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

[Dotta]

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?

12 Jurors
10/11 yes
2/1 no
Majority verdict (Yes)

For each charge

 

[Supernovae]

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?

Crown Court Trial - Verdict — Defence-Barrister.co.uk

What happens when a jury retires to consider the verdict of guilty or not guilty?

www.defence-barrister.co.uk

The Majority Direction​

There will be 12 jurors at the start of any criminal trial (and possibly additional reserve jurors in longer trials) but sometimes jurors are discharged during the trial due to illness or for some other good reason. The minimum number of jurors permitted to return a verdict is 9, so any less would require the trial to be aborted.

When it is decided to give a majority direction, the jury will be called back into court and asked by the clerk if they have reached a verdict on which they are all agreed.

If the answer is no, they will be given a majority direction which consists of being informed by the judge that when they retire again they should continue to try to reach a unanimous verdict, but the time has arrived at which a verdict of Guilty or Not Guilty by a majority can be accepted.

They will be told what the permissible majority is and this will depend on the number of jurors left on the jury:

• 12 jurors - the majority verdict can be 11-1 or 10-2.
• 11 jurors - the majority verdict can only be 10-1.
• 10 jurors - the majority verdict can only be 9-1.
• 9 jurors - no majority verdict is permitted (so a majority direction could not be given to a jury of 9, or the jury would be instructed that a majority verdict would no longer be permitted once their number reduced to 9).
  
  

When can a majority direction be given?​

The Juries Act 1974 requires at least 2 hours to pass between a jury retiring and a majority direction being given, but the convention is to allow at least 2 hours and 10 minutes, to take into account the time it will take any jury to get from the courtroom to the jury room and back.

In practice it is rare for a judge to give a majority direction after such a short period of time.

Much depends on the complexity of the case and the issues involved. In a long and complex case it can be days before a majority direction is given. Often the judge will only give such a direction after discussion with the prosecution and defence dvocates.

Notwithstanding the precise timing of a majority direction, it is extremely important that a jury should never feel under pressure of time to reach a verdict.

 

[Supernovae]

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.

I believe you're correct, I was half remembering from the court of appeal judgment:

https://bengeen.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/geen-judgment.pdf

At para 104:

But we have considered all those circumstances with great care. As it seems to us, the jury have plainly done so as well. As we have already indicated, their acquittal and majority verdict are indications that they have not fallen into the all or nothing trap.

 

[Eloise]

"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'

I think similarly. I think its relatively easy to decide on the murder cases. The babies died, and someone was responsible.
With attempted murder you must prove the intent was to kill. Not just to harm or maim. But that it was a deliberate murder that just ... didn't work out. If there were alternative charges like grievous bodily harm then that would be an easier thing to prove IMO.

 

[katydid23]

"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'

If they agree to Guilty on any of the murders, it will be hard to reject the idea that she intended to kill in the attempted murder cases.IMO
I think that the vast majority required crash cart resuscitations. Those are never 100% successful. So she had to know that, even if the emergency team took over, there was a reasonable chance of death. JMO

And there were so many where there were numerous attacks. How could one just let that go, with no charges, when some of the babies never fully recovered from the damages?

 

[Kemug]

Plus I for one would certainly find that the cases of the 2 babies poisoned with insulin were attempted murder, as the attacker had to have known the expected result. So then it follows (to me) that from there we can extrapolate that the other babies who survived were also victims of attempted murder.

 

[esther43]

I think child C stands out as for me it's triple whammy on three levels.

1.LL's lies about where she was at the time AE was alleged to have been submitted.
First she told police she was in ICU, then she took it back saying she wasn't, she was going off Sophie's statement, then we saw a text from LL herself admitting she was in ICU.

2.Then there was the weird behaviour around the parents, wanting to check in on them when she'd been asked twice not to get involved.

3.Then, there was child C's heartbeat stopping and restarting. I've never heard of that before but good old common sense says that would only happen if there was an air bubble intruding in the cardio respiratory system.
So I feel the witness evidence is quite strong here. And I don't know whether a heart restarting itself is called 'circumstantial evidence' but the situation does not seem medically appropriate at all.

 

[Sweeper2000]

I think child C stands out as for me it's triple whammy on three levels.

1.LL's lies about where she was at the time AE was alleged to have been submitted.
First she told police she was in ICU, then she took it back saying she wasn't, she was going off Sophie's statement, then we saw a text from LL herself admitting she was in ICU.

2.Then there was the weird behaviour around the parents, wanting to check in on them when she'd been asked twice not to get involved.

3.Then, there was child C's heartbeat stopping and restarting. I've never heard of that before but good old common sense says that would only happen if there was an air bubble intruding in the cardio respiratory system.
So I feel the witness evidence is quite strong here. And I don't know whether a heart restarting itself is called 'circumstantial evidence' but the situation does not seem medically appropriate at all.

I always wanted to hear why the heart restarted so long after it was thought all life had gone. Wasn’t it three hours or something? I can’t see how the air bubble shifted if guilty.

 

[ColourPurple]

I think similarly. I think its relatively easy to decide on the murder cases. The babies died, and someone was responsible.
With attempted murder you must prove the intent was to kill. Not just to harm or maim. But that it was a deliberate murder that just ... didn't work out. If there were alternative charges like grievous bodily harm then that would be an easier thing to prove IMO.

And without an alternative GBH charge we could, hypothetically, end up with a situation where the jury could believe that LL deliberately harmed every single baby but if they don't believe she intended to kill them and don't believe that her actions were "a substantial cause of the death" of the babies who died, they would have to find her not guilty of every single charge.


JMO.

 

[katydid23]

I think child C stands out as for me it's triple whammy on three levels.

1.LL's lies about where she was at the time AE was alleged to have been submitted.
First she told police she was in ICU, then she took it back saying she wasn't, she was going off Sophie's statement, then we saw a text from LL herself admitting she was in ICU.

2.Then there was the weird behaviour around the parents, wanting to check in on them when she'd been asked twice not to get involved.

3.Then, there was child C's heartbeat stopping and restarting. I've never heard of that before but good old common sense says that would only happen if there was an air bubble intruding in the cardio respiratory system.
So I feel the witness evidence is quite strong here. And I don't know whether a heart restarting itself is called 'circumstantial evidence' but the situation does not seem medically appropriate at all.

Baby killed by nurse Lucy Letby showed intermittent signs of life for FIVE HOURS after medical crash team called off their desperate attempts to resuscitate him'​

• Baby C's heart and breathing re-started faintly while being cuddled by parents
• The little boy showed 'intermittent signs of life' for five hours in hospital
• Letby kept going into the room occupied by Baby C's parents, it is claimed
• Shift leader warned Letby to concentrate on caring for another baby, court told

Lucy Letby: 'Baby killed by nurse showed signs of life for FIVE HOURS'

A baby allegedly murdered by nurse Lucy Letby showed intermittent signs of life for five hours after a medical crash team called off their desperate attempts to resuscitate him, a court heard today.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[Tortoise]

And without an alternative GBH charge we could, hypothetically, end up with a situation where the jury could believe that LL deliberately harmed every single baby but if they don't believe she intended to kill them and don't believe that her actions were "a substantial cause of the death" of the babies who died, they would have to find her not guilty of every single charge.


JMO.

I think the prosecution considered GBH didn't make sense with the evidence, especially with nurse training. It would seem the defence agrees as far as air embolus is concerned -


"Mr Myers: "Air embolus is usually fatal, isn't it?"
Dr Bohin agrees there is a risk.
Dr Bohin says a small quantity of air could create an air embolus. She said it is the volume and speed which are the factors.
Mr Myers says it is "almost always" fatal.
Dr Bohin replies that can be the case with adults [to which there have been medical reports published]."

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Wednesday, October 26


Mr Myers asks if knowing about air embolism was unusual - she says no and that it is 'part of training' and that nurses 'would be expected' to be aware of the dangers of air embolism

Prosecution asks Letby what she knew about injecting air​

Lucy Letby is alleged to have attacked some of the babies by injecting air into their stomachs or bloodstreams.
She is asked what she knew, from her training, about the dangers of air embolism.
Letby answers: "I think every nurse knows that injecting air into a patient can lead to death."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-65602988/page/3



Letby is asked about the dangers of unprescribed insulin.
Letby: "It would cause them to be unwell, it would cause them to be hypoglacaemic... seizures, apnoea, even death."

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, May 18 - prosecution cross-examines Letby

 

[marynnu]

I always wanted to hear why the heart restarted so long after it was thought all life had gone. Wasn’t it three hours or something? I can’t see how the air bubble shifted if guilty.

It started quite soon after resus I think, but signs of life lasted for hours.

 

[Tortoise]

What is this silence?

Are they all there???????????????

 

[katydid23]

What is this silence?

Are they all there???????????????

I know---I don't get it....

 

[CS2C]

If this bunch aren't sitting today I actually give up....

 

[Tortoise]

If this bunch aren't sitting today I actually give up....

It could just be the reporters who aren't there...

 

[JosieJo]

I was thinking the same

 

[CS2C]

It could just be the reporters who aren't there...

I doubt it Tortoise, they actually turn up

 

[bbsaz]

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

 

[bbsaz]

Juror absent
It is Monday afterall