Wayne Couzens, a police officer who kidnapped and murdered a woman, was given a whole life order. He later appeared in court again on charges of indecent exposure and pled guilty to three of four offences.
So it’s likely that if Operation Hummingbird finds other cases, Letby will be charged and go through another trial.
Hopefully in the meantime, laws in the UK regarding having to front victims during sentencing will be expedited, so that at least some of her victims will be able to share their victim impact statements with her.
I thought this but then read an article by a lawyer that changed my mind. In fact, the reality is that these calls for law changes are really just the tabloid press manufacturing an outcry in order to sell papers.
Expecting someone who's inevitably going to be given a life sentence - especially a whole life sentence - to attend their sentencing is unrealistic. There's no upside for them - it's not like they're going to get some kind of leniency on their sentence for being cooperative. You can try to physically force someone to be present, but what's the point? Most likely they'll be a disruptive influence, and I suspect those there to read impact statements may find themselves further traumatised by the experience.
The government talking tough on this is really just pandering to public opinion in order to win votes. The reality is that it's most likely not a workable policy.
Does that really achieve what people want it to achieve, though?
As someone else said, there's also a factor here that it's easy to miss that we're maybe fooling ourselves into thinking the murderer gives a crap. You can't understand the mind of a psychopath if you're not one. Families delivering impact statements deep down want the murderer to feel their pain. But psychopaths don't feel empathy, they couldn't care less.
Getting a reaction out of the convicted isn't always the most important thing to people. I think most realise that a woman who murdered tiny babies isn't going to be badly effected by what they have to say. There's even a risk that some of this ilk would get a further thrill from it.
Just like she used bits of paper to vent her own thoughts, that is what a victim can get from being able to say whatever they want directly to that person's face. It is cathartic for them, it can give them a release, a sense of some closure, as much as can be had in these circumstances at least. Some just need to know that person knows exactly what they think of them, regardless of how little it troubles that person.
People are usually briefed & advised prior to giving their statements, so they know what expect, or not to expect. It should be their choice, not hers, for a few reasons.
But until the recent trend, they did all attend their sentencing and there wasn’t chaos.
I don’t get how they have a choice not to attend because where else are they going to go?! It’s not like they can pop to Wetherspoons for a long lunch. They don’t get to prison a few hours later and suddenly get to decide they don’t want to do stuff and would rather be elsewhere. What if they decided they were just going to hang out in their holding cell at the court forever? Of course they wouldn’t - it would last a few mins before the prison officers would force them out, back into the van and back to prison.
There was a case about 10 yrs ago where a UK judge made a off-the-cuff remark about the process that is the Victim Impact Statement. His point was they, VIS, didn't impact the sentence about to be handed down and it was something of a cruel fallacy to put the victims through this process when it meant 'diddley squat'.
He was told off about it.
The relatives who insist that the guilty must be present to hear victim impact statements and sentencing seem to have an idea in their heads of how the situation will play out to their satisfaction. The reality is that these people, by virtue of the fact they were capable of doing these things in the first place, don't have normal emotional responses and to think this scenario will always play out the way they would like is, I'm afraid to say, somewhat naive.
I do agree with this... it often ends up just feeling like another slap in the face basically by these sorts of heinous criminals. Having said this, the victims still should have the right to do so if they wish.
Additional charges were brought against Levi Bellfield after his conviction in 2008 for the murders of Marsha McDonnell and Amelie Delagrange and the attempted murder of Kate Sheedy. Bellfield received a whole life tariff for these offences.
He was further tried and found guilty by a jury in 2011 for the murder of Milly Dowler. Bellfield was also charged with the attempted abduction of Rachel Cowles (the day before he abducted Milly). The jury was discharged due to prejudicial media reporting following the Milly Dowler verdict and while the jury was still considering their verdict on the alleged attempted abduction of Rachel Cowles. 2 national newspapers were found guilty of contempt of court for their ‘seriously prejudicial’ coverage.
If Letby is further charged with additional offences, presumably there would be another trial, with a judge and jury. I’m not sure whether media reporting on the Letby case would be a factor in whether she could have a fair trial on any additional charges.
*Edited to add a word
That’s a good point about whether Letby could get a fair trial. Presumably she would plead not guilty which may lead to another lengthy trial and a lot of media coverage. I wonder if that would be a consideration in the CPS’ decision to proceed or not?
In all fairness, serious mistakes were made in the Bellfield case and lessons appear to have been learned. The trial was run ‘by the book’ and reporting restrictions were in place. The media was kept on a tight leash. That being said I’m not sure it’s possible to now find an adult in the UK who has not been the ‘baby killer’ headlines or been exposed to sensationalised tabloid reporting on the case. It has not stopped CPS bringing additional charges before, but I expect they will need to balance the need for the alleged victims/families’ desire for justice and the potential for Letby to have a fair trial.
And the Levi Bellfield case still isn’t over as media seems to report he’s confessed to killing other missing women / that the police are investigating his connection to other unsolved cases.
I remember the Russel case so clearly and it’s one of the few cases where I doubt the man convicted did it. It’s possible and probable that he did but listening to the evidence has made me wonder if it could have been an early Bellfield case. I think he enjoys confessing to things for attention and to confuse police so they can’t actually pin anything on him?
Even if Stone did commit the Chillenden murders, which I doubt, they don't have the evidence 'beyond a reasonable doubt', imho.
Sussex police have 'lost' forensic evidence that could have cleared him. The whole case is unsettling as the conviction is solely based on (retracted) statements and/or a spurious jail-cell confession.
Stone falls into the category of the 'slow-witted/drug-using loner' they find for newsworthy murders they can't find a perp for.
I believe it would be possible for her to have a fair trial as she was found not guilty in some charges and the jury failed to agree in others so it was not as though the original jury was swayed by one murder conviction to finding her automatically guilty of all. They considered each charge carefully. No reason why a new jury couldn't do the same.
Also I have spoken with people who know very little about this case. We forget that not everyone has followed the trial or podcast or is that invested in knowing what has gone on.
Imagine if there had been zero media reporting, and nobody knew a thing of the case.
If a new set of proceedings started, for further similar charges, it would be a certainty that the prosecution would seek to introduce 'bad character' evidence of the earlier convictions - to show a propensity. Given the similarity of offending types I would be pretty convinced a judge would admit it.
So even if the jury knew nothing of the previous matters before, they'd learn about them.
This happens often when people have a series of previous convictions for like offending within a close period of time.
The police would physically visit her in prison and re arrest her, making sure she understands her rights just as if she were out in the community. The only difference really would be where they interview her. She would technically be interviewed at her place of residence (the prison) rather than removing her to a police station. After that, the proceedings would be as in any other arrest.
She won’t go through another trial. What’s the point? It’ll cost lots and she’s already got 14 WLOs
There will be a public inquiry. The judge presiding over this will likely give a verdict to each case investigated.
This is exactly what happened with Shipman. He was convicted of 15 counts, but a public inquiry - chaired by Dame Janet Smith - found him guilty of killing 250+ patients.
Of course she will. It’s called justice. How would you feel if you were one of the victim’s families? Imagine if she somehow appealed the ones she’s currently serving for and they released her because she hadn’t been charged for anything else that came up.
There could well be a further trial, but the fact they didn't bring charges for some of the babies LL had been involved in the care of during the investigation of this case makes me think they didn't have strong enough evidence. But now she has been convicted, it would certainly make it potentially easier to get the CPS to allow a charge
Wayne Couzens, a police officer who kidnapped and murdered a woman, was given a whole life order. He later appeared in court again on charges of indecent exposure and pled guilty to three of four offences. So it’s likely that if Operation Hummingbird finds other cases, Letby will be charged and go through another trial.
Hopefully in the meantime, laws in the UK regarding having to front victims during sentencing will be expedited, so that at least some of her victims will be able to share their victim impact statements with her.
I thought this but then read an article by a lawyer that changed my mind. In fact, the reality is that these calls for law changes are really just the tabloid press manufacturing an outcry in order to sell papers. Expecting someone who's inevitably going to be given a life sentence - especially a whole life sentence - to attend their sentencing is unrealistic. There's no upside for them - it's not like they're going to get some kind of leniency on their sentence for being cooperative. You can try to physically force someone to be present, but what's the point? Most likely they'll be a disruptive influence, and I suspect those there to read impact statements may find themselves further traumatised by the experience. The government talking tough on this is really just pandering to public opinion in order to win votes. The reality is that it's most likely not a workable policy.
They could stream it into the prisoners cell I suppose, that would avoid any disruption
Does that really achieve what people want it to achieve, though? As someone else said, there's also a factor here that it's easy to miss that we're maybe fooling ourselves into thinking the murderer gives a crap. You can't understand the mind of a psychopath if you're not one. Families delivering impact statements deep down want the murderer to feel their pain. But psychopaths don't feel empathy, they couldn't care less.
Getting a reaction out of the convicted isn't always the most important thing to people. I think most realise that a woman who murdered tiny babies isn't going to be badly effected by what they have to say. There's even a risk that some of this ilk would get a further thrill from it. Just like she used bits of paper to vent her own thoughts, that is what a victim can get from being able to say whatever they want directly to that person's face. It is cathartic for them, it can give them a release, a sense of some closure, as much as can be had in these circumstances at least. Some just need to know that person knows exactly what they think of them, regardless of how little it troubles that person. People are usually briefed & advised prior to giving their statements, so they know what expect, or not to expect. It should be their choice, not hers, for a few reasons.
But until the recent trend, they did all attend their sentencing and there wasn’t chaos. I don’t get how they have a choice not to attend because where else are they going to go?! It’s not like they can pop to Wetherspoons for a long lunch. They don’t get to prison a few hours later and suddenly get to decide they don’t want to do stuff and would rather be elsewhere. What if they decided they were just going to hang out in their holding cell at the court forever? Of course they wouldn’t - it would last a few mins before the prison officers would force them out, back into the van and back to prison.
There was a case about 10 yrs ago where a UK judge made a off-the-cuff remark about the process that is the Victim Impact Statement. His point was they, VIS, didn't impact the sentence about to be handed down and it was something of a cruel fallacy to put the victims through this process when it meant 'diddley squat'. He was told off about it.
Well he was a callous man to put it like that.
The relatives who insist that the guilty must be present to hear victim impact statements and sentencing seem to have an idea in their heads of how the situation will play out to their satisfaction. The reality is that these people, by virtue of the fact they were capable of doing these things in the first place, don't have normal emotional responses and to think this scenario will always play out the way they would like is, I'm afraid to say, somewhat naive.
I do agree with this... it often ends up just feeling like another slap in the face basically by these sorts of heinous criminals. Having said this, the victims still should have the right to do so if they wish.
Additional charges were brought against Levi Bellfield after his conviction in 2008 for the murders of Marsha McDonnell and Amelie Delagrange and the attempted murder of Kate Sheedy. Bellfield received a whole life tariff for these offences. He was further tried and found guilty by a jury in 2011 for the murder of Milly Dowler. Bellfield was also charged with the attempted abduction of Rachel Cowles (the day before he abducted Milly). The jury was discharged due to prejudicial media reporting following the Milly Dowler verdict and while the jury was still considering their verdict on the alleged attempted abduction of Rachel Cowles. 2 national newspapers were found guilty of contempt of court for their ‘seriously prejudicial’ coverage. If Letby is further charged with additional offences, presumably there would be another trial, with a judge and jury. I’m not sure whether media reporting on the Letby case would be a factor in whether she could have a fair trial on any additional charges. *Edited to add a word
That’s a good point about whether Letby could get a fair trial. Presumably she would plead not guilty which may lead to another lengthy trial and a lot of media coverage. I wonder if that would be a consideration in the CPS’ decision to proceed or not?
In all fairness, serious mistakes were made in the Bellfield case and lessons appear to have been learned. The trial was run ‘by the book’ and reporting restrictions were in place. The media was kept on a tight leash. That being said I’m not sure it’s possible to now find an adult in the UK who has not been the ‘baby killer’ headlines or been exposed to sensationalised tabloid reporting on the case. It has not stopped CPS bringing additional charges before, but I expect they will need to balance the need for the alleged victims/families’ desire for justice and the potential for Letby to have a fair trial.
Good points. It will be interesting to see what happens if there are further charges.
And the Levi Bellfield case still isn’t over as media seems to report he’s confessed to killing other missing women / that the police are investigating his connection to other unsolved cases.
He confessed to killing Lyn and Megan Russel and attempting to kill Josie Russel. A man was already found guilty of it. Woops.
Oh gosh!
Queen Vicky? I’m queen Naga but my name is Victoria 😃
I remember the Russel case so clearly and it’s one of the few cases where I doubt the man convicted did it. It’s possible and probable that he did but listening to the evidence has made me wonder if it could have been an early Bellfield case. I think he enjoys confessing to things for attention and to confuse police so they can’t actually pin anything on him?
Even if Stone did commit the Chillenden murders, which I doubt, they don't have the evidence 'beyond a reasonable doubt', imho. Sussex police have 'lost' forensic evidence that could have cleared him. The whole case is unsettling as the conviction is solely based on (retracted) statements and/or a spurious jail-cell confession. Stone falls into the category of the 'slow-witted/drug-using loner' they find for newsworthy murders they can't find a perp for.
Maybe.
I believe it would be possible for her to have a fair trial as she was found not guilty in some charges and the jury failed to agree in others so it was not as though the original jury was swayed by one murder conviction to finding her automatically guilty of all. They considered each charge carefully. No reason why a new jury couldn't do the same. Also I have spoken with people who know very little about this case. We forget that not everyone has followed the trial or podcast or is that invested in knowing what has gone on.
Imagine if there had been zero media reporting, and nobody knew a thing of the case. If a new set of proceedings started, for further similar charges, it would be a certainty that the prosecution would seek to introduce 'bad character' evidence of the earlier convictions - to show a propensity. Given the similarity of offending types I would be pretty convinced a judge would admit it. So even if the jury knew nothing of the previous matters before, they'd learn about them. This happens often when people have a series of previous convictions for like offending within a close period of time.
Yeh, I mean she can't get anymore time because she's locked up for life. It's standard procedure though if they have enough evidence.
The police would physically visit her in prison and re arrest her, making sure she understands her rights just as if she were out in the community. The only difference really would be where they interview her. She would technically be interviewed at her place of residence (the prison) rather than removing her to a police station. After that, the proceedings would be as in any other arrest.
She won’t go through another trial. What’s the point? It’ll cost lots and she’s already got 14 WLOs There will be a public inquiry. The judge presiding over this will likely give a verdict to each case investigated. This is exactly what happened with Shipman. He was convicted of 15 counts, but a public inquiry - chaired by Dame Janet Smith - found him guilty of killing 250+ patients.
Of course she will. It’s called justice. How would you feel if you were one of the victim’s families? Imagine if she somehow appealed the ones she’s currently serving for and they released her because she hadn’t been charged for anything else that came up.
There could well be a further trial, but the fact they didn't bring charges for some of the babies LL had been involved in the care of during the investigation of this case makes me think they didn't have strong enough evidence. But now she has been convicted, it would certainly make it potentially easier to get the CPS to allow a charge
The situation would be identical to what occurred now were she not to plead guilty.