True I would say that even if it was just a busier than normal shift
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
Even if she was neurodiverse I don't think it would matter nor make any difference to the case.Part of me wonders if she was (undiagnosed?) neurodiverse, as seen in girls as be perfectionists, high achieving etc And masked a lot. Then the pressures of the job, lack of sleep support etc it got too hard to mask and these odd social “mishaps” (for want of a better word) started occurring. Even things like the weird phrasing in texts… does she simply speak very logically?
Just thinking out loud by the way. I don’t know what to think really, especially as each newspaper seems to report everything slightly differently.
The thought of a neurodiverse person having their behaviour used as evidence against them being WEIRD and creepy and a murderer when it’s just how their brain works send shivers down my spine as much as a baby killer loose on the ward does. It’s just awful all round. Neither outcome is good
She should know right from wrong, and putting a baby in harms way and ultimately them passing away because of your actions, everyone knows that's wrong.
ok thank you, I did see that then
Its not even really head behaviour (apart from the Haha message
) it’s just odd and very socially inappropriate. And could simply be because she is tapped in the head. As folks have said I guess until we hear more about “Lucy the person” we can’t really build up a picture at all.
Maybe that's her defence though. LL might claim that those texts were proof of her seeking further help and asking if she was doing something wrong. Each time being told 'no'.I feel like if I’d noticed babies were dying every time I was on shift, that I’d be asking my managers what I’m doing wrong, what is going wrong on my shifts and I’d probably be a bit paranoid about it! If I noticed it of a colleague to be honest I might make a crass joke about it to them- I certainly wouldn’t be suspicious that they were really murdering them! My relative had five deaths in a week of shifts in a care home so we called her Shipman for a few monthsObviously that depends on how she was at work. Those messages make her sound like the office busybody, always gossiping and chatting about work and while everybody engages with her, they probably do it out of politeness.
Defence are going to pick holes with the evidence and say it's 'Baader Meinhof Phenomenon' or something. Defence have already mentioned confirmation bias, so that's the route they are going down.
The trial will become more about maths.
What? I’m not saying neurodiversity lead to her killing/hurting the babies! I’m talking about the tone of her messages/slightly odd behaviour with parents!
We have to remember that if she is guilty she would have been consciously considering what to write in her text messages as she would definitely be aware its something police would look at in future if the need arose.
So an element of dark humour about the shift swap here may have been a conscious attempt to point out she had been unlucky in swapping a shift and being helpful. Commenting that she had only been there for a handover for a short space of time was drawing attention to the nurse that was there previously and texting her along with her response meant it was known which nurse was there before handover and that Lucy had only just arrived.
Not appearing to believe that all these deaths were odd, trying to make it seem like it was all a series of unfortunate coincidences. Mentioning the bbc programme to a colleague, potentially so that people would believe she only watched it on Jun 9th when in fact we know the video was aired on the website a week previous and she may not want people to know she seen it before child A died.
Of course, if she was innocent, these things could be explained as natural things to text when somethings gone wrong.
But coupled with other evidence and the sheer number of deaths that occurred, I don't think these texts help her.
No I know, and I'm saying her being neurodiverse or not should make absolutely no difference to the case, and the context in how she carries herself or speaks. It doesn't define you as a person, its just heading into age old stereotypes of people who are neurodiverse.
Sorry, I'm tired and I just type and don't articulate myself correctly sometimes.
Well everyone clearly has a different definition of head. I wasn't really being specific anyway, it was a generalisation. A lot of the time allowances are made for people being rude or inappropriate as "well they must be neurodiverse" and my point was, often they are just unpleasant people. Just because Lucy is incredibly odd doesn't mean she is by default neurodiverse, nor does it really matter if she is tbh. She is still a professional who should act accordingly, or shouldn't be employed in a role she can't fulfil, i.e. not creeping on families on socials.Its not even really head behaviour (apart from the Haha message
Yes absolutely this
and that doesn't just apply to this trial but seems to get thrown about far too much.I wasn’t justifying anything. Just wondering if that’s why she said some of the things she did…
I've taken the plunge and switched from unsure to guilty. Probably change again knowing me!
The texts are iffy. "We need answers" just says to me "I need to know whether they're onto me". LL wants to give info but her colleagues don't want to talk about it, their replies are like when you say "hope you've had a nice day" instead of asking how their day was.
Thank you Tattlers for keeping the wiki going it's so helpful having up to date info in one place
The texts are iffy. "We need answers" just says to me "I need to know whether they're onto me". LL wants to give info but her colleagues don't want to talk about it, their replies are like when you say "hope you've had a nice day" instead of asking how their day was.
Thank you Tattlers for keeping the wiki going it's so helpful having up to date info in one place
That is justifying no? lol. Fine, rationalising, call it whatever. All I mean is, it's looking for excuses instead of just accepting sometimes there is no reason other than someone's a massive twit. It's the same way as people inherently need to believe there's always a path that led to someone becoming a murderer, when often they are just born that way. I think 'weird' just makes us uncomfortable so we need to try and understand it and it can't always be understood.
Ah yes I think you’re right! The reporting of the messages is confusing
Justifying, to me, would mean I said “it’s FINE she said this, did that because she’s autistic” not wondering why she MIGHT have done/said it. Similar to the way people have pondered what the motive could be, what was her train of thought.
Could this mean three babies, including Child A, died in one night? So two others who LL wasn't looking after?
Yes I think you’re correct, it wasn’t reported be to clearly.
No I think child a died on June 9th chi
it says “(referring to the night child a died)” if they all died on the same night it wouldn’t be written like that imo
This is one thing I am clueless about but Lucy refers to Child A’s death being passed to the coroners ? So would a coroner not have noticed anything suspicious about it ? And if she knew that was happening with what is reported to be the first death we know about her alleged involvement with wouldn’t that have scared her or stopped her from carrying out any more murder ? This isn’t my opinion I’m just trying to make sense of it all .
I agree, I don’t think it will make any difference at all to the case. Obviously there’s a spectrum when it comes to neurodiversity, but if she’s managed to qualify as a NICU nurse she’d be extremely high functioning when it comes to her working life.
- Status