Stiltoncheese
Chatty Member
Thanks for clarifying the insulin. I have no medical background so just assumed there would be some kind of control of it
No...not at all. They can't influence each others decisions. They can only discuss when the judge releases them for a verdict.I understand the reason but for a case of this scale and nature it’s going to be incredibly hard for the jury to not have any sort of outlet. These babies died whether murder or another reason and they will have to listen to that for months. Are the jury allowed to discuss with each other during the trial when together in court breaks?
I highly doubt human error for the amount of babiesThose with nurse/insulin knowledge, what’s the likelihood of human error/incompetence if it was prescribed and the wrong dose given? Is this basic 101 stuff for nurses or could it be possible to make repeated mistakes if the hospital failures meant there were no 2 nurse checks?
I chuckled a bit..Sorry, I know I really shouldn't but that did make me laugh.
It's going to be interesting albeit sad.I'm actually dreading the trial and what will come out. I don't think I could listen to it all of I was a parent of one of those babies.
Like someone said above though. IF she is innocent, he life is over anyway. She'll always be the nurse accused of murder and attempted murder of babies.
It is updated more, however the sky one has more in depth reporting of court.https://www.leaderlive.co.uk/news/2...p_EArjlIPKPAacMk4WGI2pa--5jl3y3Z7y_DW0pXx90X8 This site is updated more.
Feels weird liking your post, I liked it as a “thanks for the info” not as a “oh thank goodness it was girls too” !Someone did ask but there is little girls in the charges as well.
I'm not saying it's a bad thing. I was making two points, but not saying tha information would mean no fair trial...A fair trial is open justice. That is what’s happening. It’s typical for this kind of information to be made public once the trial starts. Technically anyone could go sit in the public gallery but I think it would be full with families and reporters.
A similar pattern could emerge for the other children too.I’ve just caught up with the Live reporting. The fact she was present all 24 times, had looked up the family of Child A & B on Facebook and had a handover sheet at home that evidenced she should have been looking after 2 other children that night (so why with A & B)? Is seemingly very strong circumstantial evidence
I don't know - have jury have been decided yet? They could still be going through that.I find it weird how the live report hasn't been updated with anything of relevance. It's showing a photo of the police van from Tuesday. In any other high profile case the reporters are documenting anything and everything they can just to get a story.
Same and sameOff topic but I work I'm housing and when people refer to her as LL , I keep saying landlord in my head![]()
Sometimes it’s like a news aggregator so no actual name attached and centrally bought so there is no need to refer to other newspapers (hope that makes sense).I wondered if they were in the group to mon
Oh I see. So that reporter will share with other reporters? With other news articles you would see something like ‘The Mirror reported’ when they lift a news story from another outlet. But this is being presented as from their own reporters.
I don’t have an issue on reporting restrictions pre-trial, I would hate for a trial to collapse due to a media circus. I just hope once it gets started we see some normality with the reporting.
Interesting point about the evaluation before they start to avoid grounds for appeal later. I assume given the circumstances it can be done quickly tomorrow and hopefully show she is fit to stand trial.
The fact she’s been arrested and let go a few times is strange alsoTo be fair they have been dropping and adding charges left right and centre.
Don’t think they’d advise thatDo we think Lucy will give evidence herself? A lot of this will be relying on paperwork and medical records presumably as that will surely be most of the basis for the prosecution case.
People who have purposely gone looking for a name. People did it in the beginning didn't they and I just don't get whyWhat's disgusting?
Hard to say with nobody apart from the courts seeing it, it could have been performative to delay trial. I’m sure the courts will have seen stuff like that happen plenty of times, genuine or not.I'm not very knowledgeable in health care or law so this is just my personal opinion but I feel like if she's that distraught it makes her seem not guilty to me , if she's cold hearted and evil enough to have carried out the crimes you would think she would be emotionless. I know obviously there's a lot to factor in when deciding , I'm just basing an opinion on that one little thing