I feel sorry for him he’s getting stalked by some right weirdos
---
---
I think she has to be there but she’ll be in the holding cell until they’re called back in.
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
---
okot BapBoyonaioc need to just shut upppppppp 
Super smash bros?
Mario is in that.
Mario is an Italian plumber.
Lorenzo is an Italian plumber.
Lorenzo works at coch.
It's the Nazi pipes.
Tattlers toast to that!!Whenever someone says, '(the wife of) a friend of a friend' I think, 'Oh, here we go....'
But no matter, Dickie, your 'scientific' mind is somehow able to discount hearsay as a factor because you know best.
Sadly, you poor deluded little sweetheart, your emotional state and your dear wife's 'special antenna' count for diddly squat in a court of law.
And how many 'typical' serial killer NHS nurse cases are you aware of? They're not exactly popping up like whack-a-moles, you donut.
Years of police diligence and investigation but you have it all worked out.
The NHS is indeed in a pickle- one of the few things you got right. However, as our plumber friend, Lorenzo simply demonstrated today, it was far from enough to clear an individual who was singularly the binding factor in all of these sudden, horrific, collapses and deaths.
The NHS (or other individuals within), if you like, did fail these babies in that they didn't identify and take out that individual before they continued their murderous spree.
Jesus wept!
---
That's slayed me, can't wait to show my husband, he'll love it!
ohh just read some interesting points on Reddit.
so murder has to be intent to cause serious harm that resulted in death, or intended to kill
attempted murder is intended to kill only. It isn’t sufficient to say she intended to cause serious harm only. Because it then becomes indistinguishable between GBH and attempted murder
Hope this is making sense!
Anyway, in isolation it might make some of the attempts hard to determine as intended to kill. But given they are showing evidence of multiple events for the same baby (and some events are not charges on their own), I’m thinking that might be what gives the attempted murder charges a lot more weight.
so murder has to be intent to cause serious harm that resulted in death, or intended to kill
attempted murder is intended to kill only. It isn’t sufficient to say she intended to cause serious harm only. Because it then becomes indistinguishable between GBH and attempted murder
Hope this is making sense!
Anyway, in isolation it might make some of the attempts hard to determine as intended to kill. But given they are showing evidence of multiple events for the same baby (and some events are not charges on their own), I’m thinking that might be what gives the attempted murder charges a lot more weight.
That’s why there’s no s.18 charge then, cos I was wondering at the start with the harder to prove babies would they accept a GBH w intent. But given it’s multiple attacks I guess that’s how they’ve got round it.
Also fool has called BM mediocre and basically said he should stick to property law. I’m gobsmacked
And I guess if you’re looking at what she did to others and allowing it to help infer intent too.. baby B only has one charge right? But you couldn’t possibly think she didn’t intend to kill after doing the same thing and killing their sibling the day before. Most of the other attempted murder charges have repeat offences don’t they? So surely that’s intent to keep going back to hurt them specifically.
Surely even with baby K, nobody knew better than the staff on that unit, including Letby, how vulnerable that tiny baby was and this is why her answers about self correction were just such obvious lies. Shows she’s trying to cover up and minimise how serious it was to leave that baby with tubes dislodged.
Plus you can infer from the circumstantial stuff like the Facebook search being done two years later - if you’ve concluded that the others were part of her grouping babies she knew she’d really harmed or killed then she knew she’d harmed baby K and any harm could have killed her.
Also, backtracking to fool and the bit about viral infections and antibiotics. Putting a Neonatal baby on antibiotics doesn't always mean they have an infection.
For most people, good luck even getting antibiotics if your doctor considers you having a viral infection. Antibiotics do nothing for a viral infection.
In terms of babies in Neonatal care, if anything like my son who was full term and my husband's cousin's baby who was 6 weeks early, there is a procedure where they are given precautionary antibiotics.
I'm not 100% sure in terms of prem babies, only that my husband's cousins baby was on them for over a week.
But for my son, when he was taken round due to breathing issues (grunting) they did bloods straight away and started him on antibiotics as a precaution for infection. This would be until the bloods came back clear after 48 hours or if not, they would then determine the next course of action and length of the antibiotics. During this period, they also did 1 hourly blood gases and some CRP bloods to try and get an indication of what was happening and see if infection markers were raised.
The reason for this when they explained it to me was that the baby would already be recieving treatment against a bacterial infection if it came back in the blood work, as results can take time and if they waited, there would be a lot more damage done if baby had needed them. That procedure saved my son's life.
So them being transferred to another hospital probably meant that they would start a similar procedure there while they determined what was happening with the baby.
For most people, good luck even getting antibiotics if your doctor considers you having a viral infection. Antibiotics do nothing for a viral infection.
In terms of babies in Neonatal care, if anything like my son who was full term and my husband's cousin's baby who was 6 weeks early, there is a procedure where they are given precautionary antibiotics.
I'm not 100% sure in terms of prem babies, only that my husband's cousins baby was on them for over a week.
But for my son, when he was taken round due to breathing issues (grunting) they did bloods straight away and started him on antibiotics as a precaution for infection. This would be until the bloods came back clear after 48 hours or if not, they would then determine the next course of action and length of the antibiotics. During this period, they also did 1 hourly blood gases and some CRP bloods to try and get an indication of what was happening and see if infection markers were raised.
The reason for this when they explained it to me was that the baby would already be recieving treatment against a bacterial infection if it came back in the blood work, as results can take time and if they waited, there would be a lot more damage done if baby had needed them. That procedure saved my son's life.
So them being transferred to another hospital probably meant that they would start a similar procedure there while they determined what was happening with the baby.
Same with my niece, taken in with mottling and lethargy, started anti biotics just incase within an hour of them taking her in whilst waiting for lumbar puncture and blood cultures, he really thinks he’s got something there doesn’t he Old fool
They did a blood test which was sent to a different hospital and it took a week to get the results and by that time the baby had recovered so the hospital took no further action. Eight months later the exact same senerio happened and the hospital took no action again. The hospital were very slow to work out what was actually going on.
Yeah that's right on murder charges, however what I think will work massively against her here is that the first baby did die. So even if by some miracle that was an accident and she had no idea it could kill, to go on doing similar things even for the attempted charges will be enough to prove that she meant to kill them, cos she already had done. If that makes sense?
Yep, murder = intent to kill or cause GBH, attempt murder = intent to kill
Interestingly (?) a s18 GBH = intent to cause GBH has a max life sentence, as does attempt murder. Arguably the GBH charge is easier to prove as you don’t need the intent to kill, so they must feel that there is sufficient evidence to prove that intention
Just been to Stepping Hill hospital visiting a patient & we all know how that hospital has been brought up with the NG people with the history of the nurse poisoning patients & one nurse being falsely accused.
Following this case for years like you all & going to court I was constantly watching the staff tonight and felt awful doing it but it’s what’s Lucys done will make people do it in the future.
The staff however were lovely, were working really hard and nothing was too much trouble, just was sad that when this really hits the media after the verdict people will doubt nurses that are working there arses of and trying to help.
Oh and not once was any of them on their PHONES TEXTING the only thing was another relative bringing them ice lollies in this heat that was needed and a treat they put them down when someone needed anything
It’s not just the babies & the families (rightly so) affected but it’s also nurses around the country that may be doubted when she gets convicted
Following this case for years like you all & going to court I was constantly watching the staff tonight and felt awful doing it but it’s what’s Lucys done will make people do it in the future.
The staff however were lovely, were working really hard and nothing was too much trouble, just was sad that when this really hits the media after the verdict people will doubt nurses that are working there arses of and trying to help.
Oh and not once was any of them on their PHONES TEXTING the only thing was another relative bringing them ice lollies in this heat that was needed and a treat they put them down when someone needed anything
It’s not just the babies & the families (rightly so) affected but it’s also nurses around the country that may be doubted when she gets convicted
The Scientist has called BM and team ‘thuggish’. The fact that they use emails as a plural, means they must have sent the defence multiple emails. They were probably polite the first time then had to keep telling them to piss off
This was a big issue with my son too, as my hospital when my son was in back in October had recently started sending the blood cultures to another hospital. The staff found it so frustrating, because even though they said we would know the result in 48 hours, we didn't find out until 4/5 days later that he had Group B Strep, so I was so grateful he was already on antibiotics that they started straight away.
Same for his second admission to the children's ward with Group B Strep almost a week after his discharge.
---
What have they got against these poor parents.The Scientist has called BM and team ‘thuggish’. The fact that they use emails as a plural, means they must have sent the defence multiple emails. They were probably polite the first time then had to keep telling them to piss off
View attachment 2243230
Absolute loons.
Last edited:
He's not even a scientist and it's really clear he's not that familiar with the case. At this point he's just another Internet loon.
When I did law murder was defined by “Malice Aforethought”
Which is an “intent” to kill or do GBH
Malice Aforethought means the intention to cause harm. For the offence of murder, the intention can either be “express” (to cause death) or “implied” (to cause Grievous Bodily Harm). Either of those two intentions will suffice for a murder conviction.
If not malice aforethought it’s manslaughter which is you didn’t intend to kill or cause harm.
Either way she’s guilty.
Which is an “intent” to kill or do GBH
Malice Aforethought means the intention to cause harm. For the offence of murder, the intention can either be “express” (to cause death) or “implied” (to cause Grievous Bodily Harm). Either of those two intentions will suffice for a murder conviction.
If not malice aforethought it’s manslaughter which is you didn’t intend to kill or cause harm.
Either way she’s guilty.
I’m reallyyyyyy behind. But wanted to ask do you think it will be a majority verdict? How many counts do you think she’ll be guilty of? I’m genuinely considering it might be unanimous guiltys going off the cross admissibility and the criteria for guilty not guilty. I’ve always thought guilty to all but wasn’t sure they’d come to guilty verdicts for all
- Status