Lucy letby----the questions.
This is an emotional hot potato but:-
Now that the media outrage and hype surrounding this heinous and horrendous crime is abating and that our emotion and horror are becoming less acute, now might be the time to stand back, take stock, and calmly allow our heads to take over from our hearts.
Sadly we cannot undo what has occurred but surely it is our duty, to both the victims and their families, to learn all we can from this awful crime in an endeavour to try to prevent a recurrence.
While, despite copious reporting on this crime there has been little said, and what has been said is all negative, about what is surely the most important question of all namely, “Why did she do it?” . If we fail to resolve that question then we are missing the opportunity to derive anything positive from this horrible business.
We are going to lock up this monster for the next 50/60 years, at great expense, so it makes sense to use every means at our disposal, including drugs if necessary, to determine the answer to that all important question, so that others might be saved.
Secondly, there is the question of the verdicts in this trial since if one analyses the results I believe, there arises an interesting question to be explored, relating to our jury system.
Consider, if you will, that of the 22 indictments which for murder there were 7 convictions 1 unanimous and 6 majority verdicts, while for attempted murder there were 7 convictions 2 unanimous and 5 majority verdicts. Of the remaining indictments 6 were hung juries and finally 2 were not guilty. This result means that, of the 22 indictments, on 85% of them the entire jury could not agree as to guilt, and only on 15% was there total accord. Now the jurors were ordinary people, might have been any one of us, chosen at random to serve, yet despite what appears to be overwhelming evidence of guilt, there were some who were not convinced. I would suggest that the doubters were probably the most level headed and dispassionate of the twelve.
My question is, that in view of the severity of the tariff due for these crimes, should we not be trying to determine what gave rise to those doubts?. It must have taken a great deal of courage to register those doubts rather than being swept along with the herd, so surely it is important for us to understand and to know why they chose to do so. In this case the minimum of 10 to 2 would have been required.
Now that the media outrage and hype surrounding this heinous and horrendous crime is abating and that our emotion and horror are becoming less acute, now might be the time to stand back, take stock, and calmly allow our heads to take over from our hearts.
Sadly we cannot undo what has occurred but surely it is our duty, to both the victims and their families, to learn all we can from this awful crime in an endeavour to try to prevent a recurrence.
While, despite copious reporting on this crime there has been little said, and what has been said is all negative, about what is surely the most important question of all namely, “Why did she do it?” . If we fail to resolve that question then we are missing the opportunity to derive anything positive from this horrible business.
We are going to lock up this monster for the next 50/60 years, at great expense, so it makes sense to use every means at our disposal, including drugs if necessary, to determine the answer to that all important question, so that others might be saved.
Secondly, there is the question of the verdicts in this trial since if one analyses the results I believe, there arises an interesting question to be explored, relating to our jury system.
Consider, if you will, that of the 22 indictments which for murder there were 7 convictions 1 unanimous and 6 majority verdicts, while for attempted murder there were 7 convictions 2 unanimous and 5 majority verdicts. Of the remaining indictments 6 were hung juries and finally 2 were not guilty. This result means that, of the 22 indictments, on 85% of them the entire jury could not agree as to guilt, and only on 15% was there total accord. Now the jurors were ordinary people, might have been any one of us, chosen at random to serve, yet despite what appears to be overwhelming evidence of guilt, there were some who were not convinced. I would suggest that the doubters were probably the most level headed and dispassionate of the twelve.
My question is, that in view of the severity of the tariff due for these crimes, should we not be trying to determine what gave rise to those doubts?. It must have taken a great deal of courage to register those doubts rather than being swept along with the herd, so surely it is important for us to understand and to know why they chose to do so. In this case the minimum of 10 to 2 would have been required.
