Me neither. Its unfathomable to me how anyone could be so bloody cruel. Re the charity work, Jimmy Saville also did a lot for charity and we all know how that panned out? Cover? Desperation to look like a 'good' person?
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
I am quoting you here but only to reply about this incident with Baby N, the rest of the post is not directed at you!
I was talking purely about the collapse/incident that happened that they focussed on in the podcast.
Morally, ethically and more importantly legally there is no way (from what was said in the podcast which seems to be a LOT more accurate than the live reporting on twitter and Chester live etc) she should be found guilty on that charge. To me (with my legal hat on) it’s just another example of the CPS over reaching and pushing boundaries of charging standards.
If someone has not been in the building, let alone the ward, then comes on duty and goes absolutely nowhere near the baby and then something happens to that baby, how on earth can she be guilty of that? If the jury find her guilty of this charge in particular then it just shows to me even more strongly that juries of peers needs outlawing. A sentiment I share along with many others in the legal profession.
I am still (this many months on) finding it very frustrating that some posters (not you in particular as I do not recall you doing this or even names of those that do, its a generalised comment) who effectively decided guilty from day 1 of the trial are so able to accept so many beyond flimsy pieces of circumstantial evidence as absolute proof of guilt or being “dodgy” “abnormal” “psycho” etc and yet so very, very dismissive when others give an opinion that actions aren’t necessarily important or “abnormal”.
Take the facebook searches as an example, some posters saying they indicate guilt. Then we hear now in the defence case that out of nearly 200 searches I think it was, only 2 were for babies in the indictment. Similar stats for handover sheets. Similar with the whole shredder thing. It was at her parents house and I am sure that much earlier we heard that it wasn’t her shredder but her parents. So presumably her parents put the shredder box in the wardrobe in their home. I am going to presume again that they helped her to pack her stuff to move in with them after the arrests so they could have been the ones to shove the paperwork in that box. No-one knows because we haven’t heard. It’s is likely the whole thing was explained in court but we aren’t getting anywhere near full reporting as that would be impossible.
Similarly when some posters (no idea who as I don’t look at posting names really) are talking about LL being caught in lies and inconsistencies. No-one can know that unless they are the jury/judge/prosecution or defence. The reporting is not word for word. It is also severely lacking. The wiki includes cut and pastes from the reporting.
I can just see the posts that will occur when the prosecution start cross examination. “Oh look they caught her there” etc.
In reality what happens is the prosecution will suggest (just as the police do when questioning) that she has said x, y or z and that contradicts what she said on a, b or c occasion even when she has done no such thing. It is literally what they do to defendants. They draw inferences and point those out irrespective of accuracy. Sometimes a judge will intervene if they can recall the truth, sometimes they won’t or can’t remember.
If you understand how police question suspects and how a prosecution or defence barrister/solicitor questions witnesses and the defendant then you understand that most likely she has not been caught in any lies or inconsistencies.
I said it months ago and I say it again we are not getting anywhere near close to a verbatim record from the reporting.
I just hope none of the jury are reading threads like this one on tattle. There’s bound to be at least one member of the jury not keeping to the rules. You could read the threads here and on Facebook, Reddit, other forums etc and be in the courtroom day in and day out and think you were watching a totally different trial.
Still on the fence here until all evidence has been heard. I use the word evidence lightly as I prefer to take it in its purest legal form. I was actually swayed slightly more towards guilty before LL started her evidence. I am very much hoping that the defence has medical experts to bring and I am going to be very interested in what they say.
I genuinely don't think we will ever know why.
Agree with you here. Some witnesses did become emotional and some did not.
You cannot do that job, or any job where people suffer, particularly children without learning to compartmentalise. I can deal with parents accused of doing the most despicable things to their children, things most people can’t even imagine, and not become emotional. But then I can cry my eyes out at home over an advert.
---
If she is guilty then not knowing the “why” is frustrating. It may come out later in years to come. If she is found guilty and accepts interviews with psychologists etc then the info may be released.
The shredder was in the bedroom at LL’s house, and had been used to shred bank statements.
I do think she’s guilty of most of the charges, but I agree with you that one in particular is very flimsy and I’m not entirely convinced on a couple of the other charges either.
Totally agree about the searches and handover sheets too, I was shocked to realise how many other ones they were as from the prosecution evidence it did sound like she’d only really kept ones from these babies with a couple of others and the same for the searches while now it sounds like the inverse is true. Which obviously is the prosecutions job, they want to make her sound guilty.
I also think her not becoming emotional about all of the babies could be because by now she’ll have heard all the charges and details so many times she won’t be sensitised to it in the same way we are even if she isn’t guilty of any of it. Dr Noname she saw in person probably for the first time in a long time as someone she clearly had a strong emotional attachment to, it’s different to hearing details that you’ve gone over probably 100s of times between the police interview and discussions with her legal team.
This is tattle. We're not the jury. We just have daily discussions on what we think or feel. None of us are experts and none of us know anything beyond what is reported.
If you're finding this thread frustrating then why be here? I'm sure with your legal knowledge and clear understanding of the whole case then you've better things to do?
I'm sure your not as sanctimonious and condescending as your post suggests but we don't tone police here, it's just a gossip forum.
Jimmy Saville flat out admitted that his charity work was cover.
Charles Cullen also participated in some kind of publicity for the hospital he worked in.
This is a very interesting post tbf. I wish the reporting was a bit more accurate, I understand that there are restrictions on what the media can put out but it does make it so difficult to get a feel for what the jury might actually be thinking (particularly now we’ve moved onto the defense).
One thing that really has surprised me about this trial in general is that we can all be reading the same things, yet come to completely different conclusions about the evidence.
I did not tell anyone what to say or what not to say. Your post simply highlights what I have said. Only the “she is guilty, she has been caught lying, all the evidence proves it “ narrative is tolerated by the majority. Anyone that deviates from the majority is jumped on. I am far from the first person to have posted in that effect.
I am just as entitled to post my feelings of frustration as those that have posted their frustration at others “normalising” the handover sheets, or facebook searches etc.
Ano.
Makes me wonder how a numpty like me can have the sheer effrontery to even comment. Let alone think I should even observe any, purposefully, open legal process. Wot, me be a jury member, oh no not little old char lady me,
govnur.
Last edited:
The Guardian reported the box as being in the bedroom at her parents house. That’s where I have got mixed up. The box had “keep” written on it. Still possible that her parents had packed the paperwork in it rather than her.
I've always leant guilty just because I struggle to imagine a series of coincidences like this (including insulin poisoning!) happening with one nurse being present each time. And it happens to be the nurse who has boundary issues, takes home paperwork, searches families on Facebook, keeps visiting babies she's not assigned to, etc. Most nurses don't act like this, and even fewer are also present at suspicious deaths.What's your take on the case? It would be great to get the perspective of a chap
(Also I apologise if I've ever knocked you sick talking about my saggy bits or deceased tina, I forget men exist here)
Whether or not I could reasonably vote guilty... I think it all hinges on the insulin cases honestly. It's the strongest evidence of foul play so if Ben has an innocent explanation prepared then that changes everything. But if his stance is just "someone else poisoned them, not Lucy" then yeah guilty all the way.
Charity work also garners attention, recognition and validation for the individual and feeds their ego and feelings of self-worth. So the individual benefits from charitable work.
LL does seem bound up with her self-esteem and how others perceive her (eg the post-it note, texts about sympathy/commeraderie from colleagues), so I can imagine how this would work for her.
That's a fair point, I did think that too. I just wonder what the actual trigger was in 2015 given that she had been working in the hospital for a few years before then, usually something triggers mass murdering (most serial killers start killing or take breaks then start up again due to triggers). So many unanswered questions.
I was going to let this one pass on by but just to briefly say, it does feel slightly contradictory and hypocritical to say how awful it is people post about her guilt and how you’d hope juries don’t see these forums (that you’re also contributing on) and then also say there is one charge that has to be NG whilst dropping your legal background to give it weighting. Seems, if anything, even more problematic if I’m honest than little old me just saying I think she did it. Not to say I’m not very happy for you to continue to contribute. Will leave it there because I think I explained why the jury would be able to use their inference about baby N’s initial throat trauma. I would also say, if it interests you, there are many cases of serial killers that work in healthcare and this is exactly the kind of evidence used to get many successful convictions.
P. S. Taking, sorting and keeping 200+ handovers and other medical records is illegal
I think there is a general lack of willingness to see things from another perspective on this kind of thread. Insulting people for whatever conclusion they’ve come to is crappy (whatever side of the fence you fall on). Arguing is against the rules and threads do get shut down for it so unless you want that to happen then maybe just try to see where the other side is coming from or if you can’t, ignore what you don’t agree with.
but he wasn’t a nice person even when doing his charity work, people have spoke about the large fees the charities had to pay out to have him there and also he wasn’t a very nice person when he turned up
Hush now poppet or I'll put you back in the cupboard and won't let you out until Thursday
- Status