UK - Nurse Lucy Letby, murder of babies, 7 Guilty of murder verdicts; 8 Guilty of attempted murder; 2 Not Guilty of attempted; 5 hung re attempted #35

[Marantz4250b]

We also have the “ mysterious emailer “
Erm !

What emails? Have I missed something?

 

[Sweeper2000]

I wonder why the hospital plumber didn't make an appearance in this trial.

He got a promotion, he's banging the hammer on Friday. Tis the public will, three cheers for lorenzo. Hip hip

We also have the “ mysterious emailer “
Erm !

What's that about? Sounds ruddy mysterious!

 

[Marantz4250b]

Wow - so an anonymous attempt to de-rail the whole trial!!!

Just when you thought this case had no more surprises left to give!!

 

[Sweeper2000]

Wow - so an anonymous attempt to de-rail the whole trial!!!

Just when you thought this case had no more surprises left to give!!

EH?

 

[Parker Knoll]

Page 49 sweep !

 

[Marantz4250b]

EH?

Para.193 onwards; after jury deliberations had gone on for days and some verdicts had been delivered the Court received an email alleging that a juror was frequenting a cafe and talking about the case to all and sundry and that they'd already made their minds up months back that she was guilty.

Just read the whole of that section and it's truly effing bizarre!

You literally could not make this stuff up!

 

[Parker Knoll]

Can you imagine pitching this to Hollywood !?
Nah …. It’s too far fetched, come back when you have toned it down a bit.
Give me strength !

 

[Sweeper2000]

Holy spirit ascending people actually read that thing?

Bloody well done.

 

[Marantz4250b]

From my reading of it, the person who's emailed in this quite obviously false account of what they alleged this juror to have done may well be looking at some pretty serious charges!

 

[Marantz4250b]

I can see why the reasons for refusing her application were withheld now.

Unfortunately, this is just going to encourage the "usual suspects" in their lunatic conspiracy theories, I think!

 

[katydid23]

Well, logically, we can.

Yes, that evidence might be evidence of her having an intent to kill but it could also reasonably be evidence of her intention to cause suffering without death or simply wanting to cause a scene to bring attention to herself.

Remember that the crime of attempted murder requires a definite and unambiguous intention to cause death. Engineering a situation which comes very close to death, even extremely close, or being entirely uncaring as to whether death actually occurred is not attempted murder.

Well, if it is a choice between finding her Guilty or Not Guilty, I would have to go with GUILTY because of the irreversible damage done to many of the surviving babies. Some were blinded or paralysed permanently. She should not be able to receive a 'not guilty' verdict when the surviving victims have life long disabilities because of her vile actions.

I don't think there is any evidence that she wanted to avoid the death of her victims. Everyone one of them had a reasonable chance of death because of her actions. IMO

 

[Sweeper2000]

It sounds unbelievable. "Random person walks into cafe, starts shouting all info about the trial including something quite obviously designed around the rule about a " fair trial".

Impersonal vocabulary, lack of detail, lack of corroborating evidence, lack of certification, That's a fool or a nuts attempt. Fool to think they would take it at face level as well.

 

[katydid23]

Then you could not convict her of attempted murder!

YES, you could if you proved she pumped air into her lungs or dislodged her oxygen. Who cares whether she wanted her to die or just wanted her to be on the verge of death and be revived? BOTH of those scenarios are AT, IMO.

 

[ChatteringBirds]

Thank you to this jury, too. She is absolutely guilty.

 

[Marantz4250b]

It sounds unbelievable. "Random person walks into cafe, starts shouting all info about the trial including something quite obviously designed around the rule about a " fair trial".

Impersonal vocabulary, lack of detail, lack of corroborating evidence, lack of certification, That's a fool or a nuts attempt. Fool to think they would take it at face level as well.

Indeed. And it all seems to have stemmed from an argument over a phone!

Just bonkers!

 

[katydid23]

Answering my own question…

In seeking the reference re murder definition I found the bit that says about causing serious harm BUT it states that in attempted murder cases the serious harm part does not apply, only the intent to kill applies

“Murder

• with intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (in contrast to the offence of attempted murder, where only intent to kill will suffice)”

Homicide: Murder, manslaughter, infanticide and causing or allowing the death or serious injury of a child or vulnerable adult | The Crown Prosecution Service

www.cps.gov.uk

It looks like the jury didn't care about that question of intent but looked at the results----GUILTY

 

[Marantz4250b]

It looks like the jury didn't care about that question of intent but looked at the results----GUILTY

Of course they cared about the intent element - it's an absolutely essential part of the crime. The judge will have said that in no uncertain terms!

No intent = no attempted murder conviction.

 

[katydid23]

Of course they cared about the intent element - it's an absolutely essential part of the crime. The judge will have said that in no uncertain terms!

No intent = no attempted murder conviction.

Ok, then how do you interpret the Guilty verdict?

It's been said that she wouldn't be able to be determined to have committed AT because there is reasonable evidence that she wasn't trying to actually kill ---just push them to the edge.

So if they cared about 'lack of intent' wouldn't they have voted Not Guilty? I think they rejected the notion that one needed to prove that it had to be absolute and not 'a reasonable chance' of death occurring.

 

[Marantz4250b]

Ok, then how do you interpret the Guilty verdict?

It's been said that she wouldn't be able to be determined to have committed AT because there is reasonable evidence that she wasn't trying to actually kill ---just push them to the edge.

So if they cared about 'lack of intent' wouldn't they have voted Not Guilty? I think they rejected the notion that one needed to prove that it had to be absolute and not 'a reasonable chance' of death occurring.

As a guilty verdict!

The jury heard the evidence. We did not.

They clearly found that her actions and the other evidence, taken as a whole, made them sure that she had the relevant intent.

 

[Honeybirdette]

They’ve named dr choc. Looool