Lucy Letby

I'm not sure what relevance any of this has. And why you think anyone citing evidence to the contrary is doing so because someone at the Guardian thinks she's "sweet faced"?

Statisticians and clinical experts are interested in data and science, not her looks.

 

Imagine if she'd have been black or brown.

 

Having done jury service I’d be very surprised if she’s not guilty.

We were told that we should only go for a guilty verdict if we were confident the defendant is guilty & that if we have doubts we should find the defendant not guilty.

I think a lot of people have the belief that people on jury service just go with what they see as the most probable outcome which from my experience is untrue.

If for instance a juror thinks there’s a 60% chance Letby is guilty then from my experience they would find Letby not guilty as there’s reasonable doubt.

That’s why for example a rape case is very difficult to prove as there’s often reasonable doubt that the sex could have been consensual.

 

The issue is that some of the evidence used has been since brought into question. For example the notes presented as a confession which it was later revealed were written on advice of a counsellor.

 

Or the fact that the jury was presented with a table which suggested she was present for all deaths on the ward but in fact omitted the ones where she wasn't working.

I think she probably did it, but at the same time I think there were issues with the evidence.

 

Yet her defence didn't call.the counsellor to state this? Or 'LL wasn't asked this by her defence team at the trial? There was a lot of evidence, 9 months worth yet there was only one defence witness, a plumber. There's been two trials. On all the evidence the jury found her guilty, not unanimously and not for every count of murder.
I think picking over the bones of this sells newspapers and I feel for the poor parents. I know if much waterfront my baby had died of natural causes rather than the person who was trusted to look after them killing them.
If new evidence comes to light then of course there should be a retrial but the papers aren't going through all of the evidence, just picking up bits like the notes.

 

You don't have to prove innocence in our justice system, you only have to show reasonable doubt of guilt.

 

Good job we don’t have the Death Penalty in this country.

 

I'm not sure I agree completely with you mate, I did jury service and in one case about half the jury were adamant that the verdict should be guilty (young black lad, middle aged all-white jury). Only 2 of us thought there was sufficient doubt - the entire case for the prosecution was basically hearsay and some very unreliable witness statements, no CCTV, no forensic evidence. Had the 2 of us not stood up, the lad would have gone to prison but nothing we said could alter the opinions of at least 6 jury members the others would have gone along with them.

 

"Beyond" reasonable doubt for criminal. Balance of probabilities for civil.

 

Technically the defense doesn't have to do anything - the burden of proof is entirely on the prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

 

It's not really that people are saying it's clear she's innocent. It's that it now appears that some evidence used against her was not painting the full picture and shouldn't have been allowed. Combined with the fact that her defence failed to challenge many of the allegations despite it since becoming apparent they had the information to do so. They also called almost no witnesses (just 1 I believe) despite the lack of forensic evidence and the reliance on expert testimony by the prosecution.

The fear is this was a show trial and noone, guilty or not, deserves that. It's a basic human right to be given a fair trial. A few of us are concerned that this wasn't the case. Maybe it's just media milking the story I don't know.

 

I’m surprised at that as I assumed that they would be pretty consistent with how they tell you to come to your verdicts across the board.

I had two cases. One where we went not guilty which I’m comfortable with. On the other if I’m honest I think he probably was guilty but there wasn’t enough evidence to prove it so we went not guilty. However it was quite a petty case that I’m surprised even got to court so there’s no guilt on my part that he may well have been guilty.

 

Should never be any guilt on your part if you believe you've done the right thing. The verdict of guilty/not guilty is irrelevant as long as you understood your role and tried to fulfill it properly (which I'm sure you did). I wonder if all jurors are, at heart, as public-spirited and genuine as you seem to be. Its an important civic duty.

 

I think it's really unfair to call it a show trial @RamTam.

 

Ok fair enough. Her defence was just incompetent then. They failed to challenge obvious discrepancies in the evidence and didn't call their own expert witnesses.. even though several have come out publicly since the trial to challenge how the evidence was presented.

 

We don't know they were incompetent though, that's just newspaper " experts " voicing their opinion on a 9 month trial that they weren't sat in on. There may have been very valid reasons that they weren't called.

 

I don't know..but these aren't just armchair experts. The royal statistical society has raised serious questions about the validity of statistical evidence presented. There are definitely questions unanswered about why certain evidence went unchallenged.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...t-guilty-babies-nurse-innocence-b2608168.html

I will reiterate that I don't think she's necessarily innocent. Just that her appeals are valid. Bearing in mind there is no forensic evidence whatsoever that she attacked any of those babies.

 

I had one maybe 12 years ago now which still regularly comes to mind and bothers me. We returned not guilty, which I still think was correct given the circumstances, but I wasn't convinced then and I'm still not now.

If I say that it boiled down to establishing consent then hopefully most people will be able to see the quandary. Being on a jury is a tough gig.

 

I used to love watching Crown Court at lunchtime when I was on school holidays ( remember that!?)
There was 9 months worth of evidence, the issues of the notes, the statistics on their own may make you wonder but the question is, does the whole case the prosecution presents make you the jury believe BEYOND reasonable doubt that the person is guilty. And in some cases the jury didn't, they found her not guilty.