Nurse Lucy Letby found guilty of murdering seven babies

Fair enough- your experience is your experience. It’s the prosecutions job to prove guilt not the defence job to prove innocence - as a juror myself I did feel at one point that if truly innocent the defendant would have provided some level of evidence in their favour for certain aspects - they didn’t.

But leaving that aside (which I did and was duty bound to do ), there was enough evidence to convict - that and a few ludicrous theories the defence did actually put forward, that whilst considered, were quickly discounted by all of us as red herrings or similar, but certainly nothing that would constitute reasonable doubt.

I haven’t followed all of the specifics of this very long trial and I must some day when I’ve time but the pieces I did hear didn’t lend towards a not guilty verdict for the cases where a guilty verdict was found.

There was absolutely no reason for you to change your verdict to guilty- non whatsoever- one of our jurors at the end of the first day was “in two minds” - none of us cared less in that it was their entitlement to feel that way - as it happens they decided “guilty” at the end of the day but they had absolute right to think not guilty and none of us would have thought less of that person.

Edit- it’s often the case that cases go to trial simply because there IS no “smoking gun”- it was the case in “my” jury trial I sat on and it’s similar in this case

What I think vs how I treated the situation at the time of being on the jury are different and I’ve made that perfectly clear in my statement above so don’t bother trying to find fault or make a big deal about something where there isn’t any reason to.

I just gave you and insight into how someone might think outside of a jury vs what someone must not do when on a jury- understand now?

I also said that instead of providing such evidence that could well have found the defendant not guilty which they had an opportunity to do so, they instead put forward ludicrous theories which were all quickly discounted as “an insult to our intelligence” if I can be candid here. That didn’t in any way help their case- they should have quite frankly kept their mouths shut.

So no, nothing to see here but I can see you have your own world view and want to create an argument where there is none - the point remains you changed your plea to guilty when you didn’t believe that- I find that much more “disturbing”

Firstly I didn't plea anything, I was a juror, not the accused!

Secondly, if you had actually read any of my posts its clear that I was the only juror to return a verdict of not-guilty.

Finally, the fact that you can make the statement that the defendant in your trial should have been able to prove themselves innocent, if they were truly innocent is the salient point here. This opinion isn't something you can just turn off in a court room. It speaks to the fact that you are not a credible juror. What do you think the judges response would be to hearing you state that? You might as well have a member of the nazi party state that they were able to suspend their hatred of the Jews during the trial of a Jew.

And I don't know how you cannot follow that if that was the view of the jurors, then perhaps you should have brought that to the attention of the judge.

A preconceived notion of guilty until proven innocent is not something you can put to one side. Its the absolute anthesis of the most basic facet of law.

As mentioned many times what was “thought” vs what was considered were quite different - you can’t stop thoughts coming into your head- but you can choose not to act on those thoughts so less of the outrage please.

I’ll hand myself in to the nearest Garda station for thought crime so 🤪

So if the jurors walked into the court on the first day thinking “a nurse couldn’t possibly kill babies” which is very possible some of them did, and was quite a likely belief of many people before this trial and indeed it’s still a belief for some on this thread no less her friends, what would you say to those jurors?

I would say that any of people that believed that are clueless, utterly clueless. Not only because it's a ridiculous opinion to begin with. But because there has famously been numerous nurses and medical professional serial killers - often dubbed Angels of Death. Beverley Allitt in the UK was a well know case, who target babies. There was one around 1900 suspect of killing 100s of babies.

And obviously, potentially the most prolific serial killer ever, Harold Shipman was a doctor. I'd assume that case is extremely well known.

But I don't see how any of that relates to what you said above. It's naïve, but it's very different to thinking an "innocent person would surely have evidence of their innocence"? Entirely different.

Sigh. For the third time;

It's ironic that you say I'm not listening when you repeated fail to grasp the the above. If you don't understand, it means that I am aware if wasn't part of your reasoning, but I'm pointing out that it is incorrect any way. I really can't make it any clearer.

That's quite the the logically fallacy.

If somebody thought a nurse could never hurt a child, they are entirely wrong. This case and many other cases sadly prove that beyond any doubt.

Say over the trial, that person, changes their view based on the evidence. That's ok I guess, but in no way affects the fact that their preconception was out of touch with reality. The fact you think it does is baffling.

Medical staff collectively and in general were held in high esteem. That does not imply that any single individual medical professional is without reproach and should be venerated.

Anyone who thought that a nurse could never have done this and therefore must be innocent, was unfit to be on the jury, and should have been dismissed.

Knowing that black people are over represented in US prison is an actual fact. Thinking that nurses could never kill a patent or unborn is not a fact. It's entirely false, literally the opposite of a fact.

Black prisoners are collectively overrepresented and in general have higher conviction rates. That does not mean it's fair to preconceive an assumption of guilt for any individual. I'm actually shocked that you've even suggest this reason as an example.

To be really clear, If you are a juror (in the US) and you see a black defendant. And you think "well he is black, so he probably did it", you are also unfit to be a fair juror in that case. Regardless of what your verdict is in the end. Not defendant should be asked to overcome that preconception.

If those thoughts and opinions are prejudiced, then yes they have to be dismissed. That's literally how it works and not in anyway idealised.

You seem to be unable to distinguish between have knowledge of something, and using that knowledge to form a prejudiced opinion. The former is fine, the latter is not. Knowing that nurses in general serve to help the sick is fine. Making the jump to "therefore she couldn't have done it" is not. This is incredibly simple.

That bad attempt at moving the goalposts has spectacularly failed. But none of it is relevant to what you said above.

Eh a thought is not necessarily a belief - I’ll leave it there as you’re just not willing to listen -

Irrelevant. Jury to decide with evidence shown.

This was a tabloid journalist who was playing heart strings. Suppose its their job. They more than likely didn't care. "I've got kids... guarantee they didn't cry"

If they're proven innocent and get out. Gigantic if. Some nutters going to do them because of articles like this.

The jury deliberated for around a hundred hours. That's massive. Took their job seriously.

Her article couldn't be published while the trial and verdicts were in progress...if she had been found not guilty...the article would probably be in praise of her and a miscarriage of justice she had to endure...not the journalists fault really.

We all couldn't be in court to witness it first hand

Where are they clicking?

She murdered 7 newborn babies. Of course emotions will be present. We’re not robots.

Opinion pieces have been a thing in journalism since forever.

You realize that opinion pieces are never objective? They can’t be.

What seems to have happened here is that you are incapable for some reason of accepting that tragedies involving children cause huge emotional reactions in people. You even dismissed the victim impact statements of the bereaved parents in this case as pointless.

Even when I pointed out that the parents feel they may have gleaned some comfort from speaking their statements if they’d been allowed to verbalize their pain in the presence of their child’s murderer, you poured cold water on that.

You’ll have to accept that you are on a different wavelength to the majority of others on this.