Charlot123
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2018
- Messages
- 9,253
- Reaction score
- 62,427
I know we can't blame every thing on the defendant. I may be over thinking this---but I do think she might have been the person that 'accidentally' put Baby E's parents on the phone when Dr Gibbs [ I think it was] wanted to urgently speak to the parents of another baby that was collapsing. It just seems like something she might have enjoyed...
I think she liked creating chaos, and needed it sometimes to help her deflect from other tough situations.
Maybe her getting accidentally jabbed during the resuscitation---and her changing some observation notes, was done to create further confusion down the line.
And texting colleagues with faulty info further her own narrative?
So it's not that much of a stretch that she'd flood a sink or two if she needed to create a diversion. JMO It would also help her get into a nursery she wanted to be in, if one of the others was flooded with toxic water...
I think that if she did it (“innocent until proven guilty to the jury”), then, to me it is a combination of 1) control and 2) you know, this strange scientific observation game. You know kids who torture flies or butterflies? Observing what would happen if they tear off wings? Or legs? Feeling detached? I have heard of other forms, very odd, but this detachment was somewhat of a hallmark. I think she was trying to observe different ways of death, and voyeuristic visiting of parents’ FBs would be for the same reason.
I think she could have created a diversion, but not totally planned, just out of sheer madness. You know some behaviors that are inexplicable? They invariably end up in the punishment for the person who engaged in them, but ultimately, are passive-aggressive, disrupting the work by doing nothing? I think if she diverted something, it would be of that type.
I am far from blaming the flooding, the sign of poorly run establishment, on Lucy. I think it was their management that had to be blamed.