It was ENGLISH teamI know, which is why my OP said Britain's football team, meaning the kind played with their feet. My UK friends say I shouldn't call it soccer so I didn't.
UK - Nurse Lucy Letby, Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #21
- Thread starter sleuth777
- Start date
- Status
There's confusion here in US with the terms soccer, futtball and football. Some get upset if we call it soccer and they say it is actually futball, which translates to foot ball.
"The chief governing body is FIFA - Fédération Internationale de Football Association, though you don't hear people calling it Association football, usually it's soccer or football, and in non-English speaking countries, it is often some form of the word football, written phonetically (e.g. "futbol") or a translation"
To Americans, it's soccer. To most of the rest of the world, (including England, the birthplace of the modern sport,) it's football.
Sorry, I did mean soccer! We have English, Welsh, Scottish & Irish teams, but not British. Just to confuse everybody else.
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2020
- Messages
- 3,547
- Reaction score
- 20,036
Was there any confirmation as to whether court is sitting today or not?
I think it's back on Tuesday.
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2020
- Messages
- 3,547
- Reaction score
- 20,036
Monday isn't yet another Bank Holiday, is it?
WaxLyrical
Former Member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2022
- Messages
- 549
- Reaction score
- 4,094
Tuesday? Have they permanently scrapped Mondays now?
I saw somewhere that Monday is for legal discussions & court is back Tues. Could be wrong of course!
When did you see it?
I have this update from a few weeks back
The judge is informing them there is a "matter of law" which will be discussed in court tomorrow, so they will not be required.
The jury will be expected to attend for Tuesday, May 2 - after the May 1 Bank Holiday.
Next week is one of two, two-day weeks for the trial. The only sitting days are Tuesday and Friday. The following week, the trial is expected to sit on May 11-12. The following week after that is expected to be a normal, five-day week for the trial.
The judge thanks the members of the jury for their patience.
Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Thursday, April 27
and this tweet from Dan yesterday
Dan O'Donoghue
@MrDanDonoghue
·
May 11
Lucy Letby's murder trial will not sit at Manchester Crown Court today due to a juror sickness - it may be Monday before we're back
Episode 32, The Denials
www.mailplus.co.uk
The Trial of Lucy Letby: Episode 32, The Denials
In this episode Caroline and Liz explain what Lucy Letby had to say on the second day of her defence case.
We examine the specific allegations relating to the first six babies in the trial - babies A to F - and how she said it was ‘awful’ being accused of murdering children in her care.
It was just someone on an FB group. Will check how they got this info.
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2018
- Messages
- 1,113
- Reaction score
- 14,362
My daughter suffered with awful reflux as a baby and would projectile vomit across the room after almost every feed, I had to wean her into solids early due to how unsettled she was, even with special milk and infant gaviscon, so it’s not so much the vomiting but the amount of vomit and then milk and air that was obtained from the NG tube, IMO it just doesn’t add up….
On her 100 day milestone Baby G was fed 45ml through her NG tube at 2am, before the feed her tube was aspirated and her stomach was ‘almost empty’. At 2.15 she projectile vomited it was described as a ‘large, projectile milky vomit’ and that she ‘continued to vomit ++’ then, the most concerning is that 45mls of milk was obtained from the NG tube, with ‘air++’.
Which leads to the question… if child G had been fed 45ml milk, and 45ml milk was obtained from the NG tube after the large projectile vomiting incident.. where did the milk that she vomited come from? It cannot be accounted for. And also the air? The most likely conclusion IMO is that someone purposely fed her extra milk and administered air via her NG tube.
LL wrote the notes for this incident in retrospect, yet again. She is said to have taken over the care oc baby G after this incident, however baby Gs designated nurse was on her break at the time and it’s unclear exactly who was asked to watch baby G, but someone was asked to watch LL’s designated baby around the time of the incident, giving LL opportunity to be around baby G.
Then LL sent numerous text messages asking about baby G following further incidents where she almost died. She throws out possible reasons for her collapses…
LL: “Hmm, what can cause that.” “Is it that she is an extreme premature who had long-term inotrope and vent dependency and now she is older and doing more for herself...it just takes a little...something to tip her over.”
Baby G was transferred to Arrow Park and recovered well and then returned to COCH, where there was a similar incident of milky projectile vomiting again while LL was her designated nurse, child G stopped breathing and collapsed.
This, to me is quite damning IMO, and, if guilty, shows a change of MO following a failed attempt at insulin poisoning on baby F. If guilty, the fact that the insulin didn’t kill baby F may have prompted her to change method, as there had already been 5 babies given an air embolus at this point. They had all shown similar symptoms, sudden collapse, loops of gas on X-ray, unusual rash. It wouldn’t be a stretch to say that the method may have been changed due to fear of someone adding up and realising these incidents weren’t just ‘a bad run’ or tragic coincidence. Hence, insulin used in baby F who survived. If guilty. The texts also show deflection, trying to suggest reasons to colleagues, and the words ‘just takes a little something to tip her over’ are very strange and suspect IMO.
All MOO
On her 100 day milestone Baby G was fed 45ml through her NG tube at 2am, before the feed her tube was aspirated and her stomach was ‘almost empty’. At 2.15 she projectile vomited it was described as a ‘large, projectile milky vomit’ and that she ‘continued to vomit ++’ then, the most concerning is that 45mls of milk was obtained from the NG tube, with ‘air++’.
Which leads to the question… if child G had been fed 45ml milk, and 45ml milk was obtained from the NG tube after the large projectile vomiting incident.. where did the milk that she vomited come from? It cannot be accounted for. And also the air? The most likely conclusion IMO is that someone purposely fed her extra milk and administered air via her NG tube.
LL wrote the notes for this incident in retrospect, yet again. She is said to have taken over the care oc baby G after this incident, however baby Gs designated nurse was on her break at the time and it’s unclear exactly who was asked to watch baby G, but someone was asked to watch LL’s designated baby around the time of the incident, giving LL opportunity to be around baby G.
Then LL sent numerous text messages asking about baby G following further incidents where she almost died. She throws out possible reasons for her collapses…
LL: “Hmm, what can cause that.” “Is it that she is an extreme premature who had long-term inotrope and vent dependency and now she is older and doing more for herself...it just takes a little...something to tip her over.”
Baby G was transferred to Arrow Park and recovered well and then returned to COCH, where there was a similar incident of milky projectile vomiting again while LL was her designated nurse, child G stopped breathing and collapsed.
This, to me is quite damning IMO, and, if guilty, shows a change of MO following a failed attempt at insulin poisoning on baby F. If guilty, the fact that the insulin didn’t kill baby F may have prompted her to change method, as there had already been 5 babies given an air embolus at this point. They had all shown similar symptoms, sudden collapse, loops of gas on X-ray, unusual rash. It wouldn’t be a stretch to say that the method may have been changed due to fear of someone adding up and realising these incidents weren’t just ‘a bad run’ or tragic coincidence. Hence, insulin used in baby F who survived. If guilty. The texts also show deflection, trying to suggest reasons to colleagues, and the words ‘just takes a little something to tip her over’ are very strange and suspect IMO.
All MOO
Quite a curious comment in the podcast this week -Episode 32, The Denials
The Trial of Lucy Letby: Episode 32, The Denials
In this episode Caroline and Liz explain what Lucy Letby had to say on the second day of her defence case.
We examine the specific allegations relating to the first six babies in the trial - babies A to F - and how she said it was ‘awful’ being accused of murdering children in her care.
"This podcast will go further than the headlines and news reports, but at times you might wonder why we aren't bringing you more detail. That's because we can only tell you what the jury have heard, and that's to preserve the integrity of a fair trial."
OK. The OP has come back to me and apparently can't reveal their source. I mean, seriously! So apologies for potentially misleading everyone.
WaxLyrical
Former Member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2022
- Messages
- 549
- Reaction score
- 4,094
So the jury aren’t getting the detail either…?!
This could be anything though. I’d imagine they’ve been able to identify and speak to people who know LL. There’s also stuff that’s likely been left out of court (there’s been so many legal talks).
I’d imagine post verdict there will be a bit of a flood of information in the media.
WaxLyrical
Former Member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2022
- Messages
- 549
- Reaction score
- 4,094
Ah yes, that makes sense.
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2020
- Messages
- 3,547
- Reaction score
- 20,036
They will definitely have spoken to people who know her, absolutely no doubt in my mind. They've had years to find people and will likely have downloaded the entire public contents of her FB and that of everyone who knew her. When you think about the photos which have been published of her, the nature of them suggests that they were posted on FB by friends of hers rather than her herself. I'm guessing they have hundreds of pics of her and will have been waving cheque books under the noses of anyone who knew her for ages.
The problem we have as to what we'll learn, though, is two fold; if she's acquitted then we'll actually learn very little unless she decides to talk. Privacy rights and not wanting to be sued into the next century may hold the papers off publishing much and the police and CPS wont release anything for the same reasons.
If she's convicted then I have no doubt that all sorts of stuff will be published about her, it will be an absolute information deluge for years; papers, magazines, books, documentaries and films are inevitable. The problem there, though, is that no-one will know what to believe. As a convicted serial killer of helpless babies anyone will be able to say anything they like about her with no fear of being sued. It's essentially impossible to defame someone convicted of those crimes so who is going to sue?
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
Online statistics
- Members online
- 92
- Guests online
- 2,400
- Total visitors
- 2,492