Lucy Letby Case

[ToxicPony]

I hope her case isn't affected by the absolutely shocking levels of scientific evidence that have historically been presented at trials where the victims are babies.

Brings to mind the infamous cot death stats spoken by an 'expert' on the stand who put a woman in jail despite not understanding basic probability let alone complex epidemiology statistics.

And of course. we all remember Louise Woodward's jury being turned not by evidence but because she wasn't 'likeable'.

Getting juries for this sort of thing must be horrendous. Who can truly be objective?

 

[SummerLeaves2004]

Unfortunately I think she is guilty. I don't know any of the facts but I can't see why there would be a huge trial otherwise. I hope I am wrong.

This post is terrifying. Let's hope you're never chosen to sit on a jury. There should be an IQ test for those who sit on a jury.

Sadly too many people do not understand anything about our legal system, or the very basic principles that require to be followed.

Just throw away the key without the need for a trial or the testing evidence eh?

 

[Lucyxxxx]

I hope her case isn't affected by the absolutely shocking levels of scientific evidence that have historically been presented at trials where the victims are babies.

Brings to mind the infamous cot death stats spoken by an 'expert' on the stand who put a woman in jail despite not understanding basic probability let alone complex epidemiology statistics.

And of course. we all remember Louise Woodward's jury being turned not by evidence but because she wasn't 'likeable'.

Getting juries for this sort of thing must be horrendous. Who can truly be objective?

Sally Clark and the other lady who spent years in jail with the title baby killer, instead of being able to grieve for their babies who passed. I hope they both sued.

 

[Leo100]

This post is terrifying. Let's hope you're never chosen to sit on a jury. There should be an IQ test for those who sit on a jury.

Sadly too many people do not understand anything about our legal system, or the very basic principles that require to be followed.

Just throw away the key without the need for a trial or the testing evidence eh?

To be fair they are only saying "they think" which is their opinion. It doesn't mean they would find her guilty if they sat on thr jury , they could change their mind or have a more solid reason for thinking she's guilty when the facts are heard

Although I do agree some people on a jury probably shouldn't be there

 

[wishiniwasskinny]

anyone who pleads not guilty is entitled to a trial. In some cases trial is used by perps to delay things, maintain some deluded lie (even when there’s lots of evidence to the contrary) or even cause more substantial hurt to the victim (quite often in domestic abuse cases). Yes everyone is entitled to a fair trial and if she is innocent obviously the evidence needs to be examined. However let’s not pretend any part of the CJS isn’t flawed. For some people it is perfectly evident they are Guilty from the off but die to them pleading NG they get a trial. Obviously with the very limited reporting re LL it’s difficult to form a real opinion. However I lean on the side that the fact she was investigated for so long and arrested multiple times before charge indicates that the police were making sure they had all their ducks in a row and all the evidence required. The CPS make the charging decision and can often return to police to say they need more evidence or x y z checking out more before they can charge. Which could have resulted in police bailing and taking more time to gather anything else needed. If the evidence wasn’t there to provide to CPS no charge would have been made.
i find it interesting that in discussions I’ve seen on real life crime and murder thread re some cases like Claudia Lawrence where certain men have been arrested multiple times etc people are of the view that it must be them and police trying to nail them, but here with LL it seems to work in her favour

 

[e.l.lofthouse]

This post is terrifying. Let's hope you're never chosen to sit on a jury. There should be an IQ test for those who sit on a jury.

Sadly too many people do not understand anything about our legal system, or the very basic principles that require to be followed.

Just throw away the key without the need for a trial or the testing evidence eh?

It's very scary. In my book, she's innocent until proven guilty regardless of what they have on her BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW what they have. So cannot make any other decision.

You're so right.

 

[Upintheair83]

This will be a really hard follow. Everyone is entitled to a trial and have their say, and everyone is innocent until proved otherwise. I'm intrigued to see and hear all of the evidence. I do think it's absolutely shocking that she's been named by the press and if she is found not guilty her life will be scarred by this for her whole life, she won't ever be 'free' from it.
But there are so many depraved people out there. Lately i feel de- sensitised by things humans do now to fellow humans, as its all too much of a common occurrence. We are indeed the cruelest of all creatures. And after just watching the Dahmer documentary on Netflix, it's another stark and bleak reminder that evil does indeed walk amongst us.
Whatever has happened, I just hope those babies are sleeping in perfect peace now away from harm, and my heart and thoughts go out to their families whose loving arms and warmth they should be in. Xx

 

[Just having a nose]

Does anybody know where the trial will commence? At first I thought it was Chester as they have big law courts there but the pre trial (I think that’s what it’s called) was in Manchester ?

 

[Milktray]

Does anybody know where the trial will commence? At first I thought it was Chester as they have big law courts there but the pre trial (I think that’s what it’s called) was in Manchester ?

Its Manchester Crown Court scheduled for 4th Oct.

 

[DipsyDoodle]

I certainly do not envy the jury for this case. I imagine it's going to be very draining, 6 months of hearing all that evidence (a lot of which will likely be complex medical information), on top of the emotional aspect of the victims being tiny babies.

 

[mchammerr]

Is the trial starting today? Anyone have a link for live reporting?

 

[Be More Pacific]

Is the trial starting today? Anyone have a link for live reporting?

Scheduled to start tomorrow but it's likely to be a day or two before opening statements. If the judge allows live reporting, you'll be able to find a link via most major news outlets.

 

[e.l.lofthouse]

So, with there being bound to be loads of medical terms etc. Will they have someone to explain all that to the jury? Because they'll need that to make their verdict won't they?

 

[Be More Pacific]

So, with there being bound to be loads of medical terms etc. Will they have someone to explain all that to the jury? Because they'll need that to make their verdict won't they?

Yes and yes. The people giving medical evidence will usually have to explain it in layman's terms as well as the technical. The QC's will also help facilitate this - it is the their job to ensure the jury understand the evidence being presented. The jury are always free to pass a note to the judge to have anything explained again/answer a question.

 

[thaliamay]

Unless your a minor, your almost always named before a trial commences. Everyone else gets named pre trial why should she be any different? (I know it's a huge high profile case but so are MANY others. Sadly this isn't the only abhorrent multiple murder case there's been)
And despite innocent until proven guilty, you know who's the defendant and what's being alleged. I don't see why LL should have anonymity when no one else gets it.... I'm not saying I agree in general with the whole principle of naming defendants pre trial/verdict, but it does happen & I'm not sure why an exception should be made here.

Iv probably worded this crap, I'm just curious as to why others think she shouldn't be named.

This trial starts same time as another I'm following. Going to be a loooot of reading.!

 

[Milktray]

Is the trial starting today? Anyone have a link for live reporting?

In other trials, it's usually been local media that have reported live with 'transcripts', where the national news will summarise at end of session.
With this being a big one, there maybe some live reporting with a national outlet. I'm guessing MEN will cover aswell.

The preliminary hearing usually goes through the preparation of the actual trial, including media presence. It was decided during this that the reporting of victims/parents and the witnesses connected to the children is prohibited.
The judge has not prohibited media coverage or live reporting...unless there is a last minute challenge.

The children/witnesses may be renamed as Child A, Child B, Witness 1 and so on for the purposes of the trial.

I suppose we won't know until tomorrow.

 

[e.l.lofthouse]

Unless your a minor, your almost always named before a trial commences. Everyone else gets named pre trial why should she be any different? (I know it's a huge high profile case but so are MANY others. Sadly this isn't the only abhorrent multiple murder case there's been)
And despite innocent until proven guilty, you know who's the defendant and what's being alleged. I don't see why LL should have anonymity when no one else gets it.... I'm not saying I agree in general with the whole principle of naming defendants pre trial/verdict, but it does happen & I'm not sure why an exception should be made here.

Iv probably worded this crap, I'm just curious as to why others think she shouldn't be named.

This trial starts same time as another I'm following. Going to be a loooot of reading.!

Sorry but she SHOULD have received anonymity. Purely because nobody knows what evidence they have and therefore we cannot possibly make an informed decision. Therefore, she should have remained anonymous so that people didnt hide behind SM calling for her to be hung and claim she's guilty before trial. She's been charged not convicted.

 

[iieee]

Sorry but she SHOULD have received anonymity. Purely because nobody knows what evidence they have and therefore we cannot possibly make an informed decision. Therefore, she should have remained anonymous so that people didnt hide behind SM calling for her to be hung and claim she's guilty before trial. She's been charged not convicted.

Do you think all people awaiting trial for murder should get anonymity though? If not what makes Lucy different?

 

[mchammerr]

Sorry but she SHOULD have received anonymity. Purely because nobody knows what evidence they have and therefore we cannot possibly make an informed decision. Therefore, she should have remained anonymous so that people didnt hide behind SM calling for her to be hung and claim she's guilty before trial. She's been charged not convicted.

Should everyone get anonymity then? It doesn’t matter what ‘we’ think anyway when it comes to the outcome. The jury decides.

 

[Walnutss]

I just hope this thread doesn't go the way of the star hobson one. Everyone is entitled to have their opinion just because they don't agree with you doesn't mean they have a low iq or haven't read the evidence as intently as you have. Seen a few snide comments about it even on here be repectiful and if you don't agree you can just scroll on by.

In my opinion they aren't charging you with 8 - 10 counts if they don't have evidence good enough to bring them its high profile they know this they can't be seen to be bleeping this up