Missed that, thanks. What's the deal with the discrepancies in the table of reported deaths?The spreadsheet I posted above has the photo, they all look the same to me I don’t know the source of the spreadsheet one it says Cheshire police in the corner it maybe cropped out of those above.
My husband sees it too so I'm not going madI think they look the same personally
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 madif 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.
More experience doesn't give you laser vision.She was asked about the October 13 incident and challenged the nurse's account, adding: "Maybe I spotted something that [the nurse] wasn't able to spot", as she was "more experienced".
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..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.
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.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'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
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
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.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
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.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
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
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.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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?