- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
Yes, I'd like them to agree the rashes from the adult studies don't appear to match neonates.
I'd like them to agree trying to insert a line 5 times is not good practice
I'd like them to acknowledge the risks of UVC misplacement and exactly how bleeping dangerous it is.
The denying of these risk factors, and the dreadful ABGs etc just makes them all look in collusion to me. (Again I think she's guilty)
None of these things are being seen as the cause of death but I'm not really feeling a sense of truth either. She has blatantly in front of judge and jury given them a hole to dive in to. Her logic is as faulty as mine
And that's it...I believe she's guilty based on the patterns.
BUT, just like this thread, the jury are likely to be mixed in opinion (at this stage), some may think going off patterns does not equate to murder. If the prosecution are to nail a guilty verdict, then everything has to be 'fool-proof'. The experts need to be honest in everything that they are saying because falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus...the second, one of those doctors/experts duck up on evidence or whatever, then that second can cost them all credibility.
So it leaves me on edge, every time they make a pig's ear out of it.
It doesn't matter how many people have seen the rash, because defence have said they're going down 'confirmation bias' route...so everything needs to be strong.
It’s mad how differently all us Fellas see things isn’t it. Personally I thought Bohin was excellent today, and the complete opposite of a pigs ear
. Whereas there’s others that are thinking the complete opposite to me based on their interpretation of the same thing we’ve all read of her in court today. I’m just so glad I’m not on the jury, cos can you imagine the discussions in that room they’ll have, if it’s even only a little bit like how it is on here 
I think we are still on agreed evidence, anything agreed by both sides can be read out as a statement, but anything the defence don’t agree on they can question the witness about in court. This is the prosecution’s turn so I think the witnesses we have heard from are all witnesses for the prosecution, but defence can question them. So I think it’s a mix of agreed evidence and the prosecution’s case atm. Someone can probably put their legal hat on and give you a better answer than mine though. I think also this case isn’t being presented just quite the same as other cases usually would. I think it’s the agreed evidence for each baby presented one at a time, along then with the prosecutions witnesses for each baby too. After all that defence will start their case
To be fair to Dr Bohin, we’re only getting a very brief summary of what she is saying, a lot of nuance could be missing.
To me, even with this brief synopsis, she sounds very credible. If she only sounds half as credible as this to the jury, then she’ll still have won them over. IMO.
To me, even with this brief synopsis, she sounds very credible. If she only sounds half as credible as this to the jury, then she’ll still have won them over. IMO.
Thankyou...just home and going try catch up...heartbreakingI’m only just catching up from last night. I know we’ve moved on but just few bits from last thread quickly that need no reply
@MmmB777 and @Faith61 I’ve been saying the past two days baby I is horrific, and to be one of the ones that really shows her guilt, far more suspicious stuff concerning that baby that some of the others
Somewhere in the middle of last thread I posted SS from a journalist that confirmed their were 8 witnesses connected to trial judge had ordered anonymity for, suggesting this was to do with them not being able to give evidence to the best of their ability if identity was revealed, suggests this is them maybe still working at hospital rather than connected to babies (I’d had the connection thought too which is why I asked the journalist Nice Fella Dan)
@Tofino excellent find on the photo taken of two triplets by LL I couldn’t find the info anywhere. Also glad we are hearing from radiologist today so hope this means we are getting pathologist soon
Well done to the fellas that managed to find sinister patterns of her FB search’s. Also last thing about handover notes. Loads saying handover notes she had could be a sheet that has other babies on it, BUT prosecution or defence did not mention her having the info for any other babies at home, than ones for this case. Plus with one baby it was a list of its drugs she had, so plenty of evidence at her home THAT SHE SHOULD NOT HAVE HAD
Everyone is entitled to believe what they believe, and that’s what this thread is all about respecting others’ opinions and being able to discuss them in a respectful way (unlike them FB huns). I just can’t see anything but guilty, sorry fellas. I would suggest anyone with doubts go reread page 4 of the wiki, I know it helped @Weeder sort out some of her doubts. One thing I can definitely say though this case is going to get worse as it it’s goes on, it’s going to be incredibly difficult to hear about some of the later babies, especially the suggested physical trauma she inflicted on them leaving them crying in pain(crying is not something neonates like this do)
There’s prob more points I wanted to say from last thread, but have forgotten now. So fellas I will just move on from old thread and start from what we are hearing this morning
Letby, in her July 2018 interview, said she did not remember Child D.
Asked about the Facebook searches for Child D's parents, she said she could not recall making those searches.
This to me is weird too cannot remember the baby that died but looked up the parents how did she remember them?
Poor Baby D survived 2 attempts , if shes guilty she’s a evil witch to go back and ultimately murder the poor thing.
Asked about the Facebook searches for Child D's parents, she said she could not recall making those searches.
This to me is weird too cannot remember the baby that died but looked up the parents how did she remember them?
Poor Baby D survived 2 attempts , if shes guilty she’s a evil witch to go back and ultimately murder the poor thing.
BM is most definitely not a nice Fella. I honestly can’t believe he has just implied in court in front of the poor parents, that Bohin had blamed D’s father for that floppy incident after her birth
and she actually has to clarify what she actually said about it. I’m sorry but that’s just cruel these parents have suffered enough
Not a nice fella at all
Honestly can’t believe he’s done this, I think he’s going on like this, and being particularly hard on Bohin cos he really knows how strong Bohin’s evidence today is, in relation to D (sorry know other disagree)
and she actually has to clarify what she actually said about it. I’m sorry but that’s just cruel these parents have suffered enoughNot a nice fella at all
Honestly can’t believe he’s done this, I think he’s going on like this, and being particularly hard on Bohin cos he really knows how strong Bohin’s evidence today is, in relation to D (sorry know other disagree)
Last edited:
Can’t even remember child D? Sorry but this is not the slightest bit credible.
Monday morning is going to be tough. They usually start with the mothers statement. Reminder child E is the baby mum walked in on and Lucy was there and baby was bleeding. Child F is the insulin poisoning.
Monday morning is going to be tough. They usually start with the mothers statement. Reminder child E is the baby mum walked in on and Lucy was there and baby was bleeding. Child F is the insulin poisoning.
Wait til you read about poor baby I that she got on her 4th attempt, and all the weird behaviour that comes across as being especially obsessed with I’s family
I posted a bit more about I today too, all the cases are awful but I is particularly disturbing I feelThankyou...just home and going try catch up...heartbreaking
Can’t remember baby D, but was quick to say in the “something odd text” that baby D died from overwhelming sepsis. Oh look her selective memory is back again, what a coincidence. IF she was innocent why wouldn’t she just give credible explanations for her (sinister) behaviour? This is why I can’t believe any of these Fb searches/notes home/sympathy card/in appropriateness with the families/texts to colleagues are innocent, look at them as whole rather than individual and they scream sinister obsessive murderer trying to cover her tracks
*EDITED TO ADD baby D wasn’t even her baby, yet she interfered and was signing for medicine and was in the room giving an infusion just before collapse. AND said to the doctor after D’s death this was her 2nd baby this had happened with now. But now can’t remember this baby after making that comment and deliberately getting involved in that babies care when she wasn’t the designated nurse. Also not to mention the mother thinking she remembered her because she was hanging about and the mum wanted her out. Oh and the element of fate txt about baby D, but now can’t remember. Like come on
Also too late to add this in, but this just some of her txts after Baby D between her and a colleague (there’s more to different colleagues too). But in these she claims here affected her so much that she just can’t stop crying and is so upset, to the point that the colleague suggests counsellingWait til you read about poor baby I that she got on her 4th attempt, and all the weird behaviour that comes across as being especially obsessed with I’s family
I posted a bit more about I today too, all the cases are awful but I is particularly disturbing I feel
Can’t remember baby D, but was quick to say in the “something odd text” that baby D died from overwhelming sepsis. Oh look her selective memory is back again, what a coincidence. IF she was innocent why wouldn’t she just give credible explanations for her (sinister) behaviour? This is why I can’t believe any of these Fb searches/notes home/sympathy card/in appropriateness with the families/texts to colleagues are innocent, look at them as whole rather than individual and they scream sinister obsessive murderer trying to cover her tracks
*EDITED TO ADD baby D wasn’t even her baby, yet she interfered and was signing for medicine and was in the room giving an infusion just before collapse. AND said to the doctor after D’s death this was her 2nd baby this had happened with now. But now can’t remember this baby after making that comment and deliberately getting involved in that babies care when she wasn’t the designated nurse. Also not to mention the mother thinking she remembered her because she was hanging about and the mum wanted her out. Oh and the element of fate txt about baby D, but now can’t remember. Like come on
But now we expected to believe LL has no memory of the baby she was SO upset over
Last edited:
Voting guilty again...spent a lot of time reading the wiki last night and just compounded my thoughts... I know there's a way to go....but that's where I'm at!
Be a while catching up today....but what I've seen so far BM is not a nice fella
Be a while catching up today....but what I've seen so far BM is not a nice fella
When you look at all of this evidence together I just feel it’s too much to ignore. Especially as we will see the same kind of patterns as we move through each baby. Anyone with doubts please read about baby’s I and N. I feel they are the babies with strongest evidence to show it was her that hurt them, that she was calculating in the way she picked babies that had underlying conditions, she was obsessed with the families and she was trying to cover her tracks. I know most think the insulin are the strongest cases and maybe medically they are, but for me I and N are the strongest circumstantial evidence cases. Maybe that’s because I’ve no medical background so I’m more reliant on cases like these than medically stronger evidence ones like the insulin ones. But I also think I particularly rules out the innocence of the Fb searches and shows it’s part of some weird obsession she has with the families
It's what she said during her prosecution evidence, put back to her at defences cross examination. He's not implying, she literally said it. Fella no disrespect intended, genuinelyBM is most definitely not a nice Fella. I honestly can’t believe he has just implied in court in front of the poor parents, that Bohin had blamed D’s father for that floppy incident after her birth
Not a nice fella at all
Honestly can’t believe he’s done this, I think he’s going on like this, and being particularly hard on Bohin cos he really knows how strong Bohin’s evidence today is, in relation to D (sorry know other disagree)
View attachment 1722344
Attachments
I've been reading along the last few days but life has kind of taken over so I've been pretty much, exhausted 
I feel the evidence today has been challenging. I am uncomfortable with the narrative that because LL wasn't present for the first collapse at 12 minutes, then it must have been because of the way Dad held the baby, rather than her health. I also feel uncomfortable with the Dr disagreeing with the mum, who felt very concerned about the appearance of her baby.
This is the prosecutions case and I absolutely understand that everything does seem to fit neatly and conveniently into their narrative. If I was accused of murder right now, I think they could probably scrape together enough weird behaviour from me that made me look incredibly guilty.
A genuine query for the 'definitely guilty' posters - I know we talk a lot about the 'overall picture' bringing you to the conclusion that she is guilty - but I wonder about the 'overall picture' of the failings of this unit, and how that presents in any other conclusions? I feel like the Dr's and witnesses constantly talk about how in context all of these concerns are minimised, but to me that feels dismissive of clinical failures.
I'm still in the unsure camp.
Edit: I'm off to delete all my texts about how much my husband annoys me just incase
I feel the evidence today has been challenging. I am uncomfortable with the narrative that because LL wasn't present for the first collapse at 12 minutes, then it must have been because of the way Dad held the baby, rather than her health. I also feel uncomfortable with the Dr disagreeing with the mum, who felt very concerned about the appearance of her baby.
This is the prosecutions case and I absolutely understand that everything does seem to fit neatly and conveniently into their narrative. If I was accused of murder right now, I think they could probably scrape together enough weird behaviour from me that made me look incredibly guilty.
A genuine query for the 'definitely guilty' posters - I know we talk a lot about the 'overall picture' bringing you to the conclusion that she is guilty - but I wonder about the 'overall picture' of the failings of this unit, and how that presents in any other conclusions? I feel like the Dr's and witnesses constantly talk about how in context all of these concerns are minimised, but to me that feels dismissive of clinical failures.
I'm still in the unsure camp.
Edit: I'm off to delete all my texts about how much my husband annoys me just incase
Last edited:
I know she said itIt's what she said during her prosecution evidence, put back to her at defences cross examination. He's not implying, she literally said it. Fella no disrespect intended, genuinely
She makes it clear that she means no disrespect to the parents when she says it in your SS, and gently explains why. It’s the way BM then brings it up again, rather than him talking about her saying it could have been caused by the babies head position, he deliberately implied that she (Bohin) was trying to blame the father, Bohin then has to clarify that she was not blaming the father at all. She shouldn’t have even had to do this. BM not a nice fella and we will have to agree to agree to disagree on this one. It’s the way he’s implied this, the poor father having to sit and listen in court, after everything LL has already put them through
Today this is the second witness that has to clarify they work for the court
Also I’m glad to see the jury have an kind of wiki like bit on their iPads so they can referback to things/look over things. Still won’t be anywhere as good as the wiki we have here though
Last edited:
hiya Fella, firstly this case is not built on Letby’s weird behaviour or being a bit odd. The case comes after two independent reviews concluding that the significant rise is deaths and crashes was not the result of failings. It also comes as a result of multiple consultants being concerned with the correlation of Letby being there for the unexplained events. This is typical of this crime. I imagine we are going to see a similar statistical picture as there are in many other healthcare serial killer cases - eg you become statistically a high percentage more likely to die or nearly die whenever Letby is on shift. Then you can see clearly that not only is she on shift but for multiple multiple charges, she is there at the time of the collapse or has recently administered/given “care” within the last 15 minutes or so. Again, that is a familiar picture for this type of crime. You cannot be that unlucky.I've been reading along the last few days but life has kind of taken over so I've been pretty much, exhausted
I feel the evidence today has been challenging. I am uncomfortable with the narrative that because LL wasn't present for the first collapse at 12 minutes, then it must have been because of the way Dad held the baby, rather than her health. I also feel uncomfortable with the Dr disagreeing with the mum, who felt very concerned about the appearance of her baby.
This is the prosecutions case and I absolutely understand that everything does seem to fit neatly and conveniently into their narrative. If I was accused of murder right now, I think they could probably scrape together enough weird behaviour from me that made me look incredibly guilty.
A genuine query for the 'definitely guilty' posters - I know we talk a lot about the 'overall picture' bringing you to the conclusion that she is guilty - but I wonder about the 'overall picture' of the failings of this unit, and how that presents in any other conclusions? I feel like the Dr's and witnesses constantly talk about how in context all of these concerns are minimised, but to me that feels dismissive of clinical failures.
I'm still in the unsure camp.
We are of course looking at every baby’s case in intense detail- do I think every detail of the care given has been perfect? No some has been poor. Most I feel has been more than ok. Sometimes they’re busy. Sometimes they’re not. Sometimes the babies are in worse shape. Sometimes they’re clearly doing well. Do I think this will have been the picture every year for this unit? Yes. Then why did they sometimes lose one baby a year? 2. 3. They’re losing this many a month with Letby the last to intervene every time. I’ve heard from a huge varied amount of staff that were there- do I think everyone of them are misremembering or deceiving the jury. No I don’t, I have no evidence for that or logical reason for it whatsoever. Many of them will be parents themselves and they’d be almost as evil as Letby to not give the truth and breaking serious laws. Some of the nurses and staff had worked in this unit for decades and some for much less than that. If they are all so hopeless and missed so much then why haven’t they been doing that for years on end? Why weren’t 4 babies dying every month or so with this team every year? But it’s only one person that’s there every time isn’t it! The junior doctors have become consultants, they are working for the WHO, they have nursed for 20+ years, why is it more believable that alllll these people got it wrong on these babies. Then you have the fact there are at times multiple hospitals involved who must have also been hopeless or bad at their jobs.
Why do the babies with air by their spines all have different reasons for it getting there when it is most likely air administered? The kind of air in volume and placement that they’ve never seen before from trauma? They had different conditions and different awful treatment and yet their presentation was the same in the way they collapsed and they have huge amounts of air. So this is just a coincidence and combination of varying poor care yet it produces the same conclusions for these babies . When the only person that’s stayed the same is Letby.
When we talk about Letby being weird, it’s not oh she dips her chips in chocolate or even she shops at bonmarche as a 25yr old weird that matters- not knowing what an air embolism as a level 6 nurse- more than weird. Standing in the dark watching a baby desaturate is the kind of weird I’m concerned with. Predicting babies that others thought were doing well wouldn’t leave alive weird. Searching families of multiple babies in this case before any link can be found to a supposedly innocent person weird - but they are linked. Some have air by their spines. That’s a big link. Some had insulin poisoning. That’s a big link. That’s some bad luck again for Letby that before all this comes out she’s linked them. It’s bad luck she got so anguished she wrote that she’s evil and killed on purpose despite also presumably thinking there would be nothing that could link her to these babies and nothing that could show she ever harmed them.
I do not believe these babies would have died had it not been for Letby sabotaging them and no accidental phone call, writing on a paper towel, dodgy note keeping is going to convince me otherwise. Yes in theory it makes the case look weaker to some but it doesn’t for me because therr Is far too much to say it cannot have been anything other than sabotage. There is no mistake in the insulin. There has to be another murderous nurse. Or is it more likely that she did that and she put air and milk and breathing tubes with force and venom because in her words ‘she’s evil. She did this. She killed them on purpose’.
- Status