VERDICT WATCH UK - Nurse Lucy Letby, Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #30

[WaxLyrical]

That's a matter of opinion. I don't consider £30 an hour, or c. £2,600-£2,800 a month, expenses. But you did say they were getting nothing.

That’s the absolute maximum that can be claimed depending on loss of earnings. Can they claim for the days where court hasn’t sat? Because doing a full five days a week doesn’t happen all that often.

 

[Becky53]

If your jury service lasts longer than 10 working days, the amount you can claim increases. You’ll be able to claim up to:

• £129.91 a day if you spend more than 4 hours at court
• £64.95 a day if you spend 4 hours or less at court

Plus £5.71 per day for food, plus travel expenses.

Jury service

Granted my other half doesn’t always work everyday unless it’s a long event but he’d be seriously out of pocket at those rates per day especially on a trial of this length.

I’m sure he’d want to see justice served but can see him thinking of all sorts to try and get out of it. Or having a one way conversation with himself…

Your employer must let you have time off work, but can ask you to delay your jury service if your absence will have a serious effect on their business.

jmo

 

[James W]

Is there any explanation for tomorrow's early start at 10am? I assume Judge Goss is recovering the time from today's 4pm finish.

 

[James W]

Can anyone send me a link to the news that Prosecution Barrister Nicolas Johnson is currently on holiday? I was shocked to hear that. I was in court last Thursday, I'm sure he was there then.

 

[Marantz4250b]

That's a matter of opinion. I don't consider £30 an hour, or c. £2,600-£2,800 a month, expenses. But you did say they were getting nothing.

To be specific I said they weren't getting paid. That page you linked to says that too.

It's not a lot of money when you consider that on the days that the jury show up only to get sent home early they get half of that amount. Also, many people are on a lot more than that - my builder mate bills himself out at 150 quid a day if he likes you! I know a chap who restors and services cars and he bills himself out at anywhere up to 100 an hour!

Sure, its not earnings so not taxed but its still, essentially, forced labour of a type. We've had various discussions about the nature of juries and what sort of reforms, if any, might be warranted at some point. I'll make a prediction that sooner or later someone is going to bring human rights issues into the discussion. Its a difficult case to make that someone should be required to do something non-consensually for possibly months on end, I think.

Anyway, were drifting a bit here - my original point was I'm reply to the comments about the hours put in by the jury and the stoppages we've had due to absences which have to be considered in the context of these people, ultimately, being there through compulsion rather than choice.

 

[iamshadow21]

Agreed totally. However, it is very, very unusual that the state compels someone to do something in the form of a personal service.

The responsibilities attached to rights are generally not to do certain things (like commiting crimes) rather than to actually do things.

I live in a country with compulsory voting, which I have absolutely no problem with. I'd say most of us have lived in countries that at some time or another have had compulsory military service in times of upheaval and war. We take on the responsibility of driving in a safe way, consistent with the rules to protect everyone on the road. If we have assets or income, we pay taxes. In a pandemic, we listen to and follow guidelines to keep everyone safe around us. If we take on confidential government work, we adhere to things like the Official Secrets Act. And when asked, we report for service as a juror. There are probably plenty more, but those are just a few things that I can think of, whether you think any of them are comparable is probably up for debate.

MOO

 

[CS2C]

Is there any explanation for tomorrow's early start at 10am? I assume Judge Goss is recovering the time from today's 4pm finish.

Well he tried 30 minutes later and that didn’t work so maybe he is trying 30 minutes earlier.

 

[esther43]

If your jury service lasts longer than 10 working days, the amount you can claim increases. You’ll be able to claim up to:

• £129.91 a day if you spend more than 4 hours at court
• £64.95 a day if you spend 4 hours or less at court

Plus £5.71 per day for food, plus travel expenses.

Jury service

Do they not also cover child care and fuel?

 

[DinerMite]

There’s New Hall prison in Wakefield and Drake Hall in Staffordshire which would fit with the commute time imo - but I’m just speculating now.

moo

She's not in Drake Hall - that doesn't house those on remand. She is in Styal in my 'opinion'.

If sentenced she will remain in a high-security such as Styal or possibly Bronsfield.

 

[Becky53]

dbm

 

[Tortoise]

I wonder why she's been in four different prisons since 2020.

I would have thought it would make most sense to place her in the closest prison to the court for the trial, but they must have their reasons.

 

[V347]

WINNER Announcement

Length of Deliberations Predictions

Jul
Mon 10th - day 1 (afternoon only) - 2pm to 4pm minus 5mins = 1h 55m
Tue 11th - day 2 - 4h 20m
Wed 12th - day 3 - 4h 20m
Thu 13th - day 4 - 4h 20m
Fri 14th - day 5 - 4h 20m
Mon 24th - day 6 - 4h 20m
Tue 25th - day 7 - 4h 20m
Wed 26th - day 8 - 4h 15m
Thu 27th - day 9 - 4h 20m
Fri 28th - day 10 - 3h 50m (12pm - 4pm minus 2x 5 min breaks)
Aug
Tue 1st - day 11 - 4h 10m
Wed 2nd - day 12 - 4h 20m
Thu 3rd - day 13 - 4h 10m
Fri 4th - day 14 - 4h 15m
Tue 8th - day 15 - 4h 20m (majority direction given at 3pm)
Wed 9th - day 16 - 4h 20m
Thu 10th - day 17 - 4h (12pm to 4pm - assumed no lunch break)
Fri 11th - day 18 - 3h 25m (1pm to 4.30pm minus 5m)
Tue 15th - day 19 - 4h 20m

Running total = 77h 40m


The Winner (due to being the closest guess) Is -


80h - @V347 (backed by @crystalline and @Jw192 )

CONGRATULATIONS!!! @V347

Thank you

Apologies for not being as present as I’d like to be posting, currently 8 months pregnant, working full time and manically trying to get an extension on our house finished before little one gets here!

Thank you to everyone’s ever insightful posts daily, I have tried to keep up with them as much as possible ( usually via the emoji reactions). You’ve given me food for thought many a time and it’s interesting to see the different opinions and view points.


Now… where’s my purse, I think I owe everyone cakes?!?

 

[DinerMite]

I wonder why she's been in four different prisons since 2020.

I would have thought it would make most sense to place her in the closest prison to the court for the trial, but they must have their reasons.

Prisons are massively over-crowded and it's only getting worse. It will be for logistical reasons not because of her personally imo.

It's fair to assume she wasn't expected to be on remand for such duration so measures would have to be taken to re-house her to allow for other stays - particularly after the delays in covid. She is also limited really as to where she can go due to the nature of crimes.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

My mind keeps going from ‘there are 22 charges, it’s going to take time’ to now thinking that if the jurors were all in agreement from the start then there’d be no need to go back over the evidence with a fine tooth comb. If they all sat down and realised they all had been convinced by the evidence then all it would take would be going to each charge - perhaps one person outlining the case, asking the others which were stand out points for them which convinced them the prosecution had (or hadn’t) proven their case, then onto the next.

I think IMO anyway, it’s becoming clearer that there may well be one or two or perhaps more who weren’t initially convinced by the prosecution’s case. Therefore the jury have had to delve deeper into the evidence.

From what I understand, there’s no legal requirement that says juries have to discuss all of the evidence if they have all already come to the same conclusion during the trial. The only reason for that c peptide question for example is if one or more jurors aren’t sure the case has been proven for that charge - all JMO though.

I feel like we are going round in circles with the same discussions, I’m getting worried but then it hasn’t been long in terms of deliberation hours since the judge said he’d allow a majority.. I just expected that verdicts would be reached pretty quickly once he allowed that. Just shows you never know how each individual juror has interpreted the evidence they’ve heard.

All MOO

I agree with this and it resonates with what worries me...

What concerns me is that the evidence presented was complex, detailed, and almost overwhelming at the time it was presented in court - and I'm saying that from the other side of the internet here on WS where we were able to debate, discuss, add verified links and news reports etc.

Apparently the jurors weren't even allowed to discuss the evidence being presented amongst themselves until it came to recent weeks. Well unless they're all very psychologically stable (and let's face it the none of us are 100% in this modern world of overwhelm), unless they all have a high standard of literacy, education, IQ, and academic capacity, there's literally *no way* they digested and considered that information at the time it was being presented. We on the internet did, we had each other and we are here on WS because we have a certain type of mind and interests. They don't!

They're members of the public. Some of them may not even have English as a first, second or even third language. Some of them may not have even passed a single exam at school. Some of them maybe forgetful at the best of times. Some of them may have been completely traumatised by what they've heard. Some of them may have had their own traumas and grief and injustices triggered. And yet they couldn't discuss with anyone. That's intense and crazy-making.

Also I've had friends who've done jury duty and they've literally told me they didn't comprehend the complex forensic detail of the case, they were relying on the prosecution or defence to put it in simple enough terms for them to comprehend. Well that's not how it works for a jury of one's peers to decide if you've done what the prosecution alleges.

My opinion is, that for any jury member who did not fully comprehend and digest the information at the time it was being presented and discussed in court, they haven't understood it at the time, they're not going to be able to comment. They can't be 'filled in' after the fact with it all.

My concern is that if they didn't all comprehend and digest the data as it was incoming, there's not enough time in the world to review all that again and have it explained. That is why I thought there'd be an almost instant verdict. The fact there hasn't been one, that's the aspect that worries me.

JMO MOP

 

[Parker Knoll]

She is in HMP New Hall, She went to Styal originally then I think it was Bronzefield then Peterborough then finally New Hall. It would certainly make sense for her to be in Styal as it just 30 mins away if the traffic is on your side but clearly she’s been moved about for whatever reason.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

Thanks!
I know nothing about female prisons
And hope it will stay that way!!!

There's a documentary about Styal prison, or maybe more than one even, somewhere on youtube. It's a terrible prison with an awful reputation. I think changes have been made and it's not quite as barbaric in the here and now but it was considered to be the most terrifying place.

 

[Becky53]

I would have thought it would make most sense to place her in the closest prison to the court for the trial, but they must have their reasons.

I wholeheartedly agree but the timings just seem off to me for Styal no matter which way I look at it. Princess Parkway can be a nightmare in the morning (and evening) after coming off the M56 and that would be the most direct route. Even going around the M60 clockwise from M56 and entering Manchester via Salford (the back way I’d say) is busy - but not 90 mins busy.

Maybe they come in a scenic way (via Warburton Bridge) and change the route daily in case anyone is waiting to spring her from the van - lol.

All MOO

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

I wholeheartedly agree but the timings just seem off to me for Styal no matter which way I look at it. Princess Parkway can be a nightmare in the morning (and evening) after coming off the M56 and that would be the most direct route. Even going around the M60 clockwise from M56 and entering Manchester via Salford (the back way I’d say) is busy - but not 90 mins busy.

Maybe they come in a scenic way (via Warburton Bridge) and change the route daily in case anyone is waiting to spring her from the van - lol.

All MOO

Regarding which prison she's being brought from

It's also a consideration of security and health & safety - ie the security level of the prison itself. Plus the facilities available at the prison in accordance with her legal right to having her needs met.

The prison service and the security companies have to take into account the possibility of people trying to spy on an infamous prisoner, the chances of staff or other prisoners being 'nobbled' by members of the public or press and media, the routes that they take on the roads in terms of the likelihoods of being tracked and followed by mobs of press... there's such a lot of considerations.

I can't imagine what it must be like being LL on a daily basis. I try to envisage it and I just can't. I would want to end my life I think.

 

[Marantz4250b]

Don't we usually get a new thread after 50 pages?

 

[Blondiexoxo]

I agree with this and it resonates with what worries me...

What concerns me is that the evidence presented was complex, detailed, and almost overwhelming at the time it was presented in court - and I'm saying that from the other side of the internet here on WS where we were able to debate, discuss, add verified links and news reports etc.

Apparently the jurors weren't even allowed to discuss the evidence being presented amongst themselves until it came to recent weeks. Well unless they're all very psychologically stable (and let's face it the none of us are 100% in this modern world of overwhelm), unless they all have a high standard of literacy, education, IQ, and academic capacity, there's literally *no way* they digested and considered that information at the time it was being presented. We on the internet did, we had each other and we are here on WS because we have a certain type of mind and interests. They don't!

They're members of the public. Some of them may not even have English as a first, second or even third language. Some of them may not have even passed a single exam at school. Some of them maybe forgetful at the best of times. Some of them may have been completely traumatised by what they've heard. Some of them may have had their own traumas and grief and injustices triggered. And yet they couldn't discuss with anyone. That's intense and crazy-making.

Also I've had friends who've done jury duty and they've literally told me they didn't comprehend the complex forensic detail of the case, they were relying on the prosecution or defence to put it in simple enough terms for them to comprehend. Well that's not how it works for a jury of one's peers to decide if you've done what the prosecution alleges.

My opinion is, that for any jury member who did not fully comprehend and digest the information at the time it was being presented and discussed in court, they haven't understood it at the time, they're not going to be able to comment. They can't be 'filled in' after the fact with it all.

My concern is that if they didn't all comprehend and digest the data as it was incoming, there's not enough time in the world to review all that again and have it explained. That is why I thought there'd be an almost instant verdict. The fact there hasn't been one, that's the aspect that worries me.

JMO MOP

Exactly! We were able to go back over previous evidence, on days when court wasn’t sitting we were here going back over what had been said, sharing our thoughts and opinions. We have some excellent members who were able to spot similarities and links by bringing over previously reported material from the live updates. One of us would say ‘I don’t think this is a very strong point’ and another would share the link to the CS from the week previous demonstrating that something was infact a very strong valid point.

During the course of the trial other members helped me shape my opinion by sharing things they’d noticed, little details I hadn’t picked up on. While court was hearing the case of baby I for example, we were able to go back and look at the evidence for baby E (just used these 2 cases as examples) and what we read may have helped us take in the evidence, helped it make more sense, and hearing others’ opinions helped us form or solidify our own. There’d be posts like ‘do you remember how with baby A this also happened’ and we’d pick up on the links as the trial went along.

The jurors haven’t had any of this. IMO they will likely have only been taking in the information they were hearing at the time, focusing on one case at a time and not even thinking back to weeks/months previously when some evidence might have stood out as being connected. We’ve had the benefit of being able to refer back to the CS updates whenever we’ve been struggling to remember something. Unless the jurors have been taking notes regularly throughout all those months of evidence, I could imagine it being difficult for them to pick out many details from each case IMO.

I mean we heard NJ beautifully demonstrate all the links and similarities in his closing, but his closing statement was not evidence, and the jurors may have to go back through the actual evidence to find proof of any of the accusations he made, aswell as comparing that evidence to the claims BM also made during his closing.

All JMO as always