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

[Dotta]

This is just becoming farcical
MOO

But it is a Tradition of this trial!

And traditions must be kept alive

PS
My emoticons are suddenly inactive
Is it only my problem??

 

[bobbymkii]

Aren't magistrates essentially professional jurors?

 

[Parker Knoll]

At least with the trial not officially “ on “ today I don’t need to jump every time I get a Sky or MEN breaking news alert, we can mute them today.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

Aren't magistrates essentially professional jurors?

Yes but there's only one of them. The whole magistrate system creeps me the eff out and I believe it should be abolished.

The jury system also raises many many issues for me and my vision of being on jury service is that of a living hell not dissimilar to an Hieronymus Bosch painting. LOL.

So what happens when you're on a jury with someone who appears to be really low intelligence and you know damn well isn't digesting the material being presented? Or someone who is a rebel and agitator and disruptive and disagreeable just for fun? Or someone on an agenda like 'eff the po po'? Or someone elderly and falling asleep and not evening listening? And someone who looks like they surely must be a class A drug addict? Or someone who loves the sound of their own voice and never stops yakking and no-one can breathe never mind think. Or someone who seems like they understood stuff but then makes a comment that reveals they blatantly didn't comprehend the arguments presented? Or someone who's just totally 'checked out' and says I honestly don't care, tell me what to vote and I'll vote. Or someone who is really irritating and has strange personal habits... on and on and on. I couldn't bear it. I hope I never get called!

 

[ChatteringBirds]

. I couldn't bear it. I hope I never get called!

I hope you get called and do your very best to allow justice no matter who your fellow jurors are. I believe it's one of the most important jobs! You could do it -- and well!

I wish I'd be called, but due to my location, I won't be.

Come on jurors - come back tomorrow and get this one right.

 

[Parker Knoll]

Sorry, my post sounded horribly insensitive … my apologies.
I’m just a random on the internet. My thoughts are with the families, the waiting must be simply unbearable.

 

[Dotta]

"Waiting and Watching"

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Anxala]

Yes I know that. What happens if they really are unwell, whether it's physical or mental, could they be forced to continue.

I think I chose the wrong words when I used the word "decide".
I know very well you can't just decide not to attend.

They couldn't be forced to continue if medical evidence indicated it would be to the detriment of their health/wellbeing. Courts have a duty of care.

Yes but there's only one of them. The whole magistrate system creeps me the eff out and I believe it should be abolished.

The jury system also raises many many issues for me and my vision of being on jury service is that of a living hell not dissimilar to an Hieronymus Bosch painting. LOL.

So what happens when you're on a jury with someone who appears to be really low intelligence and you know damn well isn't digesting the material being presented? Or someone who is a rebel and agitator and disruptive and disagreeable just for fun? Or someone on an agenda like 'eff the po po'? Or someone elderly and falling asleep and not evening listening? And someone who looks like they surely must be a class A drug addict? Or someone who loves the sound of their own voice and never stops yakking and no-one can breathe never mind think. Or someone who seems like they understood stuff but then makes a comment that reveals they blatantly didn't comprehend the arguments presented? Or someone who's just totally 'checked out' and says I honestly don't care, tell me what to vote and I'll vote. Or someone who is really irritating and has strange personal habits... on and on and on. I couldn't bear it. I hope I never get called!

It's a bit of a lottery really, isn't it. I'd be the really indecisive one, always with a 'but what if...' followed by an 'ok, you're right, I agree...' followed by a 'I know what you're saying but what if...' on and on and on, I'd go, backwards and forwards and backwards and forwards until the other 11 jury members' eyes rolled back in their heads and they died from exhaustion.

 

[Marantz4250b]

I don't like the idea of 'professional jurors.' It creeps me out. Too easy to get random, judgemental crazies that sign up for that job. JMO

For your average, run-of-the-mill cases, which are the vast majority, I'd tend to agree.

When we get to potentially very long and complicated trials, though, I think professional jurors might be a good idea. I think it's been considered in relation to complicated fraud trials in the past.

Also, I do think that there should be an option for a defendant to choose whether they have a jury trial or a trial just before a panel of judges. Personally, if I were innocent, I think I would feel a lot more secure in the hands of trained judges who are a) experts in the law before them and, b) far less susceptible to bias.

 

[Tortoise]

Later on Monday, The Standard learned the court will now also not sit on Tuesday, meaning the earliest date the jury will resume deliberations would be Wednesday.

Lucy Letby trial jury deliberations adjourned

THE jury in the trial of baby murder-accused nurse Lucy Letby has been adjourned due to juror absences.

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

 

[Marantz4250b]

Later on Monday, The Standard learned the court will now also not sit on Tuesday, meaning the earliest date the jury will resume deliberations would be Wednesday.

Lucy Letby trial jury deliberations adjourned

THE jury in the trial of baby murder-accused nurse Lucy Letby has been adjourned due to juror absences.

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

Wow!

 

[Tortoise]

Wow!

Strangely I feel better knowing that though. It seems (IMO) less likely to be stress, and more likely to be sickness, knowing there is a return date in the offing.

In the Cilliers case (podcast linked a few days ago) two jurors in the first trial were discharged with stress.

 

[CS2C]

What happens to Lucy if this ends up being some form of mistrial ?

 

[CS2C]

Strangely I feel better knowing that though. It seems (IMO) less likely to be stress, and more likely to be sickness, knowing there is a return date in the offing.

In the Cilliers case (podcast linked a few days ago) two jurors in the first trial were discharged with stress.

I don’t read that as a return date in the offing myself. The judge told the jury to call later today to see if they would be sitting Tuesday which it appears they won’t be. Wednesday would naturally be the earliest they could resume but I wouldn’t say I feel confident of that in the slightest.

 

[Tortoise]

What happens to Lucy if this ends up being some form of mistrial ?

I'm not sure if you mean a hung jury, but the prosecution would do a retrial, and she would remain in custody. IMO

 

[Tortoise]

I don’t read that as a return date in the offing myself. The judge told the jury to call later today to see if they would be sitting Tuesday which it appears they won’t be. Wednesday would naturally be the earliest they could resume but I wouldn’t say I feel confident of that in the slightest.

He hasn't discharged the two jurors, so the fact they are waiting for them was more the point of relief for me.

 

[bobbymkii]

What happens to Lucy if this ends up being some form of mistrial ?

Very much JMO (and probably not the opinion of many others in this forum) - I think she would be almost guaranteed to be granted bail, even if that presents significant security/safeguarding issues. It's already shocking enough to me that she's been on remand for so long, even before this mammoth trial. There is no way they can keep her locked up for another 2 years until another jury is ready to decide her fate, she's not a flight risk, the very specific nature of her alleged offending makes her a very low risk to the public, and I can cite multiple examples from England & Wales in the last 12 months alone where murder accused defendants have been granted bail.

 

[Lucy6226]

Very much JMO (and probably not the opinion of many others in this forum) - I think she would be almost guaranteed to be granted bail, even if that presents significant security/safeguarding issues. It's already shocking enough to me that she's been on remand for so long, even before this mammoth trial. There is no way they can keep her locked up for another 2 years until another jury is ready to decide her fate, she's not a flight risk, the very specific nature of her alleged offending makes her a very low risk to the public, and I can cite multiple examples from England & Wales in the last 12 months alone where murder accused defendants have been granted bail.

The risk might not be from her, but there would certainly be a risk to her! There will be plenty of people that would want to hurt her imo

 

[notsure]

It's difficult for me to reconcile the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" with a person being banged up in jail for several years. I know nothing about law, so it's all very puzzling to me.

 

[Tortoise]

Very much JMO (and probably not the opinion of many others in this forum) - I think she would be almost guaranteed to be granted bail, even if that presents significant security/safeguarding issues. It's already shocking enough to me that she's been on remand for so long, even before this mammoth trial. There is no way they can keep her locked up for another 2 years until another jury is ready to decide her fate, she's not a flight risk, the very specific nature of her alleged offending makes her a very low risk to the public, and I can cite multiple examples from England & Wales in the last 12 months alone where murder accused defendants have been granted bail.

Her barrister wasn't able to get her bail before, so I am struggling to see why a new trial would make a difference. The judge must have been satisfied she should not be released on bail, throughout those delays. IMO