I’m actually continuously going over the evidence and analysing all of the information we have as a total cover for literally only needing this picture to think she’s guilty. Nothing else.After hearing the evidence presented so far, I think she’s murdered those babies so therefore yeah, her character is crappy & it’s got nothing to do with her wallpaper
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
Legal brains here. Can I ask you a question? With cross examination, can they only pick up on points raised by the defence, ie, so far Facebook searches and the notes, or can they ask about other points that may have been raised by prosecution? Cos just thinking if it's limited to what the defence ask, there may not be much to cross examine on? Hopefully my rambling makes sense!
C-peptide is kind of niche knowledge, you learn it in pathophysiology early in medical school and for most it's never really used after unless you're working in diabetes or endocrine. I wouldn't blame an SHO on neonates who's just rotating through (which is who received it and noted it down) for not knowing the ratios involved.
What needs to be changed as a result is that these specialist test results (specialist enough that they have to go to another hospital!) go directly to the consultant who's name is on the order form for review. Not fobbing it off to their SHOs who may not be familiar with the test or the baby in question. I wouldn't be surprised if this is now mandatory at Chester as a result.
Didn't Jeffrey Dhamer literally have bits of people in his fridge? So I don't think it's typical of serial killers to get rid of evidence.With all due respect. Serial killers do this. A lot. It’s not serial killer 101 at all. For example..
without going into too much detail- a case that’s quite famous, serial grape and murder. One person was caught but while in prison, after many years, finally admitted he had not only had an accomplice but that the other man was the ring leader. This person had been free for a long time. Every time they offended, on the way back, they would listen to a certain song on cassette in the car. That cassette was found under the other man’s floorboards in his home when they searched. Despite almost getting away with such heinous crimes, he couldn’t part with it.
Almost every medical serial killer I’ve read about has kept things. Many of them still kept them despite knowing eyes were on them and even police had begun investigating. One of my faves is a book of poisons with all the corners turned down in the pages of the poisons she usedclever woman, graduated early from college, mum, socially skilled. Killed lots of patients for kicks.
That goes some way to an explanation of who was involved and the knowledge required - I still feel that if the numbers are so significantly off to what they should be, that would have been a red flag to *any* senior medical staff member? It all just feels a bit off and it's absolutely awful for that poor family to think their babies deterioration wasn't investigated properly.
Yes I don’t blame the staff for not jumping to deliberate harm. It’s unthinkable really, especially from someone you work closely with!
There’s just no excuse for senior staff dismissing Dr Gibbs though, once he had raised concerns. They should have investigated because they should have at least considered possible competency issues. It’s not like he went to them complaining of staffing issues, lack of resources etc. so I don’t know why they basically ignored him.
But sadly they did and unfortunately other babies and families paid the highest price for that.
Also “The Nurse” too on Netflix. Another one based on a true story of a whackjob killer nurse. Spoiler: she’s young, attractive, seen as hard working and prefers the night shifts. How uncanny. It’s like it’s unbelievable…except it’s not. There’s gonna be at least one in every decade somewhere.
If understaffing and poor management in hospitals caused all of these deaths we’d have seen them up and down the country… the NHS is on its knees so understaffing and rit hospital management just doesn’t wash as a reasonable explanation for what’s happened.
It’s not a test for synthetic insulin. It’s a blood test and it’s proven the baby was given synthetic insulin, there’s no doubt to be had about that and it’s backed up by the actual record of his hypo and multiple checks of his sugar levels at the unit. The junior doctor that took the results and recorded them did not have the knowledge of c peptide levels to interpret them as synthetic insulin. But they were. Who do you think gave the baby the insulin?
Absolutely. Be it a body part, piece of clothing, jewellery. Not too much to see that because a nurse can’t get any of those so goes for the only thing she can - documents.
Last edited:
So I’ve re-read the Wiki and as far as I can understand it, the test confirmed synthetic insulin had been given based on the numbers of insulin level and c peptide levels not coinciding. That baby had already had insulin prescribed to them also, so it had been administered at some point. Again, this isn’t alleging to LL’s innocence in anyway - but more of a question of why is it SO significant now, but at that moment in time, it didn’t go anywhere?
I wrote a post about this a few threads back but will repeat here.
I used to work with sex offenders in a justice setting, and although some did look like dirty old pedos (think greasy, balding men, short and large with thick glasses
) a surprising amount were ‘normal’ looking. There were a couple who came through that I genuinely thought were attractive and, because we got all types of crimes (assault or gang related/drugs) you wouldn’t always know what they had done. ANYWAY, I read their files I was knocked sick! One guy was the same age as me and was a really fit & smiley nice guy. He had ra*ed and tortured his gf, and it was not his first offence.
What I’m trying to say is that we don’t know what baby killers look like because psychopaths are really good at mimicking normal behaviour. That’s how they get away with it.
Letby slips up occasionally, like trying to take the dying baby before he had passed away, saying to the parents: ‘you’ve said your goodbyes’
& switching from hysterical tears in front of the parents losing another, then saying she was fine to work the next day, smiling at the dr who suggested she shouldn’t be on the ward. Not trying to convince anyone just sharing how I see it based on my own experience of being horrified by human beings
Last edited:
They can ask her anything related to the evidence like police interviews, stuff they found etc. it’s not just based on defence. But if she brings up something new in defence I think they question that.
funnily enough I’m having flashbacks now of Savannah Brockhill making some sort of statement about TikTok and prosecution went and got the facts on it and cross examined her and managed to disprove what she said. I can’t remember the specifics now but it was really impressive how they did it.
Ah thank you! Was just mulling and thought that might be the case but wasn't sure. That's good though, bet they have loads of questions for her!
This works - I’m crowned now. @DellaC i hope to see you crowned by the next thread!
Change your preferences in your account settings
It was the Snapchat data wasn’t it? Savanna was very smug believing that Snapchat deletes data after a certain amount of time so they had no proof of a significant video call but the prosecution then had a tech witness who was able to access and prove the timings of the call. It was a mic drop moment for sure
ETA: Loving all the crowns ladies
Those results are normal for a baby who's had a dose of insulin, and there are babies on the unit who receive insulin for legitimate reasons, just as baby F actually did at birth.
To be able to properly interpret them you need a doctor who knows the baby. Black Wednesday, when all junior doctors who are on training programs rotate to new placements, was the 5th August in 2015. Baby E was killed on August 4th. Baby F was attacked with insulin in the early morning of 5th August. The junior doctors looking after these babies will not have been back on the unit, and the SHO would most likely have been brand new to the unit with no knowledge of that deterioration to interpret it if they even fully understood C-peptide.
Which is why results like that should go to the consultants, who are permanent staff.
I can see the jury being excused from jury duty for the rest of their lives after this case is done and rightly so imo
---
Wtf wheres my crown?? Haha
Are you suggesting the extreme hypo was from the normal amount of fast acting insulin he’d had some time beforehand when he needed it? I think that takes an incredible stretch to get there. I think I’ll go with the professor’s evidence. It’s so significant now because somebody has understood the significance of the results. The amount of insulin they had been given was at the limit of what the machines could read. What about baby L who was given even more?
- Status