Yes I wondered this too.
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
Because other than blind faith in her because she is their daughter, there are bound to doubt she's not guilty like she's said.
If she is found guilty it will be interesting to find out what her motive was (if we ever find out). Iv seen a few tweets suggesting possibly can’t have her own kids mixed with already being a psychopath. Or being a slim woman, likely not being strong enough to murder another grown adult so her target being children. Obviously all speculation at this point.
There’s a screen over her so only the jury can see her I think - this was said on sky news
I think it’s possible she enjoyed watching the parents grieving on social media.
Lots of parents use apps like Facebook and Instagram as a community when they are broken by the loss of their baby, some share the most intimate details of how they are feeling. It’s more than just seeing what someone got up to at the weekend.
Lots of parents use apps like Facebook and Instagram as a community when they are broken by the loss of their baby, some share the most intimate details of how they are feeling. It’s more than just seeing what someone got up to at the weekend.
I'm just not sure what to make of this case.
So far, from the prosecutions evidence, it doesn't look good. But when we hear from the defence, could this be explained?
I'm keeping an open mind for now.
I actually used to work with somebody whose baby died in that hospital around 2013/14, I think. She told me that her baby had been neglected by the hospital and I think there may have been an ongoing court case back then too?
But I can't remember property now, as it was a few years ago that she told me what had happened.
So far, from the prosecutions evidence, it doesn't look good. But when we hear from the defence, could this be explained?
I'm keeping an open mind for now.
I actually used to work with somebody whose baby died in that hospital around 2013/14, I think. She told me that her baby had been neglected by the hospital and I think there may have been an ongoing court case back then too?
But I can't remember property now, as it was a few years ago that she told me what had happened.
They said she was mostly covered by a screen but the jury could see her.
i wonder is that intentional to stop papers reporting on her body language? if so why?
I’m catching up so apologies if someone has beat me to it. If someone has an NG tube (which goes into your nose and down to your stomach) then you aspirate the tube regularly to see if feed comes back. If you can aspirate feed, that means it isn’t being absorbed. Also can aspirate air from the tube for comfort.
It is strange. Maybe they want to be sure the jury aren’t led by papers reporting her to be acting a certain way so they make their mind up for themselves? Although I’m sure they’ll be told not to read papers etc and focus only on what they see there. It’s a weird one!
Operation Hummingbird is the investigation into the deaths of the babies at CoCH.
They've spent millions investigating so far.
In June 2022, the advert went up for Detective Chief Inspector to investigate the deaths across the force and beyond. Presuming that this was an July/Aug 22 start.
The role is initially a 3 year contract. So taking it to 2025. They also mentioned the upcoming trial in the advert.
Did more come out of Operation Hummingbird than just LL?
Attachments
Can I just say a big thank you to those Tattlers who are either health care or legal professionals, as someone who is neither I am really appreciating the insight you guys are able to give 
Munchausen requires a gain/ it’s mostly attention or financial gain of some sort. But in this case there really is no clear motive for why she would do such a thing hence why in my professional judgment as a psychiatrist it’s not Mumchausen
I thought this was just the opening and they are yet to even go into full details of the evidence? Maybe I’m wrong
If she is found guilty, I’d like to know how and why the incidents began occurring. Was this always her motive? Did she slog through a Nursing degree (with all the emotional, financial, intellectual struggles that comes with) and then interviews and training with the goal of being in a place where she could carry these acts out? Or was all this done as innocently as possible and 1 day something caused her to act? Something personal or professional? And urge she was suppressing came to the surface?
I know we will never know. I’d like to know
I know we will never know. I’d like to know
But we've not heard any of the case yet. We are still on opening speech. Her parents likely know what her defence is and thoroughly believe in it. If I went off looks alone, her parents look broken.
It’s bizarre jobless fantasist behaviour because I can’t explain how else anyone can come up with such a theory. People forget CCT handed the case to the police with their own hands? Are they going to do that if they know there’s blood on their own hands that will come back to them? Absolutely not people are ridiculous too much time on their hands to come up with Facebook theories
you’re right, it’s still the prosecution’s opening statement. i know people naturally will discuss, but it’s too early to talk about evidence - it will be vague with way more details to come later.
It’s strange because they’ve decided Baby A was her ‘first’ victim and then we have seen how close together and frequent the other collapsed happened but what could trigger a sudden mass murdering spree?
- Status