I am glad they've seen this too as it will have shown them just how easy it is to do and how quickly it can be done/go unnoticed from another colleague...it will have given the jury much more clarity!No i agree, I think you can look at it either way. My interpretation was all she can say for “definite”, is her excluding other causes, so what does that leave? I also think it’ll become much stronger after we hear more similar evidence for more babies, I think the more we hear the more other causes are ruled out, so what is left that is the only explanation for 22 charges: LL.
But I know others won’t maybe give as much weight to it as I do. I just think it’s more solid evidence from an expert in a slightly different field, so there can be no doubt the rashes and collapses are most certainly not down to any blood related conditions/problems. Once all the other possibilities are eliminated, it leaves only one explanation. But that’s just my look at what we have heard today.
I guess for me it really comes down to why would 4 different experts all from very different fields of paediatric medicine, all say the exact same thing. Within their particular field it’s the only explanation that makes sense to them, and that they can all find to be the only cause, by excluding any others from their particular fields. And that explanation is the same from all four of them, they come to the same conclusion, that it’s (LL) using physical trauma/air embolism
ETA: Good to hear the jury have been shown the bag properly, and handled it and the syringe. At least we know they won’t have confusion when it comes to some of the more technical details. Sounds like they are deffo getting the correct info they need, and it shown/explained to them in detail so they will a good understanding of the doses etc
View attachment 1769446
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
I am glad they've seen this too as it will have shown them just how easy it is to do and how quickly it can be done/go unnoticed from another colleague...it will have given the jury much more clarity!
I know why he’s trying to discredit them, but surely even BM knows there’s limited literature to reference because it’s not ethical to go around injecting people with air to study to produce further literature on its presentation and effects? He can’t keep banging on about them all referencing the same paper when that is all they have available.
If only the staff at COCH had had a crystal ball, perhaps they could have produced their own study on the effects of injecting air in to a tiny neonate as LL seemingly saw no issue with doing so. Arguably she’s the leading expert on how it presents as she’s probably seen it more times than anyone in else in that room at any point in these proceedings and can tell us all much more about it than any medical paper.
If only the staff at COCH had had a crystal ball, perhaps they could have produced their own study on the effects of injecting air in to a tiny neonate as LL seemingly saw no issue with doing so. Arguably she’s the leading expert on how it presents as she’s probably seen it more times than anyone in else in that room at any point in these proceedings and can tell us all much more about it than any medical paper.
Yeah they have their bloods checked regularly. As well as having other tests done.
I know we’ve discussed this at length and I think it is always good to be critical of your own thought process etc, but even as all the evidence is as strong as it is, I just cannot get my head around this - and part of it is absolutely how she looks.
Her photos look relatively social to me (fair enough perhaps all work related), but she’s not exactly a wallflower skulking in the corner being awkward. She has a very stereotypical friendly face (and I realise that totally falls into white blonde girl territory).
I had a thought last night that at some point surely we’ve all had intrusive thoughts about a situation (not to the extent of murdering a baby), but there are thoughts that have fleetingly crossed my mind that I would be mortified at anyone else knowing about never mind pouring over and analysing them. If she’s guilty, how can she bear to have all of this out in the open?
This is truly head mincing trial.
Her photos look relatively social to me (fair enough perhaps all work related), but she’s not exactly a wallflower skulking in the corner being awkward. She has a very stereotypical friendly face (and I realise that totally falls into white blonde girl territory).
I had a thought last night that at some point surely we’ve all had intrusive thoughts about a situation (not to the extent of murdering a baby), but there are thoughts that have fleetingly crossed my mind that I would be mortified at anyone else knowing about never mind pouring over and analysing them. If she’s guilty, how can she bear to have all of this out in the open?
This is truly head mincing trial.
Thanks for clearing that up for me.
Doesn’t seem the brightest move to attack a child with insulin knowing that the blood sugar levels would show a problem, maybe it wouldn’t be initially suspicious, but it’s definitely very risky especially when insulin has no business being in the child’s system
I think she did it to take attention off her and her ‘bad run’ because she wasn’t on shift. She didn’t expect the child to survive and then the synthetic insulin level wouldn’t have been discovered.
I just honestly think she didn’t think she’d get caught. Let’s say she was guilty for the others (I think she was) she’s basically got away with murder multiple times…she likely thought she was untouchable & no one would notice.
I was a bit worried listening to the defence cross examine the expert I must admit. However, when it came to the pharmacy person I just think that evidence is extremely damning - never would insulin be put in that bag. There is no other explanation imo for it getting in there other than someone putting it in & that someone is the one on the stand…
Because if she has done this she is a very broken and fucked up human being. She would have next to no empathy so it wouldn't be possible for her to feel genuine shame or guilt.
I’m not sure, she alleged to have murdered child e 24 hours before actually on her shift, so I don’t think she seemed bothered about deflecting her “bad run”. Also why would she drug the bag that she signed for, why link yourself at all, I’m not sure on the logistics but I’d assume if you wanted to deflect blame you’d go for a child that you were in no way responsible for there care/medication.
the jump from air to insulin has really got me confused because I mean you couldn’t ask for a better murder weapon than air, it’s almost risk free and it seems pretty untraceable. I know I can’t expect to understand every decision a SK makes but it seems like such a leap, to go from a method that leaves no real evidence to one that involves so many risks, just stealing the insulin would have been incredibly risky, not to mention the fact that it would leave a trail of evidence she couldn’t control with her not being there. If she’s guilty it’s just such a stupid thing to do
stupid or not many serial killers report about the thrill of the murders leaving so they have to start switching it up. In one way you could say using the insulin has worked as a throw off as you for one are questioning why she would switch it up. Many killers get caught because they get cocky and lazy.
They didn’t actually suspect her for the insulin cases though. Not until the police had gone through mountains and mountains of evidence. The insulin cases were added in 2019 so, if there weren’t other cases, she would have gotten away with them.
Definitely plausible if she’s guilty I can only see it as her becoming over confident and making a stupid decision thinking she could get away with it like you say,
have the defence conceded there had to be insulin in the bag? I can’t pretend I’veunderstood all of child fs evidence
The jury need to find her guilty “ beyond all reasonable doubt “ not beyond all doubt.
There is a very big difference.
There is a very big difference.
I think, & others may need to confirm, the defence agree it was deliberate whether they’ve specifically said “it was in the bag” I’m not sure but they agree, as does LL, it was a poisoning
Hsvsbsbsbd
I didn’t know they were added later, that’s interesting. How on earth did they miss this case initially? They’ve got a child who were being told was undoubtedly poisoned with synthetic insulin and a test that supposedly points to no other conclusion than this, and they didn’t add this charge until later?
She messaged Baby F’s designated nurse after the end of the night shift saying his blood sugar was 1.8. The nurse had relied on LL’s blood sugar reading of 2.8 at 5am so his blood wasn’t done for another 3 hours.
LL seemed to enjoy inflicting the misery of guilt and anxiety about their care on her colleagues.
LL seemed to enjoy inflicting the misery of guilt and anxiety about their care on her colleagues.
Last edited:
Tbh I think it’s a pretty smart move. Had they not sent it off the specialist test they would have been non the wiser and baby F would have just been assumed to have hypoglycaemia from naturally occurring cause. What makes it even more ‘clever’ is this baby already had issues with their blood sugar after birth. The evidence last week stated that it is not common to request an insulin or c-peptide test. Had baby F passed away they wouldn’t have known.
The baby who had a heart attack in the BA case was suspected to have died through insulin poisoning, but they couldn’t prove it.
Insulin could only be implicated in one of the other Grantham Hospital cases, and even here the evidence is indirect and not very convincing. Liam Taylor was 7 weeks old when he was admitted to Grantham hospital with a history of coughing, wheezing and sticky eyes on 21 February 1991. An X-ray of his chest revealed that he had pneumonia, for which he was immediately given antibiotics. Two days later, after an apparently uneventful recovery, he suddenly collapsed from what was described as a cardiorespiratory arrest at 4.13 am on 23 February. He did not respond to attempts at resuscitation, and died.
An autopsy conducted by Dr Fagin found, as almost the only abnormality, an enlarged liver stuffed full of glycogen, the storage form of glucose. Excessive deposition of glycogen in the liver is consistent with Liam having been given insulin maliciously, but is far from proof of it. Nevertheless, it is a matter of public record that enlargement of the liver, detected during life and caused by excessive glycogen deposition, was the sole reason that an unrelated case of proven malicious insulin administration to a baby first came to light. In that case, however, the baby's plasma insulin level was measured and was high. In Liam's case there was no serum available to test. Thus, whilst it is possible that Liam's cardiorespiratory arrest was caused by insulin-induced hypoglycaemia, the evidence isn't there. No blood glucose measurements were ever made before Liam's life support machine was switched off.
I don’t doubt for second that BA injected this poor baby with insulin. I believe even without the 100 percent proof she was still found guilty.
How can I watch this trial guys how do you guys know the details
I don’t think it has been confirmed, i think people might be referring to the opening statement where LLs interview with police is mentioned and she seems to agree it had to be deliberate, but we don’t hear the actual question she’s asked, Given the vague details and wording around it I’d imagine this has been somewhat twisted and presented in a way to suit the prosecution
- Status