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

[Kemug]

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".

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.

 

[KurtVile2021]

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

You have raised some interesting points. However in my opinion, legally speaking the mens rea element for murder can include intention to cause GBH. By that definition there doesn't have to be a virtual certainty involved, maybe some foresight of the GBH potentially causing death? And in my opinion the medical experts have shown how the alleged actions could potentially lead to death. Therefore in my opinion I see no issues with the charges as they stand, from a technical legal standpoint.

 

[JosieJo]

Personally I feel she enjoyed / was obsessed with bereaved parents and their grief therefore had every intention to kill.

Surely murder / attempted murder is always going to be more hit and miss in a hospital setting than not as the facilities and expertise is on hand ..I feel her success rate is not as relevant in this situation

 

[katydid23]

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.

"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."


I think this^^^ legal argument is a dead end and a very bad strategy for the defense. To use the above strategy, the defense has to say "my client didn't inject air or overfeed because they wanted to kill that baby---they simply intended that child to be code red---and they intended for the baby to be unresponsive and to need an emergency medical team to bring them back to life. "

Is the defense going to want to admit that as a winning legal strategy? It sounds like there would be some severe charges for that behaviour if it was confessed to.

IIRC, Baby G has severe health deficits and has had a painful and difficult life since the attacks.

 

[MsBetsy]

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.

If she only meant to cause harm then I would think the charge would be manslaughter.

If the assault or attempt is serious enough that it could lead to death, the charge would be attempted murder.

LL would have known her actions could have caused death and she was in a position of trust. As a result, Baby G was severely disabled for life.

So if her intent was to bring a baby to the brink of death, but never intended death, it would still be attempted murder, since the attempt was serious enough to cause death.

IMO

 

[ColourPurple]

IF guilty, then she allegedly could get drama and excitement from the adrenalin rush of everybody trying to save the baby's life/ bring them back to life... and then if the baby died she could allegedly get additional drama or pleasure from the grief of the parents and the rituals associated with the deaths. We've seen examples where she wanted to be part of their grieving process and making memory boxes even when she wasn't the baby's designated nurse and had been told to leave the room.

And again, if guilty, after the death of Baby A, she appeared desperate to be back in the room where it happened, to the point where even her colleague told her she found it weird. And once in room A, if guilty, it seems like she may have tried to recreate and/or relive the details of Baby A's death again... and again and again.

As for intent, I'm waiting to hear more about the later cases where she is accused of pausing the alarm on the monitor, as I think, if guilty, this could be an example of trying to ensure death. The monitor was there to alert everybody as soon as possible that a baby was deteriorating so that action could be taken promptly. However if you're an alleged murderer then the monitor is a hinderence, as the longer you can leave a baby to deteriorate, the greater the chance that the medical team will fail to save or resuscitate the baby. An extra 30 seconds or so could make all the difference.

So if your alleged desired outcome is for the baby to die then you might look for some way to stop the monitor from alerting everybody straight away. As we've seen with Baby G, to turn the monitor off completely (whoever did it) would be something that others would notice, whereas pausing the alarm would not be. Unless, of course somebody happened to walk in while the baby was deteriorating and the alarm wasn't going off like it should be... which is exactly what is alleged to have happened in one of the cases we are yet to hear about.

IF guilty, and IF LL did start pausing the alarm on the monitor so it didn't go off straight away then I think that may well be enough to show that the outcome she wanted was death. Unless anybody can think of another reason why she might allegedly pause the alarm on the monitor?

All IMO

 

[Marantz4250b]

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.

It's down to her intent, though. If her intent was that she wanted to cause them to be very ill and unstable so she could act the hero then she clearly did not intend them to die. Indeed, baby G did not die. If the baby had died then she could still have been convicted for murder as murder does not require an intention to kill. Attempted murder does.

 

[Marantz4250b]

You have raised some interesting points. However in my opinion, legally speaking the mens rea element for murder can include intention to cause GBH. By that definition there doesn't have to be a virtual certainty involved, maybe some foresight of the GBH potentially causing death? And in my opinion the medical experts have shown how the alleged actions could potentially lead to death. Therefore in my opinion I see no issues with the charges as they stand, from a technical legal standpoint.

We are discussing attempted murder in the case of Baby G, though, not murder.

If the prosecution want the jury to imply an intention to kill through her alleged specific actions (injecting air, over-feeding), rather than something they can specifically point to such as a statement by her intending death then they must show that those actions are "virtually certain" to cause death. Potentially causing death is not sufficient. Foresight of death is not sufficient. Indeed, foresight of death when causing GBH (which is defined as "really serious harm") is pretty much a given, surely?

 

[ColourPurple]

I'm curious why pausing an alarm is even an option?

I read that its usually used while they're attempting resus so thecrash team aren't distracted by the alarm still going off.

 

[Marantz4250b]

Personally I feel she enjoyed / was obsessed with bereaved parents and their grief therefore had every intention to kill.

You may be correct. However, lots and lots of people are saying that she did these things (if guilty) in order to play the hero and save the child. If that is the case then she specifically did not intend to kill. The two are mutually exclusive, they cannot both exist in unison.

 

[ColourPurple]

It's down to her intent, though. If her intent was that she wanted to cause them to be very ill and unstable so she could act the hero then she clearly did not intend them to die. Indeed, baby G did not die. If the baby had died then she could still have been convicted for murder as murder does not require an intention to kill. Attempted murder does.

IF guilty, and IF that was a motive, I don't think its neccesarily about acting the hero and saving the baby. It's about the adrenalin rush and the drama of the whole situation, and IF the drama is a motive, there's actually more ongoing drama if the baby dies than if the baby survives.

 

[Marantz4250b]

"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."


I think this^^^ legal argument is a dead end and a very bad strategy for the defense. To use the above strategy, the defense has to say "my client didn't inject air or overfeed because they wanted to kill that baby---they simply intended that child to be code red---and they intended for the baby to be unresponsive and to need an emergency medical team to bring them back to life. "

Is the defense going to want to admit that as a winning legal strategy? It sounds like there would be some severe charges for that behaviour if it was confessed to.

IIRC, Baby G has severe health deficits and has had a painful and difficult life since the attacks.

It appears to me that that is precisely what the defence are doing. Myers isn't going to frame it in the way are saying though.

He is defending an attempted murder charge and that is the only charge she is facing; it isn't murder, it isn't assault, it isn't some form of child endangerment or anything like that. It's attempted murder. In the case of Baby G, I mean.

In order to obtain a conviction the prosecution must show that there was an intention to cause death, nothing else will do. Mr Myers does not need to say "...my client actually meant to make this child very sick, to endanger them to the point where death was a real possibility so that she could bathe in the glory of helping to save her..." . He only needs to show that the prosecution have failed to prove the relevant elements of attempted murder.

Mr Myers does not need to say it that specifically because the judge will do it for him in his directions to the jury before they deliberate; if the prosecution are trying to show that her specific alleged actions (air embolus, over-feeding, etc) demonstrate the necessary intent to cause death then the judge will say something like -

"...the prosecution must have made you sure that by injecting air death was a virtual certainty; death being likely, or even very likely is not good enough. It must be virtually certain..."

Mr Myers has asked some very specific questions of the expert witnesses as to how likely an air embolism is to cause death. He has been answered very specifically, more than once I believe, that it depends upon at least two factors - the volume of air and the speed of administration. So, the witness has said that an air embolism is NOT always fatal and, clearly, from his words it depends on several factors. How can it be possible to conclude that death is "virtually certain"? It clearly isn't virtually certain.

 

[Marantz4250b]

If she only meant to cause harm then I would think the charge would be manslaughter.

If the assault or attempt is serious enough that it could lead to death, the charge would be attempted murder.

LL would have known her actions could have caused death and she was in a position of trust. As a result, Baby G was severely disabled for life.

So if her intent was to bring a baby to the brink of death, but never intended death, it would still be attempted murder, since the attempt was serious enough to cause death.

IMO

No. The act done must be "virtually certain" to cause death. That is a very high bar.

It could sensibly be argued that any form of GBH (really serious harm) could lead to death but that dies not demonstrate an intent to kill.

Bringing someone to the "brink of death" is a specific intention not to cause death so cannot possibly be attempted murder. You even use the phrase "...never intended death..." in your analogy. There must be a specific and definite intention to cause death as an essential element of the crime of attempted murder. If that is not there, regardless of the severity of the actions then the case is not made and the defendant must be found not guilty.

 

[Tortoise]

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.

You say there must be evidence because lots of people here believe that if she's guilty she did it for the attention and adoration etc she got from saving the babies.

Even if there were a hundred people here saying it (there aren't) that is not evidence of it. It's a theory of a possible motive some people have jumped to, but it's not in the evidence. She sent a couple of texts saying she was bored with feeding babies or it was too quiet, or she wanted to be in the ITU, but that's not evidence of wanting babies to live, or die.

The theory just doesn't fit with the evidence presented.

The evidence is that following three deaths and one near-fatality, a fourth baby died also with an alleged air embolus AND an alleged injury in which he lost most of his blood. The following night baby F was poisoned with insulin, injected with glucose to raise his blood sugars, and then LL went home while he was still receiving a potentially lethal amount of insulin through his TPN. A second bag of TPN had also (agreed by the defence and the prosecuion) been poisoned to the same degree which he was hooked up to, which looks like a concerted plan to cover for the eventuality of doctors removing the first bag, while LL was not present. Baby F could have died at any point while LL was not there to rescue him. None of this fits with an intention to rescue babies.

Following the four deaths, babies started to collapse with a myriad of other presentations, after people started talking about the similarities of the collapses. Baby I was allegedly given air through his ngt four times until on the fifth occasion he died with the alleged addition of air through his IV line, the same alleged method that had already killed four babies.

The evidence of the experts is that air injected killed these babies. The defence asked about the babies who survived some alleged injections to make the point that it is usually fatal, not to make the point that it isn't:


"Mr Myers said it is a 'key aspect' that the inability to successfully resuscitate Child A had led to an air embolus. He adds that child B recovered, and that is "inconsistent" and "contradicts the air embolus theory".
Dr Evans: "No it does not."

"Mr Myers says Child D recovered twice, which, in principle, is inconsistent with an air embolus.
Dr Bohin disagrees, saying it depends on the speed and volume of the air administered."

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Friday, November 11

 

[KurtVile2021]

We are discussing attempted murder in the case of Baby G, though, not murder.

If the prosecution want the jury to imply an intention to kill through her alleged specific actions (injecting air, over-feeding), rather than something they can specifically point to such as a statement by her intending death then they must show that those actions are "virtually certain" to cause death. Potentially causing death is not sufficient. Foresight of death is not sufficient. Indeed, foresight of death when causing GBH (which is defined as "really serious harm") is pretty much a given, surely?

Sorry after reading up CPS guidelines, the legal precedent and information Tortoise shared earlier - I stand corrected.

 

[Marantz4250b]

The evidence of the experts is that air injected killed these babies. The defence asked about the babies who survived some alleged injections to make the point that it is usually fatal, not to make the point that it isn't:


"Mr Myers said it is a 'key aspect' that the inability to successfully resuscitate Child A had led to an air embolus. He adds that child B recovered, and that is "inconsistent" and "contradicts the air embolus theory".
Dr Evans: "No it does not."

"Mr Myers says Child D recovered twice, which, in principle, is inconsistent with an air embolus.
Dr Bohin disagrees, saying it depends on the speed and volume of the air administered."

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Friday, November 11

"Usually fatal" is not synonymous with "virtually certain" to be fatal. If the prosecution want to prove intent to kill by the alleged method used then they must show it to be virtually certain to cause death.

Look at what Mr Myers is asking; the expert witness has said that recovery is not inconsistent with an air embolus. In the final quote Mr Myers (her defence) actually says that recovery is inconsistent with an air embolus. The witness disagrees and goes on to say that it depends on several things. Not only did the child recover, they recovered twice! He has managed to get them to to provide statements which essentially show that an AE is not "virtually certain" to cause death! So, unless they have other evidence as to her intent I cannot see how they have proved intent to cause death based upon the method she allegedly employed.

 

[Kemug]

You say there must be evidence because lots of people here believe that if she's guilty she did it for the attention and adoration etc she got from saving the babies.

Yes, this has been discussed as a possible motivation for her (alleged) actions. But I don't think large numbers of us are really welded on to it. For myself, I believe I am still open to any theory of motivation, or a combination of motives, including the one mentioned above. If/when LL is found guilty, I hope things will be made clearer.

 

[Tortoise]

"Usually fatal" is not synonymous with "virtually certain" to be fatal. If the prosecution want to prove intent to kill by the alleged method used then they must show it to be virtually certain to cause death.

Look at what Mr Myers is asking; the expert witness has said that recovery is not inconsistent with an air embolus. In the final quote Mr Myers (her defence) actually says that recovery is inconsistent with an air embolus. The witness disagrees and goes on to say that it depends on several things. Not only did the child recover, they recovered twice! He has managed to get them to to provide statements which essentially show that an AE is not "virtually certain" to cause death! So, unless they have other evidence as to her intent I cannot see how they have proved intent to cause death based upon the method she allegedly employed.

It depends how you define the word usually, which was my choice of word, not the word used in court. My definition of it is normally, just like you would normally die from a stab wound to the heart but there are probably cases where immediate surgery and blood transfusions have saved someone. It's nonsense IMO to suggest that a nurse would think a baby might survive it after four babies had just allegedly died from it. Baby D was revived twice but died after her third collapse.

 

[ColourPurple]

Yes, this has been discussed as a possible motivation for her (alleged) actions. But I don't think large numbers of us are really welded on to it. For myself, I believe I am still open to any theory of motivation, or a combination of motives, including the one mentioned above. If/when LL is found guilty, I hope things will be made clearer.

I think it lumps together two things that don't need to be lumped together. She could allegedly be doing it for the drama and the thrill of the crash team all trying to save the baby's life, without actually wanting to be the hero who saved the baby.

And if she allegedly enjoys witnessing the grief of the parents and bathing the dead babies, taking photos of them, taking footprints, cutting a lock of their hair, giving the parents a pic of the surviving sibling holding the teddy of the deceased sibling, sending symapthy cards etc etc.. and the gratitude she gets from the parents for doing those things. If the baby survives she doesn't get to do any of those things.

The line that sticks with me is "I just feel sad that they’'re thinking of me when they’ve lost him'"

 

[Marantz4250b]

It depends how you define the word usually, which was my choice of word, not the word used in court. My definition of it is normally, just like you would normally die from a stab wound to the heart but there are probably cases where immediate surgery and blood transfusions have saved someone. It's nonsense IMO to suggest that a nurse would think a baby might survive it after four babies had just allegedly died from it. Baby D was revived twice but died after her third collapse.

The word "usually" is not the standard required to imply an intent to kill from a person's actions. The acts done must be "virtually certain" to cause death, it matters not that they would usually or normally cause death.

The medical experts have, after the questions from Mr Myers, stated quite clearly that death from an air embolism is not a virtual certainty as the likelihood of death is dependent upon the volume of air involved and the time taken to administer it. Indeed, they have specifically contradicted Myers when he said that recovering twice is "inconsistent" with an AE. He obviously stated that because he knew they would contradict him and, in doing so, they have confirmed that recovery is consistent with an AE. Hence, death is not a virtual certainty.