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

[Diddly1]

Sorry @ esther43 my post should have said that whomever spread the rumour that LL was ng must be a nasty
troll, I just cannot comprehend the mindset of some people x

 

[Sweeper2000]

i do hope your husband is ok and your coping well. That’s a shock for you 100%. Heart goes out to you.

Sorry @ esther43 my post should have said that whomever spread the rumour that LL was ng must be a nasty
troll, I just cannot comprehend the mindset of some people x

very correct and I think an apology is in order.

 

[Dotta]

She is charged with 22 offences, they must return verdicts on each.

I understand this.

The other poster suggested
(if I understand correctly this person)
that if the defendant is found ng/g on one charge
the Jury does not need to bother with others as this one verdict means the same for other charges.

So
I asked politely why the Jury has to give 22 verdicts?

But this person didn't answer me.

I hope I am understood.

JMO

 

[esther43]

Thank you @esther43 x
My husband is recovering well from his heart attack, I’m just now in a state of constant anxiety looking after him.
I try to dip in and out of WS’s as often as I can and like I said in the above post whoever decided to spread that LL was no was obvi just a nasty troll x

Glad he's doing well, what a nightmare, takes a while to gain back confidence after a shock like that!
Ahh I think it was perhaps a bit of group banter because someone joked they were going to the shop but didn't want to miss the verdict, so was a bit of a prank. I can imagine it was quite a shock to scroll and read it though, it certainly had me going for a moment too!

 

[Sweeper2000]

I understand this.

The other poster suggested
(if I understand correctly this person)
that if the defendant is found ng/g on one charge
the Jury does not need to bother with others as this one verdict means the same for other charges.

So
I asked politely why the Jury has to give 22 verdicts?

I hope I am understood.

JMO

To me Dotta this reads that you think the verdict on any one of the charges will be applied to the others? So if found ng for one the same for the others? Not the case, if I am correct. The only thing collectively relevant is that should she be found g on one charge it can be used to make a g Verdict on other charges more likely. In short if she is found to have done one she most likely did the others as well.

 

[Dotta]

To me Dotta this reads that you think the verdict on any one of the charges will be applied to the others? So if found ng for one the same for the others? Not the case, if I am correct. The only thing collectively relevant is that should she be found g on one charge it can be used to make a g Verdict on other charges more likely. In short if she is found to have done one she most likely did the others as well.

For God's sake!!!!

Serves me right for answering and trying to help others!

 

[Sweeper2000]

I’m lost, pls help

 

[Dotta]

I’m lost, pls help

I answered this RichardK poster that

EACH CHARGE must have a SEPARATE VERDICT!!!

 

[ColourPurple]

Sorry @ esther43 my post should have said that whomever spread the rumour that LL was ng must be a nasty
troll, I just cannot comprehend the mindset of some people x

very correct and I think an apology is in order.

Erm dunno how to put this but... I think Diddly is talking about when you wrote it on here as a joke the other day

 

[RichardKimble]

So why do they have to give 22 verdicts?
If, as you suggest, 1 could be enough?

I wasn't suggesting one is enough , but Sweeper 2000 said the jury had been instructed if finding guilt on one then this must be taken in to consideration on the others.

 

[Dotta]

I wasn't suggesting one is enough , but Sweeper 2000 said the jury had been instructed if finding guilt on one then this must be taken in to consideration on the others.

So
Why does the Jury deliberate for 2 weeks??
And still no finish in sight?

If 1 g/ng will be sufficient to determine guilt or non guilt for others???

 

[Marantz4250b]

I wasn't suggesting one is enough , but Sweeper 2000 said the jury had been instructed if finding guilt on one then this must be taken in to consideration on the others.

No. Rather that it may influence the decision on others. There is nothing to say that the jury must consider a guilty conclusion on one charge in relation to any of the others.

 

[Tortoise]

I wasn't suggesting one is enough , but Sweeper 2000 said the jury had been instructed if finding guilt on one then this must be taken in to consideration on the others.

It's not a "must", but an option available to them.

 

[RichardKimble]

It's not a "must", but an option available to them.

Yeah sorry, must is a requirement, should is a more of a consideration.

 

[Tortoise]

Yeah sorry, must is a requirement, should is a more of a consideration.

Well it's not even they should, it's they can.

I'll get the quote from judge's directions.

 

[Tortoise]

“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

 

[RichardKimble]

“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

Thank you that's cleared that up.

 

[Tortoise]

Thank you that's cleared that up.

You're welcome.

I think it's a bit of a masterpiece personally. I think it reads as a safeguard against appeal, legally, and I was really interested to see how they were going to cover that aspect. I think great minds worked on that wording.

JMO

 

[Sweeper2000]

i apologise for shooting the sheriff but at least I didn’t shoot the plumber, like Mary.

 

[Dotta]

i apologise for shooting the sheriff but at least I didn’t shoot the plumber, like Mary.

And what happened to the Deputy?