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

[JosieJo]

Intent to do what, though, is the question. I agree with others here that, if guilty, one of her motives appears to be to want to revel in the drama of a near death situation and to bathe in the glory of saving a life and the subsequent adoration of her colleagues and the parents.

This, if correct, does not tend to lend evidential weight to support a charge of attempted murder, though, especially when you take into account the calling for help multiple times and suchlike - imo, obviously.

When all this started I was astonished at the number of attempted murder charges against her - and yet more were added at the start of the trial! Attempted Murder was always going to be problematic as it's a very high bar to clear. Murder, in contrast, is easy as the prosecution need not prove any intent what-so-ever.

For an attempted murder charge it must be proven that the accused had the specific intent to cause death by their actions. Being reckless as to whether someone may die; doing something which is extremely dangerous to someone and has a high chance of causing death; or simply not caring whether death occurs is not good enough - an actual intent to cause death must be proven. Nothing else will do. That is a notoriously difficult thing to do. It is extremely difficult to prove what a person had in their mind at a specific point in time unless they tell you, write it down or do some action which makes it very clear.

The more we see evidence coming out of her assisting in resuscitation, calling for help, and doing "positive" things the more I think it is likely to undermine the attempted murder charges. In addition, the sheer number of attempted murder charges against her may, in themselves, undermine the prosecution's case; the fact that she did not, in fact, manage to successfully cause death on so many occasions (three times in the case of Baby G, I believe) could very well be seen as evidence that it was not her intention to cause death and, imo, supports the argument that it was essentially attention seeking behavior. Dangerous attention seeking behavior to be sure, but attention seeking all the same.

I would not be surprised at all if the prosecution withdraws their evidence relating to some or all of the attempted murder charges after the Christmas break. If they do I think there will be questions raised as to why they used that charge at all. It would surely have been better to bring simple GBH charges as they are much easier to prove and, given the overall context, can still result in a very long sentence.

The CPS have to believe there is a reasonable chance of success on the attempted murder charges in order for her to go to trial.

I feel certain things are relevant to why they may think that

Because there are many murder charges also ..if guilty of these murders then it could be linked that death was the aim of all "attacks"

Also

As a nurse Working in neonatal..even more so with higher neonatal qualifications.. she would know the actions lead to death

Then you have the additional circumstantial evidence of an unusually strong interest in grieving parents

 

[Marantz4250b]

The CPS have to believe there is a reasonable chance of success on the attempted murder charges in order for her to go to trial.

I feel certain things are relevant to why they may think that

Because there are many murder charges also ..if guilty of these murders then it could be linked that death was the aim of all "attacks"

Also

As a nurse Working in neonatal..even more so with higher neonatal qualifications.. she would know the actions lead to death

Then you have the additional circumstantial evidence of an unusually strong interest in grieving parents

It's the whole issue of intent, though. The prosecution do not need to prove any intent to do anything to get a murder conviction. They must absolutely prove an intent to cause death in the case of an attempted murder charge, however. The latter is much more difficult to get a conviction for. Successfully proving the murder cases has no effect, evidentially, in relation to the attempted murder charges as it does not evidence intent for the non murder charges. Conversely, the way I see it, her failure to cause death on so many occasions tends to support the fact the she did not intend to.

As far as I can see, the prosecution, thus far, have not provided sufficient evidence that she had a definite intent to kill. I think they have provided evidence that she has probably done something - gbh at least - but I fail to see how they have proved that she had the specific intention to cause death. Even people on here have stated that they get the impression that she was revelling in the drama and the glory. That does not equate to a distinct intent to kill - indeed, it tends to demonstrate the opposite.

Her status as an experienced neonatal nurse can also be used the other way around; it could easily be said that that experience and training could help her manage to get babies extremely close to death and to save them in the end. Again, you can "prove" that by pointing out how many times she didn't manage to kill anyone against how many times she succeeded.

 

[ColourPurple]

It's the whole issue of intent, though. The prosecution do not need to prove any intent to do anything to get a murder conviction. They must absolutely prove an intent to cause death in the case of an attempted murder charge, however. The latter is much more difficult to get a conviction for. Successfully proving the murder cases has no effect, evidentially, in relation to the attempted murder charges as it does not evidence intent for the non murder charges. Conversely, the way I see it, her failure to cause death on so many occasions tends to support the fact the she did not intend to.

As far as I can see, the prosecution, thus far, have not provided sufficient evidence that she had a definite intent to kill. I think they have provided evidence that she has probably done something - gbh at least - but I fail to see how they have proved that she had the specific intention to cause death. Even people on here have stated that they get the impression that she was revelling in the drama and the glory. That does not equate to a distinct intent to kill - indeed, it tends to prove the opposite.

Her status as an experienced neonatal nurse can also be used the other way around; it could easily be said that that experience and training could help her manage to get babies extremely close to death and to save them in the end. Again, you can "prove" that by pointing out how many times she didn't manage to kill anyone against how many she succeeded.

I understand your argument, and in the early days I pondered IF GUILTY, whether her reference to fate in a text message about why some babies die and soem survive, was her way of justifying that she wasn't really responsible for the death. That she was only responsible for providing the circumstances that allowed doctors to try to save the babies lives. And whether they were able to or not was down to fate.

However, I think as soon as one baby died after the "cirumstances" she allegedly created, she knew that what she was allegedly doing could be fatal and continued to do it. That to me shows intent . Though I guess you could argue that if she hadn''t tried a particular methid before then she did not know that that particular method would.

I also pondered before whether the first death was not intentional and was done for the drama of trying to save the baby's life. But then when the baby died, she seemed desperate to be back in the room where it happened and then allegedly murdered other babies in that room. And seemed eager to be with the grieving parents even when it wasn't her designated baby. Which might suggest that she actually enjoyed the additional drama of the baby dying, and the impact on the parents, and all the rituals connected to it (preparing a memory box with a lock of hair and footprints, bathing the baby etc) and then tried to recreat all of that , again and again

 

[Sweeper2000]

just Had an interesting thought that’s in line with what other people are saying. A few threads ago I compiled the cases chronologically using the lethality of method as a parameter and noticed that rather than an inexperienced killer eventually gaining greater lethality further on down the line the lethality actually decreases after baby E, most of her charges are after Baby E and are not accusations of murder. This is in line with someone doing it for the attention. In essence if guilty she applied less force later on, a possible explanation is that she realised the lethality was greater with intravenous air embolism and so eventually learned that the baby wouldn’t die if she administered air into the stomach or over fed. This is in line with someone refining their method and adjusting the lethality to suit Her supposed need for admiration or whatever That emotional gain was In my opinion. Noting a seeming decrease in lethality further down the line of events could also give one the impression that if guilty she was bringing these babies to the brink and then “saving them”. What was it she said that one time something about it ”only taking a nudge to push her over the line“ or something like that? was she the thing pushing them towards the line But not necessarily over it? Playing a very very dangerous game maybe. She would certainly have the knowledge of how to do it if she was.

in the case of baby G I would say that screen would be a prime opportunity to turn the monitor off if that way inclined however it would be very very risky for her to do that on the off chance the doctors wouldn’t remember leaving it on. I might say that’s too risky. I can’t see her turning it off and then blaming the docs. It would be her word against theirs, all they had to do was deny leaving it off and that’s LL in serious trouble immediately. why did they not deny leaving it off when apologising to the nurse so soon after the event? I very much doubt they would give the benefit of the doubt. Why deny leaving it off so many years after the event but not within 48 hours of it happening ?

edit to say the doctors didn’t deny it outright but said it’s very unlikely that they would have left the monitor off however they didn’t seem to remember clearly the circumstances of when they left baby G To head off to another ward or wherever. I really don’t like the way they say “I would have” when referring to leaving the baby in a stable condition. That should be more definite IMO. The nurse seems more definite in her recollection.

 

[Marantz4250b]

I understand your argument, and in the early days I pondered IF GUILTY, whether her reference to fate in a text message about why some babies die and soem survive, was her way of justifying that she wasn't really responsible for the death. That she was only responsible for providing the circumstances that allowed doctors to try to save the babies lives. And whether they were able to or not was down to fate.

However, I think as soon as one baby died after the "cirumstances" she allegedly created, she knew that what she was allegedly doing could be fatal and continued to do it. That to me shows intent . Though I guess you could argue that if she hadn''t tried a particular methid before then she did not know that that particular method would.

I also pondered before whether the first death was not intentional and was done for the drama of trying to save the baby's life. But then when the baby died, she seemed desperate to be back in the room where it happened and then allegedly murdered other babies in that room. And seemed eager to be with the grieving parents even when it wasn't her designated baby. Which might suggest that she actually enjoyed the additional drama of the baby dying, and the impact on the parents, and all the rituals connected to it (preparing a memory box with a lock of hair and footprints, bathing the baby etc) and then tried to recreat all of that , again and again

As I say, yes, I think they probably have shown an intent to do something. As you say, if all this is true then, yes, perhaps she did realise that death could result. She may have realised that it was highly likely but that is not sufficient for a successful attempted murder charge.

It must be shown that she intended death to occur. That is a very specific and most tricky thing to prove. At present, I do not believe that the prosecution has adduced evidence to prove that. Indeed, the running theme on here is that she was doing it for the attention of being the hero and it's a pretty good bet that the jury will be thinking along similar lines.

Edit: having seen Sweeper2000's post, that, to me, is even more evidence that in lots of cases her intention was not primarily to cause death. Serial killers tend to become more lethal, not less.

 

[Sweeper2000]

It’s also true to say that LL would know that overfeeding and pushing air into the stomach would also be something that she could in essence “undo” via aspiration or decompression of the stomach whereas an intravenous air embolism is not.

 

[Tortoise]

Intent to do what, though, is the question. I agree with others here that, if guilty, one of her motives appears to be to want to revel in the drama of a near death situation and to bathe in the glory of saving a life and the subsequent adoration of her colleagues and the parents.

This, if correct, does not tend to lend evidential weight to support a charge of attempted murder, though, especially when you take into account the calling for help multiple times and suchlike - imo, obviously.

When all this started I was astonished at the number of attempted murder charges against her - and yet more were added at the start of the trial! Attempted Murder was always going to be problematic as it's a very high bar to clear. Murder, in contrast, is easy as the prosecution need not prove any intent what-so-ever.

For an attempted murder charge it must be proven that the accused had the specific intent to cause death by their actions. Being reckless as to whether someone may die; doing something which is extremely dangerous to someone and has a high chance of causing death; or simply not caring whether death occurs is not good enough - an actual intent to cause death must be proven. Nothing else will do. That is a notoriously difficult thing to do. It is extremely difficult to prove what a person had in their mind at a specific point in time unless they tell you, write it down or do some action which makes it very clear.

The more we see evidence coming out of her assisting in resuscitation, calling for help, and doing "positive" things the more I think it is likely to undermine the attempted murder charges. In addition, the sheer number of attempted murder charges against her may, in themselves, undermine the prosecution's case; the fact that she did not, in fact, manage to successfully cause death on so many occasions (three times in the case of Baby G, I believe) could very well be seen as evidence that it was not her intention to cause death and, imo, supports the argument that it was essentially attention seeking behavior. Dangerous attention seeking behavior to be sure, but attention seeking all the same.

I would not be surprised at all if the prosecution withdraws their evidence relating to some or all of the attempted murder charges after the Christmas break. If they do I think there will be questions raised as to why they used that charge at all. It would surely have been better to bring simple GBH charges as they are much easier to prove and, given the overall context, can still result in a very long sentence.

The direction for juries in regards to intent for attempted murder, is;

Attempted Murder​

In contrast to the offence of murder, attempted murder requires the existence of an intention to kill, not merely to cause grievous bodily harm: R v Grimwood (1962) 3 All ER 285. The requisite intention to kill can be inferred by the circumstances: R v Walker and Hayles (1990) 90 Cr App R 226.
Homicide: Murder and Manslaughter | The Crown Prosecution Service


R v Walker and Hayles (1990) 90 Cr App R 226.

The defendants threw their victim from a third floor balcony. At their trial for attempted murder the trial judge directed the jury that they could infer intention if there was a high degree of probability that the victim would be killed and if the defendants knew “quite well that in doing that there was a high degree of probability” that the victim would be killed. The defendants appealed on the ground that the trial judge was confusing foresight of death with an intention to kill and should have directed the jury in the Nedrick terms of “virtual certainty”. The Court of Appeal did not accept that the reference to “very high degree of probability” was a misdirection. However, Lloyd LJ stated that in the rare cases where an expanded direction is required in terms of foresight, courts should continue to use virtual certainty as the test, rather than high probability.
Cases on Mens Rea


If intent to kill is established - after the death of baby A - LL would have known that there was "virtual certainty" that the babies would die, and this is compounded by the deaths of six more babies.

If the jury is satisfied she did the acts alleged by the prosecution experts for babies E, F and G, she started experimenting with different methods, causing a bleed that would pass as a gastro-intestinal haemorrhage perhaps to mask the additional administration of air, insulin poisoning and over-feeding with milk and air, thus it appears that this may have been because the cause of baby A's death could not be ascertained at the end of July 2015, and an inquest was scheduled, as well as the fact that nurses and doctors had noticed the unusual circumstances. If proven as alleged, she tried to kill baby I four times with a mixture of pausing alarms, dislodging breathing tubes and air through the NG tube, before succeeding to kill her the fifth time with the addition of air injected into a vein, the original alleged successful method.

Personally, I haven't seen any evidence of FDIA that is referred to here with some frequency. It hasn't been suggested by the prosecution. We know nothing about her earlier life or years as a nurse. She was not coming out of these situations as a hero for having saved lives. Baby F could have died while she wasn't on shift. If she was collecting souvenirs, that is a whole different kettle of fish IMO. Calling for help would be expected of any nurse during a death or a near-death event, and it would certainly stand out if she was left in charge of any baby and was not following this protocol and monitor alarms were not going off.

In my opinion.

 

[Tortoise]

It's the whole issue of intent, though. The prosecution do not need to prove any intent to do anything to get a murder conviction.

They do have to prove her intent was to kill or cause GBH to get a murder conviction.

Intent​

The intent for murder is an intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (GBH). Foresight is no more than evidence from which the jury may draw the inference of intent, c.f. R v Woollin [1999] 1 Cr App R 8 (HOL). The necessary intention exists if the defendant feels sure that death, or serious bodily harm, is a virtual certainty as a result of the defendant's actions and that the defendant appreciated that this was the case - R v Matthews (Darren John) [2003] EWCA Crim 192.

Homicide: Murder and Manslaughter | The Crown Prosecution Service

 

[Sweeper2000]

As I say, yes, I think they probably have shown an intent to do something. As you say, if all this is true then, yes, perhaps she did realise that death could result. She may have realised that it was highly likely but that is not sufficient for a successful attempted murder charge.

It must be shown that she intended death to occur. That is a very specific and most tricky thing to prove. At present, I do not believe that the prosecution has adduced evidence to prove that. Indeed, the running theme on here is that she was doing it for the attention of being the hero and it's a pretty good bet that the jury will be thinking along similar lines.

Edit: having seen Sweeper2000's post, that, to me, is even more evidence that in lots of cases her intention was not primarily to cause death. Serial killers tend to become more lethal, not less.

in regards to the supposed intent of murder the prosecution may think that in the cases of multiple alleged attacks on one baby might constitute that intent. First try didn’t work, try again kind of thing all the while making “the appearance of chance events“ but as you say it’s very difficult to prove. They may also be thinking that this is when LL was allegedly trying to disguise these events as chance occurrences as they alleged in the opening statements albeit in only one case. I agree though it’s a big big reach for an allegation of attempted murder, i largely think that if she had of wanted to kill them they would be dead, she already knew how to actually kill them with an air embolism so why not use that more lethal and less noticeable method? It’s also true that many of the cases of alleged attempted murders were discharged again suggesting but not proving a lack of intent to kill Or cause GBH. in the instances of allegedly injecting air into the stomach, she would have known this was a treatable problem and not a guaranteed injury suggesting that it might not be an intent to kill or cause harm But maybe the creation of a situation where she is being the hero or whatever.

"These were not naturally occurring, or random events; they were deliberate attempts to kill using a slightly different method by whilst Lucy Letby sought to give the appearance of chance events in the neonatal unit at the Countess of Chester Hospital."

Recap: Prosecution opens trial of Lucy Letby accused of Countess of Chester Hospital baby murders

THE trial of former Countess of Chester Hospital nurse Lucy Letby, who is accused of multiple baby murders, is due to finalise its jury and hear…

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

 

[Tortoise]

The Trial of Lucy Letby, Episode 9: Baby G, Part 2: “She was a pale colour. She wasn’t moving. The monitor wasn’t on.”

www.mailplus.co.uk

The Trial of Lucy Letby, Episode 9: Baby G, Part 2: “She was a pale colour. She wasn’t moving. The monitor wasn’t on.”​

In this episode Caroline and Liz explain how Lucy Letby allegedly tried to kill Baby G, the most premature baby in the case, on two more occasions.

 

[ColourPurple]

just Had an interesting thought that’s in line with what other people are saying. A few threads ago I compiled the cases chronologically using the lethality of method as a parameter and noticed that rather than an inexperienced killer eventually gaining greater lethality further on down the line the lethality actually decreases after baby E, most of her charges are after Baby E and are not accusations of murder. This is in line with someone doing it for the attention. In essence if guilty she applied less force later on, a possible explanation is that she realised the lethality was greater with intravenous air embolism and so eventually learned that the baby wouldn’t die if she administered air into the stomach or over fed. This is in line with someone refining their method and adjusting the lethality to suit Her supposed need for admiration or whatever That emotional gain was In my opinion. Noting a seeming decrease in lethality further down the line of events could also give one the impression that if guilty she was bringing these babies to the brink and then “saving them”. What was it she said that one time something about it ”only taking a nudge to push her over the line“ or something like that? was she the thing pushing them towards the line But not necessarily over it? Playing a very very dangerous game maybe. She would certainly have the knowledge of how to do it if she was.

in the case of baby G I would say that screen would be a prime opportunity to turn the monitor off if that way inclined however it would be very very risky for her to do that on the off chance the doctors wouldn’t remember leaving it on. I might say that’s too risky. I can’t see her turning it off and then blaming the docs. It would be her word against theirs, all they had to do was deny leaving it off and that’s LL in serious trouble immediately. why did they not deny leaving it off when apologising to the nurse so soon after the event? I very much doubt they would give the benefit of the doubt. Why deny leaving it off so many years after the event but not within 48 hours of it happening ?

edit to say the doctors didn’t deny it outright but said it’s very unlikely that they would have left the monitor off however they didn’t seem to remember clearly the circumstances of when they left baby G To head off to another ward or wherever. I really don’t like the way they say “I would have” when referring to leaving the baby in a stable condition. That should be more definite IMO. The nurse seems more definite in her recollection.

As I say, yes, I think they probably have shown an intent to do something. As you say, if all this is true then, yes, perhaps she did realise that death could result. She may have realised that it was highly likely but that is not sufficient for a successful attempted murder charge.

It must be shown that she intended death to occur. That is a very specific and most tricky thing to prove. At present, I do not believe that the prosecution has adduced evidence to prove that. Indeed, the running theme on here is that she was doing it for the attention of being the hero and it's a pretty good bet that the jury will be thinking along similar lines.

Edit: having seen Sweeper2000's post, that, to me, is even more evidence that in lots of cases her intention was not primarily to cause death. Serial killers tend to become more lethal, not less.

If guilty, it's whether you believe that the reason she changed methods and was unsuccessful in some of her attempts to kill was because she didn't intend to kill, or whether you believe the reason she was changing methods was to avoiding building up a pattern of types of deaths and trying to avoid detection, and the fact that some babies survived was through good luck rather than design.

The fact that when a colleague said LL needed a break from it being on her shift, LL allegedly then injected at least one TPN bag with insulin, which once LL went, led to the Baby deteriorating on the next shift, makes me think her method changes were not to do with not wanting to kill the babies. There have been several murder cases involving insulin being used to kill patients so I think she would be well aware that it could be fatal.

Re "Serial killers tend to become more lethal, not less" I don't think you can compare serial killers in a medical setting with those outside a medical setting, as the latter rarely have medical staff in the vicinity, who might scupper their plans to kill. It's also possible that there was a build up of severity of attacks before Baby A, rather than Baby A being her first alleged target, and that it was never picked up on as the babies survived and no suspicions were rasied(although there had been no reports of the trademark fleeting rash before).

Their motives are unlikely to be same either.WIth LL, as well as the drama created by the actual death or near death, if guilty, she also "got" to witness the immediate impact on the victims bereaved family first hand, and to befriend them, offer them support,be part of their grieving process, bathe the deceased babies, dress them, take photographs of them, create memory boxes, send sympathy cards etc etc. That's not something that other non medical setting serial killers tend to do or be motivated by.

 

[ColourPurple]

..., i largely think that if she had of wanted to kill them they would be dead, she already knew how to actually kill them with an air embolism so why not use that more lethal and less noticeable method?

Because there was a danger of a patternemerging, of babies on her shift, dying or nearly dying in the same way, with a fleeting rash that people had never seen before, and resuss attempts that usually worked to some degree, suddenly not doing so.

imo

 

[Becci]

How many medical notes were found?

 

[ColourPurple]

How many medical notes were found?

Medical notes or sign in sheets were found for either two or three of the babies. Can't remember off the top of my head which babies they were for, but Tortoise compiled a summary somewhere.

 

[Becci]

Medical notes or sign in sheets were found for either two or three of the babies. Can't remember off the top of my head which babies they were for, but Tortoise compiled a summary somewhere.

Ok thanks

 

[Sillybilly]

ADMIN NOTE:

Please remember that any post expressing an opinion of either guilt or innocence is in violation of sub judice rules.

Posts that violate sub judice get removed, along with all responses to them.

 

[ColourPurple]

The Trial of Lucy Letby, Episode 9: Baby G, Part 2: “She was a pale colour. She wasn’t moving. The monitor wasn’t on.”

www.mailplus.co.uk

The Trial of Lucy Letby, Episode 9: Baby G, Part 2: “She was a pale colour. She wasn’t moving. The monitor wasn’t on.”​

In this episode Caroline and Liz explain how Lucy Letby allegedly tried to kill Baby G, the most premature baby in the case, on two more occasions.

Interesting , that confirms a few details. So on 21 September LL was initially designated nurse for Baby G in Nursery 4 and three other babies. Then an hour after LL fed her, Baby G vomited and her oxygen levels fell and although she recovered the doctor decided they would move Baby G to room 1 for one to one care with a new designated nurse, but needed to cannulate her first. So in the afternoon while she was screeend off in nursery 4 the doctors tried to cannulate her. Her designated nurse had left the room but LL was in the same room as Baby G looking after two other babies. The doctors left and "moments later" LL was calling for help as Baby G wasn't breathing.

The designated nurse got there to find LL next to Baby G, who was pale and not brreathing and the monitor was off. Designated nurse says after Baby G collapsed (no timeframe given) the doctors apologised to her for leaving Baby G behind a screen and having not switched the monitor back on. And that she also reported it to her manager (doesnt say if the apology or the report was first) . But neither the manager or the doctors remember this. Re the reflux diagnsosis(in bewtween alleged attacks), the doctors confirmed she did have vomiting incidents but that the only times Baby G projectile vomited were on the days LL is accused of trying to kill her.

My thoughts , if guilty, we know from her text messages LL seeemed to prefer room 1 where the sickest babies were and found the shift where she was just feeding the less sick babies quiet/boring. She could have been hooping to be moved to room 1 with baby G, then when Baby G was about to be moved but LL would not be moving with her, this coudl have triggered LL into taking action in room 4 instead.Alternatively maybe the doctors did leave the monitor off and LL did find Baby not breathing in the few moments after they left. ALL IMO

 

[katydid23]

It's the whole issue of intent, though. The prosecution do not need to prove any intent to do anything to get a murder conviction. They must absolutely prove an intent to cause death in the case of an attempted murder charge, however. The latter is much more difficult to get a conviction for. Successfully proving the murder cases has no effect, evidentially, in relation to the attempted murder charges as it does not evidence intent for the non murder charges. Conversely, the way I see it, her failure to cause death on so many occasions tends to support the fact the she did not intend to.

As far as I can see, the prosecution, thus far, have not provided sufficient evidence that she had a definite intent to kill. I think they have provided evidence that she has probably done something - gbh at least - but I fail to see how they have proved that she had the specific intention to cause death. Even people on here have stated that they get the impression that she was revelling in the drama and the glory. That does not equate to a distinct intent to kill - indeed, it tends to demonstrate the opposite.

Her status as an experienced neonatal nurse can also be used the other way around; it could easily be said that that experience and training could help her manage to get babies extremely close to death and to save them in the end. Again, you can "prove" that by pointing out how many times she didn't manage to kill anyone against how many times she succeeded.

If her intent was to bring a child to the brink of death, by poison or air embolism, then I think a jury could see that as attempted murder.

If her intent, allegedly, was to bring a child to the brink of death, then that can be the same thing as attempted murder, if she had to call in a code red to resuscitate the 'unconscious, unresponsive, non-breathing' child. Essentially those children were already dead and had to be brought back to life.

That is still attempted murder, technically.

What if I shot someone, and then felt remorse and rendered emergency aid, which helped resuscitate them -----couldn't I still be arrested for attempted murder for shooting them in the chest in the first place?

 

[Kemug]

a seeming decrease in lethality further down the line

Yes, but don't forget that LL was moved, first from night shifts to day, and then from face to face nursing altogether - if that hadn't happened, who knows what the pattern would have been eventually been?

 

[Kemug]

I think they probably have shown an intent to do something. As you say, if all this is true then, yes, perhaps she did realise that death could result. She may have realised that it was highly likely but that is not sufficient for a successful attempted murder charge.

Well I certainly wouldn't want her playing "ducks and drakes" with my baby - would you? And I would call it attempted murder.