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.

New here?

As long as there are at least 9 jurors they can still return a verdict. If it goes below that there would have to be a retrial.

It's hard to imagine isn't it, I wouldn't have been able to do it as self employed, can't think of many employed people who wouldn't be missed either.

Case in the news again today with the judge agreeing to accept a 10-1 majority verdict. Does that mean the jury don't think they'll get a unanimous decision? Or is this just something that routinely happens?

It means the judge thinks the jury isn't going to reach a unanimous verdict. The jury must have deliberated for at least 2 hours before the judge will accept a majority verdict. In practice it is extremely rare for a judge to give a majority direction after just 2 hours. For a long and complex case it can be days or weeks before the judge tells the jury that a majority verdict will be acceptable. In this case the jury has been deliberating for 15 days with more than 9 months of evidence to consider and a lot of charges to decide.

It's hard to know whether it's just as an arbituty amount of time has passed the direction has changed or whether there are known sticking points and this is to push forward. Either way I hope for the sake of the parents deliberations are nearly done (of course recognising it's important the jury take their time and don't rush through as there's so much evidence).

Even the judge doesn't know what is going on in the jury room. So no, this isn't about known sticking points. It is simply that this has taken so long that the judge thinks the jury isn't going to be able to reach a unanimous verdict.

This is weird... someone upthread said it could take until October to consider verdicts for all charges. Others are saying that already they should have reached unanimous verdicts. Which is it?

How long will a jury take to arrive at a verdict is a "how long is a piece of string" question, especially for a long trial with a lot of charges like this. Ideally they would have come up with unanimous verdicts by now. They haven't, hence the majority verdict direction. It could certainly be weeks more before they either come up with a verdict or the judge decides that they aren't going to and sends the case for a retrial.

And remember a ‘day’ the jury spend deliberating isn’t really a day - they get sworn in each morning (I don’t think that’s the right phrase but you know what I mean) in court, then retire to the jury room. Then sworn out at lunch, sworn in after lunch then back out at the end of the day. And when I did jury service it was like half nine or ten to four or something like that.

Others are saying that already they should have reached unanimous verdicts

Why should they? There is so much information for the jury to take on. Not a ton of hard evidence from what I've read and listened to.

She's just been found guilty

Nurse Lucy Letby guilty of murdering seven babies - BBC News

So glad it's over for the jury. It must have been gruelling.

The whole thing is so sad.

Indeed - imagine having to hear all that evidence and make that decision.

Harold Shipman was not caught by medics but by a family of the patient he killed - I know the family of the that patient - the last one he killed. She was close to her family and the couple I know - Phil and Angela both are highly intelligent and academic. Shipman forged her mothers will leaving all of her estate to him but Angela was a top solicitor and it was a crude fake and easy (ish) to show it was faked. Phil was a professor at Warwick university and a highly intelligence man (physics) - they had to investigate themselves and get people to believe that Angela’s fit and healthy mother (I think she was 81) died suddenly - so not only did she get murdered by the very person supposedly trying to keep her well but he tried to get his hands on her mothers money - truly awful - murderer and thief. They behaved with so much empathy and humaneness none of which shipman showed anyone.

medics shown be questioned over every single death and not just a tick box exercise

the compensation paid to victims show not be limited to £12 K or whatever - this is not acceptable

anyone forced to apologise to letby must be compensated

the entire management need to be looked into - who didn’t do their job - who didn’t investigate and take it seriously - letby needs to pay back the entire £75 K she received before trial and while suspended pensions need to be removed in my opinion they all should be charged

Apologies for all massive typos but this whole case has upset me - Angela died a few years ago, she wasn’t that old but had been left absolutely traumatised and severely effected by her mother’s murder by Shipman.

Those poor families.

Heartbreaking.

Private Eye has for years been reporting on gagging orders used in the NHS against whistle blowers over a number of scandals and over decades. The health trusts seem to do anything to cover up instead of addressing the problems even though everything eventually gets found out. I really don't understand the culture behind it but assume it must be linked to funding? False economy and tragic to all those affected in each different scandal. This could not have happened if all those previous whistle blowers had been supported and practises in management changed accordingly.

Absolutely, about Private Eye/whistleblowing. There is a terrible cover up culture in the NHS.
I'd link it more to the management culture by hospital and region - ie a private system would be even worse. We really only have to look at the USA to see that it is worse there.

Reported this morning that LL will not attend for sentencing. She will not be following via video link either.

Cannot believe this isn't mandatory.

So judges remarks around case and summary/preamble around length of sentence and Victim impact statements, will not be listened to by LL. it's like a final slap in the face.

Once convicted, attendance at sentencing should be enforced. But genuinely happy/interested to hear views on why I might be wrong.

I agree that she should be forced to attend and listen to the impact statements. Just shows what a coward she is.