Nurse arrested for murdering babies

CaptainRAVE said:
If they release her. What’s the sentence looking like?

I wonder how many more cases they’ll find as they keep investigating this.
Click to expand...

Serial killers who kill for the thrill are in prison for life. They are pyschopaths who gain thrills from murdering people for no other reason than sadism and self importance. The threat to society is too great to let them out.
 
200sols said:
Of course serious. If the jury aren't sure she is guilty they should be returning a not guilty verdict, unless otherwise directed by the judge that is but seems unlikely in this case.
Click to expand...

They need to be sure without reasonable doubt. This allows them to deduce ‘who ate the chocolate bar’ as per @Murphy ’s example - you could be sure free from reasonable doubt that someone ate the chocolate bar without a photo / film of them eating it / poo sample etc, if the evidence suggests that.
 
Nitefly said:
They need to be sure without reasonable doubt. This allows them to deduce ‘who ate the chocolate bar’ as per @Murphy ’s example - you could be sure free from reasonable doubt that someone ate the chocolate bar without a photo / film of them eating it / poo sample etc, if the evidence suggests that.
Click to expand...
So they are sure she committed the murders. I'm not exactly sure what your point is here?
 
neocon said:
What sort of compensation will those parents receive do you think?
Click to expand...

This may seem harsh but negligently killing a new born only gets around £30,000 where cerebral palsy cases can be above £10 million.
Of course murder is completely different and especially when the hierarchy seemed to be shrugging their shoulders.

My source for this: I work in a Trust Legal Department.
 
Last edited:
CaptainRAVE said:
Heads should roll.
Click to expand...

Yes - seems like complete spineless management covering up a problem instead of investigating properly. They've probably all moved on or "retired" after this. I see the government has already raised an enquiry, but would be interested in its terms of reference and powers to investigate.

I went to school with Ravi, he was in the same year and many of the same classes. If I had to use word for him, "integrity" would be right up there.
 
ANDREW GREEN said:
It's simple, she did it but there wasn't enough evidence to remove doubt that she did it to some of the jury. It will be a few annoying ones on the jury holding out. Because if they've proven the baby was killed and they've convicted her of a numerous baby murders they should be convicting the other ones on the patern of pathology evidence.
Click to expand...
I would presume that a majority would have had to find her not guilty, though... so if the deductions that revealed the patterns which condemn her for some/most murders do not apply here, then presumably there now has to be an inquest into who did murder the remaining others, since the jury found her not guilty on those counts?
 
Minstadave said:
They've already scurried off into different trusts, they know what was coming.
Click to expand...

To be fair, people move around the NHS all the time. My missus probably moves every 2 years on average. Especially once you get reasonably senior its much easier to climb the ladder if you move trusts.

That being said, they aren't going to get away with this just by moving around the NHS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom