I wanted to start a discussion about the fact that we have been given so little information about LL during the trial so far. It’s a bit long!
I have to say that I have a real concern with the lack of background information being presented, and how this will play with the jury. To be clear, I’m not talking about character evidence: I don’t need to know if she volunteered at an animal charity in her spare time, or always helped her elderly neighbour with her shopping (as random examples). And I’m not necessarily talking about evidence regarding her motive for committing these crimes, if guilty. Motive is obviously something that we all would like to know about because humans are curious, and we particularly want to know why someone has done a terrible thing. I accept that you don’t necessarily need evidence of motive in order to find someone guilty of murder. If I see an accused walk up to someone in the street and shoot them in the head, killing them, I would like to know why they did that, but I don’t need to know because there is no doubt that they did it. But motive can become more important where the evidence isn’t as direct as the example above, as it can, in my opinion, help a jury to feel more comfortable with delivering a guilty verdict.
What I am talking about in this case is more the absence of the background narrative: some (if not all) of the sequence of events leading to LL’s alleged crimes.
What we have been presented with so far is a woman who historically appeared to be fairly well liked and respected by her colleagues (noting however that there are the text messages after the alleged crimes began which indicate some difficulties with the professional relationships). A woman who had worked at the same hospital for four years without apparent incident or complaint. A woman who one day in 2015 went to work as normal, and within 20 minutes of starting her shift, allegedly murdered a poorly newborn baby for the first time.
I think it is fair to say that everyone on here has at least a passing interest in true crime . We all probably know a great deal about serial killers and patterns of behaviour and escalation of crimes.
If LL is guilty, she will be one of the most prolific serial killers this country has ever seen. We all know that a serial killer doesn’t just become a serial killer one day. Even if a person has always had the urge to kill, they don’t go from 0 to 60 overnight. There are, in nearly all cases, common patterns of behaviour. It starts out with lesser crimes, and then escalates to some form of assault, and then to murder or AM.
Just to be clear, I know that crimes of passion do just happen out of the blue without necessarily any buildup in levels of aggression. For example, a couple where one has committed infidelity has an argument and the wronged party stabs the cheater during the ensuing argument in a fit of rage . I don’t think LL’s alleged crimes could be characterised as crimes of passion.
The absence to date of some sort of background narrative, or even some evidence which could contextualise the alleged crimes in terms of triggers for the behaviour (such as a period of financial difficulties, a breakdown of a romantic relationship, illness in a family member, other difficulties with family relationships, personal medical problems) is a concern.
JMO etc
)
