Nurse murdered seven babies

[tarric]

She was not convicted by 12 jurors. They were majority verdicts after the jury could not agree and, if I remember rightly, only after one juror, probably one of the dissenters, was discharged.

I'm not saying that makes her less guilty in law but it indicates that the jury struggled with the task with which they were charged.

That fact is part of the background that makes me uncertain that the verdict is 100% safe. I'm not even saying she didn't do something or that she's not a 'rum 'un' but I have worries about whether her guilt was really 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

If a jury, in a case where the defence has, for whatever reason perhaps not played its strongest cards, wobbled over whether to convict then I worry about the safety of the convictions.

As I said before I think this case is going to the CCRC and probably back to the courts. If that's the case it would be intolerable if it were to drag on for decades as too many cases in the past did.

The juror was not discharged, according to Trial judge Mr Justice James Goss said "for good personal reasons", it was "not possible" for one of the 12 jurors to continue.

On at least 2 charges she was unanimously found guilty and the 1 juror leaving whether they were in the guilty not guilty camp wouldn't really have mattered the judge would have accepted a majority verdict of 10-2 as it was it was 10-1.

 

[Bromptonaut]

The juror was not discharged, according to Trial judge Mr Justice James Goss said "for good personal reasons", it was "not possible" for one of the 12 jurors to continue.

On at least 2 charges she was unanimously found guilty and the 1 juror leaving whether they were in the guilty not guilty camp wouldn't really have mattered the judge would have accepted a majority verdict of 10-2 as it was it was 10-1.

If the juror was unable to continue for personal reasons and was released from further discussions then I would say she was discharged. I didn't mean to imply any misconduct. They were discharged in early August.

So far as I can ascertain there were unanimous verdicts of attempted murder in two cases involving insulin and one relating to one of three triplets. The rest were majority.

 

[spen666]

.....

As I said before I think this case is going to the CCRC and probably back to the courts. If that's the case it would be intolerable if it were to drag on for decades as too many cases in the past did.

You are jumping the gun a bit here

1. The case has not been referred to the CCRC

2. The CCRC have not accepted any referral yet

3. The CCRC have not looked at the case or made any conclusions . The CCRC reject 97% of cases referred to them

4. The CCRC have not referred the case back to the Court of Appeal.

5. The Court of Appeal have not considered the case and are not bound to overturn convictions on cases the CCRC refer to them. Of the 3% of cases the CCRC do not reject, only 70% of that 3% are succesful. That means only about 2% of cases referred to the CCRC result in convictions being overturned.

 

[spen666]

She was not convicted by 12 jurors. They were majority verdicts after the jury could not agree and, if I remember rightly, only after one juror, probably one of the dissenters, was discharged.

I'm not saying that makes her less guilty in law but it indicates that the jury struggled with the task with which they were charged.

A Completely made up argument.

You have invented that the discharged juror was a "dissenter". What evidence if any do you have to support that view?

They were discharged for " Good personal reasons" according to the Judge. There is no other evidence out there as to why they were discharged.

Trial judge Mr Justice James Goss said "for good personal reasons", it was "not possible" for one of the 12 jurors to continue.

He added that further directions would be given on Friday morning to the remaining 11 jurors.

The trial judge thanked the juror for their attendance during the trial over the past 10 months, and he was sorry they were unable to continue
"I imagine it must be slightly frustrating for you," he added.

https://www.chesterstandard.co.uk/news/23698258.lucy-letby-trial-jury-deliberations-resume-13th-day/

You appear to have reached a conclusion based upon personal prejudice rather than facts.


Majority verdicts have been allowed in Juryy trials for 57 years now and it has not even once been held that a majority verdicts makes a conviction unsafe.

 

[tarric]

If the juror was unable to continue for personal reasons and was released from further discussions then I would say she was discharged. I didn't mean to imply any misconduct. They were discharged in early August.

So far as I can ascertain there were unanimous verdicts of attempted murder in two cases involving insulin and one relating to one of three triplets. The rest were majority.

So why bother adding "only after one juror, probably one of the dissenters, was discharged."

Yes and each of those unanimous convictions can carry a life sentence. Whether a majority or unanimous conviction it make no difference to the sentence, she was also found guilt at her re-trial for baby K on July 2024.

 

[Mr Celine]

Majority verdicts have been allowed in Juryy trials for 57 years now and it has not even once been held that a majority verdicts makes a conviction unsafe.

Majority verdicts have always been used in Scotland. 8 - 7 is enough for a conviction.

 

[Bromptonaut]

@spen666 why do you need to pick fights all the time?

So far as I can tell there were no verdicts until juror #12 was discharged. For reasons you know better than me we don't know what went on in the jury room. I can though surmise what might have been the case without 'making stuff up'.

As to the CCRC could you point me to where I said , regarding your assertions at post #273, that the case had gone there already?

I'm simply saying a referral to them, and onwards to the Court of Appeal, is not only desirable but inevitable.

 

[Bromptonaut]

So why bother adding "only after one juror, probably one of the dissenters, was discharged."

Yes and each of those unanimous convictions can carry a life sentence. Whether a majority or unanimous conviction it make no difference to the sentence, she was also found guilt at her re-trial for baby K on July 2024.

Were there any verdicts reached before the juror was discharged?

I'm not suggesting anything fishy; just that they struggled with the task.

 

[spen666]

@spen666 why do you need to pick fights all the time?

So far as I can tell there were no verdicts until juror #12 was discharged. For reasons you know better than me we don't know what went on in the jury room. I can though surmise what might have been the case without 'making stuff up'.

As to the CCRC could you point me to where I said , regarding your assertions at post #273, that the case had gone there already?

I'm simply saying a referral to them, and onwards to the Court of Appeal, is not only desirable but inevitable.

Oh,

I'm sorry I'll let you spread bullshit lies and misinformation and not dare point out the facts.


A better question might be why do you spread false and misleading information.

You have completely made up a scenario around the reasons a juror was discharged and are getting upset at being called out on your made up story.

I have quoted you the Judges readon for the discharge which seems to upset you.


Never mind let's avoid the facts as they contradict your theory

You want to pick a fight with a series of convictions, but throw your toys out of the pram when faced with facts

 

[spen666]

Were there any verdicts reached before the juror was discharged?

I'm not suggesting anything fishy; just that they struggled with the task.

Where is the evidence to back this claim re Jury up.

the fact that the juror was discharged for good personal reasons according to the Judge shots down your claim


The fact someone struggles to reach a verdict is not a ground fir an individual juror to be discharged seems to escape you

 

[Bromptonaut]

@Spen why all this bullshit and lies bullshine?

I'm theorising, maybe even speculating; I'm not casting aspersions against the honesty of the discharged juror. Nothing I have said requires proof.

Since I'm not asserting anything as a fact your reference to lies is just the aggressive confrontational persona you choose to project on this site.

Do you disagree that the lengthy period of deliberations might suggest the jury found their task difficult and onerous?

The fact the judge gave majority directions, and the failure to agree verdicts at all on some charges tells us that there were dissenters.

We know the juror was discharged for good personal reasons and you will know as well as I do that the decision to discharge a juror is not taken lightly or casually.

Do you, or anyone else outside of the trial, know what those personal reasons were?

 

[spen666]

@Spen why all this bullshit and lies bullshine?

I don't know . You are the one posting it. If you don't know why you are posting it, then how do you expect others to?

I'm theorising, maybe even speculating; I'm not casting aspersions against the honesty of the discharged juror. Nothing I have said requires proof.

Since I'm not asserting anything as a fact your reference to lies is just the aggressive confrontational persona you choose to project on this site.

Really? You have repeatedly asserted that juror was discharged because they had difficulties reaching a verdict.

This despite the evidence of the judge as to why juror was discharged.

Also the fact a juror is not discharged because it is hard to make up their mind


You seem to be the only person suggesting a juror being discharged for "good personal reasons" is somehow sinister or affecting the safety of the conviction

Do you disagree that the lengthy period of deliberations might suggest the jury found their task difficult and onerous?

Maybe it has more to do with the fact there were many charges and a huge amount of evidence to consider given it was an 8 month long trial. There were 246 witnesses who gave evidence, and thousands of pages of documentary evidence.

The fact the judge gave majority directions, and the failure to agree verdicts at all on some charges tells us that there were dissenters.

No one is doubting that majority verdicts. The majority verdicts were 10:1.

Majority verdicts have been happening for nearly 60 years now. The fact it was a majority verdicts is not grounds for an appeal.

We know the juror was discharged for good personal reasons and you will know as well as I do that the decision to discharge a juror is not taken lightly or casually.

Do you, or anyone else outside of the trial, know what those personal reasons were?

Why do you want to know what personal reasons were. The Judge and legal teams who all know are only people who need to know. Nosey people on internet forums have no right or need to know people's personal details

 

[Ian H]

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!!

 

[glasgowcyclist]

You have repeatedly asserted that juror was discharged because they had difficulties reaching a verdict.

No he hasn’t.

 

[AndyRM]

No he hasn’t.

You have to remember that this is spen, who operates on a different plane of intelligence to the rest of us.