It’s the reason that’s been given as there are rare endocrine conditions and tumours in the pancreas that can cause similar symptoms. Dr’s would by trying to rule these out, or in.
They didn’t suspect foul play, as far as I know.
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
They didn’t suspect foul play, as far as I know.
‘Yes, she looks normal. She looks friendly, she looks very average. You would not think she could hurt a fly is you met her as a nurse.’
It’s often said that she looks a certain way but she did make parents feel uncomfortable and she said things to cause them upset - one told her to go away, she said to another that they had said their goodbyes now, she told another that they would die when it wasn’t her place to say. She was also disobedient and didn’t do as the senior staff asked.
All of these things have been said and we are still early into the case. It paints a picture of a bleep to me.
It’s often said that she looks a certain way but she did make parents feel uncomfortable and she said things to cause them upset - one told her to go away, she said to another that they had said their goodbyes now, she told another that they would die when it wasn’t her place to say. She was also disobedient and didn’t do as the senior staff asked.
All of these things have been said and we are still early into the case. It paints a picture of a bleep to me.
I followed the trial for star hobson’s murder. I know there were a lot of people worried that because the only people who were there were Frankie and Savannah, that they would both be found not guilty of murder because how do you know which of them delivered the fatal blow? They both said it wasn’t them and there was no other cctv or witnesses.
But it was the accumulation of other evidence that pointed towards Savannah and I know I have no doubt it was her and so did the jury.
I think even with this case, when you have four or five experts coming to the same conclusion (air embolus) and the defence may try to cast doubt because the description of the rashes from the staff are slightly different, or some of the experts can’t diagnose the exact cause of death, just not what it isn’t. But what’s the alternative if the defence don’t offer anything? Some unknown disease that just happened to affect 5 babies at the same hospital in a short space of time? That would be an ‘unreasonable’ doubt to me. Because it’s so very unlikely. Especially when you then add in the same member of staff who was with the babies just moments before the collapses.
so when I think of alternatives I ask myself ‘but is that reasonable?’ Like when Sandie Bohin found a disease with similar symptoms to baby e (I think it was) there were only six reported cases in 50 years, is that a reasonable doubt when you weigh up all the other evidence? Don’t think so.
I think for me, I was more analysing my own pattern of thought and what that meant for me and how I see things. Looking introspectively if you will. Whilst patterns of behaviour or reports have been made that can lead to a certain way of thinking, for me it just still does not tally up to the images we've seen so far. Whether that's incredibly shallow or whether it's a benefit that I am aware of that bias, I don't know.
No need for a psychiatric report because she's pleading NG. It would only be helpful if she was using the defence of diminished responsibility which reduces murder to manslaughter and its less about whether or not she did it but more the circumstances around why she did it.
Tally up to what image? The way she looks?
I’m sorry if that’s an obvious question.. My brain has turned to mush from babysitting a newborn for 5 days
I hope the parents bought you all the chocolate. I'd have sold my soul to have my baby babysat for 5 days as a newborn, I still would nowTally up to what image? The way she looks?
I’m sorry if that’s an obvious question.. My brain has turned to mush from babysitting a newborn for 5 days
Couldn’t agree more, regardless of G/NG I would not want her as my, or my children’s nurse.
Looking the parents up in a sinister pattern constantly on Fb, sending the card, keeping it on her phone, taking the photos, keeping nursing notes of babies that weren’t her designated ones, leaving her own designated babies to interfere with babies not hers, leaving a screaming tiny baby and doing nothing to help, disobeying her senior, interfering with parents that just wanted privacy and ofc her totally inappropriate comments.
The list goes on, and after the next couple of babies I’m going to stick my neck out and say there’ll be a whole load more things to add to the list of things, that at the very least, show she’s an awful nurse
You have such an excellent way of making the point, I was trying to say similar earlier except mine was a jumbled mess of ramblings
Yes, and what I'm saying is I'm fully aware that buys into the whole white blonde girl stereotype. All of the images put out there by the media are on the 'likeable' side, and all reports we've heard so far are the same. It's a really unusual case because of this I think.Tally up to what image? The way she looks?
I’m sorry if that’s an obvious question.. My brain has turned to mush from babysitting a newborn for 5 days
Hope it’s ok to quote you, but just wondering in general if anyone knows if we would receive a psychiatric report regarding her potentially being a typical health serial killer, as in if a profiler had looked at this with this police, would we get any details of that at all?
I understand that due to her plea there would be no need to have a report on psychiatric report as it’s deemed she’s fit to stand trial, and she’s not going for DR, but just wonder if we’d get any insight into her mental state if for example they thought she was a psychopath that fitted a typical HSK profile given by a profiler.
Obviously we’ve no idea whether a profiler would have even been consulted, and even if they had whether or not they have found any typical patterns/behaviours. So it’s really more of a hypothetical question of would we know anything if a profiler had been consulted to do with her from a psychological point of view really?
I know she’s fit to stand trial but I guess it’s possible defence may have something up their sleeve to help their case.
i’m going to refer to star’s case again but the defence for Frankie Smith (star’s mum) had evaluations done on her that showed she had low IQ and I forget the exact term but also an evaluation that showed she was also very agreeable? I think it was meant to show she couldn’t have reasonably known or understood that Savannah was harming Star.
I can’t think what kind of thing defence might use that would work in Lucy’s favour though - maybe something to try to normalise the Facebook searches?
Oh just thinking they might have something that would help explain the note (so some sort of mental health evaluation). I would struggle to believe it but defence might bring up something like that.
See this is what I was wondering in my post above, only I was wondering if it would be the other way round. If the prosecution could have an expert profiler, but this would only be ofc if she did in fact fit some of the typical HSK patterns
Do you watch criminal minds? I love that show
I’m not sure either way for the prosecution side. It would be interesting to know though. I don’t know if defence would just debunk it if it’s just a general profile and they’ve not evaluated Lucy directly. I don’t know if prosecution are able to do their own evaluations (can a defendant refuse or be forced to do it?)
this sums up for me the whole reasonable doubt. I know we’re yet to hear the defence properly & it’s quite possibly they may introduce some reasonable explanations but im not sure they can. Guess only time will tell
This is what I’m wondering? It’s more of a hypothetical, even if the Pros did have a profiler working with them, as you say defence could maybe tear it to shreds anyway. I’m just really curious if there’s any kind of profiling whether we would hear about it or not. And if so would it tie in with a potential Pros motive/theory?Do you watch criminal minds? I love that show
I’m not sure either way for the prosecution side. It would be interesting to know though. I don’t know if defence would just debunk it if it’s just a general profile and they’ve not evaluated Lucy directly. I don’t know if prosecution are able to do their own evaluations (can a defendant refuse or be forced to do it?)
I think it can go both ways tbh. He’s basically doing his job isn’t he when he tries to discredit them. The fact he brought up this drs lack of knowledge around air embolism was good for LL’s defence. However, given how rare they are & how rare the studies are etc there is a reasonable explanation for this. Hopefully he is covering all bases - like a pp said maybe in the last thread, could he be assisting the prosecution during his cross?
I do think his cross may have put some doubt in the jury’s mind however, as the evidence continues & a bigger picture is painted, it may not make a difference. She never claimed to be an expert in air embolism, just that she was using her existing knowledge to explain it/how it likely occurred so
I don't think so, mainly because she would have to cooperate with a psychiatric assessment and if the prosecution were using it against her she could just sit there any say nothing.
If anything like a profiler was used then it would be pure speculation as her mental state now or at arrest can't be said to have been her mental state at the time of the incidents. Something like IQ is different cos that doesn't change but a psychiatrist couldn't assess her now and tell us what she was like 5 years ago.
Bet she's kicking herself rn over them twins.
I can see what you’re saying but for me I think this case is extremely unique, murder isn’t clear here and in most serial murder cases the prosecution don’t have to prove foul play because most of the time it’s obvious, and then circumstantial evidence become more incriminating,
I think the best way I can explain what I’m saying is that most of the time it’s a case of “who killed these people?”, rather than “what killed these people?”
Thank you, think it’s safe to assume a profiler will probably have no bearing on what will happen in court, regardless of whether the police consulted one or not then.
- Status