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

[Tortoise]

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.

It's about her intentions, based on what happened and her knowledge, not about the statistical certainty of death.

Happy to disagree with you and move on.

 

[Kemug]

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.

Ah ha! But did Mr Myers actually know that the doctors would contradict him, or was that just a "virtual certainty"?

 

[Legal]

Interesting discussions! I've been looking for the actual legislation relating to attempted murder and I found the following information on a UK law firm's website. There is a link provided to the Criminal Attempts Act 1981, and an explanation of an interesting provision relating to the fact that the charge of attempted murder is still valid, even if the commission would have been impossible. They use the example of someone shooting another person but the gun not being loaded, unbeknownst to the perpetrator. This made me wonder if LL could be found guilty of attempted murder, if it could be shown she believed injecting air into the baby would cause death, regardless of whether this was the case.

A Guide to Attempted Murder Defences from Expert Lawyers

A guide to learning more about Attempted Murder defences. Written by expert murder lawyers.

www.stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk

(I've checked and this firm are listed on the Law Society website and registered with the SRA)

 

[Marantz4250b]

Interesting discussions! I've been looking for the actual legislation relating to attempted murder and I found the following information on a UK law firm's website. There is a link provided to the Criminal Attempts Act 1981, and an explanation of an interesting provision relating to the fact that the charge of attempted murder is still valid, even if the commission would have been impossible. They use the example of someone shooting another person but the gun not being loaded, unbeknownst to the perpetrator. This made me wonder if LL could be found guilty of attempted murder, if it could be shown she believed injecting air into the baby would cause death, regardless of whether this was the case.

A Guide to Attempted Murder Defences from Expert Lawyers

A guide to learning more about Attempted Murder defences. Written by expert murder lawyers.

www.stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk

(I've checked and this firm are listed on the Law Society website and registered with the SRA)

Whether the baby died or not is different to the piece of law you are quoting.

It's about "attempting the impossible". Shooting someone with an unloaded gun which you believe to be loaded with the intention to kill them is not the same as using a method that actually could cause death but fails to do so.

Both have an intention to do an unlawful act but one of them is impossible to accomplish. The essential element needed for an attempted murder conviction is that the defendant actually intended death to occur. This is not required to secure a murder conviction.

 

[katydid23]

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?

I do not believe the attorneys have to show her actions were "virtually certain" to cause death, in order to prove attempted murder. I think they just need to show that actions were taken which had previously caused deaths and could easily do so again. Just because sometimes the victims were able to be saved by heroic actions, that does not mean that there was not an attempt to kill them.

Potentially causing death IS sufficient to charge someone with attempted murder, in my opinion. Especially when the potential victims were tiny, fragile, premature newborns that were just clinging to life as it was.

I really don't understand why anyone thinks the prosecution is overcharging here. Why would anyone give the benefit of the doubt in this circumstance? Seven babies DID die so why assume there was no intention for the others to do so as well?

 

[Marantz4250b]

I do not believe the attorneys have to show her actions were "virtually certain" to cause death, in order to prove attempted murder. I think they just need to show that actions were taken which had previously caused deaths and could easily do so again.

This has been discussed at length; for attempted murder they MUST prove an intent to kill. This is not necessary for simple murder as an intent to cause GBH from which someone actually died is sufficient.

If the prosecution is attempting to prove an intent to kill by the act done alone (say, injecting air) then they must show that death would be a virtual certainty and that the defendant would know it is a virtual certainty.

The fact that it has been fatal before or that it is likely, or even very likely, to cause death is not sufficient. Death must be a virtual certainty.

 

[Tortoise]

If LL forced excess milk and air into baby G's stomach on the first occasion she projectile vomited, and then did the same again after baby G came back from Arrowe Park, I think her texts on the day of the first incident show very well that she knew it had the potential to kill her.


10.56pm –
LL (after visiting the unit): "She looks awful, doesn't she. Hope you get some sleep"
Nurse (who had finished dayshift): "Yeah, going to APH [Arrowe Park Hospital]. On triple antibiotics now and a bit more stable."
LL: “yes just left work. Last gas 7.0 lactate 9.”
Nurse: "So no better. Damn. I have a bad feeling. At least they know APH"
LL: "Not looking good but yes least going to where she is known. Just hope they get her there."
Nurse: "Hmmmmm not sure they will."
LL: "On today of all days."
Nurse: “Yup poor parents.”
LL: “Yeah she’s declining bit by bit”
Nurse: yeah, need to try and switch off. I’ll update you tomorrow.xxxx

 

[Marantz4250b]

If LL forced excess milk and air into baby G's stomach on the first occasion she projectile vomited, and then did the same again after baby G came back from Arrowe Park, I think her texts on the day of the first incident show very well that she knew it had the potential to kill her.

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

 

[katydid23]

This has been discussed at length; for attempted murder they MUST prove an intent to kill. This is not necessary for simple murder as an intent to cause GBH from which someone actually died is sufficient.

If the prosecution is attempting to prove an intent to kill by the act done alone (say, injecting air) then they must show that death would be a virtual certainty and that the defendant would know it is a virtual certainty.

The fact that it has been fatal before or that it is likely, or even very likely, to cause death is not sufficient. Death must be a virtual certainty.

"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."

Homicide: Murder, manslaughter, infanticide and causing or allowing the death or serious injury of a child or vulnerable adult | The Crown Prosecution Service

www.cps.gov.uk

If the requisite intention can be 'inferred by the circumstances', then the prior circumstances of her previous alleged victims would surely be seen as a virtual certainty. One of the inferred circumstances is that the defendant had chosen a weapon and employed that weapon in preparation.

The alleged victims were premature, tiny, and very fragile. Certainly a medical worker would know that injecting air into the line, or injecting way too much milk at feeding time, could cause their certain death. Especially if it had happened just that way months earlier.

How is the defense going to successfully argue that the defendant had no way of knowing or expecting certain death when other babies had already died under the same circumstances?

 

[katydid23]

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

Does it really matter, one way or the other, if Baby G falls through the legal cracks then?

Baby G was left with severe physical debilities and lives with pain and complications. I am sure the jury understands this.

This trial will be looking closely at the devastating cases of babies A through O. I am not going to get too hung up on the legal technicalities of one of these poor baby victims.

By the time the jurors were able to hear about the legal conundrum, concerning baby G, they had already heard in great detail, about the attacks upon the previous 5 babies. So it won't really matter that much in the end. JMO

After baby G they will sit through the horrendous details about babies H, I, J, K, L, M, N and O. Will it matter that the way the attempted murder clause is worded makes it hard to hold the attacker accountable? I don't think it will because the sentence will already be so severe it won't make a difference.

 

[JosieJo]

I'm not sure why people feel that because the babies thankfully lived that her intention was not to kill (allegedly)

 

[Marantz4250b]

Does it really matter, one way or the other, if Baby G falls through the legal cracks then?

Baby G was left with severe physical debilities and lives with pain and complications. I am sure the jury understands this.

This trial will be looking closely at the devastating cases of babies A through O. I am not going to get too hung up on the legal technicalities of one of these poor baby victims.

By the time the jurors were able to hear about the legal conundrum, concerning baby G, they had already heard in great detail, about the attacks upon the previous 5 babies. So it won't really matter that much in the end. JMO

After baby G they will sit through the horrendous details about babies H, I, J, K, L, M, N and O. Will it matter that the way the attempted murder clause is worded makes it hard to hold the attacker accountable? I don't think it will because the sentence will already be so severe it won't make a difference.

I appreciate all that but this is a legally based site involved with crime and its legal specifities.

There is a need to get things right, specifically right.

The prosecution needs to prove an intent to kill. They don't seem to be introducing anything to prove that intent other than her method. That method MUST be virtually certain of causing death. By simple examination of the facts it is clear that neither of these methods do actually result in virtually certain death. It's obvious they don't as she is facing more attempted murder charges than murder charges. Also, if you search for the chances of death through AE you will find figures as low as a 50% chance of death up to 80%. Neither of those could realistically be described as "virtually certain".

 

[katydid23]

Yes, inferred by the circumstances, but that is a selective quote which you cannot take innisolation.

If you wish to infer an intent to kill from the circumstances then the actions done must carry a "virtual certainty" of death. This is very clear from the relevant case law and has been discussed at great length here.

Clearly injecting air, over feeding, etc, if she did them, did NOT cause death in many, many cases! Clearly it fails telhe "virtual certainty" test.

So tell me this then---is there any legal penalty for injecting air and overfeeding to an extent that caused severe lifelong complications? Can't the jurors hold a defendant legally responsible for that, if it is proven that was done?

 

[JosieJo]

For example if a murderer stabbed 5 people poisoned 5 and pushed 5 off a roof

Easily for example 8 could live 7 die

So many variables

Age
Co Morbidity
Dr's level of skill
How long before discovered etc

 

[katydid23]

I appreciate all that but this is a legally based site involved with crime and its legal specifities.

There is a need to get things right, specifically right.

The prosecution needs to prove an intent to kill. They don't seem to be introducing anything to prove that intent other than her method. That method MUST be virtually certain of causing death. By simple examination of the facts it is clear that neither of these methods do actually result in virtually certain death. It's obvious they don't as she is facing more attempted murder charges than murder charges. Also, if you search for the chances of death through AE you will find figures as low as a 50% chance of death up to 80%. Neither of those could realistically be described as "virtually certain".

So are you saying it is not illegal for a nurse to inject air into a newborn if she did not intend for them to die?

 

[Marantz4250b]

So tell me this then---is there any legal penalty for injecting air and overfeeding to an extent that caused severe lifelong complications? Can't the jurors hold a defendant legally responsible for that, if it is proven that was done?

Of course there is! There are probably dozens of applicable offences.

As to the second point. I don't know. I think, though, had the charge been one of the various assault charges available then there would no lt be this level of discussion as to whether she'd be convicted or not!

 

[Dotta]

So tell me this then---is there any legal penalty for injecting air and overfeeding to an extent that caused severe lifelong complications? Can't the jurors hold a defendant legally responsible for that, if it is proven that was done?

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

 

[Marantz4250b]

So are you saying it is not illegal for a nurse to inject air into a newborn if she did not intend for them to die?

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

 

[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.

 

[katydid23]

Of course there is! There are probably dozens of applicable offences.

As to the second point. I don't know. I think, though, had the charge been one of the various assault charges available then there would no lt be this level of discussion as to whether she'd be convicted or not!

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