I think I understand what you’re saying- that for each baby, you want to understand how, out of all the possibilities that could have lead to their death, did they decide on it being a deliberate act of harm?
Because in each instance, I doubt there is 100% conclusive proof it was deliberate harm or murder. And I bet that in each case individually, the (hospitally doctory) investigators first thinking would have been ‘ok, which, out of all the scenarios, is the one that best explains it?’ And that that might have been the most statistically common one, before anyone thought that was any harm being done. Which is what I imagine her defence will argue? That there is another, perfectly logical, perfectly plausible cause of death- even if it’s from the doctoring/nursing communities experiences (clinical experience would be a better term!!) or from world wide stats (babies often die of XYZ when ABC).
And even if you add in the fact that LL was the common denominator, the first port of call would be to hypothesise the most explainable reason. Which wouldn’t involve murder or deliberate harm.
But if you look at the cases through the lens of maybe there was foul play, you might start to take note of the other possibilities as to the reason for their deaths/crashes.
And if you are looking for harm done and you find an explanation for that that would be A reasonable explanation (reasonable as in ‘this is legitimately something that could have happened to explain that death/crash’) then despite the lesser statistical probability of it being the case- someone investigating it through that lens might say ‘hold up- THATS why this baby died/crashed.’
So I think I would like to know what the thing was that made the lens go from ‘she’s involved in all these incidents’ to ‘she’s the reason for all these incidents?’
I get that the fact there are explanations in all the cases put forward by the prosecution that there was foul play, and that that alone might be their biggest argument(she was there for all of them and in all of them A reason they died was foul play).
But the defence can say ‘oh, but these other reasons why they could have died are much more likely.’
So how are the prosecution going to prove it beyond reasonable doubt?
Nb. The insulin being no accident thing does somewhat throw a spanner in the works of my thinking- but the defence will argue why it can’t be 100% proved as definitively a deliberate act of harm by LL I guess.
She’s obviously got the means and opportunity, but what is the motive?
Also, I think I’ve confused myself.