I’d like to think whilst her behaviour went unchallenged there were group chats and work parties that excluded her
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
12:06pm
Child E's mother recalled giving cares to Child E, then going upstairs to provide milk between 7pm-8.30pm, the latter being the time of the night shift handover.
Letby was the designated nurse for Child E and Child F in room 1.
Letby said the 9pm feed was omitted because of 16ml mucky, bile-stained aspirate, discarded, and the SHO was informed, and told to omit the feed.
She said the doctor's name was not always made on nursing notes.
She accepted she got '15ml fresh blood' from Child E at 10pm.
She denied she had got Belinda Williamson [Simcock] to write in the 10pm entry.
Dr Christopher Wood was the on-call SHO and was asked if he recalled receiving a call about an aspirate.
He said he didn't recall it, and didn't definitely rule it out.
He said if he had received a call, he would make his assessment, and make it in clinical notes, and seek advice from a registrar.
Dr David Harkness said it was his recollection that during the review, there was a fresh blood vomit and 14ml aspirate.
He says there was a discussion with a doctor about a blood transfusion
Child E's mother recalled giving cares to Child E, then going upstairs to provide milk between 7pm-8.30pm, the latter being the time of the night shift handover.
Letby was the designated nurse for Child E and Child F in room 1.
Letby said the 9pm feed was omitted because of 16ml mucky, bile-stained aspirate, discarded, and the SHO was informed, and told to omit the feed.
She said the doctor's name was not always made on nursing notes.
She accepted she got '15ml fresh blood' from Child E at 10pm.
She denied she had got Belinda Williamson [Simcock] to write in the 10pm entry.
Dr Christopher Wood was the on-call SHO and was asked if he recalled receiving a call about an aspirate.
He said he didn't recall it, and didn't definitely rule it out.
He said if he had received a call, he would make his assessment, and make it in clinical notes, and seek advice from a registrar.
Dr David Harkness said it was his recollection that during the review, there was a fresh blood vomit and 14ml aspirate.
He says there was a discussion with a doctor about a blood transfusion
The vigour of this trunk gyration GIF is making me seasick !Whoa whoa whoaaaa whoa mysterious girl
What with that and Lucifer’s eyes everywhere this morning, the thread needs a trigger warning 
or a bucket of cold water 
Yes!!! The abuse I got … it was like I was on trial for multi baby murders!!!! They have no thought for what them parents are going threw … more interested in how lucifer is coping and wishing her a bright future with a gorgeous Spanish man and a cat sanctuaryI rarely post there, not because I’m afraid of getting jumped on I can handle myself in an argument but just because if you don’t think she’s innocent then there’s something wrong with you. I cba with that mentality. Plus the fawning over Lucy comments are vile imo. They would say the same about here and how we joke but hey ho. I’d be more worried about upsetting the babies’ families than the one charged with their murder.
. X has crossed my mind if she has killed them cats b4 she started on the babies … 2 cats dead on consecutive days …lucifer says Asda poisoned the cat food …. She tried to save them cos she knew what she was looking FOR
xx she is 1 twisted evil witch.I can only imagine what they were saying about her once she got moved… (I know they stopped taking babies under 32 weeks) & the unexplained deaths stopped.
Green goblin on twitter uses that as an excuse, but how many of the babies were actually under that?
Vigorous Trunk could be a Robocock special editionThe vigour of this trunk gyration GIF is making me seasick !
I’m feeling like the judge thinks she guilty. I actually didn’t realise the judge spoke for this long before. I dipped out for a while and while she’s defo done this I can’t believe someone is actually capable of it. Evil beyond belief.
Another thing I just don't understand from the conspiracy angle is how those at COCH involved in the so-called conspiracy could live with themselves if they successfully pinned it all on her. It's the favourite theory in the FB group I'm in and it baffles me every time since they say it's "typical NHS mentality".
Let's say they were setting up Saint Letby to cover their own failings. Surely not everyone who would have to be involved to pull off the conspiracy could live with themselves if successful? If LL is found guilty, she will surely receive a WLO and be one of the most despised humans in the country's history, her name in ruins and life gone. It requires all of those involved to stay quiet and none of the slip up/crack and for everyone to sing from the same hymn sheet. I know I certainly couldn't commit myself to put that on an innocent person just to escape consequences in my own career/life.
The logic doesn't make sense. So many of them fall over each other clamouring to find reasons to say she's NG, bending the facts of reality to try and make it work. I still think that if LL was a different race, a lesbian (the 'eww omg lol' effect from straight women especially is something to behold, from personal experience lol), or a man, she wouldn't have half as many defenders.
Let's say they were setting up Saint Letby to cover their own failings. Surely not everyone who would have to be involved to pull off the conspiracy could live with themselves if successful? If LL is found guilty, she will surely receive a WLO and be one of the most despised humans in the country's history, her name in ruins and life gone. It requires all of those involved to stay quiet and none of the slip up/crack and for everyone to sing from the same hymn sheet. I know I certainly couldn't commit myself to put that on an innocent person just to escape consequences in my own career/life.
The logic doesn't make sense. So many of them fall over each other clamouring to find reasons to say she's NG, bending the facts of reality to try and make it work. I still think that if LL was a different race, a lesbian (the 'eww omg lol' effect from straight women especially is something to behold, from personal experience lol), or a man, she wouldn't have half as many defenders.
12:18pm
Child E's mother recalled going to see Child E and Child F, at 9pm.
Letby was there at the workstation, the mother said.
She added child E was crying like nothing before - 'horrendous', and saw 'blood coming out of his mouth'.
It was 'not on, or going on to anything else', 'like a dribble pattern - it was blood'.
"It was smudged, and didn't look completely dry, it was darker [than normal]."
The mother said she was panicking and asked Letby why Child E was bleeding,
She said Letby said the NGT had been rubbing at the back of the throat.
Letby did not recall saying this.
In cross-examination, she said she did not tell the mother and would not tell parents to go away.
She accepted that in the interview for Child N, she had said an NGT could cause bleeding.
The mother said she accepted what Letby had said, and did as she was told to go back to the post-natal ward as Letby was an authority figure, but she was concerned.
She said she made a call to Child E's father.
The judge refers to phone call data at 9.11pm.
The father said the mother was upset at the time of this call.
Midwife Susan Brookes recalled Child E's mother had said to let her know if there were updates overnight from the unit, as one of the twins 'had deteriorated slightly'.
She had recalled at 11.30pm the neonatal unit rang to bring Child E's mother to the unit in 30 minutes, as Child E had a bleed.
Letby said in police interview, she could not recall the events with Child E's mother, and could not remember any specific bleed.
She said the 14ml bleed later, after 10pm, was "very concerning" and, in evidence, that was when she said she first saw bleeding on Child E.
The judge says there are "significant conflicts" between Letby's evidence and that of the parents.
He says the defence say the mother's evidence is "unreliable" in relation to timings.
Child E's mother recalled going to see Child E and Child F, at 9pm.
Letby was there at the workstation, the mother said.
She added child E was crying like nothing before - 'horrendous', and saw 'blood coming out of his mouth'.
It was 'not on, or going on to anything else', 'like a dribble pattern - it was blood'.
"It was smudged, and didn't look completely dry, it was darker [than normal]."
The mother said she was panicking and asked Letby why Child E was bleeding,
She said Letby said the NGT had been rubbing at the back of the throat.
Letby did not recall saying this.
In cross-examination, she said she did not tell the mother and would not tell parents to go away.
She accepted that in the interview for Child N, she had said an NGT could cause bleeding.
The mother said she accepted what Letby had said, and did as she was told to go back to the post-natal ward as Letby was an authority figure, but she was concerned.
She said she made a call to Child E's father.
The judge refers to phone call data at 9.11pm.
The father said the mother was upset at the time of this call.
Midwife Susan Brookes recalled Child E's mother had said to let her know if there were updates overnight from the unit, as one of the twins 'had deteriorated slightly'.
She had recalled at 11.30pm the neonatal unit rang to bring Child E's mother to the unit in 30 minutes, as Child E had a bleed.
Letby said in police interview, she could not recall the events with Child E's mother, and could not remember any specific bleed.
She said the 14ml bleed later, after 10pm, was "very concerning" and, in evidence, that was when she said she first saw bleeding on Child E.
The judge says there are "significant conflicts" between Letby's evidence and that of the parents.
He says the defence say the mother's evidence is "unreliable" in relation to timings.
I know they are all traumatic and horrible events, but baby E is a bleeping sickener. The poor mum 
Dan there too
Last edited:
I think Baby E is the one that gets me the most, because of how she bleeping LIES about the mothers testimony. witch - can't wait for the jury to convict her.I know they are all traumatic and horrible events, but baby E is a bleeping sickener. The poor mum
The thing with the NG camp, when they look at the evidence for each baby, how do they actually explain the deaths/collapses then? If several medical experts are all completely stumped and confirm they’re not explained other than foul play, what do they actually think happened to the babies? Because okay, you think LL is not guilty but then you’d need to have a plausible and possible explanation for every single event that she’s on trial for. Even the defence couldn’t provide that so I dont get it. Something happened to those babies, and that something was LL
12:30pm
The judge says Dr David Harkness noted, at 11.40pm, Child E had a desaturation, with colour changes on the abdomen - "a strange pattern over the tummy which didn't fit with poor perfusion"
The legs and upper arms were 'pink in normal colour'. he said the only other time he had seen this was with Child A, and not since.
The patches were 1-2cm big, and he carried out an emergency intubation.
Letby said there was a 'purple block' on the abdomen for Child E at 11.40pm.
She said it was not like Dr Harkness had described.
She said she found Child E's death "very traumatic", and filed a Datix form.
She said the medical team were late administering a blood transfusion.
The defence challenged the decision not to give a blood transfusion earlier.
A doctor had said she did not believe the collapse was due to blood loss, and that blood transfusion had its risks.
She said she did not believe, "even with hindsight", Child E should have had a blood transfusion at that point.
The mother had contact with Letby after Child E died.
She said Letby bathed Child E.
In Letby's evidence, she said the parents bathed Child E.
A doctor said at the time, she believed Child E had died of NEC, and that a post-mortem examination would not tell the parents any more, and would delay their transfer back home.
She had said NEC was the most likely cause of the gastro-intestinal bleed.
No post-mortem examination was carried out.
She completely agreed, that with hindsight, she should have requested a post-mortem examination.
She apologised to the parents for not pushing for that, having wanted to avoid further distress for them.
Letby said in messaging with Jennifer Jones-Key, in response to the unit being 'on a terrible run', that Child E had a haemhorrhage, and could have happened to anyone.
She said the searches for the parents of Child E and Child F more than once on Facebook was part of a normal pattern of behaviour for her, as was taking a picture of the card for the parents.
She said it was something for her to remember, as was a photo of her shift pattern.
The judge says Dr David Harkness noted, at 11.40pm, Child E had a desaturation, with colour changes on the abdomen - "a strange pattern over the tummy which didn't fit with poor perfusion"
The legs and upper arms were 'pink in normal colour'. he said the only other time he had seen this was with Child A, and not since.
The patches were 1-2cm big, and he carried out an emergency intubation.
Letby said there was a 'purple block' on the abdomen for Child E at 11.40pm.
She said it was not like Dr Harkness had described.
She said she found Child E's death "very traumatic", and filed a Datix form.
She said the medical team were late administering a blood transfusion.
The defence challenged the decision not to give a blood transfusion earlier.
A doctor had said she did not believe the collapse was due to blood loss, and that blood transfusion had its risks.
She said she did not believe, "even with hindsight", Child E should have had a blood transfusion at that point.
The mother had contact with Letby after Child E died.
She said Letby bathed Child E.
In Letby's evidence, she said the parents bathed Child E.
A doctor said at the time, she believed Child E had died of NEC, and that a post-mortem examination would not tell the parents any more, and would delay their transfer back home.
She had said NEC was the most likely cause of the gastro-intestinal bleed.
No post-mortem examination was carried out.
She completely agreed, that with hindsight, she should have requested a post-mortem examination.
She apologised to the parents for not pushing for that, having wanted to avoid further distress for them.
Letby said in messaging with Jennifer Jones-Key, in response to the unit being 'on a terrible run', that Child E had a haemhorrhage, and could have happened to anyone.
She said the searches for the parents of Child E and Child F more than once on Facebook was part of a normal pattern of behaviour for her, as was taking a picture of the card for the parents.
She said it was something for her to remember, as was a photo of her shift pattern.
I don't think I've ever picked up before that mum of baby E said LL bathed her baby and LL said the parents did the bathing.
Thats a really weird thing for Mum E to lie about or be mistaken about regardless of her grief and shock at the time. You would remember bathing (or not bathing) your child who had suddenly died unexpectedly and it makes no sense to lie about.
Thats a really weird thing for Mum E to lie about or be mistaken about regardless of her grief and shock at the time. You would remember bathing (or not bathing) your child who had suddenly died unexpectedly and it makes no sense to lie about.
I really want to believe people wouldn't do this. But you only have to look at the Gosport War Memorial hospital scandal to know that, collectively, people can behave in despicable ways and cover it up, within the NHS.
That's not to say the same thing is happening here/with LL. But it's not impossible either.
Last I heard, the police were interviewing 19 suspect staff members in this case. NINETEEN! The hospital is tiny. This will be the worst NHS scandal of recent times, LL pales in comparison.
I'm liking how the judge is telling the facts, then giving both prosecution & defences story and asking the jury why there's a discrepancy.
(I mean, there's a discrepancy because someone is trying to cover up a strong of horrendous murders). But I'm really hoping it's coming across to the jury how it appears to be coming across to us.
(I mean, there's a discrepancy because someone is trying to cover up a strong of horrendous murders). But I'm really hoping it's coming across to the jury how it appears to be coming across to us.
Reading the summing up is absolutely horrifying.
She has murdered every single one of these precious babies of that I am in no doubt.
Let her rot.
She has murdered every single one of these precious babies of that I am in no doubt.
Let her rot.
or the poor ‘escape goat’
Letby said in police interview, she could not recall the events with Child E's mother, and could not remember any specific bleed.
She said she found Child E's death "very traumatic", and filed a Datix form.
Make your mind up Letby...was it traumatic or
" do you not recall"?
And as for who bathed the baby...I'm sure that particular event will stay with the parents for ever...so I know who I believe
She said she found Child E's death "very traumatic", and filed a Datix form.
Make your mind up Letby...was it traumatic or
" do you not recall"?
And as for who bathed the baby...I'm sure that particular event will stay with the parents for ever...so I know who I believe
- Status