Notice
Thread ordered by most liked posts - View normal thread.

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
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1

Milktray

VIP Member
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?
No...not at all. They can't influence each others decisions. They can only discuss when the judge releases them for a verdict.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1

acsunderland

Well-known member
Those 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 highly doubt human error for the amount of babies 😔
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1

Lucyxxxx

VIP Member
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's going to be interesting albeit sad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1

SamPam

Well-known member
It looks like it is just the 2 babies who were poisoned? And 'sabotaging' in the other cases? Those poor parents. I do hope she's innocent of it, but someone has certainly administered the insulin.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1

e.l.lofthouse

VIP Member
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.
I'm not saying it's a bad thing. I was making two points, but not saying tha information would mean no fair trial...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1

candyland_

VIP Member
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
A similar pattern could emerge for the other children too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1

Milktray

VIP Member
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.
I don't know - have jury have been decided yet? They could still be going through that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1

e.l.lofthouse

VIP Member
Could it be possible that she's been charged because there's more evidence pointing to her than anyone of anything else? It's so strange when there isn't any info. I feel so sad for the families.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1

TheSlayer

Chatty Member
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.
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 think with 140-160 jurors to be gone through (very different to the way USA discount, have been through personally) most of that will be tomorrow and making sure she is fit to stand so probably Thursday before opening from the prosecution?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1

acsunderland

Well-known member
To be fair they have been dropping and adding charges left right and centre.
The fact she’s been arrested and let go a few times is strange also

Do 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.
Don’t think they’d advise that
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1

Mardymermaid

Chatty Member
I think there will definitely be a fair bit reported or they wouldn't have allocated extra space for the press would they?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1

Tofino

VIP Member
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
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1