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

[Whitehall 1212]

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

But of course. Any killer with severe anti-social personality disorder complete with NPD will consider themselves superior to all-comers and see no threat from the inspectors.

Could LL fit that bill? Are we influenced in by her fresh face, warm smile, bright eyes and apparent sense of vocation? I know I am, but something tells me to remember that all that glistens is not gold!

 

[Marantz4250b]

But of course. Any killer with severe anti-social personality disorder complete with NPD will consider themselves superior to all-comers and see no threat from the inspectors.

Could LL fit that bill? Are we influenced in by her fresh face, warm smile, bright eyes and apparent sense of vocation? I know I am, but something tells me to remember that all that glistens is not gold!

This may well be true but it kind of goes back to the point I was getting at; if she's actually done all this and her personality is such that it leads her to be as reckless in regards to her own preservation as is suggested then how on earth wasn't she caught? I mean the charges relate to a period of around a year and, let's face it, if she is guilty is it really likely that she suddenly started murdering after being a nurse for some years? That doesn't seem to fit with other medical murderers, as far as I can see. Allitt started murdering almost from day one, as an example.

Obviously, I appreciate that the hospital and the department in question was in a complete mess, standards-wise, but if she's that intent on murdering babies surely someone, somewhere would notice? If I recall the timeline of the charges she faces it would seem that there was a period when she was so busy murdering or attempting to murder she'd have little time to do any actual nursing! Okay, that's obviously an exaggeration but there certainly seems to have been a period where she was murdering or attempting to murder hours old babies on pretty much a daily basis yet no one seems to have noticed anything untoward.

 

[Marantz4250b]

Don't know if anyone watched it but there was a very good two part episode of 24 Hours In Police Custody this week. It involved the case of a six year old boy who was murdered close to his home back in 1994. The reason I'm mentioning it is because it relates to the comments which keep coming up, especially on the FB groups, along the lines of ...well, if the police have got enough evidence for the CPS to charge then she's clearly done it.... or words to that effect.

In the case in the TV documentary the mother was arrested and charged and was eventually acquitted. The police had essentially got a case of "tunnel vision" due to her admitting to abusing her kids - by locking them in their rooms for days and washing their mouths out with Fairy Liquid and suchlike as punishments. The "evidence", as it was, included the fact that she had a lot of books on the occult, weird religions and suchlike and it was assumed that she'd done it due to the fact that his body was apparently laid out in some "ritualistic" sort of manner. Similar evidence was used against Lucia De-Burke in Holland in that her diaries mentioned "succumbing to temptation again" (or similar) when what she actually meant was reading Tarot cards to patients rather than murdering them. As it turned out, the prosecution's evidence was just as fantastical and ridiculous as the occult books the accused owned! It was total nonsense.

Tapes of the mothers interviews were played in the documentary and, listening to them, it was blindingly obvious that she hadn't killed the lad. She was absolutely distraught when pleading her innocence with the police interviewers. Yes, I know it's easy to say that in hindsight but I actually hadn't realised that she was acquitted at the point the tapes were played and I hadn't read a synopsis of the programme prior. Arresting someone, interviewing them, interviewing witnesses, gathering physical evidence, referring to the CPS, charging, remanding and having a trial is not a short process. You'd think that someone, somewhere along the line who'd heard those tapes and who had reviewed the evidence would have said ..you really sure we've got the right person 'ere 'guv, cos she's not screaming ritualistic child murderer to me?. Anyone with any degree of empathy and understanding of humans would be seriously questioning someone's guilt in a case like that, especially given the really shonky nature of the evidence.

So, this kind of stuff has happened in the past and keeps happening on a regular basis. I do wonder whether the FB "guilty without a trial" brigade will each apologise if LL is found not guilty?

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Don't know if anyone watched it but there was a very good two part episode of 24 Hours In Police Custody this week. It involved the case of a six year old boy who was murdered close to his home back in 1994. The reason I'm mentioning it is because it relates to the comments which keep coming up, especially on the FB groups, along the lines of ...well, if the police have got enough evidence for the CPS to charge then she's clearly done it.... or words to that effect.

In the case in the TV documentary the mother was arrested and charged and was eventually acquitted. The police had essentially got a case of "tunnel vision" due to her admitting to abusing her kids - by locking them in their rooms for days and washing their mouths out with Fairy Liquid and suchlike as punishments. The "evidence", as it was, included the fact that she had a lot of books on the occult, weird religions and suchlike and it was assumed that she'd done it due to the fact that his body was apparently laid out in some "ritualistic" sort of manner. Similar evidence was used against Lucia De-Burke in Holland in that her diaries mentioned "succumbing to temptation again" (or similar) when what she actually meant was reading Tarot cards to patients rather than murdering them. As it turned out, the prosecution's evidence was just as fantastical and ridiculous as the occult books the accused owned! It was total nonsense.

Tapes of the mothers interviews were played in the documentary and, listening to them, it was blindingly obvious that she hadn't killed the lad. She was absolutely distraught when pleading her innocence with the police interviewers. Yes, I know it's easy to say that in hindsight but I actually hadn't realised that she was acquitted at the point the tapes were played and I hadn't read a synopsis of the programme prior. Arresting someone, interviewing them, interviewing witnesses, gathering physical evidence, referring to the CPS, charging, remanding and having a trial is not a short process. You'd think that someone, somewhere along the line who'd heard those tapes and who had reviewed the evidence would have said ..you really sure we've got the right person 'ere 'guv, cos she's not screaming ritualistic child murderer to me?. Anyone with any degree of empathy and understanding of humans would be seriously questioning someone's guilt in a case like that, especially given the really shonky nature of the evidence.

So, this kind of stuff has happened in the past and keeps happening on a regular basis. I do wonder whether the FB "guilty without a trial" brigade will each apologise if LL is found not guilty?

I'd agree that until the turn of the century that wrongful charge and miscarriages of justice based on someone fitting the profile of an offender, were always likely to happen.

If there was motive, means, opportunity together with what would be viewed as interests in satanism, the occult, uncommon sexual practices (not illegal), even interest in true crime and murder , then I think that one could very easily find themselves in the frame. Colin Stagg in the frame for the Rachel Nickell murder is one such example. Detectives were certain they had the right man and even acted unlawfully to try and prove it!

My view is that certain high profile and very disturbing crimes have brought such a sense of anger and revulsion that historically (pre 2000), the police have become blinkered by the circumstantial evidence and the pressure to catch the offender. Now we have the weight of ever improving DNA techniques and other evidential means to support or refute assertions. Therefore, I believe that wrongful charge/conviction will very much be in the past.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Don't know if anyone watched it but there was a very good two part episode of 24 Hours In Police Custody this week. It involved the case of a six year old boy who was murdered close to his home back in 1994. The reason I'm mentioning it is because it relates to the comments which keep coming up, especially on the FB groups, along the lines of ...well, if the police have got enough evidence for the CPS to charge then she's clearly done it.... or words to that effect.

In the case in the TV documentary the mother was arrested and charged and was eventually acquitted. The police had essentially got a case of "tunnel vision" due to her admitting to abusing her kids - by locking them in their rooms for days and washing their mouths out with Fairy Liquid and suchlike as punishments. The "evidence", as it was, included the fact that she had a lot of books on the occult, weird religions and suchlike and it was assumed that she'd done it due to the fact that his body was apparently laid out in some "ritualistic" sort of manner. Similar evidence was used against Lucia De-Burke in Holland in that her diaries mentioned "succumbing to temptation again" (or similar) when what she actually meant was reading Tarot cards to patients rather than murdering them. As it turned out, the prosecution's evidence was just as fantastical and ridiculous as the occult books the accused owned! It was total nonsense.

Tapes of the mothers interviews were played in the documentary and, listening to them, it was blindingly obvious that she hadn't killed the lad. She was absolutely distraught when pleading her innocence with the police interviewers. Yes, I know it's easy to say that in hindsight but I actually hadn't realised that she was acquitted at the point the tapes were played and I hadn't read a synopsis of the programme prior. Arresting someone, interviewing them, interviewing witnesses, gathering physical evidence, referring to the CPS, charging, remanding and having a trial is not a short process. You'd think that someone, somewhere along the line who'd heard those tapes and who had reviewed the evidence would have said ..you really sure we've got the right person 'ere 'guv, cos she's not screaming ritualistic child murderer to me?. Anyone with any degree of empathy and understanding of humans would be seriously questioning someone's guilt in a case like that, especially given the really shonky nature of the evidence.

So, this kind of stuff has happened in the past and keeps happening on a regular basis. I do wonder whether the FB "guilty without a trial" brigade will each apologise if LL is found not guilty?

There are two considerations I feel:

1. Killers tend to escalate to murder over time. Actions that once fulfilled a need may no longer do so and the need for ultimate power and control may become so great that murder is the consequence. I think there are many reasons why someone may begin or escalate offending patterns. Only by looking into an offenders past can we begin to understand the motive.

2. It is essential to recognise that in the healthcare setting, anyone who has a motive to harm vulnerable patients, will not encounter many of the limitations of the world outside. This chasm is even greater when the patients are receiving critical interventions that rely on accuracy and skill. If a clinician had intent to harm it would be a whole lot easier to cover it up with a degree of experience and autonomy in the workplace.

Alternatively, poor working practices, poor management and staff working beyond their experience/skill level could also lead to an increase in near misses or mortality. What are the odds that incorrect statistical analysis could conveniently confirm a hypothesis that just isn't the case? It's happened before!

As I've said before 'guilt beyond ALL reasonable doubt' is rarely more critical.

 

[Marantz4250b]

I'd agree that until the turn of the century that wrongful charge and miscarriages of justice based on someone fitting the profile of an offender, were always likely to happen.

If there was motive, means, opportunity together with what would be viewed as interests in satanism, the occult, uncommon sexual practices (not illegal), even interest in true crime and murder , then I think that one could very easily find themselves in the frame. Colin Stagg in the frame for the Rachel Nickell murder is one such example. Detectives were certain they had the right man and even acted unlawfully to try and prove it!

My view is that certain high profile and very disturbing crimes have brought such a sense of anger and revulsion that historically (pre 2000), the police have become blinkered by the circumstantial evidence and the pressure to catch the offender. Now we have the weight of ever improving DNA techniques and other evidential means to support or refute assertions. Therefore, I believe that wrongful charge/conviction will very much be in the past.

I hear what you're saying, I do, but I'm afraid that I don't share your confidence. Wrongful arrests and convictions still happen; Rebecca Leighton was only 10 years ago. She was actually charged and remanded until the real murderer came to light. If he'd have nicked off back to wherever he was originally from then RL would almost certainly be inside now and still looking at another couple of decades, at least, of incarceration. The police and CPS certainly assessed the evidence wrongly in her case. Aren't there serious concerns about Colin Norris' case too? I've just read the Wiki entry on him. I'm not convinced he's innocent but it's mentioned in the entry that one of the deaths which was being investigated as a case of murder was apparently changed from suspicious to non-suspicious as soon as it was found that he wasn't on duty. That's not my idea of unbiased investigating and following the evidence, especially in relation to a very serious crime.

Also, I accept what you're saying as regards evidence but, in terms of LL's case, what evidence do we think is likely to be presented? In all likelihood it's going to be highly circumstantial. I think we all know that it's likely to be a mix of her shift patterns, statistical analysis from "experts" as to how likely X number of deaths are in any period of time, what drugs she did or didn't sign for and why, etc. There almost certainly won't be DNA (and what would that prove anyway?), video or eye-witnesses giving statements along the lines of "I saw Nurse Letby injecting drain cleaner into an IV bag" or similar. I'd bet strong money on there being virtually no physical evidence that ties her to anything what-so-ever. I may, of course, be utterly wrong in that.

Obviously, none of us know her so can't speak definitively as to her personality but I'd suggest that as far as general human behavior is concerned, people find it very, very difficult to deny things when presented with irrefutable evidence of them having done them. As an ex-cop I'm sure you've interviewed hundreds and hundreds of guilty people. Is it common for people to vehemently continue to deny their guilt when presented with is what is irrefutable evidence that they did it?

 

[Whitehall 1212]

I hear what you're saying, I do, but I'm afraid that I don't share your confidence. Wrongful arrests and convictions still happen; Rebecca Leighton was only 10 years ago. She was actually charged and remanded until the real murderer came to light. If he'd have nicked off back to wherever he was originally from then RL would almost certainly be inside now and still looking at another couple of decades, at least, of incarceration. The police and CPS certainly assessed the evidence wrongly in her case. Aren't there serious concerns about Colin Norris' case too? I've just read the Wiki entry on him. I'm not convinced he's innocent but it's mentioned in the entry that one of the deaths which was being investigated as a case of murder was apparently changed from suspicious to non-suspicious as soon as it was found that he wasn't on duty. That's not my idea of unbiased investigating and following the evidence, especially in relation to a very serious crime.

Also, I accept what you're saying as regards evidence but, in terms of LL's case, what evidence do we think is likely to be presented? In all likelihood it's going to be highly circumstantial. I think we all know that it's likely to be a mix of her shift patterns, statistical analysis from "experts" as to how likely X number of deaths are in any period of time, what drugs she did or didn't sign for and why, etc. There almost certainly won't be DNA (and what would that prove anyway?), video or eye-witnesses giving statements along the lines of "I saw Nurse Letby injecting drain cleaner into an IV bag" or similar. I'd bet strong money on there being virtually no physical evidence that ties her to anything what-so-ever. I may, of course, be utterly wrong in that.

Obviously, none of us know her so can't speak definitively as to her personality but I'd suggest that as far as general human behavior is concerned, people find it very, very difficult to deny things when presented with irrefutable evidence of them having done them. As an ex-cop I'm sure you've interviewed hundreds and hundreds of guilty people. Is it common for people to vehemently continue to deny their guilt when presented with is what is irrefutable evidence that they did it?

I agree with most of what you say.

In cases based on circumstance and where the suspect has a close relationship with the victim, including care scenarios, then DNA will likely be irrelevant or its presence open to conjecture. In such cases there is the possibility of there being a miscarriage of justice if the prosecution can present a compelling argument of the facts. Sadly the system is not perfect!

I feel that expert witnesses can be a problem. They can only give opinion that is admissible in Court because they are deemed to be 'experts'. I think this can play into an experts felling of superiority and maybe fears of being outed as not as expert as they believe. If their evidence is presented in a robust and forthright manner, then is likely to be viewed as absolutely reliable.

Interestingly, a police officer is deemed to be an expert witness on whether someone is drunk....how many Bobbies have locked up folk for drunk and incapable/disorderly when they are experiencing a hypoglycaemic or other medical episode with similar features to drunkeness? So much for relying on experts without question!

In relation to denials. My experience is that genuinely guilty folk admit the offence, if the evidence is compelling OR

For those that know the system, they'll have a solicitor, maybe provide a written statement and then say 'no comment' to all the interview questions. They rely on the police to prove the evidence without their assistance, when they could inadvertently say something that supports the prosecution case. They also rely on incorrect procedure being followed.

The smallest error could make evidence inadmissible or cast doubt on its veracity. Most cases that are not guilty or dismissed are on account of procedural errors (some on Public Interest Immunity)....modern Major Investigation Teams don't make such procedural errors (not that I know of, anyway)

People proclaiming their innocence when the evidence is circumstantial may well be innocent or think they are....based on their ignorance of what the law says.

I will be extremely concerned if LL's case is based on circumstantial, 'expert opinion' and statistical evidence, particularly in light of the RCPCH and NICE reviews I hope the jury are a smart bunch.

 

[Marantz4250b]

I will be extremely concerned if LL's case is based on circumstantial, 'expert opinion' and statistical evidence, particularly in light of the RCPCH and NICE reviews I hope the jury are a smart bunch.

I think that we all know (or at least strongly suspect) that this is exactly what the evidence against her is going to be. It seems beyond the realm of reasonable possibility that it could be anything else given the timescales involved. The hospital didn't even consider the possibility of anything criminal until a year or so after the final death and, even then, only invited the police in to look into whether crimes had even been committed. The chances of any physical or even witness evidence being extant seem remote, to say the least. The deaths weren't seen as suspicious at the times they happened so any medical examinations weren't carried out with that in mind. We know that toxicology tests were not carried out, for instance.

Your comments on how genuinely guilty people behave when presented with irrefutable evidence are interesting and accord with my thoughts on the matter. When we think about it, even the raging psychopath Harold Shipman never actually denied guilt at interview. The evidence against him clearly left no room for doubt but rather than trying to deny it he just turned his back and said nothing. We know that LL is denying everything which tends to suggest that, if she has anything like a normal personality then she hasn't been presented with evidence of guilt that she can't rationally deny. So, she's either guilty but the evidence is such that it's arguable - especially when you have a medical knowledge and the police don't - or, she's not guilty and the evidence is such that it could suggest guilt depending on the circumstances.

She was arrested three times and for the first two was held for the maximum allowed extended period, as far as I'm aware. Clearly the police/CPS didn't have evidence of a nature that she could sensibly deny on either of those occasions. If they did they would have charged. Also, this is just my suspicion but I doubt that she is likely to have gone through six days of interviews replying "No Comment" or simply saying nothing. If she's innocent I think she'd have been answering questions, at least at the outset. I don't think she has Shipman-esque levels of arrogance so I doubt her first tack would be to keep silent. You'll know better than me but do you feel that the fact that she was held for the maximum extended periods tends to suggest that she was indeed talking in interview and not just going "no comment" from the outset? I mean, if someone is clearly not talking or offering any assistance then can you really justify to a Mag that you need to keep them for longer? On her final arrest I think she was charged the following day. Would it be reasonable to think that this was the point at which she was advised to give "no comment" responses so that's when they were really faced with no option but to charge or drop everything?

 

[TootsieFootsie]

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.

The link you provided says there was a miscarriage of justice in her case.
She was exonerated after spending 6 years in jail.
She commited no murders.

Lucia de Berk | Murderpedia, the encyclopedia of murderers

Lucia de Berk is a Dutch nurse, who was subject to a miscarriage of justice. She was sentenced to life in prison in 2004 for seven murders and acquitted in 2010.

murderpedia.org

 

[Marantz4250b]

The link you provided says there was a miscarriage of justice in her case.
She was exonerated after spending 6 years in jail.
She commited no murders.

Lucia de Berk | Murderpedia, the encyclopedia of murderers

Lucia de Berk is a Dutch nurse, who was subject to a miscarriage of justice. She was sentenced to life in prison in 2004 for seven murders and acquitted in 2010.

murderpedia.org

That's the point though. She didn't do any of it but was still convicted.

 

[ZaZara]

The link you provided says there was a miscarriage of justice in her case.
She was exonerated after spending 6 years in jail.
She commited no murders.

Lucia de Berk | Murderpedia, the encyclopedia of murderers

Lucia de Berk is a Dutch nurse, who was subject to a miscarriage of justice. She was sentenced to life in prison in 2004 for seven murders and acquitted in 2010.

murderpedia.org

Eeeh.... was that news to you? Lucia's case has been mentioned before on this thread. Also by me.

Before she was exonerated, her convictions were confirmed by the highest courts in the Netherlands, even in the case where she was not even present at all, instead the medical specialist and his assistant were with the patient at that time.

Hoofdstuk 18: Levenslang Lucia de Berk Een zwarte bladzijde in de geschiedenis van de Nederlandse rechtspraak - Blik op de Wereld

The Court described the actions of Lucia de B. as 'ruthless, refined, planned and determined'[3], acting like a serial killer. Her actions were of a magnitude and exceptional seriousness that is almost impossible to achieve in the Netherlands'. Lucia de B. was portrayed as a cold-blooded, unscrupulous serial killer with multiple mental problems.

A spokesman of the Public Prosecution declared before the session of 17 September 2002 in the District Court of The Hague: 'It is a criminal case that in terms of size has no equal here'. According to the OM the suspect is a serious psychiatric case. A life-threatening woman who, according to prosecutor I. Degeling, is 'obsessed with death'.

(...)

And yet... And yet... In this criminal case, that had attracted great interest in the international community, there was no direct evidence whatsoever.

There were no DNA traces, fingerprints or traces of overdose in the bodies of the deceased. And no-one had ever seen Lucia de Berk actually kill or attempt to kill a patient by means of lethal injections[6].

One of the most striking things in this connection is a remark in the indictment of the Advocate General for the Court of Appeal in The Hague.

'While cases on an individual basis are perhaps doomed to end in a narrow acquittal, when viewed together they should lead to a conviction.'[7]

This indicates that it was of great importance to the Public Prosecution to show that Lucia de Berk could only be condemned if the Public Prosecution could build up a picture of Lucia, from which, on the basis of 'unexplained deaths', in which Lucia was directly or indirectly 'involved', they had to conclude that those 'unexplained deaths' were caused by Lucia de Berk's actions.

How could it ever have come to this? In fact, 'unexplained deaths' were attributed to Lucia de Berk, because there couldn't be a coincidence, Lucia always appeared to be 'involved'.

BBM

Some years ago, a reporter managed to interview Lucia de Berk. She had been free for a number of years. She was a mental and emotional wreck and she no longer trusts anyone.

 

[TootsieFootsie]

Eeeh.... was that news to you? Lucia's case has been mentioned before on this thread. Also by me.

No it wasn't news to me.
Just that your posts didn't seem to reflect that she was exonerated.

 

[TootsieFootsie]

That's the point though. She didn't do any of it but was still convicted.

Thanks I get it now.

 

[Marantz4250b]

Is there another case management hearing due this month? I'm sure I recall reading that there was but the dates and date changes are starting to get jumbled in my head at present. I know that the trial is still slated to start 4th October though.

 

[Jules2021]

We can assume they are not going to put the trial back anymore now then? Everything is in place? Do you think this is going to be the biggest story of the year starting October or are they still going to keep it quite under wraps? It seems like it should be the biggest crime/mystery story of the year if not the decade.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

We can assume they are not going to put the trial back anymore now then? Everything is in place? Do you think this is going to be the biggest story of the year starting October or are they still going to keep it quite under wraps? It seems like it should be the biggest crime/mystery story of the year if not the decade.

The prosecution and defence teams will probably be working their socks off up until almost the last minute to be fully prepared for the trial.

The length of time that LL has been on remand is significant, owing to the complexity/volume of the casework. The prosecution and defence have previously indicated that they can be ready for October. Everyone involved will be keen that the trial proceeds as planned.

I don't think that the notion of if being the 'crime/mystery story of the year, if not the decade' is the way LL's trial should be perceived. There are victims, victims families and a defendant who may or may not be guilty. It is not there to be sensationalised or for our gratification, like an edge of the seat TV drama.

Most want to hear the evidence, understand its interpretation and make up their own minds on LL's innocence or guilt.

 

[Marantz4250b]

The prosecution and defence teams will probably be working their socks off up until almost the last minute to be fully prepared for the trial.

The length of time that LL has been on remand is significant, owing to the complexity/volume of the casework. The prosecution and defence have previously indicated that they can be ready for October. Everyone involved will be keen that the trial proceeds as planned.

I don't think that the notion of if being the 'crime/mystery story of the year, if not the decade' is the way LL's trial should be perceived. There are victims, victims families and a defendant who may or may not be guilty. It is not there to be sensationalised or for our gratification, like an edge of the seat TV drama.

Most want to hear the evidence, understand its interpretation and make up their own minds on LL's innocence or guilt.

I agree with all you say here. On the matter of how this whole thing should be perceived; I'll be honest, I did seriously consider the idea of going and seeing if I could get into the public gallery. Primarily so as to be able to see LL in person so I could try to compare the real person to the impressions that I get from the various media reports. It's something I'm intensely curious about and it's something we may never get to know unless she's acquitted and agrees to do interviews. On balance, though, I think it's probably the wrong thing to do. Leaving the distance thing aside - I'm in the North East - I think it would feel a bit voyeuristic when it comes down to it. I don't have any personal connection to anyone involved and attending that sort of trial simply out of personal curiosity just seems a bit wrong, to be honest.

In relation to the previous poster - I think it's going to be absolutely massively covered in the press. It'll be huge. The only reason it hasn't been so far is that there isn't really much to report as no one is giving anything away and rightly so. This will be "front page" news for months. I've said several times on here that the utter bizarreness of what's occurred so far is pretty mind blowing but I suspect that that's nothing compared to what is going to come out at trial. This is going to be so big and so significant in British legal history that lots of "experts", legal scholars and writers are going to base their entire careers on it. I wonder whether there is already a special episode of 24 Hours In Police Custody in the works? Although they'd have to change the title slightly in order to reflect reality on this one! Also, if she's found not guilty, convincingly not guilty, we are certainly going to see massive upheaval and uproar in the judicial system as regards things like remand to mention but one.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

I agree with all you say here. On the matter of how this whole thing should be perceived; I'll be honest, I did seriously consider the idea of going and seeing if I could get into the public gallery. Primarily so as to be able to see LL in person so I could try to compare the real person to the impressions that I get from the various media reports. It's something I'm intensely curious about and it's something we may never get to know unless she's acquitted and agrees to do interviews. On balance, though, I think it's probably the wrong thing to do. Leaving the distance thing aside - I'm in the North East - I think it would feel a bit voyeuristic when it comes down to it. I don't have any personal connection to anyone involved and attending that sort of trial simply out of personal curiosity just seems a bit wrong, to be honest.

In relation to the previous poster - I think it's going to be absolutely massively covered in the press. It'll be huge. The only reason it hasn't been so far is that there isn't really much to report as no one is giving anything away and rightly so. This will be "front page" news for months. I've said several times on here that the utter bizarreness of what's occurred so far is pretty mind blowing but I suspect that that's nothing compared to what is going to come out at trial. This is going to be so big and so significant in British legal history that lots of "experts", legal scholars and writers are going to base their entire careers on it. I wonder whether there is already a special episode of 24 Hours In Police Custody in the works? Although they'd have to change the title slightly in order to reflect reality on this one! Also, if she's found not guilty, convincingly not guilty, we are certainly going to see massive upheaval and uproar in the judicial system as regards things like remand to mention but one.

I can appreciate your feeling that it seems somewhat voyeuristic to go and view the proceedings, when you have no direct/indirect connection.

However, that you say just that demonstrates your awareness of it not being entertainment, but something which deserves solemnity and respect.

British justice is an open system, a system in which justice has to be seen to be done, in that the rights of the individual are protected when they are subject to the power of the court.

Just as you would vote and understand that such a democratic right was secured by our parents/grandparents/great-grandparents generation, so it is the same with the British judicial system.....something that others have fought and died for. By witnessing it you are ensuring that principle stands tall.

Yes, the case will attract multiple column inches, particularly at the opening and most definitely the conclusion, although sub judice will allow only for the court proceedings to be reported before the case is finalised.

With an approximate trial period of up to six months then I suspect that most MSM will only report limited detail, which may be misleading if not able to be taken in context with evidence that is not reported.

I hope that a half-decent court reporter will be given the opportunity to follow the whole case and report it comprehensively.

I may go myself, because I cannot remember a case where I feel the presentation of the evidence, interpretation and expert witness testimony may need so much scrutiny from the British public as a whole.

 

[Jules2021]

The prosecution and defence teams will probably be working their socks off up until almost the last minute to be fully prepared for the trial.

The length of time that LL has been on remand is significant, owing to the complexity/volume of the casework. The prosecution and defence have previously indicated that they can be ready for October. Everyone involved will be keen that the trial proceeds as planned.

I don't think that the notion of if being the 'crime/mystery story of the year, if not the decade' is the way LL's trial should be perceived. There are victims, victims families and a defendant who may or may not be guilty. It is not there to be sensationalised or for our gratification, like an edge of the seat TV drama.

Most want to hear the evidence, understand its interpretation and make up their own minds on LL's innocence or guilt.

I didn't mean to imply we'd all be gossiping over it like the latest episode of a tv show-just wondering what it'll be like when it finally hits the mainstream and suddenly everyone knows about it. Perhaps I worded it wrong, I just meant it'll be up there with the disappearance of MM and crimes of Harold Shipman etc. in that I'm assuming it'll be such a huge story dominating the headlines it'll be hard to comprehend.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

I didn't mean to imply we'd all be gossiping over it like the latest episode of a tv show-just wondering what it'll be like when it finally hits the mainstream and suddenly everyone knows about it. Perhaps I worded it wrong, I just meant it'll be up there with the disappearance of MM and crimes of Harold Shipman etc. in that I'm assuming it'll be such a huge story dominating the headlines it'll be hard to comprehend.

No problem....just a question of semantics

MM has always been a free-for-all in the popular press. It sells papers as it tugs a the heart strings and is also controversial at the same time. The police in Portugal operate very differently to the police in the UK. There are no charges, so far, so the press can report just what they want.

As LL's case starts, the press will only report on the events in court. They will be restricted on what they can print and say owing to the rules on sub juice.

The case may take up to six months so the front page press coverage will probably drop off, except for any key evidence being reported.

Once the proceedings are complete there will probably be a popular press free-for-all as the sub judice rules no longer apply. This will happen irrespective of the verdict.

No doubt the popular press have already done all their digging and have the background stories already written, so they will in theory 'hit the presses' as soon as the verdict is announced.

The sub judice rule and contempt of court

www.pinsentmasons.com