Someone is killing hospital patients

[wadey]

CPS decide who is charged not the Police

[Mancie]

Originally Posted by gynn

So the nurse who was arrested, charged and named by police, has now had all charges against her dropped. It seems that the evidence that they thought would prove her guilt has not emerged.

So why was she arrested? Why was she charged? Why was she named?

Either they know she is guilty and they just can't put the evidence together to justify charging her.....

..or they were never sure about her guilt but charged her just the same. If so, why? Did they act on gossip and tittle tattle? Were they under pressure to charge someone, regardless of evidence of guilt? Was she a soft option, possibly arrested because someone had a grudge against her?

The police and hospital authorities have some important questions to answer. They owe it to the families of the deceased.

Good post...I'll be honest and say that I (and I reckon most people) thought she was the culprit simply because she had been charged by the police ..for the CPS to drop all charges and not be challenged says this nurse is innocent.. and like she has said there is still a killer out there.

[Mancie]

Originally Posted by wadey

CPS decide who is charged not the Police

Wrong way round mate..the Police make the charge then the CPS decide on the evidence wether or not the accused goes to court

[phil8715]

I don't actually think the drips were tampered with. I think it was a manufacturing fault. It's possible they were contaminated on the production line.

Maybe they were just unlucky and it didn't detect anything till patients died. And of course a few deaths pointed to the drips and automatically thought one of the nursing staff was tampering with the drips.



If this nurse is provided innocent cue the big compensation payout.

[Mancie]

Originally Posted by phil8715

I don't actually think the drips were tampered with. I think it was a manufacturing fault. It's possible they were contaminated on the production line.

Maybe they were just unlucky and it didn't detect anything till patients died. And of course a few deaths pointed to the drips and automatically thought one of the nursing staff was tampering with the drips.



If this nurse is provided innocent cue the big compensation payout.

No matter what the amount of "payout" this nurse may or may not get money is not the factor here.. this lady has been banged up,slagged off and as we have seen very many times hammered by the press..I've admitted I had her guilty by the fact she was charged... what sort of future working life has this women got?... her world has been ripped up by incompetent police seeking anyone who fits the crime.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by Mancie

I've admitted I had her guilty by the fact she was charged.

You wouldn't have been alone.

Since it was a widely reported story, I guess she now feels lucky it didn't go to trial, if people already had her marked down as guilty.

She probably feels luckier still that we no longer have the death penalty, seeing how close she came to standing trial for murder.

We should all remember the most basic concept of British law, that someone should be assumed to be innocent, until proven otherwise.

Despite what the press have decided to report.

[Tealeaf]

I think the comment from the CPS is interesting. I quote:

'... Miss Leighton had been charged on the basis there was "reasonable suspicion she had committed the offences and there were reasonable grounds for believing the continuing investigation would provide further evidence within a reasonable amount of time.....when we make a decision on this basis, it would be wrong of us to keep a suspect in custody indefinitely without keeping a very close eye on what evidence is emerging and whether objections to bail can be justified....the inquiries, which are still ongoing, have not so far provided us with a stronger case which would meet the test that there is sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction. This is the test all cases must meet for a prosecution to go ahead."

You can infer from this (that to borrow the Scottish legal term) that it is so far, a case of 'guilt not proven' at least as far as the CPS is concerned. Certainly, the evidence collected - namely, her prints on a tampered saline drip bag is a long, long way off 'owt that would stand up in court so you start to wonder if the Manchester cops banged her up simply as a precautionary measure rather as a precursor of an actual prosecution. In which case, what else was done to stop further criminal acts?

[gynn]

The physical evidence of tampered test tubes is one thing, but what about the extensive interviewing of the suspect by experienced police officers and criminal psychologists, who would surely have come to some conclusions by now about her guilt or innocence?

Are we being told that nothing that she has said in these interviews, nor her whole demeanour and behaviour, has led the interviewers to be satisfied as to her guilt? If they had the slightest suspicion of her guilt, surely that would justify her continued custody.

[Tealeaf]

Unfortunately, criminal psychology is not an exact science; forensic evidence is. If – as is reported the only evidence so far is one print on one drip bag, then that would simply not stand as the basis for successful prosecution. I would have assume that the exercise facing the cops is to go through the staff rotas and work out exactly who was where and when over the period the crimes were committed (assuming, of course, that the drips were contaminated within the hospital and not at some point prior). In addition, because hospitals are relatively ‘open’ institutions, it is possible that these crimes were committed by visitors or even by another patient (don’t know over what time the crimes were done). On top of all this, they will probably be interviewing surviving victims to see if they can possibly recall who may have may have been around their bedside and been in a position to play around with the drips.

There’s a long way to go on this yet and I for one am certainly a long way from being convinced of the guilt of this young lady.

[jaysay]

Originally Posted by garinda

You wouldn't have been alone.

Since it was a widely reported story, I guess she now feels lucky it didn't go to trial, if people already had her marked down as guilty.

She probably feels luckier still that we no longer have the death penalty, seeing how close she came to standing trial for murder.

We should all remember the most basic concept of British law, that someone should be assumed to be innocent, until proven otherwise.

Despite what the press have decided to report.

Think its time to stop naming people who are accused of a crime until they are found guilty, the have been numerous cases in the past especially Rape case where a man has had malicious complaints against him and has been found not guilty, whereas the mans name has been blacken whilst the woman retains anonymity throughout, this is totally wrong because as we all know mud sticks

[Margaret Pilkington]

Originally Posted by phil8715

I don't actually think the drips were tampered with. I think it was a manufacturing fault. It's possible they were contaminated on the production line.

Maybe they were just unlucky and it didn't detect anything till patients died. And of course a few deaths pointed to the drips and automatically thought one of the nursing staff was tampering with the drips.



If this nurse is provided innocent cue the big compensation payout.

it would be impossible for intravenous solutions to be contaminated by insulin on the production line...unless it was done deliberately.

Intravenous fluid could be contaminated in other ways on the production line by a production fault.

[Margaret Pilkington]

This nurse whose face has been splashed all over the papers, and whose lifestyle has been subject to criticism, will find it very difficult to find work again.....despite the fact that the case against her was unproven.

[Tealeaf]

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington

This nurse whose face has been splashed all over the papers, and whose lifestyle has been subject to criticism, will find it very difficult to find work again.....despite the fact that the case against her was unproven.

Unless, of course, someone else is arrested, charged, brought before the courts and found guilty. In which case she should get a nice little payout from GMPS plus a few quid from a newspaper story and she should then be able to resume her career without a blemish to her name.

It was not that long ago that a landlord from Bristol was arrested and questioned over the death of a young, female architect who was one of his tenants. He was so weird looking that the press automatically assumed guilt. The real culprit was the victim's neighbour - now banged up - but the landlord is in line for a nice little payout from practically every major national newspaper for personal damages.

[jaysay]

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington

This nurse whose face has been splashed all over the papers, and whose lifestyle has been subject to criticism, will find it very difficult to find work again.....despite the fact that the case against her was unproven.

Although she's been cleared she's still on the nursing black list

[gynn]

Originally Posted by Tealeaf

It was not that long ago that a landlord from Bristol was arrested and questioned over the death of a young, female architect who was one of his tenants. He was so weird looking that the press automatically assumed guilt. The real culprit was the victim's neighbour - now banged up - but the landlord is in line for a nice little payout from practically every major national newspaper for personal damages.

That was a classic case of the press putting two and two together and getting five. They delved into his past and printed school photos and everything. However weird he looked, the poor bloke deserves every penny he gets in damages!