The screen shot you posted earlier reads like LL did the first one 12.25am then 10am layer that morning it was replaced with a stock bag.
- 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’d forgotten about the 4 hour rule so you’re right she could have put insulin in the next bag once she got it out the fridge
I don’t think your appreciating posters are just discussing the evidence of the TPN and figuring out what could have happened with the bags I.e was it bag 1 or 2 or both. We know there’s insulin contaminating it, the reporting is just slightly confusing. No one is saying it isn’t in the insulin, just discussing how! Please stop jumping down people’s throats. The giving set is important because if it wasn’t changed it allowed for poisoning to continue.
Yeah, looks like there were two separate bags, expert witness said both would have needed to be contaminated.
I’d like to think guys that the jury have access to more than we do. All we can go on is the live reporting that isn’t always detailed. Unless we’re in the court then we need to trust that the jury are getting the full
Picture. They get to ask questions so it might be next week they ask for clarification but if not then they clearly understand something we don’t know
Picture. They get to ask questions so it might be next week they ask for clarification but if not then they clearly understand something we don’t know
I’m just questioning how whatever they’re clarifying changes much? Ok I’ll stop! I realise I’m getting extremely frustrated and it’s coming across in my posts, it’s not personal. Question away but it would be nice to see less gaslighting and more honesty when people raise these questions
Would she have got it out of the fridge? It seems it was replaced because the line tissued and she was off shift at that time. It had only been up 10hr at this point so I don't know if they'd have got one out in preparation during the nightshift?I’d forgotten about the 4 hour rule so you’re right she could have put insulin in the next bag once she got it out the fridge
I agree it's confusing with the two bags. The reporting hasn't made it clear at all. One or both bags have clearly been tampered with, I think that's considered fact on both sides. But it's not clear whether it was one or both of the bags.
she signed for it I think?
I wasn't gaslihghting, if my posts have come across that was it certainly wasn't intentional. I just genuinely didn't understand the evidenceI’m just questioning how whatever they’re clarifying changes much? Ok I’ll stop! I realise I’m getting extremely frustrated and it’s coming across in my posts, it’s not personal. Question away but it would be nice to see less gaslighting and more honesty when people raise these questions
It doesn't matter whether it changes much, I just like having lots of information.
It sadly doesn’t change anything. But posters like to make sense of all the evidence, it’s a discussion forum and that’s what we’re all here for. If someone needs clarification on something doesn’t mean they are protesting her innocence. Or alternatively think she’s guilty.I’m just questioning how whatever they’re clarifying changes much? Ok I’ll stop! I realise I’m getting extremely frustrated and it’s coming across in my posts, it’s not personal. Question away but it would be nice to see less gaslighting and more honesty when people raise these questions
Really? Because up thread you’ve just put so are they saying there are 5 contaminated stock bags or something along those lines. You don’t answer my question about whether you now think it’s weak evidence. Clearly you also don’t find baby F and the insulin evidence compelling either. You’ve sort of said you do but you’re going out of your way to post in a way that diminishes the evidence the professor gave under the guise of confusion and honestly I think you’re more intelligent than that. Somebody contaminated the first bag, it was up for a long time, I quite frankly couldn’t give a tit if they didn’t follow best practice when changing it. They saved the babies life with their crappy practice when somebody was intent on trying to kill that baby.I wasn't gaslihghting, if my posts have come across that was it certainly wasn't intentional. I just genuinely didn't understand the evidence
It doesn't matter whether it changes much, I just like having lots of information.
Ok I’m sure I’m wrong. Genuine apologies. I think the poster can handle the debate but if I’m to stop questioning what they’re getting at, I will x
I haven't answered your questions because I'm not looking for a debate or discussion on those subjects, I was just reading up from yesterday and didn't understand something.
I asked about the 5 stock bags because there was a point made about there being 5 stock bags at all times, and I haven't seen any evidence around selection of the second bag.
If you'd like me to answer them I could try later when I have more time and brain power.
Honestly, this place is a perfect example of how toxic a place can be when someone insists they’re the only knowledgeable person around.
I wonder if there have been jury questions not recorded in the transcripts, or is the evidence/discussion just much clearer in court? Maybe there’s a chunk been missed out and that’s why the second bag thing doesn’t seem to make sense?
I hadn’t cottoned on to the second bag thing actually and I did follow live (mostly) yesterday. Life gets in the way sometimes.
I wonder if there have been jury questions not recorded in the transcripts, or is the evidence/discussion just much clearer in court? Maybe there’s a chunk been missed out and that’s why the second bag thing doesn’t seem to make sense?
I don't think so, she was on the nightshit and signed for the 12.25am bag but I haven't seen anything to say she signed for the one on the day shift. There was evidence that they'll counter sign meds for the following shift which is mind-blowing
but I don't think that would have happened when the bag was planned to run for much longer.Of course I do. I was merely saying it was contradictory to the suggestions that the expert put forward. Had the nurse been yep, new long line, didnt change the bag/set etc for whatever reason I wouldn’t have questioned anything as that makes complete sense. I commented earlier that yes it’s poor practice but I have also done it when it was unavoidable. But the suggestion that all that was done and a new bag was tampered with in a fridge of five I found a reach. I wondered if anyone else also did.
I do imagine that his defence will focus on the times/bag/set up etc when it come to it as way a suggesting that it could have been another nurse and not Letby.
For what it’s worth I do think she contaminated the first bag. I also think that the same bag or line must have been used but saying it wasn’t adds confusion and makes it make no sense. As how unlucky to have 20% chance of selecting the other that was contaminated hours after Letbys shift. Again I don’t think that these small details are unimportant, small holes in evidence can cause doubt.
There is a reason why the ‘salsa’ texts are important.
The colleague says ‘ you really need a break from this happening on your shift’
So she made sure it didn’t happen in her shift.
So it didn’t look like the ‘bad run’ was just happening on her shift.
It’s obvious to me this as set up so it would happen when she wasn’t there.
Hence why the texts are important.
The colleague says ‘ you really need a break from this happening on your shift’
So she made sure it didn’t happen in her shift.
So it didn’t look like the ‘bad run’ was just happening on her shift.
It’s obvious to me this as set up so it would happen when she wasn’t there.
Hence why the texts are important.
Thank you. Just trying to get my head around this one.
We missed a day or two of live reporting this week, and had to rely on very short write-ups at the end of the day. I’m sure (I hope) everything is much clearer for the jury. The poor reporting is so frustrating.
No, it’s probably best not isn’t it
especially as I’m quite rightfully getting in trouble for making my frustrations obvious this morning. It’s not personal though, I’m not here to call people tin foil hatters or anyrhing like that either. Listen, if you’re unsure and don’t think the insulin evidence is compelling then that’s cool, I’m not sure how that’s possible that’s all. If the first bag in both poisonings is hung by Letby then for me it really doesn’t matter about which of the scenarios the professor said is the most likely, all of them rely on the first bag being purposefully contaminated - I believe that can only be by her. If people don’t then I’d rather they just said it. Sometimes people come on and say “yeah innocent I just have a feeling. Something I can’t put my finger on. Or she’s innocent- come at me”. I admire that tbh and can scroll past those I’m still not sure why us here on the forum are saying that yesterdays evidence from the professor made no sense. It made no sense to you then ok but in the balance of things, he seems incredibly intelligent and I think if there was a hole or flaw in the evidence he gave then Ben would have noticed in cross, the jury would have noticed, the judge. Sorry just don’t think we’re able to sleuth some key detail in the case that nobody has noticed until now. Perhaps people should wait for the defence?
- Status