is suggested that this is quintessentially an area of judicial ‘feel’ in the context of the circumstances that may pertain in a particular case.
4. If verdicts are taken on some, but not all, counts consideration should be given to the need for orders under s.4(2) Contempt of Court Act 1981 to postpone the reporting of the verdicts initially returned, until the jury have completed their deliberations and returned all verdicts.
[...]
21-6 Taking partial verdicts
ARCHBOLD 4-516 and 522; BLACKSTONE’S D19.69, CrimPD 26Q.7
1. Where there are several counts (or alternative verdicts) left to the jury, the judge has a discretion in deciding when to take or ask the jury if it has reached any unanimous verdicts. The circumstances of the case may give rise to the view that it is more desirable to give the majority direction before taking any unanimous verdicts. If that is considered appropriate then, instead of being asked about each count in turn, the clerk should ask the jury: “Have you reached verdicts upon which you are all agreed in respect of all defendants and/or all counts?” If, on the other hand, it is considered to be appropriate to take the verdicts on some counts even if the jury may not have reached verdicts on all of them then the clerk can adjust the enquiry to allow for that: “Have you reached a verdict upon which you are all agreed on any count and/or in respect of any defendant?” If the jury answer in the affirmative then the clerk would proceed to ask the jury about each count/defendant in turn and any guilty verdicts can be recorded at that stage.
2. If there are a large number of counts and/or defendants, consideration could be given to inviting the jury to indicate the particular counts and/or defendants in respect of which they have reached a unanimous verdict. If that course is to be adopted, it is important that the jury are told in advance so that they understand what they are being asked to do. It would also be sensible to discuss such a course with the parties. In a case in which there are numerous counts the jury should be told that they may find it helpful to make a written record of the verdicts on each count so that the foreman does not get confused when returning verdicts.
3. Views may vary as to whether verdicts should be taken piecemeal or all at the same time. It is suggested that there is no ‘right’ answer. Taking partial verdicts may have the advantage of resolving some counts leaving the jury free to concentrate on the others. Some judges, however, consider that taking some verdicts in advance of the jury resolving all of them may potentially lead to difficulties. The jury’s assessment of the correct verdict on one count may be influenced by their decision on another and accordingly it may be better to leave the jury in a position to revisit their decision on one count in the light of their resolving another count at a later stage of their deliberations. It is suggested that this is quintessentially an area of judicial ‘feel’ in the context of the circumstances that may pertain in a particular case.
4. If verdicts are taken on some, but not all, counts consideration should be given to the need for orders under s.4(2) Contempt of Court Act 1981 to postpone the reporting of the verdicts initially returned, until the jury have completed their deliberations and returned all verdicts.
[...]
I've been reading up this morning on alternative verdicts, as in manslaughter as an available alternative to murder, and attempted ABH or GBH as an available alternative to attempted murder.
Very interestingly, or at least for anyone who is interested in the legal aspects, there are no alternatives offered to the jury in this case. It's all or nothing. I imagine there has been long legal discussion over this decision.
On each of the seven counts of murder:
Q1) Are we sure that the defendant did some harmful act or acts to the child who died?
If yes, go to Q2. If no, the verdict on that count should be 'not guilty'.
Q2) Are we sure that the act or acts of the defendant was a substantial cause of the death of that child in that it was more than a minimal cause?
If yes, go to Q3. If no, the verdict on that count should be 'not guilty'.
Q3) Are we sure that when she did the act or acts that caused the death of the child she intended to kill or cause some really serious harm to that child?
If yes, the verdict on that count should be 'guilty'. If no, the verdict on that count should be 'not guilty'.
On each of the 15 counts of attempted murder:
Q1) Are we sure that the defendant intended to kill the child?
If yes, go to Q2 If no, the verdict on that count should be 'not guilty'.
Q2) Are we sure that the defendant did an act or acts that was/were more than merely preparatory to killing the child?
If yes, the verdict on that count should be 'guilty'. If no, the verdict on that count should be 'not guilty'
Judge tells Lucy Letby trial to approach case in a 'fair and calm way'
(BBM)
I think it explains why Mr Myers has on occasion inserted references to intention in his closing speech (regardless of the accuracy of what he's saying about the Insulin evidence). These are two examples, I haven't checked over the rest of his speech, so there might have been more:
re baby D -
Dan O'Donoghue
@MrDanDonoghue
·
4m
In the case of Child D, Mr Myers says 'this is such a blunt point to be made, in this case it seems so insensitive, but I have to make it....we're looking at the intention to kill, from somebody who the prosecution allege plainly knows what they’re doing...
Dan O'Donoghue
@MrDanDonoghue
·
3m
'Because by this point it has already happened with air embolis, if that’s right it’s not going to take three go's is it? just think about that, one shot, sudden rapid and fatal, unless we’re going to alter the theory to support the allegation'
re baby L -
12:04pm
Mr Myers refers to the theory of air embolus, and if that 'works' each time, why would someone change it up to administering insulin.
He says it is 'awful' to think about it, but to go with the prosecution case, he asks why the methods used varied.
He says the prosecution referred to levels of insulin were doubled for Child L than for Child F. He says for Child F the level of insulin, from the lab result, was 4,657, whereas for Child L it was 1,099, and the insulin/insulin c-peptide ratio was lower, and 'must be a quarter of the strength'. He says "that was evidence, it was wrong".
He says if there was an intent to kill, then the dose wouldn't be a quarter of the strength second time round. He says whatever happened, "that wasn't an intention to kill".
Recap: Lucy Letby trial, June 26 - defence closing speech
JMO
Very interestingly, or at least for anyone who is interested in the legal aspects, there are no alternatives offered to the jury in this case. It's all or nothing. I imagine there has been long legal discussion over this decision.
THE QUESTIONS THE JURY MUST ANSWER TO CONVICT OR ACQUIT LUCY LETBY
Jurors in the trial of Lucy Letby must ask themselves these questions when considering the allegations she murdered seven babies and attempted to murder 10 others.On each of the seven counts of murder:
Q1) Are we sure that the defendant did some harmful act or acts to the child who died?
If yes, go to Q2. If no, the verdict on that count should be 'not guilty'.
Q2) Are we sure that the act or acts of the defendant was a substantial cause of the death of that child in that it was more than a minimal cause?
If yes, go to Q3. If no, the verdict on that count should be 'not guilty'.
Q3) Are we sure that when she did the act or acts that caused the death of the child she intended to kill or cause some really serious harm to that child?
If yes, the verdict on that count should be 'guilty'. If no, the verdict on that count should be 'not guilty'.
On each of the 15 counts of attempted murder:
Q1) Are we sure that the defendant intended to kill the child?
If yes, go to Q2 If no, the verdict on that count should be 'not guilty'.
Q2) Are we sure that the defendant did an act or acts that was/were more than merely preparatory to killing the child?
If yes, the verdict on that count should be 'guilty'. If no, the verdict on that count should be 'not guilty'
Judge tells Lucy Letby trial to approach case in a 'fair and calm way'
(BBM)
I think it explains why Mr Myers has on occasion inserted references to intention in his closing speech (regardless of the accuracy of what he's saying about the Insulin evidence). These are two examples, I haven't checked over the rest of his speech, so there might have been more:
re baby D -
Dan O'Donoghue
@MrDanDonoghue
·
4m
In the case of Child D, Mr Myers says 'this is such a blunt point to be made, in this case it seems so insensitive, but I have to make it....we're looking at the intention to kill, from somebody who the prosecution allege plainly knows what they’re doing...
Dan O'Donoghue
@MrDanDonoghue
·
3m
'Because by this point it has already happened with air embolis, if that’s right it’s not going to take three go's is it? just think about that, one shot, sudden rapid and fatal, unless we’re going to alter the theory to support the allegation'
re baby L -
12:04pm
Mr Myers refers to the theory of air embolus, and if that 'works' each time, why would someone change it up to administering insulin.
He says it is 'awful' to think about it, but to go with the prosecution case, he asks why the methods used varied.
He says the prosecution referred to levels of insulin were doubled for Child L than for Child F. He says for Child F the level of insulin, from the lab result, was 4,657, whereas for Child L it was 1,099, and the insulin/insulin c-peptide ratio was lower, and 'must be a quarter of the strength'. He says "that was evidence, it was wrong".
He says if there was an intent to kill, then the dose wouldn't be a quarter of the strength second time round. He says whatever happened, "that wasn't an intention to kill".
Recap: Lucy Letby trial, June 26 - defence closing speech
JMO
I've just found a few more examples of reference to intention in Myers' closing speech -
11:58am
He says the jury have to be "sure of deliberate harm" and "with the intent to kill", and the jury must assess the "quality of evidence".
He says the "medical evidence is the foundation of this case".
Mr Myers says Lucy Letby denies all the allegations. He says it must be identified harm being done, and being sure there was an intent to kill at the time. He repeats that Letby denies doing anything like that on any occasion.
He says the case is "about an insistent intent to kill". He says that much be considered in the context of Letby 'raising the alarm' for some of the babies, or looking after some of the babies 'before and after their events'.
Recap: Lucy Letby trial, June 26 - defence closing speech
baby F -
10:56am
Mr Myers says it is "a strange intent to kill" when the person with intent would know a remedy would be available - a solution of dextrose. He says Letby helped administer that dextrose.
baby I -
3:39pm
Mr Myers says abdominal distention is a running theme for Child I, and while that does not mean harm was not done, it does not alone form the basis of an intent to kill.
Recap: Lucy Letby trial, June 28 - defence closing speech
baby M -
He says the amount of air alleged to be administered in this case is 0.5ml. He says if there was an intention to kill, it would have been larger.
Recap: Lucy Letby trial, June 29 - defence closing speech
11:58am
He says the jury have to be "sure of deliberate harm" and "with the intent to kill", and the jury must assess the "quality of evidence".
He says the "medical evidence is the foundation of this case".
Mr Myers says Lucy Letby denies all the allegations. He says it must be identified harm being done, and being sure there was an intent to kill at the time. He repeats that Letby denies doing anything like that on any occasion.
He says the case is "about an insistent intent to kill". He says that much be considered in the context of Letby 'raising the alarm' for some of the babies, or looking after some of the babies 'before and after their events'.
Recap: Lucy Letby trial, June 26 - defence closing speech
baby F -
10:56am
Mr Myers says it is "a strange intent to kill" when the person with intent would know a remedy would be available - a solution of dextrose. He says Letby helped administer that dextrose.
baby I -
3:39pm
Mr Myers says abdominal distention is a running theme for Child I, and while that does not mean harm was not done, it does not alone form the basis of an intent to kill.
Recap: Lucy Letby trial, June 28 - defence closing speech
baby M -
He says the amount of air alleged to be administered in this case is 0.5ml. He says if there was an intention to kill, it would have been larger.
Recap: Lucy Letby trial, June 29 - defence closing speech
"To convict or acquit"
What a task!
IMO the deliberations will take a looong time.
Each case will be looked upon "under a microsope" by the Jury.
Because the responsibility is enormous.
Emotions must be put aside.
Only "glass and eye"
meaning scientific approach with not the tiniest detail overlooked.
JMO
I think it all depends on what they have thought about the evidence as the trial went along. They have sat with this case for so long already, and seen it thoroughly examined. Also the defendant's own evidence is likely to have had a very powerful impact on jurors, which we here reading the press articles haven't experienced. It's going to be interesting to see how long this takes them.
JMO
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2011
- Messages
- 70,222
- Reaction score
- 273,878
I think it is true that LL did more shifts than her married co-workers with children.
But it does not work to just say she did x amount of extra shifts so she would be more likely to be there.
We have to take into account the way the deaths/collapses followed her schedule, just perfectly.
When she went on vacations, no collapses. The last day before she left for vacation, June 15th 2016, Baby N collapses twice------ then no more unexplained collapses for 7 days-------But the very day she returns with a bang, the deaths of two triplets, and then a collapse,---so 3 nights in a row, as soon as she returned.
It could not be explained by 'extra shifts' because the collapses coincided with her specific schedule. When she was on night shifts, all the events happened at night. When she switched to day shifts, the events happened during the day, not at night anymore.
And all the other evidence besides. One has to factor in the similarities, as in these things happening just as other carers left the room etc, it's not just about being at work on those dates, IMO.
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2011
- Messages
- 70,222
- Reaction score
- 273,878
Well, the prosecution has to lay out the facts---which are shocking and gory. There is no way around it.Thank you Becci
IMO- I have more faith in the evidence presented by the defence, which seemed more consistent with the science. Whereas, I found the prosecutions strategy akin to - a gory ‘shock factor’ crime documentary. JMOO
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2011
- Messages
- 70,222
- Reaction score
- 273,878
If the defence was more consistent with science, why didn't they have any scientific experts testify during their case?Thank you Becci
IMO- I have more faith in the evidence presented by the defence, which seemed more consistent with the science. Whereas, I found the prosecutions strategy akin to - a gory ‘shock factor’ crime documentary. JMOO
Meyers criticised the Crown's experts, but he is not a trained medical expert, so why didn't he bring one in to support his presentation?
Or keep swallowing those Swisse Memory + Focus pills!
Another view on baby L could be that because insulin was added to the dextrose in that case she (allegedly) saw the futility in her earlier (alleged) contamination of the TPN for baby F.
JMO
It would be interesting if there were a legal direction to jurors, about what they can infer from the defence not bringing experts, in the same way that they can infer that a defendant who chooses not to testify had no answer that would stand up to cross-examination. I wonder...
Specimen judicial directions
In R v Cowan [1996] Q.B. 373, the Court of Appeal expressed approval of the specimen directions issued by the Judicial Studies Board where the Defendant chooses not to give evidence in his or her defence in the Crown Court. The Court highlighted the importance of these steps, prior to a Section 35 adverse inference being drawn:- The judge must tell the jury that the burden of proof remains upon the prosecution throughout and what the required standard is.
- The judge must make clear to the jury that the Defendant has the right to remain silent and that it is his or her choice;
- An inference from failure to give evidence cannot, on its own, prove guilt;
- Therefore, the jury must be satisfied that the prosecution have established a case to answer before drawing any inferences from silence. The jury may not believe the witnesses whose evidence the judge considered sufficient to raise a prima facie case; and
- If, having considered the defence case, the jury concludes that the silence can only sensibly be attributed to the Defendant's having no answer or none that would stand up to cross-examination; they may draw an adverse inference.
For guidance on the Court procedure where the Defendant declines to give evidence, please refer to the Criminal Practice Direction VI Trial 26P.1 - 26P.5: Defendants right to give or not to give evidence.
Adverse Inferences | The Crown Prosecution Service
I would be veeeeery cautious to judge somebody by behaviour.
It is what my work as a teacher taught me.
Some innocents behave like the guilty.
Some guilty behave like total innocents.
Some are emotionless, some overly emotional.
Some speak total gibberish, contradicting themselves while explaining something - trying to defend themselves.
Really, only facts supported by evidence can convince me.
Granted, I'm talking about students and their offenses.
JMO
Last edited:
On its own, the credibility or otherwise of the defendant's evidence should never be used as a basis for conviction, but taken together with the rest of the evidence, I think there is so much to be gleaned from seeing a defendant testify, which comes from our innate understanding of people and life experiences. We perceive these things all the time, if we are seeing nerves, anxieties, fear, stress, depression, facial reactions, embarrassment, care or a lack of, attitudes towards others, attitudes towards lies discovered, shifting excuses, silences, crying, authenticity and credibility, etc. Most of all, their answers and explanations are evidence, to be believed or not. It all weighs into the mix with the total evidence presented. IMOI would be veeeeery cautious to judge somebody by behaviour.
It is what my work as a teacher taught me.
Some innocents behave like the guilty.
Some guilty behave like total innocents.
Some are emotionless, some overly emotional.
Some speak total gibberish, contradicting themselves while explaining something - trying to defend themselves.
Really, only facts supported by evidence can convince me.
Granted, I'm talking about students and their offenses.
And I have met hundreds and hundreds of them through my work.
JMO
When I was there I would say more like 20-30% ends up in the live reporting
I understand
In fact, if I weren't so cautious,
the final dot above "i" and cross in "t" would be this house overlooking the Babies' Memorial Garden.
And if there was ever a film about this case,
I imagine the final scene would be the camera gliding slowly over the owls on the wall in the empty nursery in semi darkness,
and then through the open window to this Garden in the cemetery - with wind gently moving the flowers put on the tiny graves.
JMO
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
Online statistics
- Members online
- 131
- Guests online
- 3,381
- Total visitors
- 3,512