Yeah it probably is more likely than insulin in a TPN, but happening to the same baby three times?
- 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 hope your son is doing well now.
I agree, the care in the unit is definitely not perfect. However, accidental over feeding is impossible for the reasons already explained. You have to test the placement of the NG before giving anything through it and this would clearly show the undigested milk fed minutes before. It is no mistake.
But the defence aren’t claiming she was overfed accidentally (on 3 separate occasions). They’re saying she wasn’t overfed at all? And the collapses were due to prematurity…
That’s your interpretation, I personally found I did hear evidence of her involvement, and we will continue to do so tomorrow. Not everyone sees the same, so I appreciate that you’re not seeing what I am, but I think there’s been plenty of posts on thread tonight from other posters, that most certainly do feel they’ve heard evidence of LL’s involvement with G already
We haven’t really got to the ins and outs of the evidence yet though. We’ve just heard the sequence of events and the parents statements.
I only know what I don’t think happened, i don’t think she tried to kill this child with milk, I’m not sure why it would have to be her mistake either. It’s clearly a poor quality hospital, there’s many examples of terrible practice already, I don’t think using the same seemingly inefficient method 3 times when you’ve killed babies before and know what you’re doing makes sense. By all means try the method but once it failed surely on the 2nd and 3rd time you’d expect her to use her tried and trusted method no?
Seems to me she’s trying to make it appear that Baby G has a digestion and vomiting problem. That could be why she persists.
I don’t understand why you think she’d ‘get better’ at murder. She’s trying different MOs. She increased the insulin dose for the 2nd murder attempt.
Who says she always has to kill? She’s still getting the excitement and drama from severely harming them, possibly the sick satisfaction of causing permanent brain damage. Sick duck.
The prosecution haven’t even proven the baby was over fed yet, there’s still plenty to learn with regard to child g
Quoting myself to apologise for my spelling that made my post nearly unreadable 🤦
I see a lot of “she loved the drama and being the hero” form ample people on here but I don’t think it’s consistent with SK, they know not to stand out, whether it’s for a good reason or not and drama doesn’t satisfy them like killing does as a general rule. This is why you normally see escalation, they need to do worse things in order to satisfy there urges. Interestingly this case is in reverse when you look at the charges. And serial killers don’t get less efficient it’s just not what happens. It’s like anything you play enough poker you’re going to get better at it,
You can’t just say SK do x and y so LL must do the same, because it suits your narrative.
You say we don’t even know Baby G was over fed yet. We don’t even know LL’s motivations yet, it’s just speculation.
Anyway, enough. Night.
Last edited:
I had to take a break as it was so heavy on my heart reading this case but I’m back after a week or so!
Now the important question is, have Tattle unearthed any more pictures of Lucy or discovered anything else that hasn’t been mentioned in the court roundups
Now the important question is, have Tattle unearthed any more pictures of Lucy or discovered anything else that hasn’t been mentioned in the court roundups
I just assumed she was purposely trying to harm but not kill on most first or second attempts (especially when she realised people were maybe getting suspicious), but gradually leading up to the (alleged) murders so it wouldn't be such a shock and be less suspicious when the poor baby eventually died. Then it just looks like "well they had loads of problems beforehand, it was pretty obvious this might happen, they collapsed before, nothing suss about it..." rather than just killing a healthy baby right off the bat which would have people scratching their heads why this would suddenly happen. She's sowing the seeds that these babies could go at any time, she knows exactly what she's doing imo each attempt/murder. But then I'm not so up on the details as others and obviously some babies survived and left the hospital, but was that because LL couldn't get access to do her planned final attack on them? Sorry if this is super obvious or already been mentioned loads! I do miss things as I skip the medical details if I can (heart-breaking) and I can't keep up with the sheer number of attempts there were or on what babies so I could be completely wrong.
Last edited:
I've been lurking and staying away, I got far too invested and upset, but THIS has drawn me back in.It’s like a spoiled child wanting to ruin another child’s birthday party. Even though they’ve been invited.
Unfortunately, she ruined this wee tiny tot’s whole life. So sad
I think you're right. It's the only 'motive' I can get on board with and kind of sways me more to guilty. It fits.
sorry air embolus was my wording (to summarise what the alleged attack was). We discussed on a very early thread the difference between air embolus and bolus of air which I had not understood were different. I thought I had corrected it all but missed this bit so I’ll correct it now. Apologies for the confusion!
I think I understand what @slingo16 is trying to say - the pros haven’t laid out specifically what they think has happened. We don’t even know where LL was physically when the child vomited.
(Although, isn’t this the baby that the other nurse said she was sitting with LL when the vomiting happened, but the prosecution have said that her account can’t be relied on?)
(Although, isn’t this the baby that the other nurse said she was sitting with LL when the vomiting happened, but the prosecution have said that her account can’t be relied on?)
Yes. They said it can’t be right due to medical records. I think it could be another example of LL giving herself an alibi in others medical notes.
I do wonder though if this nurse tried to cover for her.
yes they are saying medical records show that nurse must be mistaken with her timings. They will need to go over this.
Still a lot to come with G, we are only hearing sequence of events from records at the moment.
I did notice in yesterday's texts the other nurse I think JJK (could be wrong) was texting Lucy asking about baby G. Just to throw it out there how come it's normal for other nurses to do this but not Lucy? (Asides from the obvious she's on trial for the murders). I will have to see more evidence with baby G to conclusively say Lucy was behind it. I do remember when the prosecution opened their case there was a baby I questioned at the time if they had CP but it might not be this baby. So far with baby G although I am trying not to let my own situation and particular details of this baby cloud my judgement, I am highly suspicious due to the fact the MRI initially done was clear - defence will argue that until baby is 2 an MRI isn't conclusive. Level 5 CP would show up as soon as it was there regardless its the most severe level of CP .Also say if baby G had an MRI after she was 2 I'm almost certain they can pinpoint a time and date an injury has happened. For now with baby G it's an unsure with a fat side eye whilst leaning towards guilty.
- Status