Letby Case (part 2)

[OneFrenchEgg]

www.mumsnet.com/talk/_chat/4652340-lucy-letby-court-case?reply=121815754

follow up, remember rules around discussion of active cases

Would you really bother to sit through a trial for 6 months if you thought that your baby passed from natural causes?

Personally I wouldn’t!!!

The podcast states that they have all been there each time

I would be there every day if I was a parent of one of the children in this case and I could logistically be there yes.

Whether poor care, foul play or natural I'd want to know.

I guess everyone is different though and can understand why someone else might avoid all mention of it.

The parents will also have been interviewed and involved over the last 5 years since Letby's first arrest. Possibly longer. Many have been summoned as witnesses. It'll have been an all consuming huge part of their lives.

I'm not sure if that's the point? If there was anything involving my child, any chance my child could have been involved in this no matter what I thought I would 100% be there every day if I could. I think even if my child was just present at the neonatal unit, whether one of those mentioned or not I would also be eagerly following every detail.

Speaks volumes in terms of what?

can you imagine not attending court if your child’s death was part of a possible multiple homicide situation?

So your assumption is that it would be normal for parents to potentially be involved in a CPS prosecution involving the unexplained death/murder of their child and think ‘nah won’t bother with that’?

but the fact that these parents haven’t disengaged implies something?

really ?

Court not sitting again today as the 12th juror wasn't present.

Can't find anything on the case today- is it going ahead?

They are due back Friday afternoon. Not sure why but one juror had a personal issue earlier this week so could be that.

And the judge made a reference to the number of pauses and said,
"We have had a lot of breaks and there comes a time where we cannot keep having more and more breaks, as it becomes inappropriate."
So I'm not sure if there's a plan B here...

I can honestly see that this is going to end in a farce - the jury (quite understandably) might not all be able to agree, I'm not even sure a majority will.

What happens if a verdict cannot be reached?

Suspect plan A should probably have been to have more spare jurors.

It’s a huge ask to get jurors to be available for that length of time - I’ve been on a jury for a two week case which I found logistically and emotionally difficult. Don’t know what I’d do if my name came up for a case lasting months on end - and a hugely distressing one at that.

Similar to previous poster I've been a juror on a case lasting over a month. It's hard emotionally, income wise and logistically. This was before I had DC luckily and my employer were understanding.
In best part of a year there's going to be jurors needing time off unfortunately and expect they all want their lives back to normal as soon as possible.

If they can't reach a verdict the judge can accept a majority. Usually 10 / 12 is accepted.

I was thinking this. If you're a stay at home mum, do they expect you to put kids in childcare? Can totally sympathise it must be horrendous. Must be very frustrating for everyone involved in the case though, to keep turning up and it's adjourned again.

Agree. It’s baffling they have so few. Does anyone know why there aren’t more alternates?

Was it the mail online podcast who said there was 2 spare? Or was that someone on here?

I don't know the answer but I guess they'd be criticised for wasting money if they'd called up too many and not used them.
They did have some alternatives that have been used.
They can't use an alternative for e.g. someone having a short term sickness bug as they'd all be gone very quickly. It would likely be for jurors that can't continue at all - serious issues like long term illness, or even recognising a witness, having read something online they shouldn't.

It usually seems to be 12 plus 2 spares on long trials. I don't know if there's law behind that, but just something I've observed.
They can continue with 10 I believe but don't like to if it can be avoided.

I'd need to look it up but the heist trial had a lot of juror difficulties, although that was involving a gang. They got through so many it had to be abandoned and heard again iirc

Thanks. It makes sense I suppose. There do seem to be an awful lot of interruptions though

The initially started with 2 spares for this trial, so 14 jurors in total.
One of the spares and one of the original jurors got excused so they ended up with 12 overall.

Yes, when I did my jury service I had two young children and was expected to organise (and pay for) childcare …. Also remember I had exceptionally heavy period and kept bleeding through my trousers which was horrible but they were strict re toilet breaks and I was too scared to make a fuss!

Blimey mummy that's awful!!

I wonder if there could be a system of say an extra judge sitting to give their input? In that to be a judge, you should have an excellent track record and be very knowledgeable about the law.

I did wonder originally why someone would use insulin as these cases are clearly deliberate. I was reading the transcript but I think there is a typo. Do you read it as letby didn't know that you could detect administered insulin due to the presence of c-peptide? So potentially was hoping these deaths could be ruled as natural rather than murder? I find the wording unclear, can someone clarify from another source? Thank you.

Interesting observation! Who knows but you could check the sky live feed as they also cover it