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

[Dotta]

Anyone else get the feeling the random juror absence last week was because they went off on holiday??

They always say if it is sickness, but noone did this time. And the podcast said they were 'absent'. I reckon the juror had a holiday booked! Wonder how the atmosphere was in the room when they returned. One week of delay could cause someone else to now miss a holiday/event

And I don't understand why this trial lasted for 9 months if it was supposed 6.
Sure, there were absent Jurors throughout the trial, but still!

Living in permanent stress for 9 months.

JMO

 

[minusfour]

If anyone is looking for a podcast to while away the wait I can highly recommend “ The Retrievals “
It’s 5 parts and covers the case of a nurse who swopped out Fentanyl for saline ( she was an addict ) at an IVF centre in the states so the patients had zero pain relief during the egg retrieval procedure.

Thank you! I binge listened this afternoon, whilst stripping wallpaper. Really apt whilst we wait for the verdict in this case!

 

[Phoenix Lazarus]

If there's no verdict on Monday, the trial will go into August, its tenth month.

 

[Sweeper2000]

i know it’s a stretch but anyone think it will be a years worth?

 

[Lincoln34]

And I don't understand why this trial lasted for 9 months if it was supposed 6.
Sure, there were absent Jurors throughout the trial, but still!

Living in permanent stress for 9 months.

JMO

I think it’s unusual not to sit all week? If a defendant had special needs surely the court would just sit for less time each day and include planned breaks? IMHO

 

[Dotta]

I think it’s unusual not to sit all week? If a defendant had special needs surely the court would just sit for less time each day and include planned breaks? IMHO

The only ones with special needs were tiny vulnerable Babies who died in agony.

If the defendant needs psychiatric help, she surely only needs to ask, no?
UK is a civilized country.

M blunt O

 

[Phoenix Lazarus]

i know it’s a stretch but anyone think it will be a years worth?

Not unless the jury can't agree on a majority verdict.

 

[esther43]

I think it’s unusual not to sit all week? If a defendant had special needs surely the court would just sit for less time each day and include planned breaks? IMHO

I think the shorter deliberations may be about LL's right to regular visits when on remand.

 

[Parker Knoll]

10.30 until 4pm is a typical court day.

 

[Dotta]

I'm really curious if the famous "Gang of 4" still works in this hospital?

 

[Phoenix Lazarus]

Let's keep our fingers crossed for a verdict tomorrow.

 

[Dotta]

Let's keep our fingers crossed for a verdict tomorrow.

"Don't rush me 'cause I'm out of breath
Don't rush me because I'm losing my rhythm"

 

[Parker Knoll]

Dr Brearley and Dr Ravi Jayaram still work there Dotta, Dr Gibbs has retired now.
As we do not know the identity of the fourth doctor we can not say if they are still there.

 

[Supernovae]

i know it’s a stretch but anyone think it will be a years worth?

I doubt it would go on that long without the jury being discharged. That said, as I've said before, I'll be surprised if they're unanimous on all counts, which would mean no verdict before a majority direction. I would also not be surprised if they're ultimately hung on at least some counts which will take a while to shake out, even after a majority direction. In other cases judges have been known to take verdicts on some charges while the jury is still deliberating on others, but it's not unproblematic in terms of the flurry of reporting influencing the jury, so there could in theory be reporting restrictions when that time comes.

Of course I could eat my words on any or all of this but they may well be trying to re-summarise the cases in indictment order, having been refused the judges summing up in writing, without necessarily committing to verdicts yet. That would mean they were roughly half way through when they requested the statements relating to Child H.

All that considered, I think it's likely to be at the top end of the range of guesses still in the running.

 

[Tortoise]

This trial is unlike other murder trials, where the prosecution's work is to convince the jury who did it.

If the jury accepts the seven deaths were murders, there is only one contender. (IMO)

The verdicts as regards the alleged murders rely on the jury accepting the experts' opinions that the deaths can't be explained by natural disease (and were the result of deliberate harm), further endorsed by the treating doctors and other colleagues who said the deaths were unexpected. There are no alternative expert opinions for them to consider. They may of course decide the alleged acts of deliberate harm were without intent to cause really serious injury or death.

I went through the nursing spreadsheet looking at the deaths only, to see how many other staff were on duty. I also added the two insulin poisonings, since it is accepted that insulin would not be added accidentally, to increase the exposure.

The results are that the maximum number of incidents any other nurse was present for out of the nine (7 deaths + 2 poisonings) was four, followed by five nurses being present for three.

Mel T - 4 (A, C, I, O)

Belinda S - 3 (E, F, L)
Christopher B - 3 (I, O, P)
Elizabeth M - 3 (A, C, D)
Mary G - 3 (A, L, P)
Valerie T - 3 (E, F, I)

The way I view it, if the jury decides guilt on the murders, or just one murder, the case falls like dominoes. If they don't decide guilt on the murders, the attempted murders fall away.

JMO

 

[ColourPurple]

This trial is unlike other murder trials, where the prosecution's work is to convince the jury who did it.

If the jury accepts the seven deaths were murders, there is only one contender. (IMO)

The verdicts as regards the alleged murders rely on the jury accepting the experts' opinions that the deaths can't be explained by natural disease (and were the result of deliberate harm), further endorsed by the treating doctors and other colleagues who said the deaths were unexpected. There are no alternative expert opinions for them to consider. They may of course decide the alleged acts of deliberate harm were without intent to cause really serious injury or death.

I went through the nursing spreadsheet looking at the deaths only, to see how many other staff were on duty. I also added the two insulin poisonings, since it is accepted that insulin would not be added accidentally, to increase the exposure.

The results are that the maximum number of incidents any other nurse was present for out of the nine (7 deaths + 2 poisonings) was four, followed by five nurses being present for three.

Mel T - 4 (A, C, I, O)

Belinda S - 3 (E, F, L)
Christopher B - 3 (I, O, P)
Elizabeth M - 3 (A, C, D)
Mary G - 3 (A, L, P)
Valerie T - 3 (E, F, I)

The way I view it, if the jury decides guilt on the murders, or just one murder, the case falls like dominoes. If they don't decide guilt on the murders, the attempted murders fall away.

JMO

"The way I view it, if the jury decides guilt on the murders, or just one murder, the case falls like dominoes. If they don't decide guilt on the murders, the attempted murders fall away."



Ah but what if the jury decides guilt on one or all of the murders but decide that she just intended to cause really serious harm to all of the babies and didn't intend to kill any of them? Then all the attempted murder charges could fall away. JMO

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'

 

[Supernovae]

"The way I view it, if the jury decides guilt on the murders, or just one murder, the case falls like dominoes. If they don't decide guilt on the murders, the attempted murders fall away."



Ah but what if the jury decides guilt on one or all of the murders but decide that she just intended to cause really serious harm to all of the babies and didn't intend to kill any of them? Then all the attempted murder charges could fall away. JMO

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'

And each individual juror could take different positions on these questions. There are lots of ways we could end up with any mixture of G/NG/Hung. In fact that's been the case in other health care serial killer trials. Ben Geen was convicted of some but not others.

 

[Tortoise]

"The way I view it, if the jury decides guilt on the murders, or just one murder, the case falls like dominoes. If they don't decide guilt on the murders, the attempted murders fall away."



Ah but what if the jury decides guilt on one or all of the murders but decide that she just intended to cause really serious harm to all of the babies and didn't intend to kill any of them? Then all the attempted murder charges could fall away. JMO

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'

That would speed up deliberations, if they don't need to deliberate the attempt murder charges.

On a separate issue - I think it would be difficult to get a mixed bag as regards intent amongst just the murder charges - ie some with intent to kill and some without the intent. Additionally, if guilty, and regardless of perpetrator, just as an academic exercise looking at the issue of whether it was murder with intent to kill rather than intent to cause harm, the circumstances in which babies D, E, I, O and P died show (to me) clear determination with repeated acts that a weakened, vulnerable infant would be unlikely to survive.

JMO

 

[Tortoise]

And each individual juror could take different positions on these questions. There are lots of ways we could end up with any mixture of G/NG/Hung. In fact that's been the case in other health care serial killer trials. Ben Geen was convicted of some but not others.

I didn't follow his case, but on looking it up I see he (BG) was found guilty of all but one of the charges.

 

[Sweeper2000]

Can someone explain to me this talk about “a majority verdict“ and “majority direction“. I’m not sure my understanding of it is correct. My understanding is that a majority Verdict is ten or more jurors reaching a verdict so I don’t understand why it’s singular rather than plural. Not sure what a majority direction is either?

eta unless the singular is a reference to a verdict on one charge and that’s what can hold things up?