Lucy Letby Guilty

[Derek Smith]

Aphrabehn said:

Sounds very similar to the previous cases and subsequent trial - no forensics, no witnesses, no motive.

(Court heard) Letby was caught 'virtually red-handed' trying to murder Baby K by the lead consultant on her neonatal unit, Dr Ravi Jayaram, in the early hours of February 17, 2016

So..... NOT red handed then

(Defence said) "that if the prosecution's 'star witness' had really caught the neonatal nurse 'almost red-handed' in the act of attempted murder, he would have taken immediate action rather than being 'rendered silent' for the next 14 months."

There was overwhelming circumstantial evidence.

[skwdenyer]

Derek Smith said:

Aphrabehn said:

Sounds very similar to the previous cases and subsequent trial - no forensics, no witnesses, no motive.

(Court heard) Letby was caught 'virtually red-handed' trying to murder Baby K by the lead consultant on her neonatal unit, Dr Ravi Jayaram, in the early hours of February 17, 2016

So..... NOT red handed then

(Defence said) "that if the prosecution's 'star witness' had really caught the neonatal nurse 'almost red-handed' in the act of attempted murder, he would have taken immediate action rather than being 'rendered silent' for the next 14 months."

There was overwhelming circumstantial evidence.

I’m not sure it was overwhelming, hence the previous verdict in the same matter. But it would have been a brave jury that, given her previous convictions were now a part of the case, failed to “do their duty” and find her guilty of this one.

[isaldiri]

sugerbear said:

Agreed, no one is defending her, but it is right that the science should be tested and we dont end up using statistics to justify something that could equally be chance, or more likely (but maybe not this case) the failings of a hospital dept that was understaffed / undermanaged / undertrained.

Andrew Malkinson & Seema Misra spring to mind. Both Guilty. Both proven innocent.

I sometimes wonder how some posters here would have been posting re the Malkinson or the Sally Clark case being absolutely certain of their guilt after being convicted…..

[sugerbear]

isaldiri said:

sugerbear said:

Agreed, no one is defending her, but it is right that the science should be tested and we dont end up using statistics to justify something that could equally be chance, or more likely (but maybe not this case) the failings of a hospital dept that was understaffed / undermanaged / undertrained.

Andrew Malkinson & Seema Misra spring to mind. Both Guilty. Both proven innocent.

I sometimes wonder how some posters here would have been posting re the Malkinson or the Sally Clark case being absolutely certain of their guilt after being convicted…..

Barry George is another prime example.

[thisnameistaken]

skwdenyer said:

I’m not sure it was overwhelming, hence the previous verdict in the same matter. But it would have been a brave jury that, given her previous convictions were now a part of the case, failed to “do their duty” and find her guilty of this one.

Brave? What would have happened if they found her not guilty? I'd assumed they were the least stressed jury in the world.

[skwdenyer]

thisnameistaken said:

skwdenyer said:

I’m not sure it was overwhelming, hence the previous verdict in the same matter. But it would have been a brave jury that, given her previous convictions were now a part of the case, failed to “do their duty” and find her guilty of this one.

Brave? What would have happened if they found her not guilty? I'd assumed they were the least stressed jury in the world.

Yes, brave. A part of this prosecution case was that she’s a mass murderer. AIUI the jury were specifically “encouraged” to consider that as a part of their weighing of evidence. The last jury weren’t, and couldn’t reach a verdict on this case. Was there fresh evidence? Would you want to tell people in your community that you’d “let her off?”

[agtlaw]

skwdenyer said:

The last jury … couldn’t reach a verdict on this (charge)

Probably because 9 jurors were sure of guilt and 3 jurors concluded very likely guilty but not sure. Therefore, no verdict; a majority verdict must be at 10:2 or 11:1. I’m assuming 12 jurors. (Was a juror discharged in the first Letby trial?)

[skwdenyer]

agtlaw said:

skwdenyer said:

The last jury … couldn’t reach a verdict on this (charge)

Probably because 9 jurors were sure of guilt and 3 jurors concluded very likely guilty but not sure. Therefore, no verdict; a majority verdict must be at 10:2 or 11:1. I’m assuming 12 jurors. (Was a juror discharged in the first Letby trial?)

It was 10:1 with 1 juror discharged. 1 of the remaining 11 was the subject of allegations the judge’s handling of which has been rejected as a ground for appeal.

If it’s a margin call, I assume defence advocates hope that previous good character will count in a defendant’s favour; conversely one would expect that a recent mass-murder guilty verdict would count against them. But obviously, unlike you, I’m no trial expert!

Edited to add majority jury verdicts have never sat well with me, given the distribution of intelligence and mental faculties in the population, and certainly not in a situation as serious as this.

Edited by skwdenyer on Wednesday 3rd July 13:38

[irc]

skwdenyer said:

Edited to add majority jury verdicts have never sat well with me, given the distribution of intelligence and mental faculties in the population, and certainly not in a situation as serious as this.

Edited by skwdenyer on Wednesday 3rd July 13:38

Could be worse. In Scotland you can be convicted on an 8-7 majority. Balanced to some extent by the corroboration requirement and the not proven verdict.

This may be changing though. Retaining the 8-7 rule but doing away with other safeguards. Apparently conviction rates for certain crimes aren't high enough.

https://www.advocates.org.uk/news-and-responses/ne...

[thisnameistaken]

skwdenyer said:

thisnameistaken said:

skwdenyer said:

I’m not sure it was overwhelming, hence the previous verdict in the same matter. But it would have been a brave jury that, given her previous convictions were now a part of the case, failed to “do their duty” and find her guilty of this one.

Brave? What would have happened if they found her not guilty? I'd assumed they were the least stressed jury in the world.

Yes, brave. A part of this prosecution case was that she’s a mass murderer. AIUI the jury were specifically “encouraged” to consider that as a part of their weighing of evidence. The last jury weren’t, and couldn’t reach a verdict on this case. Was there fresh evidence? Would you want to tell people in your community that you’d “let her off?”

She's already serving a whole life term. The verdict from this jury bears so little material importance to Lucy Letby's immediate life and the community's safety that I feel there's far less bravery involved.

[Southerner]

irc said:

Could be worse. In Scotland you can be convicted on an 8-7 majority. Balanced to some extent by the corroboration requirement and the not proven verdict.

This may be changing though. Retaining the 8-7 rule but doing away with other safeguards. Apparently conviction rates for certain crimes aren't high enough.

https://www.advocates.org.uk/news-and-responses/ne...

Thread drift, but I find this sort of thing pretty disturbing. That the powers-that-be seem happy with the concept of ‘making it easier’ to convict someone is horrific, isn’t it? If a jury don’t think you’re guilty then, surely, you’re not effing guilty! Giving a jury fewer options in order to try and nudge them towards preferred verdicts is surely an abuse of fair justice. Fairly sure certain corners of power in england would have anyone accused of rape shot on sight if they could get away it, what with the unsatisfactory conviction rates, but at least it’s unlikely that they’ll ever manage to remove access to a fair trial, no matter how much they might like to. It seems the Scots are a fair bit closer.

Edited by Southerner on Thursday 4th July 10:30

[irc]

said:

Fairly sure certain corners of power in england would have anyone accused of rape shot on sight if they could get away it, what with the unsatisfactory conviction rates, but at least it’s unlikely that they’ll ever manage to remove access to a fair trial, no matter how much they might like to. It seems the Scots are a fair bit closer!

The SNP are trying to foist no jury trials on anyone accused of rape. Must get correct verdict. It won't get anywhere because an initial trial is proposed and the legal profession is almost universally opposed. No defence lawyer is going to advise a client to take part.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/scotlands-jury...

[Southerner]

irc said:

said:

Fairly sure certain corners of power in england would have anyone accused of rape shot on sight if they could get away it, what with the unsatisfactory conviction rates, but at least it’s unlikely that they’ll ever manage to remove access to a fair trial, no matter how much they might like to. It seems the Scots are a fair bit closer!

The SNP are trying to foist no jury trials on anyone accused of rape. Must get correct verdict. It won't get anywhere because an initial trial is proposed and the legal profession is almost universally opposed. No defence lawyer is going to advise a client to take part.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/scotlands-jury...

That is, frankly, f*cking horrific.

I’ve just skimmed that article, WTAF?

Essentially, “we don’t like how a jury tends to think, so we’ll just do away with them…”

How can such a blatant abuse of the criminal justice system be even vaguely acceptable in a civilised nation? Mental. Another reason to do away with devolution, you really can’t have such a massive change in the idea of justice and fair trials in two parts of the same nation. The UK is becoming increasingly untenable in that regard, dare I say whoever is in the driving seat in Westminster tomorrow needs to get a hold of the reigns.

Anyway; Holy thread drift Batman, etc…

Edited by Southerner on Thursday 4th July 10:48

[WPA]

15th whole life term handed down: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cljyn2e7l3yo

I did find this interesting as well: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c727jgdm7r4o

[Red Devil]

skwdenyer said:

agtlaw said:

Judgment (application for leave to appeal):

https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/r-v-letby-3/

Some unfortunate and partisan words in that judgement. It was unlikely leave would be granted; it has not been.

The handling of the allegation about the juror seems especially unsatisfactory.

Indeed. The actions of EF and KR appear to be an act of petty revenge against BC and CD which interfered with a very high profile case yet they appear to have escaped any consequences. How they were allowed to get away with that beggars belief.

[dave123456]

Wacky Racer said:

Anyone thinking she may possibly be innocent, would you trust her with your new born baby?

I’m pretty impartial as to her guilt, purely based on lack of information on my part, I’ve not followed it closely enough. But similarly:

If one of your family members was convicted of something that would see them spend the rest of their life behind bars would you expect hard physical evidence and fact to prove their guilt? Or a pattern of events?

At some point the numbers 1,2,3,4,5 & 6 will win the lottery, should it be redrawn when that happens because of witchcraft? As far as a very ignorant spectator can tell, she has been convicted as a result of coincidence and a pattern of events, she may well be, and most likely is, guilty, but the evidence seems just a bit short of conclusive given the amount of crimes she has been convicted of.

[skwdenyer]

Red Devil said:

skwdenyer said:

agtlaw said:

Judgment (application for leave to appeal):

https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/r-v-letby-3/

Some unfortunate and partisan words in that judgement. It was unlikely leave would be granted; it has not been.

The handling of the allegation about the juror seems especially unsatisfactory.

Indeed. The actions of EF and KR appear to be an act of petty revenge against BC and CD which interfered with a very high profile case yet they appear to have escaped any consequences. How they were allowed to get away with that beggars belief.

That's one construction. Another is that BC was indeed guilty as alleged. Not properly investigating seems to be pretty unacceptable - because either it would exonerate or condemn. It reads as though the LJ really didn't want a reason to lose another juror.

[Steve-B]

WPA said:

15th whole life term handed down: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cljyn2e7l3yo

I did find this interesting as well: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c727jgdm7r4o

When will this despicable creature receive the same treatment that it dealt to its victims is our question as it unquestionaly deserves it!

[Green1man]

dave123456 said:

I’m pretty impartial as to her guilt, purely based on lack of information on my part, I’ve not followed it closely enough. But similarly:

If one of your family members was convicted of something that would see them spend the rest of their life behind bars would you expect hard physical evidence and fact to prove their guilt? Or a pattern of events?

At some point the numbers 1,2,3,4,5 & 6 will win the lottery, should it be redrawn when that happens because of witchcraft? As far as a very ignorant spectator can tell, she has been convicted as a result of coincidence and a pattern of events, she may well be, and most likely is, guilty, but the evidence seems just a bit short of conclusive given the amount of crimes she has been convicted of.

I’m of the same thinking. Again I’ve not followed that closely but nothing seems convincing enough to me to condemn someone to life!.

[Green1man]

skwdenyer said:

. A part of this prosecution case was that she’s a mass murderer. AIUI the jury were specifically “encouraged” to consider that as a part of their weighing of evidence. The last jury weren’t, and couldn’t reach a verdict on this case.”

This doesn’t really add up. Surely the last jury did in fact find her guilty of a number of the charges she was up for, so by definition they were convinced she was a mass murderer. So the difference can’t just have been this later jury were considering her as a mass murderer!