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

[Parker Knoll]

On some lists yes but on others not.

 

[annpats]

It's interesting that despite the years of investigations, only Lucy has ever been arrested, none of her colleagues or others in the team.

We did discuss her being the scapegoat of the baby unit that was failing and had a reputation as being not very good, but the more I think about it, the more I'm not going with that theory.

To prove murder (killing with premeditated intent) can sometimes be difficult to prove in court, instead of manslaughter......the CPS don't file charges unless they're 90% sure of getting the conviction......and Lucy is being charged with EIGHT counts of murder, and TEN of attempted murder.

That's not manslaughter, that's not accidental, that's not being made a scapegoat.... that is 100% cold-hearted killer.

I know we can't comprehend it, and I know we don't want it to be true, but I just think sadly, it is true. Because if there was any chance she didn't do it, she wouldn't be here, up on 8 murder charges.

The evidence against her must be water-tight and overwhelmingly strong.

Frightening.

MOO.

 

[Bakers]

It's interesting that despite the years of investigations, only Lucy has ever been arrested, none of her colleagues or others in the team.

We did discuss her being the scapegoat of the baby unit that was failing and had a reputation as being not very good, but the more I think about it, the more I'm not going with that theory.

To prove murder (killing with premeditated intent) can sometimes be difficult to prove in court, instead of manslaughter......the CPS don't file charges unless they're 90% sure of getting the conviction......and Lucy is being charged with EIGHT counts of murder, and TEN of attempted murder.

That's not manslaughter, that's not accidental, that's not being made a scapegoat.... that is 100% cold-hearted killer.

I know we can't comprehend it, and I know we don't want it to be true, but I just think sadly, it is true. Because if there was any chance she didn't do it, she wouldn't be here, up on 8 murder charges.

The evidence against her must be water-tight and overwhelmingly strong.

Frightening.

MOO.

Sorry where did you get the cps don't charge unless they are 90% sure of a conviction?

 

[annpats]

Sorry where did you get the cps don't charge unless they are 90% sure of a conviction?

I read it yesterday, I'll try and find it again, although it was concerning another British case.

Apparently it's to do with the CPS ensuring less chance of cases collapsing. Which has happened in many previous instances.

The rate is much higher now. No point sending a case to court if there's only a 50%-60% chance of conviction. The CPS would lose integrity.

 

[Mandos]

I know we can't comprehend it, and I know we don't want it to be true, but I just think sadly, it is true. Because if there was any chance she didn't do it, she wouldn't be here, up on 8 murder charges.

The evidence against her must be water-tight and overwhelmingly strong.

Frightening.

MOO.

I would be very cautious of inferring guilt merely by the number of charges alone. After all, Lucia de Berk was convicted of 7 murders and 3 attempted ones and suspected of more, but turned out to be completely innocent in the end.

And with a 10% acquittal rate, I wouldn't assume the fact that the CPS filed charges is necessarily indicative of a water-tight and overwhelmingly strong case. We really need more information before such a conclusion is warranted.

 

[JosieJo]

I too am baffled as to why she hasn't been allowed to enter a plea; do you think that the judge is not happy with the evidence for some reason? There is no obvious reason as to why an accused person should not be allowed to plea. There must be potential Human Rights violations approaching fast given that fact coupled with the length of time she may potentially be held on remand. Holding someone in limbo indefinitely is a fairly good example of degrading and inhuman treatment, surely?

I understand that a timetable has to be set but it's already not slated to start for months yet and there were murmurings today of it being put back from that so why no plea?

I dont think its that she hasn't been "allowed" to enter a plea. The judge seems to be positively encouraging it.

Could it be the case that a lot of information is still coming in ? Due to the number of victims? Would it be likely that her own counsel are advising her to wait?

 

[Marantz4250b]

I dont think its that she hasn't been "allowed" to enter a plea. The judge seems to be positively encouraging it.

Could it be the case that a lot of information is still coming in ? Due to the number of victims? Would it be likely that her own counsel are advising her to wait?

No, that's definitely not the case. It's the court who aren't asking for a plea. Indeed, at one of her earlier hearings the judge said I won't be taking a plea today.

The defendant isn't given a choice as to whether they want to enter a plea, the court just asks them. I fail to see how the prosecution could justify asking for a delay - she is charged , court proceedings have started and she has a right to state her innocence or guilt. If the prosecution has not gathered the required evidence then she should not have been charged!

If she is guilty and wishes to plea and indicated that she wishes to plea to that then why the delay?

 

[Marantz4250b]

To prove murder (killing with premeditated intent) can sometimes be difficult to prove in court, instead of manslaughter......the CPS don't file charges unless they're 90% sure of getting the conviction......and Lucy is being charged with EIGHT counts of murder, and TEN of attempted murder.

That's not manslaughter, that's not accidental, that's not being made a scapegoat.... that is 100% cold-hearted killer.

I know we can't comprehend it, and I know we don't want it to be true, but I just think sadly, it is true. Because if there was any chance she didn't do it, she wouldn't be here, up on 8 murder charges.

The evidence against her must be water-tight and overwhelmingly strong.

Frightening.

MOO.

Murder is often far easier to prove than attempted murder. Murder is killing someone with the intent to kill them OR with intent to do them grievous bodily harm. Proving an intent to do GBH is usually much easier to prove than an intent to kill; if you punch someone in the face then it's pretty safe to conclude that you intend to cause them "really serious harm" , if they fall, hit their head and die then you may be convicted of murder despite having absolutely no intention to kill them.

For attempted murder it must be proved that the specific intention was to kill. That's often a very, very difficult thing to prove in many cases.

The difference with someone like a nurse (and this is going from stuff I studied 15+ years ago so I'm not 100% on this) is that they can possibly be convicted of murder through their omission to do something, rather than taking an active decision to kill. They are in a position of trust and are supposed to give aid to those under their charge even though there is no specific positive requirement to act to save someone as a general legal rule. So, if a nurse, say, simply left someone to die when they could have rendered assistance then I thunk that could result in a murder conviction. If she has done something here then perhaps something like that may be what the prosecution is alleging, rather than actively killing or trying to kill? I still think it's rather unlikely though as she just doesn't present as the type.

On the subject of the CPS needing to be 90% sure of a conviction before charging; I've seen that mentioned somewhere, probably one of the FB groups but that's simply not the case. The charging guidelines are that there must be a reasonable prospect of conviction and that the prosecution must be in the public interest.

I would not for one minute assume that the fact that someone is charged means that the evidence is essentially irrefutable. We have a fairly notorious history of sending innocent people down for extremely serious crimes and these types of medical death cases have a particularly inauspicious history about them!

 

[Marantz4250b]

Maybe LL is not taking her legal advice and wants to go a different way to what she is being advised ? God alone knows.

I have to say that that struck me as a possibility too. At, I think, her first appearance her QC made a comment along the lines of her wanting a resolution to the matter as soon as possible. That made me think that she'd maybe done it and wanted to say so sad get it over with.

Of course the alternative may be that after more than two years of multiple arrests, days in custody, hers and her parents house being searched AND being splashed all over the national media, FB and YouTube she may just have given up and just wanted it all to end despite being entirely innocent. She doesn't come across as being the type who can take that level of mental trauma for too long and we already know from the reports that she's described as slightly awkward and anxious.

 

[JosieJo]

No, that's definitely not the case. It's the court who aren't asking for a plea. Indeed, at one of her earlier hearings the judge said I won't be taking a plea today.

The defendant isn't given a choice as to whether they want to enter a plea, the court just asks them. I fail to see how the prosecution could justify asking for a delay - she is charged , court proceedings have started and she has a right to state her innocence or guilt. If the prosecution has not gathered the required evidence then she should not have been charged!

If she is guilty and wishes to plea and indicated that she wishes to plea to that then why the delay?

This is exactly what I was also asking ...why the delay? The judge made specific reference to ensuring a plea is entered in a timely manner.
How do we know who or why is delaying a plea? It could as easily be the defence we have no idea if she is wanting to plea or not as yet?

 

[JosieJo]

No, that's definitely not the case. It's the court who aren't asking for a plea. Indeed, at one of her earlier hearings the judge said I won't be taking a plea today.

The defendant isn't given a choice as to whether they want to enter a plea, the court just asks them. I fail to see how the prosecution could justify asking for a delay - she is charged , court proceedings have started and she has a right to state her innocence or guilt. If the prosecution has not gathered the required evidence then she should not have been charged!

If she is guilty and wishes to plea and indicated that she wishes to plea to that then why the delay?

A lot of evidence and information is passed back and forth after charge ..that is normal.

Usually in less complex cases plea and case management happens earlier at a plea and case management hearing.
Normally both "admin" and a plea have to be satisfied to go ahead with a plea and case management hearing.
Its just my opinion but my thoughts are they know she is going not guilty but there is an awful lot of "admin" going on because of the size of the case...this quote below the judge suggests the prosecution and defence have not entered their case management yet...he also states he is mindful that the plea should not delay in all of this

"Justice Dove said, however, he did not wish to vacate the current trial date until he had a timetable of case management which the prosecution, represented by Nicholas Johnson QC, and defence, represented by Benjamin Myers QC, could serve on him.

A hearing will be held on Monday, May 17 for an agreed timetable to be put forward.

Justice Dove added while Letby would not need to enter a plea today, it would be necessary for her to be arraigned "in the relatively near future."

He said: "We can't allow that important stage to drift indefinitely.""
Families involved in case of Chester healthcare worker Lucy Letby would be able to watch trial remotely

 

[Mrs Marple]

So perhaps the defence are wrangling over important evidence and possibly trying to get it thrown out, hence the delay?

 

[Rusty Braincells]

On the matter of whether an omission by someone in a professional position providing a care function could result in murder charges, I welcome being corrected but I would have thought it extremely unlikely murder would be the charged offence in those circumstances under English law. I am not aware of any convictions for anything along those lines or even any prosecutions.

Even if there is an element of negligence, then manslaughter would seem much more likely as a charge and even that would probably be difficult to see through, for example an optometrist who failed to spot a condition on an eye test that later killed the child she tested, had her conviction for gross negligence overturned. A couple have been seen through for example re the death of Jack Adock. But a murder charge suggests something else is going on.

English law doesn’t tend to like those kinds of cases is my understanding, but I would be interested to read of any examples of murder being alleged if anyone has any. Are there any cases of extreme negligence to the point of not fulfilling a duty at all where murder is alleged? It seems to me you would still need to clear a really high bar on causation and manslaughter would be a much more likely charge.

 

[Marantz4250b]

A lot of evidence and information is passed back and forth after charge ..that is normal.

Usually in less complex cases plea and case management happens earlier at a plea and case management hearing.
Normally both "admin" and a plea have to be satisfied to go ahead with a plea and case management hearing.
Its just my opinion but my thoughts are they know she is going not guilty but there is an awful lot of "admin" going on because of the size of the case...this quote below the judge suggests the prosecution and defence have not entered their case management yet...he also states he is mindful that the plea should not delay in all of this

"Justice Dove said, however, he did not wish to vacate the current trial date until he had a timetable of case management which the prosecution, represented by Nicholas Johnson QC, and defence, represented by Benjamin Myers QC, could serve on him.

A hearing will be held on Monday, May 17 for an agreed timetable to be put forward.

Justice Dove added while Letby would not need to enter a plea today, it would be necessary for her to be arraigned "in the relatively near future."

He said: "We can't allow that important stage to drift indefinitely.""
Families involved in case of Chester healthcare worker Lucy Letby would be able to watch trial remotely

Yes, good points.

 

[Marantz4250b]

On the matter of whether an omission by someone in a professional position providing a care function could result in murder charges, I welcome being corrected but I would have thought it extremely unlikely murder would be the charged offence in those circumstances under English law. I am not aware of any convictions for anything along those lines or even any prosecutions.

Even if there is an element of negligence, then manslaughter would seem much more likely as a charge and even that would probably be difficult to see through, for example an optometrist who failed to spot a condition on an eye test that later killed the child she tested, had her conviction for gross negligence overturned. A couple have been seen through for example re the death of Jack Adock. But a murder charge suggests something else is going on.

English law doesn’t tend to like those kinds of cases is my understanding, but I would be interested to read of any examples of murder being alleged if anyone has any. Are there any cases of extreme negligence to the point of not fulfilling a duty at all where murder is alleged? It seems to me you would still need to clear a really high bar on causation and manslaughter would be a much more likely charge.

Yes, you're right. It's a long time since I read up on all that so things are foggy in my mind.

 

[Littlegreenlady]

I've had a look online at some articles. I couldn't find anything really specific in terms of medical cases, but there were some interesting ones around culpability and inaction.
This article leads to some interesting cases
By an act or omission - Lucid Law
"The criminal law differentiates between positive conduct and omissions which result in death. It is much harder to ground a murder charge on the basis of an omission rather than a positive action, but the courts have established that some omissions can form the basis of a murder conviction.
In order for an omission to constitute the actus reas for murder, the defendant must owe a duty of care, imposed by law, to act to save the victim. It must also be shown that the defendant breached their duty of care"
[BBM]


This one focuses on the inaction of someone who watched someone drown which is slightly different but was an interesting, if sad read.
When Inaction Becomes Criminal | Criminal Law Blog | Kingsley Napley

 

[Bakers]

Thank you for posting your research it was a very interesting read

 

[Marantz4250b]

I've been pondering again as to why she has not been asked to enter her plea yet. The following is speculation but reasonable speculation, I think; is it possible that the Court is not happy in relation to the attempted murder charges and perhaps isn't satisfied that sufficient evidence exists to warrant them?

Murder is a relatively easy thing to prosecute - it only needs be shown that the defendant caused grievous bodily harm from which death resulted. An intention to cause death need not be proved.

Attempted murder is often much more difficult to prove as it must be shown that at the time that the defendant did what they did they did it with the specific intention of causing the death of another. Now consider the following which we know to be true;

The first of the alleged offences took place in 2015;

There was no suspicion of any potential criminality regarding these deaths until the police were asked to investigate in 2017 and even then they were only asked to look into whether there may have been offences committed;

Lucy Letby was arrested for the first time July 2018 - about three years after the earliest offence she was charged with;

Her second arrest was June 2019, four years after the first alleged offence;

During these two arrests she spent the best part of a week in custody (three days each time, I think);

Her third arrest was November 2020, near enough five and a half years after the first offences she is charged with, events which we are told, were not even seen as being potentially criminal for two years.

Considering all of the above, which we know are true as it is all in the public domain, how likely is it that the prosecution has sufficient evidence to prove to the relevant criminal standard that when LL did the act they are accusing her of (and we still don't know what that was) the specific intention in her mind was to cause someone's unlawful death? Now, I'm not saying that they definitely don't have that evidence but it strikes me as being remarkably unlikely that they do given the facts we know to be true. How on earth do you prove the state of someone's mind with such specific precision and certainty, especially with such temporal separation from the alleged event? Everything about this case just feels weird almost beyond credibility.

 

[Parker Knoll]

Agreed Marantz

 

[Marantz4250b]

She's due to appear again today. The talk on the FB groups is that she's appearing by videolink again. I think that means that she isn't going to be asked to enter a plea. I get the feeling that she'd make a personal appearance if that were the case.

Could be wrong though.