Nurse Lucy Letby charged with 8 counts of murder and 10 counts of attempted murder

[noseall]

The one constant in all this is a trial can not begin without twelve jurors. How many it finished with is irrelevant and is pointless using the varied jury count at the conclusion of a trial for comparison purposes - hence why I said like all juries?

 

[Mrs Ten Names]

Have you ever served in a jury Carmen?

Carmen have you served in a jury?

Look there's some squirrels.

It is important you disclose this as it will illustrate the voracity of your comments.

Nonsense. I've never served on a jury, but I can read the rules for juries.
I know a lawyer who's never served on a jury. Do you honestly believe she doesn't know the rules because she's never served?

 

[motorbiking]

The one constant in all this is a trial can not begin without twelve jurors. How many it finished with is irrelevant and is pointless using the varied jury count at the conclusion of a trial for comparison purposes - hence why I said like all juries?

Nobody ever said your original statement was wrong. Nobody disputes that a trial cannot start without 12. Nobody argued the Juror must be made up of experts, which was actually the key point.

However, in the case of the original trial, one Juror was released leaving 11 to give a verdict.

and of course it does matter if more drop out, its not irrelevant.

None of this is important to the fact that her convictions may be unsafe.

 

[Mrs Ten Names]

11 in the minimum otherwise you have a miss trial

waiting for the forum idiots to get to the next page of the Act.

Juries Act 1974

An Act to consolidate certain enactments relating to juries, jurors and jury service with corrections and improvements made under the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act 1949.

www.legislation.gov.uk

less than 11, there is a risk of a mistrial.

Motorbiking having been proven wrong alters his claim.

There's always a risk of a mistrial.
A mistrial does not depend solely on the number of jurors.

 

[motorbiking]

Did you read it?

 

[Mrs Ten Names]

You understand the important bit of being a Juror is to give a verdict?

More squirrels.

 

[noseall]

Nobody ever said your original statement was wrong. Nobody disputes that a trial cannot start without 12.

Which serves the point of my (oft' quoted) post.

 

[motorbiking]

More squirrels.

did you read sec 16, paragraph 3 also.

You see.. the thing about law, is you have to start with the actual Law.

 

[Mrs Ten Names]

Nobody ever said your original statement was wrong. Nobody disputes that a trial cannot start without 12. Nobody argued the Juror must be made up of experts, which was actually the key point.

And no-one asked how many jurors returned a verdict.
And no-one said the jurors must be composed of any experts.
That was a new dimension added to cover for the farce of filly facts.

However, in the case of the original trial, one Juror was released leaving 11 to give a verdict.

You cannot say that the 12th juror did not give a decision. They may have said "not guilty" and I am not going to change my mind"

and of course it does matter if more drop out, its not irrelevant.

Really? You said earlier that there must be 11.

None of this is important to the fact that her convictions may be unsafe.

More squirrels, We're being overrun with them.

 

[Mrs Ten Names]

Did you read it?

Quote the relevant sections. Save me time.
You can copy and paste, I assume.

 

[Mrs Ten Names]

did you read sec 16, paragraph 3 also.

You see.. the thing about law, is you have to start with the actual Law.

Quote the relevant sections. Save me time.
You can copy and paste, I assume.

And include the link to the actual bit you are presenting.

 

[Mrs Ten Names]

You see.. the thing about law, is you have to start with the actual Law.

Nonsense. I can equally take experts advice. That is why experts exist, to advise and represent.

But the fact remains that there were 12 jurors for the vast majority of the LL trial and proceedings.

 

[blup]

correct - but you also need to read sec 17.

That’s where Google first directed me, and I scrolled to the relevant part at 16

 

[Mrs Ten Names]

That’s where Google first directed me, and I scrolled to the relevant part at 16

Googling again, clause 16 of the Juries act 1974 says up to three jurors can be discharged, so 9 it seems is a minimum.

correct - but you also need to read sec 17.

waiting for the forum idiots to get to the next page of the Act.

Juries Act 1974

An Act to consolidate certain enactments relating to juries, jurors and jury service with corrections and improvements made under the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act 1949.

www.legislation.gov.uk

less than 11, there is a risk of a mistrial.

did you read sec 16, paragraph 3 also.

You see.. the thing about law, is you have to start with the actual Law.

Motorbiking recommending we read Acts of Parliament, when he could just as easily copy and paste the relevant words, with the links to the original.

What he really wants, is for us to waste our time, while he fills the pages with farcical filly facts.

 

[blup]

11 in the minimum otherwise you have a miss trial

Minimum 12 or the risk of a mistrial (within the confines of section 17 that you referred to).