Oh, sorry. Think I've blended those two incidents together in my mind. So it was separate babies?
Edit: How lucky they are that I'm not on the jury! The courtroom is blessed with my absence.
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
Edit: How lucky they are that I'm not on the jury! The courtroom is blessed with my absence.
Housework resumes
People who know me would probably describe me as a right witch. Hope that don't mean I'd be assumed guilty if accused of a serious crime. Fellas.
As I've said before though, if she's guilty there would have been worrying signs early on. And people would think back and go 'Oh tit yeah'. But like you said, would have been brushed off or not even thought of at the time because of her personality type.
But I kind of go for the theory that people are wired the way they are from birth. But obviously the environment they grow up in, determines how they end up living their life. *If* LL is a high functioning Psychopath then there's probably a few careers she might have wanted to dabble in to cause chaos and give herself power over people.
The low income, low achieving Psychopaths end up in and out of jail early on and probably live a crap life. It's the middle class, educated ones that are really scary.
I know a few people in life who tend towards narcissistic traits, they make every situation about themselves somehow, even if they're not directly involved. Their need for attention is so great they will engineer chaos at the slightest sign they are not the centre of attention. While they're (hopefully) not murderers, I can see how in situations where victims are easy to come by, that personality type might be predisposed to this sort of behaviour.
A baby dies at work under their care, a tragedy and nothing to do with them, and they get a lot of attention and support in that scenario. They engineer a near-miss so get the same attention, no lasting damage and they get their fix. Next time it goes too far and they've killed someone, they get the attention they crave, nobody notices and their victim is someone who may well have not survived anyway thus providing some justification for their actions.
All speculation of course but I've met a few people who just love a tragedy... ostensibly they're very sad about it but you can see the satisfaction they get from it and I think those people are really quite dangerous.
A baby dies at work under their care, a tragedy and nothing to do with them, and they get a lot of attention and support in that scenario. They engineer a near-miss so get the same attention, no lasting damage and they get their fix. Next time it goes too far and they've killed someone, they get the attention they crave, nobody notices and their victim is someone who may well have not survived anyway thus providing some justification for their actions.
All speculation of course but I've met a few people who just love a tragedy... ostensibly they're very sad about it but you can see the satisfaction they get from it and I think those people are really quite dangerous.
I’d lean more toward Machiavellianism or straight up Psychopath - although both those two & Narcissism are part of the ‘dark triad’.
When Nurses Kill
When nurses turn into killers, they betray an entire social institution that relies on relationships of trust. Prevention requires education, observation, and cooperation at all levels.
Interesting read ^ - lots more available with a quick google search too.
Yea i just double checked there, with baby A she “questioned” whether something in the fluids maybe brought on the rash/collapse and she said she thought maybe it was something to do with bag, but there’s absolutely no mention anywhere of her questioning this or asking for it to be checked. Then with one of the babies that were poisoned with insulin, she asked the police did they have that bag (the tpn one that had, had insulin added to it to poison the baby). On the wiki it’s page 2 for baby A, it’s in the opening from prosecution, and for her asking about whether the police had bag it’s page 4 of wiki, not sure which baby it was out of the two insulin poisonings, but it’s definitely in the intro for one of them
** Edited to add massive thank you to @Tofino for all the amazing the work on the wiki, makes it so quick and easy easy to double check things like this
I find this absolutely plausible I have to say Fella
When you put it like that, it is quite scary
Sorry - does anyone have the wiki link?
It should be at top of page, this pink button
Attachments
just click on the pink wiki button at the top of the page x
Just had a look, LL obvs doesn’t have all the red flags to look out for, but she does have an awful lot that we’ve seen lots of examples of alreadyI’d lean more toward Machiavellianism or straight up Psychopath - although both those two & Narcissism are part of the ‘dark triad’.
When Nurses Kill
When nurses turn into killers, they betray an entire social institution that relies on relationships of trust. Prevention requires education, observation, and cooperation at all levels.www.psychologytoday.com
Interesting read ^ - lots more available with a quick google search too.
Fellas just seen this update for anyone that may have missed it
Attachments
Ah, right. So she wasn't talking about the same bag. Thanks v much for replying!
Just read the article and taken screenshots of the points that might apply to Lucy. I don't know how people edit and circle bits?
A note from the article: ''While none is in itself sufficient to place someone under suspicion, a number of them occurring together is a reason to pay attention.''
For me the Facebook searches are weird as they're on prominent dates and these aren't patients she has formed a connection to (although for me I find it very odd people would search for their ex patients as well), but the grieving parents of these babies. I can get a curiosity perhaps to see how a parent copes after a bereavement, but there are charities specifically relating to neonates that have input from parents who have lost children she could access that training if it was to inform her work. The number of searches as well is weird. On their own not saying I think it suggests she did it, but I wouldn't say it was normal either.
Same with the card, we would send them to families on behalf of the hospital in some cases, but as an individual who actually didn't seem to have much to do with them and for them to keep a photo, too much. Handover sheets as well, unless in fact they found hundreds and she had issues with taking them home to have these specific ones is strange.
Again, on their own perhaps not that incriminating but as part of a bigger picture, quite disturbing.
Same with the card, we would send them to families on behalf of the hospital in some cases, but as an individual who actually didn't seem to have much to do with them and for them to keep a photo, too much. Handover sheets as well, unless in fact they found hundreds and she had issues with taking them home to have these specific ones is strange.
Again, on their own perhaps not that incriminating but as part of a bigger picture, quite disturbing.
*law fella hat on* so the timetable and order of witnesses (including "expert" witnesses) is usually set out at the pretrial review/preparation hearing. The CPS guidelines say that the expert witnesses/medical witnesses evidence should be presented in a way that best helps the jury understand the evidence/points made.
I am not sure whether the pathologist and radiologist are giving evidence in relation to all the babies?
There are no set rules that I am aware of that mean that witnesses/evidence have to presented in a certain way/order other than the prosecution goes first to present their case and defence presents theirs second.
Effectively the CPS can call whichever witnesses they like in whichever order they like and only they will know why.
Again a guess but I do not think that any journalist could answer questions about which witness is next or who gives evidence when as I would not think they would privy to that information. They would only know who is next if for example just before a break or end of day it is announced in Court who is going to be next through some discussion between counsel and Judge.
There is a kind of standard order for most single victim cases - so victim first, witnesses that saw/heard/had knowledge of the crime and then police. The defence order would be defendant first and then any defence witnesses. As an example say I was assaulted (ABH/GBH) in the street. I would be first on the stand, my spouse who was with me next, a man who was passing and saw what happened next, then potentially doctors/nurses that treated my injuries in hospital, then the police that were called to the scene and say paramedics, then the police officers who questioned/investigated the suspect. Then the defence would present their case, so suspect/defendant first, any witnesses he says were there that back him up & any character witnesses. Sometimes the defendant/suspect will give evidence last.
I am not sure if that helps or not fella, I may have just waffled and provided more confusion.
I didn't speak about this initially, but my initial thoughts were that both acts were innocent.I have a question for all fellas on here, hopefully it will be answered in morning before court starts for the day. I’ve been on this thread from the very first one, reading and in my head agreeing/disagreeing with points, but never properly joined it or commented until recently. But I remember A LOT of the first few pages, maybe actually even threads, there was loads of debate whether or not the FB searches and the taking of notes home meant anything. Loads and loads said Fb searches were ok, loads of people said they were kind of nosey so didn’t see anything wrong/sinister in them, others were slightly horrified about being looked up.
Result of this; many fellas checked their FB privacy settings straight after this.
There was also loads of opinions in the next great debate, taking the nursing notes home. Again loads of healthcare workers said they’d accidentally done it/it’s easy done.
Most fellas that took notes home with them though, said they destroyed them once they realised, or took them back and didn’t keep them for 3 years.
SO FELLAS, my question is this; Given everything we have heard and know so far, are there any fellas on here that are still of the opinion the FB searches were innocent rather than sinister? Are there any fellas still on here that still think the handover/medicine drug lists for at least three different babies in this case that were found at LL’s home 3 years later are still innocent rather than sinister?
*****not whether FB look ups in general are ok or not, or whether taking notes home is ok or not in general, I’m asking this specifically about LL doing it*****
If anyone will answer this, they will not be attacked for their opinion in anyway. If they believe either of these things are still innocent, that’s their opinion and it doesn’t make it wrong. It’s just opinions on this one not facts. Nor does anyone have to justify their answer. I’m genuinely just really really curious to see if the people that thought her doing either of these things were innocent, have changed their minds about it since those first threads. And even if people think the Fb or notes thing is now sinister/suspicious, it doesn’t necessarily mean they think LL is now guilty. I just really want to know if peoples thoughts on these two particular things have changed.
Thanks in advance fellas
I personally do not think either of those acts is suspicious really. The handover notes being taken home seems very easily done. Not medical, and not in my legal job, but in a previous job many years ago, I accidentally took notes home that I should not have, only once but it did happen.
My position on this is more that neither of those two things, whether as stand alone acts or considered with all other evidence, count as evidence a crime was committed. They just do not meet the legal threshold.
However, if she is guilty of course they add another element to the way her mind worked.
I believe it has already been said by the police analyst that there were facebook searches for many other babies families that were not "attacked" or "killed". To me this is crucial. Also I would really like to know whether any handover notes were found for shifts where babies were not "attacked" or "killed".
I remain on the fence about her guilt or innocence as I have just not see enough evidence yet that meets the legal threshold.
Last edited:
It’s just occurred to me whilst reading your post that maybe if she is found guilty then the Facebook searches / paperwork etc might go towards aggravating factors for sentencing? If she is not given a whole life order then she will be sentenced for life with a minimum term and I know they look at aggravating factors and mitigation. I don’t know what type of aggravating factor it would come under but whilst they are not proof of murder in itself, I know many people love a Facebook stalk, but if she is guilty then it’s very sinister that she was looking up the families afterwards. They will have to live with knowing that killing their baby wasn’t enough for her, she had to look them up online multiple times too.
I think bringing up the pencil theory again is important as I keep reading fellas who are on the fence talking about the case currently not meeting legal thresholds etc (not getting at anyone here!)
I don’t think individually the cases are necessarily going to meet the legal threshold. I think that’s why the prosecution have outlined patterns so much (I think the word pattern is an easy term for laypersons/jurors to follow too).
Baby A as a single pencil isn’t going to meet the legal threshold most probably. Even add Baby B, you could still snap those two pencils, and Ben Myers definitely could.
Add in 3 more babies/pencils that LL has been present for, it’s getting a little bit harder to snap.
Then add in those Facebook pencils, those notes at home pencils, that sympathy card pencil, some allegedly forged notes pencils, the attention seeking text pencils, the behaviour around parents pencils, the note pencil, then all the other babies.
Ben Myers would need some strength to snap all those pencils, and at the moment he seems to just be trying to pull the rubbers off the top of them.
I’m rambling, but I think the prosecution have laid this out well. Patterns… not coincidence.
I don’t think individually the cases are necessarily going to meet the legal threshold. I think that’s why the prosecution have outlined patterns so much (I think the word pattern is an easy term for laypersons/jurors to follow too).
Baby A as a single pencil isn’t going to meet the legal threshold most probably. Even add Baby B, you could still snap those two pencils, and Ben Myers definitely could.
Add in 3 more babies/pencils that LL has been present for, it’s getting a little bit harder to snap.
Then add in those Facebook pencils, those notes at home pencils, that sympathy card pencil, some allegedly forged notes pencils, the attention seeking text pencils, the behaviour around parents pencils, the note pencil, then all the other babies.
Ben Myers would need some strength to snap all those pencils, and at the moment he seems to just be trying to pull the rubbers off the top of them.
I’m rambling, but I think the prosecution have laid this out well. Patterns… not coincidence.
These crimes are hard to prove but luckily there is usually enough evidence with a few charges to get conviction. I think by the time we’re at the poisonings it’ll feel stronger. Sorry but I’m completely terrified if unexplained and huge increase in deaths on one persons shift, the persons presence almost always immediately before the sudden cpr event, trophies typical of this crime, written confession, clear expert witness evidence of air that can only have been administered, actual poisonings, clear evidence of unhealthy interest in babies involved in the case prior to any apparent link, multiple people with huge suspicions testimony to show behaviour and scenarios odd - is flimsy. It is exactly what I’ve heard in other crimes of this nature and it’s incredible to think that someone would be able get off because this is literally all you’d find in these crimes! It will be an absolute travesty and embolden dangerous people imo.
Yeah there will be definite signs that were brushed off.
I always think it’s a bit of nature and nurture that makes someone a serial killer. I do think you are born with the capability to become a killer, but then it’s your life experiences and your choices that lead you down that path.
I had a tough upbringing, but I couldn’t and wouldn’t harm others.
For the first part of your post Fella, the law hat on part thank very much for taking the time to answer. It makes sense, another poster suggested time constraints with certain witnesses too, and someone else had suggested that the prosecution will have set it out like this for a reason, and perhaps it’s to help the jury understand in the best way they can.
Second part of your post, thank you for answering that too, was just genuinely curious if anyone had changed their minds on those two things specifically. I find them nothing but suspicious, but I find it interesting to hear other fella’s thoughts on what they think about them too, kind of like a balance overall. Both sides or the argument are plausible I guess
See I’ce found all of the following red flags have all been fulfilled so far by LL. That’s not just from what we have heard on Babies A-D in court so far, it’s from also using the wiki for the opening statements from prosecution on the babies we still have to properly hear about yet
To do the circle things, I just SS the page then use the edit button on the photo, and then mark up to then draw them. There might be a quicker/easier way than that, but that’s just how I do it in case it helps in future.
I wish the jury could use the wiki to remind themselves of bits and pieces too, like for rechecking things like the bag thing above, it’s handy having it all there laid out clearly. I’m sure they’ll have some kind of summary bits on the iPads though
I get this feeling too, made me go cold reading how she’d been watching baby A’s (I think) mum crying in court. And the inappropriate behaviour such as the bath comment to one mother, and the ventilated basket to the other. Constantly going into the family’s room even being told not to. Plus the souvenirs and FB searches. She really seems to want to insert herself into these families at the time and after. I know this bit about the phone is still pure speculation at the minute, but imagine if she was the one responsible for baby B’s mum and the phone mix up. I honestly dread to think what more we will hear about her doing these types of things, the further we go through this trial
Yes
this, absolutely this. You’ve explained it so well using the pencil theory. This is exactly what many of us have been trying to say. It’s just too much when it’s that overall bigger picture. In isolated incidents, I can fully understand why many think she’s NG or are on the fence. But when you put it all together it just can’t be explained away anymore, it’s too much. Can’t all be coincidence and innocence when you look at the whole case of babies A-Q, we are talking about 22 charges. 22 WHOLE CHARGES, could she really have been the world’s unluckiest nurse 22 times. Can 22 unexplained and unexpected sudden collapses really be coincidence, that she just happens to be involved in every single time, with many of them not even being her designated babies. I know some the fellas on here have been following this trial in real time, and as we are only on Baby D atm I can also see why there’s a lot not convinced of her guilt yet, but me and quite a few other fellas have been rereading the wiki, and a lot more about the babies yet to come and some of the stronger evidence for them, and I think that’s why a lot of us can’t see anything but her guilt ,as we are only looking at the bigger overall picture of 22 charges. Im so so confident that as we hear more evidence as we move through the babies, a lot more people will swing over or climb off the fence. I truly dread to think what we will hear in more detail about her obsession with the families, and unprofessional, inappropriate behaviour continuing never mind the actual sinister stuff 
Attachments
Last edited:
Agree.
I think BA’s entire life seems to have been chaotic. She only just managed to scrape into nursing school, after doing a pre nursing course. She had a horrendous amount of sick days. She couldn’t contain herself when she did get onto a ward.
LL, on the other hand is much more in control, in all aspects of her life. I think her parents aspired to a middle class way of life so the constraints involved in that would be projected on to their daughter from a young age.
Her desire to go into nursing was no accident.
It would give her what she wanted psychologically. She worked diligently towards that. I really don’t think anything ‘turned’ her. I think she always ‘had it in her’ but was a lot more adept at hiding it than BA.
I realise I’m mixing up my (or their) personality disorders a bit. We’re told there are a fair few high functioning, non-murderous, psychopaths about, CEOs, even Judges.
Last edited:
- Status