No fella, I am not a NICU nurse. I have never said I don’t think she is the type, just that I am finding it hard to accept she/anyone could be capable of such heinous crimes.I know what you mean. I think guilty due to all the coincidences/experience in NICU/other nurses inputs on this thread/drs testimonies etc however I do have small thoughts about some things that just don’t align up. Not sure about her not being the type tho I think she absolutely could have done it but it feels like something big is missing. Are you a NICU nurse?
I think she was gaining attention from it. Especially the poor Lucy act. I think she enjoyed the texts from colleagues about Lucy having a hard time etc. the trill aspect I am not sure but I guess you could look at it as she changed her methods but that is looking from a bias side.No fella, I am not a NICU nurse. I have never said I don’t think she is the type, just that I am finding it hard to accept she/anyone could be capable of such heinous crimes.
A quick Google search states thrill, and attention seeking are up there with the most common motives for serial killers. It is there in front of me in black and white and I am still struggling to accept this as a motive for what she has done.
I will see if I can find my sons scan he had a bowel blockage and later a twisted bowel. Both things you can visibly see on his scan from an untrained eye that there is an issue. He also had emergency surgery resulting in a stoma so what that doctor is stating seems accurate to me.I’m finding the medical experts pretty compelling again. Defence cross examination is just not giving me any cause for reasonable doubt as the other issues they raise, like blockage in the bowel, are explained away. It helps there are X-rays as it’s more tangible than just notes and memories.
View attachment 1722056
That’s an interesting point, do you reckon there could have ever been any other suspects or was it always LL as she seemed to be the one that was consistently always there ?Re LL not being subtle/obvious red flags - I could imagine it’s a terrifying realization that a nurse might be harming patients, and I could also imagine how terrifying it would be for a colleague to report said nurse, there’s so many variables to reporting anyone for anything, but accusing someone of such a serious crime (whether true or not) could have serious implications for another employee. I think you’d probably also question yourself like “Did I really see what I saw?” Etc. More so when someone already has an established reputation with colleagues as being a good nurse & nice person, imagine being that ONE doctor to accuse that well liked nice nurse as hurting innocent babies? Hindsight is 20/20 - I’m sure everyone who witnessed anything suspicious feels guilty about it everyday, and I really hope they all find some level of peace eventually.’ It’s also just such a vile act, it’s quite literally unbelievable what anyone would want to harm a child - let alone a child in hospital who is already very ill.
Yes! Unless a second suspect was presented, I am on the guilty train. I think we really need to give detectives some credit because they are usually extremely thorough with such serious crimes & the subsequent investigation, lots of police express their upset when CPS don’t accept a case or when a judge passes such a lenient sentence.
the defence would know about the X-ray so I don’t even know why he would bother going down this route knowing what kind of reply the experts would give. It just makes it look like he’s clutching at straws, which may actually be the case, but it just reinforces the prosecution case.I will see if I can find my sons scan he had a bowel blockage and later a twisted bowel. Both things you can visibly see on his scan from an untrained eye that there is an issue. He also had emergency surgery resulting in a stoma so what that doctor is stating seems accurate to me.
I think Prof Arthur’s evidence has been incredibly strong, and this is why Dewi Fella said he’d rather defer that particular bit to the radiologist. I think he was excellent at disagreeing with BM theory on bowel blockage as he states clearly there was no medical sign of this, and more importantly it would have been found during PM and it definitely wasn’t. I also think Dr Bohin has been fantastic this morning, she’s acknowledged all the problems within the hospital, acknowledged that D should have been given antibiotics sooner etc BUT has then gone on to explain why they alone could not be responsible for the sudden and unexpected collapses. I think she’s a very strong witness for prosecution, certainly for D anyway. I think the pathologist will be just confirming what Prof Arthur’s, has already said on the defence’s theory of blockage in C being cause of death, there was no sign of this in PMI’m finding the medical experts pretty compelling again. Defence cross examination is just not giving me any cause for reasonable doubt as the other issues they raise, like blockage in the bowel, are explained away. It helps there are X-rays as it’s more tangible than just notes and memories.
View attachment 1722056
Yea the OP that told us Dewi wasn’t a nice fella was mixed up with BM I thinkthe defence would know about the X-ray so I don’t even know why he would bother going down this route knowing what kind of reply the experts would give. It just makes it look like he’s clutching at straws, which may actually be the case, but it just reinforces the prosecution case.
I would love to know what Ben Myers really thinks though because he must know that his cross examination is weak (not because he’s bad at his job but just he doesn’t have much to work with at the moment). Maybe he just reconciles it
in his mind that covering all possibilities no matter how weak just means she gets her fair trial, even if it doesn’t cast any reasonable doubt.
Ohh he’s not being a very nice fella today.
View attachment 1722076
and baby I is the one that she killed on her 4th attempt, 4 attempts@MmmB777
I’ve just read the wiki for Baby I as you suggested. The baby was being bottle fed and looked after by a Nursery Nurse. Doesn’t shout critical to me! The poor wee mite seemed well on the road to recovery.
The brain scans showing previous damage from repeated resus attempts. How fucking cruel.
I thought though using a journal that’s 30 years old isn’t exactly concrete evidence about the rash. Also loads of nurses and doctors from the hospital have had trouble describing the rash exactly. The one thing they all agree on is it is a rash THAT THEYVE NEVER SEEN BEFORE OR SINCE. They say it was different to sepsis rashes or other ones they’ve seen before. I get you want exact details, but for me personally just hearing ALL these different doctors and nurses (some doctors that have gone onto greater things) saying that they had all seen these rashes that were unusual is good enough for me. Especially as they only seem to be there in babies linked with her using air, which is not all the babies in this case. Even LL mentioned the rash for Baby A being unusual. I think Bohin is just being honest, and to me her saying that does not make any difference to my opinion on the rashes, or make them less credible. Too many doctors and nurses have mentioned them for them not to be credible. Why would more than 10 different people just make them up, and there is definitely documentation of them as well as the evidence being given in court. Some of them maybe just can’t remember the exact colours now, but still know they’d never seen anything like it before or since. What may be slightly red to one of them is brownish to another. Id have trouble describing something like a rash, just colours could easily be slightly different shades especially trying to remember exactly 7 years later. I know you feel you need exact details on this though, so understand your viewpoint that it undermines the rash part of evidence for youSorry, but if a doctor can't stand up and say 'No the rashes do not sound the same' when they clearly don't, they lose all credibility,
I'm still G ..but fellas, fellas, fellas...Why didn't doc say they don't sound the same but the striking similarity is cyanosis ..this makes me cross. I like detail
Yes exactly thisI’m not a medic but I thought the discolouration descriptions from witnesses were pretty similar? Not the exact wording of the journal but enough that it was clear they were all describing the same thing.
What is he suggesting though, that some of the staff were making it up or that it was some other unknown rash?
I also keep thinking, if it's something they'd not seen before or was as rare as they say, they maybe not know how to describe it? All the words they are using seem, in laymans terms to my simple brain, quite similar to me. Mottling, discolouration etcI’m not a medic but I thought the discolouration descriptions from witnesses were pretty similar? Not the exact wording of the journal but enough that it was clear they were all describing the same thing.
What is he suggesting though, that some of the staff were making it up or that it was some other unknown rash?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?