I guess on here, there’s been a lot of effort put into making certain points on her potential guilt, and things like tracking down certain bits of extra info such as her colleagues Fb, the how to save a life tv programme, other documentaries on health care serial killers, academic journal articles on HCSK, articles in general people feel are relevant to the case. And people have taken the time to say why they’re making certain points, or think the way they do. There’s also been (mostly) respectful debates. Also we have the amazing wiki on here which has been so useful to double check things on, and useful to read of you want to look ahead at rest of babies or re read over any evidence. I’m not in any FB groups and never would want to be, but I’m guessing it’s not like that on them, there’s no sensible debates etc?
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
Sorry I understand why people have avoided today and not everyone can keep up fully but today has been incredibly compelling for the prosecution. It would be good to have some theories from ng and unsure voters after today because it’s often said that people dominate or it’s an echo chamber when obviously a majority of people vote G on the poll and also seem to follow it v closely and have been very vocal today. It would be a shame if we didn’t hear the other side and their rational and their explanations for what we’ve heard today and I do hope it’s not going to be thought of or expressed that it wasn’t allowed somehow x
I think this could very well be the case
@riddleme89 agree with the following that you said on this too
“Mum also said she heard her baby screaming down the corridor then she got into the room and letby was not even near the baby . Now that makes me think letby did something to him and heard footsteps so quickly went to another part of the room or letby was literally standing in another part of the room listening to his screams no doubt got a buzz from it
either way any normal nurse would go and help the baby but she only did that after mum walked in”
I know a few people have wondered about seeing layouts / walk throughs of the wards to get a better picture. I’m watching North West news on ITV and they’ve just shown the video of the room Child E was in on the report.
The thing is Letby said this didn’t happen at all and she also says the 9pm feed the mother says she went up for was omitted as advised by the SHO. The SHO says that also did not happen. So it’s not just a case of if the mother misremembers timings like it was with baby D. She’d have to invented this whole interaction and the father who received a call at the correct time for this scenario says that this was also exactly what the mum described so that would have to be something they misremember together and the phone call a coincidence. The SHO at the same time has to have got it wrong. If you read the wiki you can see how the two accounts can’t go together. I can’t see why the mother would invent the whole scenario. She has had a rough ride but didn’t appear at all traumatised until she saw the blood. She seemed very happy actually.
Yes, but that’s just my guess at the moment. Really don’t know.
You’re correct that blood could go down the back of the babies throat into the stomach.
Dr Bohin said there could be ‘fleetly rare’ natural causes, but then there’s the air embolism. She really wanted this baby to die, by the looks of it.
I see what you mean, and I have thought guilty all the way through, and for me the insulin has always been the deciding factor.
Some of the earlier babies I have been less sure prove LLs guilt because of department mistakes, but I have still felt guilty overall because of the insulin.
Today's baby hits too close to home for personal reasons so I just can't read it when it's going to cause trauma. Following the bits and pieces on here is hard enough. So I can't give an opinion based on today, and whether it's more or less likely to reinforce my guilty viewpoint, when I know practically nothing about it, if you see what I mean? I'd be being led by what people on here are saying, which sounds bloody horrific, but I just cannot go there myself to make my own mind up.
Hope that explains it. Not trying to be awkward or anything, and I'm sorry if I have pissed anyone off, it's just too much on a personal level for me. Sorry
Yes this, exactly this
And exact same reasoning can be applied with how others have felt about what she said regarding the Fb searches to police, and not remembering the parents claim etc. If innocent she wouldn’t have worded a lot of stuff the way she has, guess some will include her writing the note with this same thought process tooSorry completely understand. XI see what you mean, and I have thought guilty all the way through, and for me the insulin has always been the deciding factor.
Some of the earlier babies I have been less sure prove LLs guilt because of department mistakes, but I have still felt guilty overall because of the insulin.
Today's baby hits too close to home for personal reasons so I just can't read it when it's going to cause trauma. Following the bits and pieces on here is hard enough. So I can't give an opinion based on today, and whether it's more or less likely to reinforce my guilty viewpoint, when I know practically nothing about it, if you see what I mean? I'd be being led by what people on here are saying, which sounds bloody horrific, but I just cannot go there myself to make my own mind up.
Hope that explains it. Not trying to be awkward or anything, and I'm sorry if I have pissed anyone off, it's just too much on a personal level for me. Sorry
I've followed along today, its horrific reading what the both the parents and child went through that night. So skip if needed
I am a bit desensitised to things, tend to get sombre rather than angry if that makes sense. Can't deny it makes me hug the baby a bit tighter though.
Few PM issues are reflected in the Kent report, which just makes me shake my head and wonder why they advised the parents it wasn't needed.
No worries at all, it was a fair point you made
Today was awful to think of that poor Mum up on the stand, she must question every single decision she made, or feelings she had. It must both fill and break her heart that she still has the babies sibling and see them growing up.
There was a few things that stood out today for me.
In the prosecutions opening statement, they said that Mum walked in on LL 'attacking the baby' - yet today Mum stated that LL was sitting at the workstation whilst baby was crying?
LL's notes say 'Mum came to see baby at start of shift' - did she specifically write 8pm, is that what the significance about the 9pm is? Potentially defence would say that 9pm is still relatively near the 'start' of her shift (assuming it was a 12 hour one?)
Prosecution said that LL had told Mum 'trust me, I'm a nurse' - Mum made no mention of this today?
Is it alleged then that the 4.15am note that LL made is totally made up? As the mum did say that LL had told her the blood was from the tube = but is this LL writing what she knew had already happened? (I hope that makes sense!!)
I'm so totally confused about the consultant saying there was no PM needed. That just seems crazy to me, especially if the blood was so unexpected?
There was a few things that stood out today for me.
In the prosecutions opening statement, they said that Mum walked in on LL 'attacking the baby' - yet today Mum stated that LL was sitting at the workstation whilst baby was crying?
LL's notes say 'Mum came to see baby at start of shift' - did she specifically write 8pm, is that what the significance about the 9pm is? Potentially defence would say that 9pm is still relatively near the 'start' of her shift (assuming it was a 12 hour one?)
Prosecution said that LL had told Mum 'trust me, I'm a nurse' - Mum made no mention of this today?
Is it alleged then that the 4.15am note that LL made is totally made up? As the mum did say that LL had told her the blood was from the tube = but is this LL writing what she knew had already happened? (I hope that makes sense!!)
I'm so totally confused about the consultant saying there was no PM needed. That just seems crazy to me, especially if the blood was so unexpected?
For me I'm still not seeing anything bad about the messages or the Facebook searching.
The timings thing I just don't understand. What does she have to gain from it being 10pm rather than 9pm? When you're documenting things retrospectively your timings probably are slightly out, why are the doubling down so hard on the timings? If someone does something at say 2.30pm and documents it as 3pm, that's not falsifying notes, I couldn't even tell you how many times I've gone to populate my electronic diary and found my timings have been out, sometimes by hours.
I'm not saying I don't believe the mother but if we look at the last mother to give evidence she was sure she saw LL by her child at 7 - she looked at the clock and saw the time, but LL wasn't there until like half past... but lots of people here responded by saying half 7 is basically the same as 7. Here when LL has documented something as 10 and the mothers saying 9 then the mother must be correct to the minute because apparently you'd 100% remember what time you visited your baby
I don't know anything about GI bleeds in babies so I'll wait to hear medical experts, prosecution and defence.
“Mr Myers said: “I suggest to you that there was no time that Miss Letby said the tube was irritating (Child E)?”
How is this not saying she’s lying
With many of your posts I’ve been feeling a distinct theme of this
. I am determined to not derail this thread again, so will therefore not be replying to anymore of your posts
Last edited:
It’s not that the incident happened at 9 or 10 though. Letby is saying the 9pm incident did not happen at all. There is no record of that blood the mother talks about and Letby says she never told the mother it was from irritation. The later time the mum went to the ward is a totally different incident and has multiple witnesses and the midwife spoke to the dad too. By this point the baby was in terminal decline. It is confusing but if you look at it in the wiki you can see it’s not whether the mum had this convo with Letby at a certain time or not at all. It’s much more than that.For me I'm still not seeing anything bad about the messages or the Facebook searching.
The timings thing I just don't understand. What does she have to gain from it being 10pm rather than 9pm? When you're documenting things retrospectively your timings probably are slightly out, why are the doubling down so hard on the timings? If someone does something at say 2.30pm and documents it as 3pm, that's not falsifying notes, I couldn't even tell you how many times I've gone to populate my electronic diary and found my timings have been out, sometimes by hours.
I'm not saying I don't believe the mother but if we look at the last mother to give evidence she was sure she saw LL by her child at 7 - she looked at the clock and saw the time, but LL wasn't there until like half past... but lots of people here responded by saying half 7 is basically the same as 7. Here when LL has documented something as 10 and the mothers saying 9 then the mother must be correct to the minute because apparently you'd 100% remember what time you visited your baby
I don't know anything about GI bleeds in babies so I'll wait to hear medical experts, prosecution and defence.
But she documents bile at 9pm and omits feed, its not like she's claiming he was perfect at 9 and there was nothing to note. Maybe documenting in retrospect she forgot all about the small amount of blood after the events of the night.. maybe she's a lying, murderous bleep, who knows? I just don't understand what she's gaining by saying that didn't happen if it did, when she's documenting the aspirate and he's known to have feeding issues.
The SHO denies ever telling LL to omit the feed so that is also false notes from her.
This has been answered twice earlier but maybe you missed it, here is @MmmB777 ’s answer that is probably more clearer than mineFor me I'm still not seeing anything bad about the messages or the Facebook searching.
The timings thing I just don't understand. What does she have to gain from it being 10pm rather than 9pm? When you're documenting things retrospectively your timings probably are slightly out, why are the doubling down so hard on the timings? If someone does something at say 2.30pm and documents it as 3pm, that's not falsifying notes, I couldn't even tell you how many times I've gone to populate my electronic diary and found my timings have been out, sometimes by hours.
I'm not saying I don't believe the mother but if we look at the last mother to give evidence she was sure she saw LL by her child at 7 - she looked at the clock and saw the time, but LL wasn't there until like half past... but lots of people here responded by saying half 7 is basically the same as 7. Here when LL has documented something as 10 and the mothers saying 9 then the mother must be correct to the minute because apparently you'd 100% remember what time you visited your baby
I don't know anything about GI bleeds in babies so I'll wait to hear medical experts, prosecution and defence.
“If 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.”
And my answer
“It’s extremely important to timeline, and to establish that LL has falsified notes and lied. Time also significant to mother walking in on LL harming him and being fobbed off and sent back up to ward. Her lying in notes is to do with her covering her tracks”
Is it just me that never has a chance to write much up at all before the end of the shift? 1:1 therapeutic sessions I come out and do straight away, but pretty much everything else...left until the end.
I jot my own personal notes as the shift progresses but never have a bum in seat moment to write them up and do the full shebang until the end 🫣
I jot my own personal notes as the shift progresses but never have a bum in seat moment to write them up and do the full shebang until the end 🫣
That’s the whole point tho, the omit thing was said to have been completely fabricated by her, the doctor also confirms there was no mention of this. More falsifying notes and all of this is very significant
This is exactly the point I was trying to make too
- Status