I took it the same that she will be on stand for quite a few weeks too, so doubt it will finish this month.
I don’t believe it’s impossible for a killer to change their method. I just think given these particular circumstances it seems like the worst choice she could have possibly made. It doesn’t seem like a logical move to me is all and My opinion is based on loads of different things it’s far more than just the lack of logic in what they allege. I’ve always had doubts and having now heard the prosecution in full they just didn’t have enough to fully convince me.
Can I ask then what if the defence don’t really offer a solid defence? Let’s say they don’t provide reasonable explanations for the deaths & the insulin. They basically just have the defence of “she didn’t do it” Where would that leave you then? (I know this is hypothetical as we don’t know what the defence have to present) but if you were just left with the prosecution evidence which included several medical experts saying these babies had been harmed deliberately?
I’m sure that NHS policy will change and there’ll be more robust checks brought in for nurses administering drugs in general if she does go down for this (although, whether or not any policy changes will actually be enforced or not given the current state of the NHS is a completely different question), but I just personally don’t see it ever being made a CD.
If you get away with murder for the best part of a year, you have to apply a decent level of logic to what you do surely. As humans we’re all hard wired to protect ourselves, I think that applies to serial killers aswell who are often the most narcissistic of us all, so she might not apply “normal” logic but I’d expect her to have a survival instinct, after all she’s not crazy enough to kill people in front of others. She clearly doesn’t want to get caught. And she’d have to apply some sort of logic to her decisions to help avoid getting caught surely
just bloody awfulI thought it was one of the prosecutions main points as they closed? btw LL does know what air emb is etc because look, she did the training a week before baby A’s death…boom…
No you’re remembering it correctly
I was wondering that too, and thought maybe the mum had work (dad is quite a bit older isn't he, so figured he'd be retired?) or maybe one of them was always with her after what happened.
Jesus! Who found it in the street and who grassed?I am actually shocked how many nurses with a public account admit that they have hand overs and say it’s normal she had that many
You crack me up! Still waiting for you no
Agreed! I worked with a pretty, soft-spoken, “sweet” woman & bought into her persona all the way. I was shocked at what this scheming witch was capable of!! Let’s just say I saw the light and she saw the last of me. What a piece of work! But the issue truly was my willingness to trust her without her earning it, based solely on appearance & presentation.
She got away with it for the best part of a whole year because senior hospital staff failed to listen to the concerns of the consultants as early as June/July 2015.
I think less is more with the defence here. I think it’s more likely that they talk too much and give some bull explanations to things that don’t seem to fit, I could maybe still change my mind but only if the defence really talk a load of nonsense
I think it's crazy for people to think LL isn't guilty of murdering babies because they can't bare to think that someone would be so evil.
I remember they mentioned that she had had the training so knew what an embolism was, (and she said as much in an interview) but did they go into detail on the content of the training, e.g the specific risks involved in this new treatment. Because I can imagine Defence saying: staff generally were unfamiliar/ still learning/ liable to make mistakes with these new long line IVs - this is why training was introduced and *this is why the embolisms happened.*
