I still fear they've got the charges wrong.
I can't get away from the thought that to prove a parent abandoned their children it seems logical to me that you need to show the children are alive and suffering that abandonment - not receiving food, clothing, shelter, education, medical attention.
What would happen if the defense is that she believes the children are deceased? I don't think there is anything making her explain why she thinks that.
I don't think the defence can make that argument without collapsing their own case.
Why does she believe the children are deceased? How does she know it? What chain of events led to their deaths? Will she take the stand and say this?
I don't think it's right to level charges to get around a situation, if that makes sense. For instance she has apparently told someone that Tylee is deceased. She's told people that the children were zombies and that zombies needed to die. She's told people she has no minor children. I think there is enough for two no body murder trials, with the other deaths around them, the doctrines and the testimony of MG, with all the other circumstantial evidence of possessing their phone/iPad/bank card, getting rid of JJ's support systems.
MOO
I agree this is where it is heading, but that is why I see these charges more as a trap for the defence.
If the defence starts arguing that LV believes the kids are dead, that is disastrous for any murder defence.
If she tries any active defence, it begins to trap her into a false version. If she claims they are dead and therefore not abandoned, it admits knowledge of death.