UK - Healthcare worker arrested on suspicion of murder/attempted murder of a number of babies, 2018

[Eloise]

I'm in Australia, and I was on a jury 30 years ago. I was then working fulltime. For jury service I (and the others) were paid the same as what we would have been paid at work. So I was perfectly happy with that, especially as it was shorter hours!

How it currently stands in NSW:

For the first two weeks, you get paid $106.30 per day regardless of your employment status. Your employer is legally obligated to make up the rest of your normal pay for this two weeks, unless you're a casual (so for casuals on good pay, this is going to be a significant loss). After that two weeks your employer is no longer required to pay you, but if you're employed you get $247.40 per day. Not employed people continue to receive $106.30 a day.

$247.40 a day equates to $1237, which is roughly what you'd get on an average Australian wage after tax (according to google, the average weekly earnings for full-time workers is AU$1,737 (seasonally adjusted), however for a family breadwinner in a very expensive city like Sydney where even admin assistants are earning above 'average wage', that is a significant pay drop. So you're only going to get people who are employed on average wage or less wanting to sign up for a long trial. Also, twice now my partner's employer has signed off on letters for employees who got the dreaded Sheriff letters saying they were going to be called up for a trial lasting 12 weeks or so; the bosses letters stated that a long trial would take employees away from his business and damage projects they're working on etc, and they get let off. So you're also not going to get anyone with any kind of jobs, not for a six month trial.
The only exception to that in NSW is public servants, who continue to receive their full salary the entire time.

I think it just damages the ideal of the jury (particularly in long trials; short trials are much less of an issue) being a cross section of society. It's not. It's a cross section of people who have nothing else to do for six months - unemployed, retirees, the underemployed whose even small amount of employment means the employed rate of jury pay is actually a boon rather than a loss, and public servants. And I have nothing whatsoever against these people, but its not truly representative. And there's no answer for that because of course people need to be excused for a variety of reasons. If it were me up there, I think I'd personally rather have my case decided on by a judge.

i would agree...but....8?

I actually think that this makes it more likely to be something else. Something systemic, something like contaminated feed as per the link upthread. She just happened to be coincidentally on shift when the contaminated feed (as an example, I'm not saying I think that's what it was) was given out, etc.

 

[annpats]

If it were something as simple as he 'just being on shift' when the deaths happened, then it wouldn't even have got to trial, because that is only circumstantial evidence, and not solid proof. Whatever they've got on her has to be forensic evidence.

 

[Eloise]

If it were something as simple as he 'just being on shift' when the deaths happened, then it wouldn't even have got to trial, because that is only circumstantial evidence, and not solid proof. Whatever they've got on her has to be forensic evidence.

I feel like if they had irrefutable, absolute proof she wouldn't have plead not guilty IMO. She must have been advised she has a case worth fighting, worth waiting around in remand for.

 

[JosieJo]

I absolutely do know innocent people occasionally get charged..but..this is obviously a massively imotive and high profile case ...a nurse and babies..if the cps and justice system have allowed this charge and left her in prison without bail all this time knowing how this case will be publicly scrutinised they must be mad

 

[Sarahlou]

I feel like if they had irrefutable, absolute proof she wouldn't have plead not guilty IMO. She must have been advised she has a case worth fighting, worth waiting around in remand for.

Lots of convicted murderers didn't plead guilty even with strong evidence though. Not saying this is the case here of course as we don't really know anything yet.

 

[Marantz4250b]

i would agree...but....8?

The high number of charges just makes it more likely that something is very wrong here, at least to my mind. If we look back to the start of all this, the whole thing began in a fairly innocuous way as an investigation into some apparent increase in deaths at a particular point. It seems that they were barely noticed as an increase when they happened (perhaps not at all) and were most certainly not flagged up in anyone's mind that they were suspicious or even down to something like negligence. Indeed, it was something like two years before the hospital even asked the police to investigate and, even then, it was only to look into whether offences had actually been committed. The hospital wasn't suggesting that any criminality had occurred at that point.

So, after two years of investigation and more than four years after the first alleged offences, it went from no one even noticing these deaths as being anything unusual to charges amounting to eight counts of murder and almost a dozen counts of attempted murder. Alleged offences which were apparently happening with such frequency that she must have been murdering or attempting to murder on an almost daily basis - indeed, she is alleged to have committed two offences against one child within hours of each other and even managed to kill the child's sibling too. Not a single person in the hospital noticed anything amiss when a nurse was apparently engaging in the most prolific killing spree in British medical and legal history (I don't think that even Shipman was committing crimes at that rate) and a 25 year old, relatively newly qualified somewhat shy and retiring nurse has managed to come up with a way of killing people, children who are presumably under intense monitoring and under the noses of a hospital full of medical professionals without drawing the slightest attention to herself or even to the circumstances of the deaths.

If she'd been charged with one or two offences then I'd be more inclined to believe that they'd got it right. The huge number she has been charged with though just seems to off the planet given that these deaths were never thought of as being anything unusual when they happened. I know the hospital had a bad reputation for incompetence at the time but that seems to be stretching things just a bit.

 

[Marantz4250b]

Lots of convicted murderers didn't plead guilty even with strong evidence though. Not saying this is the case here of course as we don't really know anything yet.

If it were me in her situation and I did it I'd definitely plead not guilty. There would be nothing to lose as it's almost certain that the only sentence that will result from this is a whole life order.

 

[Marantz4250b]

If it were something as simple as he 'just being on shift' when the deaths happened, then it wouldn't even have got to trial, because that is only circumstantial evidence, and not solid proof. Whatever they've got on her has to be forensic evidence.

You'd think so but this whole thing is so strange I just don't know what to think. Lucia DeBurke was charged and convicted on the basis of flawed evidence that the probability of anyone else doing it was non-existent (different country, I know) and Rebecca Leighton was charged and remanded on I think similar evidence and she was absolutely innocent as someone else was eventually convicted.

If it's solid forensic evidence as opposed to simple coincidence of times and places then how come it took almost half a decade to come to light? They even arrested her three times keeping her in custody for the full permitted time on each occasion. Whatever evidence they have is either ropey as hell or fantastically complicated, one would think?

I've said before that unless whatever they have results in an absolutely resounding, solid guilty or not guilty verdict, one which everyone can see cannot be wrong, then it's never going to sit right. There will always be doubts. If they had such convincing evidence of guilt I think this would have been done and dusted years ago.

 

[JosieJo]

The high number of charges just makes it more likely that something is very wrong here, at least to my mind. If we look b

ack to the start of all this, the whole thing began in a fairly innocuous way as an investigation into some apparent increase in deaths at a particular point. It seems that they were barely noticed as an increase when they happened (perhaps not at all) and were most certainly not flagged up in anyone's mind that they were suspicious or even down to something like negligence. Indeed, it was something like two years before the hospital even asked the police to investigate and, even then, it was only to look into whether offences had actually been committed. The hospital wasn't suggesting that any criminality had occurred at that point.

So, after two years of investigation and more than four years after the first alleged offences, it went from no one even noticing these deaths as being anything unusual to charges amounting to eight counts of murder and almost a dozen counts of attempted murder. Alleged offences which were apparently happening with such frequency that she must have been murdering or attempting to murder on an almost daily basis - indeed, she is alleged to have committed two offences against one child within hours of each other and even managed to kill the child's sibling too. Not a single person in the hospital noticed anything amiss when a nurse was apparently engaging in the most prolific killing spree in British medical and legal history (I don't think that even Shipman was committing crimes at that rate) and a 25 year old, relatively newly qualified somewhat shy and retiring nurse has managed to come up with a way of killing people, children who are presumably under intense monitoring and under the noses of a hospital full of medical professionals without drawing the slightest attention to herself or even to the circumstances of the deaths.

If she'd been charged with one or two offences then I'd be more inclined to believe that they'd got it right. The huge number she has been charged with though just seems to off the planet given that these deaths were never thought of as being anything unusual when they happened. I know the hospital had a bad reputation for incompetence at the time but that seems to be stretching things just a bit.

I'm not sure we know if anything flagged up in people's mind until we hear evidence I feel ..how would we know that at this stage ?

The hospital must have suspected possible criminal activity at the time they referred the case to the police else why put it to them?

Many people may have noticed many things but it may take time to notice a pattern...within the NHS DRs change areas every 6 months , nurses and management move around a lot.

 

[Marantz4250b]

I'm not sure we know if anything flagged up in people's mind until we hear evidence I feel ..how would we know that at this stage ?

The hospital must have suspected possible criminal activity at the time they referred the case to the police else why put it to them?

Many people may have noticed many things but it may take time to notice a pattern...within the NHS DRs change areas every 6 months , nurses and management move around a lot.

All good points and, yes, we don't know a great deal so far. I'm just trying to read between the lines of what we know. One of the early reports mentioned that the hospital called the police in to investigate ....whether any offences had been committed..... or words to that effect. This is after they'd spent months investigating things themselves. I think it's significant that it was worded like that rather than ...we believe that offences may have been committed... or similar.

 

[Kemug]

This is turning into the most mysterious mystery ever.

 

[silflay_hraka]

Hi everyone, I’ve been following this thread from the beginning, such a tragic mystifying case. Does anyone have a link to the report generated from the hospital ‘enquiry’ (if that’s the correct term). I remember linking to it from this forum years ago but can’t seem to find it now. If I remember correctly the hospital self-referred, (perhaps automatically triggered by the higher than average death rates?). I have a vague recollection of staff mentioning working conditions, I don’t want to put too many of my musings out there without a link to back up facts within the report.

 

[Marantz4250b]

An Italian CSI drama: social media, a broken legal system, and Micky Mouse statistics

This isn't from a mainstream media report so might contravene the rules here and get removed but it's a most fascinating article of yet another case of a serial killing nurse having their conviction quashed after the statistical evidence used against them was shown to be rubbish.

Now, we don't know whether LL's shift pattern forms any part of the evidence against her but it may well do as it seems to be a very regular feature of these types of prosecution. The article makes some very interesting points, ones which had never crossed my mind before. The subject matter relates to older and very elderly patients so its not clear how it applies to premature babies but some carry-over would seem reasonable. It's also Italy but hospital staffing is probably organised in a similar sort of way in most of Europe and similarly developed countries.

Daniella Pogiali was convicted largely because more people died when she was on shift than when she wasn't. The paper makes an interesting point though that (and I'm paraphrasing here), apparently, if you are severely ill or very old you rarely die in your sleep. Most people die early in the morning as they are waking up and stress and suchlike starts affecting their organs. Hospital rotas are usually arranged so that there are more nurses and other staff on shift during this time as (leaving aside more people dying) it's a much busier time of day anyway. The specific point is made that any full time nurse, therefore, will have more people on their ward die when they are at work than when they aren't simply because more nurses are actually on duty when most people die.

It was also pointed out that Daniella was known to work more shifts than other nurses and also often overstayed her shifts, sometimes for several hours. That obviously increased the chances of her shifts coinciding with increased deaths. It's been said in a few of the reports that LL was a very conscientious person, especially while studying, and devoted a lot of time to her career. I wonder whether there is any significance to that and whether LL did more or longer shifts than is usual? If she did then, yes, it is inevitable that she would have been present during a greater number of deaths. It would surely be more suspicious if the opposite were the case.

There were some interesting points raised about times, and specifically, dates on which deaths occurred. In the Italian hospital, times of deaths seemed to be clustered around the hour or half hours. A large number were for some reason given as being within 5 minutes after midnight. Only a doctor can certify a death and apply a time of death to it. Doctors seem to have been rounding up or down to the nearest half hour in lots of cases as they obviously wouldn't have been there at the actual time of death. So, if for instance, someone died 25 minutes before they actually did and there's been a shift change in the intervening period then that death may not actually be being recorded against the shifts of the nurses on station at the time they actually died. Now, it may well be the case that given the nature of the unit in question and the presumed very high level of monitoring of these babies, that these last things may not be particularly relevant but they may be to some extent.

 

[annpats]

I'm going to see if so can find a percentage of how higher the actual deaths were during the years LL was working there, as before and after.

 

[Kasmeer]

Thinking about the evidence they may or may not have, I can't help feeling that, if they had conclusive forensic evidence of her guilt, why is the trial set to take six months? Surely they could prune a lot of less-needed detail if they have conclusive evidence, right? I can't immediately think of a UK trial that's taken so long (I'd be interested to know of examples better-informed people have), as usually all that's needed is the evidence which proves the victims were killed (post-mortems etc), and the evidence which proves who did it, plus a little bit of scene-setting. That doesn't take six months to present where there's clear proof!

Taking so long over it makes me think they don't have conclusive evidence, so need to throw every little thing at it to try and make it all add up enough. The fact that it's going to trial at least indicates the CPS believes it adds up, but it sounds to me as though there can't be a "smoking gun" piece of evidence to prove her guilt if they need it to take so long. Which doesn't mean she's innocent, but also doesn't mean she's guilty - I'll be interested to hear what evidence they do have and hope it's not purely statistics and shift patterns...

 

[Marantz4250b]

I'm going to see if so can find a percentage of how higher the actual deaths were during the years LL was working there, as before and after.

I've never seen those figures. The only thing I've ever seen mentioned is an increased number of deaths during a couple of years whilst LL was working there. Those figures in isolation are utterly meaningless because there is no context to them. As the Italian paper points out there are other relevant factors; numbers of admissions and discharges; the severity of illness; the type of illness; staffing levels and proficiency of management also being potential major influencing factors, I'd imagine.

Deaths at the Italian hospital fell dramatically after DP left. The paper points out though that admissions fell significantly immediately after she was arrested anyway - there was serial killer on the loose so no real surprise there, then! I recall reading that the unit LL worked in was downgraded at some point so that it no longer cared for the most seriously ill babies. I can't recall at what point that was but if it was after she had stopped working there then a fall in the number of deaths is something you would inevitably expect to see. You can't reasonably attribute a change in numbers of deaths to her shift pattern changes if you have also radically altered the class of patient she was caring for without an awful lot of justification as to why it made no difference to the change in deaths.

This whole thing is, as we have discussed, made so much more complicated due to the fact that we have virtually no official statements or evidence to go on.

 

[JosieJo]

Thinking about the evidence they may or may not have, I can't help feeling that, if they had conclusive forensic evidence of her guilt, why is the trial set to take six months? Surely they could prune a lot of less-needed detail if they have conclusive evidence, right? I can't immediately think of a UK trial that's taken so long (I'd be interested to know of examples better-informed people have), as usually all that's needed is the evidence which proves the victims were killed (post-mortems etc), and the evidence which proves who did it, plus a little bit of scene-setting. That doesn't take six months to present where there's clear proof!

Taking so long over it makes me think they don't have conclusive evidence, so need to throw every little thing at it to try and make it all add up enough. The fact that it's going to trial at least indicates the CPS believes it adds up, but it sounds to me as though there can't be a "smoking gun" piece of evidence to prove her guilt if they need it to take so long. Which doesn't mean she's innocent, but also doesn't mean she's guilty - I'll be interested to hear what evidence they do have and hope it's not purely statistics and shift patterns...

Just my thoughts but I would imagine the timescale is due to the number of alleged victims..they will all have their own prosecution and to a degree will all have to prove their own case individually

 

[Kasmeer]

Just my thoughts but I would imagine the timescale is due to the number of alleged victims..they will all have their own prosecution and to a degree will all have to prove their own case individually

Ah, fair point; I think I'd assumed it'd be one prosecution case, and a lot of the evidence would be applicable to all cases, but indeed the number of alleged victims would certainly increase the time if there is individual evidence available beyond statistics and shifts.

Still seems like a long time though, Harold Shipman's trial for 15 victims appears to have taken 4 months, while Reynhard Sinaga's "four trials took place between 1 June and 10 July 2018 covering 13 victims, 1 April to 7 May 2019 with 12 victims, 16 September to 4 October 2019 covering 10 victims, and December 2019 with 13 victims" ( Reynhard Sinaga - Wikipedia ). These being the first multi-victim cases I could think of for comparison - obviously Shipman being more relevant, Sinaga was just for a very large number of victims; indeed I think his four trials together took less than six months if they were back-to-back. Which still leads me to doubt the strength of evidence in this case, but I guess we have to wait and see what comes up.

 

[ZaZara]

An Italian CSI drama: social media, a broken legal system, and Micky Mouse statistics

This isn't from a mainstream media report so might contravene the rules here and get removed but it's a most fascinating article of yet another case of a serial killing nurse having their conviction quashed after the statistical evidence used against them was shown to be rubbish.

Now, we don't know whether LL's shift pattern forms any part of the evidence against her but it may well do as it seems to be a very regular feature of these types of prosecution. The article makes some very interesting points, ones which had never crossed my mind before. The subject matter relates to older and very elderly patients so its not clear how it applies to premature babies but some carry-over would seem reasonable. It's also Italy but hospital staffing is probably organised in a similar sort of way in most of Europe and similarly developed countries.

Daniella Pogiali was convicted largely because more people died when she was on shift than when she wasn't. The paper makes an interesting point though that (and I'm paraphrasing here), apparently, if you are severely ill or very old you rarely die in your sleep. Most people die early in the morning as they are waking up and stress and suchlike starts affecting their organs. Hospital rotas are usually arranged so that there are more nurses and other staff on shift during this time as (leaving aside more people dying) it's a much busier time of day anyway. The specific point is made that any full time nurse, therefore, will have more people on their ward die when they are at work than when they aren't simply because more nurses are actually on duty when most people die.

It was also pointed out that Daniella was known to work more shifts than other nurses and also often overstayed her shifts, sometimes for several hours. That obviously increased the chances of her shifts coinciding with increased deaths. It's been said in a few of the reports that LL was a very conscientious person, especially while studying, and devoted a lot of time to her career. I wonder whether there is any significance to that and whether LL did more or longer shifts than is usual? If she did then, yes, it is inevitable that she would have been present during a greater number of deaths. It would surely be more suspicious if the opposite were the case.

There were some interesting points raised about times, and specifically, dates on which deaths occurred. In the Italian hospital, times of deaths seemed to be clustered around the hour or half hours. A large number were for some reason given as being within 5 minutes after midnight. Only a doctor can certify a death and apply a time of death to it. Doctors seem to have been rounding up or down to the nearest half hour in lots of cases as they obviously wouldn't have been there at the actual time of death. So, if for instance, someone died 25 minutes before they actually did and there's been a shift change in the intervening period then that death may not actually be being recorded against the shifts of the nurses on station at the time they actually died. Now, it may well be the case that given the nature of the unit in question and the presumed very high level of monitoring of these babies, that these last things may not be particularly relevant but they may be to some extent.

Wow an expert statistician who also worked on the Lucia de Berk case!
Very interesting reading, thank you for posting.

From the article:

Meanwhile, a new case is starting up in the UK: Lucy (!) Letby. I sincerely hope not to be involved with that one.

Time for a new generation of nosy statisticians to do some hard work.

 

[Marantz4250b]

Wow an expert statistician who also worked on the Lucia de Berk case!
Very interesting reading, thank you for posting.

From the article:

Meanwhile, a new case is starting up in the UK: Lucy (!) Letby. I sincerely hope not to be involved with that one.

Time for a new generation of nosy statisticians to do some hard work.

I can't claim much credit for finding that, it was just on some random twitter feed which came up via a Google search. I don't even have a Twitter account. Credit goes to whoever posted it to Twitter.

Love your avatar btw, Uranium Glass?