How is it relevant what we 'believe' or if we'd be. 'happy'?
There's either evidence for a safe conviction or there's not.
Nurse arrested for murdering babies
- Thread starter neocon
- Start date
There's either evidence for a safe conviction or there's not.
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 10,066
- Location
- Billericay, UK
It did kind feel like a publicity stunt trying to keep her case in the media.
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 May 2006
- Posts
- 7,995
reel it in a bit mate. I have already said I agree it looks like the case was poorly handled and there could be reasonable doubt, perhaps enough for a retrial. I still think on balance of probability she is guilty as sin however I was just curious if anyone here actually thinks she was innocent.
maybe no one told you. this is a discussion forum not a court , we are not on a jury and as such we are allowed to comment on what we "believe".
Last edited:
I think there’s enough to suggest an unsafe conviction and a retrial should take place. Regardless of the outcome she’ll never work again as a neonatal nurse but if she was truly innocent (and I don’t know either way) then she’s also a victim in all of this and the state is at fault.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 23 Apr 2020
- Posts
- 100
- Location
- Close enough to OcUK that my wallet hurts
IIRC, and as pointed out in PE, Dr Lee reworked his original paper after the case and after another round of research into the very thing the 'expert' was misusing the original report for. The research found no evidence of skin discolouration as per the prosecutions case. QED, the babies were not killed the way the prosecution said they were. I might add the Dr. Lee has in fact done the legal service a good turn, his paper will never be used again to mislead a jury.
I still think a retrial is necessary, because there is a possibility that one or more murderers are still at large.
I still think a retrial is necessary, because there is a possibility that one or more murderers are still at large.
I'm genuinely curious, based on what evidence do people still think she's guilty as sin? The medical evidence used to convict her has been demolished and there is nothing to suggest any murders took place. The statistical evidence with the rota chart has been described as a "scientific fake" by experts because it didn't include all the times that she wasn't on shift. The notes were at the instruction of her psychologist to deal with extreme stress after being accused of murdering babies, she felt guilty for not being good enough at her job and there were contradictory notes saying she'd done nothing wrong.
I think if it went to a retrial there's no realistic chance of getting a guilty verdict again and she'd be exonerated. There is no medical evidence of any murders, no witnesses to any murders, nothing in her internet history researching how to murder them, nothing unusual about her background and no motive. Even the original jury wasn't unanimous and they were misled with the main medical and statistical evidence which we now know were false.
Last edited:
they just pick randoms to do the jury duty.
one of my ex partners said she did a murder trial about 20 years ago, and most people just wanted to go home because they were taking so long coming to a decision.
people don't wanna waste days at a court... there should be a list of people who actually want to do jury service.
I got called up one time, but deferred it and never had another summons since
Last edited:
Would rather undermine what little point there is to jury trials, no?
They should, at the very least, pay people properly during jury service.
Last edited:
why would it? it would still be a big list, it's still random.
you just don't get the people who don't want to be there. or can't really afford to be there.
the compensation only starts to get good if the trial lasts over 10 days
Jury service
What to do if you're asked to do jury service - taking time off work, delaying jury service, claiming expenses. Includes information from the withdrawn 5222, 5222A and Juror Charter guidance.
huge drop in earnings for most people/families surely? I bet loads of people can't even afford to take the wage hit....
if it goes over 10 days and your at the court for 4 hours a day its not terrible, but for the previous 10 days, how much is your earnings decreased by compared to the usual take home pay?
surely that causes a lot of jury memers to be annoyed, disgruntled or even angry.
AFAIK you can only defer being called up once.
your take home pay could be slashed in half.... or even worse, but your expected to give a fair verdict
Last edited:
Would it? I remember them tightening the rules up a while back because so many people were deferring. And, in any case, I'm guessing the set of people who would do it are going to be a very biased subset of society and thus no longer really the "peers" that the notion of juries is based on.
Yeah, exactly, and that's surely unacceptable.
Those are still pretty weak sums.
Last edited:
£64 a day! What on earth! Even £129 is a slap in the face to the majority of working people. At first glance I thought it was up to £64 an hour which I thought would reasonably cover most people.why would it? it would still be a big list, it's still random.
you just don't get the people who don't want to be there. or can't really afford to be there.
the compensation only starts to get good if the trial lasts over 10 days
Jury service
What to do if you're asked to do jury service - taking time off work, delaying jury service, claiming expenses. Includes information from the withdrawn 5222, 5222A and Juror Charter guidance.www.gov.uk
huge drop in earnings for most people/families surely? I bet loads of people can't even afford to take the wage hit....
if it goes over 10 days and your at the court for 4 hours a day its not terrible, but for the previous 10 days, how much is your earnings decreased by compared to the usual take home pay?
surely that causes a lot of jury memers to be annoyed, disgruntled or even angry.
AFAIK you can only defer being called up once.
your take home pay could be slashed in half.... or even worse, but your expected to give a fair verdict
Last edited:
Maybe consider it a civic duty once in your lifetime... You know - help society out etc...
Most of the time it's a couple of days, maybe a week out of your 60/70/80 year lifetime...
it's not a lot to ask...
Of course, randoms who know exactly who Letby is and will now have formed opinions.
I did it when I was in Uni, lasted just over 2 weeks on 3 cases. Pretty mundane cases, didn't have to worry about the pay aspect at the time but I can imagine there are many people who just cannot afford to lose money like this doing their civic duty..Maybe consider it a civic duty once in your lifetime... You know - help society out etc...
Most of the time it's a couple of days, maybe a week out of your 60/70/80 year lifetime...
it's not a lot to ask...
This, plus the fact that many modern employers expect their employees to catch up on any backlog that's built up during their 'time off'.
Last edited:
MPs get 300 quid for attending parliament? a day? and 90% of them just sit there doing nothing... it's also part of their job they get paid for?Maybe consider it a civic duty once in your lifetime... You know - help society out etc...
whys jury service compensation so pathetic?
Last edited:
Think of it as having a prime seat on the filming of a reality TV show and you get to decide who wins!
Also, I'm pretty certain that they give you lunch.
The pay is a pittance and I recall many of these comments being aired in the thread that got locked and expunged from the interwebz. It's a ridiculous payment irrespective of the civic intent. I'm thankful I got excused and haven't been called back since!
You get ~6 quid to buy an overpriced sandwich at Pret.
I don't know about the bribes aspect, but based on conversations I have had with people (including elderly relatives) in the past about jury service, I can absolutely imagine the sort of people who would line up to volunteer. Welcome to the panel of retired white men who are keen to see someone sent down. God help you if you're an immigrant.
yea and child care costs are included in the small sum you already receive it seems...
imagine your having to pay 4+ hours of child care a day.... because you work from home as an accountant or whatever... and you would normally be looking after the child at the same time..
your now having to fork out for child care, as well as losing income... unless your losing sleep to try and keep on top of normal work.
there must be jury members who see it like a prison sentence...
IDK how anyone really expects a fair trial.
Last edited: