Dr Noname/Choc Doc:
- 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 hope @OldBlondie doesn’t mind but I contacted her fella Dan. He told me main court was full but unfortunately he doesn’t know if overspill court is full too. So I am still no clearer if people are being turned away
argh, I'll be getting multiple buses and trains to get there too, as I don't drive ffs. Did anyone go yesterday?
Yes, think you might be right there.
long time lurker of this thread … I think you’ve raised some interesting points here, did the prosecution explain happened after the insulin incident as to why it didn’t ring alarm bells initially? I find it very hard to articulate my thoughts on this trial and the evidence is extremely complex so I’m not sure whether she is guilty on what I’ve read so far. Think I’ve always been of the mindset that I wouldn’t be sure until after I’d heard the defence though.
Errr sorry to be a pest but what the shittinghell is mafsau?
One thing I have learned from many, many (many) hours of True Crime podcasts, is that often if a serial killer hasn't had an abusive childhood they usually have had a head injury. I don't suppose we would know that until later on when the true crimers have done research on her.
Of course, could just be a bog standard psychopath, and that that is the only reason. Or no reason at all.
Of course, could just be a bog standard psychopath, and that that is the only reason. Or no reason at all.
Re changing MO - off the top of my head, Ted Bundy changed his & so did Carl Watts (the Sunday morning slasher).
Human behaviour isn’t rigid and neither is a serial killers. They change their MO for various reasons including learning from previous mistakes, doing something less/more risky, experimenting etc.
Think of it like this - they have a fantasy/end desire, how they get to that/achieve that isn’t the important bit, it’s the end bit where their enjoyment lays.
For LL - the end game was to (allegedly) cause these babies to die/collapse. How she did that & if it changed is irrelevant as that’s not the “important bit” for a serial murderer
Human behaviour isn’t rigid and neither is a serial killers. They change their MO for various reasons including learning from previous mistakes, doing something less/more risky, experimenting etc.
Think of it like this - they have a fantasy/end desire, how they get to that/achieve that isn’t the important bit, it’s the end bit where their enjoyment lays.
For LL - the end game was to (allegedly) cause these babies to die/collapse. How she did that & if it changed is irrelevant as that’s not the “important bit” for a serial murderer
I bought rubble bags from B&Q. So did Wayne Couzens.
It’s not suspicious for me because I’m not accused of murder. I can also give a reasonable explanation for it.
It was suspicious for Wayne because he was accused of murder. And there was other evidence that also pointed to him behind guilty of murder. We don’t just ignore the rubble bags because lots of people buy them as part of normal human behaviour. It’s still relevant as part of the collection of evidence to prove someone’s guilt.
I think it's going to be really difficult to get a verdict if BM does have expert witness testimony. A majority of 10 jurors is needed out of 12. I can definitely see it going to a hung jury.
I see Dr NN as much older. Balding. Thin and lanky. Not a looker.
Wayne Couzens is completely different there was forensic and cctv evidence of him placing him at the scene. There's no evidence of LL directly killing babies from cctv or forensic evidence , the evidence is she was on shift when the babies collapsed. How many deaths were supposed to happen per year, It's ruling out based who was on shift and statistical anomaly. No one saw her kill , Even post mortem foul play wasn't suspected until later. You can't get the forensic evidence as the offending feed bag would have been thrown into the clinical waste bin and incinerated. Basing guilt on Facebook searches and notes isn't the smoking gun.
I think she did it by the way but its a bugger to prove much harder than typical murders. Best hope is that Ben Myers hasn't got an expert medical witness or statistician for the defence.
Thanks for messagingI hope @OldBlondie doesn’t mind but I contacted her fella Dan. He told me main court was full but unfortunately he doesn’t know if overspill court is full too. So I am still no clearer if people are being turned away
The two of you will be in Cockington by the Sea before you know it
Snow White is an odd one to have a connection to. Especially when you’re being accused of being the wicked poisoned apple step mother/witch.
www.psychologytoday.com
How Snow White's Cruel Stepmother Helps Us Cope with Evil
Like most fairy tales, Snow White uses archetypes — the innocent princess, the evil stepmother — to illustrate and teach us about universal aspects of human nature.
I don’t think anyone here thinks the Facebook searches are a smoking gun or prove her guilt in isolation to anything else. They just see it as suspicious and sinister behaviour in context to other evidence.
I think the point I’m trying to make is being missed. I’m trying to address the repeated comments that because Lucy did something that plenty of us do (Facebook stalk) that it’s not suspicious behaviour. That it’s normal behaviour. But people are looking at it in isolation regardless of how clear or not other evidence is.
If you look in isolation at Wayne Couzens buying rubble bags it doesn’t prove his guilt. and it’s something plenty of us do that is normal behaviour. But I use this as an example because we know for fact it wasn’t a normal behaviour on that day and were purchased for sinister reasons.
Yes his other evidence is far clearer and more tangible plus he pleaded guilty. But that wasn’t the comparison i was making. If the other evidence was less clear him buying rubble bags around the event would still be seen as suspicious if he was on trial for murder and form part of the collection of evidence.
Literally just because she didn’t say anything which immediately incriminated her
The points other people are making are making me go back and thinking hmmmm. Don't pile on me but as a juror, could I convict? Mehhh not too sure I could. I do not envy the jurors. Probably sounds daft but seeing things like teddies in her bed and things like that is hard to picture that same person murdering babies. Ben's doing his job I guess??
It’s often a process of elimination for a diagnosis in medicine, that’s why you have various various tests, scans etc.
I thought of this the other day as the mechanic who looked at my
I definitely couldn’t say hand on heart that I’d vote guilty right now. And that’s ok. I don’t envy those jurors one bit and they’re going to have an awful job on their hands as it will absolutely mess with their heads trying to make the decision.
I honestly think it will come. I don’t think barristers are allowed to coach their clients in the UK. But I’m not sure what they can say so she may have some inkling of how it will go with Ben. She would have talked a lot of this over generally with him and had years to think about it. But she can’t prepare for cross examination really.Literally just because she didn’t say anything which immediately incriminated her
- Status