I mean if your being sarcastic then lol but I actually have worked as a HCP since I was 18.
I mean if your being sarcastic then lol but I actually have worked as a HCP since I was 18.If i was to hazard a guess, i'd say you didnt work in health care
Did I say that?So even though the defence and LL have agreed that the insulin poisonings are deliberate, you’re trying to say they are not?
Actually, you did say that, and you’ve just said it again!Did I say that?
I think the blood results put it 99% certain that the insulin was exogenous, although I would hope the tests were repeated to rule out any assay problems. However, that is neither evidence nor proof that she did it, or in fact that it was deliberate. In fact, if the prosecution's case is that in the case of child F there were two bags containing insulin, that could be used to exclude LL, as you would need a very convoluted plot to have her responsible for poisoning the second one when she wasn't on shift.
The problem is that if there was an innocent mistake somewhere along the line, all the evidence to confirm that is gone.
I think for me its not that they don't seem deliberate, it's that there's still doubt there that it was her and that's without without defence having their chance to cast further doubt.So even though the defence and LL have agreed that the insulin poisonings are deliberate, you’re trying to say they are not?
I didn't mention inflammatory markers, and neither did the report. It specifically referred to markers of infection. Without seeing the blood work neither you nor I can say what was going onbut 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
And likewise the theory that the insulin was inside the TPN bag is like a diagnosis by exclusion - it cannot be proved without the bag or contents being retained and tested.There is no innocent mistake whereby synthetic insulin gets inside of a TPN bag.
No, I didn't.Actually, you did say that, and you’ve just said it again!
It's an interesting angle because to me because the fact it took years and 3 arrests to get her charged actually makes me less likely to be convinced of her guilt. I probably won't explain this properly in words but to me it feels like it snowballed and then every single little piece of circumstantial evidence has somehow been blown up into bigger proportions. But then on the flip side I also know that healthcare deaths are particularly hard to convict and round and round I go until my head feel like it's gonna explode!To people still saying it cats doubt and the nurse responsible could be still out there, like where are you thinking this from? This is a huge deeply researched and investigated case. It’s taken years and 3 arrests to get her charged. Probably a hundred statements and plenty of witnesses etc so it’s not like she was just on duty and the police have pinned it on Lucifer. I’m intrigued to hear the defence but people go to prison for a lot less than this case is so it genuinely baffles me that people still doubt the evidence reported. And for those thinking she’s just a scape goat for bad practice in the unit lol
Don’t make me laugh. As if that’s happening
Quote:I didn't mention inflammatory markers, and neither did the report. It specifically referred to markers of infection. Without seeing the blood work neither you nor I can say what was going on
And likewise the theory that the insulin was inside the TPN bag is like a diagnosis by exclusion - it cannot be proved without the bag or contents being retained and tested.
No, I didn't.
I’m assuming you do? And are you implying nurses are often sent to trial for murder to cover up bad practice on a ward?If i was to hazard a guess, i'd say you didnt work in health care
Completely agree. This case is not plucked out of thin air based on her presence alone. Her presence is a huge factor but there is overwhelming evidence for a crime of this nature - copious amounts of air in many babies that have had interaction with the accused (that expert radiologist had never seen the likes of), deaths very sudden and unexpected (quotes from the accused to prove this), the accused having given cares before sudden collapses of babies previously stable on almost all cases, physical signs of air emboli- pink secretions, fleeting rash, strange responses to cpr, evidence of physical harm- throat multiple cases, excessive bleeding and damaged liver, causes of death unknown or sketchy at PM, large doses of insulin to patients not prescribed and not legitimately given, many witness accounts of suspicious behaviour- eg monitors not sounding, standing at bedside of babies “on the brink of death” removed breathing tubes and doing nothing, tons of background evidence that she hasn’t offered an innocent explanation to, other suspicious behaviour such as accused’s handwriting initialling for other people, collapses and deaths having strange similarities that don’t seem like chance (such as frequently happening when designated nurse was on a break), recoveries outside of her care meaning collapses are more likely sabotage than pervasive problem.. I have probably missed a few points. If you don’t find any of that compelling then sure, it could just be that she was there.I think there’s plenty of evidence against her to stop the doubt. She was always involved in their care minutes before or found with a collapsing baby.
You could remove the texts, Facebook searches and the evidence found at her home and I would still think they had a strong case. We are only part way through and most parents had a negative experience with her.
Not sure where i implied that no, simply wondering if this person worked in healthcare, since being a scapegoat was so far fetched?!I’m assuming you do? And are you implying nurses are often sent to trial for murder to cover up bad practice on a ward?
If I was to hazard a guess I'd say you're not CIDNot 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.Not sure where i implied that no, simply wondering if this person worked in healthcare, since being a scapegoat was so far fetched?!
Cameras aren’t allowed in.Can u watch the case?
To be fair though none of us are on the jury and we aren’t hearing all the evidence and we don’t know what it’s like to be in that court room. So what may seem like doubt to someone external to the case it could be completely different to someone on the jury.I know that, but there is a massive difference between being convicted of 1 count and all of them. And the more charges they start to doubt, the more the remaining ones need to be cast iron not just “it fits a pattern” and “she was there”.
There’s the other point if they don’t convict either one of the 2 insulin counts (or even both), the hospital are really going to have some questions to answer - they’ve all agreed it was deliberate so if the jury find it wasn’t LL then the question is who was it?
Don’t forget the note stating -Completely agree. This case is not plucked out of thin air based on her presence alone. Her presence is a huge factor but there is overwhelming evidence for a crime of this nature - copious amounts of air in many babies that have had interaction with the accused (that expert radiologist had never seen the likes of), deaths very sudden and unexpected (quotes from the accused to prove this), the accused having given cares before sudden collapses of babies previously stable on almost all cases, physical signs of air emboli- pink secretions, fleeting rash, strange responses to cpr, evidence of physical harm- throat multiple cases, excessive bleeding and damaged liver, causes of death unknown or sketchy at PM, large doses of insulin to patients not prescribed and not legitimately given, many witness accounts of suspicious behaviour- eg monitors not sounding, standing at bedside of babies “on the brink of death” removed breathing tubes and doing nothing, tons of background evidence that she hasn’t offered an innocent explanation to, other suspicious behaviour such as accused’s handwriting initialling for other people, collapses and deaths having strange similarities that don’t seem like chance (such as frequently happening when designated nurse was on a break), recoveries outside of her care meaning collapses are more likely sabotage than pervasive problem.. I have probably missed a few points. If you don’t find any of that compelling then sure, it could just be that she was there.
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?