UK - Nurse Lucy Letby Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #4

[Kitaro]

LL probably only needs to be convicted of a single murder to receive a whole life tariff.

Wayne Couzens, the cop who murdered Sarah Everard, received a whole life tariff, because he abused his position of trust and power as a police officer to abduct her. He was seen on CCTV flashing his badge at her to convince her to get in his car. Normally, for committing one murder, it would not legally warrant a whole life sentence.

Lucy Letby is in a similar situation, because she is accused of abusing her position of power and trust as a nurse, in order to commit murder. Only one murder conviction will put her away for life.

Even a single attempted murder conviction would carry a much long sentence than usual, in her case.

Correct. The defence needs to disprove 7 counts of murder and 15 counts of attempted murder with the prosecution having on their side a note that says “I killed them on purpose”. Defence will need to pull some rabbits out of hats.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Correct. The defence needs to disprove 7 counts of murder and 15 counts of attempted murder with the prosecution having on their side a note that says “I killed them on purpose”. Defence will need to pull some rabbits out of hats.

Incorrect.

The defence don't need to disprove anything.

It is for the defence to prove beyond reasonable doubt, i.e. the jury must be sure.

In terms of a whole life tariff for a single nonpolitical murder....not so. Wayne Couzens offending was unique.....as the judges sentencing remarks confirm.

BTW the note doesn't prove any of the elements required in law to convict for murder or attempted murder.

It really helps to understand the process.

UK - Nurse Lucy Letby Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #4

LL probably only needs to be convicted of a single murder to receive a whole life tariff. Wayne Couzens, the cop who murdered Sarah Everard, received a whole life tariff, because he abused his position of trust and power as a police officer to abduct her. He was seen on CCTV flashing his badge...

www.websleuths.com

 

[29 Acacia Road]

Correct. The defence needs to disprove 7 counts of murder and 15 counts of attempted murder with the prosecution having on their side a note that says “I killed them on purpose”. Defence will need to pull some rabbits out of hats.

They don't need to disprove the charges. The defence needs to create enough reasonable doubt, 'doubt' is not a fact, it is something we all assess differently and some jurors will have more doubt than others.

 

[Marantz4250b]

Incorrect.

The defence don't need to disprove anything.

It is for the defence to prove beyond reasonable doubt, i.e. the jury must be sure.

In terms of a whole life tariff for a single non-political murder....not so. Wayne Couzens offending was unique.....as the judges sentencing remarks confirm.

It really helps to understand the process.

UK - Nurse Lucy Letby Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #4

LL probably only needs to be convicted of a single murder to receive a whole life tariff. Wayne Couzens, the cop who murdered Sarah Everard, received a whole life tariff, because he abused his position of trust and power as a police officer to abduct her. He was seen on CCTV flashing his badge...

www.websleuths.com

Agreed.

I think that in theory she could get a whole life order for a single murder, as a nurse might fall into the same category as a police officer, but I think it's rather unlikely. Minimum thirty year starting point I think is the most likely outcome.

I'm still not at all persuaded that she's guilty though.

 

[annpats]

In terms of a whole life tariff for a single nonpolitical murder....not so. Wayne Couzens offending was unique.....as the judges sentencing remarks confirm.

I think Lucy Letby may be unique too, if she is found guilty.

 

[annpats]

I've just been reading through this thread when the incongruity (if that's the right word) struck me of the fact that the nurse who was the face of a fundraising campaign for the hospital is now accused of killing babies in her care. This may very well be a coincidence but if she is found guilty, I wonder if this could have played a role, psychologically speaking. Just my own uninformed opinion and thoughts.

You mean a 'hiding in plain sight' kind of thing?

 

[29 Acacia Road]

I think Lucy Letby may be unique too, if she is found guilty.

I guess it may come down to how many counts she is found guilty of (if indeed she is), if she always maintains her innocence and the jury make their decision based mostly on the balance of probability (of her being the ever present factor), then there may always be the suspicion by some that the perfect storm of very low staffing levels, mistakes, burnout, equipment faults all possibly contributed to a one off unique spike that meant she was found guilty. I'm not sure a whole life tariff could be given if there was that slight possibility still surrounding her. WC pleaded guilty and there was therefore no doubt in his innocence or guilt.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

I think Lucy Letby may be unique too, if she is found guilty.

Here is a very thorough article on the generic reasons for Whole Life Orders and why Lord Justice Fulford deemed Wayne Couzens offending to be unique, handing him a Whole Life Order, even though his crimes did not fit the established reasons.

Of course it is up to any Judge at sentencing, but if a Whole Life Order is handed down outside of the generic reasons, the offending will need to have had a disproportionate impact on wider society.

Otherwise the sentence will be appealed, which is likely to be successful.

Why the whole-life sentence for the murderer of Sarah Everard is correct

30th September 2021 Earlier today the murderer of Sarah Everard received a whole-life sentence. Such a sentence is exceptional – the relevant statutory provision sets out five express instanc…

davidallengreen.com

 

[Marantz4250b]

I guess it may come down to how many counts she is found guilty of (if indeed she is), if she always maintains her innocence and the jury make their decision based mostly on the balance of probability (of her being the ever present factor), then there may always be the suspicion by some that the perfect storm of very low staffing levels, mistakes, burnout, equipment faults all possibly contributed to a one off unique spike that meant she was found guilty. I'm not sure a whole life tariff could be given if there was that slight possibility still surrounding her. WC pleaded guilty and there was therefore no doubt in his innocence or guilt.

The sentencing guidelines (which are statutory) do not take account of "how guilty" the court feels the person is. There is no such thing in law - you are guilty or you are not guilty.

The only sentence available for murder is life. A court cannot pass any other. The court has to determine the "tariff" which is the term the person must spend in custody before they can apply for parole. Note "apply" for parole, not be paroled. The tariff is arrived at by applying certain statutory starting points based on the particular circumstances of the crime(s). These can be reduced or increased depending on the particular aggravating or mitigating circumstances the court sees.

 

[annpats]

there may always be the suspicion by some that the perfect storm of very low staffing levels, mistakes, burnout, equipment faults all possibly contributed to a one off unique spike that meant she was found guilty.

I'm sure many hospitals and healthcare units have that quite often. I don't think it's unique, and I don't think it leads to so many deaths..... a few on occasions, maybe. But not as many as the C of C neo-natal unit had.

MOO.

 

[ZaZara]

I guess it may come down to how many counts she is found guilty of (if indeed she is), if she always maintains her innocence and the jury make their decision based mostly on the balance of probability (of her being the ever present factor), then there may always be the suspicion by some that the perfect storm of very low staffing levels, mistakes, burnout, equipment faults all possibly contributed to a one off unique spike that meant she was found guilty. I'm not sure a whole life tariff could be given if there was that slight possibility still surrounding her. WC pleaded guilty and there was therefore no doubt in his innocence or guilt.

BBM


That is an interesting thought, but it isn't necessarily true.

Even if someone confesses to a crime, the evidence should support the facts of the crime and the confession.

If LL were to confess to one or more murders now, could anyone be certain that this confession was genuine and not the consequence of 6 years of pressure, or a mental condition for instance? Or could LL simply be repeating what she was told by the prosecution in court and by those who interrogated her?

IMO all that is problematic with this case would return with a vengeance: the situation in the ward, the margins of error and coincidence, the possibility of a mistake, the absence of intent to harm or to kill.

 

[29 Acacia Road]

I'm sure many hospitals and healthcare units have that quite often. I don't think it's unique, and I don't think it leads to so many deaths..... a few on occasions, maybe. But not as many as the C of C neo-natal unit had.

MOO.

Sorry I probably didn't word that very well, I meant could there have been those things happen above and beyond what has happened before that would make it unique because it lead to that uniquely high number of deaths.

I guess what I am asking, is it impossible for that number of deaths to ever happen accidentally in a unique one off time period that wouldn't happen again?

 

[Whitehall 1212]

guess what I am asking, is it impossible for that number of deaths to ever happen accidentally in a unique one off time period that wouldn't happen again?

Yes, it's possible!

If something has happened once then it can happen again, if the conditions remain the same.

 

[annpats]

Sorry I probably didn't word that very well, I meant could there have been those things happen above and beyond what has happened before that would make it unique because it lead to that uniquely high number of deaths.

I guess what I am asking, is it impossible for that number of deaths to ever happen accidentally in a unique one off time period that wouldn't happen again?

Is suppose the crux of the matter is for the prosecution to prove that each individual death was caused by intention to kill.

The very fact the trail is happening in the first place seems to imply that it is impossible for that number of deaths to happen as they did in that time period.

It was the high number of deaths that started bells ringing and concerns to be raised in the first place, and that was before a detailed investigation started and potential evidence came to light.

MOO.

 

[Legal]

You mean a 'hiding in plain sight' kind of thing?

I was thinking more on the lines of (if she is in fact guilty) perhaps she got used to the limelight and found things a bit tame afterwards. This is simply conjecture as I have no idea what being the face of the campaign actually involved but perhaps it created a desire for more attention. Just my own thoughts and conjecture.

 

[29 Acacia Road]

No. It's all down to probability and there are multiple factors at play, which may influence the chances.

It's like asking if someone can win the jackpot on the lottery twice. Yes, it possible but the odds are huge.

Do you think there will be anyone on the prosecution or defence who will actually try and put a % on that and tell that to the jury? Similar to when there are DNA results and there is % given that the match could/could not be the profile of the person.

 

[Marantz4250b]

Sorry I probably didn't word that very well, I meant could there have been those things happen above and beyond what has happened before that would make it unique because it lead to that uniquely high number of deaths.

I guess what I am asking, is it impossible for that number of deaths to ever happen accidentally in a unique one off time period that wouldn't happen again?

It doesn't seem impossible at all. It's not as though babies were dying every day. The unit was downgraded around the time LL was taken off clinical duties so any suggestion that these things "stopped" when she stopped nursing is irrelevant.

You say, "uniquely high number of deaths". We don't know that that is true because we don't, for instance, know the numbers of patients in the unit at the relevant time or the seriousness of their conditions when compared with at other times.

It seems that the prosecution, though, aren't overly emphasising the increased numbers of deaths or, importantly, the mere fact that LL was on-shift at the time which is what seems to have happened in the case of LDB. Their evidence seems to be along the lines that LL was physically present in very close proximity to these patients when the events happened. They still haven't produced any forensic evidence that LL actually did anything that I can see, though, so it's still a variation on the "LL was there so she must have done it" theme.

 

[Marantz4250b]

Do you think there will be anyone on the prosecution or defence who will actually try and put a % on that and tell that to the jury? Similar to when there are DNA results and there is % given that the match could/could not be the profile of the person.

I think that in light of cases like LDB, prosecution cases will stay well clear of using statistics as a main piece of evidence in order to convict people. Didn't they use percentages in order to put the finger on Rebecca Leighton as well?

 

[Marantz4250b]

I was thinking more on the lines of (if she is in fact guilty) perhaps she got used to the limelight and found things a bit tame afterwards. This is simply conjecture as I have no idea what being the face of the campaign actually involved but perhaps it created a desire for more attention. Just my own thoughts and conjecture.

I think that it was a rather minor thing in her life, to be honest. It's been repeated over and over again due to her arrest and charging but it seems to me like it was an hour or so with a hack from the local rag and a few pics and would have been largely forgotten about in a few days.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Do you think there will be anyone on the prosecution or defence who will actually try and put a % on that and tell that to the jury? Similar to when there are DNA results and there is % given that the match could/could not be the profile of the person.

I suppose it's possible that a statistician will be called to give evidence, but more to discredit the methodology which placed LL in the suspects seat, when there were so many other factors which could influence the deaths and collapses.

However law and statistics are generally not happy bedfellows. It can confuse the hell out of lawyers, not to mention the jury.

However, Mr Myers mentioned confirmation bias in opening the case for the defence and has alluded to issues at the CoCH so we may drift into some well explained statistical evidence.

It's the case that keeps on giving.....or in the juries case, taking away!