That made perfect sense to me.I think I understand what you’re saying- that for each baby, you want to understand how, out of all the possibilities that could have lead to their death, did they decide on it being a deliberate act of harm?
Because in each instance, I doubt there is 100% conclusive proof it was deliberate harm or murder. And I bet that in each case individually, the (hospitally doctory) investigators first thinking would have been ‘ok, which, out of all the scenarios, is the one that best explains it?’ And that that might have been the most statistically common one, before anyone thought that was any harm being done. Which is what I imagine her defence will argue? That there is another, perfectly logical, perfectly plausible cause of death- even if it’s from the doctoring/nursing communities experiences (clinical experience would be a better term!!) or from world wide stats (babies often die of XYZ when ABC).
And even if you add in the fact that LL was the common denominator, the first port of call would be to hypothesise the most explainable reason. Which wouldn’t involve murder or deliberate harm.
But if you look at the cases through the lens of maybe there was foul play, you might start to take note of the other possibilities as to the reason for their deaths/crashes.
And if you are looking for harm done and you find an explanation for that that would be A reasonable explanation (reasonable as in ‘this is legitimately something that could have happened to explain that death/crash’) then despite the lesser statistical probability of it being the case- someone investigating it through that lens might say ‘hold up- THATS why this baby died/crashed.’
So I think I would like to know what the thing was that made the lens go from ‘she’s involved in all these incidents’ to ‘she’s the reason for all these incidents?’
I get that the fact there are explanations in all the cases put forward by the prosecution that there was foul play, and that that alone might be their biggest argument(she was there for all of them and in all of them A reason they died was foul play).
But the defence can say ‘oh, but these other reasons why they could have died are much more likely.’
So how are the prosecution going to prove it beyond reasonable doubt?
Nb. The insulin being no accident thing does somewhat throw a spanner in the works of my thinking- but the defence will argue why it can’t be 100% proved as definitively a deliberate act of harm by LL I guess.
She’s obviously got the means and opportunity, but what is the motive?
Also, I think I’ve confused myself.
I’m sure what he said will be looked into. Thoroughly.I've just read and re-read the Wiki regarding the insulin incident and I can't get my head around it. If the babies condition continued whilst LL wasn't there - what can be gleaned from that? I'm at a bit of a loss regarding the timings and bags.
No, not a quote. He did go on to say he saw her standing over baby and not reacting to the monitor/machine.
I wonder if they will go further into what concerns were raised at that point, because she was still allowed contact with babies, even after the esteemed Dr was worried enough to dump his paperwork to go and find her? If you're convinced someone is hurting/potentially killing babies, do you report it to your line manager and then be satisfied that they get moved to days?
If he's the senior medic and things were going to shit on his ward, it makes sense for him to place that blame at someone else's door rather than his own I guess.
Note 'coincidental' has quotation marks before I get anyone saying it was more than coincidence!That made perfect sense to me.
Up to now, I do think she's guilty because of the whole 'coincidental' reasoning and the high number of events that she was involved in.
BUT, there's also so much that doesn't add up and as you say, the evidence that prosecution produce will need to go beyond statistical, otherwise defence will rip it to shreds.
With regards to new experts being more credible - I think I’m inclined to believe the people who did the original post mortems were probably unconsciously biased because the babies never left the hospital so I don’t think suspicious circumstances would have even entered their head. Some of the PM outcomes were unexplained. You might say the new experts might have an unconscious bias but there are at least 5 of them and if they all agree it’s going to be really hard to dispute their evidence. I wonder if the pathologists who did the original post mortems will be witnesses and if they have a change of view.See Lucy doesn't keep a record of something - suspicious.
Someone else doesn't record something Lucy says she said - must not have happened.
It just feels to me things are being forced to fit abit. Is it really a coincidence that stillbirths were sky high that same year she's alleged to have murdered the babies? Why are the new experts more credible then the ones who initially stated causes of death to be things like pneumonia? If the prosecution are calling that note a confession, what else are they going over the top about? One baby it is said she never had any contact with the IV bag shes meant to have poisoned?? Prosecution claim she was getting away with these murders via all these different means and then turned around and decided she would physically attack a baby, to what keep under the radar? They claim its not possible its a coincidence she was there at all these deaths and collapses but then we have a baby she wasn't even present for 'Oh she must of done something beforehand then'. Honestly not arguing but do things like this not make anyones eyebrows raise just a little?
Shame I can’t put it on my CV!You'll need a best published wiki author award at the end of all of this!
Thank you for your dedication!
I take it that you were referring to my post above.Side note: The police wouldn’t have dug up her garden if they didn’t have very solid reason to suspect something more than a coincidence. I think there’s much more to come out especially with this advert for a new detective on the ongoing case.
Poor doctor, I hope he never hears any whispering like that thrown his way. That’s such a serious accusation and allegation isn’t it. To think he’d sit there and put these parents through THIS because he didn’t want his ward or himself to look bad… and now it looks..good somehow? Respectfully, strong disagree. And then I guess the independent medical experts and everybody else is in cahoots with him to keep making the trust look so good and get them out of hot water with this huge trial and massive spotlight on what went onI've just read and re-read the Wiki regarding the insulin incident and I can't get my head around it. If the babies condition continued whilst LL wasn't there - what can be gleaned from that? I'm at a bit of a loss regarding the timings and bags.
No, not a quote. He did go on to say he saw her standing over baby and not reacting to the monitor/machine.
I wonder if they will go further into what concerns were raised at that point, because she was still allowed contact with babies, even after the esteemed Dr was worried enough to dump his paperwork to go and find her? If you're convinced someone is hurting/potentially killing babies, do you report it to your line manager and then be satisfied that they get moved to days?
If he's the senior medic and things were going to shit on his ward, it makes sense for him to place that blame at someone else's door rather than his own I guess.
totally agree with what you’ve saidI think I understand what you’re saying- that for each baby, you want to understand how, out of all the possibilities that could have lead to their death, did they decide on it being a deliberate act of harm?
Because in each instance, I doubt there is 100% conclusive proof it was deliberate harm or murder. And I bet that in each case individually, the (hospitally doctory) investigators first thinking would have been ‘ok, which, out of all the scenarios, is the one that best explains it?’ And that that might have been the most statistically common one, before anyone thought that was any harm being done. Which is what I imagine her defence will argue? That there is another, perfectly logical, perfectly plausible cause of death- even if it’s from the doctoring/nursing communities experiences (clinical experience would be a better term!!) or from world wide stats (babies often die of XYZ when ABC).
And even if you add in the fact that LL was the common denominator, the first port of call would be to hypothesise the most explainable reason. Which wouldn’t involve murder or deliberate harm.
But if you look at the cases through the lens of maybe there was foul play, you might start to take note of the other possibilities as to the reason for their deaths/crashes.
And if you are looking for harm done and you find an explanation for that that would be A reasonable explanation (reasonable as in ‘this is legitimately something that could have happened to explain that death/crash’) then despite the lesser statistical probability of it being the case- someone investigating it through that lens might say ‘hold up- THATS why this baby died/crashed.’
So I think I would like to know what the thing was that made the lens go from ‘she’s involved in all these incidents’ to ‘she’s the reason for all these incidents?’
I get that the fact there are explanations in all the cases put forward by the prosecution that there was foul play, and that that alone might be their biggest argument(she was there for all of them and in all of them A reason they died was foul play).
But the defence can say ‘oh, but these other reasons why they could have died are much more likely.’
So how are the prosecution going to prove it beyond reasonable doubt?
Nb. The insulin being no accident thing does somewhat throw a spanner in the works of my thinking- but the defence will argue why it can’t be 100% proved as definitively a deliberate act of harm by LL I guess.
She’s obviously got the means and opportunity, but what is the motive?
Also, I think I’ve confused myself.
a family friend of mine, their babies took 3.5 monthsHow long do postmortem results take to come back? After the first death was deemed to be deliberate then why wasn’t there a major investigation?
Well, you can, but not directly I guessShame I can’t put it on my CV!
Maybe the detective will be looking into all the other murderous nurses that must have been on shift when she was and all the big baddy doctors and nhs big wigs that are conspiring to get themselves off the hook. (Just ignore me. Please everyone just ignore me. What if I say I’m completely serious, am I allowed then?)Gosh there’s no doubt about the June job advert being Lucy related is it:
“This investigation is one of significant national prominence” big understatement there
“You will be leading and Deputising as appropriate on a sensitive and challenging investigation across the force area and beyond investigating the murder and attempted murder of infants.”
“…dedicated to the once in a career investigation”
“…recruited directly into the investigation for an initial 3 year period” initial? Christ how much more
“…Investigatory base at Chester, however, there will be a requirement to work/share duty time across Cheshire and Manchester due to a lengthy trial 2022/23 in Manchester.”
Detective Chief Inspector - Op Hummingbird - Cheshire Police
ID: 697. Title: Detective Chief Inspector - Op Hummingbird. Location: Chester. Closing Date: 12/06/2022, 23:55. Salary: £58,332 - £60,732cheshirepolice.tal.net
Oh sorry no it wasn’t, I hadnt even seen your post yet ! Not sure what you mean but nothing was directed at youI take it that you were referring to my post above.
Well it's exactly what I said when I originally posted the job advert in the 2nd thread!
Note I wrote 'coincidental' with quotation marks.
I am also struggling with these claims about her looking "expressionless". It reminds me of the accusations levelled at women who are raped who shutdown emotionally, when in reality they are deeply traumatised and its framed as them seeming unbothered. Its simply too early to accurately interpret what her reactions mean.I have agreed with 99.9% of what you’ve said in these threads!
It doesn’t completely add up for me.
I don’t know if I’m coming from my view point, because I don’t want to accept the alternative could be true.
But I do work for the NHS, and I do know it’s failing and I’ve seen people lose their jobs so that my trust can be ‘seen to be doing something’.
I have first hand, been the victim of my ‘face not fitting’ and having allegations put towards me that simply were not true, because that organisation had decided they wanted me gone. Ok I wasn’t accused of murder, but I was accused of things I simply wouldn’t do, because my conscience would never let me.
It just seems really off to me. But I will follow closely, and am prepared to be proven wrong.
I saw a post up thread where a PP had quoted an article where LL apparently looked at people crying in the public gallery ‘expressionless’. This is all that’s going to be reported, the stuff that can be misinterpreted.
They won’t mention if she’s sat there looking broken, or looking over to her parents for reassurance.
If she’s guilty, then yes she is more likely to have no remorse, and have no empathy to the victims families.
If she is innocent, she may be absolutely petrified by how any of her actions may be interpreted, so therefore is trying to refrain from showing any emotion.
Thank you.We have a second wiki page now, Yel kindly set one up quickly. Apparently page 1 had 27000 words! (Mostly Mark Dowling’s). I’ve put sections child I to Child Q on page two with links between the two so hopefully it’s still easy to navigate.
This aswell got me wondering...Gosh there’s no doubt about the June job advert being Lucy related is it:
“This investigation is one of significant national prominence” big understatement there
“You will be leading and Deputising as appropriate on a sensitive and challenging investigation across the force area and beyond investigating the murder and attempted murder of infants.”
“…dedicated to the once in a career investigation”
“…recruited directly into the investigation for an initial 3 year period” initial? Christ how much more
“…Investigatory base at Chester, however, there will be a requirement to work/share duty time across Cheshire and Manchester due to a lengthy trial 2022/23 in Manchester.”
Detective Chief Inspector - Op Hummingbird - Cheshire Police
ID: 697. Title: Detective Chief Inspector - Op Hummingbird. Location: Chester. Closing Date: 12/06/2022, 23:55. Salary: £58,332 - £60,732cheshirepolice.tal.net
I’m keen to find a “trigger” too. I feel I just have to know what would make you want to do this if it wasn’t notoriety or attention. Surely to god it wasn’t just jealousy that perhaps “everyone” around her was pairing off and starting families. And she was fuming worried she’d never have that herself? She was only 25 but who knows. Did she ever have a boyfriend or girlfriend. So many questions I hope come to the surface.I definitely think either we’ll get evidence of historic suspicious behaviours or something that’s triggered her in some way, whether miscarriage, break up or other kind of trauma. Not trying to excuse her, I just think it’s the most likely thing to happen?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?