She was attacked on day 100. Her parents walked in after she collapsed and saw her banners and cake
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 allSo you don’t believe she perpetrated the first attack?
Is that why you’re fixed on 100 days having no relevance?
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 youTruthfully, 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.
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 allI 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
They mentioned the 100days in the opening statement.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
I don’t think we have ever had a explanation for any attack or murder have we ?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
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?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.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
Whats a wiki?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.
Ndjsndbs
Whats a wiki?
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 possibleThey mentioned the 100days in the opening statement.
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 celebratedI 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
Overfeeding hardly points to deliberate harm imoHow 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 a premature baby, can kill them.Overfeeding hardly points to deliberate harm imo
think he’s pulling your leg (I hope!)Ndjsndbs
Whats a wiki?
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 intentOverfeeding 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.