This nurse Letby case

[COYBL25]

That is one of the big reasons why there may be an appeal and why it might be successful - there are at least two incidents in the past thirty years of statistically significant excess deaths of babies (Bristol and East Kent), and in both cases investigations found neglect and other issues caused the deaths of babies that need not have died if they had been treated elsewhere (or to the standard that was expected). There are also other cases (East Staffs being the most notorious) of it happening to adults too, and it isn't unknown for the NHS to horrifically mistreat individual staff members either (for example the consultant who blew the whistle on what was happening in Bristol had to leave the country because he was unemployable here).

Once you point out that its possible for this sort of thing to happen without a malicious individual at the heart of it all, then it comes down to the other evidence in the case - and whilst (as @PhilM listed above) there is some, that is not a lot with which to defend a whole life tarriff.

There are ongoing investigations at hospitals that she did placements at, Liverpool Womens being one of them.

If anything similar turns up there, I can see her being charged with more offences tbh.

 

[tsubaki]

There are ongoing investigations at hospitals that she did placements at, Liverpool Womens being one of them.

If anything similar turns up there, I can see her being charged with more offences tbh.

Indeed, and its right that is happening but those investigations have to be dealt with in the proper way - if its focused on just the cases she was involved in / when she was on duty then there is no point; they'll have to look at everything between some time before she arrived there and some time after she left.

 

[PhilM]

That is one of the big reasons why there may be an appeal and why it might be successful - there are at least two incidents in the past thirty years of statistically significant excess deaths of babies (Bristol and East Kent), and in both cases investigations found neglect and other issues caused the deaths of babies that need not have died if they had been treated elsewhere (or to the standard that was expected). There are also other cases (East Staffs being the most notorious) of it happening to adults too, and it isn't unknown for the NHS to horrifically mistreat individual staff members either (for example the consultant who blew the whistle on what was happening in Bristol had to leave the country because he was unemployable here).

Once you point out that its possible for this sort of thing to happen without a malicious individual at the heart of it all, then it comes down to the other evidence in the case - and whilst (as @PhilM listed above) there is some, that is not a lot with which to defend a whole life tarriff.

There will be an appeal, yet I sincerely doubt it'll be successful based on the evidence. Individually, it could be perceived as circumstantial, but together...

In all the cases of deaths and perceived attempted murders, there was only one individual member of staff present - doctors, nurses, porters, cleaners.

Occasionally, you'll occasionally have unexplained deaths where there doesn't appear to be enough evidence to say why they specifically died.

But, for this to happen over and over again, they will look for correlations and that is a significant one. You then have the items take from the hospital related.

Why not with any other child? You then add the notes she wrote, the texts, the medical evidence, which the judge ruled admissible, and witness statements.

As you'll know, there does not need to be one piece of specific evidence to convict (e.g. CCTV, witness), only for the jury to sure beyond reasonable doubt.

The medical evidence is the likely line any appeal will go down, but personally I think it will struggle, especially if more cases come to light.

If they have can link two of the murders, she will keep the whole life term. An interesting question someone pondered to me was why she paused at one point.

 

[COYBL25]

There will be an appeal, yet I sincerely doubt it'll be successful based on the evidence. Individually, it could be perceived as circumstantial, but together...

In all the cases of deaths and perceived attempted murders, there was only one individual member of staff present - doctors, nurses, porters, cleaners.

Occasionally, you'll occasionally have unexplained deaths where there doesn't appear to be enough evidence to say why they specifically died.

But, for this to happen over and over again, they will look for correlations and that is a significant one. You then have the items take from the hospital related.

Why not with any other child? You then add the notes she wrote, the texts, the medical evidence, which the judge ruled admissible, and witness statements.

As you'll know, there does not need to be one piece of specific evidence to convict (e.g. CCTV, witness), only for the jury to sure beyond reasonable doubt.

The medical evidence is the likely line any appeal will go down, but personally I think it will struggle, especially if more cases come to light.

If they have can link two of the murders, she will keep the whole life term. An interesting question someone pondered to me was why she paused at one point.

Also all the deaths and incidents stopped completely, when she was put on admin duties and then resumed almost immediately when she went back on the wards.

 

[FTY]

The lack of obvious motive is proper pickling my head

Was she just deranged and playing god, thinking they were mercy killings?

 

[Rita_Poon]

and what would the grounds for appeal be exactly?? You cant just appeal because you didnt get the result you want, there has to be a lawful reason, for example, bias summing up by Judge, impropriety by the prosecution, the jury doing something they shouldn't.

The CPS are reviewing their next move regards retrial over the not guilty aspects and anything else that turns up in the investigations elsewhere.

 

[arch stanton]

The CPS are reviewing their next move regards retrial over the not guilty aspects and anything else that turns up in the investigations elsewhere.

I'm sure this wasn't the point you were making but having a retrial after a hung jury and an appeal after a decision goes against you are two very different things, however both are subject to the discretion (supported by relevant authorities in law of course) of the trial judge.
Just so no one gets the wrong end of the stick.

 

[Mikey_Fitzgerald]

The lack of obvious motive is proper pickling my head

Was she just deranged and playing god, thinking they were mercy killings?

Playing arm chair psychologist; maybe she can't have kids and she was taking that pain out on others by taking away theirs?

 

[FTY]

Playing arm chair psychologist; maybe she can't have kids and she was taking that pain out on others by taking away theirs?

Could also be a shout

Had a look at what the prosecution's arguments re: a motive were

Could be a mix of a few of them

 

[BullensRoad]

I've finally succumb to the facebook crowd, bring back the death penalty.

 

[FTY]

I've finally succumb to the facebook crowd, bring back the death penalty.

This would be doing her a favour

 

[BullensRoad]

I've finally succumb to the facebook crowd, bring back the death penalty.

Yeah, and like previously posted, the psychologists/criminologists are drooling over here.

 

[Billy Dean]

Playing arm chair psychologist; maybe she can't have kids and she was taking that pain out on others by taking away theirs?

Could imagine it might come out that she had quite an odd upbringing. There are reports that her Dad was getting involved when accusations started being made against her by the doctors. I would say most adults don't get their parents to wade into their own work issues.

 

[tsubaki]

There will be an appeal, yet I sincerely doubt it'll be successful based on the evidence. Individually, it could be perceived as circumstantial, but together...

In all the cases of deaths and perceived attempted murders, there was only one individual member of staff present - doctors, nurses, porters, cleaners.

Occasionally, you'll occasionally have unexplained deaths where there doesn't appear to be enough evidence to say why they specifically died.

But, for this to happen over and over again, they will look for correlations and that is a significant one. You then have the items take from the hospital related.

Why not with any other child? You then add the notes she wrote, the texts, the medical evidence, which the judge ruled admissible, and witness statements.

As you'll know, there does not need to be one piece of specific evidence to convict (e.g. CCTV, witness), only for the jury to sure beyond reasonable doubt.

The medical evidence is the likely line any appeal will go down, but personally I think it will struggle, especially if more cases come to light.

If they have can link two of the murders, she will keep the whole life term. An interesting question someone pondered to me was why she paused at one point.

Indeed, but from your summary there it is pretty clear how important to the case overall it is that she was the only person present at each event when suspicious activity happened to a kid. That can be powerful evidence, but it is also very vulnerable to confirmation bias (in that a death is suspicious because she was present, but when the same circumstances happen and she is away it is not seen as suspicious).

I would imagine that any appeal would look at all the other deaths of babies in the unit, not the ones that were at the heart of this case; if the defence can get an expert to find one or more that have the same sort of findings on the autopsies that these had and she wasn't present for that child's care then I could well see an appeal being successful, at least for the ones where there is no other evidence.

 

[roydo]

Indeed, but from your summary there it is pretty clear how important to the case overall it is that she was the only person present at each event when suspicious activity happened to a kid. That can be powerful evidence, but it is also very vulnerable to confirmation bias (in that a death is suspicious because she was present, but when the same circumstances happen and she is away it is not seen as suspicious).

I would imagine that any appeal would look at all the other deaths of babies in the unit, not the ones that were at the heart of this case; if the defence can get an expert to find one or more that have the same sort of findings on the autopsies that these had and she wasn't present for that child's care then I could well see an appeal being successful, at least for the ones where there is no other evidence.

Apparently, that unit "usually" had a mortality rate of 3 babies a year. Ones that died on her watch were injected with insulin, over fed, had air injected into the blood stream, and in one, had a metal object rammed down its throat.

I have no idea if infant deaths are treated any differently from adult deaths in hospital, inquest wise. But anyrate, in my non medical trained, but hospital experienced, it seems absolutely nailed down.