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

[Sweeper2000]

I think I may be retracting these prior posts about how difficult it would be to deliver what I thought was a minute amount of air. I vastly underestimated the size of a 1.5 ml syringe and thought it would be in mm not inches. Excuse me.

 

[mart321]

fair enough both dr bohin and dr evans say the same thing. true I’m A layman in medicine and they are both very experienced and qualified doctors but they are not experts or doctors in murder and method of murder. They are perhaps no more qualified than you or me to speculate on the likelihood that LL would discriminate in volume of air delivered when attempting to kill a baby. there is no reason to think she would.

Not really sure that it matters. If G then she obviously knew it could potentially cause death. Not sure the argument over speed of it and amount is necessary. Its obviously a crazy thing to do, no matter what amount. Its different to the milk also because the baby was due 45mm of milk, so there is definitely a good idea of how much would be necessary to cause harm. With the air it's just absolutely dangerous and potentially deadly in minute doses, regardless.

 

[Kemug]

Merry Christmas and very happy New Year to everyone!!!

"Let us hurry to love people
They depart so quickly!"

Best wishes from snowy Poland

And season's greetings to you all from very warm Australia!

 

[katydid23]

Here is article that I think supports my points.

Lucy Letby trial: Baby girl was ‘force-fed massive amounts of milk’

A BABY girl allegedly attacked by nurse Lucy Letby was force-fed “massive additional amounts of milk”, a court has heard.

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

“I can’t recall a baby vomiting as far as the floor, I certainly can’t recall a baby vomiting that distance. It is quite extraordinary, there is something very, very unusual going on for (Child G) to throw up in this way.

"There can be only one explanation. (Child G) received far more than 45ml (of milk) down her nasal tube before she vomited.”

this amount of milk I think suggests what is called “overkill” or excessive degrees of inflicted injury to ensure maximum harm Which is fitting if she was trying to kill.
why would she discriminate in volume of air in a intravenous air embolus but not in volume of milk/air via the ngt?

"why would she discriminate in volume of air in a intravenous air embolus but not in volume of milk/air via the ngt?"


Maybe because milk is not deadly like 'air being forced into the line' is.

 

[Sweeper2000]

It was always more my point that all in all you could expect a amount of air grossly in excess of the amount necessary to be acutely lethal delivered as quickly as possible for a few reasons. it would be physically difficult not to considering the minute amount of air necessary and someone with a mind to kill would presumably not discriminate in the volume delivered and someone who knows that level of wrong if guilty would have all the reasons to push the plunger quickly . if LL is guilty I doubt she would consciously pull the plunger back only a few mm as that would take conscious effort or discrimination in volume. That’s just what you could expect from someone who is trying to kill IMO.

 

[Tortoise]

I guess we will all become specialists on air embolism here.

If there is one potential good thing to come out of this trial, I think it could lead to greater awareness of the signs of air embolisms so that this is no longer something doctors have no training in. It could prevent lives being lost and stop anyone so inclined in future from taking advantage of the lack of medical knowledge about it. JMO

 

[Marantz4250b]

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?

If her intention was to bring a baby "to the brink of death" then that is specifically not attempted murder. It is the exact opposite of attempted murder as there is no intention kill what-so-ever. It is impossible for that to be seen as attempted murder because she clearly did not intend death to occur.

The quote from the appeal case about the defandants throwing a guy off a balcony, or whatever it was, is being cherry-picked for what people want to see, I think. Yes, the jury can infer an intent from the defendands actions but there must still be the intent to kill as the reason for the criminal behavior. If her reason is to bring someone very close to death, regardless of how likely that may be to cause death, then the requisite intention to kill is not present. You have to have both for that quote to apply.

 

[Marantz4250b]

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

It's what the law defines as attempted murder though. Doing even extremely dangerous things does not equate to AM just because they are very likely to cause death.

Regardless of how likely death is to occur , the prosecution must still show the intent in the mind of the defandant to cause death. That intention can only be inferred where the act is so likely to cause death that it is plainly obvious to any right thinking person that the intention of it was to cause death. Essentially, the fact that the victim did not die needs to be, to all intents and purposes, miraculous.

I do not think that the prosecution have demonstrated an unequivocal intention to cause death, at least as far as the case of baby G is concerned.

 

[Tortoise]

If her intention was to bring a baby "to the brink of death" then that is specifically not attempted murder. It is the exact opposite of attempted murder as there is no intention kill what-so-ever. It is impossible for that to be seen as attempted murder because she clearly did not intend death to occur.

The quote from the appeal case about the defandants throwing a guy off a balcony, or whatever it was, is being cherry-picked for what people want to see, I think. Yes, the jury can infer an intent from the defendands actions but there must still be the intent to kill as the reason for the criminal behavior. If her reason is to bring someone very close to death, regardless of how likely that may be to cause death, then the requisite intention to kill is not present. You have to have both for that quote to apply.

I agree, if the intention was to bring a baby to the brink of death that is not attempted murder.

IMO, there is no evidence of this though.

The quote from the appeal case is definitely not cherry-picked, it is a legal precedent; the case where Lord Justice Lloyd defined how courts should direct juries, where required, over the matter of the defendant's foresight - "the jury can infer intention if the defendant knew quite well that in doing that there was virtual certainty that the victim would be killed". It is the case quoted in the CPS guidelines to attempted murder.

 

[Tortoise]

It's what the law defines as attempted murder though. Doing even extremely dangerous things does not equate to AM just because they are very likely to cause death.

Regardless of how likely death is to occur , the prosecution must still show the intent in the mind of the defandant to cause death. That intention can only be inferred where the act is so likely to cause death that it is plainly obvious to any right thinking person that the intention of it was to cause death. Essentially, the fact that the victim did not die needs to be, to all intents and purposes, miraculous.

I do not think that the prosecution have demonstrated an unequivocal intention to cause death, at least as far as the case of baby G is concerned.

In the opening speeches, the prosecutor said the jury can look at the evidence of what happened to child A and child B in the context of the other children in the case.

That means that if they are satisfied the requisite intent has been proved by the prosecution with child A (alleged murder) and child B (alleged attempted murder), they then only need to decide whether the evidence proves that what happened to the other children was not naturally occurring, and was done by her.

It would be irregular if the jury decided, for example, that she had intent to kill children A to F and H to Q, but her intent was different for child G, if they are satisfied child G was deliberately fed excess milk and air by her and that this act was a life threatening event.

If the defendant did the act that caused the death of baby A and the same act was done the next night to baby B, the death of A would mean she had knowledge there was virtual certainty B would die at the time of deciding to do it again, regardless of whether B survived.

MOO

 

[katydid23]

If her intention was to bring a baby "to the brink of death" then that is specifically not attempted murder. It is the exact opposite of attempted murder as there is no intention kill what-so-ever. It is impossible for that to be seen as attempted murder because she clearly did not intend death to occur.

The quote from the appeal case about the defandants throwing a guy off a balcony, or whatever it was, is being cherry-picked for what people want to see, I think. Yes, the jury can infer an intent from the defendands actions but there must still be the intent to kill as the reason for the criminal behavior. If her reason is to bring someone very close to death, regardless of how likely that may be to cause death, then the requisite intention to kill is not present. You have to have both for that quote to apply.

I disagree that it's not 'attempted murder' because she was [allegedly] bringing babies to the point where they were 'already dead' but had to be resuscitated. If not for the heroic actions of the medical team, some of these babies would have continued to be unresponsive and not breathing.

That is attempted murder, in my opinion. What she allegedly did caused these babies to enter the death zone---without immediate intervention they would have died. She [allegedly] purposely sent them into that unresponsive state so that she and her co-workers could intervene. Then it is luck and circumstance that decides their final fate.

 

[Marantz4250b]

I agree, if the intention was to bring a baby to the brink of death that is not attempted murder.

IMO, there is no evidence of this though.

The quote from the appeal case is definitely not cherry-picked, it is a legal precedent; the case where Lord Justice Lloyd defined how courts should direct juries, where required, over the matter of the defendant's foresight - "the jury can infer intention if the defendant knew quite well that in doing that there was virtual certainty that the victim would be killed". It is the case quoted in the CPS guidelines to attempted murder.

There must be because people on here are saying that precise thing. Many posters here have followed this case intently, far more intently than me and about a million times more intently than most of the muppets on Facebook and lots are coming to the conclusion that - if guilty - she did it for drama, the attention, the glorification and the adoration that came from saving the babies. If they are correct in that then, logicaly, she could not have had the intention to cause death because there would have been none of those "rewards".

She either had the intention to bask in the glory of being the savior or she had the intention to kill. It is logically impossible for her to have had both; she may have had the intention to be utterly indifferent to whether or not death would result but that is not an intention to kill.

Yes, you are correct as regards the quote from the precedent case.The words "virtual certainly" were not highlighted in previous usages of it, though, which is why I said it was being cherry-picked. Those are important words; from the evidence presented this far, death is clearly not a "virtual certainty" as she has failed more times than she succeeded. Indeed, she failed to kill baby G entirely!

Two highly experienced expert witnesses have been specifically questioned by the defence as to the likelihood of an air embolus causing death and they have given very specific answers as to it depending upon the volume of air and the time taken for its administration. So, in short, their evidence has demonstrated quite clearly and unequivocally that air emboli are not virtually certain to cause death. I think that that is the precise reason as to why the defence asked those questions.

 

[Marantz4250b]

In the opening speeches, the prosecutor said the jury can look at the evidence of what happened to child A and child B in the context of the other children in the case.

That means that if they are satisfied the requisite intent has been proved by the prosecution with child A (alleged murder) and child B (alleged attempted murder), they then only need to decide whether the evidence proves that what happened to the other children was not naturally occurring, and was done by her.

It would be irregular if the jury decided, for example, that she had intent to kill children A to F and H to Q, but her intent was different for child G, if they are satisfied child G was deliberately fed excess milk and air by her and that this act was a life threatening event.

If the defendant did the act that caused the death of baby A and the same act was done the next night to baby B, the death of A would mean she had knowledge there was virtual certainty B would die at the time of deciding to do it again, regardless of whether B survived.

MOO

How can that possibly work though? That statement says that an intention to cause death can be inferred by being sure that the defendant did a different crime which does not require an intention to cause death! That is legally perverse, surely?

The prosecution does not need to show that she intended to cause death to convict her for murder. It needs only show that she intended to cause GBH and that the injuries she caused were a "...substantial and operating..." cause of said death. If we assume for the sake of the discussion that they have categorically proved her guilt of murder in the case of baby A (note to mods, this is a hypothetical scenario, I'm not saying they have) I see no evidence, thus far presented, that proves her actual intention to cause death. Indeed, why would they bother trying when they have absolutely no need to? They haven't given the slightest hint as to motivation and without that it is almost impossible to prove intent to cause death.

Doing the same act to baby B as which caused the death of A in no way proves that death was a virtual certainty. It's entirely possible that, if guilty, she simply got it wrong. You cannot prove something as being virtually certain with a sample size of one. Indeed, if she did murder baby A and took two attempts to fail to murder baby B then that is a 66% failure rate.

She has failed to kill more times than she has succeeded, according to the number of charges against her. If we apply the reasoning to imply intent to murder that the prosecution suggests then it must also follow that it can be applied in the opposite way in that the many, many times that death did not occur implies an intent on her part that death would not actually occur.

Now, the prosecution may have successfully proved that she had an intention to do something, ie; GBH because injecting air obviously constitutes the "really serious harm" which is the legal standard for that crime but that is a very long way from proving an intent to kill.

As I say, I would not be at all surprised if the attempted murder charges get withdrawn or she's found not guilty. Now we've seen some of the evidence I'm starting to wonder why they brought them; charges of GBH with intent would be much easier to secure convictions on and if she ends up being convicted of even one of the murder charges she'll go away for a very long time and more than one will likely result in a whole life order. Also, GBH satisfies the relevant legal bar for murder so if the jury is sure on those much easier to prove charges then it surely makes the murder convictions more likely?

 

[Marantz4250b]

I disagree that it's not 'attempted murder' because she was [allegedly] bringing babies to the point where they were 'already dead' but had to be resuscitated. If not for the heroic actions of the medical team, some of these babies would have continued to be unresponsive and not breathing.

That is attempted murder, in my opinion. What she allegedly did caused these babies to enter the death zone---without immediate intervention they would have died. She [allegedly] purposely sent them into that unresponsive state so that she and her co-workers could intervene. Then it is luck and circumstance that decides their final fate.

That is not legal death, though. I know it's commonly referred to as "medical death" but I'm not even sure that has any actual medical meaning. Also, even if that was the case then how do you prove that she actually intended that rather than to simply make them very, very ill?

In addition to the above, there are obvious very sound legal reasonings as to why that could never fly; if we accepted that legal doctrine it could, theoretically, result in the defendant being convicted of "murdering" the same victim multiple times on entirely separate occasions from the effect of one single criminal act which is patently absurd in legal terms. If you stab someone and they "medically die", the paramedics resuscitate them then that's a murder conviction; if they spend six months in hospital then a blood clot which you caused is dislodged and they need to be resuscitated again then you've "murdered" them twice! Moreover, more than one murder makes you eligible for a whole life order which means you never get paroled! This may be against the background of the guy you "murdered" (twice) making a full recovery and living another 60 or 70 years!

 

[katydid23]

That is not legal death, though. I know it's commonly referred to as "medical death" but I'm not even sure that has any actual medical meaning. Also, even if that was the case then how do you prove that she actually intended that rather than to simply make them very, very ill?

In addition to the above, there are obvious very sound legal reasonings as to why that could never fly; if we accepted that legal doctrine it could, theoretically, result in the defendant being convicted of "murdering" the same victim multiple times on entirely separate occasions from the effect of one single criminal act which is patently absurd in legal terms. If you stab someone and they "medically die", the paramedics resuscitate them then that's a murder conviction; if they spend six months in hospital then a blood clot which you caused is dislodged and they need to be resuscitated again then you've "murdered" them twice! Moreover, more than one murder makes you eligible for a whole life order which means you never get paroled! This may be against the background of the guy you "murdered" (twice) making a full recovery and living another 60 or 70 years!

Your examples, of a victim being murdered twice does not seem correct, in my opinion. We are discussing attempted murder, not murder. And if someone makes 'an attempt' to render someone unresponsive, unconscious and not breathing on their own, that seems to fit the definition.

Attempted Murder Solicitors - Adam Law Solicitors

Attempted murder (contrary to section 1(1) Criminal Attempts Act 1981) Adam Law Solicitors offer expert legal advice for anyone facing, or worried about facing, prosecution for attempted murder. We have a dedicated criminal defence team who have many years experience of all charges of criminal...

www.adamlawsolicitors.co.uk

Evidence of the following factors may be considered in the intention to kill:

• calculated planning;
• selection and use of a deadly weapon;
• threats (subject to the paragraph above on bravado);
• severity or duration of attack;
• relevant admissions in interview

I think the defendant checked off 3 of the above factors in the attack on baby G.

However, in the overall scheme of things, it really doesn't matter. Is it going to affect the sentencing, IF found guilty?

Will it matter to the jury that 7 died and the others were just intended too become very ill in a torturous and painful way, which left them debilitated?

How would I punish someone or sentence them if rather than intending to kill a newborn child, they simply intended to make them so seriously ill that they may never recover fully? Would it be that much less of a prison sentence ?

[Especially considering that 7 of the victims did die.]

 

[DianaWW]

Medical experts have testified that injecting air into babies is very likely to cause death. So if the jury decide she purposely injected air into these babies, she will be found guilty of attempted murder. It’s that simple IMO. Same for overfeeding.

They are not allowed to speculate on her motive, whether they think she was going it ‘just for drama’. And if the babies were not in a hospital setting with Drs on hand to save them, there is a strong chance they WOULD have died. Again, my opinion.

So I really don’t think it’s that complicated.

 

[Marantz4250b]

Your examples, of a victim being murdered twice does not seem correct, in my opinion. We are discussing attempted murder, not murder. And if someone makes 'an attempt' to render someone unresponsive, unconscious and not breathing on their own, that seems to fit the definition.

Attempted Murder Solicitors - Adam Law Solicitors

Attempted murder (contrary to section 1(1) Criminal Attempts Act 1981) Adam Law Solicitors offer expert legal advice for anyone facing, or worried about facing, prosecution for attempted murder. We have a dedicated criminal defence team who have many years experience of all charges of criminal...

www.adamlawsolicitors.co.uk

Evidence of the following factors may be considered in the intention to kill:

• calculated planning;
• selection and use of a deadly weapon;
• threats (subject to the paragraph above on bravado);
• severity or duration of attack;
• relevant admissions in interview

I think the defendant checked off 3 of the above factors in the attack on baby G.

However, in the overall scheme of things, it really doesn't matter. Is it going to affect the sentencing, IF found guilty?

Will it matter to the jury that 7 died and the others were just intended too become very ill in a torturous and painful way, which left them debilitated?

How would I punish someone or sentence them if rather than intending to kill a newborn child, they simply intended to make them so seriously ill that they may never recover fully? Would it be that much less of a prison sentence ?

[Especially considering that 7 of the victims did die.]

It in no way fits the definition. To be convicted of attempted murder you must intend death to be the result of your actions. Death is the permanent cessation of life. Intending to render someone unconscious with the intent of resuscitating them is the precise opposite of an intention to cause death, it's the very definition of not wanting someone to die.

Don't get me wrong, I do see your line of reasoning, but even doing something extremely dangerous to someone does not make the bar for the intent element of attempted murder.

The list you quoted are simply some of the things which may be considered when evaluating the intention of the defendant. It is not a ticky-box exercise whereby the more of them which appear to apply then the more likely it is that the person intended to kill.

The point you make about seven of the victims actually dying isn't really indicative of an intention to cause death. Just because they did does not, of itself, prove the intent element for the attempted murder charges. Murder does not require any intent to cause death. It requires only an intent to cause GBH from which death resulted. If you throw a glass at someone with the intent to cause them injury and it is plain to everyone that injury was your only intention, if they bleed to death then you can still be done for murder.

 

[Kemug]

I agree, if the intention was to bring a baby to the brink of death that is not attempted murder.

The quote from the appeal case is definitely not cherry-picked, it is a legal precedent; the case where Lord Justice Lloyd defined how courts should direct juries, where required, over the matter of the defendant's foresight - "the jury can infer intention if the defendant knew quite well that in doing that there was virtual certainty that the victim would be killed". It is the case quoted in the CPS guidelines to attempted murder.

So if an amateur non-medical person brings someone to the brink of death so that they can "save" them, that is probably not attempted murder? But if a trained and experienced health professional (eg LL) does the same thing, they know very well that there is every likelihood that the victim will die, and so that is attempted murder?

 

[Marantz4250b]

Medical experts have testified that injecting air into babies is very likely to cause death. So if the jury decide she purposely injected air into these babies, she will be found guilty of attempted murder. It’s that simple IMO. Same for overfeeding.

They are not allowed to speculate on her motive, whether they think she was going it ‘just for drama’. And if the babies were not in a hospital setting with Drs on hand to save them, there is a strong chance they WOULD have died. Again, my opinion.

So I really don’t think it’s that complicated.

That is entirely incorrect. Something which is "very likely" to happen is not sufficient to prove the intent element for an attempted murder conviction. As has been posted by others from the leading case on the matter, in order for intention to be implied based on the specific acts done by the defendant, the things done must be "virtually certain" to cause death. That is very different to something being "very likely" and is a much higher bar to clear.

Also, as the defence has managed to get the medical experts to confirm, an air embolus is not "virtually certain" to cause death as the likelihood of death depends upon the volume of air administered and the time over which it is administered. As has been seen in the case of child G, neither an air embolus nor over-feeding (allegedly) managed to cause death and the child survived. We can see from the number of charges that the methods she allegedly used (if she in fact did anything at all) were not virtually certain to cause death as there are fifteen attempted murder charges and seven murder charges.

 

[Marantz4250b]

So if an amateur non-medical person brings someone to the brink of death so that they can "save" them, that is probably not attempted murder? But if a trained and experienced health professional (eg LL) does the same thing, they know very well that there is every likelihood that the victim will die, and so that is attempted murder?

Thing is though that there isn't "every likelihood" that the victim will die. There are more attempted murder charges than there are murder charges so, in actual fact, if she has done what she is accused of then there is every likelihood that they won't die!