Mother, 38, accused of squeezing her seven-week-old baby to death is found not guilty of murder after experts said her injuries were caused during CPR at hospital
A mother accused of squeezing her baby to death has been found not guilty of murder after experts found that the infants injuries were caused during CPR in hospital.
A mother accused of squeezing her baby to death has been found not guilty of murder after experts found that the infants injuries were caused during CPR in hospital.
Laura Langley, 38, was accused of killing her seven-week-old daughter Edith after she stopped breathing at their home in Blackpool on November 20, 2020.
Edith was rushed to Blackpool Victoria Hospital after her mother dialled 999 shortly before 4am, but medics were unable to revive her and she was pronounced dead at 4:43am.
Two leading experts in pathology and bone health said that Ediths injuries were consistent with resuscitation methods used at the hospital.
Ms Langley was formally found not guilty after prosecutor Mr Cray KC offered no evidence on behalf of the Crown Prosecution Service.
A post mortem found Edith had 33 fractures to her ribs. Professor David Mangham, an expert in bone health, said the location of some of the fractures was inconsistent with having been caused during CPR.
A trial was opened in October 2023, with Ms Langley accused of causing the injuries to Edith in the days before she died.
However, significant concerns were raised over the expert evidence which formed the basis of the prosecution case.
Laura Langley (pictured) has been cleared of murdering her seven-week-old baby Edith, after experts argued that the infants wounds were consistent with being caused by CPR
Defence expert, Professor Edward McCarthy, said Ediths injuries were consistent with being caused during the CPR and also raised issues around Ediths bone density.
The jury was discharged with both experts being asked to give further consideration to the issue ahead of a new trial which was set for today, November 18, 2024.
But on the first day of the trial at Preston Crown Court Mr Cray KC formally offered no evidence against Ms Langley on behalf of the Crown Prosecution Service.
He said that in September 2024, the prosecution was made aware of a similar case in the family courts - also involving the ageing of fractures and questions over whether the injuries were deliberate.
Mr Justice Keehan, the presiding judge, made various criticisms of the methodology used by Professor Manghan.
A third expert, Professor Anthony Freeman, was also instructed to review the evidence and produce a report of his findings. He was tasked with considering the two competing expert opinions and form an opinion.
Ms Langley was found not guilty after prosecutors offered no evidence on behalf of the CPS
Presenting Professor Freemans findings, Mr Cray KC said: He rejects the principles on which the prosecution case relies.
Whilst he is critical of aspects of both professors evidence he does not agree that there is any evidence of the fractures being inflicted on any separate occasions.
He gives the opinion that the method of resuscitation used at the hospital could explain the location and distribution of the fractures. It now follows that there are two experts with great experience in relevant fields who contradict the crown.
Mr Justice Morris formally returned not guilty verdicts to all charges against Ms Langley.
He said: I understand the basis on which the prosecution has decided to offer no evidence. I therefore direct that not guilty verdicts are to be recorded. These verdicts have the same effect as if the defendant had been tried and acquitted by a jury.
