I've just seen the BA documentary on I TV. It was really unsettling with the similarities with the injections of air and insulin. It was focused a lot on her personality, it will be very interesting when we get into more of the detail of LL's personality.
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
I would imagine with all the work that's clearly gone into the investigation, they so wanted and needed to get it right?
All those poor babies, no wonder it took so long.
I'm sure they will have seized her phone as soon as she was suspected, they likely woukd have kept it whilst she was on bail.....I'm assuming she was on bail in between the arrests and prior to being charged....someone else may know the answer to that one? I knownshe was rearrested more than once, but she would have to be if.more evidence came to light..i. e they suspected there were more " victims "
I have only watched one of this mans videos but he’s got quite a few covering the trial in detail on his channel. Quite handy for those who don’t have time to follow the reports but could listen in the background.
Any thing more on them that we don’t already know ?
Thank you!! I appreciate your reply.Definitely would have been better to say that..it baffles me!
And I really have no clue....I doubt she will take the stand...so we will never know?
I could be wrong...but can't see it?
I know that detectives are highly trained in interview techniques and also reading body language to a degree.
So I look at it this way....well, firstly her solicitor will have been given " disclosure" prior to interview and if that came up I would have imagined he or she would have asked her if she had and surely would have advised her to be truthful!
The police may have kept it up their sleeve and not disclosed it ( not quite sure how.much they do give away to solicitor to be honest.)
She will have been interviewed so many times so I would have thought that early on her solicitor would have said just be honest..cos the Facebook stuff comes up so much! This is why I don't believe she has been truthful with solicitor or herself??
Personally...I think the fact she's clearly lied all the way through looks much worse?
Prob makes no sense but it's how I look at it?
It smells of arrogance to me...especially that she clearly can't have been truthful with her solicitor!!
That, to me stinks to be honest!!
Hope it made some sense...i tend to waffle and not always get to the point
Avid reader of thread but first time poster, I know that LL was taken off nights, was she eventually given just clerical duties? And what was the timeline between being put on clerical and first arrest? I’m interested to know whether she knew she was being investigated whilst she was still working? Why did she think she had been moved to clerical? As in did she suspect she may be arrested or did she just assume it would all calm down and she would just go back to normal duties after an internal investigation
Had a look on the colleagues fb, seeing LL in so many pictures is really eerie. If she’s guilty I can’t imagine how those poor colleagues will feel.
Thanks...Will be a good way of catching up if not able to follow live feed...does he do a video every day?
I haven’t listened to more than his first video but he’s very detailed.
I think he recaps fairly often and also makes short videos on just the texts etc.
Last edited:
Been sort of following this case. I just cant get my head around how someone could want to hurt something so innocent.
Ive just put the ITV programme on about the other one who killed children. I think its gonna be a hard watch.
Ive just put the ITV programme on about the other one who killed children. I think its gonna be a hard watch.
Sometimes I think that it's due to having superficial relationships with these people. By that I mean, if you only share small talk with a colleague or neighbour then you won't be getting a detailed picture of what that person's like in their private life. It's easy to think someone's normal and friendly when you're only having surface-level interactions. Whereas if you lived with someone and knew them well, I do think something would emerge regarding their personality, something 'off'. It might be an arrogance that comes through in their comments, or maybe a lack of empathy in the way they speak about other people. It's also easy to 'explain away' these impressions if you want to think the best of someone.
Obvs take with a pinch of salt
Attachments
It’s a difficult one. I used to work in retail roles and you never really came across anyone (or I didnt) that was unusual or that you thought was a bit mentally unstable.
I started working in an office two years ago and two of my colleagues have been very odd people that clearly have mental issues. Maybe it’s the difference in environment, but you could see clear as day that these two I worked with needed mental help and everyone else thought it too…
Maybe it’s just on a busy ward when there’s lots going on it was harder to spot. Most of BAs colleagues said they thought she was being framed at first, they couldn’t believe it.
I started working in an office two years ago and two of my colleagues have been very odd people that clearly have mental issues. Maybe it’s the difference in environment, but you could see clear as day that these two I worked with needed mental help and everyone else thought it too…
Maybe it’s just on a busy ward when there’s lots going on it was harder to spot. Most of BAs colleagues said they thought she was being framed at first, they couldn’t believe it.
A couple of things that have been bothering me!
Firstly, the defence seemingly trying to quiz witnesses on their recollection of LL being in with Baby C when she's already admitted it herself seems odd, is he just purely trying to throw shade over how everyone is remembering things years later so he can argue that no one's testimony is 100% reliable and has been swayed by the subsequent investigation? And therefore making allowances for any memory lapses LL seems to have too,and excuse her for the fact that she didn't admit it at first?
Also, the digging of the garden. I imagine that they must have had very strong suspicions that something would be found as this would have had to have been approved higher up and budgeted for, they couldn't just do it on a whim, they'd need to provide a full explanation of what they were hoping to maybe find to justify the budget.
Firstly, the defence seemingly trying to quiz witnesses on their recollection of LL being in with Baby C when she's already admitted it herself seems odd, is he just purely trying to throw shade over how everyone is remembering things years later so he can argue that no one's testimony is 100% reliable and has been swayed by the subsequent investigation? And therefore making allowances for any memory lapses LL seems to have too,and excuse her for the fact that she didn't admit it at first?
Also, the digging of the garden. I imagine that they must have had very strong suspicions that something would be found as this would have had to have been approved higher up and budgeted for, they couldn't just do it on a whim, they'd need to provide a full explanation of what they were hoping to maybe find to justify the budget.
I imagine digging up the garden was was part of their standard procedure when multiple murders are suspected.. Possibly in a covering all bases sort of way. They also looked in the graveyard that backs onto her house according to a news article.
Surely they had to be fairly confident it was her to do that? X
The wording of the defence opening statement has bothered me, and I know some people have touched on it here.
I know the defence statement was very short, and I think they've done that on purpose.
I really think something massive is going to come from the defence, that LL had made complaints or raised concerns about the level of care/staffing.
I'm not sure how that can be reconciled with the insulin cases, it's all so complex.
I know the defence statement was very short, and I think they've done that on purpose.
I really think something massive is going to come from the defence, that LL had made complaints or raised concerns about the level of care/staffing.
I'm not sure how that can be reconciled with the insulin cases, it's all so complex.
I watched the good nurse last night. Really eerie and reaffirmed my view on things; that some people are capable of this no matter how nice and caring they may seem. They also had to get a confession out of Charles Cullen, due to a lack of evidence, so I feel that stronger evidence against LL will certainly be coming.
- Status