UK - Healthcare worker arrested on suspicion of murder/attempted murder of a number of babies, 2018

[Bakers]

I know what you are saying but can you see someone accused of that many murders and attempted murders being granted absolutely not

 

[Whitehall 1212]

I know what you are saying but can you see someone accused of that many murders and attempted murders being granted absolutely not

The considerations for bail being granted are explained below. In light of the specific setting of the allegations and the ages of the victims it may be that there is no further risk to others by granting bail. Any new bail decision may be seen as an indicator as to the strength of the evidence against LL.


The Bail Act 1976

When assessing whether to grant bail, courts must – under the Bail Act 1976 (BA 1976) – start with the presumption that an accused should be granted bail, unless there is a justified reason to refuse it.

The court will consider:

• the nature and seriousness of the crime;
• the character of the defendant, his/ her past criminal record, associations and ties with the community;
• the defendant’s previous record of abiding by his/ her bail conditions;
• the strength of the evidence against the defendant.

Restrictions on bail

Murder

Where a murder case is to be sent to the Crown Court, magistrates have no jurisdiction to consider bail. Under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, bail may not be granted to someone charged with murder by the Crown Court unless it is satisfied that there is no significant risk that, if released on bail, that person would commit an offence that would be likely to cause physical or mental injury to another person.

Source: Granting Bail: How do the courts decide whether or not to grant bail? - InBrief.co.uk

 

[Bakers]

The considerations for bail being granted are explained below. In light of the specific setting of the allegations and the ages of the victims it may be that there is no further risk to others by granting bail. Any new bail decision may be seen as an indicator as to the strength of the evidence against LL.


The Bail Act 1976

When assessing whether to grant bail, courts must – under the Bail Act 1976 (BA 1976) – start with the presumption that an accused should be granted bail, unless there is a justified reason to refuse it.

The court will consider:

• the nature and seriousness of the crime;
• the character of the defendant, his/ her past criminal record, associations and ties with the community;
• the defendant’s previous record of abiding by his/ her bail conditions;
• the strength of the evidence against the defendant.

Restrictions on bail

Murder

Where a murder case is to be sent to the Crown Court, magistrates have no jurisdiction to consider bail. Under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, bail may not be granted to someone charged with murder by the Crown Court unless it is satisfied that there is no significant risk that, if released on bail, that person would commit an offence that would be likely to cause physical or mental injury to another person.

Source: Granting Bail: How do the courts decide whether or not to grant bail? - InBrief.co.uk

The considerations for bail being granted are explained below. In light of the specific setting of the allegations and the ages of the victims it may be that there is no further risk to others by granting bail. Any new bail decision may be seen as an indicator as to the strength of the evidence against LL.


The Bail Act 1976

When assessing whether to grant bail, courts must – under the Bail Act 1976 (BA 1976) – start with the presumption that an accused should be granted bail, unless there is a justified reason to refuse it.

The court will consider:

• the nature and seriousness of the crime;
• the character of the defendant, his/ her past criminal record, associations and ties with the community;
• the defendant’s previous record of abiding by his/ her bail conditions;
• the strength of the evidence against the defendant.

Restrictions on bail

Murder

Where a murder case is to be sent to the Crown Court, magistrates have no jurisdiction to consider bail. Under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, bail may not be granted to someone charged with murder by the Crown Court unless it is satisfied that there is no significant risk that, if released on bail, that person would commit an offence that would be likely to cause physical or mental injury to another person.

Source: Granting Bail: How do the courts decide whether or not to grant bail? - InBrief.co.uk

i

 

[Bakers]

I can't see one reason in any of that for a suspected charged serial killer would be bailed.

 

[Marantz4250b]

I can't see one reason in any of that for a suspected charged serial killer would be bailed.

The specific "reasons" will be down to the court, which is required to take the above into account. If an application is made the court will have to explain its reasoning whichever way it decides. Given the very specific nature of this case, and especially considering the length of time she will have been locked up by the time of any trial, I think there is a reasonable prospect of her being granted bail.

 

[Parker Knoll]

Exactly Marantz

 

[ChatteringBirds]

I think this is the only case I've seen with multiple posts concerned about the safety of, or what is best mentally for, someone accused of murdering children.
ETA: This is simply an observation. A rather... unique... case.
Looking forward to hearing the evidence, perhaps in 2022.

 

[Eloise]

I think this is the only case I've seen with multiple posts concerned about the safety of, or what is best mentally for, someone accused of murdering children.
ETA: This is simply an observation. A rather... unique... case.
Looking forward to hearing the evidence, perhaps in 2022.

I think that's because it is, as you say, a unique case. I don't think it's easily comparable even to cases quite similar to it.
To date nobody has come forward to say anything bad about LL, only favourable things about her. She doesn't appear (at the level to which we know anything so far) to be quite the same as other serial killer nurses.
There is some evidence of problems and even corruption in the NHS, and if it is a scapegoat situation and she's innocent then her mental health is indeed a concern. A grave concern, because it would be a grave injustice if she has been thrown to the wolves to save some bureaucrat's skin.
Plus with all we know so far - and of course, we don't know everything, so this is only based on what's in the MSM so far - it seems the case is kind of circumstantial. A 10% rise in unexplained sudden(ish) deaths at the times she's been working, more or less. That's not really a smoking gun. I reiterate, based on what we know so far.

I personally have always kind of sat on the fence with this case, I feel there is a good chance she's either been thrown under the bus or that there is some awful coincidence - just based on her generally not matching the profile and there not being any super clear cut reason for her being charged. So far the only thing they've said is the babies die from symptoms that aren't really explainable and there was a 10% increase in deaths when she worked there. As far as has been reported to date, they didn't find her with a syringe of insulin in hand or something like that - in which case, it wouldn't be the kind of situation where you'd be finding so many people willing to give her the benefit of the doubt, I don't think.

My opinion is always changeable based on new info, my opinion as it is now is that I'm on the fence because while all the above is true she could also simply be a bad, evil person who happens to sit outside the usual profile (massively attention seeking throughout life, obvious personality disorder, etc etc). The fact she's young and female doesn't really mean anything to me at all, that's not why I feel somewhat skeptical of the charge based on what is publicly known to date.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

I can't see one reason in any of that for a suspected charged serial killer would be bailed.

You come at it from the wrong direction. The default position is that bail is granted unless the court can find justification otherwise.

Yes, the allegations are extremely serious and multiple. However, the setting for the alleged offences and the status of the victims are confined to a secure location so there is no further risk.

If LL is of previously good character and has complied with any earlier bail conditions imposed, although I don't think there were any, and the strength of the evidnece is not overwhelming then I feel the court may well grant bail.

 

[MsBetsy]

You come at it from the wrong direction. The default position is that bail is granted unless the court can find justification otherwise.

Yes, the allegations are extremely serious and multiple. However, the setting for the alleged offences and the status of the victims are confined to a secure location so there is no further risk.

If LL is of previously good character and has complied with any earlier bail conditions imposed, although I don't think there were any, and the strength of the evidnece is not overwhelming then I feel the court may well grant bail.

Maybe they will release her on certain conditions. They can require her to wear an ankle bracelet if they need to monitor her, assuming they do that in the UK.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Maybe they will release her on certain conditions. They can require her to wear an ankle bracelet if they need to monitor her, assuming they do that in the UK.

I don't believe that GPS tracking is currently used in the UK to support bail conditions, such as a home curfew or not to enter a certain area.

GPS trackers are certainly used for certain offenders released from prison part way through their sentence and into the community through the parole system.

LL could be given conditions to live at a specific address, to report to the local police station once or twice a day and not to enter certain areas or locations.

Given that LL's parents home address is approximately 100 miles from the hospital concerned, there should be no difficulty with her keeping well away from the locality.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Having done some research into the use of muscle relaxants in neonatal care, it transpires that one in particular, Suxamethonium Chloride, is the preferred choice as part of a premedication protocol before performing neonatal endotracheal intubation.

Neonatal endotracheal intubation is a frequently performed procedure. The muscle relaxant is combined with an analgesic and a vagolytic drug to support the procedure.

The procedure is demanding and protocols are strict. Ensuring the correct dose of Suxamethonium Chloride requires concentration and attention to detail.

An overdose of Suxamethonium Chloride, which may cause respiratory or cardiac arrest may significantly reduce the likelihood of successful resuscitation.

A common side effect of Suxamethonium Chloride is a rash and sometimes a pronounced allergic reaction, which may cause urticaria, also known as hives.

This could be a possible scenario in this case, particularly if the highlighted issues including staffing levels, reluctance of staff to seek advice and availability of consultant support are factored in. MOO.

The History of Sux, the World's Most Discreet Murder Weapon

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&s...FjACegQIBBAC&usg=AOvVaw1rUYe5N3kC9g2la5WqW8wP

Suxamethonium chloride - Wikipedia

BNFc is only available in the UK

 

[elliefant]

Sux, yes I suppose it’s possible but ugh how cruel. It paralyses the patient so they cannot move until ultimately the paralysis affects their lungs and they cannot draw in oxygen. Sux features in 68.9 billion* episodes of FBI files, Medical Detectives etc. But less so since it became traceable.

I think she will be sent to some sort of secure psychiatric care pending trial, if previous mentions of her mental health are correct.

*All figures approximate

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Sux, yes I suppose it’s possible but ugh how cruel. It paralyses the patient so they cannot move until ultimately the paralysis affects their lungs and they cannot draw in oxygen. Sux features in 68.9 billion* episodes of FBI files, Medical Detectives etc. But less so since it became traceable.

I think she will be sent to some sort of secure psychiatric care pending trial, if previous mentions of her mental health are correct.

*All figures approximate

I recall that post-mortem procedures were not carried out in many of the cases. I don't know if Sux is one of the routine poisons/substances tested for in PM's when an unexpected/unexplained death happens in hospital.

It is possible that intubation procedures took place as a clinical need but against laid down protocol, due to understaffing and poor working practices/lack of supervision. Errors in establishing the correct dose for the patient could occur in the pre-intubation medicinal procedure.

I have first hand experience of investigating such an occurrence in a hospital, owing to shortages of appropriately trained staff on a night shift, when junior staff operated outside of laid down protocols, to get the job done! I would not be surprised if it has been a common occurrence for a long time.

Succinylcholine: Is It the Perfect Murder Weapon? Not Exactly.

All my own opinion, of course.

 

[Marantz4250b]

I recall that post-mortem procedures were not carried out in many of the cases. I don't know if Sux is one of the routine poisons/substances tested for in PM's when an unexpected/unexplained death happens in hospital.

It is possible that intubation procedures took place as a clinical need but against laid down protocol, due to understaffing and poor working practices/lack of supervision. Errors in establishing the correct dose for the patient could occur in the pre-intubation medicinal procedure.

I have first hand experience of investigating such an occurrence in a hospital, owing to shortages of appropriately trained staff on a night shift, when junior staff operated outside of laid down protocols, to get the job done! I would not be surprised if it has been a common occurrence for a long time.

Succinylcholine: Is It the Perfect Murder Weapon? Not Exactly.

All my own opinion, of course.

Given the complexities of medical deaths, and especially medical deaths involving critically ill, complicated patients such as premature babies, if she's convicted and it's on on anything less than utterly compelling, gold-plated evidence then such a conviction is going to sit very uneasily in the minds of everyone concerned. Other than the baying, uneducated mob who've already decided she should be subject to a public lynching, obviously.

I'd be extremely surprised if that standard of evidence exists. The trial is reckoned to perhaps last for up to twenty weeks - that doesn't suggest that there is any "bang-to-rights" or "caught red-handed" sort of evidence against her (and if there were it wouldn't have taken years to charge her). It suggests lots of very technical and convoluted expert-witness evidence which, inevitably, will be argued over ad-infinitum. I don't think it's possible, legally, but if I were in her position I think I'd be asking for a bench trial rather than risking a jury having to weigh up that amount of complex evidence and I think that a jury will be under immense pressure to convict. I don't think it's an option though.

This needs to be got right; I was thinking about the statutory sentencing guidelines the other day and it's grim if she's innocent - it's grim if she's guilty, to be fair. If she's convicted of murder (rather than a lesser charge) of multiple people, whilst in a position of trust and on a not guilty plea then the starting point for the custodial part of the sentence is a whole life order! I can't see what any mitigating circumstances may be but even if there are some then I think that the next starting point down is 40 years or something.

 

[Marantz4250b]

Sux, yes I suppose it’s possible but ugh how cruel. It paralyses the patient so they cannot move until ultimately the paralysis affects their lungs and they cannot draw in oxygen. Sux features in 68.9 billion* episodes of FBI files, Medical Detectives etc. But less so since it became traceable.

I think she will be sent to some sort of secure psychiatric care pending trial, if previous mentions of her mental health are correct.

*All figures approximate

I think you're right there. I think there will be reporting restrictions put in place about where she is as well.

 

[Bakers]

I recall that post-mortem procedures were not carried out in many of the cases. I don't know if Sux is one of the routine poisons/substances tested for in PM's when an unexpected/unexplained death happens in hospital.

It is possible that intubation procedures took place as a clinical need but against laid down protocol, due to understaffing and poor working practices/lack of supervision. Errors in establishing the correct dose for the patient could occur in the pre-intubation medicinal procedure.

I have first hand experience of investigating such an occurrence in a hospital, owing to shortages of appropriately trained staff on a night shift, when junior staff operated outside of laid down protocols, to get the job done! I would not be surprised if it has been a common occurrence for a long time.

Succinylcholine: Is It the Perfect Murder Weapon? Not Exactly.

All my own opinion, of course.

autopsies were done on most of the babies at a alderhey hospital but did not include toxicology,blood electrolytes,or blood sugar tests

 

[Whitehall 1212]

DBM

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Given the complexities of medical deaths, and especially medical deaths involving critically ill, complicated patients such as premature babies, if she's convicted and it's on on anything less than utterly compelling, gold-plated evidence then such a conviction is going to sit very uneasily in the minds of everyone concerned. Other than the baying, uneducated mob who've already decided she should be subject to a public lynching, obviously.

I'd be extremely surprised if that standard of evidence exists. The trial is reckoned to perhaps last for up to twenty weeks - that doesn't suggest that there is any "bang-to-rights" or "caught red-handed" sort of evidence against her (and if there were it wouldn't have taken years to charge her). It suggests lots of very technical and convoluted expert-witness evidence which, inevitably, will be argued over ad-infinitum. I don't think it's possible, legally, but if I were in her position I think I'd be asking for a bench trial rather than risking a jury having to weigh up that amount of complex evidence and I think that a jury will be under immense pressure to convict. I don't think it's an option though.

This needs to be got right; I was thinking about the statutory sentencing guidelines the other day and it's grim if she's innocent - it's grim if she's guilty, to be fair. If she's convicted of murder (rather than a lesser charge) of multiple people, whilst in a position of trust and on a not guilty plea then the starting point for the custodial part of the sentence is a whole life order! I can't see what any mitigating circumstances may be but even if there are some then I think that the next starting point down is 40 years or something.

Being indictable only offences, the case must be a jury trial in the Crown Court. My understanding is that there is only provision for a bench hearing, in the Crown Court, when the prosecution makes an application for such, due to serious concerns about potential or actual jury tampering.

It's interesting to note that the case of Colin Norris was sent to the Court of Appeal on Friday 12 February 2021. He was found guilty by a majority verdict 11-1 of murdering four elderly patients in 2008, by injecting them with insulin. The case was based around, now questionable expert evidence, regarding naturally occurring insulin levels in the elderly and the circumstantial evidence that he was the only person present with all four patients at the material times.

Colin Norris: serial killer nurse conviction sent to court of appeal

Of course, we are not privy to the LL evidence yet. However, the length of time taken to conduct the investigation before charge does make me wonder if once again it will be a case based on expert 'opinion' and the circumstantial nature of her presence in the relevant areas around the material times. I say this because once there is sufficient evidence to charge then the suspect must be charged and can not be interviewed any further regarding that specific offence. In this matter it took about three years from when the police were first notified by the hospital and three arrests before the charges were proferred. This may be because the circumstantial evidence needed to reach a tipping point for the CPS before they would authorise all the charges!

I wonder if there were other unexplained deaths or serious incidents when LL was not present, and if so their number and circumstances. Such evidence could go some way to disproving the 'rule' in this matter. If these have also been investigated, and they should have been if they were within the scoping range of the investigation, then all the documents relating to those enquiries must be passed to the defence, if they could undermine the prosecution case or support the defence case. This is a legal requirement under the rules of disclosure.

Obviously this is very speculative and just my opinion.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

autopsies were done on most of the babies at a alderhey hospital but did not include toxicology,blood electrolytes,or blood sugar tests

Oh dear

It's a rag and despised by many....but Baker's post ideally needs a mainstream source!

Nurse arrested over deaths of EIGHT babies is released on bail