I’m hoping we’ll hear more of the police interviews when we’ve heard the rest of the babies cases. It seems to be going in chronological order, even with the texts that get thrown in, so I guess if we’re going to go in to detail about the police interviews it would make sense it was after they move on to other evidence and the investigation.
- 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 do understand that people want full details to make sense of it. But unless we get extra info In podcast on Monday about this particular bit, I think we are just going to have to accept we aren’t going to get any more concrete info on it.
And as it hasn’t been deemed relevant, or to have had any impact/different outcome by either the prosecution or defence. I really don’t think we should get wrapped up in the smaller details of whether there were two bags or not. I think it’s going to derail again if we let it.
If it meant anything of significance I could fully understand a big discussion around it, but I think it’s just going to over complicate things. If there was a 2nd bag contaminated then it would be kept in fridge next to insulin, so probably very easy enough to contaminate, we know no other baby on unit was getting tpn at this time, so we know if this is the case LL would still know for sure that it would be F only that would receive contaminated bag.
I don’t think they know for sure though as we don’t know tpn was deffo changed, just that it should have been. But either way I really don’t think it’s worth a massive going round in circles discussion as even BM has not brought any issue up with it, and you can bet your bottom dollar he would have done if he thought it made any difference. Hopefully we’ll get more in podcast to clarify, but I really don’t think we should get caught up in the 2nd bag or not discussion, that is just my opinion though just to disclaimer it
I’d like to know if the same staff were on shift around the time of both poisonings or was it just Letby. She hung the bag for Baby L too.
This is what I'm struggling with...are they implying she's contaminated all the bags??
Maybe BM had no questions for the experts today as this is going to be part of the defence/LL not being there for second bag??
Ah now that hadn't actually occurred to me until you mentioned it just now. That too could be very compelling to the evidence prosecution are presenting
If there was 2 bags & she contaminated one of the stock bags would she have cared if it ended up being given to a different baby? As in if she’s purposely giving insulin & there was a high chance that stock bag would go to baby F but a small chance another baby could get it either that shift or a later shift, would she care? I don’t think she would tbh. I wonder if she put an amount in the bag to see what the outcome was…
edited to add - I don’t actually think they changed the bag when they changed the line personally but that’s just my understanding of the start & im putting it down to confusing reporting to why a second bag has appeared haha. Will be interested in the defence definitely
edited to add - I don’t actually think they changed the bag when they changed the line personally but that’s just my understanding of the start & im putting it down to confusing reporting to why a second bag has appeared haha. Will be interested in the defence definitely
The second bag thing confuses me because if she wasn’t there she could potentially be innocent.This is what I'm struggling with...are they implying she's contaminated all the bags??
Maybe BM had no questions for the experts today as this is going to be part of the defence/LL not being there for second bag??
I get you...but maybe he is going to use this in his defence ...and though Baby F was only one needing it at that time...that surely could have changed at any point, as in another baby requiring it unexpectedly?
I still think she's guilty BTW, but I think this will be part if his defence....unless we've missed something in the reporting?
Yep....that's how i see it at the moment
I think BM will have more to say about Baby F when he covers Baby L.
Yeah I feel like he’s going to bring his defence in for both the insulin babies when we hear the second one. That’s why he’s not done much cross here. He did say he would cross examine one of the experts later & not at this time didn’t he?
Yes...definitely, he won't let them off that lightly!!
Yes I think so. I think he should have still made an effort separately. Baby L had contaminated dextrose so slightly different to the tpn confusion.
I don’t think she would have to contaminate all the bags. There were 2 types of stock TPN, ‘start up’ and ‘maintenance’ with 5 bags in total, there was more of one type or another (can’t remember which). They were stored in no particular date order.
The nurses checked the stock levels at night and ordered more if required.
Depending on what type of TPN Baby F was having there was probably a maximum of 3 bags of that type.
Not sure, but if it was me, I’d have them stacked in 2 piles. She could have contaminated the top one.
Ofc there’s a lot of supposition here, but I only
think she would have had to contaminate one bag.
And I think the fact that they had these test results at the time and no action was taken is a huge part of the defence, the prosecution seem to suggest that the results point to only one conclusion which is inconsistent with no action being taken at the time
I’m going to speculate that at the time the results were put down to something else. And BM will use this as part of his confirmation bias pattern he’s been alluding to throughout the trial
I’m going to speculate that at the time the results were put down to something else. And BM will use this as part of his confirmation bias pattern he’s been alluding to throughout the trial
The Defences, and LL, have admitted that both insulin poisonings are deliberate foul play, it’s in the agreed statement.
The defence can only suggest that someone else must have done it and/or there is insufficient evidence to it pointing to LL.
I’m astounded they took no action after Baby L. By that point Letby had been moved to days so there must have been some suspicion there and with it being the second occurrence I don’t know how nothing was raised.
Where have the defence conceded this? Can you screenshot it because I’ve never seen this?
Last edited:
It’s been discussed a few times and was mentioned during the agreed facts at the beginning.
Attachments
- Status