Exactly exactly exactly my fella. It cannot be bad luck and it cannot be chance. In her words. She’s evil. She did this. She killed them on purpose. I cannot wait to say what I really want to say about her.
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
Sorry if I’ve misunderstood anything but was she taken off nursing and onto admin in 2016 and then not arrested until 2018 did she just sit there doing admin while they investigated around her. You’d think she’d be on the next plane to Timbuktu
But there's no pandora in timbuktu so she would never.
If shes innocent I can see why she would stay, to clear her name and argue her innocence. If she's guilty then she probably was ducked up enough to think she'd get away with it or quite liked the thrill of waiting.
I have had the same thought process but didn't say anything in case you all thought I was a crazy fella. I'm not even swayed on guilty. I think on balance she probably is guilty, I just couldn't convict yet but I think it's the presentation (obviously diluted by the reporting).
Bit of legal grey area meaning we are still hearing agreed facts that are actually only partially agreed,I’m baffled too, hopefully we’ll hear from them soon, I really want to hear from the radiologist too. Although from what we can gather so far, this trial isn’t being presented in the “normal/typical procedures” way that a trial usually would. There must be a reason why it’s being presented so far the way it is, just makes no sense yet to us fellas. Maybe prosecutors think it will be easier for jury to understand the pathologist if he does do them all in one go. I’ve no idea at this point
Where are all the law fellas on here that could hazard a guess why we’ve not heard from pathologist and radiologist yet?
brief cross examination allowed by the judge for the defence to settle disputed facts within what would normally form automatically agreed facts.
Once we pass child Q (if i am right)we should cycle back through the children with the additional evidence.
Then move onto the defence
*could very well be wrong (very possibly, I am) but it's the only reasoning I can attribute to how the case is being shown at the moment. Other then that I am absolutely out of ideas
**should of really said I dunno and left it at that
No, I’m so glad you didn’t say dunno. Thank you so much for answering what you think is the reason. It makes complete sense. I wish we had a really good court reporter that would set all this out clearly (sorry Dan you lovely fella). It would make it a lot easier to understand if any of the reporters could actually just explain the lay out of this trial in a brief overview at some point. It feels like we are always a step behind due to the not very clear reporting. Maybe I should give me old mate Dan a message and see if he could give a brief summary of the layout of this trialBit of legal grey area meaning we are still hearing agreed facts that are actually only partially agreed,
brief cross examination allowed by the judge for the defence to settle disputed facts within what would normally form automatically agreed facts.
Once we pass child Q (if i am right)we should cycle back through the children with the additional evidence.
Then move onto the defence
*could very well be wrong (very possibly, I am) but it's the only reasoning I can attribute to how the case is being shown at the moment. Other then that I am absolutely out of ideas
**should of really said I dunno and left it at that
I think I may have missed some of the details on this or be getting confused, so would some kindly fella step in if so please.
But I kind of understand why nothing was done sooner:
Aside from Baby B, all the other babies has explainable causes of death on their death certs. Which were sad and awful, but not suspicious. Because the causes of death were different, which specific area of practice would anyone identify as needing work? Pneumonia? Blood sugars? And all nursed by different people.
Also, we're assuming that the staff knew that their rates of deaths across those years were markedly higher than elsewhere in the country or than those wards in the past. New staff wouldn't have that data to compare the deaths to, so it could seem like a massive run of bad luck. Particularly with the differing causes of death not showing a link.
Maybe it should be the case that if a unit experiences over 20% of the anticipated number of deaths that year, a senior medic does a deep dive into the cases, but I do think that cases like this are really only visible in hindsight.
And to be honest, while any lessons learned can hopefully be put into place, hospitals would be way less effective and care would be less team based if everyone had to practice as if a fellow member of staff is a serial killer. You can bet that lack of professional trust and cohesion would cost way more lives across the country than any serial killer could take.
I don't know if I am explaining what I mean well, but I think that it's one of the those times where the team couldn't know what they didn't know, if you see what I mean.
But I kind of understand why nothing was done sooner:
Aside from Baby B, all the other babies has explainable causes of death on their death certs. Which were sad and awful, but not suspicious. Because the causes of death were different, which specific area of practice would anyone identify as needing work? Pneumonia? Blood sugars? And all nursed by different people.
Also, we're assuming that the staff knew that their rates of deaths across those years were markedly higher than elsewhere in the country or than those wards in the past. New staff wouldn't have that data to compare the deaths to, so it could seem like a massive run of bad luck. Particularly with the differing causes of death not showing a link.
Maybe it should be the case that if a unit experiences over 20% of the anticipated number of deaths that year, a senior medic does a deep dive into the cases, but I do think that cases like this are really only visible in hindsight.
And to be honest, while any lessons learned can hopefully be put into place, hospitals would be way less effective and care would be less team based if everyone had to practice as if a fellow member of staff is a serial killer. You can bet that lack of professional trust and cohesion would cost way more lives across the country than any serial killer could take.
I don't know if I am explaining what I mean well, but I think that it's one of the those times where the team couldn't know what they didn't know, if you see what I mean.
Last edited:
Maybe it’s something as simple as a six month trial is taxing and it seems the likes of our fella Dewi is in court every week, if not multiple times - maybe the pathologists and radiologists can’t commit that much time and are just going to do all cases in one day? I don’t know either. But I am hoping we are still going to hear from them.
Also, with regards to staff not suspecting - I think this could explain why LL allegedly never chose her own designated baby. If a baby I was meant to be looking after collapsed or worse, I would think I did something wrong, or wonder if I could have done something better or differently. I wouldn’t be looking for a murderous colleague.
Also, with regards to staff not suspecting - I think this could explain why LL allegedly never chose her own designated baby. If a baby I was meant to be looking after collapsed or worse, I would think I did something wrong, or wonder if I could have done something better or differently. I wouldn’t be looking for a murderous colleague.
Yes I think it’s easy for us to sit here saying oh how did they not notice this, why didn’t they do that. And although we all agree that more should have been done, I don’t think it’s as easy a process as some think. There are so many procedures and official channels for these kind of investigations. Look how many years it took them to gather enough evidence to take this to court. We have the advantage of seeing all the evidence now, when saying how was it not obvious to the staff etc what was going on, but they didn’t have all this presented to them as a neat little case like we do. And I can’t stress this enough, if people on here aren’t even convinced of her guilt, even now with seeing all this neatly presented evidence, how would her colleagues at that time jump to the conclusion that poor little Lucy, the annoying attention seeking colleague, that was having such a bad run is actually potentially the worst female serial killer of children the uk has ever hadMeant to quote this a minute ago but managed to quote myself insteadBut yes I think although it’ll feel way too late to us, I don’t doubt that people made a fuss in the end. It will be interesting to hear the details x
Also the bits you shared from the article, I think explained why staff didn’t notice, or were able to do anything about suspicions they had straight away. But, this bit in particular I found really interesting, I am beyond convinced that there is so much more that’s going to come out after this trial about other victims, that aren’t allowed to be mentioned in court as it would prejudice the jury, but the prosecution know about, but can’t prove for whatever reason. After reading what she inflicted on baby N today, she has been hurting babies long before A, maybe not enough to cause collapses at first but she’s been doing something. I think she’s harmed other babies during the time period of A-Q but none can be proved at the minute. I know we don’t know for sure yet why hummingbird is going on til 2025, but the more I hear and read the more I think they’re looking into far more children than we know about. Especially with the job advert saying they will be travelling across Merseyside (she was at the Womens in Merseyside). The jury probs won’t know about hummingbird either I was just thinking
Attachments
I would understand this layout if they weren’t having any medical experts on at this stage. There is no way that the defence even partially agree with Dewi Evans and Sandie Bohin, which is what is confusing me because there are at least 3 other medical experts the prosecution named in their opening and we only heard from the radiographer once so it’s not like we can say defence partially agree with Dewi Evans but not the expert pathologist. I just don’t understand it at all.Bit of legal grey area meaning we are still hearing agreed facts that are actually only partially agreed,
brief cross examination allowed by the judge for the defence to settle disputed facts within what would normally form automatically agreed facts.
Once we pass child Q (if i am right)we should cycle back through the children with the additional evidence.
Then move onto the defence
*could very well be wrong (very possibly, I am) but it's the only reasoning I can attribute to how the case is being shown at the moment. Other then that I am absolutely out of ideas
**should of really said I dunno and left it at that
FELLAS can I just say something that I’ve become slightly paranoid about. I’ve been 
reacting to a lot of posts from fellas I’ve really agreed with. I just want to clear up, I heart react to most posts that I strongly strongly agree with, or they’re in direct reply to my post or question. Some of the content in these posts is distressing, and I’m not heart reacting cos I’m some kind of sadist fella that enjoys these things in the content. I just really really agree with the post. Sorry but just had the realisation that I’ve loads of posts that have really sad content, and now paranoid that I’m coming across as some big sadist fella. God what has this thread turned me into, I’d never have been paranoid like this before. Guess there’s swings and round abouts to discussions with strangers on an anonymous forum 
Most of the posts I actually want to just do the sad react to cos this whole thing is sad. Apart from the funny fella stuff obvs
I’ve included this pic as an example, I don’t heart react to the fact she’s said she’s evil etc it’s just I really agree with the post
reacting to a lot of posts from fellas I’ve really agreed with. I just want to clear up, I heart react to most posts that I strongly strongly agree with, or they’re in direct reply to my post or question. Some of the content in these posts is distressing, and I’m not heart reacting cos I’m some kind of sadist fella that enjoys these things in the content. I just really really agree with the post. Sorry but just had the realisation that I’ve loads of posts that have really sad content, and now paranoid that I’m coming across as some big sadist fella. God what has this thread turned me into, I’d never have been paranoid like this before. Guess there’s swings and round abouts to discussions with strangers on an anonymous forum Most of the posts I actually want to just do the sad react to cos this whole thing is sad. Apart from the funny fella stuff obvs I’ve included this pic as an example, I don’t heart react to the fact she’s said she’s evil etc it’s just I really agree with the post
Attachments
Not everyone was on shift for the collapses so a lot probably didn’t know enough to put the jigsaw together.
Right that’s it fellas I’m messaging Dan lovely fella tomorrow if he’s back in court then, to see if he can explain what on earth is going on why we’ve only heard from some medical experts BUT not the pathologist or radiologist. And if he can give me a quick overview of the whole trial. I’m definitely going to be BLOCKED Fella by the end of this trial
I'll call off the swat team fella, don't worry.FELLAS can I just say something that I’ve become slightly paranoid about. I’ve been
I’ve included this pic as an example, I don’t heart react to the fact she’s said she’s evil etc it’s just I really agree with the post
I get you, it wrecked my head aswell.
Dr Evens and by proxy Dr Sandie (because she peer reviewed his work)have both played a part in the police investigation that led up to LL being charged.
I am assuming that the initial radiologist we heard from was consulted in the process of Dr Evens building his report.
Because its a medical crime parts of what he finds would also technically fall under medical evidence which would normally be automatically agreed facts, then you've got the police investigation medical evidence crossover to factor in.
Sorry think I've just confused myself typing out that one!
All you fellas need to stop slating matalan/peacocks as my safari now assumes that I can afford net-a-porter 
SameAll you fellas need to stop slating matalan/peacocks as my safari now assumes that I can afford net-a-porter
I’m definitely closer to Matalan than net-a-porter, much closer.Is THAT why my ads think I am minted? Although I am also getting links to Nike Factory Shop so I think my tracker is hedging its bets to my poverty levels!All you fellas need to stop slating matalan/peacocks as my safari now assumes that I can afford net-a-porter
Im pretty sure if there is an investigation going on, she would be not be able to go anywhere. When did the investigation start?
I think one of the key factors will also be if the defence comes up with a really good reason/proof even one of the babies wasn't killed by LL and especially if the real reason is related to the general failings in the hospital. That could both explain why things weren't questioned (general failings along with people trying to cover their own arses) and it could also turn the jury's opinion on the other deaths.
I go back and forth on whether I think she's guilty but I have wondered if there's a possibility she's guilty of some of the deaths but others (including presumably the charge that were dropped) were due to failings. Sort of the half ground in between the she's totally guilty and the she's a scapegoat theories I guess?
- Status