VERDICT WATCH UK - Nurse Lucy Letby, Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #29

[Marantz4250b]

And what happened to the Deputy?

Who knows but Eric Clapton claims he didn't shoot him!

 

[Sweeper2000]

And what happened to the Deputy?

He ie Doc choc left the building when he saw things were getting heated.

 

[Dotta]

He ie Doc choc left the building when he saw things were getting heated.

 

[Sarahlou]

Length of Deliberations Predictions

Mon 10th - day 1 (afternoon only) - 2pm to 4pm minus 5mins = 1h 55m
Tue 11th - day 2 - 4h 20m
Wed 12th - day 3 - 4h 20m
Thu 13th - day 4 - 4h 20m
Fri 14th - day 5 - 4h 20m
Mon 24th - day 6 - 4h 20m
Tue 25th - day 7 - 4h 20m
Wed 26th - day 8 - 4h 15m
Thu 27th - day 9 - 4h 20m

Running total = 36h 30m


Still in the game -

35h 25m - @Dotta
41h 15m - @Observant-ADHD-ENFP-BSc
45h 10m - @esther43
58h - @Jw192
70h - @bobbymkii
75h - @CS2C
80h - @V347

I'm backing Jw192. I think we still have a way to go yet.

 

[Sweeper2000]

OT I know but the most overrated guitarist ever. If you like your guitar maybe some old bluesy stuff try this guy out Roy Buchanan. real sixties blues, proper proper stuff and an amazing guitarist as well. Invented the famous wahhh effect on the giit without a pedal. Real talent.

 

[esther43]

“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

So basically, If you think that she'd guilty of an act but are not totally sure, feel free to stick it on her anyway. Also, whilst you're doing that, don't forget to identify trends in medical evidence and psychotic behaviour'
Shouldn't be too difficult imo

 

[Dotta]

So basically, If you think that she'd guilty of an act but are not totally sure, feel free to stick it on her anyway. Also, whilst you're doing that, don't forget to identify trends in medical evidence and psychotic behaviour'
Shouldn't be too difficult imo

IMO
It is very dangerous thinking.
Each charge must be carefully examined on ITS OWN.

That is why each charge has its own verdict.

Patterns/similarities are OK, but ONLY as clues.
NEVER a decisive factor.

JMO

 

[Marantz4250b]

IMO
It is very dangerous thinking.
Each charge must be carefully examined on ITS OWN.

That is why each charge has its own verdict.

Patterns/similarities are OK, but ONLY as clues.
NEVER a deciding factor.

JMO

Agreed entirely!

 

[Tortoise]

So basically, If you think that she'd guilty of an act but are not totally sure, feel free to stick it on her anyway. Also, whilst you're doing that, don't forget to identify trends in medical evidence and psychotic behaviour'
Shouldn't be too difficult imo

I don't agree with your interpretation.

They must be sure she intentionally harmed each baby, individually, to find her guilty.

 

[Sweeper2000]

I think a good short way of saying what the judge said is that “you can look at the evidence cumulatively across the charges especially if there is similar sequences of events“.

presumably in other trials you can’t or are advised not to do that?
eta. It’s not an order, nor a request it is a suggestion with guidelines.

 

[Tortoise]

I think a good short way of saying what the judge said is that “you can look at the evidence cumulatively across the charges especially if there is similar sequences of events“.

presumably in other trials you can’t or are advised not to do that?

I'm not sure I'd say cumulative, I would say if they find her guilty of one they can use that to support further decisions, in my mind that would be to answer questions like methodology, and in support of propensity and specifically the matter of intent.

 

[esther43]

I'm not sure I'd say cumulative, I would say if they find her guilty of one they can use that to support further decisions, in my mind that would be to answer questions like methodology, and in support of propensity and specifically the matter of intent.

It's amounts to the same imo

 

[Cardgame]

Maybe I'm wrong but I'm thinking that the judge is saying that because, well, because lots of babies have (allegedly) been hurt and killed intentionally.

So IF you accept that a baby has been hurt intentionally, BUT the question of WHO hurt the baby feels less 'beyond reasonable doubt', you are allowed to find LL guilty because the chances of it being anyone ELSE are... well... non existent.

The victims are innocent helpless babies, captive in a small number of rooms with restricted access and no imaginable motive: therefore if you can identify the murderer of 8 out of 10 of the babies clearly and beyond reasonable doubt, and you accept that the other 2 were indeed murdered, then you should find LL guilty.

That's MU anyway. (My Understanding!). And MOO.

 

[Sweeper2000]

I'm not sure I'd say cumulative, I would say if they find her guilty of one they can use that to support further decisions, in my mind that would be to answer questions like methodology, and in support of propensity and specifically the matter of intent.

That’s interesting. Why do you think that? And why specifically intent?

im linking an aspect of it to something akin to how a previous character reference goes In a trial. Except I think the nature of the charges would mean any character reference is null and void in event of at least one g verdict.

 

[katydid23]

Just thinking out loud, 7 children died in suspicious circumstances enough to bring murder charges , so if one fails the BARD then is it likely all will if the circumstances of death are the same, obviously the opposite applies on a guilty result.

Not necessarily .... There is enough evidence to reasonably believe that babies were being attacked over and over, with some dying and some recovering.

The problem is that some of the babies had complex medical issues so in a couple of the cases it is not clear cut. But that does not mean that NONE of them were attacked. Nor does it mean that ALL of them were attacked. It just means that some of the circumstances make it harder to differentiate than others.

 

[katydid23]

So they're starting at noon tomorrow, will they take a lunch hour or just an extra smoke break, what do you think?

I don't think they will take a lunch hour. At least, in previous trials I have followed, when they come in for afternoon hours only, they are expected to eat before arrival. JMO

 

[Dotta]

That's MU anyway. (My Understanding!). And MOO.

It is funny that
Muuu is Mooo in my native language

If you know what I mean haha

 

[Tortoise]

That’s interesting. Why do you think that? And why specifically intent?

im linking an aspect of it to something akin to how a previous character reference goes In a trial. Except I think the nature of the charges would mean any character reference is null and void in event of at least one g verdict.

I say intent because some of the alleged methods were (if found proven) more certain, based on the deaths, to cause death than others, and so if each case was looked at as a stand alone event, intent, which is not outwardly apparent, might be harder to gauge, especially if the alleged method was new. Other cases could lend support in deciding this.

But it still has to be more than she's guilty of one so it's likely - it must be looked at for other supporting evidence, excluding natural causes/evaluating expert opinions, and then for example looking at alleged methodology - is there evidence of gaslighting other staff or parents, did it happen when their nurse had just gone on a break, had she falsified notes, etc.

JMO

 

[Dotta]

Dbm

 

[Dcflag]

C'mon jury! You got 4 minutes to wrap this up tomorrow! Chop chop!

(In all seriousness...I'm backing @V347 when I'm out! I'm not at all optimistic.)

This