DellaC
VIP Member
What's your take on the case? It would be great to get the perspective of a chap
(Also I apologise if I've ever knocked you sick talking about my saggy tits or deceased vagina, I forget men exist here
)
- Notice
(Also I apologise if I've ever knocked you sick talking about my saggy tits or deceased vagina, I forget men exist here
)
InkHeart
VIP Member
Regarding her notes "I killed them because I wasn't good enough" etc... I remember when the serial killer Des Nilsen died, a criminal psychologist was interviewed on Good Morning Britain, along with the man who wrote Nilsen's biography Killing For Company, which the tv show Des was based on.
Killing For Company was a whole book about how Des was isolated from early on, and became cripplingly lonely, which warped his mind, until he would do anything for company, including kill people and live with their corpses. The man who wrote the book was not a criminal psychologist, but a journalist.
However, the criminal psychologist said that Nilsen killed because he was a psychopath, and that's all there was to it - any other reasoning was fiction.
Nilsen himself wrote hundreds of thousands of words on "why" he killed, always trying to find an answer and justify himself... but the real story is just, he was a psychopath. That very much reminds me of Lucy and her self-pitying "I wasn't good enough" crap. I always think about any serial killer: they didn't hand themselves in after the first victim. Or the second, or third, or even ninth. Only someone with no conscience could keep calmly living their life after having committed one murder, let alone ten. So I never buy any "I wanted to tell someone, but was too scared, I was in a spiral."
I also want to point out that it seems the vast majority of serial killers begin killing very close to the age of 30. I don't know why, but research proves it's true. It's only the fact that Lucy is female that stops her from being the absolute archetypal psychopath serial killer.
Killing For Company was a whole book about how Des was isolated from early on, and became cripplingly lonely, which warped his mind, until he would do anything for company, including kill people and live with their corpses. The man who wrote the book was not a criminal psychologist, but a journalist.
However, the criminal psychologist said that Nilsen killed because he was a psychopath, and that's all there was to it - any other reasoning was fiction.
Nilsen himself wrote hundreds of thousands of words on "why" he killed, always trying to find an answer and justify himself... but the real story is just, he was a psychopath. That very much reminds me of Lucy and her self-pitying "I wasn't good enough" crap. I always think about any serial killer: they didn't hand themselves in after the first victim. Or the second, or third, or even ninth. Only someone with no conscience could keep calmly living their life after having committed one murder, let alone ten. So I never buy any "I wanted to tell someone, but was too scared, I was in a spiral."
I also want to point out that it seems the vast majority of serial killers begin killing very close to the age of 30. I don't know why, but research proves it's true. It's only the fact that Lucy is female that stops her from being the absolute archetypal psychopath serial killer.
IdeletedbutI'mbackagain
VIP Member
Well in conjunction with his last messages about Tofino it was a bit because he seemed to think she ran Tattle
he seems to have mellowed out a bit now though considering his last message.But I do think it is a bit unsettling to think you post on an anonymous forum and someone from the "real world" has taken such an interest in your tattle profile that they knew who you were in a real life scenario of being in the same room. Then posts this on their own public profile.
But maybe that's just me!
MmmB777
VIP Member
It might be semantics that sound dramatic but for a baby like baby K, to let them desaturate with no breathing equipment, not correct it, is literally an attack. If you had a relative that only relied on ventilation to breathe and stay alive and found a nurse stood doing nothing over them, it would be an attack. That’s how I’d see it for sure.
he isn’t wrong 
OldBlondie
VIP Member
Yea when the others on this thread called it that she’d take the stand, cos she’d not be able to help herself and would get the attention she craved and give the performance of her life, I thought they were wrong, I thought there’s no way she’ll take the stand cos it’ll be so obvious that she’s lying. But she’s guilty and she knows it this purely theatrical she’s an attention whore, she can’t help herself the only reason she’s on that stand is cos she needs to feel the attention and perceived power of getting up there. Plus I really believe she’s enjoying putting the parents through this, she’s revelling in their pain. She’s a cruel evil monster. This is all about her
. No surprise there’s no tears today cos it’s about the babies and not her unlike the other day. I expect the tears/fainting back with a vengeance when she’s being cross examined though. Oh and forgot to say the other day that I don’t believe for a single minute she was ever suicidal, the only time I think she was concerned was when she knew she’d been caught out
Nurseali
VIP Member
I hate the word resilience.
Nursing students have it drummed into them that it's a key part of nursing. It's used as a compliment by senior staff.
Yes , we do need to be resilient but also we are human. It makes some staff feel they shouldn't be upset or affected or get anxiety as it's not how a nurse should be.
Ideally staff should have debriefs and support when a shift is rough or has a.major event. If they don't show resilience this should never be used against them.
Sorry went on as it really does twist my tits
Nursing students have it drummed into them that it's a key part of nursing. It's used as a compliment by senior staff.
Yes , we do need to be resilient but also we are human. It makes some staff feel they shouldn't be upset or affected or get anxiety as it's not how a nurse should be.
Ideally staff should have debriefs and support when a shift is rough or has a.major event. If they don't show resilience this should never be used against them.
Sorry went on as it really does twist my tits
Windowtothewall
Chatty Member
But for LL’s version of child E to hold up -
1) Mum would have to be lying about expressing milk, about timings (both 8pm and 10pm), seeing blood, the drawing she made of blood, not seeing anyone else else there, being told it was the NGU tube, being asked to leave, having a meeting with the registrar.
2) Mum would have deliberately missed her 9pm feed that was noted on the clinical notes and showed up an hour late
3) Dad would have to be lying about the call in which he told his wife to not panic over the blood and let staff deal with it. A call he will regret for the rest of his life for not taking her more seriously and has mobile date to verify it.
4) SHO lying when he says he doesn’t recall asking to omit the feed.
5) Registrar lying about not remembering a meeting with mum and not making a note of it.
6) Caroline Oakley lying when she says she doesn’t remember what happened (but LL says she was in the room and she definitely did not observe blood either)
7) LL to remember perfectly at 4.24am the next day the exact timings when mum visited, when she’s done a long night shift and baby E has tragically died. Because she did the notes retrospectively. But somehow her memory is better than everyone else’s for that time?
8) Why does LL remember for sure the mum was not in the room at 9pm but can’t remember if the SHO was, also at 9pm?
9) Mum would have given her statement before LL was first arrested. As they said it was discussed in her police interview of July 2018. So mum and dad made up this whole thing to incriminate LL even though they weren’t fully aware it was her, or what the charges were?
Morning_Star
Well-known member
When two testimonies contradict each other, there are ways of trying to decide which is more true/reliable. For example:
1. Which testimony is backed by evidence? or, failing that (if there's no evidence either way) then,
2. Which witness, if any, is more credible?
In the case of the testimony of the mother of Baby D, for example, who said she spoke to LL at 7am, swipe card data suggests LL entered the ward after 7:20-ish am, so the jury may believe (but we can't be sure) that the mother's testimony is unreliable by comparison to LL, because LL's testimony is back by swipe card data evidence.
However, in the case of the testimony of the mother of Baby E, the mother's testimony is backed by evidence of a phone call she made to Baby E's father. The mother's story is: she expressed milk, went down to her baby's room for his feed, heard baby scream before she entered the room, when she entered LL was at his cot & baby had blood on his mouth. The mum panicked but LL reassured her it's nothing and that she'd already called a doctor who was on his way. LL then told the mother to leave and go back to her room. Baby E's mother did that, but was still panicked so she called Baby E's father. We have evidence of this call & the timing of the call contradicts LL's testimony. So in this case, the jury is more likely to find the mother's account more credible because it's backed by evidence of the phone call.
Last edited:
She definitely does not look like blonde Lucy before any of this. You would think two different people. She looks more like her bail photos, maybe a bit fuller in the face but not overweight and not bloated.
Not sure about medication. She was following the questions and finding paperwork just fine most of the time and one occasion she pointed out when Ben got the name of a baby wrong.
raspberryjuice
VIP Member
I’m more convinced of her guilt than ever. Lying, attention seeking, murdering cunt.
Morning_Star
Well-known member
Exactly! The mum called the dad immediately after being sent back to her room by LL. She's such a liar. To lie about other witnesses is one thing, but about one of the parents -- that's another level of low. That's so upsetting.
Last edited:
LittleMy
VIP Member
How can she say that about the baby, he wasn’t screaming. A mother knows her child’s cry ffs!
When I had my son he was very poorly and cried a lot (he was not premature). I’d nip for a quick shower when we were on the maternity ward and knew instantly when it was him crying so would try to rush to get back to him as it did make me feel frantic. You just know.
Absolute bullshit coming from LL today.
When I had my son he was very poorly and cried a lot (he was not premature). I’d nip for a quick shower when we were on the maternity ward and knew instantly when it was him crying so would try to rush to get back to him as it did make me feel frantic. You just know.
Absolute bullshit coming from LL today.
DellaC
VIP Member
This is tattle. We're not the jury. We just have daily discussions on what we think or feel. None of us are experts and none of us know anything beyond what is reported.
If you're finding this thread frustrating then why be here? I'm sure with your legal knowledge and clear understanding of the whole case then you've better things to do?
I'm sure your not as sanctimonious and condescending as your post suggests but we don't tone police here, it's just a gossip forum.
Definite window. We only have her word for the baby being jittery when she started the equipment checks which was after Mel left.
I think her memory of Mel being sterile nurse and connecting the bag is true but I think there is a motive for remembering it. She’s definitely implying that the bag/IV line was the cause. She mentioned getting the bag checked again and she had put it in the sluice room?? But she doesn’t know what happened to it afterwards. I’ve not seen that in any of today’s reports for some reason.
Like others on the thread I also picked up on her saying she walked through the door to this situation (she said it twice I think) and I was thinking that isn’t what happened though. It started happening after Mel left the cot side. Mel was just getting an infusion ready when she came in for her shift.
Oh she clarified that shift start is 7.30pm. They do general handover with team that may take 15-20 mins but then go to their designated babies for specific handovers.
So the working shifts are 7.30pm - 8am and 7.30am - 8pm. But the first half hour is handovers.
This is why I don’t think baby D’s mum’s statement is quite right. I think she’s either misremembered the time/day or it wasn’t Lucy. not only because of door swipe and her message but because it’s not how their shift patterns work and I think it would be noted somewhere if she had begun the shift early for some reason, either patient notes or computer records.
So whatever happened i think it has to be disregarded for purpose of trial. But I don’t think it really impacts anything.
---
I think it was just ‘no’ responses, so Ben asked something like ‘do you accept…’ and she would say no. And the media have said ‘she refused to accept…’
But her responses on this were just not plausible.
She said mum came down at 10pm with breastmilk. She also said baby started bleeding at 10pm. If she wanted to lie but sound credible then why didn’t she just say baby did have some blood around his mouth but it was at 10pm when she said he started bleeding not 9pm! Or was it because dr Harkness was there by 10pm (I need to check what he saw when he first got to baby E)
But who is going to believe a mum is mistaken about blood around the mouth. She would never make it up, and is there even an alternative to misremembering something like that? By completely denying the mums account is a big error on her part.
I believe mum when she said baby was screaming. But Lucy said a bit unsettled. I think she’s downplayed it too much. If she said baby was crying but not screaming that would even be more plausible because a nurse and a mum might interpret a cry differently.
I also believe mum went down at 9pm to feed baby because Lucy herself wrote 9pm feed ommitted due to the mucky aspirates. So is she suggesting not only is mum lying or mistaken about the blood and the screaming, but also she came down one hour late to feed her baby?
also, the chart where 15ml blood was written was written by Lucy (she confirmed this) and Belinda initialled the column. Lucy also wrote 14ml in the notes and admitted It was an error. I presume a discrepancy in 1ml of blood is not significant but BM is clearly trying to show Lucy as someone who will be honest and admit if she has made a mistake. She also recorded a further bleed volume on the observation charts but didn’t write it in the notes. I don’t think it’s significant but I think again, he’s showing how his client is honest if she’s got something wrong!
Last edited:
MmmB777
VIP Member
Absolutely! I can only imagine how her “I’ve had to travel three hours a day
” speech went down with them.