Nurse Lucy Letby found guilty of murdering seven babies

Oscar_Madison

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121049175#Comment_121049175

Fair enough- your experience is your experience. It’s the prosecutions job to prove guilt not the defence job to prove innocence - as a juror myself I did feel at one point that if truly innocent the defendant would have provided some level of evidence in their favour for certain aspects - they didn’t.

But leaving that aside (which I did and was duty bound to do ), there was enough evidence to convict - that and a few ludicrous theories the defence did actually put forward, that whilst considered, were quickly discounted by all of us as red herrings or similar, but certainly nothing that would constitute reasonable doubt.

I haven’t followed all of the specifics of this very long trial and I must some day when I’ve time but the pieces I did hear didn’t lend towards a not guilty verdict for the cases where a guilty verdict was found.

There was absolutely no reason for you to change your verdict to guilty- non whatsoever- one of our jurors at the end of the first day was “in two minds” - none of us cared less in that it was their entitlement to feel that way - as it happens they decided “guilty” at the end of the day but they had absolute right to think not guilty and none of us would have thought less of that person.

Edit- it’s often the case that cases go to trial simply because there IS no “smoking gun”- it was the case in “my” jury trial I sat on and it’s similar in this case

GreeBo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121049348#Comment_121049348

Frankly I'm pretty disturbed by your statement that if someone was truly innocent they should be able to prove it.

It completely contradicts your point (and the basis of law) regarding innocent until proven guilty.

Oscar_Madison

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121049357#Comment_121049357

What I think vs how I treated the situation at the time of being on the jury are different and I’ve made that perfectly clear in my statement above so don’t bother trying to find fault or make a big deal about something where there isn’t any reason to.

I just gave you and insight into how someone might think outside of a jury vs what someone must not do when on a jury- understand now?

I also said that instead of providing such evidence that could well have found the defendant not guilty which they had an opportunity to do so, they instead put forward ludicrous theories which were all quickly discounted as “an insult to our intelligence” if I can be candid here. That didn’t in any way help their case- they should have quite frankly kept their mouths shut.

So no, nothing to see here but I can see you have your own world view and want to create an argument where there is none - the point remains you changed your plea to guilty when you didn’t believe that- I find that much more “disturbing”

dbas

Not a daily mail fan myself but this article is amazing. Journalist who sat in court beside Letby for the whole trial

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12446809/Murdered-Lucy-Letby-grief-court-Mails-LIZ-HULL-case-horrified-Britain.html#article-12446809

Jequ0n

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121049501#Comment_121049501

The only amazing thing is that she managed to make the whole article about herself, and and about her lack of objectivity.

dbas

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121049678#Comment_121049678

What objectivity did you expect to read?

lmao10

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121049461#Comment_121049461

I think GreeBo was spot on and to the point in their posts. Your responses to them have been pretty odd since they are making fair points. I'm not looking to get into a debate, just telling you how it appears to other people reading the posts. I doubt it will have much effect but on the off chance it does, perhaps consider being more reasonable and trying to understand a bit better. You came across as very difficult to interact with.

Jequ0n

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121049810#Comment_121049810

An article outlining the trial in a factual manner. You know that you are dealing with the usual DM hysteria when a reports starts with auch an opening:

Watching the mother of a tiny boy murdered by Lucy Letby describe her grief, I wept in court for the first time in 25 years: Every day, LIZ HULL studied her - haunted by the fact that the killer started at hospital just months after she gave birth there

GreeBo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121049461#Comment_121049461

Firstly I didn't plea anything, I was a juror, not the accused!

Secondly, if you had actually read any of my posts its clear that I was the only juror to return a verdict of not-guilty.

Finally, the fact that you can make the statement that the defendant in your trial should have been able to prove themselves innocent, if they were truly innocent is the salient point here. This opinion isn't something you can just turn off in a court room. It speaks to the fact that you are not a credible juror. What do you think the judges response would be to hearing you state that? You might as well have a member of the nazi party state that they were able to suspend their hatred of the Jews during the trial of a Jew.

Oscar_Madison

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121049853#Comment_121049853

Now you’re just going completely over the top with that post - I can see now how all the jury thought differently than you did - you’re also way off topic so I’m not engaging anymore. But if you think people don’t walk into a court room as jurors with prejudices and all sorts of preconceived notions you’re very naive - the challenge as I’ve told you a number of times is to put those to one side- something you were also told as a jury member.

suvigirl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121049254#Comment_121049254

And I don't know how you cannot follow that if that was the view of the jurors, then perhaps you should have brought that to the attention of the judge.

dbas

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121049843#Comment_121049843

I would read that as her describing her personal experience of observing this woman day in and day out in the trial, while victims families describe their grief.

All journalists ham up a story, but this is probably going to be the biggest story of her career.

And it could have been her kid that was murdered

GreeBo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121049909#Comment_121049909

A preconceived notion of guilty until proven innocent is not something you can put to one side. Its the absolute anthesis of the most basic facet of law.

Oscar_Madison

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121050783#Comment_121050783

I never said they were guilty unless proved innocent- I’ve also explained and have been candid with my thoughts prior to the trial and indeed throughout the trial- I also stated that such thoughts were placed to one side as requested by the judge and because of the oath I took.

The reason judges provide jury direction is to acknowledge it’s not robots on a jury, it’s human beings - so yes there is an an acknowledgment that they need to think differently than they might usually when not on the jury- if a thought comes into your head throughout a trial that doesn’t conform to that way of thinking, you don’t go excusing yourself from the jury- you acknowledge it and then place it to one side.

You’re not listening to what I’m saying so I do wonder to what degree you listened to the trial - you’re pushing a view that is not the reality.

Jequ0n

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121050752#Comment_121050752

Indeed, just her personal opinion and therefore emotional waffle.

Mellor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121049348#Comment_121049348

"if truly innocent the defendant would have provided some level of evidence in their favour for certain aspects"

While I don't know the specifics of the trial you are referring to, the above is astonishingly incorrect. Unbelievably so, regardless of whether it factored into your reasoning. You can only reasonably consider somebody guilty when there is evidence of their guilt. A lack of evidence of innocence, is not in any way evidence of guilt. That's literally a fundamentally principle of law.

The reason why should be pretty obvious. There are endless accusations that can be levied at somebody, that are so baseless, that they have no way to prove other wise.

Oscar_Madison

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121050969#Comment_121050969

As mentioned many times what was “thought” vs what was considered were quite different - you can’t stop thoughts coming into your head- but you can choose not to act on those thoughts so less of the outrage please.

GreeBo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121051039#Comment_121051039

Again, the fact that you would even think it is the problem.

Its akin to saying that you are not racist because even though you think all X are lazy, good for nothings, you keep those thoughts to yourself.

Oscar_Madison

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121051085#Comment_121051085

I’ll hand myself in to the nearest Garda station for thought crime so 🤪

Mellor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121051039#Comment_121051039

Did you miss this part?

Unbelievably so, regardless of whether it factored into your reasoning

The fact you can't stop thoughts coming into you head has no bearing on whether it's are right or wrong.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121051124#Comment_121051124

Maye you should, depending on what you've been thinking out...

Oscar_Madison

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121051354#Comment_121051354

So if the jurors walked into the court on the first day thinking “a nurse couldn’t possibly kill babies” which is very possible some of them did, and was quite a likely belief of many people before this trial and indeed it’s still a belief for some on this thread no less her friends, what would you say to those jurors?

dbas

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121050873#Comment_121050873

Indeed, just your personal opinion

Mellor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121051489#Comment_121051489

I would say that any of people that believed that are clueless, utterly clueless. Not only because it's a ridiculous opinion to begin with. But because there has famously been numerous nurses and medical professional serial killers - often dubbed Angels of Death. Beverley Allitt in the UK was a well know case, who target babies. There was one around 1900 suspect of killing 100s of babies.

And obviously, potentially the most prolific serial killer ever, Harold Shipman was a doctor. I'd assume that case is extremely well known.

But I don't see how any of that relates to what you said above. It's naïve, but it's very different to thinking an "innocent person would surely have evidence of their innocence"? Entirely different.

Oscar_Madison

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121051728#Comment_121051728

I said that in the context of a particular aspect of the case I attended- it wasn’t part of my consideration as I’ve told you often enough but you’re not listening.

Back to this particular trial, Well I can see how little credence you give to people who may hold a view, which according to you is “clueless” , but yet can find someone guilty at the end of it.

Medical staff in Britain no less Ireland were held in very high esteem post Covid - we don’t expect our medical staff to do things deliberately wrong that will hurt patients no less kill then- and since these cases compared to other similar crimes are rare, it’s very reasonable to assume that a nurse going on trial for murder, will have a jury of at least some people who hold the medical profession in high esteem, and at the beginning of the trial at least, will find it very hard to come to terms with the fact that she is potentially a murderer.

this is a thought- it’s a valid thought- however it doesn’t mean that those jury members won’t uphold their oath and try the defendant on the evidence. I wouldn’t be calling them “clueless” that’s for sure.

Similarly, I may know that factually certain ethnic groups are more represented in prisons than others- if I was a jury member and came across such a defendant would that knowledge prevent me from overseeing the case fairly? Not if I took my oath seriously it wouldn’t.

If a juror had to give up their position simply because a thought came into their head, we’d never get to a verdict no less the end of a trial- you’re placing the bar for jurors way too high and living in an idealised world - you’re also not giving one shred of credence for jury members to take instruction from the judge and disregard anything they may have previously believed or heard concerning that case or similar cases either through media or elsewhere and concentrate solely on the evidence.

It doesn’t matter if a jury member believes the earth is flat- they can still attend a jury if they uphold their oath.

Mellor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121051920#Comment_121051920

I said that in the context of a particular aspect of the case I attended- it wasn’t part of my consideration as I’ve told you often enough but you’re not listening.

Sigh. For the third time;

Unbelievably so, regardless of whether it factored into your reasoning

It's ironic that you say I'm not listening when you repeated fail to grasp the the above. If you don't understand, it means that I am aware if wasn't part of your reasoning, but I'm pointing out that it is incorrect any way. I really can't make it any clearer.

Back to this particular trial, Well I can see how little credence you give to people who may hold a view, which according to you is “clueless” , but yet can find someone guilty at the end of it.

That's quite the the logically fallacy.

If somebody thought a nurse could never hurt a child, they are entirely wrong. This case and many other cases sadly prove that beyond any doubt.

Say over the trial, that person, changes their view based on the evidence. That's ok I guess, but in no way affects the fact that their preconception was out of touch with reality. The fact you think it does is baffling.

Medical staff in Britain no less Ireland were held in very high esteem post Covid - we don’t expect our medical staff to do things deliberately wrong that will hurt patients no less kill then- and since these cases compared to other similar crimes are rare, it’s very reasonable to assume that a nurse going on trial for murder, will have a jury of at least some people who hold the medical profession in high esteem, and at the beginning of the trial at least, will find it very hard to come to terms with the fact that she is potentially a murderer.

Medical staff collectively and in general were held in high esteem. That does not imply that any single individual medical professional is without reproach and should be venerated.

this is a thought- it’s a valid thought- however it doesn’t mean that those jury members won’t uphold their oath and try the defendant on the evidence. I wouldn’t be calling them “clueless” that’s for sure.

Anyone who thought that a nurse could never have done this and therefore must be innocent, was unfit to be on the jury, and should have been dismissed.

Similarly, I may know that factually certain ethnic groups are more represented in prisons than others- if I was a jury member and came across such a defendant would that knowledge prevent me from overseeing the case fairly? Not if I took my oath seriously it wouldn’t.

Knowing that black people are over represented in US prison is an actual fact. Thinking that nurses could never kill a patent or unborn is not a fact. It's entirely false, literally the opposite of a fact.

Black prisoners are collectively overrepresented and in general have higher conviction rates. That does not mean it's fair to preconceive an assumption of guilt for any individual. I'm actually shocked that you've even suggest this reason as an example.

To be really clear, If you are a juror (in the US) and you see a black defendant. And you think "well he is black, so he probably did it", you are also unfit to be a fair juror in that case. Regardless of what your verdict is in the end. Not defendant should be asked to overcome that preconception.

If a juror had to give up their position simply because a thought came into their head, we’d never get to a verdict no less the end of a trial- you’re placing the bar for jurors way too high and living in an idealised world - you’re also not giving one shred of credence for jury members to take instruction from the judge and disregard anything they may have previously believed or heard concerning that case or similar cases either through media or elsewhere and concentrate solely on the evidence.

If those thoughts and opinions are prejudiced, then yes they have to be dismissed. That's literally how it works and not in anyway idealised.

You seem to be unable to distinguish between have knowledge of something, and using that knowledge to form a prejudiced opinion. The former is fine, the latter is not. Knowing that nurses in general serve to help the sick is fine. Making the jump to "therefore she couldn't have done it" is not. This is incredibly simple.

That bad attempt at moving the goalposts has spectacularly failed. But none of it is relevant to what you said above.

GreeBo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121051489#Comment_121051489

They should be rejected as jurors by the prosecution due to their preconceived notions.

Oscar_Madison

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121052188#Comment_121052188

Eh a thought is not necessarily a belief - I’ll leave it there as you’re just not willing to listen -

Oscar_Madison

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121052418#Comment_121052418

This isn’t America- we don’t quiz people on what they eat for breakfast.

gameoverdude

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121050752#Comment_121050752

Irrelevant. Jury to decide with evidence shown.

This was a tabloid journalist who was playing heart strings. Suppose its their job. They more than likely didn't care. "I've got kids... guarantee they didn't cry"

If they're proven innocent and get out. Gigantic if. Some nutters going to do them because of articles like this.

The jury deliberated for around a hundred hours. That's massive. Took their job seriously.

Jequ0n

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121052904#Comment_121052904

Unfortunately the dumb masses lap up this sort of “journalism”