Anyone with photoshop want to clear the photo issue up?
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
Missed that, thanks. What's the deal with the discrepancies in the table of reported deaths?
---
My husband sees it too so I'm not going mad
if you turn your screen brightness right up, the top image is brighter, the counter is a good reference. Like I said its very slight so doesn't actually matter, I just noticed it and found it interesting.
getting cross eyes looking it’s like that black and gold dressMissed that, thanks. What's the deal with the discrepancies in the table of reported deaths?
---
My husband sees it too so I'm not going mad
If that photo is one they used in court to illustrate the distance and light levels, then no body in their right mind is seeing a premature baby looking pale and very unwell under those conditions unless they had been and had a closer look before hand.
I've always been in the unsure camp, but no one can tell me she saw a pale baby from there like that?!?! I don't believe for a second
I've always been in the unsure camp, but no one can tell me she saw a pale baby from there like that?!?! I don't believe for a second
This is such a difficult case to get your head around, as there is such a lack of obvious motive. With the more I read and hear though, the more I'm starting to form the opinion that this was linked with her low self esteem and self worth, and the power that her role gave her over other people's lives.
Linking in with the post it note, there were clear indicators of low self worth and self esteem, where she viewed herself as not being good enough. Literally having the power of whether someone lives or dies, increased her power and self esteem.
Completely surmising here, but it makes me wonder if she started out by harming the babies progress so that she could be the hero and saviour. Especially in the early cases, she was always nearby and part of an early response to a crash call. I then wonder if this thrill dulled and then she sought more power by continuing, increasing frequency, and number of babies impacted. Did she continue to harm the same baby time after time to show that she had the overall power?
There's a part of me that also thinks she was deeply unhappy and unsatisfied with her life. Maybe she resented the families which is why she wanted to search them on Facebook to see the impact of her actions. Were they now as unhappy as she had been? Perhaps a case of "if I can't be happy/have this life, then no one can?"
Thoughts of my tired but eternally curious brain being dumped here so apologies for the ramble.
Linking in with the post it note, there were clear indicators of low self worth and self esteem, where she viewed herself as not being good enough. Literally having the power of whether someone lives or dies, increased her power and self esteem.
Completely surmising here, but it makes me wonder if she started out by harming the babies progress so that she could be the hero and saviour. Especially in the early cases, she was always nearby and part of an early response to a crash call. I then wonder if this thrill dulled and then she sought more power by continuing, increasing frequency, and number of babies impacted. Did she continue to harm the same baby time after time to show that she had the overall power?
There's a part of me that also thinks she was deeply unhappy and unsatisfied with her life. Maybe she resented the families which is why she wanted to search them on Facebook to see the impact of her actions. Were they now as unhappy as she had been? Perhaps a case of "if I can't be happy/have this life, then no one can?"
Thoughts of my tired but eternally curious brain being dumped here so apologies for the ramble.
That picture combined with the bragging mentioned in Child I's opening statement is sickening.
More experience doesn't give you laser vision.
really good post. Part of me has wondered all along if she did Facebook searches to see if she could tell whether any of the mums were in contact, sounds silly I know but I just can’t get my head around her searching them whatsoever..
I think she just wanted to see the hurt she had caused. Maybe also to check whether they were questioning the hospital/staff. But mostly to see the utter devastation she had caused. There are some parents she doesn’t seem to look up and others she looks at a lot. I wonder if the ones she gave more attention to with her fb searches, the cards, the hanging around after baby has passed when she wasn’t wanted or needed etc are the ones who were more visibly distraught and grieving and she enjoyed seeing that.
I thought she may have been checking if they had gave her any praise at first such as ‘thanks so much to the nurse who did X & Y’ but that doesn’t explain why she kept going back and looking.
That sick old man who was the electrician raping and touching corpses in the hospital morgue also looked up a load of his own victims on Facebook afterwards too. I think it’s a modern day occurrence - an added feature for these sickos to use and form part of their fixations.
How come it's not being reported now seems strange how silent the trial has gone 
I'm wondering whether the reporters maybe aren't as convinced of her guilt after the Christmas break, the change in statement and some of the recent evidence?How come it's not being reported now seems strange how silent the trial has gone
If she's guilty she's probably the worst serial killer we've ever had, so you'd absolutely wany it to be part of your career as a journalist. But if she's innocent then it's just a really long trial with no punch
It's hard to say because we get such little information but they're there everyday, which is why it's interesting to me when a story is posted with a certain bias, is it because they know something we don't? Or maybe I'm overthinking because there's nothing else going on
Its a long trial and keeps getting extended, I'd say the reporters can't commit to so many hours for such 'little content'. Whatever is going in there seems to be a lot of tooing and froing, the court sessions seem to be less structured than previously and they must've wasted a lot of hours travelling to court for the session to be cancelled.
I don't think they think she's innocent so have decided to sack it off. They are reporters and reporting is their job.
I don't think they think she's innocent so have decided to sack it off. They are reporters and reporting is their job.
I think it’s probably down to staff availability and resource management from the media organisations. Having a dedicated reporter there every day is very resource heavy. The reporting restrictions will stop straying into more salacious ‘newsworthy’ territory too, for now.I'm wondering whether the reporters maybe aren't as convinced of her guilt after the Christmas break, the change in statement and some of the recent evidence?
If she's guilty she's probably the worst serial killer we've ever had, so you'd absolutely wany it to be part of your career as a journalist. But if she's innocent then it's just a really long trial with no punch
It's hard to say because we get such little information but they're there everyday, which is why it's interesting to me when a story is posted with a certain bias, is it because they know something we don't? Or maybe I'm overthinking because there's nothing else going on
Surely reporters time is assigned so they’ll not always be able to choose, and they’re supposed to be non-biased and factual when reporting this case, not turning it into an opinion piece.
The reporters aren’t reporting on her guilt or not they’re under very strict reporting restrictions. If the headlines are clumsily worded or more clickbaity that’s a different thing I think. Even when they say “smiling Letby bathed baby she’d just murdered” it always says the prosecution alleges or the jury hears or whatever. It’s not the reporters POV. The mail podcast goes into that in quite a bit of detail but tbh I find those ones quite boring 
The day where it seemed like we got no detail at all, can’t remember which now, midweek I think.. this was in the daily mail write up at the top but no other report covered any of that at all that day.
It was the only write up to mention a nurse testimony so we got no detail on that at all.
The last few days have mainly been the same word for word across all of them, daily Mail usually a little more detail. I think it’s just restrictions. They can’t report anything that makes her look too obvious G (or NG) and have to balance everything with the defence questioning as much as they can and a standard she denies all charges at the end.
The day where it seemed like we got no detail at all, can’t remember which now, midweek I think.. this was in the daily mail write up at the top but no other report covered any of that at all that day.
It was the only write up to mention a nurse testimony so we got no detail on that at all.
The last few days have mainly been the same word for word across all of them, daily Mail usually a little more detail. I think it’s just restrictions. They can’t report anything that makes her look too obvious G (or NG) and have to balance everything with the defence questioning as much as they can and a standard she denies all charges at the end.
I get what @Daisydunn15 meant in the fact that the reporting seems to have slowed slightly after the break but that could be for many reasons as people have mentioned.
But it still could be that there hasn’t been much recently for them to spin a G click bait headline…as let’s be honest, that would make more people look at the article.
I do find it odd in general it’s not covered massive amounts but I reckon that is purely due to the time the trial is going to take. I think after the verdict, whichever way it goes, we’ll see looooooads more reports and also information about her background etc. if she is found guilty, I reckon netflix will be knocking as well
But it still could be that there hasn’t been much recently for them to spin a G click bait headline…as let’s be honest, that would make more people look at the article.
I do find it odd in general it’s not covered massive amounts but I reckon that is purely due to the time the trial is going to take. I think after the verdict, whichever way it goes, we’ll see looooooads more reports and also information about her background etc. if she is found guilty, I reckon netflix will be knocking as well
It’s strange as there’s not been a lot of live reporting or much detail but also I think there has been a wider range of outlets reporting- itv news, guardian and sky have all started to pick it up again this week and they don’t often.
The prosecution said this is the most harrowing baby and has 4 charges so I personally think there has been plenty to say. Some days I’m sure are full of lots of technical stuff that wouldn’t get any shocking headlines.
Yeah there's been a massive drop in coverage, and since this is one of the biggest murder trials of this generation, you'd expect more effort to go into it. The reporters have to petition for the job, and if this is G their writing will be used for decades when people comment on the case so it would definitely be in their interest career wise to show up.
Also I know that the newspapers can't comment on G/NG but they can absolutely report in a bias way. A headline calling her an alleged baby killer and focusing on her smiling while bathing a dead baby is bias, its emotive and its going to gain interest in their writing. Meanwhile if another focuses on how awful the care was in the ward, with minimal info about the allegations then that's also bias. They're both only sharing facts and preface everything but they definitely report they way they want for clicks or reactions
This is the prosecutions case though, we keep being told on here that of course it’s going to make us think she’s guilty as we’ve not heard defence yet so it follows the media reports are going to be the same. The hospital and witnesses are not the ones on trial so apart from the odd article, most will be focussed on Letby.Yeah there's been a massive drop in coverage, and since this is one of the biggest murder trials of this generation, you'd expect more effort to go into it. The reporters have to petition for the job, and if this is G their writing will be used for decades when people comment on the case so it would definitely be in their interest career wise to show up.
Also I know that the newspapers can't comment on G/NG but they can absolutely report in a bias way. A headline calling her an alleged baby killer and focusing on her smiling while bathing a dead baby is bias, its emotive and its going to gain interest in their writing. Meanwhile if another focuses on how awful the care was in the ward, with minimal info about the allegations then that's also bias. They're both only sharing facts and preface everything but they definitely report they way they want for clicks or reactions
Honestly I don’t think many people are following it that closely anymore and if the articles are not getting enough ‘clicks’ then it won’t justify multiple outlets having their own journalist in court full time for six months, many just use the PA article. Look how fast we got through these threads in the first couple of weeks compared to now. It’s a complex case with quite intricate evidence to follow and try to understand and a lot of it is quite similar for each baby so I think the general public (no disrespect to the victims) just won’t really be that interested now unless there is anything really significant (like a smoking gun type evidence) or when a verdict is reached.
It’s frustrating for those of us wanting to follow closely to not have reliable daily live reporting but we are still getting daily articles from the usual outlets. Not sure what else we can expect from the media tbh.
I would imagine it is very often the same people/person that write the articles that might appear more of a G article or more NG the next day. The bbc is the small group of local journalists and the Chester usually always Mark! The mail must get their info from the lady that does the podcast as she often says she’s there but doesn’t live report. To be honest I’ve never felt that they are expressing an opinion either way in anything I’ve read so far. The headlines are often brutal but at the end of the day she’s accused of deliberately murdering babies and it doesn’t get much worse than that. There’s been no sensationalism imo just the main parts that will be relevant and it has to be balanced as possible even though it’s the pros case. There’s no “evil this and evil that” like there was back in the day! She is alleged to have smiled at baby I’s bath and she is accused of killing that baby, that bit is going to trump a technical walk through of the unit or run through of how meds are given etc. I don’t doubt they know which part of the days evidence will hit the headlines and get the clicks but that’s part of their job. There have often been periods where only the bbc and Chester did a daily write up. At the moment the write ups are coming from lots of outlets, I’d say more than usual actually but they are usually almost word for word the same. Bit of a pick up from world news this week even. Fox News have started reporting on it again and news in New Zealand picked it up as it was mentioned that she wanted to move there in her texts.
- Status