- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
Hopefully this will be covered in podcast, what I’m hoping for anyway. I think this 2nd bag thing is deflecting from the fact the original tpn was poisoned tbh, which I can understand raising questions for some of us, but if it had any bearing on defence there’s no way BM wouldn’t have used it or at least alluded to it already.
Also LL in both police interviews for both insulin poisonings accepted it couldn’t have been accidental or a mistake. The defence are not disputing that it was contaminated, their only issue seems to be who did it. So do we accept there are two potential murderers now, or do we accept that it’s more likely to be the only one that has been present for all 22 incidents.
I’m so glad the jury don’t have to wonder the answer to bits that we aren’t sure on, it will be far more clear cut for them, and at least they can ask questions for anything they aren’t sure on. Let’s see how baby G starts tomorrow and hopefully get the last bit of info on F on Monday in podcast
Me neither, I sorta doubt these babies are the first living being she's harmed either. I'm curious about her training and what could have arose there...What I keep thinking is if she's done this, and is found to be beyond reasonable doubt that she's guilty - then I don't think baby A was the first baby she harmed
I feel like we’re never going to get all the full facts and details throughout this case, things might get clearer as we go but other than those in court, no one will know the full facts.
ETA: I’m not saying it’s not worthwhile to discuss anyway but what we are seeing isn’t the full story
ETA: I’m not saying it’s not worthwhile to discuss anyway but what we are seeing isn’t the full story
It’s just sugar water.
Not in this case, I believe, as Baby F had a massively high artificial insulin level and would not be producing any of his own. That’s why his c-peptide is so low.
I just feel he is going to concentrate on this....he just needs to put enough doubt in the jury's minds and this is a big question that nobody seems to be able to answer. I believe he didn't question both experts today cos, as I've said, I think this will be the defence re baby FHopefully this will be covered in podcast, what I’m hoping for anyway. I think this 2nd bag thing is deflecting from the fact the original tpn was poisoned tbh, which I can understand raising questions for some of us, but if it had any bearing on defence there’s no way BM wouldn’t have used it or at least alluded to it already.
Also LL in both police interviews for both insulin poisonings accepted it couldn’t have been accidental or a mistake. The defence are not disputing that it was contaminated, their only issue seems to be who did it. So do we accept there are two potential murderers now, or do we accept that it’s more likely to be the only one that has been present for all 22 incidents.
I’m so glad the jury don’t have to wonder the answer to bits that we aren’t sure on, it will be far more clear cut for them, and at least they can ask questions for anything they aren’t sure on. Let’s see how baby G starts tomorrow and hopefully get the last bit of info on F on Monday in podcast
I have no theories myself..I just can't work it out!
Attachments
I'm still in the unsure frame of mind only because I haven't heard the full thing and things just haven't fully 'clicked' for me yet. The Facebook searches, photos on her phone and paperwork, to me, are just background noise - because I bet if they investigated the other members of staff they would also find the same (some posters on here have already said they would probably have a sheet stuffed in a pocket etc). I guess the context is what is missing for me. Are they talking box files upon box files of babies sheets organised in a system, or some crumpled up pieces in a drawer? Are we talking multiple pictures of irrelevant things, or one picture of a card which really, proves nothing? I think the bigger picture for those things are missing, it's just adds a wee bit of speculation for me.
It may well be that once the defence have had their say, that will be the 'click'. I just haven't heard the full story, and I don't like to make a judgement based on one side.
A good example of this is the Star case - the prosecution said they had video evidence of Savannah hitting Star in the car (
It seems like background noise on the surface, but it needs to be looked at in context. I agree, I am sure other nurses have facebooked searched, the texts seem innocent enough on the surface, but there is a reason why they are showing them as evidence. It’s about building a picture and you will see a pattern forming. Now of course if you investigated all the nurses they may have gone home with a handover sheet stuffed in their pocket, but in relation to a child that had just died on your watch it could be deemed as highly suspicious. Why was she Facebook searching other families - yes you could say she “ does it all the time, I bet they all do “. But I expect most of them did not do it to the extent she has.
They would not be showing it as evidence if it was not relevant. Of course those things alone can’t make her ‘guilty’ and yes none of us know until we’ve heard all the evidence. Criminologist and profilers are looking at exactly those things, t they see things in the searches, texts etc that a lot of us won’t.
We don’t know enough yet. I won’t say what I think.
But to say it’s ‘background noise’ when it’s obviously a huge part of the evidence and the trial.
How else would she be put on trial? No, you are right it doesn’t make her guilty but it certainly doesn’t make her innocent.
I’m not reading that info as full acceptance that the insulin was in the bag though? Only that she agrees insulin wouldn’t be given ‘accidentally’ and that perhaps it was in the bag? I wouldn’t have thought they could say definitively if they don’t have the actual bag to have tested it?
all your points are literally what I’ve said - we don’t know enough and the Facebook searches etc only seem suspicious because she’s the one of trial. It’s background noise in the prosecutions case because it’s not hard evidence but it’s enough to try and paint a little picture in the jury’s minds. It just doesn’t paint that picture for me, and that’s fine, as it’s my opinion 
I feel like you’ve just argued with yourself on that whole post
all your points are literally what I’ve said - we don’t know enough and the Facebook searches etc only seem suspicious because she’s the one of trial. It’s background noise in the prosecutions case because it’s not hard evidence but it’s enough to try and paint a little picture in the jury’s minds. It just doesn’t paint that picture for me, and that’s fine, as it’s my opinion I was told that too, but my little one had lost weight so it was stressed I feed them every 3 hours. Once I slept and realised I hadn’t fed her for nearly 5 hours! I felt terrible, but to be honest she didn’t cry at all! She was a 6Ib baby.
I don’t agree that this is them conceding anything
We don’t hear the question she’s responding to, it’s a vague statement as part of the opening statement that they’ve not expanded on (in the reporting anyway) so imo I don’t think she has agreed to anything particularly incriminating I think it’s similar to the mother who walked in on LL in the act. Its probably not quite what it first seems,
besides even if she said yep someone definitely had to have done this deliberately. What does that even prove? Just because she said it doesn’t make it a medical fact , if she’d have said no this definitely wasn’t a deliberate act everybody would say ”well what qualify her to make that judgment”
I agree I think he’s playing the long game, but I would have still expected him to have started to plant/sow little seeds with F, and then pick it up further with L
Yes that is also what I meant in above post, I thought he’d at least do some groundwork with F, rather than just leave it all to L, by L as well I think we’ll have heard far more compelling evidence about LL, so by then I think it would be even harder to believe there’s two poisoners rather than it all being LL. Think that’s why I’m surprised he’s leaving it atm
I just think he knows what he's going to produce in her defence and from his point of view there was no point questioning further today....his " game plan" is obviously to sew the seeds of doubt as to it being her responsible beyond reasonable doubt...with the second bag scenario then think he will manage that quite well!
I agree, even if there was no second bag, or if there was it doesn’t matter. She still contaminated the original bag, and allegedly falsified the notes round 5am to make it look as if baby’s sugar levels were higher than what they really were. The first bag still would have been enough to kill F (or so she would have thought), along with the delay to treating the low sugar level from her falsifying the 5am reading. She did enough even just with the first bag and false note. I think that’s why she used much higher dose next time with L.
Last edited:
What's concerning about Ben conceding the insulin is that it happened twice, and with quite a time gap. That rules out a couple of potential explanations, but it doesn't seem like he was going down that route anyway.
So I agree with him that you cannot convict someone based on coincidence, but I find it hard not to ask the obvious question... is there another nurse who was present at both insulin incidents, and had the opportunity? It's possible, and it'd be a massive swing for the defence if so.
(There's also some eerie similarities between E+F and M+L, but i'm trying not to place *too much* weight on that for the time being. If you read the wiki it is very odd though.)
So I agree with him that you cannot convict someone based on coincidence, but I find it hard not to ask the obvious question... is there another nurse who was present at both insulin incidents, and had the opportunity? It's possible, and it'd be a massive swing for the defence if so.
(There's also some eerie similarities between E+F and M+L, but i'm trying not to place *too much* weight on that for the time being. If you read the wiki it is very odd though.)
I’ve seen this previously and I don’t think it’s a concession of anything, I thought there was something new, that confirmed the defence aren’t questioning foul play. I think this sentence is pretty meaningless without any context around it. And as I’ve said in another post, even if she concedes it in an interview what actually qualifies her to make that judgment
I see what you’re saying but I think the test not being followed up on is irrelevant. It doesn’t change that fact baby F was deliberately poisoned with insulin.
It's brought up a couple of pages back, the witness claims insulin was added to the TPN and the defence has no questions. (These are from today).
@slingo16
"Using syringes to inject air? No. Tampering with bags of fluid - or poisoning them? No. Physically assaulting children? Smothering them?
Adding as an add on from @candyland_ screenshot as its all I could find extra where the insulin is mentioned.
That's from the main argument where he was speaking about his areas of defence before it splits off into individual children.
No clue where he is going with it aside from the second bag issues that pp's have brought up in regards to access,
Does he mean just not LL? Does he have another explanation? Will he just try to prove LL couldn't of done it? Focus on how it wasn't flagged at the time as malicious? Its very much up in the air for me, but doesn't read like he's conceded it
"Using syringes to inject air? No. Tampering with bags of fluid - or poisoning them? No. Physically assaulting children? Smothering them?
Adding as an add on from @candyland_ screenshot as its all I could find extra where the insulin is mentioned.
That's from the main argument where he was speaking about his areas of defence before it splits off into individual children.
No clue where he is going with it aside from the second bag issues that pp's have brought up in regards to access,
Does he mean just not LL? Does he have another explanation? Will he just try to prove LL couldn't of done it? Focus on how it wasn't flagged at the time as malicious? Its very much up in the air for me, but doesn't read like he's conceded it
If we can have no doubt that child f was deliberately poisoned with insulin because of the test results then how come that conclusion wasn’t reached at the time? I’m going to assume it was explained away in one way or another, therefore why can’t the reason used at the time not apply any more
But it’s a fact that the insulin in F’s blood was synthetic, therefore it had to been given externally, that is a fact. The pharmacy has been ruled out, as have any other ways of it being delivered, that’s fact. All that leaves is the high probability that it was added to the tpn bag as way of administering it. The only bit that isn’t certain is who did it
Test results at the time and why they weren’t followed up on have been discussed at great length in last thread if you get time to read over it
- Status