My underlying point, which I've been making on and off since the third page of this thread, is that this is a fact pattern that has produced miscarriages of justice in the past and it troubles me that people have moved on to speculating what motive/personality disorders she may have.
Of course it's possible they've got something rather more concrete than that in relation to one or more of the deaths, but in terms of what that could be nothing really makes sense in my mind. If she'd been virtually caught in the act then I feel like they would have done more than move her to administrative duties and only have her arrested two years after the alleged killings. The other possibility would be that they had evidence of her misappropriating drugs, but if that was in play, I would have thought it would be its own charge on the indictment. Beyond that what else could there be? There were a lot of deaths, she was around for a lot of them, the deaths seemed odd, she was a bit weird, but that's exactly the sought of circumstances and reasoning that has lead to those miscarriages of justice.
The conduct of all criminal investigations and in the UK is driven by two key pieces of legislation:
1. The Criminal Procedue and Investigations Act 1996
2. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984
There is other legislation that needs to be followed but the above are the two key protagonists.
It has previously been explained why, in such a complex investigations, it may be necessary for suspects to be arrested and released on bail or 'under investigation' more than once. This may sometimes be for extended periods of time.
The legislation is applied in all criminal investigations in England and Wales, irrespective of their seriousness.
It is not possible to comment on the veracity of the evidence against LL because it is not in the public domain, at present.
A clearer picture of the reasons for the initial concerns, the dates of concern and timelines of NHS action, prior to the police commencing enquiries, can be found in the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health Service Review.
To save me from having to copy and paste random sections, the entire document can be viewed at the link below. I would recommend the first part of the Excutive Summary form p.4 - p.8, inclusive.
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&s...FjABegQIDBAH&usg=AOvVaw2a7opvtcQ1pga-pMXzgmlB
As regards the speculation of motive/mental health/personality disorders, I think that is just human nature to speculate in such cases. Because the allegation is so disturbing we need to make sense of the 'how' and 'why'?
It must remain uppermost in our minds that LL is presumed innocent until guilt is proven, following a fair and equitable trial.