Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Tue Jul 09, 2024 10:25 am
Plenty of doubts remain. The defence seem to have done a poor job in the original trial. Some of the points which should have been raised were not allowed in the retrial because the defence didn't bring them up the first time.
No doubts to anyone who heard all the evidence, or she'd have been found not guilty. The nature of a trial is contentious evidence on both sides. I get that it's easy to forget that if you haven't been involved in them. It really isn't uncommon to have a trial with experts in disagreement. The jury then disentangles it with the help of counsel and the judge.
At the retrial the defence can call whatever evidence that is admissible that it wants. It isn't affected by what was called at the first trial. That is to be distinguished from the evidence that the Court of Appeal would be prepared to hear. They won't usually hear any evidence that was reasonably available at the trial.
I've been on a jury. It's clear that people are very swayed by their natural sympathies, what they have in common with the accused or the victim(s).
The first trial didn't have experts in disagreement because the defence didn't call any experts to challenge the prosecution.
It's not clear from the article what experts, if any, were called for the retrial. However, given the 100% media coverage of Letby as a baby killing monster, it's hard to see how the jury in the retrial could have been unbiased. You have before you a serial killer of babies and are being asked if she attempted to kill another one. The result will make no difference to her sentence anyway. And a verdict of not guilty will leave the parents with a feeling that justice wasn't done. Is the verdict really a surprise?
Great so you have the experience of what, 3 or 4 trials max?
What you miss is that the FIRST jury weren't sure on the case that had to be retried. Despite deciding themselves that she was an evil baby murderer. That's not that uncommon. For big cases like this (and frankly most cases) juries take their job incredibly seriously. And so they follow the judges direction and look at each count, and look at the evidence in each count and decide it.
There are 3 possible explanations why you wouldn't call defence experts when there are loads of prosecution experts. First, you're wholly incompetent. There's not a lot of wholly incompetent counsel who get to defend the most high profile murders, but sure it's possible. It would usually be picked up by the people who prepare the appeal though and they'd at least have a go at saying that their predecessors were incompetent. I've not read comprehensively about this trial but it doesn't seem like that was argued - just the usual bullshit of people thinking they know better who have almost invariable never run a trial themselves. Second reason is that they have instructions from their client which are contrary to the calling of expert witnesses. I don't know what it might be in this case but sometimes it does happen. Third they did get expert evidence but the expert agreed with the prosecution expert or worse said that the prosecution missed something that makes things even worse for the client.
Again, it's possible she's entirely innocent. It's possible that she is guilty but there isn't enough evidence for her to be properly convicted and it's possible that she's properly convicted. I'm unimpressed by "experts" who come out of the woodwork after the event without knowledge of the case and without having to give sworn evidence with the experts' declaration.
I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.
No doubts to anyone who heard all the evidence, or she'd have been found not guilty. The nature of a trial is contentious evidence on both sides. I get that it's easy to forget that if you haven't been involved in them. It really isn't uncommon to have a trial with experts in disagreement. The jury then disentangles it with the help of counsel and the judge.
At the retrial the defence can call whatever evidence that is admissible that it wants. It isn't affected by what was called at the first trial. That is to be distinguished from the evidence that the Court of Appeal would be prepared to hear. They won't usually hear any evidence that was reasonably available at the trial.
I've been on a jury. It's clear that people are very swayed by their natural sympathies, what they have in common with the accused or the victim(s).
The first trial didn't have experts in disagreement because the defence didn't call any experts to challenge the prosecution.
It's not clear from the article what experts, if any, were called for the retrial. However, given the 100% media coverage of Letby as a baby killing monster, it's hard to see how the jury in the retrial could have been unbiased. You have before you a serial killer of babies and are being asked if she attempted to kill another one. The result will make no difference to her sentence anyway. And a verdict of not guilty will leave the parents with a feeling that justice wasn't done. Is the verdict really a surprise?
Great so you have the experience of what, 3 or 4 trials max?
What you miss is that the FIRST jury weren't sure on the case that had to be retried. Despite deciding themselves that she was an evil baby murderer. That's not that uncommon. For big cases like this (and frankly most cases) juries take their job incredibly seriously. And so they follow the judges direction and look at each count, and look at the evidence in each count and decide it.
There are 3 possible explanations why you wouldn't call defence experts when there are loads of prosecution experts. First, you're wholly incompetent. There's not a lot of wholly incompetent counsel who get to defend the most high profile murders, but sure it's possible. It would usually be picked up by the people who prepare the appeal though and they'd at least have a go at saying that their predecessors were incompetent. I've not read comprehensively about this trial but it doesn't seem like that was argued - just the usual bullshit of people thinking they know better who have almost invariable never run a trial themselves. Second reason is that they have instructions from their client which are contrary to the calling of expert witnesses. I don't know what it might be in this case but sometimes it does happen. Third they did get expert evidence but the expert agreed with the prosecution expert or worse said that the prosecution missed something that makes things even worse for the client.
Again, it's possible she's entirely innocent. It's possible that she is guilty but there isn't enough evidence for her to be properly convicted and it's possible that she's properly convicted. I'm unimpressed by "experts" who come out of the woodwork after the event without knowledge of the case and without having to give sworn evidence with the experts' declaration.
I've been on two juries. How many have you been on?
I'm not doubting that juries take their job very seriously - that was my experience - but it was clear from the way the jurors were split that their judgement as to whether a doubt was reasonable or unreasonable depended on how much they empathized with the (alleged) victim (usually because of how much they had in common). Obviously in a clear case with strong, direct evidence this isn't likely to matter. In a case with only circumstantial evidence but where the defendant has been branded an evil baby killer by the media and is in prison without parole for it then I think sympathies will play their part. Apparently the judge said “Her previous convictions may only be used as some support for the prosecution case if, having assessed the evidence, you are satisfied that it is right so to do.” So, if you think it's right, you can take the previous convictions into account.
Yeah, we don't know, I guess incompetence is a possibility. Clearly neonatologist Dr Mike Hall was available, and had doubts about the prosecution's medical evidence but wasn't called (for reasons unknown).
Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2024 10:16 am
I've been on a jury. It's clear that people are very swayed by their natural sympathies, what they have in common with the accused or the victim(s).
The first trial didn't have experts in disagreement because the defence didn't call any experts to challenge the prosecution.
It's not clear from the article what experts, if any, were called for the retrial. However, given the 100% media coverage of Letby as a baby killing monster, it's hard to see how the jury in the retrial could have been unbiased. You have before you a serial killer of babies and are being asked if she attempted to kill another one. The result will make no difference to her sentence anyway. And a verdict of not guilty will leave the parents with a feeling that justice wasn't done. Is the verdict really a surprise?
Great so you have the experience of what, 3 or 4 trials max?
What you miss is that the FIRST jury weren't sure on the case that had to be retried. Despite deciding themselves that she was an evil baby murderer. That's not that uncommon. For big cases like this (and frankly most cases) juries take their job incredibly seriously. And so they follow the judges direction and look at each count, and look at the evidence in each count and decide it.
There are 3 possible explanations why you wouldn't call defence experts when there are loads of prosecution experts. First, you're wholly incompetent. There's not a lot of wholly incompetent counsel who get to defend the most high profile murders, but sure it's possible. It would usually be picked up by the people who prepare the appeal though and they'd at least have a go at saying that their predecessors were incompetent. I've not read comprehensively about this trial but it doesn't seem like that was argued - just the usual bullshit of people thinking they know better who have almost invariable never run a trial themselves. Second reason is that they have instructions from their client which are contrary to the calling of expert witnesses. I don't know what it might be in this case but sometimes it does happen. Third they did get expert evidence but the expert agreed with the prosecution expert or worse said that the prosecution missed something that makes things even worse for the client.
Again, it's possible she's entirely innocent. It's possible that she is guilty but there isn't enough evidence for her to be properly convicted and it's possible that she's properly convicted. I'm unimpressed by "experts" who come out of the woodwork after the event without knowledge of the case and without having to give sworn evidence with the experts' declaration.
I've been on two juries. How many have you been on?
I'm not doubting that juries take their job very seriously - that was my experience - but it was clear from the way the jurors were split that their judgement as to whether a doubt was reasonable or unreasonable depended on how much they empathized with the (alleged) victim (usually because of how much they had in common). Obviously in a clear case with strong, direct evidence this isn't likely to matter. In a case with only circumstantial evidence but where the defendant has been branded an evil baby killer by the media and is in prison without parole for it then I think sympathies will play their part. Apparently the judge said “Her previous convictions may only be used as some support for the prosecution case if, having assessed the evidence, you are satisfied that it is right so to do.” So, if you think it's right, you can take the previous convictions into account.
Yeah, we don't know, I guess incompetence is a possibility. Clearly neonatologist Dr Mike Hall was available, and had doubts about the prosecution's medical evidence but wasn't called (for reasons unknown).
With the greatest of respect, I'm not sure I can take your sample size of 2 as authoritative and certainly not given it is actually just an assessment of how the jurors were split: "it was clear from the jurors...". And no I haven't been on any juries. I have however spent a quarter of a century observing and analysing their behaviour every day of my working life. You can take from that such authority as you will. I've largely stuck to observable fact in terms of juries: they are generally thoughtful and not infrequently come back with split verdicts even in the most heinous of crimes which must in and of itself suggest that whatever lack of empathy they might have for the defendant doesn't stop them from considering the actual evidence.
The direction is the standard direction. The direction the original jury will have got will have been very similar: that the evidence of any murders they were sure were committed could be some evidence of a propensity to do so and so could be evidence of the other murders if they felt it appropriate.
I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.
Actually there is one other possibility re the non-calling of defence experts. It is possible that the legal aid board refused funding. Generally they will give you 1 go at an expert in each discipline though so in a case of this sort I'd be very very surprised if the defence didn't get at least that.
I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.
Great so you have the experience of what, 3 or 4 trials max?
What you miss is that the FIRST jury weren't sure on the case that had to be retried. Despite deciding themselves that she was an evil baby murderer. That's not that uncommon. For big cases like this (and frankly most cases) juries take their job incredibly seriously. And so they follow the judges direction and look at each count, and look at the evidence in each count and decide it.
There are 3 possible explanations why you wouldn't call defence experts when there are loads of prosecution experts. First, you're wholly incompetent. There's not a lot of wholly incompetent counsel who get to defend the most high profile murders, but sure it's possible. It would usually be picked up by the people who prepare the appeal though and they'd at least have a go at saying that their predecessors were incompetent. I've not read comprehensively about this trial but it doesn't seem like that was argued - just the usual bullshit of people thinking they know better who have almost invariable never run a trial themselves. Second reason is that they have instructions from their client which are contrary to the calling of expert witnesses. I don't know what it might be in this case but sometimes it does happen. Third they did get expert evidence but the expert agreed with the prosecution expert or worse said that the prosecution missed something that makes things even worse for the client.
Again, it's possible she's entirely innocent. It's possible that she is guilty but there isn't enough evidence for her to be properly convicted and it's possible that she's properly convicted. I'm unimpressed by "experts" who come out of the woodwork after the event without knowledge of the case and without having to give sworn evidence with the experts' declaration.
I've been on two juries. How many have you been on?
I'm not doubting that juries take their job very seriously - that was my experience - but it was clear from the way the jurors were split that their judgement as to whether a doubt was reasonable or unreasonable depended on how much they empathized with the (alleged) victim (usually because of how much they had in common). Obviously in a clear case with strong, direct evidence this isn't likely to matter. In a case with only circumstantial evidence but where the defendant has been branded an evil baby killer by the media and is in prison without parole for it then I think sympathies will play their part. Apparently the judge said “Her previous convictions may only be used as some support for the prosecution case if, having assessed the evidence, you are satisfied that it is right so to do.” So, if you think it's right, you can take the previous convictions into account.
Yeah, we don't know, I guess incompetence is a possibility. Clearly neonatologist Dr Mike Hall was available, and had doubts about the prosecution's medical evidence but wasn't called (for reasons unknown).
With the greatest of respect, I'm not sure I can take your sample size of 2 as authoritative and certainly not given it is actually just an assessment of how the jurors were split: "it was clear from the jurors...". And no I haven't been on any juries. I have however spent a quarter of a century observing and analysing their behaviour every day of my working life. You can take from that such authority as you will. I've largely stuck to observable fact in terms of juries: they are generally thoughtful and not infrequently come back with split verdicts even in the most heinous of crimes which must in and of itself suggest that whatever lack of empathy they might have for the defendant doesn't stop them from considering the actual evidence.
The direction is the standard direction. The direction the original jury will have got will have been very similar: that the evidence of any murders they were sure were committed could be some evidence of a propensity to do so and so could be evidence of the other murders if they felt it appropriate.
Your court experience is obviously very helpful, I appreciate your insight. But, as you say, you don't have any experience of what actually goes on in the jury room. Split verdicts aren't evidence if anything other than disagreement between the jurors - you have no idea what the cause of their disagreement is. As I said before, I do think juries take their job seriously, but that doesn't mean they aren't strongly influenced by their natural sympathies, prejudices, prior knowledge etc. in cases where the evidence isn't direct.
The question of the direction (guilt for one crime could be taken into account for another) is a subtle one. It's one thing when the decisions are being made by the same jury at the same time. In this case, they know that guilt for crime 1 was only because they said so, which IMO limits how much they take it into account for crime 2. Whereas in a retrial of crime 2, it's already an established fact that the defendant is guilty of crime 1 - I'd argue that this has a stronger influence on the second decision.
Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Wed Jul 17, 2024 11:06 pm
I've been on two juries. How many have you been on?
I'm not doubting that juries take their job very seriously - that was my experience - but it was clear from the way the jurors were split that their judgement as to whether a doubt was reasonable or unreasonable depended on how much they empathized with the (alleged) victim (usually because of how much they had in common). Obviously in a clear case with strong, direct evidence this isn't likely to matter. In a case with only circumstantial evidence but where the defendant has been branded an evil baby killer by the media and is in prison without parole for it then I think sympathies will play their part. Apparently the judge said “Her previous convictions may only be used as some support for the prosecution case if, having assessed the evidence, you are satisfied that it is right so to do.” So, if you think it's right, you can take the previous convictions into account.
Yeah, we don't know, I guess incompetence is a possibility. Clearly neonatologist Dr Mike Hall was available, and had doubts about the prosecution's medical evidence but wasn't called (for reasons unknown).
With the greatest of respect, I'm not sure I can take your sample size of 2 as authoritative and certainly not given it is actually just an assessment of how the jurors were split: "it was clear from the jurors...". And no I haven't been on any juries. I have however spent a quarter of a century observing and analysing their behaviour every day of my working life. You can take from that such authority as you will. I've largely stuck to observable fact in terms of juries: they are generally thoughtful and not infrequently come back with split verdicts even in the most heinous of crimes which must in and of itself suggest that whatever lack of empathy they might have for the defendant doesn't stop them from considering the actual evidence.
The direction is the standard direction. The direction the original jury will have got will have been very similar: that the evidence of any murders they were sure were committed could be some evidence of a propensity to do so and so could be evidence of the other murders if they felt it appropriate.
Your court experience is obviously very helpful, I appreciate your insight. But, as you say, you don't have any experience of what actually goes on in the jury room. Split verdicts aren't evidence if anything other than disagreement between the jurors - you have no idea what the cause of their disagreement is. As I said before, I do think juries take their job seriously, but that doesn't mean they aren't strongly influenced by their natural sympathies, prejudices, prior knowledge etc. in cases where the evidence isn't direct.
The question of the direction (guilt for one crime could be taken into account for another) is a subtle one. It's one thing when the decisions are being made by the same jury at the same time. In this case, they know that guilt for crime 1 was only because they said so, which IMO limits how much they take it into account for crime 2. Whereas in a retrial of crime 2, it's already an established fact that the defendant is guilty of crime 1 - I'd argue that this has a stronger influence on the second decision.
You're confusing split verdicts and hung juries.
I'd argue the opposite in terms of previous convictions. If it's some other jury who have found someone guilty then you don't know they were right. If it's you and your jury you are sure that it is the correct verdict. Plus in this particular case they will have sat through all the gruesome evidence of the deaths if they have determined guilt but will only have a summary if they have not.
I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.
Eugene Wrayburn wrote: ↑Wed Jul 17, 2024 11:35 pm
With the greatest of respect, I'm not sure I can take your sample size of 2 as authoritative and certainly not given it is actually just an assessment of how the jurors were split: "it was clear from the jurors...". And no I haven't been on any juries. I have however spent a quarter of a century observing and analysing their behaviour every day of my working life. You can take from that such authority as you will. I've largely stuck to observable fact in terms of juries: they are generally thoughtful and not infrequently come back with split verdicts even in the most heinous of crimes which must in and of itself suggest that whatever lack of empathy they might have for the defendant doesn't stop them from considering the actual evidence.
The direction is the standard direction. The direction the original jury will have got will have been very similar: that the evidence of any murders they were sure were committed could be some evidence of a propensity to do so and so could be evidence of the other murders if they felt it appropriate.
Your court experience is obviously very helpful, I appreciate your insight. But, as you say, you don't have any experience of what actually goes on in the jury room. Split verdicts aren't evidence if anything other than disagreement between the jurors - you have no idea what the cause of their disagreement is. As I said before, I do think juries take their job seriously, but that doesn't mean they aren't strongly influenced by their natural sympathies, prejudices, prior knowledge etc. in cases where the evidence isn't direct.
The question of the direction (guilt for one crime could be taken into account for another) is a subtle one. It's one thing when the decisions are being made by the same jury at the same time. In this case, they know that guilt for crime 1 was only because they said so, which IMO limits how much they take it into account for crime 2. Whereas in a retrial of crime 2, it's already an established fact that the defendant is guilty of crime 1 - I'd argue that this has a stronger influence on the second decision.
You're confusing split verdicts and hung juries.
I'd argue the opposite in terms of previous convictions. If it's some other jury who have found someone guilty then you don't know they were right. If it's you and your jury you are sure that it is the correct verdict. Plus in this particular case they will have sat through all the gruesome evidence of the deaths if they have determined guilt but will only have a summary if they have not.
What I'm saying applies any time jurors disagree, whether that leads to a split verdict or a hung jury.
Yeah, we'll just have to disagree on the other point.
Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Thu Jul 18, 2024 9:28 am
Your court experience is obviously very helpful, I appreciate your insight. But, as you say, you don't have any experience of what actually goes on in the jury room. Split verdicts aren't evidence if anything other than disagreement between the jurors - you have no idea what the cause of their disagreement is. As I said before, I do think juries take their job seriously, but that doesn't mean they aren't strongly influenced by their natural sympathies, prejudices, prior knowledge etc. in cases where the evidence isn't direct.
The question of the direction (guilt for one crime could be taken into account for another) is a subtle one. It's one thing when the decisions are being made by the same jury at the same time. In this case, they know that guilt for crime 1 was only because they said so, which IMO limits how much they take it into account for crime 2. Whereas in a retrial of crime 2, it's already an established fact that the defendant is guilty of crime 1 - I'd argue that this has a stronger influence on the second decision.
You're confusing split verdicts and hung juries.
I'd argue the opposite in terms of previous convictions. If it's some other jury who have found someone guilty then you don't know they were right. If it's you and your jury you are sure that it is the correct verdict. Plus in this particular case they will have sat through all the gruesome evidence of the deaths if they have determined guilt but will only have a summary if they have not.
What I'm saying applies any time jurors disagree, whether that leads to a split verdict or a hung jury.
Yeah, we'll just have to disagree on the other point.
Jurors don't necessarily disagree in a split verdict. They can be unanimous G on some counts and unanimous NG on others and as I said that is not an unusual occurrence even when the crimes are heinous. In such cases the only reasonable inference is that they are able to perform their role despite concluding that the defendant is despicable. Maybe the second jury in the Letby case were not able so to do, but there's no actual reason to believe that that is the case.
I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.
I'd argue the opposite in terms of previous convictions. If it's some other jury who have found someone guilty then you don't know they were right. If it's you and your jury you are sure that it is the correct verdict. Plus in this particular case they will have sat through all the gruesome evidence of the deaths if they have determined guilt but will only have a summary if they have not.
What I'm saying applies any time jurors disagree, whether that leads to a split verdict or a hung jury.
Yeah, we'll just have to disagree on the other point.
Jurors don't necessarily disagree in a split verdict. They can be unanimous G on some counts and unanimous NG on others and as I said that is not an unusual occurrence even when the crimes are heinous. In such cases the only reasonable inference is that they are able to perform their role despite concluding that the defendant is despicable. Maybe the second jury in the Letby case were not able so to do, but there's no actual reason to believe that that is the case.
Thanks for the legal terminology. Agreed, in some cases of split verdict the jury is not split on any of the decisions. Please take my previous comments to refer only to situations where jurors disagree.
A couple of defence silks (one of whom is a former DPP) discuss the case. I haven't listened to it all yet but they appear to be pro-conviction. Their podcast is called Double Jeopardy and I absolutely recommend it in general.
I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.
Eugene Wrayburn wrote: ↑Tue Aug 27, 2024 4:58 pm
Part 1 again on YouTube
A response to some of the YouTube comments
Very interesting. I think in the end it still comes down to the fact that the defence didn't call any expert witnesses (other than a plumber), despite one expert they were using clearly disagreeing with the prosecution's expert(s).
However, the fact that the same defence team handled the appeal does mean that they were unlikely to argue that they were incompetent the first time around..
At one point MacDonald does say that the shifts chart showed that Letby was present at all the deaths, but that was one of the points of criticism - it excluded the deaths she was not present for, making her appear to have been present at each death - he seemed to misunderstand that point.
Eugene Wrayburn wrote: ↑Tue Aug 27, 2024 4:58 pm
Part 1 again on YouTube
A response to some of the YouTube comments
Very interesting. I think in the end it still comes down to the fact that the defence didn't call any expert witnesses (other than a plumber), despite one expert they were using clearly disagreeing with the prosecution's expert(s).
However, the fact that the same defence team handled the appeal does mean that they were unlikely to argue that they were incompetent the first time around..
At one point MacDonald does say that the shifts chart showed that Letby was present at all the deaths, but that was one of the points of criticism - it excluded the deaths she was not present for, making her appear to have been present at each death - he seemed to misunderstand that point.
That's the point that I find best in the appeal movement. The significance can be massively overstated if you don't get a proper statistical assessment. Even the exclusion of other deaths may not matter if there's enough of a sample of deaths with her present. we get it sometimes with phones - you need to look at the patterns overall rather than calls to one person. There is a real danger of circular reasoning.
On the lack of change of defence team, it's pretty easy to change for an appeal. There's a little cottage industry of firms who contact people on spec asking if they want to shit over their previous representation but when it comes to it you actually need to find something that they did wrong and that is not very easy.
I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.
Eugene Wrayburn wrote: ↑Tue Aug 27, 2024 4:58 pm
Part 1 again on YouTube
A response to some of the YouTube comments
Very interesting. I think in the end it still comes down to the fact that the defence didn't call any expert witnesses (other than a plumber), despite one expert they were using clearly disagreeing with the prosecution's expert(s).
However, the fact that the same defence team handled the appeal does mean that they were unlikely to argue that they were incompetent the first time around..
At one point MacDonald does say that the shifts chart showed that Letby was present at all the deaths, but that was one of the points of criticism - it excluded the deaths she was not present for, making her appear to have been present at each death - he seemed to misunderstand that point.
That's the point that I find best in the appeal movement. The significance can be massively overstated if you don't get a proper statistical assessment. Even the exclusion of other deaths may not matter if there's enough of a sample of deaths with her present. we get it sometimes with phones - you need to look at the patterns overall rather than calls to one person. There is a real danger of circular reasoning.
On the lack of change of defence team, it's pretty easy to change for an appeal. There's a little cottage industry of firms who contact people on spec asking if they want to shit over their previous representation but when it comes to it you actually need to find something that they did wrong and that is not very easy.
Agreed, I'm sure it's easy enough to change your defence team but that really depends on Letby's state of mind. Considering the fragile state she seemed to be in, who knows if she was making the most rational of decisions?
Yes, the stats need to be extremely strong, otherwise we'd end up convicting an apparent 'serial killer' in some random hospital every few years. And yet neither side presented a statistical analysis.
