notsure
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2011
- Messages
- 949
- Reaction score
- 4,293
Oh, is the one that had suspicions but was ignored?Dr Ravi Jayaram has.
Oh, is the one that had suspicions but was ignored?Dr Ravi Jayaram has.
Yes, he also said some of his colleagues had suspicions, but we didn't hear which ones.Oh, is the one that had suspicions but was ignored?
I wonder if we will hear from them during the course of the trial.Yes, he also said some of his colleagues had suspicions, but we didn't hear which ones.
It’s true
Last year 227 women were killed in England and Wales.89% were killed by someone they knew. 77% were killed in their own home. Over the last five years more than 40% of women died at the hands of a partner or an ex-partner.
So what about the psychopathic strangers we see in movies?
Only 11% of female victims in England and Wales were killed by someone they didn’t know over the last five years. Many of these are terrorism related rather than a targeted attack against a specific woman.Men who target women they don't know are actually very rare, even though they make for good headlines and true crime series.
The explanation for this is quite simple. If you don't know someone then you're unlikely to have the motivation or access to kill them.
If you're a man, you're most likely to be killed by a man.
The reason that men typically kill other men are because of an escalating fight that gets out of hand or in territorial, gang related disputes.
Drugs and alcohol also play a significant role in male homicide. In 2018, over a third of both male murder victims and murder suspects were under the influence of alcohol and/or illicit drugs when then killing happened.
We imagine murder to be a meticulous and calculated event like in the movies. But in reality if you asked most murderers two hours before the act happened, they would say "I'm not capable of this". Regular human emotions such as anger, rage, jealousy and greed played a role in more than half of all murders in 2018. Most murders are not premeditated but are the result of a loss of temper.
In reality, most people who commit murder only do it once - it is one of the crimes with the least amount of re-conviction.
Most people who commit murder also regret it.
![]()
children are a similar story unfortunately as all, also much rarer than adult on adult homicide. If you exclude children in the range of ten to 15 then it also becomes much much rarer.
View attachment 380263
However, some analysts in the child abuse industry think a truer total may be double that – 100 a year, or maybe more. That was the figure quoted for the UK in a UNICEF report in 2003.
One comparatively recent addition to the many Whitehall departments all with an interest in children’s deaths, Ofsted, believes child deaths to be higher still, in the region of 200 per year. Fig 2 details the child deaths recorded by Ofsted in 2007-08 together with causes.
View attachment 380264
How many children are murdered in Britain every year? | Straight Statistics
this information is also available
• In the last five years (2015/16 – 2019/20) there was an average of 82 child homicides a year in the UK
• On average, at least one child is killed a week in the UK.
(Sources: Home Office recorded crime statistics data provided to the NSPCC, Scottish Government recorded crime statistics data provided to the NSPCC and Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI), 2020)
Although measuring similar things, the number of homicides and mortalities by assault or undetermined intent are not the same. This is because:
• homicide data relates to under 18s, whilst mortality data relates to under 15s
• homicide numbers only count deaths where homicide has been determined as
the cause of death by the police, whilst mortality numbers include deaths by
undetermined intent
• homicide data relates to deaths identified by the police as homicides within the past year. This could include deaths which occurred in the past, but which have only just been identified as homicides. Mortality data relates to the cause of death registered at the time the death occurred.
all these things whittle down into pools of data relating to the likelihood of one person or more murdering someone else. Now when multiple people are murdered by one individual alone without personal connection it’s even rarer, extremely rare.
Serial killing is the rarest form of homicide, occurring when an individual has killed three or more people who were previously unknown to him or her, with a ‘cooling off’ period between each murder. This definition is accepted by both police and academic experts and therefore provides a useful frame of reference. Unfortunately, it also narrows the analysis of such crimes, as it fails to incorporate many of the familiar (although not inevitable) characteristics of serial killing. These include such things as the diverse influences of the mass media on serial killers as well as their tendency to select victims from particular walks of life. Attending to these (and other) factors can provide insight into the broader social and historical contexts that constitute the structural preconditions for such acts.
Mass urbanisation is a distinctive characteristic of the modern era, something that has profoundly altered the nature of human relationships by virtue of generating an unprecedented degree of anonymity.. Perhaps the most terrifying aspect of serial murder is that such killings appear random. This, however, is a misleading characterisation, for while serial killers do target strangers, their victims are not haphazard (Wilson, 2007). Rather, the victims of serial killers tend to mimic the wider cultural categories of denigration characteristic of contemporary society.
The social study of serial killers | Centre for Crime and Justice Studies
www.crimeandjustice.org.uk
if LL is convicted she will be officially called a serial killer Or a health care serial murderer Or “Hcsm” which is rarer still. So rare in the uk there are no stats on it really but this is close and covers the population of the USA.
“It is estimated that an average of 35 Americans are killed by HCSM per year.2 The true numbers are likely higher, given that these crimes are often missed for years. Most convicted of HCSM are charged with fewer murders than they admit to.”
the reason they are often missed is due to most hcsm cases relate to the elderly as they are most often the target of hcsm.
Box 1 summarizes characteristics of health care murderers described anecdotally in case reviews.2,3,8 It is common for those committing HCSM to be caught because a colleague or staff member raises concerns based on suspicious characteristics in the context of unusual or concerning circumstances. An index of suspicion from other staff (including physicians) in response to unusual or repeated events is crucial to stopping HCSM; unfortunately, this commonly happens only after multiple deaths.
Box 1.
Anecdotal “red flag” characteristics described in health care serial murderers
Personal traits
- History of substance abuse or active misuse
- Secretive or difficult personal relationships
- History of mental instability or depression, particularly a diagnosis of personality disorder
- Craving attention or enthusiastic about his or her skills
- History of criminal activities, especially falsification of credentials or work documentation
Work history
- Work instability (moves from one site to another)
- History of disciplinary problems
- Preference for work shifts when fewer co-workers are around
- History of incidents at other facilities
Characteristics that might be noted by co-workers or other staff
- Colleagues anxious or suspicious, especially when they are covering patients during breaks
- Might have nicknames such as “Angel of Death” or “Assassin”
- Makes predictions about who might die and when patients will die
- Found in places in the work environment where they should not be
- Higher incidence of death on his or her shift
- Makes inconsistent statements when challenged about deaths
Data from Yorker et al,2 Karger et al,3 and Yardley and
Wilson.8
Health care serial murder: What can we learn from the Wettlaufer story? - PMC
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
all of this together might give an idea as to just how unlikely it is that someone can be guilty of seven murders of newborn children. It’s a very narrow list of potential people. There are a few things that make LL fit the general profile of what she is accused of IMO.
1. female serial killers are more likely to use poison as a method.
They’re often described as “quiet” killers: They typically don’t butcher, nor torture. They prefer poison — in 50 percent of all cases — and smothering to conspicuous knives and guns. They also tend to kill at home or at work, drawing less attention than the random, far-flung sprees common among men. In a 2013 paper analyzing the characteristics of female serial killers, sociologist Amanda Farrell wrote that they kill, on average, over longer stretches of time than their male counterparts.
2. 3.4.![]()
Female Serial Killers Do Exist And Are Known As 'Quiet' Killers
We may hear more about male serial killers, like Jeffrey Dahmer or John Wayne Gacy, but female serial killers do exist. They just murder for different reasons.www.discovermagazine.com
5.Health care murderers have a range of lethal approaches that can be hard to detect. Injected medications (opioids, potassium chloride, and insulin) are the “weapons” of choice (52%) and can be hard to identify after death. Suffocation, including forcing water into the victim’s lungs, accounts for roughly 15% of deaths.
- Makes predictions about who might die and when patients will die
- Found in places in the work environment where they should not be
- Higher incidence of death on his or her shift
Health care serial murder: What can we learn from the Wettlaufer story? - PMC
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
6. “most hcsm involve either the very young or very old”
Health care serial murder: What can we learn from the Wettlaufer story? - PMC
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
I'm going to be honest here and say that you are trying to use statistics to prove someone didn't do something which is not the correct use of it. Don't really understand the point of including it here being this case is not based on statistics but on the evidence of medical experts, her text messages, the evidence of eye witnesses and medical notes made at the time.It’s true
Last year 227 women were killed in England and Wales.89% were killed by someone they knew. 77% were killed in their own home. Over the last five years more than 40% of women died at the hands of a partner or an ex-partner.
So what about the psychopathic strangers we see in movies?
Only 11% of female victims in England and Wales were killed by someone they didn’t know over the last five years. Many of these are terrorism related rather than a targeted attack against a specific woman.Men who target women they don't know are actually very rare, even though they make for good headlines and true crime series.
The explanation for this is quite simple. If you don't know someone then you're unlikely to have the motivation or access to kill them.
If you're a man, you're most likely to be killed by a man.
The reason that men typically kill other men are because of an escalating fight that gets out of hand or in territorial, gang related disputes.
Drugs and alcohol also play a significant role in male homicide. In 2018, over a third of both male murder victims and murder suspects were under the influence of alcohol and/or illicit drugs when then killing happened.
We imagine murder to be a meticulous and calculated event like in the movies. But in reality if you asked most murderers two hours before the act happened, they would say "I'm not capable of this". Regular human emotions such as anger, rage, jealousy and greed played a role in more than half of all murders in 2018. Most murders are not premeditated but are the result of a loss of temper.
In reality, most people who commit murder only do it once - it is one of the crimes with the least amount of re-conviction.
Most people who commit murder also regret it.
![]()
children are a similar story unfortunately as all, also much rarer than adult on adult homicide. If you exclude children in the range of ten to 15 then it also becomes much much rarer.
View attachment 380263
However, some analysts in the child abuse industry think a truer total may be double that – 100 a year, or maybe more. That was the figure quoted for the UK in a UNICEF report in 2003.
One comparatively recent addition to the many Whitehall departments all with an interest in children’s deaths, Ofsted, believes child deaths to be higher still, in the region of 200 per year. Fig 2 details the child deaths recorded by Ofsted in 2007-08 together with causes.
View attachment 380264
How many children are murdered in Britain every year? | Straight Statistics
this information is also available
• In the last five years (2015/16 – 2019/20) there was an average of 82 child homicides a year in the UK
• On average, at least one child is killed a week in the UK.
(Sources: Home Office recorded crime statistics data provided to the NSPCC, Scottish Government recorded crime statistics data provided to the NSPCC and Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI), 2020)
Although measuring similar things, the number of homicides and mortalities by assault or undetermined intent are not the same. This is because:
• homicide data relates to under 18s, whilst mortality data relates to under 15s
• homicide numbers only count deaths where homicide has been determined as
the cause of death by the police, whilst mortality numbers include deaths by
undetermined intent
• homicide data relates to deaths identified by the police as homicides within the past year. This could include deaths which occurred in the past, but which have only just been identified as homicides. Mortality data relates to the cause of death registered at the time the death occurred.
all these things whittle down into pools of data relating to the likelihood of one person or more murdering someone else. Now when multiple people are murdered by one individual alone without personal connection it’s even rarer, extremely rare.
Serial killing is the rarest form of homicide, occurring when an individual has killed three or more people who were previously unknown to him or her, with a ‘cooling off’ period between each murder. This definition is accepted by both police and academic experts and therefore provides a useful frame of reference. Unfortunately, it also narrows the analysis of such crimes, as it fails to incorporate many of the familiar (although not inevitable) characteristics of serial killing. These include such things as the diverse influences of the mass media on serial killers as well as their tendency to select victims from particular walks of life. Attending to these (and other) factors can provide insight into the broader social and historical contexts that constitute the structural preconditions for such acts.
Mass urbanisation is a distinctive characteristic of the modern era, something that has profoundly altered the nature of human relationships by virtue of generating an unprecedented degree of anonymity.. Perhaps the most terrifying aspect of serial murder is that such killings appear random. This, however, is a misleading characterisation, for while serial killers do target strangers, their victims are not haphazard (Wilson, 2007). Rather, the victims of serial killers tend to mimic the wider cultural categories of denigration characteristic of contemporary society.
The social study of serial killers | Centre for Crime and Justice Studies
www.crimeandjustice.org.uk
if LL is convicted she will be officially called a serial killer Or a health care serial murderer Or “Hcsm” which is rarer still. So rare in the uk there are no stats on it really but this is close and covers the population of the USA.
“It is estimated that an average of 35 Americans are killed by HCSM per year.2 The true numbers are likely higher, given that these crimes are often missed for years. Most convicted of HCSM are charged with fewer murders than they admit to.”
the reason they are often missed is due to most hcsm cases relate to the elderly as they are most often the target of hcsm.
Box 1 summarizes characteristics of health care murderers described anecdotally in case reviews.2,3,8 It is common for those committing HCSM to be caught because a colleague or staff member raises concerns based on suspicious characteristics in the context of unusual or concerning circumstances. An index of suspicion from other staff (including physicians) in response to unusual or repeated events is crucial to stopping HCSM; unfortunately, this commonly happens only after multiple deaths.
Box 1.
Anecdotal “red flag” characteristics described in health care serial murderers
Personal traits
- History of substance abuse or active misuse
- Secretive or difficult personal relationships
- History of mental instability or depression, particularly a diagnosis of personality disorder
- Craving attention or enthusiastic about his or her skills
- History of criminal activities, especially falsification of credentials or work documentation
Work history
- Work instability (moves from one site to another)
- History of disciplinary problems
- Preference for work shifts when fewer co-workers are around
- History of incidents at other facilities
Characteristics that might be noted by co-workers or other staff
- Colleagues anxious or suspicious, especially when they are covering patients during breaks
- Might have nicknames such as “Angel of Death” or “Assassin”
- Makes predictions about who might die and when patients will die
- Found in places in the work environment where they should not be
- Higher incidence of death on his or her shift
- Makes inconsistent statements when challenged about deaths
Data from Yorker et al,2 Karger et al,3 and Yardley and
Wilson.8
Health care serial murder: What can we learn from the Wettlaufer story? - PMC
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
all of this together might give an idea as to just how unlikely it is that someone can be guilty of seven murders of newborn children. It’s a very narrow list of potential people. There are a few things that make LL fit the general profile of what she is accused of IMO.
1. female serial killers are more likely to use poison as a method.
They’re often described as “quiet” killers: They typically don’t butcher, nor torture. They prefer poison — in 50 percent of all cases — and smothering to conspicuous knives and guns. They also tend to kill at home or at work, drawing less attention than the random, far-flung sprees common among men. In a 2013 paper analyzing the characteristics of female serial killers, sociologist Amanda Farrell wrote that they kill, on average, over longer stretches of time than their male counterparts.
2. 3.4.![]()
Female Serial Killers Do Exist And Are Known As 'Quiet' Killers
We may hear more about male serial killers, like Jeffrey Dahmer or John Wayne Gacy, but female serial killers do exist. They just murder for different reasons.www.discovermagazine.com
5.Health care murderers have a range of lethal approaches that can be hard to detect. Injected medications (opioids, potassium chloride, and insulin) are the “weapons” of choice (52%) and can be hard to identify after death. Suffocation, including forcing water into the victim’s lungs, accounts for roughly 15% of deaths.
- Makes predictions about who might die and when patients will die
- Found in places in the work environment where they should not be
- Higher incidence of death on his or her shift
Health care serial murder: What can we learn from the Wettlaufer story? - PMC
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
6. “most hcsm involve either the very young or very old”
Health care serial murder: What can we learn from the Wettlaufer story? - PMC
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
you see just how out of anything documented before this would be?
An attempt to take the heat off themselves, if people were starting to get suspicious of their presence at several collapses? Set up somebody else instead ?I've been wondering what it might mean, in terms of their psychology, if someone at the hospital set out to kill a baby with insulin but didn't particularly care if they weren't on duty to see it happening.
It is still kind of early in terms of the babies that were affected. The pattern was just beginning to emerge.It's interesting that so far, none of the witnesses has stated that they had any suspicions of LL doing anything wrong. IMO
They have pulled it into a complete forensic narrative though. You are getting 10% of the details reported and shared with the jurors. This trial has taken 6 years and multi million pounds, the jurors are getting a lot more details and context than we are - for the simple reason we are reliant on journalist live texting (many days they don't do this) and the jurors are not.It's possible that the lawyers preparing the Crown's case aren't quite able to pull together the medical experts' theories (particularly those of Dr Evans) and the circumstantial evidence into a fully coherent and satisfying forensic narrative.
This actually happened in a trial I witnessed parts of IRL. It related to the death of a baby for which the parents were on trial. The bulk of the medical and circumstantial evidence, which included a range of electronic and communications evidence showing in detail what was going on in the household on the day of the injury, pointed to a particular narrative of what actually happened, IMO. Unfortunately one expert put a spanner in the works with some very confident pronouncements about the significance of retinal haemorrhages at post mortem.
I did briefly speak to one of the prosecution barristers after the trial ended and it seemed like they agreed with my opinion about what happened (which contradicted the basis of the convictions) but the experts couldn't quite all be pinned down to support it. Consequently they ended up waving their hands and- in the words of one of the defence barristers- "riding two horses at once."
In a case like this I imagine they wouldn't want to draw the jury's attention too much to the complexity of the medical evidence and the degree to which interpreting it is an art as much as a science, when it's the lynchpin of the whole case- particularly Dewey Evans' theories.
Looking at some older news stories and this one from the week LL was arrested has some interesting info :
![]()
Nurse held over 8 baby murders investigated by ANOTHER hospital she worked at
A SECOND hospital is investigating a nurse at the centre of a police probe into the suspected murder of eight babies in Chester. Liverpool Women’s Hospital said today it is assisting detectiv…www.thesun.co.uk
not In line with munchausen IMO. Could be the thrill of it maybe, with the facts as they are other people are close by and if your doing it under their noses you are probably seeking a thrill. In this case it’s apparent that she would had to have done it when there is other people working on the same baby and in the same room as when this AE is probably alleged to have happened. With a dr in direct attendance to the situation as a whole.I've been wondering what it might mean, in terms of their psychology, if someone at the hospital set out to kill a baby with insulin but didn't particularly care if they weren't on duty to see it happening.
I wonder if we will hear from them during the course of the trial.
Could you please show us the source where you can see the investigation also looking into still births please?She is only charged with seven murders but there is an investigation into 15 deaths. i believe that investigation involved stillbirths as well which I believe is a different unit. I think in a year a unit dealing with 2200 births shouldn’t be any more than four or five Deaths.
I think the vagueness is due to the fact that the reporting can't really get it all across. I get the impression that we are missing a lot and a lot of the nuance to it all.Why isn’t the prosecution outlining what they suggest happened? Are the jurors supposed to guess when and what LL might’ve done? It’s very difficult and vague. Surely the prosecution should say something like: “we suggest at x o’clock she did so and so, then after 30 mins she did this and that. Then she..”
Is this going to be part of the trial?
Does anyone know how these TPN bags work? Are they set up to very slowly administer fluids, like miniscule amounts, over several or many hours? Or is it a short dose automatically administered every once in a while?
Just wondering how many times that night did she call her husband?There are things to support this contention, that she was possibly suffering from a compulsion. The mother has phone records and a conversation with her husband, to support her assertion that she visited her child at 9 pm, and saw blood on his chin. That visit and the blood was not in LL's notes and she continues to deny it ever happened.
Is that evidence that supports her compulsion to continue with her mission as opposed to her need for self protection?
If in fact someone harmed one child and then went on to try and harm their twin, that could also an example of their compulsion overriding their need to evade suspicion. JMO
She called her husband at 9.11pm and then later a midwife from the postnatal ward either called him on behalf of the mother or advised the mother to call, I'm sorry I cannot recollect which.Just wondering how many times that night did she call her husband?
That^^^ is a really important point. We have seen that here, when we follow trials by tweet, and then one of our members actually attend the trial. When they report in to us, they describe many things that we never heard in the reporter's tweets. You cannot keep up with the actual evidence flow when you are trying to do so tweet by tweet.They have pulled it into a complete forensic narrative though. You are getting 10% of the details reported and shared with the jurors. This trial has taken 6 years and multi million pounds, the jurors are getting a lot more details and context than we are - for the simple reason we are reliant on journalist live texting (many days they don't do this) and the jurors are not.
I've been wondering what it might mean, in terms of their psychology, if someone at the hospital set out to kill a baby with insulin but didn't particularly care if they weren't on duty to see it happening.
That doesn't support LL though does it? She denied saying the NG tube had caused it. She said she wouldn't say this.
I thought LL had denied anything like this happened with mam. Her notes read mam came at 8pm and attended to cares. No mention of blood at all
Call me old-fashioned, but I don't approve of all this texting going on while at work. Not always from work, I know, but seemingly pretty often. Heaps of time to to do that, but never enough time to write up the notes? And surely it must sometimes affect concentrating properly on your patients?