Rebecca Leighton charges dropped

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BBC

Charges have been dropped against a nurse accused of contaminating saline at Stockport's Stepping Hill Hospital.

Rebecca Leighton, 27, of Heaviley, was arrested by police investigating the deaths of several patients in July.

Greater Manchester Police have revealed they are investigating 40 cases of contamination including seven deaths.

Prosecutors said there had not been "sufficient evidence" for whether the case could go ahead. Miss Leighton said she had been "living in hell".

---

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/image...5cb497cf1a.jpg

What do you make of this? The only evidence they had was her fingerprints on one of contaminated saline packets. This wasn't enough to go through so she has been let free. Didn't it stop when she got arrested? :S

Well this is a very interesting situation. They can't hold her any longer I am assuming because the CPS have
come to the conclusion that they would not get a conviction on the 'evidence' they have. There is no reason she can't be re-arrested if further evidence comes to light. It could be a 'fishing expedition to see what she does next. On the other hand it could be contaminated saline that has been delivered to the hospital by a supplier. It will nevertheless be worth keeping up with developments on this story.

They must be at a loss of what to do. Yesterday this was the main BBC story and today one of the main stories they are running with is that the police have now decided to interview 500 more people. You would have thought they could have been doing this when they arrested Rebecca. It makes you think they must have been stone certain that they had who they thought was guilty. Rebecca released this through her family solicitor:

Quote:

---

"I''ve been in a living hell and was locked up in prison for something I had not done.

"It was so frustrating for me knowing that the person who actually carried out these terrible acts is still out there.

"My life has been turned upside-down. All I ever wanted to do was to pursue a profession in nursing and care for my patients."

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -Lava-

They must be at a loss of what to do. Yesterday this was the main BBC story and today one of the main stories they are running with is that the police have now decided to interview 500 more people. You would have thought they could have been doing this when they arrested Rebecca. It makes you think they must have been stone certain that they had who they thought was guilty. Rebecca released this through her family solicitor:

---

Yes, I can see that although Dr. Shipman said virtually the same thing even when convicted. We are talking about a different breed of people here if she is guilty. I am also sure they have never stopped investigating this.

Disgusting, she has been in custody since July.

The Police should not be able to detain anybody under any circumstances for more than a period of 24 hours.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

Disgusting, she has been in custody since July.

The Police should not be able to detain anybody under any circumstances for more than a period of 24 hours.

---

In that case Dan, many, many serial killers would have carried on killing for a lot longer in this country. There has to be a bit of common sense here. How on earth could the police be expected to get unequivical evidence within 24 hours. Forensics take way more time than this. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catzsy

In that case Dan, many, many serial killers would have carried on killing for a lot longer in this country. There has to be a bit of common sense here. How on earth could the police be expected to get unequivical evidence within 24 hours. Forensics take way more time than this. :)

---

Then they shouldn't be arrested until enough evidence is found. Where is the line to be drawn? we can hold people under the vague 'terrorism' charges here (42 days) in this country for longer than they do in Zimbabwe (a week). If the Police are unable to find sufficent evidence within 24 hours of an arrest being made, which is only supposed to be made when sufficent evidence is found anyway, then there is no valid reason to keep somebody locked up. I am very sure that the Police in this case itself would have wanted another week, or another week ontop of that - the line should be drawn at 24 hours. Otherwise you go on a very slippery slope as we are with the example above.

It reminds me of this saying which I do love,

Quote:

---

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

Then they shouldn't be arrested until enough evidence is found. Where is the line to be drawn? we can hold people under the vague 'terrorism' charges here (42 days) in this country for longer than they do in Zimbabwe (a week). If the Police are unable to find sufficent evidence within 24 hours of an arrest being made, which is only supposed to be made when sufficent evidence is found anyway, then there is no valid reason to keep somebody locked up. I am very sure that the Police in this case itself would have wanted another week, or another week ontop of that - the line should be drawn at 24 hours. Otherwise you go on a very slippery slope as we are with the example above.

---

A very, very niave way at looking at this problem, Dan. The police have the responsibility to protect the public from potentially very dangerous people. 24 hours is nowhere long enough. Her remand would have been dealt with by more than one judge who are probably in a better position to judge the facts of the case then any of us can assume. Also if her defence team had thought it terrible injustice they could have presented bail applications whenever they wanted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catzsy

A very, very niave way at looking at this problem, Dan. The police have the responsibility to protect the public from potentially very dangerous people. 24 hours is nowhere long enough. Her remand would have been dealt with by more than one judge who are probably in a better position to judge the facts of the case then any of us can assume. Also if her defence team had thought it terrible injustice they could have presented bail applications whenever they wanted.

---

Please don't give me that nonsense, you people on the left don't give a figs leaf about 'protecting the public' - you've trashed our civil liberties in the name of 'protecting us' from crime whilst at the same time allowing dangerous offenders out early. You've trashed our civil liberties under the guise of 'terrorism' when infact terrorism is only a very small threat to this country which is fuelled by our foreign adventures overseas (which you support) - yet now you're telling me this is for 'my safety'?

If the Police asked for another week under your argument, you'd have no problem with it - do you want to end up like continental European countries where people can be held without being charged for months and months upon end even going into years? I suspect you do.

But just wait until its you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

Please don't give me that nonsense, you people on the left don't give a figs leaf about 'protecting the public' - you've trashed our civil liberties in the name of 'protecting us' from crime whilst at the same time allowing dangerous offenders out early. You've trashed our civil liberties under the guise of 'terrorism' when infact terrorism is only a very small threat to this country which is fuelled by our foreign adventures overseas (which you support) - yet now you're telling me this is for 'my safety'?

If the Police asked for another week under your argument, you'd have no problem with it - do you want to end up like continental European countries where people can be held without being charged for months and months upon end even going into years? I suspect you do.

But just wait until its you.

---

Hey, I am not amused that again you have made this personal against me as being a member 'of the left' and assuming what I am and what I think. Who the heck do you think you are Dan telling me what I am and what I think?:@:@:@ You have no clue about me as an individual as I have none about you. As it happens this has nothing to do with my political views but that I have gained a deeper insight into this sort of situation having worked in a Barristers Chambers
for many weeks this summer. My view is that they should only be kept for as long as it warrants it but as I said before 24 hours is nowhere near long enough to gather evidence that is all.