UK - Nurse Lucy Letby Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #2

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
I would hope that given the predicted extraordinary length of this trial, the judge will appoint some reserve jurors for good measure. It's not the kind of trial anyone would want to have to repeat, if jurors have to unexpectedly drop out.
 
Marantz4250b said:
We still have no clue as to how the prosecution specifically allege that LL committed these crimes. I was thinking more about the dates relating to them, particularly in relation to the triplets I mentioned the other day. Two of the murder allegations on consecutive days relate to two of the triplets. There is an attempted murder charge on the third day.

When you look at the whole timeline it appears that the prosecution are suggesting that she was completely out of control, a rampaging psychopath of a woman who was attacking babies day after day at times. One would think that this demonstrates a very high risk of being caught while doing it. I wonder, then, whether the allegation is actually going to be one of tampering with medication or machines, rather than physically attacking the victims herself? A single act of adulterating a batch of medication which took only a few minutes could have ramifications lasting days or weeks into the future.
Click to expand...

The thing that struck me as odd from the previous thread was that several of the murder charges were said to have occurred within a period of multiple days, so they couldn't narrow down when the alleged attack happened.
 
Supernovae said:
The thing that struck me as odd from the previous thread was that several of the murder charges were said to have occurred within a period of multiple days, so they couldn't narrow down when the alleged attack happened.
Click to expand...
For a murder charge it's the date of death not the date of the act isn't it? So they don't know what day some babies died??
 
Bakers said:
For a murder charge it's the date of death not the date of the act isn't it? So they don't know what day some babies died??
Click to expand...

If there was a suspicion that she had, say, tampered with medication, then perhaps the range of dates might represent the time between her last being on duty (and therefore in a position to have acted to cause a death) and the death itself.

Just speculating.
 
Supernovae said:
The thing that struck me as odd from the previous thread was that several of the murder charges were said to have occurred within a period of multiple days, so they couldn't narrow down when the alleged attack happened.
Click to expand...

This could suggest that they are alleging that she tampered with medicines or equipment, perhaps prior to them being used to treat the victims? If, for instance, the allegation is that she adulterated a drip that wasn't used for several days and when it was it was in place over two dates then the allegation might be that the crime didn't start until it was used and was ongoing over those dates.

It could also mean that they are alleging that she did something but that they can't pin it down to a specific date for whatever reason so are giving a range of dates. Maybe it was a course of action over several dates which amounts to the crime when taken together?
 
This is making me wonder - hypothetically - if you tampered with medication with the intention of causing death or injury, but not with a particular victim in mind, just whichever patient the medication ended up being used on, would that still be murder? Or would it be manslaughter? Do you have to have a victim in mind for it to meet the requirement of premeditation?
 
JuicyLucy said:
This is making me wonder - hypothetically - if you tampered with medication with the intention of causing death or injury, but not with a particular victim in mind, just whichever patient the medication ended up being used on, would that still be murder? Or would it be manslaughter? Do you have to have a victim in mind for it to meet the requirement of premeditation?
Click to expand...
You don't need to have any particular victim in mind in order to be convicted of murder or attempted murder. For the former you don't even need to have an intention to kill. They only need to demonstrate that you caused GBH from which the victim died.

The attempted murder charges are perhaps much more interesting than the murder ones. The prosecution need to prove that she had a specific intention to cause death in order to convict her. I am totally baffled as to how they have that level of evidence given that they didn't even start investigating until at least two years after the first alleged offence and didn't charge her until more than five years after the first alleged offence! Proving the intent in someone's mind at any given point is notoriously hard unless they admit it - which she clearly hasn't. Proving such things more than half a decade later seems to be almost beyond credibility.
 
Marantz4250b said:
The attempted murder charges are perhaps much more interesting than the murder ones. The prosecution need to prove that she had a specific intention to cause death in order to convict her.
Click to expand...

If that's the case, the attempted murder charges would seem to rule out indiscriminate tampering with medication or equipment then, or every baby that was ever in that unit from the day she arrived to the day she was suspended could in principle be on the list of attempted murder victims.
 
Marantz4250b said:
This could suggest that they are alleging that she tampered with medicines or equipment, perhaps prior to them being used to treat the victims? If, for instance, the allegation is that she adulterated a drip that wasn't used for several days and when it was it was in place over two dates then the allegation might be that the crime didn't start until it was used and was ongoing over those dates.

It could also mean that they are alleging that she did something but that they can't pin it down to a specific date for whatever reason so are giving a range of dates. Maybe it was a course of action over several dates which amounts to the crime when taken together?
Click to expand...

It should also be noted that murder could be the result of an omission on the part of a defendant. However, it would need to be shown that the victim would have lived but for the omission, which maybe somewhat more difficult to prove in a neo-natal setting.
 
JuicyLucy said:
If that's the case, the attempted murder charges would seem to rule out indiscriminate tampering with medication or equipment then, or every baby that was ever in that unit from the day she arrived to the day she was suspended could in principle be on the list of attempted murder victims.
Click to expand...
Possibly, but there is no value in bringing those charges; the list of potential victims would be absolutely enormous and completely unmanageable. In addition, I'd imagine that all manner of esoteric legal argument would ensue as regards her actual intention towards people who, in the event, ended up suffering no harm. if you tampered with a medicine which you knew almost certainly wasn't going to be used for, say, a week then is a person who is likely to be discharged in three days a potential subject of your intent? Similarly, is someone who hasn't even been admitted yet a target of your intentions?

Indiscriminate tampering isn't ruled out by these charges, they've just brought charges in the cases of victims which were actually hurt by her actions. IF that really is what they are accusing her of doing, obviously. Like I say, I'm still quite baffled as to how they have adduced evidence of her state of mind several years after the events.
 
Whitehall 1212 said:
It should also be noted that murder could be the result of an omission on the part of a defendant. However, it would need to be shown that the victim would have lived but for the omission, which maybe somewhat more difficult to prove in a neo-natal setting.
Click to expand...
This is a very good point. Murder by omission, though, is an exceptionally rare thing to prove, as far as I'm aware. Also, it doesn't apply to most people as the defendant has to have a special relationship of care/guardianship over the victim. I'm sure that a nurse would meet that criteria but I don't know how specific it would need to be. I mean, would it only apply if the victim in question was the specific responsibility of the defendant such as being specifically recorded as being under their care?
 
Whitehall 1212 said:
It should also be noted that murder could be the result of an omission on the part of a defendant. However, it would need to be shown that the victim would have lived but for the omission, which maybe somewhat more difficult to prove in a neo-natal setting.
Click to expand...
Sorry for the daft question could you explain omission pls in simple man's turns
 
Marantz4250b said:
You don't need to have any particular victim in mind in order to be convicted of murder or attempted murder. For the former you don't even need to have an intention to kill. They only need to demonstrate that you caused GBH from which the victim died.

The attempted murder charges are perhaps much more interesting than the murder ones. The prosecution need to prove that she had a specific intention to cause death in order to convict her. I am totally baffled as to how they have that level of evidence given that they didn't even start investigating until at least two years after the first alleged offence and didn't charge her until more than five years after the first alleged offence! Proving the intent in someone's mind at any given point is notoriously hard unless they admit it - which she clearly hasn't. Proving such things more than half a decade later seems to be almost beyond credibility.
Click to expand...

Proving the mental element of intent is a great deal easier with enlightening resources such as search history on computers, mobile devices and from service providers.

Other documentary evidence, particularly in a 'professional' context, witness evidence, together with well-planned interview questions can close off many avenues of reasonable explanation for action/inaction by the suspect.
 
Last edited:
Whitehall 1212 said:
Proving the mental element of intent is a great deal easier with enlightening resources such as search history on computers, mobile devices and service providers.

Other documentary evidence, particularly in a 'professional' context, witness evidence, together with well-planned interview questions can close off many avenues of reasonable explanation for action/inaction by the suspect.
Click to expand...

Will be interesting to see if any relevant search history on any devices as part of the evidence
 
Bakers said:
Sorry for the daft question could you explain omission pls in simple man's turns
Click to expand...

No question is daft :)

Omission in this context would be not providing a clinical intervention in the knowledge that failing to do so would cause death or serious harm.

This is a step up from negligence, in that the intent to cause death or serious harm would need to be proven, as with all murder convictions.

My assessment is that knowledge of the need for intervention would be much easier to prove in relation to a defendant acting in their professional capacity.
 
Last edited:
I don’t know if this has been mentioned in the previous thread. I feel it’s important to note that not every baby admitted to neonatal is ‘sick’, my friends just had a baby, full-term, despite originally being told baby’s obs were fine and a neonatal admission wasn’t necessary. 12hrs later the parents were told baby would have to go to neonatal after all. No change in obs, no deterioration, baby was only admitted because of medications the mother takes, the hospital wanted to be sure the baby wasn’t suffering withdrawal.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 171 more.
Total: 4,596 (members: 172, guests: 4,424)

Online statistics

Members online
172
Guests online
4,424
Total visitors
4,596
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,376
Messages
17,968,189
Members
228,761
Latest member
buggy8993
Back
Top