Nurse murdered seven babies

[Bromptonaut]

@spen666

I'm not asserting any deliberate causation between the decision to discharge and the jury subsequently arriving at verdicts; merely speculating arithmetic correlation.

I don't know why they were discharged, I don't want to know why, and furthermore there's no way I can find out.

Hope this helps.

 

[bobzmyunkle]

I'm not asserting causation between discharge and the jury subsequently arriving at verdicts; merely speculating arithmetic correlation.

I guess the question is, why?
Loathe as I am to say it, I think @spen666 has at least a partial point.

 

[Bromptonaut]

I guess the question is, why?
Loathe as I am to say it, I think @spen666 has at least a partial point.

I've a nagging doubt that Letby's convictions are not 100% safe. Part of that is because of concerns about the quality of the prosecution's evidence as expounded by, amongst others, 'MD' writing in Private Eye. Some of the decisions by her defence team seem, with hindsight, to be questionable.

I'm speculating that on top of that the jury, or rather some members of it, found the task of assessing the evidence extremely difficult and perhaps overwhelming. If so then could that be a result of case management decisions made by the court as to which cases to put in front of a jury?

There's a set of interrelated facts/events which lead me to think the whole thing needs looking at again.

The body to do that is the CCRC.

 

[C R]

I can't see why the jury convicting her twice is an argument for the convictions being safe. Angela Cannings, Sally Clarke and the others were convinced by juries.

 

[Bromptonaut]

I can't see why the jury convicting her twice is an argument for the convictions being safe. Angela Cannings, Sally Clarke and the others were convinced by juries.

So was Andrew Malkinson.

 

[spen666]

@Bromptonaut not sure why you are so keen on the fact a juror was discharged. It is wholly irrelevant to the guilt or otherwise of Letby.

Many cases are concluded with less than 12 jurors for a variety of reasons.

If you are not suggesting there was anything untoward with a juror being discharged, why do you keep on going on about it? It is no more relevant than the colour of socks worn by any of the jurors or what they had for breakfast.



Lets get back to facts

1. Letby was convicted of numerous muders and attempted murders by a jury properly constituted and who returned their verdicts in the correct legal manner. No legally qualified person involved in the case or otherwise has suggested anything to the contrary
2. Letby was convicted iagain in a separate trial by a separate jury. Again the jury was properly constituted and delivered their verdict in the correct legal manner.
3. The first trial heard 8 months of evidence and thousands of pages of documentary wevidence were considerdd. It is not surprising in a case with many charges and so much evidence that a jury takes a lot of timer considering its verdict. If the jury hadn't. then questions may have been asked about the thoroughness of their deliberations.

There is no relevance whatsoever in the jury, the number of jurors etc. It is not suggested by anyone with any involvement that this is significant.


Lets lay issues around the Jury to one side, unless and until there is any relevant issue here.






Turning to the Trials

4. Letby was convicted in 2 separate trials by 2 separate juries after hearing all the evidence presented to them.. Lets not lose sight of that.
5. Letby was represented by a competent legal team lead by a KC. You do not become a KC without being one of the leading players at the Bar. - whether others would have conducted the defence in a different way does not mean her defence was conducted improperly. The chances are that the defence had good reason for the way they presented their case. We are not privy to those reason and unless Letby waives Legal Professional Privilege, we will never become aware.



Turning to where the case goes from here, if at all

6. The case has not been referred to the CCRC. It may or may not ever be so referred. It is pure speculation at this stage to say the case will be so referred.

7. The CCRC have not accepted any referral yet. Not only does a case have to be referred by someone, it needs to be accepted by the CCRC

8. The CCRC have not looked at the case or made any conclusions . The CCRC reject 97% of cases referred to them. This is significant as even if a case is referred to the CCRC, it is statistically unlikely to ever be referred by them to the Court of Appeal

9 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 successful. That means only about 2% of cases referred to the CCRC result in convictions being overturned.




Talk of the CCRC is speculative at this stage and even if the case is referred to the CCRC, it only has a very small chance of success.
It should also be remembered that the Court of Appeal will only overturn a conviction if the Court of Appeal believes it is unsafe. This is an incredibly high bar to meet. It is for the appellant to prove the conviction is unsafe. It is not for the prosecution to prove it is safe. Effectively a reverse of the burden of proof.


Some grounds for successful appeals to Court of Appeal include:
The judge made an error of law during the trial
The judge misdirected the jury in law or fact
There was a procedural irregularity during the trial
The verdicts were inconsistent
The appellant was wrongly convicted
The conviction is shown to be wrong by serious unfairness in the conduct of the trial
The jury verdict defies any rational explanation
Fresh evidence is available

Most of those grounds do not apply in this case. It will be a massive ( although not impossible) task to persuade the Court of Appeal that she was wrongly convicted in 2 separate trials. with different juries

Everyone is speculating on the basis of only being aware of a tiny part of the evidence and reasoning behind that evidence being so presented or not presented

There are aspects of the case that may look odd when looked at out of the full context - eg why defence did not challenge statistical evidence. However none of us know why the defence chose not to challenge that evidence

 

[spen666]

I can't see why the jury convicting her twice is an argument for the convictions being safe. Angela Cannings, Sally Clarke and the others were convinced by juries.

Basic logic - the more times someone is convicted, the more likely it is they were guilty. Juries independently deciding their verdicts. Its why we have for example juries normally of 12 rather than just 1 person. The more who agree, the more likely it is to be the correct decision.
That does not mean it is guaranteed the decision is right


Also, here she was convicted of 2 separate sets of offences by 2 separate juries.

Even if one set of convictions is overturned, the other case verdict would still stand, so she would remain serving a life sentence.

 

[icowden]

Basic logic - the more times someone is convicted, the more likely it is they were guilty. Juries independently deciding their verdicts. Its why we have for example juries normally of 12 rather than just 1 person. The more who agree, the more likely it is to be the correct decision.
That does not mean it is guaranteed the decision is right


Also, here she was convicted of 2 separate sets of offences by 2 separate juries.

However, IIRC the second trial was allowed to consider that she had already been convicted of multiple murders in the first trial, thus the conviction is consequential from the first trial. If the first trial is unsafe, it stands to reason that there may have been bias in the second trial which also makes that unsafe, no?

 

[spen666]

However, IIRC the second trial was allowed to consider that she had already been convicted of multiple murders in the first trial, thus the conviction is consequential from the first trial. If the first trial is unsafe, it stands to reason that there may have been bias in the second trial which also makes that unsafe, no?

I do not think you are quite correct.

The jury in 2nd trial would have known re her previous convictions as it would be impossible to find 12 jurors who hadn't heard of it.

They were not however allowed to take that into consideration in deciding her guilty. They were only allowed to take into account evidence given in the 2nd trial

Your conclusion re bias is also not correct. In many cases nowadays, juries are aware of previous convictions of defeandants, it does not make those verdicts unsafe, and it will not in this case per se

 

[Bromptonaut]

@spen666 I'm not massively keen on the fact a juror was discharged. I'm interested in how the numbers play out around the majority verdict in this particular case.
The one who departed could have died or done a runner and it would make no difference. The reason I keep returning to the point is becuase of accusations of bad faith from yourself .

I know majority verdicts have been a for close to 60 years and for the most part they're fine. There are though some folks, including legal academics, who have their doubts. Malkinson was a majority verdict and his case has put some wind in the sails of those with doubts.

As you know legislation from the eighties makes it difficult or impossible to research how juries work by actually talking to them. IMHO it's time that was looked at again. The mechanics of how the numbers play out in deliberations in general and perhaps more specifically where unanimity is not achieved would be a fertile are for better understanding.

I know that facts as you recite them. Ordinarily I'm amongst those say the jury was there all day and every day of the trial and their conclusions are likely to be unimpeachable. Some things about the Letby case, recited at length in the New Yorker and by 'MD' in Private Eye amongst others mean I'm just a bit less confident.

I am not a lawyer but I spent 35 years of my professional life around Courts and Tribunals and continue to take a keen interest in judgements, academic journals etc etc.

I've a pretty clear grounding in how the system works.

I'm pretty sure I know people who worked in the CCRC. I've seen cases it's referred go to the Court of Appeal and get thrown out.

I don't need telling what the attrition rate is between the glimmer of hope that it might help those wrongly convicted and the occasional blistering result as in Malkinson.

I understand Letby has a new legal team who are going through everything with a view to a reference to the CCRC. They may or may not find what they need to sustain a referral. If they do the referral my not get past first base and even if it gets in front of the bench the bar she faces is a high one.

My gut feeling is that that is where it's going. Maybe sooner maybe later.

You're entitled to disagree but it would be better if you did so honestly and respectfully instead of inventing things you think others have said.

 

[AndyRM]

@spen666 I'm not massively keen on the fact a juror was discharged. I'm interested in how the numbers play out around the majority verdict in this particular case.
The one who departed could have died or done a runner and it would make no difference. The reason I keep returning to the point is becuase of accusations of bad faith from yourself .

I know majority verdicts have been a for close to 60 years and for the most part they're fine. There are though some folks, including legal academics, who have their doubts. Malkinson was a majority verdict and his case has put some wind in the sails of those with doubts.

As you know legislation from the eighties makes it difficult or impossible to research how juries work by actually talking to them. IMHO it's time that was looked at again. The mechanics of how the numbers play out in deliberations in general and perhaps more specifically where unanimity is not achieved would be a fertile are for better understanding.

I know that facts as you recite them. Ordinarily I'm amongst those say the jury was there all day and every day of the trial and their conclusions are likely to be unimpeachable. Some things about the Letby case, recited at length in the New Yorker and by 'MD' in Private Eye amongst others mean I'm just a bit less confident.

I am not a lawyer but I spent 35 years of my professional life around Courts and Tribunals and continue to take a keen interest in judgements, academic journals etc etc.

I've a pretty clear grounding in how the system works.

I'm pretty sure I know people who worked in the CCRC. I've seen cases it's referred go to the Court of Appeal and get thrown out.

I don't need telling what the attrition rate is between the glimmer of hope that it might help those wrongly convicted and the occasional blistering result as in Malkinson.

I understand Letby has a new legal team who are going through everything with a view to a reference to the CCRC. They may or may not find what they need to sustain a referral. If they do the referral my not get past first base and even if it gets in front of the bench the bar she faces is a high one.

My gut feeling is that that is where it's going. Maybe sooner maybe later.

You're entitled to disagree but it would be better if you did so honestly and respectfully instead of inventing things you think others have said.

Good luck with that last bit.

 

[BoldonLad]

Obviously, it is possible to INSTRUCT jurors to disregard previous trial(s) but, it is not possible to make it happen. Therefore, guilty of not, I don’t see how she could possibly get a fair trial or re-trial perhaps I should say.

 

[Ian H]

Currently, people are calling into question the validity of some expert witness statements. This is what the copfs.gov.uk website says about their qualifications:-
Qualifications, experience, and expertise are important, but not always necessary. Ultimately, it is the court that decides if a witness will be treated as an expert.
And then there's the case of Sir Roy Meadow.
How is a jury of non-expert people expected to judge the validity of such evidence? (similar questions have been raised about complex trials for financial misdemeanours).

 

[spen666]

Currently, people are calling into question the validity of some expert witness statements. This is what the copfs.gov.uk website says about their qualifications:-
Qualifications, experience, and expertise are important, but not always necessary. ....

Not sure of the relevance of a foreign legal system or its prosecution service to this case under the law of England & Wales?

 

[Ian H]

Not sure of the relevance of a foreign legal system or its prosecution service to this case under the law of England & Wales?

Oh yes, wrong country. My mistake.
I was looking for a similar quote made by someone (possible Phil Hammond) in relation to other controversial cases such as the Meadows one.