UK - Nurse Lucy Letby, Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #23

[Sweeper2000]

It was enough for her to immediately correct herself, for the prosecution to question why she said it, and for her to then give up for the day. I don’t necessarily think it’s a smoking gun by any means, but I do think it’s a slip up that’s worthy of some attention IMO

To be straight I think all of her slip ups, denials and rejections are worthy of attention. I’m not sure exactly what would be correct to expect from her.

 

[MachinaCollecta]

To be straight I think all of her slip ups, denials and rejections are worthy of attention. I’m not sure exactly what would be correct to expect from her.

That’s true! My thoughts on her have really changed since she’s been on the stand. I still feel it wasn’t the best move she could have made.

 

[Sweeper2000]

That’s true! My thoughts on her have really changed since she’s been on the stand. I still feel it wasn’t the best move she could have made.

I think everyone thinks that lol. I would absolutely love to hear a professional opinion on it tbh. I’m no expert on proceedings in court so I really really don’t know how a jury acting under a presumption of innocence would perceive it. I know she has rejected allot but she is talking about things that happened years ago and IMO isn’t likely to be able to recall clearly. I wouldn’t necessarily expect anyone else to have real clarity about very forgettable events either excepting the aftermath.

I really do think all individual memory will have to be weighed against what is a ascertained basis of facts. That’s such a task.

 

[Dotta]

I'm intending to go to the trial next week, so you all might get an insider account of her manner etc.

Good luck!

I would love to join you

BUT

Geez!

I could see the horrified faces of my family if I told them Im going to a foreign land to watch a trial of (an alleged) serial killer of tiny babies

They would definitely think my interest in true crime is going toooo far

Nobody understands me haha

 

[Parker Knoll]

I get you Dotta !

 

[marynnu]

Good luck!

I would love to join you

BUT

Geez!

I could see the horrified faces of my family if I told them Im going to a foreign land to watch a trial of (an alleged) serial killer of tiny babies

They would definitely think my interest in true crime is going toooo far

Nobody understands me haha

Just say you're going to improve your English (which is extremely good already I must say)!

 

[Tortoise]

I think everyone thinks that lol. I would absolutely love to hear a professional opinion on it tbh. I’m no expert on proceedings in court so I really really don’t know how a jury acting under a presumption of innocence would perceive it. I know she has rejected allot but she is talking about things that happened years ago and IMO isn’t likely to be able to recall clearly. I wouldn’t necessarily expect anyone else to have real clarity about very forgettable events either excepting the aftermath.

I really do think all individual memory will have to be weighed against what is a ascertained basis of facts. That’s such a task.

A jury isn't acting under a presumption of innocence.

They are there to decide if the charges are proven to the required legal standard.

 

[Sweeper2000]

A jury isn't acting under a presumption of innocence.

They are there to decide if the charges are proven to the required legal standard.

“Presumed innocent until proven guilty“, thought that meant you have to look at her like she is innocent and let that shape your perspectiv?

 

[Tortoise]

“Presumed innocent until proven guilty“, thought that meant you have to look at her like she is innocent and let that shape your perspectiv?

Not at all. It means that at the beginning of the trial the jury must not think by the mere fact that the accused has been charged with the offences that she committed them, and the prosecution has the burden of proving its case.

The prosecution could have rested after six months of evidence, the defence presented no evidence, and the jury decide if the accused is guilty, or not. The fact the defence is putting on a case is her right but not a legal requirement.

The jury cannot deliberate until it has heard all the evidence from both sides, but that doesn't mean it has to view her as innocent or believe she's innocent after hearing the prosecution's evidence.

There is also a legal requirement that media may not refer to the accused as guilty of the offences before a verdict has been reached.

 

[Anxala]

“Presumed innocent until proven guilty“, thought that meant you have to look at her like she is innocent and let that shape your perspectiv?

It's the evidence that shapes a perspective, not the individual, Sweeper. That's the entire remit of trial by jury, that the evidence tells the story, not the individual.

 

[Sweeper2000]

I get that now. Cheers, so it’s more like the charges by themselves open a question of innocence or guilt and up until the verdict it’s an open question?

 

[Anxala]

I've watched a lot of trials over the years. I rarely, if ever, have seen the defendant asking for a break from being questioned before lunch. Or for their testimony being cut down to 2 days a week, and from there, to half a day at a time.

It is very unusual. IMO

RSBM

We don't know that the 2 day-week or even the half-day was LL-related though. That's just speculation. It could have been any number of things that interrupted the court schedule.

Apart from that, I'm really not seeing anything unusual about LL's treatment other than sensible consideration for and accommodation of the pressure LL's under. It's entirely in the court's interest to do so, to ensure the trial, particularly one so 'extraordinary', with so much time, prep and investment behind it, and with so much riding on it, runs a fair and criticism-free course.

 

[Tortoise]

I get that now. Cheers, so it’s more like the charges by themselves open a question of innocence or guilt and up until the verdict it’s an open question?

Only in the eyes of the law. She is legally innocent until she is convicted, and remains so if acquitted. The charges can have been proven (although not in a legal sense) at any point in the trial by the evidence but they haven't been adjudicated on until the pronouncement of verdict. You can believe something and then further information changes your belief, that's the open question part.

 

[notsure]

I get that now. Cheers, so it’s more like the charges by themselves open a question of innocence or guilt and up until the verdict it’s an open question?

I suppose if the jury has any reasonable doubt about her guilt, she will be acquitted? Or is that no longer a thing?

 

[marynnu]

I suppose if the jury has any reasonable doubt about her guilt, she will be acquitted? Or is that no longer a thing?

There's no change except I believe in the phrasing - "Judges have been told to drop the phrase ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ over concerns that jurors do not understand it,” the Mail on Sunday reported. “Instead, official guidance for the judiciary is to tell jurors that they must be ‘satisfied so that they are sure’ a defendant is guilty.” '

No, the standard of proof has not been changed | Joshua Rozenberg | The Critic Magazine

“A little learning is a dangerous thing,” wrote Pope. A little legal learning may be more dangerous still. “Judges have been told to drop the phrase ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ over concerns that jurors…

thecritic.co.uk

 

[notsure]

There's no change except I believe in the phrasing - "Judges have been told to drop the phrase ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ over concerns that jurors do not understand it,” the Mail on Sunday reported. “Instead, official guidance for the judiciary is to tell jurors that they must be ‘satisfied so that they are sure’ a defendant is guilty.” '

No, the standard of proof has not been changed | Joshua Rozenberg | The Critic Magazine

“A little learning is a dangerous thing,” wrote Pope. A little legal learning may be more dangerous still. “Judges have been told to drop the phrase ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ over concerns that jurors…

thecritic.co.uk

Thank you - v. interesting.

 

[Sweeper2000]

I’m wondering about her testimony regarding air embolism and her knowledge of it. Specifically what she had been taught about it. she had passed that exam into Being qualified in 2014 right?

i would Like to. Know if anyone does what that training would entail and what paperwork a nurse would have to complete in order to qualify for the itu training. I’m also wondering if that training would be a nationwide nhs standard or if the training was specific to that trust ?

she said she didn’t know what one ”AE” was in regards to her police interview, if that paper contradicts her account.

 

[Enquirer-2019]

Only in the eyes of the law. She is legally innocent until she is convicted, and remains so if acquitted. The charges can have been proven (although not in a legal sense) at any point in the trial by the evidence but they haven't been adjudicated on until the pronouncement of verdict. You can believe something and then further information changes your belief, that's the open question part.

Surely, adopting a non-biased viewpoint - she should is legally innocent ‘unless convicted’ as opposed to ‘until convicted’; the burden of proof could have supported Or not-supported a charge…at any point…etc

 

[Tortoise]

Surely, adopting a non-biased viewpoint - she should is legally innocent ‘unless convicted’ as opposed to ‘until convicted’; the burden of proof could have supported Or not-supported a charge…at any point…etc

No I meant to use the word until, with the alternative being acquittal also clearly stated.

Until doesn't denote a certain outcome when it's used hypothetically and in the context of what can effect a change.

 

[Enquirer-2019]

I get that now. Cheers, so it’s more like the charges by themselves open a question of innocence or guilt and up until the verdict it’s an open question?

I found this document interesting, particularly pages 93, and 184 - I hope it is helpful.

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Crown-Court-Compendium-Part-I-June-2022.pdf