‘If you are satisfied so that you are sure in the case of any baby that they were deliberately harmed by the defendant then you are entitled to consider how likely it is that other babies in the case who suffered unexpected collapses did so as a result of some unexplained or natural cause rather than as a consequence of some deliberate harmful act by someone.
'If you conclude that this is unlikely then you could, if you think it right, treat the evidence of that event and any others, if any, which you find were a consequence of a deliberate harmful act, as supporting evidence in the cases of other babies and that the defendant was the person responsible.
'When deciding how far, if at all, the evidence in relation to any of the cases supports the case against the defendant on any other or others, you should take into account how similar or dissimilar, in your opinion, the allegations and the circumstances of and surrounding their collapses are.’
Letby, 33, is accused of murdering seven babies and trying to murder 10 others during the course of her work on the neonatal unit at the Countess of Chester Hospital.
www.dailymail.co.uk
Taken from daily mail. I think the judge is saying, if the jury find that she is guilty of one charge, then they are able to use their verdict on that charge to consider whether she is guilty of the other similar charges, based on how likely they think it is that another child LL had opportunity to come into contact with, died or collapsed due to some other natural cause. In other words, if they think she did one then they can use that guilt as evidence that she is most likely guilty of others that happened in similar circumstances too. I think that’s what he means anyway, IMO.
Also the judge has said (paraphrased) that they don’t need to be certain of the actual cause of collapse or death, so if they find it wasn’t proven that air embolism for example was the cause in one or more cases, if they are sure that she harmed them in any way then they can find her guilty. If not then they return a not guilty verdict.
So as has been debated before about whether just because there might be evidence she harmed one doesn’t mean she may have harmed them all - that isn’t actually how the jury can decide to see it from what the judge has said IMO anyway.
For example -
this is only an example to explain what I think the judge means - if they find for example that LL poisoned baby F with insulin, they could then, when discussing the case of baby L also poisoned with insulin, decide to reasonably assume that there weren’t 2 insulin poisoners at work and therefore she could also have poisoned baby L with insulin. Likewise for baby A and C for example, if they found that she is guilty of murdering baby A, they could then assume that there is a high likelihood she may also be guilty of other babies who collapsed suddenly, showing similar symptoms such as the rash, etc. They don’t have to be convinced of air embolism or even insulin as having been the method of death or collapse to decide this from how I read it IMO.
If they find they cannot be sure she did anything to deliberately harm or cause death then they have to find her not guilty.
All MOO
