Notice
Thread ordered by most liked posts - View normal thread.

stardust1

VIP Member
Another little thing that's popped in my head. Ben asked if the baby could be screaming cause he was hungry. When I had my youngest the midwives stressed to me that I had to feed him every 3 hrs and that cause he was so small sometimes babies that little forget they need to be fed. Although very small he was discharged within 24 hrs of birth so if my approaching 5lb baby was liable to forget to be fed why would a premature smaller baby be screaming out of hunger?
I think there is truth in that because my full term baby seemed the only one to be able to actually scream cry like a newborn. Every other baby in the same room were really tiny prem babies and you never heard them. Mine was on fluids etc and we used to have to set alarms to feed him so I’m not convinced they scream in hunger.
 
  • Like
  • Heart
Reactions: 16

candyland_

VIP Member
The designated nurse has given evidence today. She said the baby was settled when she went on her break and she was surprised to find out the baby was unwell and had been moved.
 
  • Like
  • Sad
Reactions: 16

candyland_

VIP Member
I’m astounded they took no action after Baby L. By that point Letby had been moved to days so there must have been some suspicion there and with it being the second occurrence I don’t know how nothing was raised.
 
  • Like
  • Sad
Reactions: 16

Tofino

VIP Member
Not sure where i implied that no, simply wondering if this person worked in healthcare, since being a scapegoat was so far fetched?!
It is far fetched when the scapegoat ends up on trial for murder of 7 babies and attempted murder of 10 more.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 16

avabella

VIP Member
Sorry if I sent anyone down rabbit holes of intrusive thoughts etc - but in a way it's good to know we're not alone.

I think where I was going with that is that we all have them, it's all normal (although we may not feel it), but to have our thoughts (and if our thoughts had become actions) put out there, for everyone to hear/see/dissect.. .well that's scary isn't it :eek:
 
  • Like
  • Heart
Reactions: 16

candyland_

VIP Member
I would 100% take to the stand if I was innocent - it’s your one chance to fight your corner.
I would have held my hands up at the Facebook searches and said I was a nosy bastard far too absorbed in my work if I was her. This is partly why I think she is guilty because she knows it looks bad and stacks against her. Denying it looks worse.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 16

Deeznutslol

VIP Member
Football fan??
Yes there has been a mysteriously unwell juror the day after a couple of England games now 🤣! Don’t blame them to be honest, getting smashed and watching the football must be a welcome break from such a horrendous case
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 16

IGiveUp22

VIP Member
Giving evidence from behind a screen in court is what they call a “special measure” which is one of the things offered to a victim/witness which can be requested by the investigating officers/council but it’s the judge that decides whether they’ll accommodate it. This is standard practice in court nothing special for this case
 
  • Like
  • Heart
Reactions: 16

Rippedjeanmaybe

VIP Member
A friend I had as a child was born 8 weeks prem and suffered a bleed on the brain which led to type 1 cerebral palsy. She has physical difficulties, but no cognitive and was diagnosed at 3.
It can and does happen, but it’s usually through bleeds on the brain/stroke, head injury or being starved of oxygen at birth. So unusual for it to happen this late on with no obvious reason.
 
  • Like
  • Sad
Reactions: 16

I’mThankyou_

VIP Member
Aw thank you so much, there’s going to be more really distressing details being reported in the coming weeks, and I don’t want to post them here in case they are upsetting/triggering for some, so putting them behind spoiler feels more appropriate
Can I just say thank you for this.
I dont follow the reports anymore, but do catch up on here & some of the stuff can be very heavy! Just wanted to let you know your concern for others is appreciated 😊
 
  • Like
  • Heart
Reactions: 16

tay65

Chatty Member
One of the round ups today said the dad was quoted as saying “she was a little fighter”. I knew G was going to be a difficult one, but when it’s set out like this it’s really incomprehensible that LL could inflict this level of cruelty on both that tiny wee fighter, but also the parents. She’s sick, joining in making the banner that day then a few hours later this🤢.

I’ve really struggled all day with this, so I honestly can’t imagine how hard it is for you and others that have been In similar situations (ofc minus the evil LL), it must be so very difficult for you all, there was a poster earlier that had said about their ivf and I honestly can’t imagine how you are all feeling tonight too. Hope you’ll be able to dip in and out as when you all feel up to it❤
Helping with the banner is a similar pattern to when she bathed the deceased baby in front of the parents and took photos etc and when she kept going into the family room when the other bereaved parents were there when she shouldn't have done and had to be told not to go in. She probably gets a kick out of all this grief.
 
  • Like
  • Sad
  • Heart
Reactions: 16

candyland_

VIP Member
I think she targeted the IVF and the much longed for babies to be extra cruel. I’m not saying other babies are any less longed for but some of those parents waited years to have their baby. She dropped herself in it for me when she brought it up in the police interview.
 
  • Like
  • Heart
Reactions: 16

Blockedbyadmin

VIP Member
I agree with you both.
If you took any of these cases in isolation, there would be extremely scant evidence to bring a case against anyone, frankly, at least not a case built on causing deliberate harm. I am concerned about some of this just being a case of confirmation bias.
but it’s not in isolation. There’s 22 charges. The point is she’s done something to these babies to cause harm to them. Any prem baby is at high risk of infection and inflammatory markers can be raised due to stress or being touched etc. The pattern of harm js there aside from the other bits they may have had wrong with them. Remember we aren’t seeing all the evidence either
 
  • Like
  • Heart
Reactions: 16

Treesy19

VIP Member
If you place that much weight on one aspect of the note, then should you also place as much weight on the other elements of it? Or just cherry pick the bits that ‘fit’?
Yes, I do cherry pick that. She’s up for multiple murders and wrote “I killed them on purpose”. That sentence is kinda relevant. She could scrawl any old happy flowery stuff bracketing that all she wanted until the cows come home, write a book or poem for all I care. The fact remains she wrote, “I killed them on purpose”. She hasnt even gone with a “oh I’ve no idea what that is, never seen it before. I didn’t write any of that”.

As I’ve said here before, if innocent and the deaths were in any way accidental, or not even her, there is no way somebody would write “on purpose”. I don’t buy that. Are we only to take notice of paper evidence exhibits if typed on paper and signed? Ones not on post-it notes? This is a piece of evidence she certainly wasn’t expecting to be found. She’s that crazy that she probably forgot all about it’s existence.
 
  • Like
  • Heart
Reactions: 16

raspberryjuice

VIP Member
Had a few reply’s and don’t want to clog up the thread with 5 posts saying the same thing I’d tag you all but that’s long af, I don’t think you guys are seeing what I’m trying to say (my fault as I’m bad at explaining) but to have another stab at it. I understand that the child survived whilst the odds were stacked against her and to reach 100 days it was definitely a milestone which they thought early on that she wouldn’t reach, which gives a good reason for celebration. There can’t be many babies born under those circumstances that make it that far, I just think to suggest she deliberately harmed this baby purely based on the fact that she was 100 days old and people were celebrating is a real reach and it’s not explained why she then waits two weeks before having another crack at it. They are imo crow barring it into the charges and the 100 days thing is being used to back up there suspicions as a motive. And it’s weak if you ask me, it’s an attempt to play on the emotions of the jury and paint a picture of calculated evil but The prosecution promised a pattern would emerge and yet again we’re hearing of circumstance that are completely different to every other case, I think they’re damaging there argument here personally. as I said previously the 114th day fits the pattern perfectly.
It’s possible she’s innocent of the 100th day incident but guilty of the 114th day attacks.
IIRC (I’ve struggled to follow the reporting today - it doesn’t read clearly at all), day 100 was only the second night LL had with Baby G. She had been on a run of days up until then. Baby G was then transferred to a different hospital so there is no opportunity in this time for LL to attack. The next attack is 5 days after Baby G comes back to COCH, when LL is on days. Day shifts are obviously much busier and parents are usually around much more. The attack happens when there is a screen surrounding Baby G, giving LL the privacy needed to attack without being observed. We also don’t know how many shifts LL had between Baby G coming back and the second attack.

Just going through the wiki for G though, she was due her immunisations on the day of the second attack. Another milestone in her journey 😔
D4022B2E-7CFB-4C08-B8D6-45A96A8F165B.jpeg
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Heart
Reactions: 16