That’s what I mean is strange - that it is so accepting that the other nurses records must be incorrect based on a ‘positive’ outcome, but any time LL’s records are incorrect, it’s because of a sinister reason. It just feels a bit messy.
That’s what I mean is strange - that it is so accepting that the other nurses records must be incorrect based on a ‘positive’ outcome, but any time LL’s records are incorrect, it’s because of a sinister reason. It just feels a bit messy.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.
Again….she is becoming more impulsive. Her motive is to cause events that boost her self-worth, for others to see her as god like and capable. She doesn’t give a flying feck about these babies, it is about her and her needs. She also has tried a trusted method…injecting air. She wants to make the cause of the collapses different to evade detection and will be testing out different ways of inflicting harm. Perhaps not as much injected air as before or at a pace that is slower. I certainly wouldn’t expect someone with that impulsivity to use the same boring methods.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?
There is no doubt thousands of texts between the staff that don't form part of the prosecutions case so we don't hear about them. These are just a selected few to bolster the prosecutions case.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.
So have I misunderstood I thought the baby was attacked on the 100th day, but you said “days later” are you saying the attack took place days after the 100th day celebration?
Also the baby didn't become ill because her body failed her which could happen with an extremely premature baby. She became poorly because someone overfed her on two occasions which caused the emergencies and this has been proven with the amount of vomit and amount of milk in her system. Therefore BM shouldn't be able to go credibly down the line of extreme prematurity being responsible. She was overfed and whilst nobody saw anyone do this the amount of coincidences and other circumstantial evidence points to only one person.Well, overfeeding has met the CPS's threshold for prosecuting as a crime, or they wouldn't have charged her for (child G):
Count 7: Attempted murder (air embolus & excessive milk)
Count 8: Attempted murder (air embolus & excessive milk)
Count 9: Attempted murder (air embolus & excessive milk)
It would have just been air embolus.
The baby's milestone birthday is to discredit the defence's theory that the baby died simply because they were so premature. Also baby is the victim and the prosecution needs to talk through all the details of the day they were attacked - which just happened to include a milestone birthday.
As an e.g - With Covid, 14 days (or whatever it was) was the end of self isolation i.e you were considered much healthier and ready to return to the world at that milestone. Now if you suddenly died on day 14, Covid wouldn't automatically be considered the killer because you passed the threshold of it killing you.
The 14 days is like the 100 days. 100 days is milestone for premature babies that shows their chances of survival now are much higher.
Baby G was given a 5% chance of survival at birth - it's reasonable to think that at 100 days this was much much much higher.
Apparently because she was the only one there when these babies died. However, we know other babies were excluded from the prosecution so until we know why (was it impossible that she could be responsible for those deaths) I'm staying firmly on the fence. If there are other, similar incidences that LL could not be responsible for, then that will form part of her defence.I don't quite know how to articulate this but I do struggle with one thing which I know seems weird considering the heinous crimes. I've been thinking it while reading.
Why does everyone rule out harm by other medical professionals?
I have difficulty agreeing guilt with the early babies, but these latter ones, it's hard to see it as anything but purposeful. So why aren't we questioning the pharmacist, the doctors etc. Why is it Lucy?
I've seen the time lines etc.. But if the picture doesn't slot together because there's a question over the first few babies (in my head..) I wonder why there aren't more suspects.. I don't know.. It's just weird to trust the word of say, a pharmacist, but not the nurse who says she was sitting with her. Or to trust Dr whoever but not trust Lucy. I know the timings are there for her, but that's only if the whole picture slots together.
I think she probably did these current babies harm, but I'm so interested to see what the defense say because I definitely have a niggle around whether I could find her guilty should I be on the jury
I think my jury service has influenced the way I think too. Every single jury member wobbled and questioned, including me.
Brain officially trashed.
it’s not as simple as that though. You have to look at each one and think is that reasonable or not.That’s what I mean is strange - that it is so accepting that the other nurses records must be incorrect based on a ‘positive’ outcome, but any time LL’s records are incorrect, it’s because of a sinister reason. It just feels a bit messy.
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.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
Yes we have no idea what the record is that contradicts the other nurse yet. No doubt there will be a lot of debate over it!I don’t think it’s as simple as the prosecution saying the other nurse must be wrong just because it suits their narrative. They have evidence that placed Lucy elsewhere, so the other nurse MUST have been wrong. Hopefully we’ll hear much more detail on this.
The blood gases were taken after the vomiting, and after the baby’s O2 sats had dropped to 17%. 17%, it’s a wonder she’s still alive. A blood oxygen level this low is going to cause acidosis, and obviously worse, like severe brain damage."The blood gases had raised metabolic acidosis."
This was in the reports yesterday
A symptom of this is vomiting, so I expect at some point we might hear this referred to, seeing as the blood tests were already showing an explanation for the vomiting which didn't depend on overfeeding or any outside interference
I fully agree I think it’s a strong pattern that we are going to keep seeing, especially what’s coming up with baby I, she has a real obsession with I’s parents it seemsHelping 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.
Very well putThe reoccurring theme is always Lucy.
I think as well how it’s how violently she vomited, the fact it reached as far as the chair, this was not just a little normal vomitThe blood gases were taken after the vomiting, and after the baby’s O2 sats had dropped to 17%. 17%, it’s a wonder she’s still alive. A blood oxygen level this low is going to cause acidosis, and obviously worse, like severe brain damage.
I think they said something about the timings being wrong. Perhaps they were able to identify that the nurse or LL were recorded as being elsewhere at the designated time.I don’t think it’s as simple as the prosecution saying the other nurse must be wrong just because it suits their narrative. They have evidence that placed Lucy elsewhere, so the other nurse MUST have been wrong. Hopefully we’ll hear much more detail on this.
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?