UK - Nurse Lucy Letby Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #2

Status
Not open for further replies.

Whitehall 1212

Verified Law Enforcement and SAR (UK)
Joined
Aug 29, 2019
Messages
1,888
Reaction score
7,147
So, presumably, this is indeed going ahead tomorrow?

Nothing is ever a given ;)

Our esteemed PM was adamant that the reduction in the highest rate of tax was still going ahead yesterday morning.....what a difference a day makes sang KamiKwazi as he told her the 'good' news a little later!
 

Bakers

Active Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2020
Messages
88
Reaction score
184
@Alyce what makes you think this case is subject to reporting restrictions relating to LL's identity as the defendant? I was under the impression that only the names of the victims were subject to reporting restrictions.
Why would they blank her name out now ??
 

Whitehall 1212

Verified Law Enforcement and SAR (UK)
Joined
Aug 29, 2019
Messages
1,888
Reaction score
7,147
Why would they blank her name out now ??

The proceedings are subject to reporting restrictions, in respect of the identification of the victims only, as far as I am aware.

I suspect what has occurred is that the reporting restrictions under s.45 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 have quite rightly been highlighted to the court admin staff who update the list.

The restrictions would normally apply to juvenile defendants, whose name would often not be published on the court list.

The restriction has been noted and the defendants name withheld, likely in error by those updating the list, who have not realised that restrictions do not apply to the defendant, who is not a juvenile.
 
Last edited:

JosieJo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2018
Messages
2,301
Reaction score
14,923

Bakers

Active Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2020
Messages
88
Reaction score
184
The proceedings are subject to reporting restrictions, in respect of the identification of the victims only, as far as I am aware.

I suspect what has occurred is that the reporting restrictions under s.45 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 have quite rightly been highlighted to the court admin staff who update the list.

The restrictions would normally apply to juvenile defendants, whose name would often not be published on the court list.

The restriction has been noted and the defendants name withheld, likely in error by those updating the list, who have not realised that restrictions do not apply to the defendant, who is not a juvenile.
Thank you for explaining x
 

Bakers

Active Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2020
Messages
88
Reaction score
184
Will we get to hear all of the evdenice presented in courts or will it be very restricted? ?
 

Alyce

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2012
Messages
11,882
Reaction score
42,614
The first day of the trial is expected to finalise the jury. Eligible jurors will have to make themselves available until the end of April 2023 so they can be present for every day of the trial.

It is understood the final jury will have been chosen from a longlist of about 140 potential jurors.

A court order prohibits reporting of the identities of surviving and deceased children allegedly attacked by Letby, and prohibits identifying the parents or witnesses connected with the children.




 

Whitehall 1212

Verified Law Enforcement and SAR (UK)
Joined
Aug 29, 2019
Messages
1,888
Reaction score
7,147
Will we get to hear all of the evdenice presented in courts or will it be very restricted? ?

Apart from anything that may identify the victims or their families, then I would expect that all other evidence can be reported.

In cases where intelligence has been obtained using covert investigation methods, usually serious and organised crime and national security, then there may be applications made to the judge by the Crown for Public Interest Immunity (PII) to withhold certain sensitive matters. The judge will either approve of refuse the application.

I think it is unlikely that anything would prompt a PII application in this case.
 
Last edited:

Alyce

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2012
Messages
11,882
Reaction score
42,614
The proceedings are subject to reporting restrictions, in respect of the identification of the victims only, as far as I am aware.

I suspect what has occurred is that the reporting restrictions under s.45 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 have quite rightly been highlighted to the court admin staff who update the list.

The restrictions would normally apply to juvenile defendants, whose name would often not be published on the court list.

The restriction has been noted and the defendants name withheld, likely in error by those updating the list, who have not realised that restrictions do not apply to the defendant, who is not a juvenile.

Totally agree. LL is being named openly in all the msm reporting this morning.

Reminding me of the Lindsay Birbeck case - murdered by Rocky Marciano. His name was blanked out on court listings but openly displayed outside the court house.
 

JuicyLucy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2021
Messages
1,362
Reaction score
9,244
I'm confused. Aren't the identities of her alleged victims already in the public domain, having been reported when she was charged? I've only been reading about this case since last night but I know them, and I haven't made any particular effort to discover them over and above reading old posts on here and a bit of msm. I would expect their medical histories to be confidential though.

ETA: But the alleged victims that survived are subject to reporting restrictions, it has just dawned on me.

ETA2: Just deleted the msm link I posted now I've read @Marantz4250b's post. What a minefield!
 
Last edited:

Marantz4250b

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2020
Messages
877
Reaction score
3,749
I'm confused. Aren't the identities of her alleged victims already in the public domain, having been reported when she was charged? I've only been reading about this case since last night but I know them, and I haven't made any particular effort to discover them over and above reading old posts on here and a bit of msm. I would expect their medical histories to be confidential though.
Their names were reported after the initial hearing where the charges were made public. The order relating to the reporting restrictions wasn't made until after that hearing so the press cannot include them in subsequent reports.
 

JuicyLucy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2021
Messages
1,362
Reaction score
9,244
Their names were reported after the initial hearing where the charges were made public. The order relating to the reporting restrictions wasn't made until after that hearing so the press cannot include them in subsequent reports.
I must say, not for the first time, I find the rules around court reporting distinctly steam age. The old reports are still online for all to see without any special effort required - I read the names without even realising they were now restricted. It's a difficult line for judges to tread but I can't help thinking it's time to accept that the internet is here to stay and dragging the rules into the C21. It would be better to do it proactively and thoughtfully imo.
 

Marantz4250b

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2020
Messages
877
Reaction score
3,749
I must say, not for the first time, I find the rules around court reporting distinctly steam age. The old reports are still online for all to see without any special effort required - I read the names without even realising they were now restricted. It's a difficult line for judges to tread but I can't help thinking it's time to accept that the internet is here to stay and dragging the rules into the C21. It would be better to do it proactively and thoughtfully imo.
These are all good points but I don't really see what the answer is. Indeed, the only real difference between something reported today and something reported 25 years ago is the accessibility of the information. The names would still have made the papers 25 years ago but you'd have had to go to a local library to trawl through the back issues to find them. Today you can send Mr Google out to find them.

The answer would obviously be to have an order in place prior to the names being given in court but when you start restricting what can and cannot be reported in a public trial you run into serious questions as to how open (or not) your justice system is. Following on from that, and regardless of how reasonable it appears to right thinking people, I think it will inevitably end up fuelling the conspira-loon types like that nutter in the States who claimed the various school shootings didn't happen. If the names of the victims were "covered up" (which is certainly how they will spin it) it will give a huge boost to fringe lunatics like him and their money generating juggernauts which is a very bad thing indeed.
 

Alyce

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2012
Messages
11,882
Reaction score
42,614
This is a very long report. I have linked the summarised version, which is still fairly long, but makes an interesting read.


A few snippets here...........


Justice systems are sometimes called upon to evaluate cases in
which healthcare professionals are suspected of killing their patients
illegally. These cases are difficult to evaluate because they involve
at least two levels of uncertainty.
Commonly in a murder case it is clear that a homicide has occurred,
and investigators must resolve uncertainty about who is responsible.

In the cases we examine here there is also uncertainty about whether
homicide has occurred.
Investigators need to consider whether the deaths that prompted the
investigation could plausibly have occurred for reasons other than
homicide, in addition to considering whether, if homicide was indeed
the cause, the person under suspicion is responsible.


Suspicions about medical murder often arise due to a surprising or
unexpected series of events, such as an unusual number of deaths
among patients under the care of a particular professional. There
are serious statistical challenges in distinguishing event clusters that
arise from criminal acts from those that arise coincidentally from
other causes.

Case Study. Jane Bolding. There was extremely compelling
statistical evidence associating this US nurse's duty periods with
times when unexpected cardiac arrests occurred in her ward. After
an initial confession was retracted, the court decided that the
statistical evidence alone was not enough for a conviction, and she
was acquitted.

Case Study. Harold Shipman. Anecdotal observations about
apparently unusually many deaths among his patients followed by a
police investigation found (non-statistical) evidence incriminating this
English family doctor, and he was convicted on many counts of
murder. A subsequent inquiry suggested that statistical monitoring
techniques might have raised the alarm earlier and saved many
lives.

Case Study. Lucia de Berk. Dutch nurse. She was initially convicted
of 4 murders and 3 attempted murders of children under her care,
based largely on a statistical analysis, supported by anecdotal
observations of character and behaviour. Subsequently serious
flaws in the statistical evidence were exposed, and new medical
evidence became available, together casting great doubt on the convictions and she was exonerated.


 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top