It's not clear - hopefully it was in court - when that refers to. It says at one point "The blood sample for Child G is taken at 3.59am."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.
why on earth would she visit the unit off shift and see the baby? Let me guess.. she can’t rememberAlso just to add in, LL after visiting the unit when OFF then txt about G so it’s clear she saw her when she was in unit that night
View attachment 1776642
Definitely sitting. Can’t find any live reporting unfortunately.I can’t find anyone doing live reporting at all, is court definitely sitting? @Tofino would you be able to check I don’t know how it’s done. Has mark done his 3 days this week? I’ve searched Twitter too and can’t find anyone there. Looking like no live reporting today at allIf anyone starts live reporting I’ll post it on here, but none of the usual so far seem to be
It’s this oneI can't see LL's name in court today.
Exactly not only was she texting colleagues ALL day about G, it wasn’t enough she had to actually come in that night while OFF DUTY! Was also interesting reading about her sending the mum for coffee and then she came back early to another very upset baby, sounds familiar. I think these mums knew there was something off about LL round their babies, a mothers instinctwhy on earth would she visit the unit off shift and see the baby? Let me guess.. she can’t remember
Thanks, I just looked and Mersey hack didn’t start tweeting til about this time yesterday, so maybe keep checking for the next few mins, and Judith started even later yesterdayDefinitely sitting. Can’t find any live reporting unfortunately.
It’s this one
View attachment 1776650
The Lucia case didn't just fail because it was ONLY backed up by statistics but because they got her whereabouts wrong - they thought she was with the patient when she was on holiday. They got her alibi wrong. Without that massive error, they wouldn't have overturned her conviction. Also Lucia was suspected ONLY on the say so of just one doctor. They've established here that even before the doctors got suspicious, other nurses and even parents noticed odd things.I'm with you 100%. What was very notable today was there was lots of detail about the incident and absolutely no evidence of her involvement.
This is starting to be almost a carbon copy of the Lucia de Berk case, and we all know what happened there
What night was this supposed to be? The next day? The night she attacked the baby she was on her last night of a run of 4 night shifts.why on earth would she visit the unit off shift and see the baby? Let me guess.. she can’t remember
Your comment about SKs getting better at it completely contradicts the fact that they often get caught… usually - particularly with lust killers because they can’t control themselves As they desire the release the kill gives them.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,
Because we’re no longer in an investigation. How do you know that every other medical professional was considered and ruled out at the time. This investigation was ongoing for a very long time and I’m sure all possibilities have been narrowed down hence why the CPS allowed charges to be brought against LL. we are now in the court arena. The defence as I understand it can point the finger to other potential perpetrators if it’s clear harm was done, but the police and CPS do not believe that anyone else is culpable follow their investigationI 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.
Ugh can we not with BPD stigma pleaseFound this morning on Twitter
borderline personality disorder
I'm BPD but I feel it is a fair point to make. Can't go round skirting around everything to ensure nobody is triggered or offended.Ugh can we not with BPD stigma please
How would anyone know if she had a diagnosis of something?Found this morning on Twitter
borderline personality disorder
Agreed on this point, I haven’t seen it documented anywhere ( not to say it’s not true) but let’s not assume mental health conditions … would hate for this to be seen incorrectly by someone involved in the case.How would anyone know if she had a diagnosis of something?
Exactly. 1. Many people with PD never offend. 2. Not sure this is even reliable or verified information.Ugh can we not with BPD stigma please
Yep was the very next night, so she attacked G in early hours of 7th sept, then messaged colleagues ALL DAY on the 7th sept, then went into unit that night of 7th when she was OFF DUTY, and saw G then messaged the colleague after this saying how awful G lookedWhat night was this supposed to be? The next day? The night she attacked the baby she was on her last night of a run of 4 night shifts.
View attachment 1776669
they don’t it is pure assumption and probably from pure ignorance.How would anyone know if she had a diagnosis of something?
If child G had not been sabotaged by milk and air bolus she would not have required emergency intubation, which carries risk, in the first place. This whole scenario played out again some weeks later after child G had spent an uneventful week at AP and the same at CoC. Until LL happened by.It's not clear - hopefully it was in court - when that refers to. It says at one point "The blood sample for Child G is taken at 3.59am."
If so, that is prior to the severe desat at 17%. Also they were apparently shown the full blood gas record, which we don't get to see. Some of the clinical decisions seem questionable to me, such as the decision to extubate which was followed by that severe desaturation and then a reintubation, but maybe they are getting a clearer picture
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?