<modsnip - response to snipped portions of quoted post><modsnip - information not presented at trial>
My feeling is that while LL’s involvement is quite possible, immediately after the first babies died, no one suspected homicide, and now the case against her looks circumstantial because mostly, time has passed. Her behavior, notes and things in her house might be indicative of some unhealthy interest, but not iron-clad proof of murder. The most convincing aspect, insulin, is missing the direct connection with LL. ((
<modsnip - information not presented at trial>
I can see what you are saying about the insulin case. When first hearing the evidence on this, I thought it was the first case that seemed to be 'built around LL' rather than evidence linking to LL directly. We know the insulin cases were bought later, that they only identified them as a result of the investigation. Therefore the prosecution case relied entirely upon highlighting that LL had the 'means' and the 'opportunity' to initiate foul play.
But for the other cases the sinister picture around LL was grounded in suspicion and this suspicion came from multiple sources, including concerned members of staff, unexplained deaths and really importantly, reviewed pathology.
If a jury convict on even one other baby, they are highly likely to convict on the insulin too I'd have thought because the idea that there was more than one killer on the unit is very remote.
JMO
Last edited by a moderator: