Absolutely busted today. 100% sure that mother knows she went to feed at 9. No doubt about that imo. Letby has slipped up here by falsifying records. That mother absolutely knows what time she visited her child.
That's a really lovely ideaWell today has been horrifically harrowing
I’m going to light a little candle tonight for that Angel and all of the others x
Sorry to be a pain, what's the significance of this? I saw someone mentioned a pattern to the Facebook searches but can't find anywhere explaining what the pattern is?The Christmas Day Facebook search was at 23:26.
just that she would search on significant days such as xmas and death anniversaries. Almost like she was looking for posts about those babies. She also would search hours after the baby had died.Sorry to be a pain, what's the significance of this? I saw someone mentioned a pattern to the Facebook searches but can't find anywhere explaining what the pattern is?
See I think this is her completely attention seeking, and her then getting just the exact kind of reply she’s looking for. Some colleagues maybe at first did buy into the poor Lucy thing, and she also knew which ones to txt to get this kind of response, you know the way you have certain friends or colleagues that are more likely to respond a certain way. Plus without knowing which colleagues were texting what, and whether or not they had any involvement with certain babies/families then for all we know this is someone that had nothing/little to do with E&F, and is going purely off what LL is feeding them with regards to what happened, and just trying to be nice and give her the attention she clearly is seekingView attachment 1730280
I’m starting to question her colleagues judgement in all honesty. Baby 5 and nothing but arselicking.
I don’t know in all honesty. I think they are stating it to prove she had an unusual interest in them.Sorry to be a pain, what's the significance of this? I saw someone mentioned a pattern to the Facebook searches but can't find anywhere explaining what the pattern is?
No F didn’t die, he was poisoned with insulin, and aswell it being amazing he didn’t die for the family’s sake, it also meant that the poisoning could be proved. If he’d have died it would have been nearly impossible to prove afterwards. I can’t explain why that is, it’s just what the medical geniuses on here have said, and they’ve said why but I can’t remember why this is about being hard to prove after death. But to me it shows how cruel and cold she really is, that even after her putting the parents through the pain of E and watching/being involved in their grief she then went after F. Also I think this shows she was defs being more calculating (poss thinking people starting to get suss), and used this method as she thought it would really cover her tracksYes I agree child E definitely was not as bad as others also seemed to be doing well . did child F die aswell ??
if so that’s utterly heartbreaking for that family
You are always so much better at clearly explaining these things than me. Lots of significance around the time for sureIf the blood was there at 9 and baby was in serious distress and she did nothing about it.. it’s very significant too because the baby later went on to die and suffer huge blood loss. It’s why she’s had to say the 9pm feed was omitted despite the SHO saying they never gave that order. She had to say that because mum couldn’t feed baby at 9, they couldn’t be consoled and she sent her away.
Element of fateBecause LL is trying to normalise it, by saying 'these things happen'. I presume she's trying to avoid suspicion by sending her colleagues down a different path whilst enjoying the attention its creating.
Do you think the X-ray will show anything? this was only about an hour before he died.I just don’t know how prevalent these bleeds would be in premmies.
I remember an elderly patient years ago, lying in his bed. He just started vomiting large amounts of blood (burst ulcer), obviously a medical emergency. No, apparent, warning.
It’s the horrendous screaming that makes me think, could be wrong, that this wasn’t just a normal haemorrhage event.
Think even if you doubted the falsifying of notes with this baby (which I don’t think many will), then by the end of this trial you will be left with no doubt as it’s something that we are going to see again and again. So why would you believe LL over an anxious mother that is unlikely to forget anything or get confused when it’s the worst time of her life. Oh and also has husband and phone records to back her version upAbsolutely busted today. 100% sure that mother knows she went to feed at 9. No doubt about that imo. Letby has slipped up here by falsifying records. That mother absolutely knows what time she visited her child.
Just doing one now.Can anyone do a new thread please?
Obvs I’m not medical but my take on it is she did something to cause said haemorrhage, and caused it painfully which is why baby crying in such a horrendous way?I just don’t know how prevalent these bleeds would be in premmies.
I remember an elderly patient years ago, lying in his bed. He just started vomiting large amounts of blood (burst ulcer), obviously a medical emergency. No, apparent, warning.
It’s the horrendous screaming that makes me think, could be wrong, that this wasn’t just a normal haemorrhage event.
Would it also be suggested that the time of this one is significant as it’s something she’d been sitting thinking about all day,just that she would search on significant days such as xmas and death anniversaries. Almost like she was looking for posts about those babies. She also would search hours after the baby had died.
or revelling in the parents painjust that she would search on significant days such as xmas and death anniversaries. Almost like she was looking for posts about those babies. She also would search hours after the baby had died.