UK - Nurse Lucy Letby Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #2

[Alyce]

A jury has yet to be selected and Mr Justice Goss has adjourned for legal discussions until Thursday.

Children's nurse appears in court accused of murdering seven babies

Lucy Letby, 32, allegedly murdered five boys and two girls, and attempted to murder five boys and five girls, between June 2015 and June 2016 at the Countess of Chester Hospital in Cheshire.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[Marantz4250b]

A jury has yet to be selected and Mr Justice Goss has adjourned for legal discussions until Thursday.

Children's nurse appears in court accused of murdering seven babies

Lucy Letby, 32, allegedly murdered five boys and two girls, and attempted to murder five boys and five girls, between June 2015 and June 2016 at the Countess of Chester Hospital in Cheshire.

www.dailymail.co.uk

That statement, perhaps, tends to suggest that tomorrow is going to be spent with legal discussions away from open court?

So, yep, this is going to be a looooong case!

 

[Bakers]

If LL got a NG would these babies still be classed as murdered ?

 

[Whitehall 1212]

If LL got a NG would these babies still be classed as murdered ?

In terms of the crime report created by the police for the Home Office statistics, they will have been recorded as the investigation of offences of murder/attempted murder with the subsequent charges 'resulting' the crime as having been 'cleared'. No one said statistics are correct!

Because some or all of the deaths may have not been considered unnatural initially, then there may not have been post mortems before burial/cremation.

Even though inquests may have not been scheduled initially because there was no concern of unnatural death, I believe they will be a lawful requirement after LL's trial. They are suspended so that any verdict does not undermine LL's right to a fair trial.

The inquest may ultimately return one of a number of verdict possibilities for each infant, including 'unlawful killing', 'accident/misdaventure', neglect, natural causes and some possible others.

The police crime reporting is separate from both the trial and inquest verdicts. Yes it means the police have a load of additional 'clearances' for murder if LL is acquitted, which will artificially boost what most would understand to be the murder/attempted murder clear up rate......lies, damn lies and statistics!

 

[Whitehall 1212]

I've just come across this report from the Northern Echo in November 2020, when LL first appeared via video link to Magistrates Court after being charged.

The comment by the prosecution regarding the matter of bail is not one I have seen asserted before. It demonstrates a clear assessment of risk of harm by others.

Pascale Jones, prosecuting, told the court: "It is the crown's application for these matters to be sent to the crown court with a bail application to be determined. This court has no power to grant bail."

Ms Jones added: "The crown will also stress there is substantial grounds to believe for her own protection this defendant should be remanded into custody."

 

[Marantz4250b]

I've just come across this report from the Northern Echo in November 2020, when LL first appeared via video link to Magistrates Court after being charged.

The comment by the prosecution regarding the matter of bail is not one I have seen asserted before. It demonstrates a clear assessment of risk of harm by others.

Pascale Jones, prosecuting, told the court: "It is the crown's application for these matters to be sent to the crown court with a bail application to be determined. This court has no power to grant bail."

Ms Jones added: "The crown will also stress there is substantial grounds to believe for her own protection this defendant should be remanded into custody."

I have definitely seen that quote before and I'm sure it's been mentioned on here. The phrase "for her own protection" is not exclusive to protection from harm "by others", surely? Harm by herself is clearly potentially encompassed by these words.

Indeed, she had been publicly identified for in excess of two years up to this point without anyone apparently trying to harm her. Actually being charged may have caused her to completely lose her mind for all we know, especially if she didn't actually do any of it.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

I have definitely seen that quote before and I'm sure it's been mentioned on here. The phrase "for her own protection" is not exclusive to protection from harm "by others", surely? Harm by herself is clearly potentially encompassed by these words.

Indeed, she had been publicly identified for in excess of two years up to this point without anyone apparently trying to harm her. Actually being charged may have caused her to completely lose her mind for all we know, especially if she didn't actually do any of it.

Yes, I read my post again after the edit window had expired.

Indeed the quote could imply that she may also have been assessed as being at risk of self harm.

I'm pleased you picked it up

I didn't provide the MSM link as it gives the victims names.

 

[Supernovae]

Why would they blank her name out now ??

I've just checked with LawPages and her last hearing was on 29th July, nothing since.

https://www.thelawpages.com/court-hearings-lists/crown-court-lists-results.php

​

29-07-2022​	Manchester​	2​	T20217088​	Lucy Letby​
Details: For Mention (Defendant to Attend) - Case Started - 10:31 For Mention (Defendant to Attend) - Case to be listed for Trial on 04-Oct-2022 - 11:52 For Mention (Defendant to Attend) - Hearing finished for LUCY LETBY - 11:54

The Crown Court
at Manchester

Daily Courtroom List for Tuesday 04 October 2022​

FINAL 1​

Warning - There are cases within this court list with reporting restrictions.
Any breach of reporting restrictions is punishable by sanctions up to and including imprisonment.

Court 7 - sitting at 10:30 am

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE GOSS​

For Trial

T20217088

***** ****

07WZ1014618

*****

***

Order made under s45, Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999

www.courtserve.net

It looks like the trial reference numbers (T20217088) match. I don't know why they'd be anonymising her now.

 

[Supernovae]

As far as a conviction is concerned, I have my doubts as to whether the prosecution have such a level of evidence in their favour. She's been arrested three times, held for the maximum period without charge on two of those occasions (requiring magistrates authority) and was only charged on the final arrest. Hence, the police obviously didn't have the required evidence they needed to charge her for years. I think that the chance that they suddenly had utterly damning evidence after years of investigation is remote, quite honestly. .

I got a lot of push back for making this point on the previous thread, but this is what I'm thinking as well.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

It looks like the trial reference numbers (T20217088) match. I don't know why they'd be anonymising her now.

I suggest it's a consequence of there being reporting restrictions under s.45 Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 .

Either the system automatically withholds the defendants name when the restriction is in place or the admin team have failed to identify that the defendant is an adult.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

I got a lot of push back for making this point on the previous thread, but this is what I'm thinking as well.

It's not beyond the realms of possibility that the course of conduct identified over a number of deaths/critical incidents, ultimately provided the required weight of evidence for the CPS to approve the charges.....the evidential test being that there is a realistic prospect of conviction.

LL will have been arrested for each alleged offence. She was likely interviewed about all the alleged offences over the course of the three periods of police detention....possibly in chronological order of the alleged offences.

It is significant to note that once police have sufficient evidence to charge they MUST do so and NOT conduct any further interview with the suspect. This supports the fact that no charges were proffered until the final period of police detention, when the CPS evidential threshold for the authorisation to charge must have been satisfied.

It is important to recognise the complexity of this investigation will no doubt have required independent medical forensic experts to support the police in relation to clinical practice, procedures and evidential interpretation of clinical data. This will have made the investigation of each individual death/critical incident a protracted process.

 

[JuicyLucy]

I got a lot of push back for making this point on the previous thread, but this is what I'm thinking as well.

I tend to agree. And I think the question asked upthread by @Bakers regarding whether these babies' deaths would still be considered murders if LL is found NG raises some interesting points too. (To clarify, I don't mean from a police crime clean-up perspective so much as just a factual one.)

It just seems to me that the identification of these deaths as suspicious depends, by definition, on the identification of a pattern that the CPS sees as having been caused by LL. If the jury ends up rejecting that interpretation of events, it might well follow that there was never any such pattern, i.e. that it was a statistical artefact or misinterpretation. (Though it might also be that there was, just not one caused by LL and/or not deliberately.)

I'm also curious to know whether the jury will only weigh up guilt/innocence in relation to each individual child, or whether they would also be able to convict her based on the aggregated evidence represented by such a pattern (e.g. being the only staff member whose presence was common to all cases, etc). I would have difficulty with the latter tbh, as the use of a pattern to identify a person worth investigating, and then to charge them because their activities fit in with the pattern is inherently problematic imo.

But of course I'm getting well ahead of the evidence. I just hope the reporting restrictions don't prevent us from hearing enough of it to make up our own minds.

JMO

 

[Whitehall 1212]

I tend to agree. And I think the question asked upthread by @Bakers regarding whether these babies' deaths would still be considered murders if LL is found NG raises some interesting points too. (To clarify, I don't mean from a police crime clean-up perspective so much as just a factual one.)

It just seems to me that the identification of these deaths as suspicious depends, by definition, on the identification of a pattern that the CPS sees as having been caused by LL. If the jury ends up rejecting that interpretation of events, it might well follow that there was never any such pattern, i.e. that it was a statistical artefact or misinterpretation. (Though it might also be that there was, just not one caused by LL and/or not deliberately.)

I'm also curious to know whether the jury will only weigh up guilt/innocence in relation to each individual child, or whether they would also be able to convict her based on the aggregated evidence represented by such a pattern (e.g. being the only staff member whose presence was common to all cases, etc). I would have difficulty with the latter tbh, as the use of a pattern to identify a person worth investigating, and then to charge them because their activities fit in with the pattern is inherently problematic imo.

But of course I'm getting well ahead of the evidence. I just hope the reporting restrictions don't prevent us from hearing enough of it to make up our own minds.

JMO

Why do I think this case is going to require lots of headspace to evaluate what is presented as evidence?

I do think expert statistical analysis will come into play. If that is the case then we could be in for some fireworks.

I would say that any clinician in a neo natal unit with the intent to harm their vulnerable patients would have the means and requisite knowledge to do so.

The remaining variable is the necessary opportunity within the window of time when the child would need to be harmed to result in the subsequent observed/reported outcome. This could come down to recorded data and statistical interpretation/analysis, which on the face of it would leave a nasty taste for many I would think?

There is no requirement to demonstrate motive in any offence in England/Wales. However, I do believe credible evidence of intent will need to be demonstrated here.

Just my opinion/conjecture

 

[Marantz4250b]

I suggest it's a consequence of there being reporting restrictions under s.45 Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 .

Either the system automatically withholds the defendants name when the restriction is in place or the admin team have failed to identify that the defendant is an adult.

I think this may be correct; my ex was a journo for a local paper and she did quite a bit of court reporting. In lots of cases, very often sex abuse cases, any legal requirement not to identify a victim can easily be breached by identifying the defendant as it's very common for the defendant to be known by, or related to, them. It often results in the entire case not being reported because it's impossible to do so without identifying the victim by implication.

Hence, it's perhaps the case that the system automatically redacts the defendant's name where an order is in place, and maybe in the case of certain charges being made, and it requires manual intervention to reverse.

As an aside; my ex did mention that judges quite often get things wrong on things like this as she told me that on many occasions a judge would make an order in relation to a child when it was actually automatic in law in any event.

 

[Marantz4250b]

I tend to agree. And I think the question asked upthread by @Bakers regarding whether these babies' deaths would still be considered murders if LL is found NG raises some interesting points too. (To clarify, I don't mean from a police crime clean-up perspective so much as just a factual one.)

It just seems to me that the identification of these deaths as suspicious depends, by definition, on the identification of a pattern that the CPS sees as having been caused by LL. If the jury ends up rejecting that interpretation of events, it might well follow that there was never any such pattern, i.e. that it was a statistical artefact or misinterpretation. (Though it might also be that there was, just not one caused by LL and/or not deliberately.)

I'm also curious to know whether the jury will only weigh up guilt/innocence in relation to each individual child, or whether they would also be able to convict her based on the aggregated evidence represented by such a pattern (e.g. being the only staff member whose presence was common to all cases, etc). I would have difficulty with the latter tbh, as the use of a pattern to identify a person worth investigating, and then to charge them because their activities fit in with the pattern is inherently problematic imo.

But of course I'm getting well ahead of the evidence. I just hope the reporting restrictions don't prevent us from hearing enough of it to make up our own minds.

JMO

The reporting restrictions only apply to the republication of the names of the alleged victims. As it stands there appear to be no reasons as to why any other aspects of the trial might have reporting restrictions placed over them.

This trial is clearly going to be very long and will contain absolutely mountains of evidence. For anyone not in court through its whole course the problem will be one of what gets reported and what doesn't as far as us being able to make our minds up.

As to your paragraph previous to the one I highlighted; the prosecution will have to adduce evidence to the level that the jury "are sure" that she committed each of the crimes they are accusing her of. I don't see how any reasonable person can be "sure" that something occurred just because someone can show that it is likely to have occurred. Just because a nurse was in a particular place or was on shift at the time of a death doesn't remotely prove that, as far as I can see, and we have already discussed numerous cases where similar accusations have been utterly rubbished on appeal. Similarly, the Dutch system which seems to say that if the prosecution can show that you probably did some of the alleged crimes then you probably did the others is never going to fly here.

Let's also remember the article by the American (I think) statistician posted in the previous volume of this thread which made the point that during the career of any average nurse there will be more deaths during the times they are on-shift than when they are off-shift due to the nature of staffing levels and the times of day that people in hospital mostly tend to die.

One would hope that LL's defence team are sufficiently clued up on these things to get stuff like them squished pretty quick-sharp!

 

[Whitehall 1212]

I think this may be correct; my ex was a journo for a local paper and she did quite a bit of court reporting. In lots of cases, very often sex abuse cases, any legal requirement not to identify a victim can easily be breached by identifying the defendant as it's very common for the defendant to be known by, or related to, them. It often results in the entire case not being reported because it's impossible to do without identifying the victim by implication.

Hence, it's perhaps the case that the system automatically redacts the defendant's name where an order is in place, and maybe in the case of certain charges being made, and it requires manual intervention to reverse.

As an aside; my ex did mention that judges quite often get things wrong on things like this as she told me that on many occasions a judge would make an order in relation to a child when it was actually automatic in law in any event.

I'm sure this is on the money.

It would seem a case of 'computer says no' by default as part of the softwares inherent functionality, when it identifies a victim or defendant as a juvenile by DOB.

 

[Marantz4250b]

We still have no clue as to how the prosecution specifically allege that LL committed these crimes. I was thinking more about the dates relating to them, particularly in relation to the triplets I mentioned the other day. Two of the murder allegations on consecutive days relate to two of the triplets. There is an attempted murder charge on the third day.

When you look at the whole timeline it appears that the prosecution are suggesting that she was completely out of control, a rampaging psychopath of a woman who was attacking babies day after day at times. One would think that this demonstrates a very high risk of being caught while doing it. I wonder, then, whether the allegation is actually going to be one of tampering with medication or machines, rather than physically attacking the victims herself? A single act of adulterating a batch of medication which took only a few minutes could have ramifications lasting days or weeks into the future.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

We still have no clue as to how the prosecution specifically allege that LL committed these crimes. I was thinking more about the dates relating to them, particularly in relation to the triplets I mentioned the other day. Two of the murder allegations on consecutive days relate to two of the triplets. There is an attempted murder charge on the third day.

When you look at the whole timeline it appears that the prosecution are suggesting that she was completely out of control, a rampaging psychopath of a woman who was attacking babies day after day at times. One would think that this demonstrates a very high risk of being caught while doing it. I wonder, then, whether the allegation is actually going to be one of tampering with medication or machines, rather than physically attacking the victims herself? A single act of adulterating a batch of medication which took only a few minutes could have ramifications lasting days or weeks into the future.

Or consistent clinical error, with no awareness or intent, arising in part due to poor staffing levels, supervision or the lack of timely clinical incident review.

All just speculation. We could all be wide of the mark!

 

[Tortoise]

When anything happens I think we will get live updates here

Lucy Letby: trial of murder accused Hereford nurse enters second day

 

[Marantz4250b]

I think that very little will be reported today as its due to be taken up with legal argument which can't be reported.