I saw that, and found it odd that if your family had been through what she said, you'd join a group where masses of people believe she is innocent.
I take these people with a pinch of salt, some are just desperate for the attention.
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
I take these people with a pinch of salt, some are just desperate for the attention.
It’s not one page of notes accidentally brought home by the sounds of it. It’s multiple. And that means multiple diff handover pages in different days. She had an obsessive compulsion imo!
Juries aren’t screened in England & Wales. Jurors just have to declare if they know any of the parties eg 2 jurors had to stand down in this trial as they knew barristers.A few thoughts of mine…
Curious to know, I wonder what the profile of the jury is? I wonder if there’s any parents on there (not of the victims) or if they deliberately screen out parents for fear their opinion would be swayed more than a childless person? anyone legal who can shed light?
Regarding the medical professionals who have killed patients, have god complexes etc, I recently had an operation and in my quiet moments recovering, maybe it’s just my anxious ocd mind, but it’s quite a scary thought that when you’re under GA, people could do literally anything to you and you wouldn’t even knowNot that I think any good dr would do that! But it’s a scary thought that, in my instance, my neck was wide open, lots of arteries etc, one wrong move and that would be it, you’re literally powerless. Not fatal but there was that surgeon who branded his intitials onto patients liver!
also, since being on this thread, the thought hit me that any of us at any time could be called up to do jury duty for the most horrific cases! Scary thought
sorry, I don’t mean to make this all about me, just trying to process the info coming out
That’s what I kept thinking. Just why?! Is it MBP? Possible fertility issues of her own? Mental health? Could it be she didn’t like the parents for whatever reason and that’s how she picked her victims? Scary and horrific
People claiming to be involved again? I don’t think so. They would know how important it is to keep their mouth shut during the trial.
Juries aren't 'screened' as you describe. America is different and they go through a whole process of picking and choosing jurors. In this country the only reason you can't serve on the jury is if you know some of the people involved or have associations with the place in question e.g. if you'd worked at the hospital etc. They could also be screened out if they admitted that they had read all about the case pre-trial or had formed a pre-judgment of the defendants innocence or guilt based on factors such as race, gender etc.A few thoughts of mine…
Curious to know, I wonder what the profile of the jury is? I wonder if there’s any parents on there (not of the victims) or if they deliberately screen out parents for fear their opinion would be swayed more than a childless person? anyone legal who can shed light?
Regarding the medical professionals who have killed patients, have god complexes etc, I recently had an operation and in my quiet moments recovering, maybe it’s just my anxious ocd mind, but it’s quite a scary thought that when you’re under GA, people could do literally anything to you and you wouldn’t even know
also, since being on this thread, the thought hit me that any of us at any time could be called up to do jury duty for the most horrific cases! Scary thought
sorry, I don’t mean to make this all about me, just trying to process the info coming out
In jury service you are just picked at random and then when you're at court you are again just picked at random for any particular trial that requires a jury. The only added difference on this case is that they would likely have screened out any potential juror who couldn't commit to a 6 month trial. However, even then the juror in question would have had to have a valid reason. They couldn't just say they didn't fancy sitting in court for 6 months for example.
Oh okay so if it came out one was a parent of, say, a NICU baby, they wouldn’t be taken off due to not being able to be objective?
We as patients put all of our trust into these professionals in charge of our care. You’re right, it could happen and it’s a horrible thought, though I’d imagine it’s very, very rare. Still awful though.A few thoughts of mine…
Curious to know, I wonder what the profile of the jury is? I wonder if there’s any parents on there (not of the victims) or if they deliberately screen out parents for fear their opinion would be swayed more than a childless person? anyone legal who can shed light?
Regarding the medical professionals who have killed patients, have god complexes etc, I recently had an operation and in my quiet moments recovering, maybe it’s just my anxious ocd mind, but it’s quite a scary thought that when you’re under GA, people could do literally anything to you and you wouldn’t even know
also, since being on this thread, the thought hit me that any of us at any time could be called up to do jury duty for the most horrific cases! Scary thought
sorry, I don’t mean to make this all about me, just trying to process the info coming out
Agree with you! Although originally names of the babies were released and there was a set of triplets and 2 died. Maybe the person has a distant relation and they’re pushing them self in the lime light?
Is it wise to make comments on an ongoing case, legally speaking? I guess if it’s your family it would be hard to bite your tongue.
I know some of these fb warriors are dismissed as trolls/fakes but genuine or not, the poster makes the point I keep coming back to (second screenshot) which is this investigation seems very painstakingly done; that’s evident from the amount of charges against her, especially those repeat ones for the same baby - suggests they’ve gone through the evidence with a fine tooth comb. Imagine being law enforcement on this case, you’d like to think they’d work especially hard on getting this right given the grievous circumstances.
What has come out today certainly doesn’t look great but we have to remember this trial is set to last six months, there will be lots of twists and turns, shed loads of information, the prosecution will paint things one way, the defence another and it’s going to be an incredibly emotive trial. I’d imagine there will be days where we are convinced of her guilt and other days where we are not so sure.
I honestly don’t know what I think at this stage, it is too early in the trial for me to draw conclusions. As I said what we found out today doesn’t make LL look good at all, but we’re only hearing one side so far and the evidence hasn’t even been presented yet.
I just hope that in the end, the correct verdict is reached. It would be horrible if she was innocent and got found guilty, but it would also be terrifying if she did it and got away with it. I can’t imagine how the families of those poor babies are feeling right now, sadly there are no winners in this no matter the outcome but I hope they get some answers.
I honestly don’t know what I think at this stage, it is too early in the trial for me to draw conclusions. As I said what we found out today doesn’t make LL look good at all, but we’re only hearing one side so far and the evidence hasn’t even been presented yet.
I just hope that in the end, the correct verdict is reached. It would be horrible if she was innocent and got found guilty, but it would also be terrifying if she did it and got away with it. I can’t imagine how the families of those poor babies are feeling right now, sadly there are no winners in this no matter the outcome but I hope they get some answers.
Where is the coverage for this trial ? As an ex midwife I'm interested in this, and what possibly went on
You would be probably astonished how many Angels of Death there are. Targeting babies however is unusual.
Angels of Mercy is a label often given to “altruistic“ medical people who sometimes speed peoples passing on.
Although both terms are often used interchangeably.
Unfortunately on a case like this I doubt there is going to be a lightbulb moment or smoking gun that completely assures of guilt or innocence. I think the defence's strategy will simply be casting doubt on the reliability of the evidence the prosecution is relying on.
At the end of the day Lucy doesn't have to prove she is innocent. It is the prosecution that has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that she is guilty. If they can't do that then quite rightly Lucy should be acquitted. That's our legal system and it has served us for hundreds of years in that same respect.
I’m wondering that actually. Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think it’s automatic that a baby would even have a post mortem, especially if born prematurely - where a sudden deterioration/death isn’t that unusual. Or would doctors have recommended a post mortem because these deaths were totally unexpected and unexplained?
They should not be commenting and I think they would know this. However like you say is that easier said than done? Someone has asked her if she should really be posting on a public group and the response was ‘posting what? i haven’t revealed any pretinent information, I purposely said I couldn’t’.
I agree with you, I think it has took so long because they have been making sure they have as much evidence as they possibly can.
Though I could never imagine how they feel and I have so much empathy, I would upset if my family member publicly posted this - I’d be worried it would put the case in jeopardy? This might be wrong though.
That would be newly qualified probably
I think the same. However she stated to someone she hasn’t posted more than the newspapers have
And was there no deaths for 2 years previous to this
- Status