Nurse murdered seven babies

[Pale Rider]

I don't disagree about their preferences but the process should aim to provide a just outcome rather than administrative convenience for practitioners.

That's true, but the jury is tasked with finding a defendant guilty or not guilty.

Saying 'we can't decide' is a cop out.

As the jury are told by the judge: "You need to be satisfied so you are sure to return a guilty verdict, nothing less will do."

If they are not satisfied so they are sure, it's not guilty.

The majority direction means a verdict upon at least 10 are agreed will do.

I suppose there could be a situation in which three or more jurors are firmly at odds with the rest, but I've seen the number of hung juries rise over the years, so I reserve the right for the occasional mini rant.

 

[Bromptonaut]

That's true, but the jury is tasked with finding a defendant guilty or not guilty.

Saying 'we can't decide' is a cop out.

As the jury are told by the judge: "You need to be satisfied so you are sure to return a guilty verdict, nothing less will do."

If they are not satisfied so they are sure, it's not guilty.

If, as a juror, you cannot decide then you're not 'so sure that you are certain' and you vote not guilty.

Three of them do that and stick to it then you've a hung jury.

 

[Pale Rider]

If, as a juror, you cannot decide then you're not 'so sure that you are certain' and you vote not guilty.

Three of them do that and stick to it then you've a hung jury.

Er, isn't that what I said?

 

[newfhouse]

Saying 'we can't decide' is a cop out.

The individual jurors don't necessarily say that. It's the potential for disagreement that seems to be frustrating you.

 

[albion]

https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news...by-inquiry-statistical-evidence-used-in-trial

The only evidence was statistical it seems.

 

[C R]

https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news...by-inquiry-statistical-evidence-used-in-trial

The only evidence was statistical it seems.

Let's hope we aren't looking at another Sally Clark episode.

 

[icowden]

The only evidence was statistical it seems.

I don't think that that was the *only* evidence. It is, however, useful evidence in pointing to a potential source of a problem which needs investigating. Some Trusts do use statistical info to check on the performance of health care professionals - for example on completion of notes, recording appointment outcomes, clinical (patient facing time) spent with patients etc.

 

[Pale Rider]

https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news...by-inquiry-statistical-evidence-used-in-trial

The only evidence was statistical it seems.

Only?

There was nine months of evidence, some of which was statistical.

The Guardian quotes the CPS saying they could show Letby was on shift when the collapses occurred.

I wouldn't describe a hospital staff rota as 'statistical', although I suppose Letby being on shift for every collapse is a statistic of a sort.

 

[winjim]

https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news...by-inquiry-statistical-evidence-used-in-trial

The only evidence was statistical it seems.

That's not what the article says at all. It's saying that what statistical evidence there is should be subject to inquiry, just as the medical evidence should be.

 

[albion]

So give the evidence. Statistical evidence looks towards 100%.
The corporate manslaughter probe might enlighten us.

 

[winjim]

So give the evidence. Statistical evidence looks towards 100%.
The corporate manslaughter probe might enlighten us.

I don't understand what any of that means.

 

[albion]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/lucy-letby-nurse-baby-innocence-court-b2462640.html
'She ticked “yes” to each of the charges but added: “I do not wish to take part or be present at the hearing. I do not resist the application to strike me off the nursing register.
“I accept the fact of the convictions. However, I do not accept that I am guilty of any of the allegations.
“I maintain my innocence in respect of all of the convictions '

Yet the innuendo evidence was overwhelming.

 

[icowden]

Yet the innuendo evidence was overwhelming.

This word you use... I don not think it means what you think it means....

 

[albion]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...ivilege-to-ask-why-lucy-letby-story-blocked-i
The very long New Yorker article details the case suggesting via quoting a prominent scientific researcher that the police ignored statistics when the stat they had was that Letby was the only nurse connected with the deaths now designated as murder.

It sort of looks Post Office like with the only evidence, that 'only one on duty' seemingly being produced by cherry picking both the timeline and the events that produced the coincidence/guilt.

And what is the intention of the UK block ?

 

[Bromptonaut]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...ivilege-to-ask-why-lucy-letby-story-blocked-i
The very long New Yorker article details the case suggesting via quoting a prominent scientific researcher that the police ignored statistics when the stat they had was that Letby was the only nurse connected with the deaths now designated as murder.

It sort of looks Post Office like with the only evidence, that 'only one on duty' seemingly being produced by cherry picking both the timeline and the events that produced the coincidence/guilt.

And what is the intention of the UK block ?

AIUI the UK block is because Letby is to be retried on cases where the jury could not reach a verdict. That trial will be before a jury and there is concern, arguably with an excess of caution, that jurors may be influenced by reading the New Yorker article.