Thank you for linking that. There's the detail that was missing from the original reporting. Detailed and comprehensive, and a clearly highly qualified panel, yet I wonder whether it would actually meet the necessary standards for a retrial: it is hard to say there is much there that is much that is actually new. It seems more like a reanalysis of existing data and - as I understand, IANL, etc. - that doesn't meet the rules for a retrial, especially as the prosecution expert was cross-examined during the trial.
Nurse arrested for murdering babies
- Thread starter neocon
- Start date
Thank you for linking that. There's the detail that was missing from the original reporting. Detailed and comprehensive, and a clearly highly qualified panel, yet I wonder whether it would actually meet the necessary standards for a retrial: it is hard to say there is much there that is much that is actually new. It seems more like a reanalysis of existing data and - as I understand, IANL, etc. - that doesn't meet the rules for a retrial, especially as the prosecution expert was cross-examined during the trial.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 22 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 28,451
- Location
- Boston, Lincolnshire
Cover what up exactly? Her management initially defended her and it was the doctors that made the complaint.
Surely if the management were inept and deaths would be caused on their watch then scape goating this women would have been the perfect plan but they didn't did they.
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 30,451
- Location
- Dormanstown.
On our legal system of reasonable doubt
Based on experts having conflicting views, surely by any definition there's doubt?
Based on experts having conflicting views, surely by any definition there's doubt?
That only applies during a trial. The jury's decision cannot be overturned based on reasonable doubt.
One thing that just occurred to me, does anyone know if a defendant can under UK law lose a jury trial, win a retrial, and then request a bench trial?
Because if it does go back to retrial, and I say this as somebody who thinks she is guilty, I can't see how the prosecution can get beyond reasonable doubt on the remaining evidence, they (if it happens) are going to have to go for the jury's emotion and play their desire not to risk freeing a child killer above their desire not to convict an innocent person.
If her team manage to get a retrial and get it changed to a bench trial the prosecution are in big big trouble
*EDIT*
Okay, turns out there is no right to a bench trial in the UK that's just a US thing, over here it would require the prosecution to agree so no chance.
Basically one of the questions they will have to assess will be if it is probable or improbable that the original jury would have found her guilty beyond reasonable doubt if it had been presented with this new evidence, and/or if it had been used to discredit some of the original evidence presented by the prosecution.
Because if it does go back to retrial, and I say this as somebody who thinks she is guilty, I can't see how the prosecution can get beyond reasonable doubt on the remaining evidence, they (if it happens) are going to have to go for the jury's emotion and play their desire not to risk freeing a child killer above their desire not to convict an innocent person.
If her team manage to get a retrial and get it changed to a bench trial the prosecution are in big big trouble
*EDIT*
Okay, turns out there is no right to a bench trial in the UK that's just a US thing, over here it would require the prosecution to agree so no chance.
I think what he's referring too, is that the Criminal Cases Review Commission will have to include this new evidence when weighing it's decision on the merit of ordering a retrial.
Basically one of the questions they will have to assess will be if it is probable or improbable that the original jury would have found her guilty beyond reasonable doubt if it had been presented with this new evidence, and/or if it had been used to discredit some of the original evidence presented by the prosecution.
Last edited:
There's no way she can get a fair trial by jury now, just look at some comments in here about how she's definitely guilty etc.One thing that just occurred to me, does anyone know if a defendant can under UK law lose a jury trial, win a retrial, and then request a bench trial?
Because if it does go back to retrial, and I say this as somebody who thinks she is guilty, I can't see how the prosecution can get beyond reasonable doubt on the remaining evidence, they (if it happens) are going to have to go for the jury's emotion and play their desire not to risk freeing a child killer above their desire not to convict an innocent person.
If her team manage to get a retrial and get it changed to a bench trial the prosecution are in big big trouble
*EDIT*
Okay, turns out there is no right to a bench trial in the UK that's just a US thing, over here it would require the prosecution to agree so no chance.
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 12,691
It if it's a department issue with many people responsible is she still not guilty though as babies still died on her watch, or would it not be murder and instead manslaughter or whatever else there is for human deaths under their care ?
They'll have to prove negligence, Lots of people die everyday whilst under care of a practitioner
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 12,691
Surely they've already done that if they managed to get a murder conviction that might not really be murder ?
Thats whats being tested right now isn't it
The epic level problem with prosecutors attempting to prove negligence though, is that you would have to look very very very hard to find an instance of negligence in the NHS actually caused by somebody not caring/bothering to do their job properly. Issues of negligence in the NHS are almost always (closer to 100% of the time than to 99% of the time) the result of somebody not having enough time to do the work expected of them due to staff levels and being forced to rush, not having enough training to do the work being asked of them due to not having the time to do it, not having up to date training (again due to not having the time to do it), etc.
And when you actually drill down from that the reality is that genuine instances of negligence in the NHS are almost exclusively the knock on result of NHS underfunding, and this is something successive governments have been actively avoiding acknowledging for decades now.
There isn't any new evidence, just a fresh opinion from a different expert on the same evidence that was presented at the trial - this was why she lost her appeal hearings.
With respect, this is not a differing opinion from another expert. This is the definitive opinion by the leading expert in the field who found out after the trial that his work had been misunderstood/misrepresented by the prosecutions "expert" and that they had used it to mislead the jury, he then got so offended/annoyed by the misuse of his work he brought in a group of colleagues to re-evaluate the evidence and found damning/glaring inaccuracies.
This isn't a case of "defence lawyer hires second rate hacks to try and throw shade on the experts the prosecution used", this is a case of "defence lawyer is approached by highly regarded experts who throw shade on the hacks used by the prosecution, for misrepresenting their work".
I think these facts mean their evidence should be taken with much more seriousness than simply random experts hired by the defence. Especially because even if their findings are only 10% accurate that is still significantly more than enough to warrant an investigation into the quality of care at the hospital at the very least.
Last edited:
I think you're jumping on a bandwagon.
Until I see some new evidence, or there's a retrial and these new experts turn up under oath in court, in-front of a jury, under cross-examination, with the prosecutions own experts to counter - I think it's just a bunch of stuff on TV, and should be treated as such.
If any of that happens, I'll take it more seriously.
One thing courts, and juries in particular, are exceptionally bad at is assessing expert testimony.
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 13,597
Cover up Govt(whatever colour) responsibility. The hospital should not have been dealing with such sick babies as the panel mentioned. The hospital got rid of staff with decades of nursing experience and left comparative newbies in charge. There was sewage backing back into the unit- again agreed by the panel. Etc, Etc.
This leaves the Govt/Health Trust open to being sued by every parent who spent time there. Her management initially may have backed her but then they hung her out. As far as doctors, they are just protecting themselves by pushing the blame downwards. The panel specifically also blamed at least one doctor.
Last edited:
Last edited:
I'm always highly skeptical when a bunch of people turn up on the TV saying they have all the answers, it'll be interesting to see what comes of this.
They're not just a bunch of people though are they, they're 14 of the best of the best neonatal experts around the world, substantially more qualified than the prosecution's "expert" witness.
How is it a conflict of interest? He hasn't been paid for his report, he's motivated by an annoyance that an unqualified "expert" misrepresented his work to create false medical evidence that was used to convict someone. What about the other 13 experts, are they all biased too? If there's any conflict of interest it would be for the prosecution's "expert" witness, who despite being a general pediatrician (retired since 2009) put himself forward to the police for a job that paid extremely well. He previously boasted that he only ever lost 1 case which was for the defense, when he's supposed to be independent and unbiased expert witness, not trying to win a case. Part 6 of the Private Eye's special report is worth reading.
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 May 2006
- Posts
- 8,001
I totally understand people arguing the reasonable doubt as well as initial incompetence / corruption in the trial and this is not meant as a dig or anything. I am just curious.
is anyone here defending her over and above possible reasonable doubt and believes she is innocent of all counts.?
ie would you be happy if she was cleared of all charges and was your babies neo natal nurse?
is anyone here defending her over and above possible reasonable doubt and believes she is innocent of all counts.?
ie would you be happy if she was cleared of all charges and was your babies neo natal nurse?
Last edited: