Good lookings abit of a push lol.
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
How can you not realize someone is in the process of attacking your child
That doesn’t make it morally and professionally right though. That’s like saying if I leave my window open I’m asking for my house to be burgled. Yeah, someone might break in, but they would be wrong for doing so. Just because you can doesn’t make it ok.
Exactly. I think they were short staffed and didn't have time to look into it until they realised there were many babies. They failed.
I’m reading back through some of the coverage. Child A and B were twins. And the female twin B survived. Both were in contact with LL, and child A died with in 90 mins of her coming on shift. Whilst child B was attacked 28 hours later.
It all just seems too coincidental and if it’s not her and she’s not guilty somethings seriously up.
It all just seems too coincidental and if it’s not her and she’s not guilty somethings seriously up.
I believe it’s known as the ‘halo effect’ when ‘attractive’ people are often viewed more favourably and trust worthy than someone less attractive.
Bias and Belief / Halo Effects of Attractiveness
biasandbelief.pbworks.com
depends what they call attacking? If you walked in on a nurse treating your child, wouldn’t you assume they were doing their job?
I think they mean medically "attacking" rather than physically attacking.
Granada live from court, reporting she was attending to these poor babies when she wasn’t assigned to them! That is crucial to the prosecution, she wasn’t supposed to be looking after them, in the room with them, ever! But every time she was, they got sick or died 
Am I wrong if being confused by this doctors statement? Apparently rare natural causes couldn't be ruled out IN THE ABSENCE OF A POSTMORTEM... but they said it was administered intentionally.. how can they said that when there was no postmortem? Why wasn't there one? Sorry but I won't be taking word from an 'expert' who's admitted that the rare natural causes can't be ruled out because there's no postmortem proof.
Attachments
When your not a professional you automatically believe what they say . No doubt the parent had no idea she had just poisoned her child . She clearly trusted the sad for the parent to now realise it wasn’t innocent
I fully agree. Her normal life finished the minute she was suspended from her job.
No that's very confusing.
I’m not saying it’s morally or professionally right. Im
Just saying that if you’ve got a social media account that’s open for anyone to look at then people can and will look at it. You don’t want them to have that kind of access? Then make it private. It’s not difficult.
i think it’s a common misconception with bundy tbh. by his own admission, he played on women’s ingrained politeness rather than the fact that he looked like an average sort of guy. he said himself that women are naturally polite and compliant (i guess because society tries to make them so) so they were always receptive to helping him carry things to his car under the guise of him being injured etc. even so, it wasn’t so much that he was good looking, just that he looked like any other man (i suppose like letby does).
appearance bias is absolutely a thing though.
The parents declined to have one.
The baby was high risk for NEC which can be fatal in premature babies, the trauma of a premature birth is enough, let alone adding to that you have two babies on the unit who are premature and will be paitents for a long time due to their gestation, they may of declined so they were not adding to their trauma and grief.
Sorry but surely that should be inadmissible? If that's the right term? You CANNOT says it was intentional when a postmortem wasn't carried out.... and why wasn't one done? The doctor is obviously going off other information and shouldn't be taken seriously then surely.
I think it will come out that all the victims have a common connection. That will then form a key part of the prosecution.
She was given care of another child instead of child C, that was in fact a medical concern, and needed close monitoring, which would have made that baby an ‘easier’ victim, but instead she went to baby C’s room.
She was given care of another child instead of child C, that was in fact a medical concern, and needed close monitoring, which would have made that baby an ‘easier’ victim, but instead she went to baby C’s room.
I'd be curious to see or hear the layout of the ward and how far away each bay/area was from each other and from the nurses station.
In one case it said the alarm sounded when the allocated nurse was at the nurse station and when they got to the child, LL was in there when she shouldn't have been.
Any nurses or HCAs on here...how normal is it for a colleague to attend to an alarm of a patient that isn't theirs if the allocated nurse isn't immediately present? To me, it doesn't sound unreasonable to do, especially on a NICU with very unwell babies. But with the other evidence being presented, it can be shown to be sinister.
In one case it said the alarm sounded when the allocated nurse was at the nurse station and when they got to the child, LL was in there when she shouldn't have been.
Any nurses or HCAs on here...how normal is it for a colleague to attend to an alarm of a patient that isn't theirs if the allocated nurse isn't immediately present? To me, it doesn't sound unreasonable to do, especially on a NICU with very unwell babies. But with the other evidence being presented, it can be shown to be sinister.
Sorry but them declining is irrelevant to my point, I just mean that the fact there wasn't one means that the doctors point doesn't make sense or bold basis. Because the doctor cannot say for sure what caused it without one.
- Status