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

[Marantz4250b]

I was reminded of the Lucia de Berk case, where the prosecution and the court made use of the so called chain-link evidence:


Lucia de Berk - Wikipedia

Chain-link proof​

Of the seven murders and three attempted murders finally attributed to de Berk by the court, the court considered two of them to be proven by medical evidence. According to the court, de Berk had poisoned these two patients. The court then applied a so-called chaining-evidence argument. This means that if the several attempted or actual murders have already been established beyond reasonable doubt, then much weaker evidence than normal is sufficient to establish that a subsequent eight "suspicious incidents" are murders or attempted murders carried out by the same defendant.

BBM

Since we don't know the details of the charges, it is hard to say how 'evidence that isn't evidence at all' would play out in this case, but if the prosecutor is relying on chain-link proof, then omitting one case from the list is interesting to say the least.

I don't think that that sort of evidence would be applicable in a British Court, to be honest. I cannot see any British judge advising a Jury that as long as the prosecution has proved, say, five cases to the relevant standard, then they can convict on the remainder on the balance of probabilities. The point you make is relevant though; if they feel that they can now not prove one the the cases to the relevant standard what does it tell us about the others? The "logical" assumption that most people would make is that whatever they are alleging she has done is largely similar in all of the cases. The fact that they have not proceeded in one of the cases might suggest that they are alleging she has done different things in different cases? That would be extremely strange and unusual - all of the medical murder cases I can think of have featured similar methods so if they are saying that then it would make her case even more bizarre than it already is!

It's also surprising that it's one of the murder cases they are not proceeding on. I'd have been far less surprised were it one of the attempted murder charges as they are usually much harder to prove. I wonder whether it's the one where she is charged with attempted murder as an alternative if they don't want to convict on the murder charge? That always sounded very strange to me.

 

[Bakers]

Countess of Chester Hospital maternity services unsafe - report

The health watchdog raises serious concerns about care at Countess of Chester Hospital in Cheshire.

www.bbc.com

 

[Marantz4250b]

Countess of Chester Hospital maternity services unsafe - report

The health watchdog raises serious concerns about care at Countess of Chester Hospital in Cheshire.

www.bbc.com

The department at Countess of Chester Hospital was found to have a dangerous lack of staff and suitable equipment, the Care Quality Commission said.

The hospital also scored the lowest rate nationally for staff morale, inspectors found.

I guess that having one of your colleagues spend years on remand for multiple alleged murders (which no one who knows her seems to think she's capable of) is probably not conducive to stellar staff morale!

 

[Marantz4250b]

Nurse accused of Chester baby murders given not-guilty verdict on one count | Nursing Times

A children’s nurse accused of murdering eight babies while working at a neonatal unit in Chester has had a not-guilty verdict recorded for one of the

www.nursingtimes.net

However, in keeping the cases under review, the Mersey Cheshire Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) had decided the “legal test for murder is no longer satisfied” for one of the cases. It therefore provided no evidence in relation to this count.

The CPS said the count of attempted murder in relation to the same deceased victim is continuing and that the child’s parents have been informed of the decision.

So, this IS indeed in relation to the baby for whom the CPS fielded an alternate attempted murder charge for!

This was the child who died at a different location in Liverpool. I forget the name of the place now.

The CPS are saying that the "test for murder is no longer satisfied", but the attempted murder charge is still being pursued. Presumably they are saying that she did something to try to cause death but the chain of causation between that act and the eventual death was broken at some point between the two events or that the child of an unrelated cause.

This case is literally the most ridiculously bizarre case I've ever read about! I doubt we've seen the end of the bizarreness either!

 

[ZaZara]

Nurse accused of Chester baby murders given not-guilty verdict on one count | Nursing Times

A children’s nurse accused of murdering eight babies while working at a neonatal unit in Chester has had a not-guilty verdict recorded for one of the

www.nursingtimes.net

However, in keeping the cases under review, the Mersey Cheshire Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) had decided the “legal test for murder is no longer satisfied” for one of the cases. It therefore provided no evidence in relation to this count.

The CPS said the count of attempted murder in relation to the same deceased victim is continuing and that the child’s parents have been informed of the decision.

So, this IS indeed in relation to the baby for whom the CPS fielded an alternate attempted murder charge for!

This was the child who died at a different location in Liverpool. I forget the name of the place now.

The CPS are saying that the "test for murder is no longer satisfied", but the attempted murder charge is still being pursued. Presumably they are saying that she did something to try to cause death but the chain of causation between that act and the eventual death was broken at some point between the two events or that the child of an unrelated cause.

This case is literally the most ridiculously bizarre case I've ever read about! I doubt we've seen the end of the bizarreness either!

So the child wasn't murdered by person X but died anyway so now it is attempted murder by person X even if the child died of a different cause? The child survived the murder attempt and then died anyway of an unrelated cause?

The mind boggles. it is about time that a clear explanation was given.

 

[Marantz4250b]

So the child wasn't murdered by person X but died anyway so now it is attempted murder by person X even if the child died of a different cause? The child survived the murder attempt and then died anyway of an unrelated cause?

The mind boggles. it is about time that a clear explanation was given.

It does seem extremely strange and weird. Yes, they do seem to be saying that her attempt wasn't the cause of the death, or that some other intervening event was the actual cause of death in this case. I get the impression that they felt that the murder charge was "shaky" from the outset which is why they charged attempted murder in the alternative?

I just can't fathom as to what, exactly, they are alledging she's done. Attempted murder cannot be merely doing something badly or negligently. They have to be able to adduce evidence that she had an actual, specific intention in her mind to cause death when she undertook whatever actions she did. This child was literally hours old when the death occurred. Its barely believable that anyone would have an opportunity to physically do something to try to murder said child given how intensly it must have been being monitored. Its even more strange that the hospital nor any medical professional had any knowledge of such evidence for a year or more afterwards until the police started investigating!

What on earth are they alleging she's done here?

 

[JosieJo]

I dont find it "odd"as such ...these cases must be extremely complex being extremely sick neonates.
She was charged with both attempted murder and murder for this baby so it follows that the murder charge itself was hanging in the balance from the begining.
Imo most likely they feel they have evidence to show she did something to the child but the child was so ill it was impossible to say the exact cause of death

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Can't believe I've missed this! I really should pay more attention.

I don't see that "new" evidence has come to light. The prosecution has said it isn't offering any evidence so, essentially, they are saying that whatever "evidence" they thought they had isn't evidence at all - or, at best, is so weak it doesn't meet the prosecution threshold.

Consider the number of times LL was arrested, interviewed and released under investigation, over an significantly extended period before she was first charged.

This leads me to consider whether the evidence may be heavily circumstantial, in that LL was the only staff member consistently present at the material times, together with a repeated course of conduct, particularly after earlier deaths, that could be used as a persuasive argument by the prosecution to show intent to cause GBH or death.

The actions undertaken in the 'attempted' offences have to be 'more than merely preparatory' to the substantive offence in question, i.e. Murder. E.g. loading a gun, pointing it and issuing threats would not be enough, whereas firing and missing or the gun jamming could be. Ultimately whether an act is 'more than merely preparatory' is one for a jury to decide.


Maybe in the matter of the dropped murder charge, LL is alleged to have undertaken a course of action similar to the other incidences but this did not cause the death of the child on that occasion. Although tragically the child died at a later stage, after further review the weight of the evidence to pursue a substantive charge of murder does no longer meets the CPS charging standard.

There is no doubt that this case is both exceptionally tragic and complex. The negative reviews of CoC Hosp by the RCPCH and NICE may well muddy the waters even further.

I can't think of a recent case where "beyond all reasonable doubt" will be so tangible when considering the evidence.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

So the child wasn't murdered by person X but died anyway so now it is attempted murder by person X even if the child died of a different cause? The child survived the murder attempt and then died anyway of an unrelated cause?

The mind boggles. it is about time that a clear explanation was given.

Without getting too bogged down in legislation.....here goes! The Criminal Attempts Act 1981 is the legislation which most commonly legislates for criminal attempts of substantive offences, in this case murder being the substantive offence.

Criminal attempts were prosecuted under Common Law until they were legislated for in the CAA 1981.

One of the reasons for the legislation was to plug a few holes in the Common Law interpretation, a key one being that committing an act, in which the ultimate aim was unknowingly impossible to the offender did not constitute an offence.

Such a case was that of a defendant who was supplying what he thought were class A drugs, when in fact the white powder in the bags was something much less illicit, like baking powder. The CAA 1981 now provides that If the intent to supply what was believed by the defendant to be illicit drugs can be shown, then the offence is complete.

In a case such as LL, even if it was a medical impossibility that her actions could have resulted in the death of a child she could still potentially be found guilty of attempted murder, if the evidence shows beyond all reasonable doubt that she was both unaware of this impossibility and that her intent was to kill.

 

[ZaZara]

In a case such as LL, even if it was a medical impossibility that her actions could have resulted in the death of a child she could still potentially be found guilty of attempted murder, if the evidence shows beyond all reasonable doubt that she was both unaware of this impossibility and that her intent was to kill.

Thank you for taking the time to explain this. The line of reasoning is very clear, up to the point when I try to apply this to LL's case. She is being accused of several murders, and a number of attempted murders.

In case of baby X, the charges were changed from murder (lethal drug or method) to attempted murder (medical impossibility and a natural death). So on the onset, the death of baby X must have appeared as a murder at a certain moment, and then for some reason this was changed to attempted murder, medical impossibility, but still an intent to kill.

I am getting confused here, because IMO it appears as if we are looking at a perpetrator with a MO that is at times lethal and at other times medically impossible. I wonder what this could be.

To stick to your example: in some cases LL would have used class A drugs, and in others baking powder. I don't see how this could happen in a ward in a hospital where medications and other materials are labelled and LL was a trained nurse. If LL wanted to kill, she had no reason to replace medications with baking powder (or talcum powder) and if someone else (person Y) put baking powder in medicine bottles, or switched whatever medication, this does not prove intent of LL. On the contrary, she would be a victim too of person Y.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Thank you for taking the time to explain this. The line of reasoning is very clear, up to the point when I try to apply this to LL's case. She is being accused of several murders, and a number of attempted murders.

In case of baby X, the charges were changed from murder (lethal drug or method) to attempted murder (medical impossibility and a natural death). So on the onset, the death of baby X must have appeared as a murder at a certain moment, and then for some reason this was changed to attempted murder, medical impossibility, but still an intent to kill.

I am getting confused here, because IMO it appears as if we are looking at a perpetrator with a MO that is at times lethal and at other times medically impossible. I wonder what this could be.

To stick to your example: in some cases LL would have used class A drugs, and in others baking powder. I don't see how this could happen in a ward in a hospital where medications and other materials are labelled and LL was a trained nurse. If LL wanted to kill, she had no reason to replace medications with baking powder (or talcum powder) and if someone else (person Y) put baking powder in medicine bottles, or switched whatever medication, this does not prove intent of LL. On the contrary, she would be a victim too of person Y.

I think you are jumping ahead and may have misunderstood my content. None of us are aware of the evidence so guessing the detail of the case is probably not very helpful......many of our assumptions are invariably incorrect.

My intention was two-fold:

1. To explain that in the law of England and Wales (Scotland and Northern Ireland have variation) a Criminal Attempt can still result in a conviction even if the ultimate offence is impossible to commit. I used the drugs example as a means to explain how this could work practically, NOT to imply in any way that LL acted in such a way, which we are not yet privy to.

2. To provide an opinion that LL may have allegedly used a means to harm the child, from which the child may have not succumbed, but that the Crown allege it was with intent to kill. This child subsequently died is what we do know. It may be that further evidence has now been obtained that has ruled out that the child died as a consequence of LL's alleged actions. The alleged actions and death could be close together timewise or maybe days/weeks apart, we may never know.

Your last point as to the possibility that medication or equipment could have been tampered with by someone else or even that it was unknowingly contaminated or defective would likely have been police lines of enquiry during the course of the investigation. No doubt the police will have ruled all these other possibilities out, if it was necessary to do so, depending on the actual nature of the allegations. However, these very possibilities could feature in the case for the defence. We will have to wait and see.

Of course this is just my opinion

 

[Marantz4250b]

2. To provide an opinion that LL may have allegedly used a means to harm the child, from which the child may have not succumbed, but that the Crown allege it was with intent to kill. This child subsequently died is what we do know. It may be that further evidence has now been obtained that has ruled out that the child died as a consequence of LL's alleged actions. The alleged actions and death could be close together timewise or maybe days/weeks apart, we may never know.

Thanks for some excellent posts, Whitehall.

We actually do know. The child who was the focus of the Murder with the attempted murder charge in the alternative was the one who died at circa three days old in a different hospital near Liverpool. I forget the name of the place.

From what I recall reading, the child was very ill and was moved because the CoC did not have the specialist care available that she needed. It seems likely, then, that she was moved very soon after being born - within hours.

Given those circumstances it seems barely comprehensible that LL (or anyone) would have the opportunity to attempt to murder a child who, realistically, must have been under very close observation without being noticed and for evidence of same not to come to light for at least a year afterward until the police started investigating.

I'm struggling to come up with any plausible method she could have employed to carry out these murders and attempts given what is obviously a very tight timeline. I suppose they might be alleging that she had tampered with medication or equipment and may not even have been present when the actual harm was caused?

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Thanks for

Thanks for some excellent posts, Whitehall.

We actually do know. The child who was the focus of the Murder with the attempted murder charge in the alternative was the one who died at circa three days old in a different hospital near Liverpool. I forget the name of the place.

From what I recall reading, the child was very ill and was moved because the CoC did not have the specialist care available that she needed. It seems likely, then, that she was moved very soon after being born - within hours.

Given those circumstances it seems barely comprehensible that LL (or anyone) would have the opportunity to attempt to murder a child who, realistically, must have been under very close observation without being noticed and for evidence of same not to come to light for at least a year afterward until the police started investigating.

I'm struggling to come up with any plausible method she could have employed to carry out these murders and attempts given what is obviously a very tight timeline. I suppose they might be alleging that she had tampered with medication or equipment and may not even have been present when the actual harm was caused?

Thanks @Marantz4250b for your informative reply. I now recall reading about the baby that was transferred to a Liverpool hospital with a Neo-Natal ICU (level 3) but tragically also died.

I have no doubt that the police and CPS have been utterly professional in their respective tasks, in what is an exceptionally complex case.

Having investigated criminal offences relating to clinical procedures it was always necessary to have expert input from a experienced nonconflicted senior clinician. However, clinicians and detectives can think very differently....trust nothing, question everything is the detective mantra.....yet detectives rarely have the expansive clinical knowledge to readily identify other lines of clinical enquiry or clarify/challenge what they are told.

Challenging a Consultant can often result in a curt response!

Coupled with the concerning reviews regarding the neo-natal unit provision at CoC Hospital then my expectation would be that that the evidence is overwhelming and irrefutable. Anything less and suspect there may be significant repercussions.

Whatever happens, the ultimate tragedy is that so many lives have been torn apart. The families need answers to help process their grief and move forward.

 

[JosieJo]

Thanks for some excellent posts, Whitehall.

We actually do know. The child who was the focus of the Murder with the attempted murder charge in the alternative was the one who died at circa three days old in a different hospital near Liverpool. I forget the name of the place.

From what I recall reading, the child was very ill and was moved because the CoC did not have the specialist care available that she needed. It seems likely, then, that she was moved very soon after being born - within hours.

Given those circumstances it seems barely comprehensible that LL (or anyone) would have the opportunity to attempt to murder a child who, realistically, must have been under very close observation without being noticed and for evidence of same not to come to light for at least a year afterward until the police started investigating.

I'm struggling to come up with any plausible method she could have employed to carry out these murders and attempts given what is obviously a very tight timeline. I suppose they might be alleging that she had tampered with medication or equipment and may not even have been present when the actual harm was caused?

I cant remember..not sure if you can ?

At what point was she moved to the other hospital?
Was it possible she for example spent 2 days in the general hospital but was moved due to a deterioration after the attempted murder took place?

 

[Whitehall 1212]

I cant remember..not sure if you can ?

At what point was she moved to the other hospital?
Was it possible she for example spent 2 days in the general hospital but was moved due to a deterioration after the attempted murder took place?

Here is the court report from the Chester Standard detailing LL's initial appearance at the Mags Court, after being charged by police and kept in police custody prior to her initial court appearance.

Nurse Lucy Letby in court charged with murder of eight babies at Countess of Chester Hospital - as it happened

The nurse charged with the murder of eight babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital is appearing in court this morning. Healthcare worker Lucy…

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

The victim was Maddie Freed (RIP). The attempt charged was dated 17th Feb 2016 with the substantive offence of murder on 20th Feb 2016. So as I understand it, this is the murder charge that has been withdrawn.

This MSM report is definitely worth a read:

Italian nurse acquitted of murder after statistical analysis

Italian nurse Daniela Poggiali was arrested and convicted of murdering two hospital patients in 2014. Her case attracted the attention of Leiden statistician Richard Gill. After his investigation, together with an Italian colleague, Poggiali was acquitted last autumn. Together with fellow...

phys.org

These two MSM reports are a good reminder of the issues and statistics surrounding this case:

Nurse held over 8 baby murders investigated by ANOTHER hospital she worked at

A SECOND hospital is investigating a nurse at the centre of a police probe into the suspected murder of eight babies in Chester. Liverpool Women’s Hospital said today it is assisting detectiv…

www.thesun.co.uk

Police continue to question nurse over Chester hospital baby deaths

Detectives granted permission to keep Lucy Letby in custody over deaths in neonatal unit

www.theguardian.com

 

[Bakers]

Here is the court report from the Chester Standard detailing LL's initial appearance at the Mags Court, after being charged by police and kept in police custody prior to her initial court appearance.

Nurse Lucy Letby in court charged with murder of eight babies at Countess of Chester Hospital - as it happened

The nurse charged with the murder of eight babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital is appearing in court this morning. Healthcare worker Lucy…

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

The victim was Maddie Freed (RIP). The attempt charged was dated 17th Feb 2016 with the substantive offence of murder on 20th Feb 2016. So as I understand it, this is the murder charge that has been withdrawn.

This MSM report is definitely worth a read:

Italian nurse acquitted of murder after statistical analysis

Italian nurse Daniela Poggiali was arrested and convicted of murdering two hospital patients in 2014. Her case attracted the attention of Leiden statistician Richard Gill. After his investigation, together with an Italian colleague, Poggiali was acquitted last autumn. Together with fellow...

phys.org

These two MSM reports are a good reminder of the issues and statistics surrounding this case:

Nurse held over 8 baby murders investigated by ANOTHER hospital she worked at

A SECOND hospital is investigating a nurse at the centre of a police probe into the suspected murder of eight babies in Chester. Liverpool Women’s Hospital said today it is assisting detectiv…

www.thesun.co.uk

Police continue to question nurse over Chester hospital baby deaths

Detectives granted permission to keep Lucy Letby in custody over deaths in neonatal unit

www.theguardian.com

how mad on 16th 17th 18th and 19th feb 2016 the care quality commission had done unannounced visits in the maternity wards, how brazen would that be to attempt to murder a baby while the wards must of been so busy and everything and everyone watched more so

 

[Kemug]

how mad on 16th 17th 18th and 19th feb 2016 the care quality commission had done unannounced visits in the maternity wards, how brazen would that be to attempt to murder a baby while the wards must of been so busy and everything and everyone watched more so

The only possible reason that comes to my mind for that sort of behaviour would be if someone actually wanted to be caught, and it was a "cry for help".

 

[Marantz4250b]

The only possible reason that comes to my mind for that sort of behaviour would be if someone actually wanted to be caught, and it was a "cry for help".

I'm not sure. I keep hearing that ohrase in relation to various things but I'm not entirely sure how accurately it describes people's actions. I'm no psychologist though.

The dates coinciding with an inspection are yet another thing that puts this whole thing so far beyond anything I've ever heard about before - much further into the realms of utter bizarreness. I mean, on top of this apparently not being notived by the hospital or any staff members for for years after the alleged events; the police not being asked to investigate for years; her not even being arrested for a year after that; her multiple arrests for days at a time and not being charged for something four years after the alleged offences, it now seems that she's been on a huge killing spree right under the noses of people who were there specifically to check for dangerous practices!!!

 

[ZaZara]

I'm not sure. I keep hearing that ohrase in relation to various things but I'm not entirely sure how accurately it describes people's actions. I'm no psychologist though.

The dates coinciding with an inspection are yet another thing that puts this whole thing so far beyond anything I've ever heard about before - much further into the realms of utter bizarreness. I mean, on top of this apparently not being notived by the hospital or any staff members for for years after the alleged events; the police not being asked to investigate for years; her not even being arrested for a year after that; her multiple arrests for days at a time and not being charged for something four years after the alleged offences, it now seems that she's been on a huge killing spree right under the noses of people who were there specifically to check for dangerous practices!!!

Lucia de Berk was convicted of a murder that she committed at a moment while she was not with the patient at all, instead the medical specialist and his assistant were with the patient at that time.

Things happen, you know. Only goes to prove how extremely cunning these nurses are. But still, very confusing.

Lucia de Berk | Murderpedia, the encyclopedia of murderers

 

[JosieJo]

I'm not sure. I keep hearing that ohrase in relation to various things but I'm not entirely sure how accurately it describes people's actions. I'm no psychologist though.

The dates coinciding with an inspection are yet another thing that puts this whole thing so far beyond anything I've ever heard about before - much further into the realms of utter bizarreness. I mean, on top of this apparently not being notived by the hospital or any staff members for for years after the alleged events; the police not being asked to investigate for years; her not even being arrested for a year after that; her multiple arrests for days at a time and not being charged for something four years after the alleged offences, it now seems that she's been on a huge killing spree right under the noses of people who were there specifically to check for dangerous practices!!!

I'm not sure if these inspections were CQC which is likely but just to shed some light on it.
I worked in the NHS for 30 plus years and have known approx 4 inspections in the last 10 years. Its not the case that there are inspectors in every ward every shift every day for weeks ..in fact I never met an inspector on any of our visits.
They choose certain areas and only spend probably 4 hours there at any time.
They in fact spend an awful lot of the visit time in interviews with managers discussing policies etc.
It would be extremely easy for any given nurse not to see an inspector especially working nights. They could for example inspect your area on your days off.

To play devil's advocate having inspections due could in some killers add to the thrill of not getting caught