UK - Nurse Lucy Letby Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #8

[katydid23]

No. Not for one minute. Of course its illegal. It would most certainly be GBH for a start.

Ok, so if they don't go with 'attempted murder' maybe they will change it to GBH in some cases.

 

[Marantz4250b]

The minimum, IMO, should be paying for health care for such a disabled child, then adult for the whole life.

Which is what the NHS is for. Besides, I doubt that LL has millions stashed - if guilty, obviously.

 

[Dotta]

Which is what the NHS is for. Besides, I doubt that LL has millions stashed - if guilty, obviously.

Monetary compensation could be achieved by civil law suit.
Why should NHS (citizens/taxpayers) pay for somebody's (alleged) folly?

JMO

 

[Officer Dibble]

Well actually, she got the drama and attention whether or not the babies died, didn't she? And she has still got the drama and attention, right now.

Spot on Kemug (edited to add: Just my opinion)

 

[Marantz4250b]

This prosecution has been working this case for quite awhile now. I highly doubt they are going to mess this case up by not charging correctly. I will wait patiently to see how this unfolds.

Common sense tells me that there was an intent to kill in many of these instances. It didn't work in every case---but the fact that she allegedly attacked many of them repeatedly and relentlessly makes me believe that there was an intent to kill.

I have faith in the jurors that they will do their sincere best to sort things out. JMO

Legal rules and precidents trump "common sense" though. In a case where an intent to kill is to be implied by looking at the acts done then those acts must be virtually certain to cause death.

Also, having looked at the evidence thus far presented, I think that it's also common sense and perfectly reasonable and possible that if she's done these things then there genuinely wasn't an intention to kill but to act the hero by saving a life. That is an entirely reasonable scenario, surely?

 

[Officer Dibble]

Could someone kindly point me to a link about a note being found at LL's house that said something along the lines of 'Why do i keep doing this? (or words along those lines, sorry if that is incorrect, its just from my poor memory). Thank you .

 

[Marantz4250b]

Ok, so if they don't go with 'attempted murder' maybe they will change it to GBH in some cases.

Possibly. I don't know what the relevant rules are relating to swapping charges though. I'd not be surprised if that wasn't allowed because its straying dangerously into double jeopardy, in my view.

 

[Marantz4250b]

Monetary compensation could be achieved by civil law suit.
Why should NHS (citizens/taxpayers) pay for somebody's (alleged) folly?

Against whom? She won't have any money. Any money will come from the NHS or their insurers.

 

[katydid23]

Legal rules and precidents trump "common sense" though. In a case where an intent to kill is to be implied by looking at the acts done then those acts must be virtually certain to cause death.

Also, having looked at the evidence thus far presented, I think that it's also common sense and perfectly reasonable and possible that if she's done these things then there genuinely wasn't an intention to kill but to act the hero by saving a life. That is an entirely reasonable scenario, surely?

However, that^^ scenario ended with 7 dead babies and several severely injured babies and a dozen+ grieving families.

So if her defense team tries to float that scenario, it will not end well for the defendant.

I wouldn't care what the motive was---but if my baby's caregiver did something that killed them or left them severely debilitated, it wouldn't matter if the intent was to harm or not. The results would speak for themselves.

 

[JosieJo]

Doesn't matter what we think. It's what the law requires tk obtain a conviction. That is virtual certainty of death.

Yes I understand what you mean ...just not sure why it doesn't fit that criteria

 

[Dotta]

Against whom? She won't have any money. Any money will come from the NHS or their insurers.

Well, whatever pennies she has (house, car etc.) should be partially given to (alleged) victims.
The Civil Law Court decides about such matters.

JMO

 

[JosieJo]

This prosecution has been working this case for quite awhile now. I highly doubt they are going to mess this case up by not charging correctly. I will wait patiently to see how this unfolds.

Common sense tells me that there was an intent to kill in many of these instances. It didn't work in every case---but the fact that she allegedly attacked many of them repeatedly and relentlessly makes me believe that there was an intent to kill.

I have faith in the jurors that they will do their sincere best to sort things out. JMO

I totally agree
Why on earth would the CPS mess up on charges
I'm sure they know the guidelines

 

[katydid23]

Legal rules and precidents trump "common sense" though. In a case where an intent to kill is to be implied by looking at the acts done then those acts must be virtually certain to cause death.

Also, having looked at the evidence thus far presented, I think that it's also common sense and perfectly reasonable and possible that if she's done these things then there genuinely wasn't an intention to kill but to act the hero by saving a life. That is an entirely reasonable scenario, surely?

" I think that it's also common sense and perfectly reasonable and possible that if she's done these things then there genuinely wasn't an intention to kill but to act the hero by saving a life. That is an entirely reasonable scenario, surely?"

NO, I cannot agree that this is an entirely reasonable scenario. It is entirely unreasonable because 7 babies DIED. And many others were severely injured.

Once the first child died, it would be entirely unreasonable, if not sadistic or psychotic, to continue these extremely deceitful actions, while pretending to be caring for fragile innocent newborns.

 

[Marantz4250b]

However, that^^ scenario ended with 7 dead babies and several severely injured babies and a dozen+ grieving families.

So if her defense team tries to float that scenario, it will not end well for the defendant.

I wouldn't care what the motive was---but if my baby's caregiver did something that killed them or left them severely debilitated, it wouldn't matter if the intent was to harm or not. The results would speak for themselves.

I get that, and I'd feel similar.

You are looking at this emotionally, though, not dispassionately and legally. Think about - yes, seven dead but many more attempt charges than successful murders. You must make out the full criteria in order to obtain a conviction. Hence, her methods are NOT virtually certain to cause death and there is plenty of evidence out there which shows that an AE is absolutely NOT virtually certain to cause death. Unless they adduce evidence of intent other than her methods I cannot see how they have proved the charges.

You cannot simply convict based on emotion which is what many people seem happy to do.

 

[JosieJo]

Surely if the charges did not fit as there was no certainty of death would the defence not be able to get these charges thrown out in the first instance?

Surely now as the charges stand its down to the jury to decide if she is guilty of said charges

 

[Tortoise]

Potential to kill is not sufficient to prove intent via her actions. Death must be a virtual certainty.

These are different aspects.

My post was not about her intention to kill. It was about whether the action (shooting, poisoning, injecting with air, whatever) was lethal. If I had the intention of killing someone but just decided to do it by thinking I had a special power to make them die by my thinking it, it doesn't cut it. The act must be lethal, it's not whether the person died or not, or I measured the poison incorrectly, or shot you and missed, you're confusing two different elements here.

MOO

ADMIN REMINDER:
If what you post is your OPINION, you MUST a be clear about that with a qualifier like IMHO or similar. Otherwise your post reads as a statement of FACT without the required substantiating link, and it is subject to being REMOVED.

 

[Marantz4250b]

Yes I understand what you mean ...just not sure why it doesn't fit that criteria

Because it doesn't. An AE simply is not virtually certain to cause death and there is ample evidence to show that. Air embolisms haven't even come close to causing virtually certain death in the charges involving LL (if she actually did them, obvs), let alone in other cases of people much better equipped to survive them so it cannot possibly meet the criteria.

From what I have seen, they need more evidence to prove an intent to kill over and above the methods she employed. Have they provided any?

 

[katydid23]

I get that, and I'd feel similar.

You are looking at this emotionally, though, not dispassionately and legally. Think about - yes, seven dead but many more attempt charges than successful murders. You must make out the full criteria in order to obtain a conviction. Hence, her methods are NOT virtually certain to cause death and there is plenty of evidence out there which shows that an AE is absolutely NOT virtually certain to cause death. Unless they adduce evidence of intent other than her methods I cannot see how they have proved the charges.

You cannot simply convict based on emotion which is what many people seem happy to do.

"Think about - yes, seven dead but many more attempt charges than successful murders. "

It doesn't matter that there are more attempt charges because she allegedly CHANGED her methods many times. So sometimes they died and sometimes they didnt.


But look at the alleged actions against baby G:

"Nurse Lucy Letby made two further attempts to murder a baby after the infant survived an attack with a syringe to force milk and air into her body, a court heard today.

Baby G collapsed after vomiting an 'extraordinary' amount of milk whilst lying in a cot on the neonatal unit of the Countess of Chester Hospital.

Medics managed to save her life but the incident on September 7, 2015 - her 100th day - left her so severely brain damaged that seven years later she is a paraplegic with cerebral palsy."

Nurse Lucy Letby 'made two more attempts to murder baby girl'

Nurse Lucy Letby made two further attempts to murder a baby after the infant survived an attack with a syringe to force milk and air into her body, Manchester Crown Court heard today.

www.dailymail.co.uk

So the defendant allegedly made THREE different attempts to harm this baby with air injections and force feeding, and ultimately this baby is severely brain damaged and paralysed.

How can anyone deny this was attempted murder? This baby had to be resuscitated all 3 times, brought back from the brink of death. And she was severely and permanently damaged from theses attacks.

I don't think the jurors are going to give someone the benefit of the doubt and assume they had no malicious intent. JMO

 

[Dotta]

"Think about - yes, seven dead but many more attempt charges than successful murders. "

It doesn't matter that there are more attempt charges because she allegedly CHANGED her methods many times. So sometimes they died and sometimes they didnt.


But look at the alleged actions against baby G:

"Nurse Lucy Letby made two further attempts to murder a baby after the infant survived an attack with a syringe to force milk and air into her body, a court heard today.

Baby G collapsed after vomiting an 'extraordinary' amount of milk whilst lying in a cot on the neonatal unit of the Countess of Chester Hospital.

Medics managed to save her life but the incident on September 7, 2015 - her 100th day - left her so severely brain damaged that seven years later she is a paraplegic with cerebral palsy."

Nurse Lucy Letby 'made two more attempts to murder baby girl'

Nurse Lucy Letby made two further attempts to murder a baby after the infant survived an attack with a syringe to force milk and air into her body, Manchester Crown Court heard today.

www.dailymail.co.uk

So the defendant allegedly made THREE different attempts to harm this baby with air injections and force feeding, and ultimately this baby is severely brain damaged and paralysed.

How can anyone deny this was attempted murder? This baby had to be resuscitated all 3 times, brought back from the brink of death. And she was severely and permanently damaged from theses attacks.

I don't think the jurors are going to give someone the benefit of the doubt and assume they had no malicious intent. JMO

I guess we shouldn't all get worked up.
The case is in the hands of King's C. top lawyers.

 

[katydid23]

Because it doesn't. An AE simply is not virtually certain to cause death and there is ample evidence to show that. Air embolisms haven't even come close to causing virtually certain death in the charges involving LL (if she actually did them, obvs), let alone in other cases of people much better equipped to survive them so it cannot possibly meet the criteria.

From what I have seen, they need more evidence to prove an intent to kill over and above the methods she employed. Have they provided any?

I question your statement that AE's are not usually deadly. Especially in FRAGILE, PREMATURE newborns.

Air Embolism in Pediatrics & Neonatology​

In children and especially preterm babies and neonates, the smallest amount of air can lead to an air embolism with fatal consequences. ...



How common is air embolism in neonates?

However, massive air embolism is extremely rare in newborns, and only few patients survive. 2–4 Immediate evacuation through a central venous catheter of adequate size and/or by cardiocentesis may be life saving.Aug 18, 2021

Resuscitation of a preterm infant with massive air embolism​

bmj.com· https://fn.bmj.com › archdischild-2020-320532