Lucy Letby Case #47

[docmum]

New thread - no poll as we’re all a little too nervous to know what to poll about.
Jurors began their deliberations on Monday 10th July - 9 months to the day since the trial began. Jurors reported to have requested a transcription of the Judge’s summing-up on day 2 of their deliberations - this was refused by the judge.

Results of previous poll below:

Previous thread:

Lucy Letby Case #46

Judge finished his summing up this morning and jury have started their deliberations today. We now just have to wait for their verdict. Judge has told them there is no time pressure. last thread https://tattle.life/threads/lucy-letby-case-45.40229/ New poll - this is what you think the jury...

tattle.life

 

[studentgossip]

Nice to see the vast majority of people here think the jury will return the right verdict

 

[cantthinkofaname2]

3 days in now…. Hopefully not much longer

 

[unluckyhippo]

But what if they don’t

 

[blueyfan3684]

@yellowmellow suggested we have a poll about ages Hopefully lighten the mood a bit during these anxiety inducing next few days/weeks

 

[docmum]

@yellowmellow suggested a poll about ages Hopefully lighten the mood a bit during these anxiety inducing next few days/weeks

ok. Will do.

 

[#notanadad]

I’m feeling less anxious as the days go on which I didn’t think I would. I think it’s a feeling of knowing each day gets us closer to that verdict, and I have full faith in the jury.

 

[Faith61]

ok. Will do.

Thanks for the new thread

 

[scantysandwich]

Shall we play a game of L-E-T-B-Y is short for…

Lying
Evasive
Truthless
Bleeping
Yucko

 

[thaliamay]

Re Huw... I'm confused here. The story from the accusers family states clearly he was 17 at the time. That IS an offence, there is literally a 1988 law in place, it's a crime to receive or send or whatever, pictures of someone under 18.
If I'm wrong I'm wrong, happy to hold my hands up. But fairly sure.

Only posting to here because it was being spoke of and plus no way do I wanna venture over to that thread.

Edited to add pic.
And I'm sure they were supposedly indecent as the family stated in the news about getting their bits out. God, that bit made me feel sick. So did that dodgy law search on Google.

 

[#notanadad]

Lying
Evil
Twisted
BASTARD
You’re going down for life hun xox

 

[IdeletedbutI'mbackagain]

New thread - no poll as we’re all a little too nervous to know what to poll about.
Jurors began their deliberations on Monday 10th July - 9 months to the day since the trial began. Jurors reported to have requested a transcription of the Judge’s summing-up on day 2 of their deliberations - this was refused by the judge.

Results of previous poll below:

View attachment 2303837

Previous thread:

Lucy Letby Case #46

Judge finished his summing up this morning and jury have started their deliberations today. We now just have to wait for their verdict. Judge has told them there is no time pressure. last thread https://tattle.life/threads/lucy-letby-case-45.40229/ New poll - this is what you think the jury...

tattle.life

Thank you!! I'm always too nervous to make one which is stupid really (just afraid I'd do it wrong and people would give out to me even though I know you all are not like that here )
---

Re Huw... I'm confused here. The story from the accusers family states clearly he was 17 at the time. That IS an offence, there is literally a 1988 law in place, it's a crime to receive or send or whatever, pictures of someone under 18.
If I'm wrong I'm wrong, happy to hold my hands up. But fairly sure.

Only posting to here because it was being spoke of and plus no way do I wanna venture over to that thread.

It was either a lie or he led him to believe he was 18 at the time, well that's what I think anyway, sorry I don't want to go over to that thread to find out either. More toxic than Phils

 

[studentgossip]

Re Huw... I'm confused here. The story from the accusers family states clearly he was 17 at the time. That IS an offence, there is literally a 1988 law in place, it's a crime to receive or send or whatever, pictures of someone under 18.
If I'm wrong I'm wrong, happy to hold my hands up. But fairly sure.

Only posting to here because it was being spoke of and plus no way do I wanna venture over to that thread.

Edited to add pic.
And I'm sure they were supposedly indecent as the family stated in the news about getting their bits out. God, that bit made me feel sick. So did that dodgy law search on Google.

The police investigated and said no offence was committed aka he wasn't 17 when images were sent

 

[thaliamay]

Thank you!! I'm always too nervous to make one which is stupid really (just afraid I'd do it wrong and people would give out to me even though I know you all are not like that here )
---

It was either a lie or he led him to believe he was 18 at the time, well that's what I think anyway, sorry I don't want to go over to that thread to find out either. More toxic than Phils

Thank you. That makes more sense in what is a bit of a blurry situation tbh

 

[BNEnergy]

I just bleeping hate this guy with every ounce of my being.

Please like this tweet to declare him a Silly Gilly Billy.

 

[gigilouxx]

I’m not goin near that thread loool duck that

 

[Daisydunn15]

Shall we play a game of L-E-T-B-Y is short for…

Lying
Evasive
Truthless
Bleeping
Yucko

Lee cooper
Easy shag
Tiny boy
Big dildo
Yummy paper

 

[Faith61]

Long shanks( she's tall, right?)
Every colleagues nightmare
twit( sorry!)
Boring
Yep, you're done for!

 

[LilyRose1234]

Re Huw... I'm confused here. The story from the accusers family states clearly he was 17 at the time. That IS an offence, there is literally a 1988 law in place, it's a crime to receive or send or whatever, pictures of someone under 18.
If I'm wrong I'm wrong, happy to hold my hands up. But fairly sure.

Only posting to here because it was being spoke of and plus no way do I wanna venture over to that thread.

Edited to add pic.
And I'm sure they were supposedly indecent as the family stated in the news about getting their bits out. God, that bit made me feel sick. So did that dodgy law search on Google.

I suspect the individual in question has said it never happened (seems they hired a lawyer who said that), and if there’s no real proof, it’s just the word of the family. Or he was told they were over 18, or the pictures weren’t actually indecent. Either way, he doesn’t seem to have broken the law and this was all for the sake of the sun selling more newspapers

 

[thaliamay]

The police investigated and said no offence was committed aka he wasn't 17 when images were sent

So they probably lied for more money, the accusers family? Or due to being pissed their son is now a crack addict or what ever it is.