Looks sociable and just normal young woman. Not that it means anything like as I’m not sure what a murderer looks like. Were those friends other nurses or people she knew out of work?
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
It’s utterly bizarre tbh, you look at these photos and you just think surely not? Makes it quite scary I think.
Also one of her colleagues even has her in one of her profile pictures and it’s still up, so I think it’s fair to assume she got on well with the other staff. Must be so rough for those who are having to be witnesses rn!
Fair to say your Facebook stalking skills are better than mine!
Wow she really was much taller than everyone. God it just feels so weird to see a potential baby serial killer looking so normal. Shivers, honestly.
Crikey!! I’m just thinking if i was another nurse and was confident she did it I would remove all pics with her. I have seen Ellis and Taylor they obviously believe she did it so I wonder if any of their other colleagues believe it.
Im not sure I have seen this posted or talked about. This was free Baby Q I believe.
Would an innocent person be paranoid?
When did Lucy get accused? Someone updating their profile pic to a photo with her Jan 2017 so was that after it all kicked off? Obviously didn’t think she was a murderer surely?
Do they obviously think she did it? They’ve given their version of events but I haven’t seen anywhere that they’ve said what they think, or been allowed to give their opinion on her guilt/innocence.
At what point will the defence defend LL? What I mean is at what point will they strongly say this wasn't her, she was just incredibly and overly dedicated to her job etc. at what point will they explain her being where she wasn't meant to be etc.
I know we are only 3 (nearly 4 weeks) into a 6 month trial (trial started 4th October) but I'm just confused at how her defence is working. It just doesn't seem fair to be waiting so long to actually defend yourself and it has me really perplexed??
I know we are only 3 (nearly 4 weeks) into a 6 month trial (trial started 4th October) but I'm just confused at how her defence is working. It just doesn't seem fair to be waiting so long to actually defend yourself and it has me really perplexed??
Can someone hold my hand, give me a sledgehammer of a hint, a compass and a map please?? Where do I look!!? ?
True but they did seem certain on placing her there when in previous interviews they never mentioned her which makes me think there’s potentially some bias to think she is guilty and now certain she was there
Last edited:
Mmm one of her colleagues who she texted about child A, has a distinctive surname
I don't think they can. As in I don't think they are allowed to say how they feel as it's not about their feelings about what they know as such.
More pics
Sorry if this had been mentioned but I have never saw it anywhere. So she was searching most families she dealt with not just the babies who died?
Sorry if this had been mentioned but I have never saw it anywhere. So she was searching most families she dealt with not just the babies who died?
Attachments
Last edited:
She just looks like a normal person doesn’t she? I know obviously murderers and bad people don’t walk around with it tattoo’d on their foreheads, but us humans are a shallow bunch and often take people at face value on a primal level. If she is guilty, it’s very disconcerting. Makes you feel like you could never truly know what someone is like deep down.
Not wanting to add to any kind of argument, very long legal waffle below feel free to scroll past if it's boring (it definitely is) regarding defence
The defence is limited to what they can present during this part of the trial, they are unable to provide any additional evidence. Unless it comes from the agreed evidence from both parties.
Its why he's able to point out inconsistencies between police statements (they are usually agreed by both parties), but not add any of his own evidence that prosecution may want to argue against later.
He would have to wait until it is his turn to present, then prosecution can pick holes in his argument/ supporting evidence.
Lots of rules regarding how, and when evidence is introduced for both sides to follow. Each case will have slightly different presentations due to legal arguments that have happened before the trial has even started publicly.
I only realised yesterday that, i think they are still only running through agreed facts, they are just doing it all in one go instead of at the beginning of each individual charge. It threw me as, I've just never seen so much questioning involved in it before!
Explains why things are patchy (terrible reporting aside), and the details for the children are getting intermingled in the reporting, as they were with Child A and B
Medical evidence and the professionals who witnessed/ present them are normally accepted as agreed facts automatically. However, in this case the medical evidence and medical witness statements submitted, are partially agreed but not fully.
So, i am assuming the judge has allowed a brief cross examination to some of the medical evidence witnesses by the defence.
Due to the crossover of prosecution medical evidence which forms agreed facts and the defences specific concerns to certain parts of it.
Same with the expert witnesses, they will have been consulted during the police investigation, so have to declare their role in the investigation. Along with present the report they've prepared for the actual trial.
Normally this would be done just prior to them presenting their opinion and report findings, but defence has concerns about how the report has been put together, so want concerns noted prior to them giving their full evidence. (Not saying they are valid, just pointing out why it's been done)
The questions the defence has asked are specifically pointed towards the bits the they have issues with.
Not going to pretend I understand the full ins and outs because this trial, is literally a minefield for the legal teams involved on both sides. So for the most part I'd just be guessing. (I am just one woman bored on mat leave
)
But this is what makes most sense to me personally, but I am happy to be wrong with it.
I've pieced it together with relevant issues in this case that I know would have impacted the normal agreed facts.
Anyway hope that helps at least a few on thread who aren't sure about the court side of things, it genuinely isn't meant to discredit any opinions already stated on here, because it's just taken me a few weeks to even realise what is going on in the trial.
Again not after an argument or a debate, just adding for clarity on court room procedure and etiquette.
Its why he's able to point out inconsistencies between police statements (they are usually agreed by both parties), but not add any of his own evidence that prosecution may want to argue against later.
He would have to wait until it is his turn to present, then prosecution can pick holes in his argument/ supporting evidence.
Lots of rules regarding how, and when evidence is introduced for both sides to follow. Each case will have slightly different presentations due to legal arguments that have happened before the trial has even started publicly.
I only realised yesterday that, i think they are still only running through agreed facts, they are just doing it all in one go instead of at the beginning of each individual charge. It threw me as, I've just never seen so much questioning involved in it before!
Explains why things are patchy (terrible reporting aside), and the details for the children are getting intermingled in the reporting, as they were with Child A and B
Medical evidence and the professionals who witnessed/ present them are normally accepted as agreed facts automatically. However, in this case the medical evidence and medical witness statements submitted, are partially agreed but not fully.
So, i am assuming the judge has allowed a brief cross examination to some of the medical evidence witnesses by the defence.
Due to the crossover of prosecution medical evidence which forms agreed facts and the defences specific concerns to certain parts of it.
Same with the expert witnesses, they will have been consulted during the police investigation, so have to declare their role in the investigation. Along with present the report they've prepared for the actual trial.
Normally this would be done just prior to them presenting their opinion and report findings, but defence has concerns about how the report has been put together, so want concerns noted prior to them giving their full evidence. (Not saying they are valid, just pointing out why it's been done)
The questions the defence has asked are specifically pointed towards the bits the they have issues with.
Not going to pretend I understand the full ins and outs because this trial, is literally a minefield for the legal teams involved on both sides. So for the most part I'd just be guessing. (I am just one woman bored on mat leave
)But this is what makes most sense to me personally, but I am happy to be wrong with it.
I've pieced it together with relevant issues in this case that I know would have impacted the normal agreed facts.
Anyway hope that helps at least a few on thread who aren't sure about the court side of things, it genuinely isn't meant to discredit any opinions already stated on here, because it's just taken me a few weeks to even realise what is going on in the trial.
Again not after an argument or a debate, just adding for clarity on court room procedure and etiquette.
I’ve been on a lot of staff nights out, do’s etc, both in health care jobs and others. Posed for photos like this.
Didn’t mean I actually liked the people in the photos. Some I would never personally socialise with.
I’m not saying she could not have been friends with everyone in the photos, just that she might not have been.
Didn’t mean I actually liked the people in the photos. Some I would never personally socialise with.
I’m not saying she could not have been friends with everyone in the photos, just that she might not have been.
I agree although I wouldn’t have a profile picture with people I didn’t like, especially an accused baby killer. I have saw one nurse who seemed to have gotten on well with her. (Not that it proves innocence or guilt either way) I am yet to find any of her friends out side of work tho it all seems
To be other nurses.
yep you found the same page as me!
- Status