Lucy Letby Trial

[BernadetteRostankowskiWolowitz]

no comments on opinion - just comments on reported info during trial

Please let's not get this thread deleted people.

Anyone following along? I'm curious as to the silence on the Sky News site where earlier and yesterday there were posts every 10/15minutes there's been nothing for hours.

Have they said yet how many babies fell ill and died on LL days off/holidays?

The other thread is very informative

Indeed. And of a crime like this! Doesn't bear thinking about.

Sky news accidentally mentioned the name of one of the victims in their live reporting at the start. They deleted it but it was on there long enough to be noticed I guess. Imagine they weren't allowed to live report anymore or had to leave courtroom as it's contempt of court?

I've been really shocked by the information published about the case in the press today. Given that it took so long to come to trial, I'd wondered if the police maybe didn't have a lot of evidence, but now I see it was just a huge amount of individual cases and evidence. So many charges of murder and attempted murder - I feel overwhelmed just seeing the list. No wonder the trial is expected to take six months. How awful for all the parents involved

Agree @maranella! They'll have to go through each individual charge and evidence given for each charge and witnesses if there are any for each charge. I wondered before the trial how they could make it last so long. When I saw the list today it's easy to see how it'll last so long. Thus far it seems that the prosecution have strong evidence. As people have mentioned I feel incredibly sorry not just for the baby's and their families but do LL's parents, family, friends and very much for her ex colleagues - they must have also had a terrible time and this will be very hard on them too.

It reminds me of the Rebecca Leighton case.

You can discuss Lucy Letby trial freely on Reddit and they don't delete.

@ganvough I noticed that too, could that be the reason for no live reporting ?

I feel so sad for her parents, her dad is the same age as mine, he'd be destroyed.

It must be, as the Sky live trial reporter Megan Baynes stopped updating her Twitter with updates too. They were one of only a handful of news outlets inside so I can't imagine they'd stop reporting with no note or message to let people know why. Unless they're not allowed to say anything at all on the topic.

The Chester Standard are doing live reporting of the trial if anyone wants it.

Interesting how so many are saying ‘let’s hear the evidence before we judge.’

i totally agree

however I remember having exactly this conversation about Prince andrew - I’ve never seen the evidence against him, yet he’s presumed guilty

@Maltester71 I second that.

Fair point.

Just typical of the double standards isn’t it?

be nice if we could make up our collective minds whether we want to become a braying crowd before or after we consider evidence. And apply that consistently, regardless of how well known the person is.

I have similar conversations over dinner with my 13 year old, who also presumes Prince Andrew to be guilty and shuts down any conversation when I suggest it’s impossible to tell. I rather hope that the collective wit of Mumsnet is a notch or two above that of a 13 year old.

Do people assume Prince Andrew's guilt of crimes he hasn't been charged with, let alone convicted of? I don't think that they do for the most part.
I believe that the damage to his reputation comes from the admitted facts - his friendship with and acceptance of hospitality from a convicted criminal and the seeming gap between what the British public believe is appropriate behaviour to be expected of a decent human being / father and his own actions and expressed sympathies.

I also think that were people are highly sceptical with Prince Andrew, is with his near unique position of wealth and privelege and what influence this may have afforded him within the UK justice system. Couple this with his dubious friendship circles, it is not unreasonable for people to have lingering doubts.

This is very different to assuming guilt on the first day, or before, a full criminal trial.

Yes I always think of that poor man when people just "know" who is guilty without hearing the evidence.

It's always been this way in the UK. Many innocent lives have been ruined as a result. I think anonymity until verdict is one of the biggest changes and improvements we could make in the UK justice system

I disagree. The justice system needs to remain transparent.

Once it gets to the point of a trial, that means the CPS is confident there's enough evidence against the accused to be worth testing in front of a jury. At that point, it is absolutely everyone's business. Having a closed court and anonymity would remove the check and balance that transparency offers.

I do agree that people like Christopher Jeffries should not be speculated about as suspects. I believe this is actually against the law, but the media have sneaky ways round it, using insinuation to suggest things rather than making outright accusations.

Presumably until it happens to you or a loved one?!

Even without complete anonimity we could go a long long way to improving the current situation. Eg. Media, and social media, only being able to use one court issued photo (meeting passport criteria) of the accused. Strictly no trawling and lifting from social media, or interviews with aquaintances (make that a contempt of court). And stricly no quotation marks in headlines (I'm looking at you Daily Mail). It wouldn't be hard to improve on the current situation.

The court papers were online. It had pictures and testimonies and a weird list of books Epstein bought around training slaves, all very dahmer-esque really.

It is the height of irresponsibility to have any thread about a trial that is ongoing. MN should close them all down and ban for life any posters thick enough to place themselves in contempt of court. I see this thread has already involved posters commenting on the evidence. Absolute clown, all of you who have posted here about the actual case rather than the rank stupidity of this thread.

Interesting comments about Prince Andrew and evidence, or rather, lack of!

The stuff about PA was a civil case so not equivalent. The stuff about JE is a separate matter. I worked in a large police force, two officers I worked with went to prison (two separate cases) the fact that I knew them was irrelevant. Working in a different role I worked with two people who went to prison for child sex abuse, again two separate cases. Funnily enough that had nothing to do with me either.

So PA might or might not have done anything wrong.

Presumably until it happens to you or a loved one?!Even without complete anonimity we could go a long long way to improving the current situation. Eg. Media, and social media, only being able to use one court issued photo (meeting passport criteria) of the accused. Strictly no trawling and lifting from social media, or interviews with aquaintances (make that a contempt of court). And stricly no quotation marks in headlines (I'm looking at you Daily Mail). It wouldn't be hard to improve on the current situation

But you're talking about a media issue, not a criminal justice issue.

Should the media be able to drag innocent people and insinuate they're suspects? No.

Should the courts make all defendants anonymous unless and until convicted? No.

Why are juries not sequestered in the UK? With the invention of the world wide web it must be very difficult to ensure jury members are not influenced by what they read online about high profile cases.