I mean if your being sarcastic then lol but I actually have worked as a HCP since I was 18.If i was to hazard a guess, i'd say you didnt work in health care
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
A coincidence then that the unexplained collapses and unexpected deaths ceased occurring when Letby went off the scene. The real culprit must have had an instant change of heart about their impulses and got their empathy back. At the same time.
Did I say that?
I think the blood results put it 99% certain that the insulin was exogenous, although I would hope the tests were repeated to rule out any assay problems. However, that is neither evidence nor proof that she did it, or in fact that it was deliberate. In fact, if the prosecution's case is that in the case of child F there were two bags containing insulin, that could be used to exclude LL, as you would need a very convoluted plot to have her responsible for poisoning the second one when she wasn't on shift.
The problem is that if there was an innocent mistake somewhere along the line, all the evidence to confirm that is gone.
There is no innocent mistake whereby synthetic insulin gets inside of a TPN bag.
Actually, you did say that, and youāve just said it again!
I think for me its not that they don't seem deliberate, it's that there's still doubt there that it was her and that's without without defence having their chance to cast further doubt.
Ps, actually went into bon marche today fellas. Felt a bit sick with myself but where else do you get your nan's Xmas gift
I didn't mention inflammatory markers, and neither did the report. It specifically referred to markers of infection. Without seeing the blood work neither you nor I can say what was going on
And likewise the theory that the insulin was inside the TPN bag is like a diagnosis by exclusion - it cannot be proved without the bag or contents being retained and tested.
No, I didn't.
It's an interesting angle because to me because the fact it took years and 3 arrests to get her charged actually makes me less likely to be convinced of her guilt. I probably won't explain this properly in words but to me it feels like it snowballed and then every single little piece of circumstantial evidence has somehow been blown up into bigger proportions. But then on the flip side I also know that healthcare deaths are particularly hard to convict and round and round I go until my head feel like it's gonna explode!To people still saying it cats doubt and the nurse responsible could be still out there, like where are you thinking this from? This is a huge deeply researched and investigated case. Itās taken years and 3 arrests to get her charged. Probably a hundred statements and plenty of witnesses etc so itās not like she was just on duty and the police have pinned it on Lucifer. Iām intrigued to hear the defence but people go to prison for a lot less than this case is so it genuinely baffles me that people still doubt the evidence reported. And for those thinking sheās just a scape goat for bad practice in the unit lol
Donāt make me laugh. As if thatās happening
Quote:
However, that is neither evidence nor proof that she did it, or in fact that it was deliberate.
It appears to me that youāre still trying to argue whether it was deliberate.
All have agreed that it was deliberate insulin poisoning.
I think thereās plenty of evidence against her to stop the doubt. She was always involved in their care minutes before or found with a collapsing baby.
You could remove the texts, Facebook searches and the evidence found at her home and I would still think they had a strong case. We are only part way through and most parents had a negative experience with her.
You could remove the texts, Facebook searches and the evidence found at her home and I would still think they had a strong case. We are only part way through and most parents had a negative experience with her.
Iām assuming you do? And are you implying nurses are often sent to trial for murder to cover up bad practice on a ward?If i was to hazard a guess, i'd say you didnt work in health care
Another example of her removing herself from the picture and passing the blame?
Sheās also obsessed with being more qualified isnāt she? Weāve heard this from her a handful of times now.
Sheās also obsessed with being more qualified isnāt she? Weāve heard this from her a handful of times now.
Completely agree. This case is not plucked out of thin air based on her presence alone. Her presence is a huge factor but there is overwhelming evidence for a crime of this nature - copious amounts of air in many babies that have had interaction with the accused (that expert radiologist had never seen the likes of), deaths very sudden and unexpected (quotes from the accused to prove this), the accused having given cares before sudden collapses of babies previously stable on almost all cases, physical signs of air emboli- pink secretions, fleeting rash, strange responses to cpr, evidence of physical harm- throat multiple cases, excessive bleeding and damaged liver, causes of death unknown or sketchy at PM, large doses of insulin to patients not prescribed and not legitimately given, many witness accounts of suspicious behaviour- eg monitors not sounding, standing at bedside of babies āon the brink of deathā removed breathing tubes and doing nothing, tons of background evidence that she hasnāt offered an innocent explanation to, other suspicious behaviour such as accusedās handwriting initialling for other people, collapses and deaths having strange similarities that donāt seem like chance (such as frequently happening when designated nurse was on a break), recoveries outside of her care meaning collapses are more likely sabotage than pervasive problem.. I have probably missed a few points. If you donāt find any of that compelling then sure, it could just be that she was there.
Not sure where i implied that no, simply wondering if this person worked in healthcare, since being a scapegoat was so far fetched?!
If I was to hazard a guess I'd say you're not CID
Of course she's not a scapegoat. She's a murderer.
Can u watch the case?
It is far fetched when the scapegoat ends up on trial for murder of 7 babies and attempted murder of 10 more.
Cameras arenāt allowed in.
To be fair though none of us are on the jury and we arenāt hearing all the evidence and we donāt know what itās like to be in that court room. So what may seem like doubt to someone external to the case it could be completely different to someone on the jury.
- Status