Somebody posted a table compiling the deaths on the Nnu pre and post LL. they averaged 2-3 per year. Spiked 2015/2016 then dropped back to 2-3 from there onwards
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
Defence or prosecution?
Absolutely, I forgot about CPAP!
I think it's so strange how she kept contradicting herself, "I haven't done anything wrong" and "I am evil I killed them on purpose" etc.
I'm starting to wonder if it was practice for a suicide note - it looks like she was jotting down ideas/things she could write in a real suicide note. That would explain why things appear to be added on at different times. And it would explain the contradictions - maybe she was toying with whether to say if she's innocent or guilty?
I'm starting to wonder if it was practice for a suicide note - it looks like she was jotting down ideas/things she could write in a real suicide note. That would explain why things appear to be added on at different times. And it would explain the contradictions - maybe she was toying with whether to say if she's innocent or guilty?
Last edited:
I am so sorry for any upset I may caused. It truly was not intended.Not to jump on you. But the above phrase can be quite hurtful to those of us who have experienced prematurity (**and indeed NICU with a full term baby) and the fear that runs along side it.
It's not just premature babies who require special care, some babies born at 40 weeks can have a far worse time than someone born at 26 weeks, and ultimately pass away in special care.
Science has advanced in such a way, that there are many children born at 22 weeks who live to tell the tale.
But to use prematurity as an excuse for their passing, instead hospital failings& gross medical error, and or murder by Lucy or someone else is another thing.
Again this isn't jumping on you. Just asking in future to be mindful of how you word such sentences, it's such a sensitive topic on the whole.**Edited to make sense as I'm not good at getting my thoughts across and I'm still full of the flu
The fact that an internal investigation was happening in the hospital to begin with all points to something being very obviously wrong.
As you said NICU doesn't mean a death sentence, the investigation was started because the death rates jumped significantly out of the blue. Someone was killing these babies weither people can bare to accept that or not.
The statistics of the mortality rate were comparable, prior to January 2015, but there was "a significant rise" in the number of babies dying or having "catastrophic collapses".
As a midwife (and I imagine neonatal nurses are the same), we are given bereavement training and a large part of the training involves memory making, including photography. We are given hints and tips on capturing sensitive but special images for parents, obviously with their full consent. I think that the photograph was taken in this context.I suppose everybody is different and every family/nurse relationship is different and maybe I'm being so strong on opinion through bias of why it's being discussed in the first place but taking pictures of someone elses dead babies just doesn't sit right with meif the parents wanted a photo I'm sure they would have taken one themselves. On the other hand, maybe they did ask we just don't know the full story
The note is very bizarre. It switches subjects randomly and is quite literally all over the place. Makes you wonder what her mental state was when she wrote it.
I saw a bit of it on the news earlier and the defence argument sounds a bit weak so far. Seemed to amount to "she didn't do it, there's no evidence". Well, that convinces me...
A bit unfair I suppose, as we need to hear more. But the start sounded weak.
I saw a bit of it on the news earlier and the defence argument sounds a bit weak so far. Seemed to amount to "she didn't do it, there's no evidence". Well, that convinces me...
A bit unfair I suppose, as we need to hear more. But the start sounded weak.
I’d never even considered that. But it does actually make sense
Ive just read the note in full and that is how i interpreted it..
I’m 50/50. I have reasonable doubt.
what if… the hospital was delivering sub-optimal care, as the prosecution has already admitted, and this resulted in a surge of tragic deaths. These tiny babies are so fragile, it could have been the whole team that were tit.
its happened in maternity services… and in mental health services… very recently where the entire team is guilty of gross negligence. In NICU there is a much higher risk of death from negligence due to the types of patients (teeny fragile babies).
what if… the hospital was delivering sub-optimal care, as the prosecution has already admitted, and this resulted in a surge of tragic deaths. These tiny babies are so fragile, it could have been the whole team that were tit.
its happened in maternity services… and in mental health services… very recently where the entire team is guilty of gross negligence. In NICU there is a much higher risk of death from negligence due to the types of patients (teeny fragile babies).
If you believe there is a real killer, why do you think it’s someone else and not Lucy?Veering towards innocent atm. I feel those notes are from a desperate person who’s accused of something she didn’t do, feel sad scared and alone. Reads a bit like I couldn’t save them so feels guilty
Also I know the murders seemed to have stopped now but if she’s innocent the real killer might be laying low to frame innocent person? Or has moved to a different area of country/hospital and it’s still happening
But then the hospital asked for an independent review and they settled on what to improve on which didn’t involve anyone getting the blame so why didn’t they settle on that and call it a lucky escape? Why take it one step further and decide actually we do need to involve the police? If the whole unit was failing surely they’d just think thank god at the independent review and keep it hush?
Trying to block out some of the words that look like they've been written separately to make sense of it. Does anyone know what it says above 'I killed them'?
To me it sort of looks like "they said I killed them because I'm not good enough to care for them + I am a horrible evil person" which sound like she's saying other people are accusing her of killing them, but also I'm not convinced at all that the second word is 'said'
Edit, it took me that long to read and do the screenshot that it's already been spotted, ignore me & keep scrolling
To me it sort of looks like "they said I killed them because I'm not good enough to care for them + I am a horrible evil person" which sound like she's saying other people are accusing her of killing them, but also I'm not convinced at all that the second word is 'said'
Edit, it took me that long to read and do the screenshot that it's already been spotted, ignore me & keep scrolling
Attachments
I don't know if this has been said already.
She is on remand so will have better benefits than someone who has been found guilty.
If she has a feeling she is going to be locked up for a long time she has nothing to loose.
While on remand she is entitled to £50 a week on her spends and weekly booked visits. She can have clothes and personal items sent in to her.
Once guilty she is on basic spends £15 aweek until she gets enhanced or has a job. She would only get 2 booked visits amonth.
If she is found guilty then she will go to a cat A prison which is for the worse criminals. She will be on a segregated wing with people equally as bad. So chances of anyone getting to her are slim. But not unheard of. But also most people in a cat A prison are doing extremely long sentences so have nothing to loose by attacking her.
When arrested she would of seeked out her barrister definitely after the 1st arrest if not definitely by the 2nd arrest.
She would of told them what she was being accused of. At this point he would of either agreed to take the case or referred it on. He doesn't have to take the case.
At the point he accepts she would of completed her legal aid application.
You have to confirm your income etc on the legal aid forms and legal aid decide if they need you to contribute towards your legal fees depending on savings or income. But obviously she has no income as she is in prison.
I'm on the fence as to if she is guilty or not.
But I do wonder why would someone make so many attempts at killing the babies. I mean the ones were she is accused of going back. Makes no sense in the circumstances its.
Edit- My husband used to visit is childhood best friend back then he was in a Cat AA prison. My husband had to be interviewed by the police before he could visit. So you can see how strict things can be once a guilty verdict is reached.
She is on remand so will have better benefits than someone who has been found guilty.
If she has a feeling she is going to be locked up for a long time she has nothing to loose.
While on remand she is entitled to £50 a week on her spends and weekly booked visits. She can have clothes and personal items sent in to her.
Once guilty she is on basic spends £15 aweek until she gets enhanced or has a job. She would only get 2 booked visits amonth.
If she is found guilty then she will go to a cat A prison which is for the worse criminals. She will be on a segregated wing with people equally as bad. So chances of anyone getting to her are slim. But not unheard of. But also most people in a cat A prison are doing extremely long sentences so have nothing to loose by attacking her.
When arrested she would of seeked out her barrister definitely after the 1st arrest if not definitely by the 2nd arrest.
She would of told them what she was being accused of. At this point he would of either agreed to take the case or referred it on. He doesn't have to take the case.
At the point he accepts she would of completed her legal aid application.
You have to confirm your income etc on the legal aid forms and legal aid decide if they need you to contribute towards your legal fees depending on savings or income. But obviously she has no income as she is in prison.
I'm on the fence as to if she is guilty or not.
But I do wonder why would someone make so many attempts at killing the babies. I mean the ones were she is accused of going back. Makes no sense in the circumstances its.
Edit- My husband used to visit is childhood best friend back then he was in a Cat AA prison. My husband had to be interviewed by the police before he could visit. So you can see how strict things can be once a guilty verdict is reached.
Last edited:
It’s these three points that I keep going back to that make me feel she is involved…
* The jump in deaths
* Unexplained collapses in babies that up until then had been doing well
* They were proving unusually hard to resuscitate
Pattern of LL on the scene for all…
It just seems too many coincidences to be bad luck.
It says 'I killed them' on a different bit? Or am I reading the whole thing wrong.
And the fact that the deaths followed her from night shift to day shift. There is no doubt in my kind she's guilty.
It does say I killed them on a different part yes. Below ‘I did this’. But I was responding to the question of the part on the bottom left.
I knew it!
Everyone who is arrested has the right to legal aid. Most criminal cases are legally aided - Ben Myers will be funded by legal aid and so will her solicitors.
- Status