Lucy Letby Case #19

Status
Thread locked. We start a new thread when they have over 1000 posts, click the blue button to see all threads for this topic and find the latest open thread.
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
She was attacked on day 100. Her parents walked in after she collapsed and saw her banners and cake 😔
 
  • Sad
  • Like
Reactions: 16
So you don’t believe she perpetrated the first attack?
Is that why you’re fixed on 100 days having no relevance?
Just to clarify that we didn’t hear about this 100 day stuff in the opening statement ( I don’t think ) therefore something similar could occur later that ties this in and that would make me change my mind but currently, I think she could well be guilty of the later two attacks as they fit somewhat with the overall picture, I’ll go as far as to say I think they are making the first incident fit in just so they can mention the 100th day and paint a picture of calculation. So in a nutshell no I don’t think the first attack is an attack at all
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1
Truthfully, I don't know because I don't follow the online reports, as its close to home for me. I'm just picking up bits of information from here. I believe she was attacked around that time and transferred back to Arrowe Park. I'm sure someone will confirm for you.
I hope you’re ok. I know you have said before how difficult this case is for you. I hope you’re able to follow at a level that isn’t upsetting for you ❤
 
  • Like
  • Heart
Reactions: 11
I think you’re focusing too much on the 100th day thing. It was a piece of additional info, it wasn’t the crux of the crime
No no it’s the only thing we’ve been told as to why they think she’s responsible for the first attack. They’ve not even explained the attempt at all
 
Just to clarify that we didn’t hear about this 100 day stuff in the opening statement ( I don’t think ) therefore something similar could occur later that ties this in and that would make me change my mind but currently, I think she could well be guilty of the later two attacks as they fit somewhat with the overall picture, I’ll go as far as to say I think they are making the first incident fit in just so they can mention the 100th day and paint a picture of calculation. So in a nutshell no I don’t think the first attack is an attack at all
They mentioned the 100days in the opening statement.
 
  • Like
  • Heart
Reactions: 13
Also i think to be attacked on her due date is pretty bloody massive! How is that a coincidence. Seems very significant to me. I’m just imaging the parents now talking about how today is the day she should have been born. I’m sure it was very prominent in their minds that day. I can imagine they would have been particularly emotional, and made them reflect how far they had all come, I bet it was a point of discussion between them and the nurses on the ward.
I’m sorry but that can’t be a coincidence, surely not ?! Does anyone else feel the same as me on this ?

No no it’s the only thing we’ve been told as to why they think she’s responsible for the first attack. They’ve not even explained the attempt at all
I don’t think we have ever had a explanation for any attack or murder have we ?
 
  • Like
  • Heart
Reactions: 26
Just to clarify that we didn’t hear about this 100 day stuff in the opening statement ( I don’t think ) therefore something similar could occur later that ties this in and that would make me change my mind but currently, I think she could well be guilty of the later two attacks as they fit somewhat with the overall picture, I’ll go as far as to say I think they are making the first incident fit in just so they can mention the 100th day and paint a picture of calculation. So in a nutshell no I don’t think the first attack is an attack at all
How did the baby vomit so much, and still have the entire 45ml feed aspirated via NG if she wasn’t attacked in the form of overfeeding? Where did the blood come from when the consultant said it wouldn’t be expected to be found where it was? How did all the air get in G’s abdomen & intestines on her X-ray, with enough excess air that 100ml of it was aspirated 4 hours later? How are we explaining away all of this if it wasn’t an attack?
 
  • Like
  • Sad
  • Heart
Reactions: 30
Just to clarify that we didn’t hear about this 100 day stuff in the opening statement ( I don’t think ) therefore something similar could occur later that ties this in and that would make me change my mind but currently, I think she could well be guilty of the later two attacks as they fit somewhat with the overall picture, I’ll go as far as to say I think they are making the first incident fit in just so they can mention the 100th day and paint a picture of calculation. So in a nutshell no I don’t think the first attack is an attack at all
Just to add, I don't believe they're making anything fit the 100days.
I'm really trying to make you see just how important this milestone is.
Baby was born before the legal abortion cut off, drs in delivery could of declined and considered her a late miscarriage, they didn't they considered her a human, all 1lb of her. They saved her, she fought for her life, she made it to 100days without any major complications, until she met LL....
In Arrowe Park she was completely fine, the second LL is near her, she has brain damage so severe she'll never be able to live her life without 24 hour care.
It's not a case of making anything fit, its showing just how remarkable Baby G was, and someone took that away from her. Someone deliberately over fed her. Someone deliberately caused her life long complications.
 
  • Like
  • Heart
  • Sad
Reactions: 32
Due dates are a huge significance when you have a premature baby. I believe they would usually aim to be home around this time?

It’s heartbreaking to read that mum would read and sing to Baby G and she would smile back at them. She stopped reacting to them after the first attack. As a mum and auntie those smiles mean everything to you and she has taken that away from them.
 
  • Like
  • Sad
  • Heart
Reactions: 27
Ndjsndbs
Baby G was attacked on the 100th day, she was transferred to another hospital (one without a serial killer) and then returned. She was then attacked again.

How clearer can we say it?

Read the wiki chuck.
Whats a wiki?
 
Can’t actually believe the amount of Facebook not guilty campers there are wow 😯 got to exit the groups me it’s shocking!!
 
  • Like
  • Wow
Reactions: 4
Ndjsndbs

Whats a wiki?

It has everything regarding every baby on it & all opening statements
 
  • Like
  • Heart
Reactions: 8
They mentioned the 100days in the opening statement.
I must have missed it, but it says to me that we’re not going to hear of any other children attacked in similar circumstances ( around a milestone) obviously unless I’ve missed it mentioned in other cases which is entirely possible
 
I must have missed it, but it says to me that we’re not going to hear of any other children attacked in similar circumstances ( around a milestone) obviously unless I’ve missed it mentioned in other cases which is entirely possible
It was definitely mentioned long before she was introduced into court fully today, as it was discussed here a few weeks ago how her 100day stay was celebrated
 
  • Like
  • Heart
Reactions: 10
I’m all for a innocent until proven guilty but she could literally have cctv shown of her standing over a cot and the Facebook groupies would still say it’s fixed 🥱
 
  • Like
Reactions: 13
How did the baby vomit so much, and still have the entire 45ml feed aspirated via NG if she wasn’t attacked in the form of overfeeding? Where did the blood come from when the consultant said it wouldn’t be expected to be found where it was? How did all the air get in G’s abdomen & intestines on her X-ray, with enough excess air that 100ml of it was aspirated 4 hours later? How are we explaining away all of this if it wasn’t an attack?
Overfeeding hardly points to deliberate harm imo
 
  • Wow
Reactions: 1
Overfeeding hardly points to deliberate harm imo
Overfeeding a premature baby, can kill them.
Knowingly overfeeding a premature baby is deliberate harm.
Which is why every feed is measured and documented whilst baby is in NICU.
 
  • Like
  • Heart
  • Sad
Reactions: 32
Something definitely did happen to that baby on her 100 day milestone. We have not got to the evidence yet, we’re only on day 1 of baby G, so we will be hearing more.

overfeeding by that extent to a tiny baby will kill them. There was also 100mls of air.
 

Attachments

  • Like
Reactions: 14
Bsbdbd
Overfeeding a premature baby, can kill them.
Knowingly overfeeding a premature baby is deliberate harm.
Which is why every feed is measured and documented whilst baby is in NICU.
No I agree, I just think overfeeding is more likely to be a mistake than any other method of murder in this case. It’s not going to be easy to establish malicious intent

and I know what the wiki is lol, the poster was being a big fat meany so I thought I’d take the piss. Lol I appreciate you trying to help me though
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2
Status
Thread locked. We start a new thread when they have over 1000 posts, click the blue button to see all threads for this topic and find the latest open thread.