New Yorker magazine alert thread

i think ufo is just trying to describe how media outlets in the UK are trying to comply with a contempt of court law, which was mentioned in the article: https://www.gov.uk/contempt-of-court

i think the basic principle that the media should avoid prejudicing a prominent criminal trial is worthwhile (similar laws apply in australia where i am but i can't think of any case that's been as messy as this one) but there's absolutely some inconsistency in how that seems to play out in practice, and the situation with the reporting restrictions around this case (that being that a retrial on one charge was announced a few months after the trial, which reintroduces the reporting restrictions just a few months after the verdict for the other charges was announced and the press had free rein with it for a bit) are quite unusual and i can't think of a similar situation here (though i can think of one where a prominent verdict was suppressed due to the defendant facing similar charges at another upcoming trial, and a lot of outlets were fined for breaching the order). at the very least the reporting restrictions for the retrial really should include the previously published material like the bbc documentary etc. being temporarily removed, or it would be reasonable to just give up on the idea in this case given how widely publicised the other verdicts were. the retrial being announced a few months later seems to be a weird edge case for the reporting restriction laws that produces particularly bad & messy results

re messy Australian cases might include rapey Bruce and his multiple other rapes being kept quiet

that was a somewhat different reporting restriction (it was about protecting the identity and reputation of the defendant in a sexual assault case before they were committed to stand trial) and was unambiguously bad and that particular law has since been repealed

Do people really think, even from a distance to the UK, that if contempt of court didn't exist, the UK papers would have managed to create a case against the prosecution of someone accused of murdering infants? Or that this would be a net good thing?

Even under the current law, the opposite is true. Many people accused of a serious crime are treated as guilty in the media. Given the numerous times an innocent person has been treated as guilty after being arrested, it seems the law could go further.

I'm no expert but the complication here seems to be that someone already had a trial at which they were found guilty and now another separate one is upcoming. So it seems the entire law sort of breaks in that system, as usually all the reporting happens freely once a trial is over.

One thing I will say is that a long time ago I worked in local news reporting for BBC News Online, and there was a murder trial. And after a verdict is handed down in the UK, every paper or website will write a sort of broader story of what happened, with the freedom allowed by the fact the trial is over. Especially if the person is found guilty. I had to write one of these after weeks of strictly assuming innocence until proven guilty, and reporting accordingly. In the particular case, there was no real doubt about the guilt of the person involved. But I still found it weird how we as a news organisation automatically switched our brains to 'here is the exact truth and detail of what happened, since it has now been proven by a court'. Like obv as an Irish person in the UK I find that weird. I remember talking about it here.

I still can see why it exists though, because the press would dig up everything and anything against innocent people otherwise.

In this case, I think if you read a wide range of sources about the trial, the New Yorker article omits almost any evidence that might make you think Letby could be guilty. For example the doctor who compares the trauma suffered by one of the victims to a road traffic accident. I'm not keen to dredge through all the evidence but you can find if you so wish.

I do think it seems a pretty weak case against her but I don't know what to believe about what actually happened.

yeah I broadly agree with that and after reading up a bit more, there did seem to be some cherry picking in terms of which evidence was cited in the story.

but I think it's besides the point whether she did it or not - what the story highlights is that there were serious issues with the methodology and evidence used to determine her guilt, as well as the surrounding circumstances of the unit, which were largely ignored and suggests an unsafe conviction.

The only witnesses Myers called were the hospital’s plumber, who spoke about unsanitary conditions, and Letby, who testified for fourteen days.

This seems insane.

Agree, Roz.

I had vaguely heard of the Letby case before reading this article, but yeah it raises a whole lot of questions. Unless she's excluding really damning testimony, it just doesn't sound like there was any evidence other than her presence. In a lot of the cases it sounds like other people were there so it's a little hard to see how she would have just slipped in, inserted an air embolism or insulin without anyone noticing anything strange at all. And also the way they added the insulin charges in, mostly on the basis of some scattered results that they only started looking for once they already decided something suspicious was going on.

I've spent a lot of time in neonatal ICUs. Both of my sons were born prematurely, one of them at 27 weeks and spent 3 months in the NICU before coming home. Of course, my experience was in the U.S. at a seemingly well-funded hospital, but even there I saw how hectic things could be in the unit when there were multiple high-needs babies all at once. Also, babies died there regularly, there were at least three in the three months we were there every day. And we did experience some arguable negligence too, with a gram negative bacterial outbreak that made several babies sick and was almost certainly spread by nurses taking insufficient care. BUT — the work they were doing was extremely difficult, and premature infants are just about the most vulnerable and fragile class of patients you can imagine.

I don't know, it all just feels so circumstantial and "statistical" (except probably not really very statistical) to be trying to charge somebody in such a complex environment. One thing I thought was, who's going to want to work in a NICU after all this?

Do people really think, even from a distance to the UK, that if contempt of court didn't exist, the UK papers would have managed to create a case against the prosecution of someone accused of murdering infants? Or that this would be a net good thing?

what’s the explanation for why an american magazine was able to craft such a case then? skill issue? something about the american temperament?

it’s literally unpublishable in the uk

i though that’s what “if contempt of court didn’t exist” was conditioning out

But most readers in Britain trying to read it online have been met with an error message: “Oops. Our apologies. This is, almost certainly, not the page you were looking for.”

The New Yorker said it had “geo-blocked” the article for audiences in Britain to avoid clashing with a court order restricting media coverage of the case.

The court order stems from Britain’s 1981 contempt-of-court law, which bans the publication of any reporting and commentary that could prejudice legal proceedings.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/style/media/2024/05/16/lucy-letby-new-yorker-story-blocked/

i interpreted LG as saying even if Britain didn’t have contempt of court, they wouldn’t have written a case against the prosecution like the nyer piece. so i’m wondering what other factors beyond legal restrictions would stop them from writing such a piece

what’s the explanation for why an american magazine was able to craft such a case then? skill issue? something about the american temperament?

― flopson, Thursday, May 16, 2024 2:02 PM (twenty-four minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

there is not a good one IMO. the UK doesn't do long form investigate printed journalism like the New Yorker, but it does do 60 minutes style TV investigations. there's no good reason an American writer (who is not an investigative journalist and usually writes features/essays about psychiatry!) could pull this off, but panorama couldn't, other than the law.

(and a culture that is unusually viscous and red misty about certain kinds of criminal acts, even at the "high" end)

(who is not an investigative journalist and usually writes features/essays about psychiatry!)

don't mean to imply this is not aviv's "beat" and/or she his not a good writer. it is/she is. more that there are literal teams of investigative journalists much more familiar with this case in the UK would could just as easily have written a similar story if it weren't for the law.

I think it's plausible to say that getting rid of the UK's contempt of court restrictions on the media would be a net negative for people accused (possibly wrongly) accused of emotive crimes, even if in this particular case it might have drawn more/earlier attention to weaknesses in the prosecution case?

i think the contempt of court law is a bit of a red herring - as soon as the trial is over, the law doesn't apply anymore, right? presumably if somebody in the UK press was interested in poking holes they could have published a piece as soon as the first trial was over - which is when the BBC documentary was published.

But I still found it weird how we as a news organisation automatically switched our brains to 'here is the exact truth and detail of what happened, since it has now been proven by a court'.

i made the mistake of wandering over to the subreddit on this case and apparently a bunch of posts by americans are getting deleted because "Verdicts in Lucy Letby's trial are fact and are law unless and until an appeal is granted. r/lucyletby respects the work of the jury and accepts their conclusions. We do not permit re-litigating of the verdicts rendered by the jury."

idk how common this attitude is in the UK? if it is widespread that definitely seems weird and bad to me. courts are very much flawed institutions as are the trials they oversee.

LG made the point upthread but yeah having seen this piece (and perhaps like many just kinda 'shutting down' on this story so early at the time) I got whiplash back on the Guardian with their 'she murdered babies, jury said so' attitude in their most recent coverage.

(and a culture that is unusually viscous and red misty about certain kinds of criminal acts, even at the "high" end)

― 𝔠𝔞𝔢𝔨 (caek), Thursday, May 16, 2024 6:32 PM (one hour ago) bookmarkflaglink

This is fundamental I think - like you can run investigative 'Letby - a miscarriage of justice?' pieces/tv stuff properly 10-15 years down the line but blood frenzy for child killers is constitutive of the UK public sphere - the mutual public-press red mist is worse than you'd imagine if you don't see it day to day. Combination of laziness, groupthink and fear mean that even the ahem 'fiercely independent' voices (you, guardian) fall in line.

To be the person writing a UK article saying 'Looks more like a statistical anomaly than a baby killer', that would need courage.

Yeah courts are flawed institutions ofc but the reporting restrictions exist so people aren’t, supposedly, swayed by media opinions and are instead deciding based on what’s presented in court. If you need a modern day example of why that might matter to the outcome of a case, you can Google “why does Amber Heard live in Spain now”.

Contempt of court also has the effect of preventing this kind of bullshit, which can lead to mistrials.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48869040.amp

Contempt of court laws exist to ensure people get fair trials. The idea is that juries must not be influenced by anything but the evidence they hear in court.

If someone interferes with a trial, the defendants can walk free and a new trial might have to be held.

This is fundamental I think - like you can run investigative 'Letby - a miscarriage of justice?' pieces/tv stuff properly 10-15 years down the line but blood frenzy for child killers is constitutive of the UK public sphere - the mutual public-press red mist is worse than you'd imagine if you don't see it day to day.

Exactly - I reckon you could _still_ say something like 'I feel sorry for Louise Woodward' in the wrong place and get lamped.

tbc I'm nowhere on guilt/innocence of Letby, but after the NYer piece it looks like a dodgy trial.

If there are problems with this case it definitely seems to me to be mostly a matter of bad or lazy behavior by investigators, prosecutors and defense counsel — not because of the press restrictions. It's just that those press restrictions look weird to people used to seeing American trial coverage.

On the question of whether media coverage can influence juries, obviously it can, and U.S. courts take precautions about that that rely to significant degree on an honor system — jurors refraining from reading/watching the coverage or talking about the case. There are potential problems with that, but that's just one of the trade-offs for having strong constitutional press protections. (On paper, at least.) And as far as problems with the American media go, the potential of its coverage to prejudice juries is pretty far down the list, it does a lot worse things than that.

I honestly think I’d kill myself if I was on trial and the press had the right to film it but there you go. Cultural differences.

tbh, the idea that juries are boy scouts and refrain from considering any information about a case other than what's presented in court is one of the biggest legal fictions there is in today's world where everybody has in their pocket a tiny computer connected to the internet at lightning speeds at all times.

i definitely understand what the UK's contempt of court law is trying to accomplish, but for TMZ-type stories like this it's a lost cause. it probably worked better 50 years ago.

Like most things, the laws are always behind technology.

I honestly think I’d kill myself if I was on trial and the press had the right to film it but there you go.

fwiw the rules on actually filming are variable and mostly up to the judges and courts. The Supreme Court doesn't allow any filming, and state and local courts often leave it up to judicial discretion. Where I live, the media have to apply ahead of time to bring cameras into a courtroom, and the assorted parties are allowed to object. But there's generally no restriction on what from inside the courtroom can be reported outside of it.

But for sure, there are plenty of defendants who would prefer less coverage.

I was a witness in a trial recently and was being asked questions by two different people, one of whom was the judge, it’s an intimidating atmosphere even in low profile cases like that one was, and that was just being a witness.

filming in US courtrooms is pretty rare

it's why we have such delightful courtroom sketch artists

Federal courts don't even let you bring in cell phones. My least favorite courts to cover.

Rules vary. I had a witness in federal court in LA who thought she had turned her cell phone off when the judge admonished everyone to silence their phones. Her phone rang anyway and the judge sanctioned her $100 from the bench in the middle of the hearing, on the record.

Courts are generally open to the public by default. However, a person can apply for a protective order to seal the courtroom. The burden for convincing a judge that the courtroom should be sealed is extremely high because of the presumption of accessibility under the First Amendment. But court proceedings or portions of them can be sealed for extraordinary reasons, including preventing undue prejudice or embarrassment to a person or disclosure of state secrets or proprietary information.

idk how common this attitude is in the UK? if it is widespread that definitely seems weird and bad to me. courts are very much flawed institutions as are the trials they oversee.

i've seen this attitude a lot on twitter, even from lefty brits who i would have expected to be better than that. just expressing scepticism about the case was considered by many to be unthinkable, disgusting, etc. which was very strange

I wonder if that has anything to do with the embargo on serious investigative journalism of the case!! I’m literally pounding my head on my desk over here lol. different strokes etc

"there is not a good one IMO. the UK doesn't do long form investigate printed journalism like the New Yorker"

Think its an American genre. The Sunday Times and several other broadsheets used to have investigative desks but idk what the state of those is, these days...and those things don't have literary pretensions.

The only thing comparable in recent times was the LRB digging into Grenfell, which turned out to be a disaster.

some of this was not long after the verdict (when there weren't any reporting restrictions) and was just in response to some people on twitter raising red flags they noticed in the reported details of the case, some of it has been now in response to the new yorker article which they had read

my general impression of the uk press is that i don't think there's anywhere that would be running such a piece anytime soon, even if they were allowed?

the press has to stay broken to cover for the broken justice system to cover for the broken NHS neonatal ward

we do all this stuff here in the US, just not necessarily in this particular way

Right I know these people got blitzed by UK lawyers but I promised oomf a thread, so I’ll give a thread on Lucy Letby & why American lawyers need to actually either (1) stay in their lane or (2) actually do some research on the English criminal law system before commenting. 🧵 https://t.co/oU5Yp5Q4zP pic.twitter.com/nf2TNvRMMg

— Renée Nova 🌌 (@slagmaxxing) May 17, 2024

incredible thread lmao

look we don’t really do defendant rights here stop steamrolling us

fwiw I welcome British or any other nationality reporters to write long articles about American miscarriages of justice, we have plenty to go around.

"they've seen more facts and evidence"

yeah the articles mentioned how the presented evidence had statistics that showed a correlation that didn't mention how often deaths occurred on other shifts and whether it was an outlier. it's not about guilt per se, it's about the fact there was little contradictory evidence introduced, partially due to the rules and procedures

both the UK and the US do institutional culpability incredibly poorly. some countries, supervisors would be in a lot of trouble now

I don't know English or American trial law well enough to feel I really have a handle on all of this, but it's been strange watching left-liberal UK twitter people who spend most of their time posting about how Britain is the worst country on earth suddenly turn into Bob Hoskins ranting about yanks at the end of The Long Good Friday over this story

yeah sorry it really does seem like a bunch of unhinged people telling us their system is perfect when this poor woman is clearly innocent

I don't think she's clearly innocent. I think what the New Yorker article shows is the evidence wasn't strong enough to convict. That's not quite the same thing. The article itself has some inconsistencies. On the one hand, it implies the cluster of deaths could be attributed to the fact that the unit was severely under resourced and chaotically run. But then it also implies that the cluster might not need any causal explanation, it might be truly random. Those two ideas aren't necessarily compatible.

That thread is so hilarious. It’s like if non-Americans were saying “Wtf, in America you might execute someone even if there’s evidence of innocence that was beer presented to a jury” and Americans were like “Stay in your lane! These are THE RULES.”

xp

They could certainly be compatible if the stresses of understaffing and resources made conditions that could produce such a cluster of deaths more likely. i.e., the cluster almost certainly wasn't actually random, but that doesn't necessarily mean one person was going around doing murder.

max says the contempt of court laws are good actually https://maxread.substack.com/p/the-point-of-ai-is-to-talk-to-a-cool

i've seen this attitude a lot on twitter, even from lefty brits who i would have expected to be better than that. just expressing scepticism about the case was considered by many to be unthinkable, disgusting, etc. which was very strange

I wonder if that has anything to do with the embargo on serious investigative journalism of the case!! I’m literally pounding my head on my desk over here lol. different strokes etc

And again, having spent way more time than I wanted to in a NICU, I just can't overemphasize how vulnerable and fragile they are, especially the smallest/youngest ones who it sounds like made up most of the deaths in this case. Our son was born at 27 weeks and 2.25 pounds — 1 kg — and he was one of larger babies on his unit. And even for him, we'd just be sitting there watching him and suddenly his oxygen would just start plummeting and the machine would start a terrifying beeping and the nurses would hustle over to adjust his breathing tube or oxygen flow. It's a real scientific marvel that so many super-preemies do survive now, but many of them still don't. Just seems like an odd thing to try to build a murder case around. BUT WHO KNOWS. Maybe she did it. It just doesn't sound like there's much evidence.

I don't think she's clearly innocent. I think what the New Yorker article shows is the evidence wasn't strong enough to convict. That's not quite the same thing. The article itself has some inconsistencies. On the one hand, it implies the cluster of deaths could be attributed to the fact that the unit was severely under resourced and chaotically run. But then it also implies that the cluster might not need any causal explanation, it might be truly random. Those two ideas aren't necessarily compatible.