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 #38

[Ruthbullock]

RSBM & BBM

Are you able to share where this has come from?

That’s how Juries are directed by the judge- they are not allowed to post on social media and they are told to disregard things they have read in the press that may influence them but wasn’t presented at the trial and and not to do their own research into specific aspects of a case- there is no ban or guidance in the UK preventing juries from reading and refreshing their own minds with press reports of what was said during a trial. That’s why the New Yorker article was banned from publication in the UK- its report disputed some of the evidence in court and the trial was still ongoing.

“12:33pm: The jury are being advised they are not prohibited from using social media, but they should ignore comments made on there in relation to the trial, and to understand that media reports will be "selective" and focus on only parts of the trial. Jurors are also urged not to research additional evidence, outside of the courtroom, in relation to the case in any way.”

Recap: Prosecution opens trial of Lucy Letby accused of Countess of Chester Hospital baby murders

THE trial of former Countess of Chester Hospital nurse Lucy Letby, who is accused of multiple baby murders, is due to finalise its jury and hear…

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

 

[Marantz4250b]

That’s how Juries are directed by the judge- they are not allowed to post on social media and they are told to disregard things they have read in the press that may influence them but wasn’t presented at the trial and and not to do their own research into specific aspects of a case- there is no ban or guidance in the UK preventing juries from reading and refreshing their own minds with press reports of what was said during a trial. That’s why the New Yorker article was banned from publication in the UK- its report disputed some of the evidence in court and the trial was still ongoing.

You said they were "permitted" to review the press articles on the case. This gives the impression that the court gave them permission or invited them to do so. That is not true.

The New Yorker article was not "banned". The magazine itself chose to restrict its availability to the UK because of sub-judice issues. They made it available immediately after the verdicts.

To be honest, they made the correct choice there. The inaccuracies, untruths and general shockingly low quality of journalism in that article may well have unduly influenced jury members were they to have read it.

 

[katydid23]

If you remove the medical evidence as it can, and currently is, being disputed by different sets of professionals- then we end up discussing the notes and the staffing documents- which come with just another different tangled web.

I still can’t weigh up whether the trail would have been more or less solid with fewer cases being initially included.

I also often reflect on how difficult it must have been on the jury to stay focused over such a long period of time. They didn’t have access when deliberating to recordings or transcripts from the trial, they were reliant on their notes and memories, from many ,many days before- but they were permitted to review the historic press coverage to refresh their memories.

You only have to scroll through this forum to see why that is problematic- people are adamant something was said at the trial, but it’s not in that days press reporting exactly how it’s being stated on here- so is it a false or tainted recollection, or the reporting , and if it’s happening on here where we have time to breath and research, imagine the difficulties that causes a jury deliberation with such a long trial.

If the investigators and medical experts spent a couple of years and came to their eventual conclusion that Nurse Letby intentionally caused these 27 collapses, resulting in many deaths and permanent injuries and disabilities, how would they then decide to cut back and only pursue a few of the brutal cases? That would be a hard decision to make.

It was an important part of the trial to see the big picture---to realise there were so many sudden and unexplained incidents that made no sense.

If you just looked at 3 or 4 isolated incidents they may have been easily explained away as unusual outliers. When you look at 27 incidents where babies had unusual and very similar reactions to the emergency resuscitation---not responding to adrenaline shots, needing 3 to 5 shots instead of one, having unusual body rashes that come and go, going from days of good healthy vitals and feedings to a sudden collapse and rapid deterioration, out of the blue.

It was important to see the big picture to understand the importance and scope of what happened. Nurse Letby wreacked havoc and I believe she is exactly where she needs to be right now. IMO

 

[Ruthbullock]

You said they were "permitted" to review the press articles on the case. This gives the impression that the court gave them permission or invited them to do so. That is not true.

The New Yorker article was not "banned". The magazine itself chose to restrict its availability to the UK because of sub-judice issues. They made it available immediately after the verdicts.

To be honest, they made the correct choice there. The inaccuracies, untruths and general shockingly low quality of journalism in that article may well have unduly influenced jury members were they to have read it.

I have edited my post to include exactly what they were directed by the judge- he did not exclude or advise them against reading press articles, therefore they were “permitted” to read them.

 

[Tortoise]

I have edited my post to include exactly what they were directed by the judge- he did not exclude or advise them against reading press articles, therefore they were “permitted” to read them.

It was the 'to refresh their memories' part that was not in the judge's instructions to jurors.

IMO he understood the magnitude of the case, and that it would not be possible for them to avoid seeing articles or news items. Of course in this country there are strict rules on what media can and can't publish during a trial, so I expect he wasn't worried about content there, but urged extra caution for them to ignore social media. It most certainly was not an instruction given to aid or refresh their memories.

 

[Ruthbullock]

It was the 'to refresh their memories' part that was not in the judge's instructions to jurors.

IMO he understood the magnitude of the case, and that it would not be possible for them to avoid seeing articles or news items. Of course in this country there are strict rules on what media can and can't publish during a trial, so I expect he wasn't worried about content there, but urged extra caution for them to ignore social media. It most certainly was not an instruction given to aid or refresh their memories.

I think it is naive, with the length of trial, to not believe that at least some of the jury will have used press reporting as an aide memoir. If they weren’t advised against it, why wouldn’t they?

Which brings me back to my initial pondering, would the trial have been more or less reliable if it included less cases, almost like a test trial with the most secure cases looked at first and subsequent cases looked at afterwards. However as others have shared it was a bigger picture trial, so would that have even been viable or would the strength of the charges have been eroded if some of the babies were excluded. Cheshire Police have always been clear that they were still investigating other babies, so the trial in itself was never intended to cover every child they were looking into and their intention was always that there would be subsequent charges brought against LL.

 

[Ruthbullock]

If the investigators and medical experts spent a couple of years and came to their eventual conclusion that Nurse Letby intentionally caused these 27 collapses, resulting in many deaths and permanent injuries and disabilities, how would they then decide to cut back and only pursue a few of the brutal cases? That would be a hard decision to make.

It was an important part of the trial to see the big picture---to realise there were so many sudden and unexplained incidents that made no sense.

If you just looked at 3 or 4 isolated incidents they may have been easily explained away as unusual outliers. When you look at 27 incidents where babies had unusual and very similar reactions to the emergency resuscitation---not responding to adrenaline shots, needing 3 to 5 shots instead of one, having unusual body rashes that come and go, going from days of good healthy vitals and feedings to a sudden collapse and rapid deterioration, out of the blue.

It was important to see the big picture to understand the importance and scope of what happened. Nurse Letby wreacked havoc and I believe she is exactly where she needs to be right now. IMO

Out of 27 incidents, 13 were either dropped (7) she was found not guilty (2) or there was no verdict (4) reached- that’s almost 50%

Guilty of murder x 7
Unanimous: Baby O
Majority(10:1): Babies A, C, D, E, I & P

Guilty of attempted murder x 6
Unanimous: Babies F & L
Majority(10:1): Babies B, G (2 counts), M & N (1 count)

The court system is run in the same way regardless of the complexity of a case- but the 7 that were dropped, despite originally being attributed to LL- would have given a very different perspective to the jury of the bigger picture that was being painted, but that information wasn’t permitted.

The discussion around this is not unique to this case, we have seen other trials where discussing previous charges, suspicious incidents or incidents the accused has been cleared of, may have had an impact on the trial outcome and it has been debated many times whether this information should be included or excluded.

 

[joltz]

I think it is naive, with the length of trial, to not believe that at least some of the jury will have used press reporting as an aide memoir. If they weren’t advised against it, why wouldn’t they?

Which brings me back to my initial pondering, would the trial have been more or less reliable if it included less cases, almost like a test trial with the most secure cases looked at first and subsequent cases looked at afterwards. However as others have shared it was a bigger picture trial, so would that have even been viable or would the strength of the charges have been eroded if some of the babies were excluded. Cheshire Police have always been clear that they were still investigating other babies, so the trial in itself was never intended to cover every child they were looking into and their intention was always that there would be subsequent charges brought against LL.

I think it's more naive to make assumptions about what you believe the jury may or may not have done.

JMO

 

[katydid23]

Out of 27 incidents, 13 were either dropped (7) she was found not guilty (2) or there was no verdict (4) reached- that’s almost 50%

Guilty of murder x 7
Unanimous: Baby O
Majority(10:1): Babies A, C, D, E, I & P

Guilty of attempted murder x 6
Unanimous: Babies F & L
Majority(10:1): Babies B, G (2 counts), M & N (1 count)

The court system is run in the same way regardless of the complexity of a case- but the 7 that were dropped, despite originally being attributed to LL- would have given a very different perspective to the jury of the bigger picture that was being painted, but that information wasn’t permitted.

The discussion around this is not unique to this case, we have seen other trials where discussing previous charges, suspicious incidents or incidents the accused has been cleared of, may have had an impact on the trial outcome and it has been debated many times whether this information should be included or excluded.

Is any of the above supposed to condemn or criticise the jury in any way?

It looks like to me that they did a very good, thorough job with each individual decision. If they didn't think thy had enough to come to a guilty verdict they didn't do so. Just because they dropped some or reached no verdict on some, does that mean the guilty verdicts are less valid?

 

[marynnu]

Is any of the above supposed to condemn or criticise the jury in any way?

It looks like to me that they did a very good, thorough job with each individual decision. If they didn't think thy had enough to come to a guilty verdict they didn't do so. Just because they dropped some or reached no verdict on some, does that mean the guilty verdicts are less valid?

In my opinion it makes the guilty verdicts more valid, if anything.

 

[Ruthbullock]

Is any of the above supposed to condemn or criticise the jury in any way?

It looks like to me that they did a very good, thorough job with each individual decision. If they didn't think thy had enough to come to a guilty verdict they didn't do so. Just because they dropped some or reached no verdict on some, does that mean the guilty verdicts are less valid?

No it’s not intended to criticise the jury, my post had nothing to do with the jury outcomes.

 

[Ruthbullock]

In my opinion it makes the guilty verdicts more valid, if anything.

How so? They didn’t even know about 25% of the charges being dropped pre trial?

 

[Ruthbullock]

I think it's more naive to make assumptions about what you believe the jury may or may not have done.

JMO

So your assumption is ok, but mine isn’t? Either could be correct. Unless you have evidence that the judges direction I posted was incorrect and the judge altered his direction to the jury, then the fact stands that the jury were allowed to read press articles during the trial and during deliberations and why would they not read them if it was allowed? You are correct some may have avoided all press articles, but my point is some won’t have and they had no reason or justification to.

 

[JosieJo]

In my opinion it makes the guilty verdicts more valid, if anything.

I agree they didn’t just give up and and go a flat out guilty once finding one or two cases convincing
It sound like each case was taken on its merits and they all (or majority of them) had their own thoughts and voice.

 

[marynnu]

How so? They didn’t even know about 25% of the charges being dropped pre trial?

I meant the fact that the verdicts varied so much and they took their time.

 

[JennieM]

So your assumption is ok, but mine isn’t? Either could be correct. Unless you have evidence that the judges direction I posted was incorrect and the judge altered his direction to the jury, then the fact stands that the jury were allowed to read press articles during the trial and during deliberations and why would they not read them if it was allowed? You are correct some may have avoided all press articles, but my point is some won’t have and they had no reason or justification to.

@joltz ’s assumption is that we know less than the jury. Your assumption is that you know more than the jury.

 

[Baileyboo]

How so? They didn’t even know about 25% of the charges being dropped pre trial?

The jury can only hear about the indictment cases where there is evidence of deliberate harm.

It wasn't a secret during the trial that operation Hummingbird were still investigating many cases and the whole investigation hadn't been completed.

 

[MamsBestGirl]

The jury can only hear about the indictment cases where there is evidence of deliberate harm.

It wasn't a secret during the trial that operation Hummingbird were still investigating many cases and the whole investigation hadn't been completed.

Absolutely!

Why do some posters think any trial is going to look at anything outside of the indictment? Nobody is on trial for things they haven’t done

 

[MamsBestGirl]

Absolutely!

Why do some posters think any trial is going to look at anything outside of the indictment? Nobody is on trial for things they haven’t done

Edit * Where there is no evidence to support the crime(s) they are being tried for

 

[joltz]

So your assumption is ok, but mine isn’t? Either could be correct. Unless you have evidence that the judges direction I posted was incorrect and the judge altered his direction to the jury, then the fact stands that the jury were allowed to read press articles during the trial and during deliberations and why would they not read them if it was allowed? You are correct some may have avoided all press articles, but my point is some won’t have and they had no reason or justification to.

But I'm not making assumptions. To believe that some of the jury used media reporting as an "aide memoire" as you put it, is a bit of a reach, that's all I'm saying.