- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
No I get what you mean. I think she’s just a psychopath that maybe gets off on the power or she just enjoys killingI’m not sure, could be of course. Just doesn’t feel quite the right fit for me for this kind of crime. There have been very few cases of HCSK doing it to get at someone - one in the journal I read that was a spurned lover doing it to get back at/ get attention of a doctor that dumped her. I think it absolutely was a game to her though so she may well have enjoyed upsetting nurses she felt were inferior to her. I think the highest other amount of presence at the incidents in the case was somebody there for 7 (I couldn’t think how to word that whatsoever so hope it makes sense). I think if it was revenge/to get at a certain person that might be higher.
. But she could also be jealous of others, and if SE did annoy her/put her nose out of joint, it could be she set her up to be the patsy or to make her look incompetent. So more of a trigger than a motive? Almost like playing some sick twisted game in her head, and SE is just part of that game. duck knows tbh, as I say I personally think she’s a psychopath that just enjoyed doing it and watching the parents suffer. But get what you mean by it’s not typical for HSK motive as such
There were three nurse witnesses today and I doubt the only thing that was asked of them was if they gave the baby insulin. I think the bbc report has just solely focused on that.
I expect like previous witnesses the prosecution would walk them through their involvement with the baby and sequence of events on their shift (how baby was ok beforehand), reading through their contributions to the medical records. So honestly I just think the bbc report was very lacking. I think three witnesses would be a full court day.
I expect like previous witnesses the prosecution would walk them through their involvement with the baby and sequence of events on their shift (how baby was ok beforehand), reading through their contributions to the medical records. So honestly I just think the bbc report was very lacking. I think three witnesses would be a full court day.
I agree, I also find it really strange that his is the only report out so far today. Even some journalists that don’t live report still tell you they’re there (none did today at all), and there usually would be at least several round ups by now. Unless it was a really short day in court, or there’s restrictions then I really can’t understand what’s going on today, and why such little/no live reporting
Small update from today:
Lucy Letby colleagues tell murder trial they did not give baby insulin
Three nurses working on a neonatal ward where Lucy Letby allegedly poisoned a baby give evidence.
www.bbc.co.uk
I wonder if they didn’t attend court today because it was probably quite a straight forward day with no major details expected.
Court can be very on and off, it’s a lot of waiting around and the sitting days are relatively short (10-4 with breaks), although a great deal of work gets done outside those times. Even then you won’t be sitting for the full time, if the prison van is late for example, or a juror member or witness is stuck in traffic, then court will adjourn and there won’t be anything to report. Ditto legal arguments, jury will go out and that won’t be reported. It’s possible to have a considerable amount of time devoted to legal arguments which again means less reporting that day. Not about contempt of court, just the practicalities of a complex, long running trial with many witnesses!
I know we are not reading much into SE in regards to LL and possible motive, but just seen SE was on the night shift with LL that night, the shift leader was also on that night, and the other one seemed to have been day shift
could they have been showing them the ward layout and detailing the locks and areas for collecting/preparing medications etc, where you’d need keys to access.. the boring stuff essentially, but relevant as we’ve discussed here?
Ah maybe, could well be something like that. I just found it strange that usually there would be reports out by now that would usually give more detail. Hopefully it is something like that, and one of the round ups eventually will explain a bit more about what went on today than Tom did. Sorry Tom but you’re quite low on my journalist list, I don’t think his reporting is ever that great. Failing that, hopefully Mark et al will be back properly tomorrow and we get a detailed day. Thought the insulin one would have got a lot of coverage, seeing as it could be the one that seals the deal as such
its funny you say this, at the start of the trial I remember a photo of her parents and I’m sure there was a fairly large age difference between them - been in a long term one myself so it wasn’t a judgement, I just remember wondering if she would have had half siblings etc. sorry, not an actual answer to your question I know
Was it SE who was talked about earlier in the trial who was put in room 1 at the time of one of the deaths. BM questioned her lack of experience but the Ward Manager said she was very capable and had support if needed. On that occasion LL was in a lesser room. Was it SE, it's a while ago so I'm not sure. If so it would be easy to think jealousy could have played a part in events that followed with that baby.No I get what you mean. I think she’s just a psychopath that maybe gets off on the power or she just enjoys killing
Yep the very same one. I’m not saying I personally think that’s the motive, but it could be more like a trigger if there’s a jealousy issue, or setting her up as the patsy, or trying to make her look incompetent so LL therefore looks like best nurse ever again. Just interesting that she’s one of nurses that was asked today, although obviously I appreciate SE is bound to crop up again if they were colleagues for 2015/16 time period
its funny you say this, at the start of the trial I remember a photo of her parents and I’m sure there was a fairly large age difference between them - been in a long term one myself so it wasn’t a judgement, I just remember wondering if she would have had half siblings etc. sorry, not an actual answer to your question I know
I think the insinuation is there was a link between all these babies. They all had something in common, wasn’t it mentioned we would find out about that later on? I don’t know if it was meant the parents all had something in common, I don’t know.
Ie was she targeting “older parents” or younger parents, parents who’d been through ivf or other fertility treatments. But I guess suspicions would be aroused if there were certain babies it seemed to happen to. There were two sets of twins and triplets? Am I correct?
I think I read somewhere her parents were “older” whatever you class as “older” ! But her mum wasn’t particularly old and there was more of an age gap between them, so could he she had half siblings or step siblings.
But we know nothing about her background apart from that.
Who was Lucy talking about when she said ‘Maybe I saw something they didn’t since I have more experience’?
I originally thought there might be a link between the parents, there could still well be. But now I’m more convinced she targeted the particular babies she did so it was easier to cover her tracks. Although again the parents could have been a trigger rather than motive, it seems to be the mums she’s more obsessed with. Was it something about the mums that made her become more sadistic with how much pain she inflicted on the babies as time went on, or did she just enjoy the pain she was causing more as time went on? Who knows, and at this point I’m open to pretty much anything triggering her, and any motive, and this could also be a combination of triggers and combination of motives that I’d be also open too. The only thing I’m set on is she’s a psychopath and enjoyed the pain she caused both the babies, and their families
Could have been, would need to check to see if I could find though in case it was another nurse. She seemed to think she was better than so many, so it could well have been one of many she was referring to here. She was always making out she was better than the other nurses, and that’s why she said she HAD to have E that night along with F as the others weren’t capable
Quoting myself to say it was Child I so we won’t know who the designated nurse was yet.
Hadn’t seen this by the time I’d replied above
Dailymail link:
Lucy Letby's colleagues say they didn't give insulin to alleged victim
Three former colleagues of Lucy Letby (pictured) told Manchester Crown Court today that they had never given insulin to a baby that was allegedly poisoned by the nurse at the Countess of Chester Hospital.
ETA there’s quite a bit more info in this article
ETA
Seems BM is going down the could have been someone else route
And a poster (think docmum) had previously said no one on that unit would ever think F had been poisoned with insulin
Last edited:
@LilyRose1234 are you able to clarify why these nurses are essentially having to defend themselves when they’re actually witnesses? Your insight has been really interesting.
Notice how her colleagues are not having to look at her for whatever reason. Again, speaks volumes?
Notice how her colleagues are not having to look at her for whatever reason. Again, speaks volumes?
Thank you, I’m not sure anyones ever described my ramblings on criminal procedure interesting before haha.
It might look like they’re defending themselves, and a lot of witnesses feel like they’re on trial when they’re being cross examined, but BM’s job is to question and challenge the evidence, not just blindly accept what the witness is saying (because they can be wrong, untruthful etc). The obvious consequence is that it looks like the witnesses are having to defend themselves. What doesn’t help is that when cross examining you ask leading questions, so one’s with yes or no answers, and you don’t want the witness you’re cross examining to go off piste - so BM will look at what the defence is for that baby, and ask specific questions that like up with that. Because they’re yes/no, it can be quite quick fire, and hopefully if the barrister has done it right, ends with something that puts doubt in the juries mind e.g “did you see LL administer the insulin” “no” “so it’s possible another nurse did it” and the answer would likely be “yes” because if they didn’t see her do it then it is possible. Given a Obviously this is speculative because we don’t know for sure what the defence is but just an example of how cross examination works and why it can seem brutal - and definitely is more uncomfortable for ordinary witnesses, and of course victims, that professional witnesses who are used to it.
- Status